RomiK

yes there is, the forum has 'ignore' feature. I encourage you to use it 👍

ummm me thinks that this is what this thread topic was about - let readers decide themselves with no agenda.. that is until this 121 character decided to spoil it...

I have advice for you too 🤣 go back to school and take a class in cognitive reading. Then come back to this thread, read the topic again and try to respond to the subject. Education ABC.🤣

are you for real? 🤦‍♀️ bathtub or pool vs the real conditions? I guess folks over at Nauticam have no clue on what to recommend to users of their products... They probably have no clue designing their products either... 🤦‍♀️🤦‍♀️🤦‍♀️

thank you for advices 🙈🤦‍♀️ and so the other purple shots - see screenshot from sonys editor - where is the sun in those? btw - if it's not too much to ask - could you please read what I write in its entirety and react to that. I was writing something about raw editors interpretations and also that video with the same WB came out right... so the camera clearly was able to interpret WB correctly. But the raw editors have problems...

Nauticam says otherwise 🙈 It may be personal preference, by stretched corners I meant mostly fins/legs on you sample above or fins on this sample below

Do you have pictures with 30mm or 40mm extension so you can back up what you say? I said no speculations and theories to muddy up this thread please. It is a sample thread intended to help people make decisions without external confusions. Thank you.

... there was not much backlit on other two shots... and I think I know how to perform CWB 🙈 ... this thread is more about raw interpreters than anything else. If you would be interested in the other two raws I could provide them too... what was interesting to me was that LR was showing same WB yet interpreting raw files differently maybe the real question is where is getting LR WB info from and how is it interpreting... perhaps software developers might chip in...

It may be a name convention misuse from my side but I am trying to interpret what I see: - looking at unprocessed log footage on both camera and external monitor gives basically white screen (with zebras if you choose) - looking at log-to-709 conversion on the same monitors under same circumstances gives white areas (with zebras if you choose) - so you record the information but you don't see it - looking at log-to-HLG(or PQ) conversion on the HDR monitor gives the most information on what are you recording and what you can recover in post no matter which delivery format you choose So I am trying to give practical advice instead of discussing the conventions and I think what you see underwater matters the most. I think we can also agree on calling Shinobi an HDR monitor as it offers (at least some) interpretation of what you are recording into an HDR color space. And that's what matters me thinks. Not absolute nits. So Supe with all magnificent 3000nits of claimed brightness will give just that - a brightness but not possibility to see what are you recording. I hope I explained what I had in mind by HDR 🤷‍♂️. And I stand by that delivering in HDR is becoming a mainstream 🙂 Shinobi+Nauticam is $250+$2000=$2250 - I think since diving and photographing already requires so much $$$ and taking monitor underwater so much extra effort that extra $1000 is totally worth it but that's me Point taken...

I am inviting anyone to explore attached raw file shot with custom white balance in ambient light in about 30m depth. Any and all theories as to why colors are as such and the real ISO value are welcomed. Not even Sony's own editor was able to show blue water. My guess is the issue is with raw interpreters, the videos shot under the same white balance were showing fine. Lightroom this sample file shows as shot at 50000/150, the other files from other screenshot were both showing 33000/150 and one showed water blue and the other purple... have fun 🙂 20240318-085516.ARW

I started this topic to make it easier for users to search for answers. Please don't judge the images 🙈 they are here do showcase the lens optical performance in Nauticam's recommended setup. I used this lens on what supposed to be a check dive turned into a spectacular manta show in Addu atoll and the next boring dive next to a cleaning station. Except for one the images are uncropped - the entire frame. I would be anxious to see samples from this lens would provide on WACP-2 wide open to observe what - if any - benefits would water corrected optics bring. The real pictures would be awesome, not speculations and theories. Good luck anyone selecting their lenses 🤙

Thank you Jim 🤙 I am a (name) godfather to 5 mantas now! 😁. I am using 180mm glass and the camera is neutral with it and also with Shinobi monitor on it (no lights nothing just these two) 🤙

Guys, the drag with Nauticam will be actually less than Supe and other Chinese bricks. Their footprint is about the same and let's talk aerodynamics hydrodynamics there... plus that extra weight compensation must go somewhere and I tell you right away it takes more volume to compensate after the fact than if the object is already neutral ... and don't let me start on center of gravity 🙂 - even on neutral rigs try to make stable footage for example upwards 🙈 As for LUTs or at least some kind of log profile interpretation - in my experience they are necessary because otherwise you see like a white screen underwater with all that exposure compensation shooting log requires. Off course - I am talking Sony here and Canon for example treats HDMI monitors different - at least my R6 does - but then interpreting log to 709 doesn't give the best monitoring image either in case one wants to produce HDR video - which nowadays with iPhones and others is becoming mainstream. @Interceptor121 I don't know about yourself but I did use this kind of brick on about 40 dives. Granted it was WED7 but the physics apply universally - battery weight, material weight, dimensions, air volume available... so it may be proper to abstain from 'avoid commenting' especially from you as I am not the one theorizing on this forum - (e.g. 14mm lens and 20/25/30 port extensions...)

True for split shots one must choose the framing carefully though. I wasn’t quite happy with extremely stretched corners on a lot of shots so I think WWL WACP provide better wide angle experience. I was hoping to use this lens open for art of light only to realize that it is not meant to be. That’s why I would like to see results on WACP2 open.

There are pretty nice shots Jim, one can see you have steady hand 👍. I have used on that trip 16-35F4PZ which was kinda sweet that I mapped zoom to buttons on the back of the housing (A1) and when I wanted to follow the subject and even continue to S35 mode for extra reach it was super easy.

The main benefit of this 14mm 1.8 topside is that it is tack corner sharp wide open. Talk astrophotography. So it’s pointless to consider its use underwater in the dome no matter the extension when you have to stop it down to like F13 to get something that reminds you of readable corners. Plus this wide rectilinear is useless for composition except of wrecks interiors and even that carefully. You get much better results with Nauticam wwl or wacp and mediocre lens. I would like to see though how this lens performs in WACP2 if open. That could be interesting.

Awesome choice. Make sure you either get Nauticam extension for bayonet adapter release or you make your own (I did zip tie) - your wife will want to clean bubbles after each drop from zodiac - the buoyancy collar of wwl1B gets in the way.

I would skip adapted versions if I could (owner of gh5s here...) , you want good fast AF and also for video... I always ask myself a question - how much the trip(s) cost? Would extra couple hundreds make a difference... 12-35 is not wide enough. If I'd be already adapted Canon 8-15 I'd keep it. For new buys the 14-42 WWL1 is option #1 and Leica 8-18 in a 180mm glass would be particularly sweet. The art of light Leica provides is hard to match 🤙

Thank you! It’s fun! The luck brings great opportunities for the big stuff photos and then there are dolphins 🙈😂

Socorro is all about go big or go home. It's sharks, mantas, dolphins, shoals of fish. WWL1 - perfect! 8-15 canon on m43 - what's not to like? I wouldn't bother with other options. You need 16-35 equivalent and keep it simple. I had 16-35F4G on 180mm glass dome. Mantas and dolphins are very friendly and don't care about anything. Hammerheads - if you want to get closer to them switch off the video lights. They did not seem to be bothered with strobes. Here is quick teaser 🙂 (just quick stick in afternoon on the way back 🙈). Enjoy your trip 🤙

Last sample. Would anyone take guess which is which?🤷‍♂️ There are small whitish bubbles which I assume are on the outside, one visible big 'bubble' but the shape of aperture diaphragm and off course the flare. Is the big one really a bubble or is it a lens thing? Sony 28-60 WWL-1B

Another example of flare (HDR screenshot again), lower left corner develops even more with orange better defined... although truth is Hollywood is using flares even in post to dream up the shots 🙂 ... I would agree that there would be minimum of unwanted ugly flares from unintentionally positioned lights... the bubbles though piss me of at times... it takes one diver below... 🙈

little more effort and producing screenshots eh? WWL-1B 28-60 3 bubbles and one flare... bubbles in the middle of dive no idea where they came from... HDR screenshot so dismiss colors exposure etc... This hassle alone with bubbles coming from literally nowhere makes me think of WACP. It would be great to hear and see from WACP owners the flare thing...

It does ghost without bubbles and very easily, especially with light source - whether it be strobe or a sun in shallow depths - reflecting the surface of the lens which is quite easy given its shape ...

It would help if you could back up your claims with your samples... otherwise it's like he said she said and empty theories. I would be particularly interested in WACP flare samples and particularly in that 'flares much more' part. Thanks