Adventurer

Dreifish, could you tell us which HSS flash trigger / converter was used ? I recently learned that the implementation of HSS can substantially vary depending on the trigger+flash brand used. On some triggers+strobes the flash output and frequency stays the same and therefore decreases with faster shutter speeds. With uw-technics and Apollo III 2.0 you will have the option to adjust HSS strobe output on the strobe. You can substantially see a difference once you use the power dial. Here it seems the frequency is dynamically negotiated by the converter and camera. With the Backscatter HF-1 strobe their manual will reveal that this device has JUST ONE HSS OUTPUT LEVEL. This might also apply to the HSS implementation of the MF-2 and explain Phil's experience with it. Somebody told me on Retras the output is auto-determined by the cam+trigger. The manual turtle triggers will do HSS, I was told, but the frequency and output level of it seems static. It's recommended to review that more precisely. It raises an interesting question: which strobe is the most powerful HSS strobe in the market ?

that shot is terrific @DreiFish ! Kudos. it utilizes the pincushion distortion of the lens very well and gives the image a lot of depth. nice and inspirational example how to “think different” when bringing that focal length to the water.

I wanted to report back from the field with a huge portion of disappointment and a question that I took home with me. As you saw above I had spend a lot of effort and time to get the highest IQ result out of that 14mm Rokinon / Samyang AF for Canon. And as you can read above the IQ part was a success and inspired our very own @DreiFish to run an extensive tub test on the majority of these Canon lenses while I was gone. Thank you again for this, Dreifish! So what‘s my sad feeling ? Well,.. it‘s a general war issue I start to have with rectilinear lenses, once these go wider than approx 20mm underwater - and yes it‘s the corners which are a huge dissapointment. However the corner sharpness is not an issue, it‘s more the perspective -> plunging lines that always look like they are falling out of the image. I start to have huge difficulty when using 15mm or 14mm and cannot imagine how people happily utilize the Laowa 10mm. @Phil Rudin once said, that it is a difficult lens to shoot and I can feel him now. If you do not utilize the leveler in your camera and keep it straight the image instantly starts to look unpleasant to me. The corners will heavily try to fall away from the subject once you tilt the camera a little bit up or down. They are still dent sharp but they will start to look like Warp9 in Star Trek. If you use a 14mm rectilinear lens in landscape photography this is usually not an issue as you will prudently try to keep things level or use a tripod to prevent that perspective distortion. Having said rectlinear lenses do not fit my main shooting style in photo underwater; and maybe also not yours without you knowing it yet. As I constantly try to include the water column above me for negative space in my shots I keep tilting the housing towards the surface for nice compositions. If I do not shoot directly upwards or sidewards in a 90 degree angle towards the surface or 90 degree downwards the image usually starts to look very odd. Contrary to rectilinear lenses the fisheye behind a dome has a much more pleasing effect underwater which is less prone to tilting the cam in non-90-degree steps. Therefore the 14mm will probably just be special task split shot and close to the surface lens. I will stay with the fisheye for the average reef shot dive and wrecks and prefer the more dramatic compositions there. What do you guys think ? And what’s your take on uw video where the rectilinear lenses (especially zooms) still might have their place.

I would like some others to think / verify with me, if the teleconverter needs to be incorporated into the entrance pupil dome calculation. I think yes. So you will get totally different P-I values and flange distances. I think contrary to the canon EF-RF converter, these have to be taken into account. Or does the TC effect and the new flange distance cancel each other out? I also would point out, that there might a theoretical error for the Canon EF 8-15 when pulling it from optical bench. The default values there are @ 8mm zoom setting. If not used with a teleconverter this is the circular fisheye setting and not the diagonal fisheye setting of the lens. Hence the one that most of the users will rarely shoot, because they do not like a black circled image too often. If you play with the zoom slider on optical bench you get both values. It will show you 1,63 mm you difference offset for the minimum dome size required. A minimum dome diameter of just 7,6 cm should therefore be sufficient. But beware! The theoretical optimal extension on MARELUX for their small dome would be 8,34 cm. MARELUX is recommending 30mm only. .. I guess beyond this point vignetting kicks in and it's the usual compromise. However it's worthwile to try a 40mm ring or more to improve IQ if you own it or can borrow it.

@DreiFish you are such a darling! Many thanks for putting the time + brain + energy in this. I have one more question: Will a 1.4x TC show some black vignetting on the Canon 8-15 Fisheye @ 8mm ? Maybe somebody owning a canon fullframe body with the above + EF-RF adapter, can report back on this. 💙 I am thinking about simply traveling with two teleconverters in the future and selling my Sigma 15mm Fisheye Lens to get a used Canon FE Zoom.

Has anyone pondered with the idea or even tried to utilize the new RF 1.4x or 2.0x white teleconverters from Canon? I am just asking myself it is possible to construct the gear as follows: Cam Body -> RF1.4x Telecon -> RF-EF Converter -> Canon 8-15mm Fisheye F4 L lens ..might of course also work with RF2.0x telecon. I own the old EF Canon TC 2.0x and the only problem used to be the protruded inner rubber lens. If it‘s similar size it might be eaten up by the RF-EF converter. 😎 I wonder if there would be other limitations preventing to go this path? Alternatively there are two new TCs from Viltrox and Sigma which could be useful, instead of the Kenko.

hi Dreifish, I recommend to give this another try with a dome that is small and not (almost) a full hemisphere. This will compensate for the negative alignment of that lens inside your housing. The minimum focusing distance of that lens makes it surprisingly flexible. In fact I found it capable to obliterate the need for the fish portrait end on RF14-35 and RF15-30 @35mm/30mm with it‘s weird semi-macro close focus behaviour. Maybe you get an affordable INON Dome Port II and try to path it in with an INON/Nauticam adapter or a similar custom made dome. According to my measurements and calculation the INON dome can compensate for something around 33.26mm negative extension ring. Also you can remove the dome shade on that one if required.

My apologies, but you are testing and viewing the world through an Nauticam only housing perspective, and maybe you could note more often that there are also other brands where things work (different) and which you have not tested yet. On INON housings and domes that lens works excellent and also with a Marelux housing + my custom dome you even need an very slim extension ring to make it work in optimum. It might also work excellent on Ikelite systems, which I have not seen in action. However I highly appreciate all the well documented and intensive testing, Dreifish, that you share here in the forums on various gear brands. Thank you for all the hard work on gear testing and being so resourceful.

I would revise this statement into: the selection is " more mainstream compatible " for the expensive topside lenses and kit lenses on SONY. Looking back at my latest CANON experience with several non-L and simple STM lenses in place among five R-mount shooters, I must report back that the cheap RF 15-30 STM out-stomps the highly expensive Canon L versions (topside optimized lenses) in that range. So if you have not bought them yet, don't go for the RF 14-35mm F4L IS USM or the RF 15-35mm F2.8L IS USM. You can save money and go for the: RF 15-30mm F4.5-6.3 IS STM ! Also a total surprise and MUST BUY + USE lens is the cheap Canon RF 16 STM. That lens is ULTRA SHARP (even) behind (small) domes. One diver used it the whole trip and it turned out to be surpirisingly flexible. The fact that you can focus on small dome ports allows you to shoot fish portraits with it. It was really amazingly adaptive for a prime lens. There is this kind of semi-macro mode available on that lens, if you get really close. I am going to get one myself; even though I already own the overlapping Canon RF 15-30 STM. The no-brainer in the Canon RF System is still to get the 8-15mm fisheye zoom with EF converter and a 2.0x or 1.4x Teleconverter from Kenko. That will safe you a lot of travel weight and size and get you supreme image quality where other systems have to invest in optically corrected underwater glas. The Canon EF 8-15mm F4 alone is a must have lens in your underwater portfolio. If you do not need strong dual IS (lens+camera) the 2.0x TC will safe you from having to buy a wide angle zoom.

So in my particular case UWT did not have a Marelux profile available yet. So my UWT trigger just offers the RETRA profile. I will need to send it in for an update. Having said that, even such a provisionally solution did pretty well. Also I would like to add that TRT turtle does not do Canon Triggers for Mirrorless Cameras. They have ruled out Canon because of the high R&D effort. Maybe they change their mind someday. So all you can head to is UWtechnics and INON as Canon MILC owner, if you intend to explore fibre optic TTL triggers. Thank you for your extensive reply and thoughts on my report Phil. I am very much looking forward to the improved Manuals of MARELUX. I think their products are very capable but potential customers also need to learn about the full potential to unleash it.

Thanks @Phil Rudin for the clarification. I have rolled up and down the limited manual of Apollo III 2.0 and unfortunately does say much about M-HSS. This is all you will find: https://www.marelux.co/u_file/2407/file/01/ae0c5179f9.pdf Unfortunately it does not tell you anything about the requirements. 1.) So if you can shoot with a manual LED strobe trigger or not, OR if @Pavel Kolpakov UW-Technics converter is a requirement ? 2.) Also it does not refer to the settings required in the cameras strobe control menu. 3.) The manual does not tell you, if the camera may work this in Mechanical/Half-Electronic/Electronic Shutter However full electronic shutter is ruled out, by Canon R6 Mark II camera as it will not flash sync at all. Funny sidenote: If you connect a Canon SpeedLite HSS is a subset of eTTL (automatic intensity control). However even if you buy the UWtechnics TTL Trigger + Marelux Apollo III 2.0 you will be in a MANUAL HSS mode and direct the strobe intensity on the level switch of the Apollo Strobe. A lot of expert camera know-how and trial and error experimenting is required by the customer. In my case the following was used: 1.) Marelux R6 Mark II Housing 2.) UWtechnics TTL LED Trigger, dip-switch set to RETRA UWT profile 3.) 2 pc. Marelux Apollo III 2.0 strobes 4.) 2 pc. high-quality multi-core fibre optic cables * Lumilink 2.0 was owned but not used, to make this complicated system less prone to fails. Also there are said to be shutter speed limitations by Lumilink 2.0 and 1.0 which renders the M-HSS mode useless. I had occasional fails/blackouts on the system resulting in not-firing strobes and a black image. Sometimes this may have been wrong settings (strobe menu or still being in non-mechanical shutter mode) but they also might be due to the fact that the TTL-trigger-profile was still not for Apollo and had to utilize the RETRA profile.

Well,.. my two strobes begin with an "A.." in the serial number but MARELUX has double confirmed them to be 2.0 Versions of the Apollo.

Just wanted to let you know that I have been out in the field with Apollo III 2.0 and shot M-HSS at full power successfully in speeds up to /1250s and maybe more.. ( will need to sort out the images, to see if I ever went higher than 1/1250 ). Strong HSS power is the main beneficial reason for me to carry around these heavy suns. I did not find real MTL applications, even though I was more exited about that feature prior to practical application.

Glad to see my suggested test setup reproduced and utilized. useful to get your optimized extension for your lens

Do frequent and a little longer vacuum tests with that dome on your housing to get peace of mind and to be sure. problem solved

Well 0.4kg underwater weight are a bug not a feature. If you do not like a nose up system during your dive you can fix this affordable with less than $10 of car wheel trim weights. This is more easy and less expensive than having to put money in specialized and bulky float arms or bouyancy collars. I see nose up systems beneficial to your photography and video underwater. Your framing will include the water column and result in more please imagery. Especially with 45 deg Viewfinders this help 😉

130 FOV is not as magic and easy to handle. 10mm FF lenses get you there. If you enjoy the more practical FOV 114-63 existing 14-35mm give you a better real world experience underwater.

Well I might get stoned for this critical comment, but… looking at the (in my opinion) superior results of classic fisheye lenses: Will the FCP be Nauticam’s personal revival of the Nikonos RS disaster? Weight, size, price and dismal performance increase definitely point into that historic direction.

Exactly my impression after 4 weeks in the water with two S220 in Indonesia. I think I previously wrote almost the same as Dhaas somewhere here in the forum a few days/weeks ago. It’s the most underrated, attractively priced and underestimated underwater strobe in 2024 ! Cursed by the look a like S-2000’s legacy because many noobs will mistake the purpose of the previous Modell with the potential of the new S-220. Also the often mentioned wait for a Z330 successor is totally pointless. Just my personal opinion.

Don’t underestimate the DOF issues this optical category produces, once you move the concept to a full frame sensor. If you compare land based 28-60mm DOF to a 10mm lens, the latter will give you 130 FOV and more DOF sharpness. This water contact optic category that throws the image into the distance enjoys an excellent reputation for compact cameras, microfourthirds and previously camcorders, because they crop in on the center part of the optic.

I can get access to a D-Pro and wonder if that one is also in the fast or slow strobe category. I think you can derive some insights from the D-Max, so I am curious about your readings on that one. Also interested in the Kraken KRS160, if anybody has values for that one.

Here is one of your practical applications @Phil Rudin as asked above. Also as previously mentioned faster light gives you crisper (sharper) subjects in photography. I must thank @DreiFish for putting so much work in his answer. He illustrated it very well with his example pictures and I could not have it explained better. Especially point 6. and 5. in his initial answer are very worthwhile reading. I hope 🙏 less people skip over that too fast 😎😉 To me strobe speed ( and I do not mean recycle time with that ) is just as important as strobe power (GN, Ws etc).

Sorry - I must apologize for reading to quick. That part is valid and DreiFish is right. He correctly explains the difference. However the readout speed of your camera sensor must be able to keep up with the strobe, if it’s really fast.

no you cannot. what you described is a test for x-sync speed, not flash duration. you are all mistaking the effect of shutter speed for flash duration. please try to get your head around this another time. I know it’s counter intuitive and may be difficult to sort out. If you have a fast moving subject you can freeze it in your frame with a very fast and strong strobe, even if you expose for 3sec or bulb. There is no need to discuss x-sync speed or new fancy global shutter or HSS for this, it is not the application and irrelevant.

You could have lowered that ISO and would have received nicer blues 😎