zvonimiri

Yes @Dave_Hicks, that will yield the exact same result. Forgot to mention that. For my case, I do not like spending time post-processing and therefore, I try to sort out almost everything while shooting. This also applies for me shooting on land. I also have been participating in the yearly national underwater shootouts here in Turkey where you have to submit straight out of the camera JPEGs to be judged in the original resolution of the camera without any crop. Therefore, I can also say that I have more of a shootout mentality underwater when it comes to the techniques I use.

As I am the original poster of this post, I wanted to come back and give an update. As you pointed out @Chris Ross, my main aim was to capture shy fish portraits with ease from a distance and use it for super macro. However, I haven't even bothered borrowing or buying an extension ring for this lens the whole summer as the RF 100mm Macro is a joy to use with its 1.4x magnification together with the R6 II. I have found out that the R6 II digital teleconverter options of 2x and 4x upscales back the shots to original resolution with no loss in quality and no artefacts (Canon has a great algorithm in camera). This, essentially, makes this lens a 200mm and 400mm lens, respectively. The only drawback is that you must shoot JPEG only. However, if you get your settings right in camera along with correct strobe settings and positioning, the requirement for post-processing is minimal and any JPEG can handle it. This applies both for shy fish and its super macro application. So, I will not be using this lens underwater and only for shooting on land.

Thank you @Chris Ross! This is a very smart way to sort it out. I still want to check it physically whether the alignment is rough on the camera or the housing or a padding/extension is needed for the controls at sub milimetre level. Will check and report back. Not to hijack @Davide DB's post anymore regarding the Z6 Mark III, I saw that the photonstophotos has published the dynamic range sensor data for the Z6 Mark III. Due to the partially stacked sensor design, the Z6 Mark III has the lowest dynamic range among its peer group for photography: It should also be noted that it benefits from the dual native ISO design at and after 800 ISO for videography. The dynamic range levels are in line with the Nikon's line up when compared with the Z8 & Z9: However, it should also be noted that that the Z8 & Z9 have fully stacked sensors and have only electronic shutters. Whereas, the Z6 Mark III has also a mechanical shutter. It can be argued that the effect of the mechanical shutter is completely eliminated by the partially stacked sensor design by choice or by limitations faced. Comparing the Z6 Mark III with its predecessors also show the affect of the partially stacked sensor design: However, the most surprising result for me is below: The dynamic range of the Z6 Mark III up to 800 ISO is at similar levels of its peer group's cropped resolutions. Ouch! It can be argued that Nikon designed a videography first camera rather than a true hybrid and in order to gain speed to keep up with the competition (Canon R6 Mark II), lowered the dynamic range of the camera with a partially stacked sensor. I believe Nikon should have gone with Canon's route and focused on the in-house processor design rather than ordering a partially stacked sensor from Sony! In addition to everything above, knowing that the Sony A7 Mark IV is 3 years old and the Canon R6 Mark II is almost 2 year old, there is a huge potential that this camera's video specs might be reached or surpassed by its competitors after their respective next product cycle launch putting Nikon in a tough position in terms of market share again.

How so? Could you please elaborate? The dimensions and button layout are identical. I believe the only the inaccessible buttons will be the mode, the lock button and the top screen illumination button on the R5 which are not required at all for underwater use. On paper, my only concern would be the slight misalignment of the multi-controller and the buttons above the rear screen due to a slightly larger screen size on the R5.

Certainly agree that personal preferences triumph over any brand or model @Davide DB. Just wanted to share my thought process I had this winter that led me to purchasing the R6 Mark II rather than sticking with Nikon. I have seen on Youtube that there are many bird photographers who use R5 and R7 interchangeably and especially, the R7 when they need more reach and are quite happy with it. This also lead me to purchase the R7 for underwater use prior to R6 Mark II. However, in terms of autofocus performance and SOOC IQ, I was not quite satisfied with it and could not purchase a housing for the R7 and sold it via a shop. Maybe mine was a bad copy as I read such comments online but I also believe Canon needs to improve it with a Mark II model as it currently sits between a 90D and the 7D rather than being the pure successor of the 7D Mark II. Additionally, to my surprise, the same shop also had a 2002 production Canon EF 180mm f/3.5 L Macro lens in mint condition for a very good price and I purchased that prior to purchasing the R6 Mark II. This lens will make the R6 Mark II have a slightly more reach than the R7 with a 100mm lens but will add significant weight to my set-up. I only need an extension ring to try it out for super macro and plan to write here how it will go as well this summer.

Just wanted to add my two cents after reading the article. I have an R6 Mark II and moved from a Nikon DSLR (a Nikon D600) to a Canon mirrorless recently expecting that that the Z6 Mark III was not going to impress me as the current state of Nikon is not what it used to be. Additionally, the underwater lens options offered by Canon are better than what is offered by Nikon. The RF 100mm Macro with 1.4x magnification eliminates the need for +6 diopter completely and is very fast to focus (the equivalent Nikon Z lens is slower with 1x magnification). The 8-15mm has became the standard fisheye lens for many other brands including Sony and brands that use M43 sensors and has excellent IQ for a fisheye (Nikon’s version of 8-15mm fisheye zoom is similar in terms of IQ but has a variable aperture between f3.5 and f4.5 whereas Canon’s lens is fixed at f4) Together with these lenses, I am quite happy with the R6 Mark II as it is a very well rounded do it all camera that performs really well. The image quality is excellent together with a very accurate color rendition. My hit rate has gone up significantly after switching to mirrorless and SOOC JPEGs are much cleaner than what it used to be in terms of sharpness, ISO and image corrections due to having a much more modern processor and in camera solutions offered by Canon. As for the raw files, they are basically the same after editing them in Lightroom as the sensor technology has not improved much in the past decade for the 24 MP sensors. In terms of video specs, there is no doubt that the Z6 Mark III is the winner at this price point. However, the paragraph below, which I also read in another source, makes this camera a flop for photography: “The irony is though, that the sensor presents absolutely no image quality advantage for photographers vs the original Nikon Z6 which came out a full 6 years ago. Resolution remains at 24 megapixel and dynamic range might even be slightly worse (due to the very fast partially stacked sensor readout architecture).” Additionally, I can not agree with the paragraph below: “That said, the Z6 III demolishes the Canon EOS R6 Mark II in terms of the quality and size of EVF, quality of rear LCD screen, overall video specs (especially on the codec side), AF performance, overall speed and the option for CFExpress recording. The Z6 III does not need to drop to 12bit in the full resolution 6K readout mode, either.” The higher resolution EVF, larger and higher resolution rear screen and the CFExpress are only window dressings made by Nikon which do not really affect the final photograph taken by the camera. So far, I have not yet seen a direct comparison between the two cameras but I do not believe that Nikon can surpass the AF performance of the R6 Mark II and the readout speed are the same for both cameras although the Nikon has a partially stacked sensor. To summarize, I would not have purchased this camera for photography even if I had not changed systems and would have gone for a Z8 if I wanted to continue with Nikon. This would have also significantly raised the overall cost of my set-up with a more expensive camera and an associated more expensive housing. Additionally, I would not benefit from the extra 21 MP of the Z8 as I almost do not crop and like to get everything right in camera which would result in an unnecessary expense for me. A side benefit of the R6 Mark II is that if I one day I ever need 45 MP, I might fit the R5 in the same housing as the R6 Mark II with no or minor improvements as both cameras have nearly identical bodies and button layouts. However, I have not tried this yet.

Many thanks @Davide DB for the recommendations! I have not seen the second discussion and it was very useful. I agree with Interceptor121 that the default setup for the Canon 8-15mm should be with the 1.4x convertor as the 8mm circular fisheye look is more of a luxury rather than a necessity. Many thank as well @Interceptor121 ! I had a look at the FOV calculation for fisheye lenses and saw that it requires too much of a technical involvement for me to go with that route 🙂 Knowing the range is between 174 to 124 would suffice (as per your article) . Just completed the first dive weekend with my new set up this weekend. It is a R6 mark II with Nauticam housing. Nauticam lists the Teleplus Pro 300 DGX version on their port charts and they are probably not updated yet. You also mention that there is a need for only a 2 cm extension with the HD PRO as well. I will go with the HD Pro version as per your recommendation. Many thanks for the money saved!

Hello All, Considering to purchase the Kenko 1.4x Teleplus Pro 300 DGX teleconverter for my Canon 8-15mm fisheye lens. I know that without the teleconverter at 15mm it is a 180 degree diagonal fisheye view and at 8mm it is a 180 degree circular fisheye view. Does anyone know the FOV degrees when the teleconverter is added? Especially at 21mm (15mm on a full frame sensor with the teleconverter added) and at each other focal length. Many thanks!

Hello all, As the title suggests I’m interested in the Canon 180mm f/3.5 L EF Macro as I have found a barely used copy for a really good price and think it would be fun to deviate from the 105mm once in a while. Would your recommend this lens underwater? I have extensively used a FX camera in DX mode with a 105mm lens and am curious about wether a 180 by itself or cropped (equivalent focal length of 288 mm) would be too much to handle when pointing and shooting. Any experiences at these focal lengths would be much appreciated!

I am in the market for a new mirrorless set-up migrating from a FF DSLR and recently explored a lot of options to limit my spending and try to get the most value out of a set-up in this new mirrorless world. Therefore, my suggestions will be towards newer models that are currently available. My main aim was to find the mirrorless set-up without losing much image quality and dynamic range and by gaining more camera capabilities (eye tracking autofocus and etc.) with a smaller package. I will be strictly speaking for the mirrorless segment as I have not looked into any of the compact cameras. As you are moving up from the TG-6 and asking for a mirrorless camera, I believe similarly priced high end compact cameras will not be relevant for you as well. There are 2 options you can consider as 5k USD does not have much purchasing power for underwater photography as someone would expect compared to topside photography. Although you have stated your desire to continue with Canon or Sony, I believe your first option should be another Olympus. This is where you will have to ability to upgrade the body and the housing or add another lens and port to your set-up (For example, the 90mm macro from Olympus) for keeping your overall cost low in the long run by having the flexibility of replacing and expanding rather than starting from scratch for another set-up. The first option will require some second-hand purchases to meet your budget cap. Option #1: - OM System OM-5 Camera (1.000 USD) (alternatively, a second hand EM5 III can be bought) - Nauticam OM-5 & EM5 III Housing (2.223 USD) - Vacuum pump of Nautical Housing (220 USD) - Olympus 8mm Fisheye Lens (900 USD) - Nauticam N85 Mini Extension Ring 17 (237 USD) - Nauticam N85 4.33 Inch Acrylic Dome Port (624 USD) - Olympus 60mm Macro Lens (400 USD) - Nauticam N85 Macro Port 65 (404 USD) The total of brand-new equipment from the U.S. will cost around 6.008 USD. Purchasing certain items second hand will reduce your total cost below 5K. Additionally, Nauticam products are cheaper in Europe compared to the U.S. and the U.K. and if you can get them tax free, you might get all of them new for slightly over 5K. The second option will be a downgrade in terms of housing quality as Nauticam does not produce a housing for this model. However, this downgrade is also where the cost savings will come from as Ikelite has a completely different market strategy. Additionally, you will have better image quality and much better autofocus (including tracking) compared to the Olympus. Option #2: - Canon EOS R10 (980 USD) - Ikelite EOS R10 Housing 200DLM (1.050 USD) - Ikelite Vacuum Kit (195 USD) - Ikelite Tray with Dual Release Handles (150 USD) - Tokina 10-17mm Fisheye Lens (469 USD) - Canon EF-to-RF Adapter (130 USD) - Ikelite DLM 6 Inch Port with Zoom (350 USD) - Zoom Gear (30 USD) - Canon RF 100mm Macro Lens (1.100 USD) - DLM Flat Port 3.2 Inch (250 USD) - DLM 2.2 Inch Port Extension (220 USD) This option will set you back 4.924 USD. Again, you can purchase certain items second hand to reduce your package cost. Since you will be buying the EF-to-Adapter for the Tokina, you might as well purchase the EF version of the 100mm macro lens for further cost reduction. However, I would not recommend this package as it is not future proof. You will most likely end up wanting the Canon EOS R7 with the Nauticam housing resulting in starting from scratch for a package that will cost you around 10k USD.

Have been a long-time lurker of underwater forums and decided to join the new establishment. As an avid underwater photographer of 10 years, I'm here to engage in meaningful conversations, further explore about my curiosities and contribute wherever I can. All the best