RomiK

Maybe switching over to YouTube would help? These built in players have their own issues, YT should play fine. Just click.

Still not sure what to think about it. I was expecting a little bit more in terms of sharpness. Weirdly it has kind of distance range where it is so so sharp but too close and it isn't (minimum focus distance obviously) but then it's like anything from 3m on is not sharp either. Judge for yourself, shot in 8k30.

Thanks, I've tried but IG no good search and quality 🤯... It may be a good subject for next UWPmag perhaps... I bet most photographers hate to travel with 230 but if 140 would be good comparable for these ultra wide lenses you may get some more sales :-) Myself I will do some pool pics of Sony 14/1.8 in 140 but I don't have 230 to compare it with... Anyway safe travels and if the time would allow it would be great to post some higher res comps here.

I think with flat port and diopter it would be great for macro. I am very excited about this Nauticam housing with this camera - combining (removable) dome port with the 16-50 (supposedly) almost constant length barrel it should provide image quality comparable to (in real world) any full frame camera with 25Mpix sensors. Plus it has good ergonomics plus the trigger for flash... It checks all buttons for ultimate pocket UW imaging device.

This may be a good option for anything wrecks and caves. I hate 230mm idea for its travel limitations but now when I have 140mm available I wonder what would be the real difference in frames quality @Phil Rudin 140 vs 230 - any comps of that 10mm by any chance?

180mm glass will be fine for central part of an image. out of center parts will suffer from CA and loss of sharpness because the light will come through more extreme angle through the glass. And that glass has some thickness... just think about it. That'a why 140mm dome with more curvy glass will introduce less of these. Obviously more you zoom in with TC less of these artifacts will be an issue because you will be using only central part of the dome and the light will come to lens under not so big angle... just physics. Look up my thread with lab examples.

Damn! Sony engineers didn't think A1 would need this function 😣 I guess since it doesnt have flippable monitor 🤦. And even though Shinobi does have flip option there is no way to change it during the dive so I'd be stuck with EMWL for entire dive. Back to topic - a slight disadvantage to using the VF is the loss of surroundings awareness. Like when shooting seals I was scanning with periphery vision what coming next and from where. Also less ideal for video.

In short - sometimes... For comparison first I am bringing 2 images shot on the same location (Carnatic shipwreck at Abu Nuhas, Red Sea) 1 year apart shot using WWL-1B and adapted canon's 8-15 (no TC). I would say it even may be the same corral just shot from different side. First WWL-1B from 2024 300% central part and 300% kind of out of center to show depth of field And kind of extreme corner lower right Now the same for 8-15 at 15mm F10 center off center with background and the corner lower right You can clearly see that 8-15 significantly outperforms WWL/28-60 on subjects sharpness, micro contrast and overall rendering. Where WWL excels is a uniform unsharpness 🙈 across the frame and much greater perceptual depth of field for entire image viewed on a small device. And it's kind of logical. Nauticams wet optics (WWL, WACPs, FCP) final results on Sony (do not know canons and nikons lenses) are held back by poorly performing 28-60 which - compared to canons 8-15 - is soft and especially on tight end with relatively poor micro contrast and overall rendering. On the other end if one doesn't plan to crop heavily or print large HD prints then it doesn't matter that much and this expensive wet optics will produce nice postcard size images🙈. Fisheye on the other hand will produce much greater field of view which also means that one has to get much closer to the subject for meaningful impact which means that one needs to select the scene very carefully otherwise only central piece of image is going to be in focus and the rest will be a mess. Especially for concave scenes (like small caves where subject is in the middle in the back - see pictures below) the use of this fisheye lens would be less then ideal. Basically for CFWA shots like clownfish anemone sunburst it's like 1:10 you could get into a good position while with wet optics much less. These results are not surprising as for DOF and are in line with dome theory and wet optics theory. Simply said with fisheye you need to be so close to the subject that you effectively focus at minimum focus distance for lens while hyperfocal would be much further away. With all DOF implications. For subject-less scenes 3m away this would be different but for smaller subjects you need to get real close. I have had TC2x only on first dive and at first glance I didn't like the results so I skipped using it - perhaps prematurely judging from anemone detail taken at 30mm... oh well. And also this is an example of that wrong scene for fisheye lens. So 8-15 TC2x at 15mm the same scene at 30mm and 300% crop So this is my experience with adapted 8-15 which except for autofocus misses fulfilled my overall expectations even though it brought different set of challenges. And lastly following image shows example of a neutrally buoyant configuration - 140mm glass dome + 35 + 20 + 8-15 + Metabones + Sony TC2x + A1 + Shinobi (NPF970 battery) + Retra Pro X with superchargers

if you can live with tighter wide angle then 20-70 in 180mm produces stellar results and the setup is very light

worlds first mirrorless... man oh man what would it take to have fisheye 15-30 designed and made...

I agree, they seem to be with different focus point - lower right quarters show that. Or they weren't and that would be a bit of a problem. Tough to say.

I'd like to see center frames. It's where usually my subject is. From what I saw so far this WCoptics degrades an image quality a little compared to bare lens. Microcontrast and shapness... the pop.

IDK if it helps but my experience with blackout on Sony A1 and Shinobi - it was there had resolution set to Auto or 4k30 in camera HDMI settings. When I set the HDMI settings to 1080p60 there was no blackout when switching modes anymore. Apparently camera is negotiating with monitor for the best resolution for given mode. When it doesn't negotiate there is no blackout and 1080p60 works well for both photo and video - no need to have 4k when monitor is 1080p anyway... BUT IDK weefine internals so...

If we accept the notion of being able to see what you get affects the artistic expression then it absolutely matters being able to see what you record in HDR if HDR is intended delivery. Only now I am beginning to understand that I am one of only a few which try to shoot and deliver in rec.2020 and I can tell you in these selected few light conditions where you don't see a thing in rec709 but do see beautiful scenes in 2020 renderings it absolutely matters to see what you get. Scenes which you would pass on in rec709 come to life with 2020 but if you can't see that it will limit your imagination.

I think moving shots with fish eye will always be kinda unpleasant due to a moving distortion. Maybe a fish bowl or a big fish without other objects reference might be tolerable but any wreck or corral will be just unpleasant. Having it on the tripod should be more or less fine.