RomiK

To chime in no need to use Enelopes - Ikea's Ladda 2450mAh work perfectly, priced at less than $10/4pc and did you know they are made in Japan? (do your own research re: NiMH quality based on factory locations) I always transport and store Retra without batteries to prevent contacts spring board fatigue (see point 3) and also to make the carry on lighter if needed. I learned to use fanny pack for all my batteries (24AA for strobes - always charge spare 8 on liveaboards and change one strobe between dives if needed, then camera, lights and monitor batteries) and if I sense problem I just put these extra 2kg on my waist :-) I had my fair share of issues with contact boards as my strobes (Retra Pro X with superchargers) experienced loss of power. I just couldn't swith them on. First I thought these were fatigued terminals and when I tried to spring them back off course I broke them - NEVER do this (!!). So I bought like 4 extra contact boards from Retra. But the issue could have been - all this time - oxidized contact pins inside of the main body. Because when I couldn't start the strobe last time I had quite fresh contact board so I thought this could not have been the issue - I checked the pins inside and sure enough one of them look not ok so I scratched it with flat screwdriver and voila - the strobe was starting again @Oskar - Retra UWT - because we all use these strobes in oxidation happy environment and these pins inside are so difficult to reach would it be a good idea to come up with some sort of tool better then the flat scredriwer as the pins are rounded... Although if future strobes will be Lion acc powered it may not be an issue anymore.

Oh nooo - 🫣 I thought you are Sony when mentioned 28-70 with WACP… canon’s 28-70 didn’t come up in my recollection of wacp chart… so I take it back as I know nothing about Canon’s 28-70

I would add before you do anything switch 28-70 for 28-60 and see results. If sharpness is the motivation 28-60 is sooo much sharper than 28-70. For wide-angle motivation obviously the choice is clear. I would use Sony TC2x as usability of zoom range in rivers and streams will far outweigh any minuscule feelings about quality. Having said that for ultimate quality I'd skip TC altogether as I am sensing in river and streams you want to bump into your subject anyway so I would leave 8-15 at 15 and just shoot those yellow perches out of the water 🙂. No TC 8-15 performance is stellar both in sharpness and micro contrast all the way from F4. Another benefit from using 140mm I would appreciate in river and streams is the small size. The drawback from 8-15 with 140 and especially TCs is that the rig will be a brick. A1 housing with 8-15 + metabones + TC2x and 140 is negative 1kg (!!) May not matter in rivers and streams though.

The collars seem to fix the issue, I didn't see those before... pretty neat simple and slim

I think making strobes with negative 300g is a big design flaw and that by itself would be a big no for purchase. Unlike video lights where one can use total rig buoyancy and mass as stabilizer - assuming he never ever takes vertical video 😅 or macro - working with strobes require frequent repositioning with great "wingspan" and then with greatly negative endpoints the rig will fight even though it would be neutral as a whole. Sometimes it seems to me like the underwater photography gear would be designed by non photographers or people who don't dive 🤷‍♂️

the chimney?... again, it's a personal preference I get it but in my view there is an artistic expression - intentional distortions - and documentary and educational value. Fisheyes in geometric world is all about expression and this is why we see it mainly on skateboard pics etc above water - hence the reason no mfg is rushing mirrorless versions of these. Just the underwater world seems to be stuck in those in part for technical in part for artistic and in part for trend setters... Just my 2c

It's a personal preference for sure... For me I just don't understand why would anyone shoot wrecks intentionally distorted... To me this fisheye look on anything underwater is a bit of a farce.

I would probably ask Nauticam directly. Here you don't state enough information about your system... F or Z mount to begin with... the differentiator is the base unit and #1 #2 and #3 for FF eq. 90mm -120mm setups. Basically you need to measure the distance from the flat port glass to your lens in your setup and compare it with #1,2,3 options from the chart and lens combo and make decision. It will work, you just need to choose correct base unit.

Thanks! Really loved working with native optics 🤙

After 6 months dentist induced diving coma I was back in the water at Cape Verde this week and what a joy it was to use Sony 20-70 F4 in 180mm glass dome I brought with me. I could have chosen WWL-1B or test 8-15/2x in 140mm instead . But I was never to Atlantic, didn’t know if I would shoot big or small, wanted to take photo and video so I chose to bring this combo which I call the solution ‘for unexpected’ (I also brought 16-35 F4 PZ but didn’t use it) So to give you my take on your question - don’t sell your 14-30 and the dome just yet as it is the right tool for the some jobs. For example for Socorro’s mantas if you want both photos and videos. Fisheyes suck for video and WACPs and WWLs suck also as IBISes rely on lens focal length information which obviously get wrong by slapping these glorious adapted optics in front of native lenses. Also one thing to consider is that with 8-15 and TC and adapters in 140glass your rig buoyancy will change dramatically so you will need to compensate for this. The photos below I took with 20-70.

You're welcomed. Comp samples attached with annotation what is what. Details at 100%. As for 28-60 most reviews note the softness at 60 so my thinking is that it is what it is 🤷‍♂️ And real kicker is what to think of slapping €6500 FCP in front of 28-60 in long end 🙈. Then all of a sudden the €4500 or so for 8-15 TC2x begins to make sense for the quality overall 🤣

I would encourage you to reconsider. In real world there is no difference between TC and non TC performance (minuscule on charts) and the flexibility of 16-30mm zoom is awesome. In fact and you'd be surprised the main strength of the use of 8-15 vs WACP or WWL1 is its long end. At the short end the results are very comparable except for the angle of view and distortion (fisheye effect). And WACP has greater DOF at CFWA at comparable apertures. But at the long end 28-60 is quite soft and I could not believe what I saw after shooting test charts underwater. 8-15 at 30mm (both 140 and 180 domes) was a real treat compared to 28-60 WWL. (P.S. @Adventurer - milimeters really don't matter and you need to get wet to find out 😉) And then the money talk. The cost of it all. 1000 (lens used) + 500 (TC) + 500 (Metabones) + 650 (N100/120) + 800 (20+35extensions) + 1000 (the cheaper version of 140mm) + 300 (adapted zoom ring) and I will let you sum it up... Madness. Then 7.5k for FCP solution doesn't sound that bad 🙈😉 So from the other angle perhaps if one wants to tip toe into the world of fisheye and wants to spend close to 3000 for that maybe yes. But I think I bought for friend of mine an entire OMD OM-1 setup with excellent Oly 8mm1.8 and 140mm dome for that amount.

All good points save for one I would disagree with. You absolutely have to get the system wet (not yourself necessarily 🙂 - I shoot my pictures laying on edge of my home pool shooting down 😉) in order to test as there are things coming to play like refraction and virtual image. The cutting mat is the best water resistant test bed I have found :-). I did try to play with Petzval surface phenomenon but didn't have that much patience to have meaningful result in case you'd like to really dive in 😁. Cheers

These were just a few of tests of different configurations I made... gave you those which I thought would be the most polarized in order to deliver the point - millimeters really don't matter, there are other things in play and we only need to be in a ballpark figure. Like 30mm vs 35mm extension? No real difference. Like 180mm sharper (minus the CA) than 140mm with Sony TC in ideal position? OMG the 180mm was supposed to be awful wasn't it? And Kenko was even worse🙈 than Sony. But you would have to spend time shooting charts underwater to understand this. Unfortunately the Internet is full of theories with "demonstrative" pictures from Raja Ampat 😂 which tend to muddy the waters somewhat. So I had to make my own tests. Good luck and I am looking forward to your UW test charts and conclusions 🙂

I'd say it's either-or scenario. You'd need different port extension for each of them I'd say the approach might be less scientific - basically push the lens back as far as not to get vignette at widest setting. The dome size is far more important than some millimeters in positioning. Down below left is 140mm glass dome with TC2x and lens at 8mm (=16mm) and correct position and right is 180mm dome with lens at 15mm (no TC) so far back that it already vignetted. Still the CA (see the blue lines) is so much more pronounced even though the right image scenario is sharper even in corners (but there is another variable like the lens was at 15mm and not 8mm and it didn't have TC on it). I have no real life samples as to what effect this extreme CA would have on the real image underwater.

I like the camera, the sound, the editing. I don't like the colors. It seems like desaturated and hue shifted a bit unnatural even where video lights were used. I know it's extremely difficult to unify color tone throughout the movie but I just don't like the look of this. Which camera and software?

Ambient video with CWB for sure, sharks hate video lights and they don't come close anyway, but if you want to get that wall picture you've got to use strobes. Plus hammers don't mind the strobes as much as they mind divers 🙂. The advice is to stay away from other divers, don't breath when one is coming and then pop and shoot. The ambush!🤣

With experiences you have don't worry about Galapagos. Just keep the same habits you already have under your skin, nothing worse than complicate things with new stuff and then miss that whale shark swimming by over at Darwin arch... The most important thing will be your gloves and familiarity operating your rig with them. You will use your gloves to hold on to rocks at the current situations, tie downs are not being used at Galapagos as often you are perpendicular to the current so they aren't practical like at channel Maldives dives for example. Darwin and Wolf are all rocks no corrals so the way it goes is if there is bigger current you wedge yourself in between rocks, free up your hands and start operating the camera. My rig is same as yours and at times I had to minimize its profile and drag it behind me but that's nothing extraordinary. Basically all dives were one handed where my right hand never let camera go and left was used to manipulate my body. And then when wedged I was ready to ambush hammerheads 😂. The currents over there are no mask rippers, yes they may be stronger sometimes but no mask rippers... Darwin and Wolf are simple but the iguanas dive over at Fernandina could be a real washing machine so watch out 🤣 . Enjoy that beautiful place!

Thanks for heads up. In the meantime I bought Metabones V which does accept Sony TC 2x which I already had and is shorter than Kenko (40mm vs 27mm). Then I had to decide on the zoom ring. The problem in adapting Nauticams Kenko version is that it utilizes focus knob on the 100-120 adapter which then creates problem when quickly removing camera from housing for battery change and pictures review. So I utilized my existing Nauticam’s zoom ring for 20-70 and adapted it for now using 75mm waste piping system as shown on my prototype pictures. Works flawlessly, the union is rock solid and so I can pull out the camera quickly in between the dives. Later on I will design some kind of 3D printed extension for this solution as I want Nauticams aluminium barrel with cogs and not plastic 3D printed one. I am ordering 140mm dome as it is clear to me that due to curvature I would always have CA problem with 180mm dome. All in all I am beginning to think that I am building nice, travel friendly and versatile system around Sony N100 N100/120 + 20mm + 180mm for 16-35 PZ F4 N100/120 + 35mm + 180mm for 20-70 F4 N100/120 + 20mm + 35mm + 140mm for 8-15 F4 adapted as 16-30 F8 Fisheye (think travel friendly FCP1 🙂 N100 + macro port for 90mm and EMWL WWL1 will probably go. I will wait for 140mm to arrive and publish some tests and comparisons afterwards. Cheers.

Thanks for the reaction, I've spent quite some time reading yours and @DreiFish posts recently 🥵. I have both Sony and Kenko 2x - unfortunately neither Tokina or MC11 accept Sony 2x so I couldn't compare. I am not impressed with Sony 2x neither with 70-200 F4 GII or 200-600 so I think they will be same, the performance penalty is there but unless zoomed in 300% on 50Mp file one can't really notice it seems. I am more concerned with CA when using 180mm dome and would like to see uncorrected 140mm samples with contrast subjects. I didn't see any CA with 140mm dome but I did see CA with 17inch dome at @DreiFish thread which made me wonder... I wonder whether I could get satisfactory performance from 180mm dome and 8-15 w/2x to have one dome when traveling. I am quite OK with corner sharpness and micro contrast which in my opinion quite a bit surpasses that of WWL1 28-60 combo but that CA makes me wonder.

As part of my quest to determine viability of adapting 8-15 on my Sony A1 I made a series of shots which I thought could be of interest. I would also appreciate if current owners of this setup could answer certain concerns as far as chromatic aberration . Testing setup was Sony A1 + Tokina TA-019 + (Kenko Teleplus HDpro 2x) + Canon 8-15 F4 taking picture of improvised lens resolution chart setup under simple LED light. Magnifications are 300% on a 50MPix sensor with ISO of around 2000 but you can see this on screenshots. White rectangle in left corner thumbnail shows magnified position. First image the full view. 15mm is at 15 without tele, 16mm is at 8mm with 2x tele zoomed in 300% Underwater images without teleconverter at 15mm behind 180mm glass dome with 20mm port extension - too short (would need 15mm for this test, without the extension the CA was even worse in other pictures) but good for test and also a show a problem with chromatic aberration. What I would like to see if any users of 8-15 have any sort of test images with 140mm dome and proper extension which could demonstrate chromatic aberration issue or lack of it. With 180mm glass the CA is absent only at the very center and starts showing quickly towards the corners. Other then CA I am happy with corners and off center sharpness and resolution and micro contrast of adapted 8-15. Much better then WWL and perhaps WACPs, also Kenko 2x show no degradation of image whatsoever including color rendition so I think if I could tackle CA or it would show no issue in post the 8-15 with 2xKenko is great combo even for 50Mpix sensor adapted on A1. Tokina AF works flawlessly in photo mode including tracking and animal AF, also good in video mode that that has to be selected topside.

Very nice shots, how long it took eels to pop up after you sat camera down? I found myself unable to wait too long passing eel gardens on a group dives. Back to subject I think that this eel movie would benefit from narration or even subtitles explaining the life of eels which would become a story and the video would become an underlying part of that. Without the story I think it's just too long.

Yes, these were two lenses although technically WWL1 is paired with 28-60 and is classified as wide angle with kinda fisheye effect, the FCP is their fisheye. So yes the corners would be different and if anything I would expect - as Nauticam claims - the corners of WWL1 being sharper than 16-35. Which is the opposite even when WWL1 has more then 1 stop advantage. That`s another thing that struck me - no clear advantage in FOV. Perhaps few percent if that and achieved by bending corners if anything else. Of course this is for WA, I will have to make another test for CFWA and see how the depth of field and minimum focus distance would play into this. But as far as WA goes it seems the lens and dome have advantage with sharpness and micro contrast. And that was 180mm dome while 230mm would bring even more superior corner performance (but who would want to travel with that 🙂 ).

These are center frame images if we talk about same images (2nd and 3rd from the bottom). They seem to be sharp but sharpness falls more dramatically for WWL1 than for 16-35 comparing center and sides. I was laying on side of the pool and held the camera in the water looking down. The distance to mat was around 1m, the size of mat was 90x120cm. Light was provided by a 10000 lumen video light on my rig and light position changed with each lens exchange. hence the difference in scene lightning between lenses.

I am beginning to think that the Nauticams wet optics are just not good. And so no lens behind these wet optics WWL WACP etc will make a difference on the quality of picture. In fact I am beginning to think that these optics are wrong way to go. During my quest to check how fisheye lens would work for me I made series of picture in my home pool and the results of WWL1 with 28-60 were not favorable compared to such basic lens like 16-35 F4 PZ behind just a 180mm glass dome. Judge for yourself, all details are 300% and white box in left corner thumbnail shows the positions of enlargements. 16-35 performs much better even when its at F8 while WWL lens is stopped down to 13. I have disabled profile correction for 16-35 so it shows kinda barrel distortion like you might prefer for shooting in water to make the subject pop. With profile enabled it would be strictly rectilinear.