Architeuthis

I take approx. 70-200 photos/dive. Usually on the same day I transfer the better files to my notebook via LRc (about 40% keeper rate estimated). These photos I take home for later processing in LRc/PS. The usable photos, which are further processed, are assigned ratings, starting with 1*. From the processed photos I select 80-150 per dive trip to assemble a slide show. About 70%-80% remain unprocessed/unrated and are deleted from the disc. All processed photos (also the RAW files) are kept on a NAS server (that is backed up every night to another NAS server). => still too many files that are stored and never ever used for anything, but it would break my heart to delete them...😄 Wolfgang

Very interesting, but as praised, it is more a replacement of the old 90mm G lens, rather than a new, additional, option increasing the palette of available focal lengths. I see myself investing $$$$ for the new macro lens plus port (this time I will try to get the shortest N100 port available and use N100 extensions (in case doable)) and in the end I will have have, more or less, similar results as right now (90mm Sony macro lens with dedicated N100 port)...😁 (but who knows, maybe the new lens offers new exciting features, e.g. more native magnification, similar to 90mm lens + SMC-1?) Wolfgang

Has someone tested the Nauticam closeup lenses (that are believed (by most of us, including me) to be of the highest optical quality) and can report what their refractive power in dioptries (UW as well as OV (some manufacturers still give refractive power in dioptries OV)) is (so that one could compare them easily to other diopters)?

I wished Nauticam working together with a third party lens company (like e.g. Tamron, Sigma, Viltrox, Laowa etc.. etc...). The lens company produces an AF equipped zoom lens that is just a proto-lens and is not required to make in-focus photos OV. Nauticam produces a small and smart port for this lens where the front glass is an optical element that complements the proto-lens to become a water corrected 15-35mm (f/4 or f/5.6) zoom fisheye lens (similar to the Nikonos lenses modifications done by Seacam or Isaac Szabo)...😃 => I do not think that development and construction of such an item is more elaborated compared to development and construction of WACPs/FCPs etc. (a lot of old patents/plans for water corrected lenses already exist; maybe even one of the optical engineers of the old Nikonos lenses is still alive and willing to participate). Especially series production of the port should be simpler (I also guess the number of items produced/sold would be quite high)... => When I consider the boring multiplicity and redundancy of lenses that are produced by third party companies (e.g. 85mm portrait lenses, but also many other focal lengths), I imagine it is hard for them to make profit. Such a unique proto-lens may be a very welcome product for their portfolio...

Thank you for these industrious testings, RomiK... 👍 From your test photos under controlled environment, I conclude that the 8-15mm/2xTC/140mm combo is at least as good as 28-60mm/WACP-C, maybe even a tick better (you agree?). The differences are subtile, I am glad to see that the 8-15/2xTC combo can keep up with modern wetlens solutions... I derived to similar conclusions based on my own photos, but these were just UW photos of different subjects at different times and conditions, by far no control... #1.: Concerning your listing of costs and the Canon 8-15mm combo, I think it is fair to add that the N100/N120 adapter, 140mm dome, both N120 extensions and Sony 2x TC are universal and can be used for various other occasions, both UW and OW as well (even the Canon 8-15mm with Metabones is fun to use over the water)... With the WACP-C combo, one is left with a bold chunk of optical glass that is dedicated to its purpose plus one universal N100 30mm extension and a mediocre 28-60mm lens (o.k. the charm of the 28-60mm lens for OW use is its size, but I personally prefer the Sony 20-70mm that is bigger, but still not excessive, and provides clearly better IQ, both OW and UW) => I would say one gets a lot more with the Canon 8-15mm combo (also the 180° diagonal FOV, what the WACP-C cannot deliver) for a simlar amount of money... #2.: I am surprised to see that the Canon 8-15mm performs optically better behind the rectilinear 180mm domeport, compared to WACP-C, maybe even a tick better compared to 8-15mm behind hemispherical 140mm domeport. This is completely unexpected for me, but in line with my observations when I used the Canon 8-15mm behind 140mm and rectilinear 170mm domeports with MFT cameras, where the smaller sensor scans only the central 25% area within the image circle. IQ with 170mm domeport there was at least as good compared to the 140mm, if not better (just comparison of regular UW photos, no controlled environment)... Wolfgang P.S.:At present, my WACP-C stays a lot at home, when I go for scuba travel (I am a big fan of 180° diagonal and miss it with the WACP-C; I also find the 8-15(2xTC/140mm rig more manageable OV and UW). Not enough time has passed, but maybe I will put my WACP-C in classified to help finance an EMWL some day...😊

Hi Tim, I am currently using version 6.1.4.22653. The icons for LRc became worse (ambivalent symbols for the potentiometers, e.g. for adjusting temperture, tint, heigths etc.. etc.. even without text explanation). Furthermore at present I am not able to assign user presets (e.g for my new Tamron 35-150mm f/2-f/2.8, that I use over the water) to buttons of my Loupedeck CT (maybe the next software upgrade may solve this problem)... See the embedded screenshot for what I mean with ambivalent symbols for potentiometers: Since long I gave up complaining at the user service - I think this is just lost time...☹️

Hi chemsdiving, For Canon EF lenses, Nauticam recommends the use of the Canon EF to Canon R adapter (see here: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1wjedtgAP1MCgmCFUYGYrGC7I_J7GPCiH/view) and then the appropriate extension, according to the Canon EF cards (see here: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1J-d1Phs2q3ZU3vu0TMNaUQtwJ8Pr_VG_/view) For the 140mm and 230mm fisheye domes (approximate hemispheres) Nauticam recommends a 30mm N120 extension w/o TC and 50mm with the Kenko 1.4x TC (see link above)... They do not recommend to use the Canon 8-15mm with the 180mm domeport, which is not a hemisphere but a smaller section of a sphere, optimized for rectilinear WA lenses. The extension should remain the same (30mm w/o TC and 50mm with 1.4x TC), longer extension (as required for optimal positioning) will result in vignetting and shorter extension is even worse (for theoretical optimum positioning of the lens)), but the optical quality may not be good enough (best is to inquire at Nauticam)... Wolfgang P.S.: I was using the Canon 8-15mm with the Nauticam 140mm fisheye domeport and with the Zen 170mm domeport (similar to the Nauticam 180mm domeport) with MFT cameras with the same extension for both domeports and the results were pleasing for both. The larger FF sensor may be different, however...

The maximum magnification of Sony 90mm plus MFO-2 remains 1:1?

I case you go by car to the places where you make your UW photos, there is no argument against the 230mm dome. Even the Nauticam 250mm dome, which has a larger radius of curvature and is optimized for not-extreme rectilinear WA lenses (as you are planning to use), may be an option in case such a large dome does not interfere with making the photos (i.e. it is in the way)... A 8.5" acryl dome, as you write, corresponds to 216 cm (what radius of curvature does the 8.5" dome have compared to the 180mm domeport (the 180mm port has a radius of 110mm)?). It is not granted that the lenses you write about, work well with the 180mm domeport (in case the radius of the 8.5" is similar to the 180mm domeport there should not be much difference): Best is to ask Nauticam US about it, usually they answer reliably and quickly ... (Not every lens works well together with a domeport (highest optical quality is not an indicator). (i) the lens has to be able to focus at a close distance, since the domeport produces a virtual image that is few dm away from the domeport. (ii) this virtual image is curved and a lens that has field curvature that fits approximately the curvature of the virtual image works best with an, even smaller, domeport (field curvature is a property that is not really desired for high quality over the water lenses) Wolfgang

As probably most here, I started with pure screen (basic setup with initial investment) and was happy... Then I acquired a used Nauticam housing and the former owner gave me also his 45° viewfinder along with the housing. Few dives for learning how to deal with 45°, then never looked back... Superior for macro and also my clear preference for WA. Especially in shallow water, when the sun is shining, the screen is often invisible in practice, but the viewfinder works. The muscles in the neck will thank you for using a 45° viewfinder.. One of the view exceptions when a 45° viewfinder is suboptimal is when making photos vertically downwards (e.g. rotational panning). Also with EMWL (I do not have one, but am thinking about it) it may be better to use the screen on the back, since my camera (A7R5) has the possibility to flip and mirror image the screen image (unfortunately not the image in the EVF). This allows to use EMWL without the expensive, clumsy and heavy "relay" unit (or the additional "inverting" 45° viewfinder). Wolfgang

Now I understand exactly what is your problem...👍 When you describe it now, I remember that with my MFT cameras (subject recognition was not working in practice on them) I was always using a very tiny focus point for macro. AF-S with EM5II (which did not have PDAF and tracking was unusable UW) and AF-C&tracking with EM1II. With A7R5 I use now spot (small/middle/large depending on motif; small or medium mostly for macro) with AF-C&tracking&animal recognition (eye). Sometimes, when AI recognizes an eye, it works very well, but sometimes the AI is even in error, goes to nowhere, and I have to switch it off (easily done with "record" lever). Then I also wished I had a spot, smaller than the S-spot, available for AF-C&tracking, that I can put directly on the eye (or another part of the critter). Probably a very small spot that works reliable in AF-C&tracking is everything one needs for macro... For me personally, this is a flaw, but not enough to make me change systems (maybe other Sony FF cameras, e.g. A1, have such a very small spot for AF available?). I cannot remember whether a smaller spot had existed in a previous firmware version, but Olympus certainly had it... On the positive side, AF-C&tracking&animal recognition (eye) using large area, is a godsend when WA and e.g. snorkeling with dolphins or whalesharks. Especially when it is difficult to carefully look through the viewfinder (sunshine; fast moving animals) and the time for putting the animal (preferentially the eye) in the focus area does not exist. Then I just can aim the camera towards the motifs and press the dumb focus lever (last time I got useful photos from whalesharks, despite the subject recognition was set erroneously to "train"... 😄)...

Interesting to hear. The difference in experience is likely the difference how AF is used... I use C-AF&tracking with small (or intermediate) field together with manual F (for gross adjustments, before I use AF, to save time) and subject recognition (animal/eye). In case subject recognition makes troubles, I can switch it ON/OFF with the "record" lever of my Nauticam housing (Thumb focus lever points upwards while video record lever (that does not have any native function for me) points downwards). Much higher keeper rate than 30% how I use the camera(when AF settings are correct)... Maybe the Tamron 90mm macro would perform better, but when this is a firmware problem this will not help (maybe another Sony body, that does not have this firmware issue, will perform better)...🤔 I am not sure that another camera system will solve the problem. When Alex says that AF is better on Canon R5, does it mean that small dot S-AF (or C-AF) performs better on R5? => what is indeed unpleasent is that (at least Sony) FF has a very limited choice of AF lenses for UW macro, no comparison with MFT (I personally, will still not go back to MFT)...

I disagree concerning the size and weight penalty for macro vs. WA: => When I use A7R5/Nauticam housing with Sony 90mm plus flip holder for SMC-1, this makes the biggest and heaviest setup I can have with this camera. Maybe comparable to WACP-C/28-60mm on the WA side (Canon 8-15mm with 140mm dome is certainly smaller and lighter)... This macro setup gives similar AOVs and magnification as I had before with the ridiculously small EM1II plus bare Pana 45mm. I would say with macro the difference is the most pronounced between MFT and FF, at least as I am using these cameras (For WA I was using mostly Canon 8-15mm with 140mm domeport with EM1II, what gives pretty similar size between the EM1II and A7R5 setups)). => With FF, however, I get 61 Mpixel file with 14-bit for postprocessing...

I think that larger sensors allow a more shallow DOF compared to smaller sensor, but smaller sensors do not really provide more DOF: More DOF with small sensor is only achieved when the identical aperture is used with the larger sensor. When stopped down to comparable conditions regarding light gathering (or corresponding cropping is done), DOF is the same. Extreme stopping down results in less resolution due to diffraction, but diffraction kicks in at wider apertures when small sensors are used and larger sensor allow higher f-numbers before diffraction becomes noticeable - this effect remains essentially the same under comparable conditions...