RomiK

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

Hmm... this thread made me think and review... also because still weighing pros and cons of switching from WWL-1B to WACP-C... these are movie screen grabs (jpegs from HDR screen so...) from some dreamy shots I was trying to make and it seems the flare is a thing with WWL-1 (it typically appeared in the opposite corner away from the light source and was moving within the frame). It is on stills too. My WWL1 was sitting in a closet for a year as I was using 180mm glass on my trips so when reviewing it caught me by surprise. I am wondering what experience do WACP owners have?

Strobes... could be either one really... this from wwl-1B... I think I was shooting this jelly between the strobes, they were little up front... but then with some luck the resulting crop may give that... 🙂

😱 uh oh the rule of thumbs is not to mess up with implants once implanted! It's not like you can change them at will. Your friend must have been real unfortunate as such strong aversion is very rare - see below. I would say this - there are several manufacturers of trifocals, some better some worse. Zeiss is one of the best but more below - there several applications for different specifics. One is night drivers. I you are a night driver they should recommend certain kind which is not as good in daylight but is more suitable for night drivers. For Zeiss AT Lisa types - yes, there are circular artifacts coming from spot lights in certain conditions (not oncoming traffic but imagine guiding lights in tunnels, lights lighting the street if you look directly at them... - the light must be real tiny intensive spot). But that's nothing for people driving through the night on average. And also the tolerance to these build over time. Professional truck drivers with night shifts - might be an issue. Might get too tired before get used to it and develop a block and aversion. Regular folks riding sometimes - nothing that difficult. - Another example - trifocals are light hungry - so if you work in a warehouse with less then average contrast light conditions you may get tired. When I go shopping into these big warehouses like Costco, Makro etc I always am hungry for light. Night vision is fine as there is - surprisingly - enough contrast. Fog is fine as - surprisingly - the daylight has a lot of intensity. But warehouses are less than ideal. But again - still nothing that would cut into benefits trifocals bring to life. - obviously like with everything all things are person specific. But given the amount of implants your friend must have been one of the very very unfortunate - either he got wrong type of IOLs given his profession or his mind could not overcome this which could happen but it is like one in tens of thousands. So my advice is not be scared of by negative experiences, these are really really rare but like in marketing - one satisfied customer will bring 10 and one dissatisfied will repel 1000 I reiterate for everyone interested - do it (at least the consultation) but also do your research as far as your profession and lifestyle.

I'd have to point you to some reading through google search... the design of lenses is circular ... so wherever you look and point your sight to you see sharp - within the lens parameters... With single or dual focus lenses you still needed glasses mostly for near reading as the lenses were set to see far. With trifocals no more, no glasses needed... I could really write pages but google better for that... the main takeaway is it works, the surgery is safe, performed annually on millions and the side effects are none. Yes there are some artifacts but in a manner which will not affect your life or quality of vision. The net is still huge benefit.

Thank you @TimG . To ease up worries for anyone and send you guys to your ophthalmologist for consultation 🙂 I would like to add that IOL replacement - or a cataract surgery as it is known - is a standard procedure and technology which has been there since 1950ies and more about it for example here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cataract_surgery Roughly half of population will undergo this surgery anyway because of a deterioration of lens due to age. I did it rather early at the age of 46 for convenience - couldn't stand wearing glasses during sport activities - and the team sold me on that idea just by stating that likely I'd have to go through that procedure anyway and this way I might enjoy clear vision much longer before death 🤣 From a diver's perspective there are no limits on this activity, you can dive the same 100m depths as before without worries 🤣. Photographers will still able to use their expensive viewfinders no change but the ones using the monitors will have to adjust to the fact that they will no longer focus by eyes - they will focus with their hands. Minimal focus distance is still pretty close, much much closer than before. I see clearly pixels on my retina monitor from the distance of 30cm. But because I no longer focus by eyes but by a distance to a subject (hence focusing by hands) the next crisp focus distance is - say - 50cm and so on. Between those the vision is like you compare sharpness of cheap zoom with a sharp prime. Ask you doctor about the Zeiss AT Lisa as that is the name of trifocal lenses I have, trifocals are on the market since 2012 roughly. Either way you won't need to spend big on prescription masks so you might actually save money 😁. Good luck 🤞.

For all aging folks with presbyopia I wanted to share my experience with IOLs which I have at the age of 56 for almost 10 years now. I know it's a controversial issue for some. Nevertheless I would recommend this solution to anyone whom their doctor would approve this. It has its own challenges and things to adjust to but by far - and not only for divers - it is the best thing they could do to solve the problem. Happy diving.

The mounting also very much depends on negative buoyancy it adds. Backscatter states -600g, one YT reviewer said "heavy" - it would be interesting to get accurate number. NA-A1 with 180mm glass and Shinobi are neutral, I used it frequently like this. (minus the beer 🤣) It also depends on style of diving. I can jump with mine from live aboard and carry it comfortably on a zodiac. Ball mounts are not that friendly. And then it also depends on the state of your vision. I have IOL implants so I focus by hands. Untreated presbyopia will move your focus point further so back mounting for macro won't be that useful. Many factors at play.

@Davide DB I don't dispute the theory behind HDR and bare necessities and principle it describes. I am disputing the practical world use of such and encouraging anyone to see it for themselves. Our eyes are not placed in darkness nor we consume the content in the darkness. And so the need for the high brightness HDR displays is very much obvious and justified. Blacks will always be blacks but the highs will have different impact based on relative luminosity around. And so back to HDR images - by the ability to display high dynamic range and the highs especially during the content consumption is making drastic impact - in a positive way - on the images impact. with SDR image (Jpeg or on SDR screen) cranking up the brightness will only bring the whole image up. On 400nits HDR screen the highs will stop short of having meaningful impact even in room with average lightning as the human eye will perceive the brightness relatively... So that's my line of thinking why HDR images will take over the online world soon. Not that important for all of us who print the images and sell them 🙂 but for online world and marketing it will be super important.

Here is a raw file if you want to take a crack at SDR / HDR development and see for yourself. It's exposed a bit to the right but not clipping. Myself I see differences when .avif displayed on Apple Studio display 600 nits and XDR Pro with 1600 nits. 20240321-113515.ARW

I will try to help you to see HDR image using SDR tools 🙈😁 it's not perfect but it may show the spirit of it. I just took picture from the HDR 1600nits screen and converted HEIC into JPEG. While it might not show the luminance it shows details on the sharks back which you won't be able to get and display using SDR approach - even if you would be masking . Plus that luminance creates a real depth for the image but that can't be seen using SDR tools ...

BTW none of you bothered to download and see my .avif image from the other topic (shows zero downloads) - that one actually shows nicely also the point why you need high brightness HDR display... I guess it's difficult to discuss a topic without seeing what is topic about. Otherwise we can continue this discussion in perpetuity as none of the parties seems to understand what the other one has in mind. I am bringing examples at least... but nobody bothers to watch them (disclaimer though - they only show in specific HDR matching conditions - screen, software)

Guys, actually all of you, please read that text on picture one more time and try to put it into perspective. I din't choose it random nor did PCMag guys hunted for the biggest number. The key for you to understand that test and why is relevant for HDR are those percentages of white and that it was HDR signal (whether provided by AppleTV or what IDK)... So please read it again, think it through and hit me again... in the context of what I was saying about why the peak brightness is important for HDR...

So enlighten me... why is that they drool over nits over at PCMag? And why is LG putting out TVs with this anyway? Or is it not LG among the best as they exceed 600nits? Isn't this peak brightness actual useful in HDR world? Or would you prefer to watch 243 nits white screen? I am kinda getting confused 🙂

Your recommendation to watch HDR content on 400-500nits ... what can I say... it just show kinda disconnect between your theory and the reality... You seem to be good to put arguments on paper. In real life though, if it was as you say, OLED HDR TVs would not be pushing range of 1300 nits give or take and the newest wouldn't go for 2000 - even though OLEDs provide pitch blacks. And it would be good for the environment no? Saved energy. Yeah and Apple which obviously have no clue about movies and pictures wouldn't reequipping their laptops and professional monitors with 1600nits screens... Yeah, not really needed for grading HDR movies and pictures🤦‍♀️ But from some reason the market concluded they need indeed the higher brightness to fully capture HDR requested. My samples were from 7m depth with sand rocks bottom and sun above. Really not that many chances for blacks. And so 450nits screen wouldn't be able to display what was it like there even if you would watch it in pitch dark. Technically? Doubt it. Perception-wise? Absolutely not. And so I would suggest to get over the fact that not everything can be expressed in charts and the real world is different. The real world is our eyes and their perceptions. And again nitpicking on my words in pedantic way is like not helping - you knew what I meant by high brightness HDR but you just chose to pick what you liked from it. So thank you for the lecture about the dynamic range but it was unnecessary.