Architeuthis

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...

I use Sony 90mm with A7R5 and AF is working pretty well. I would say comparable to the EM1II that I used before with Zuiko 90mm and Pana 45mm, but tracking is better with the Sony FF... The saying that Sony 90mm is hard to focus comes probably from the previous camera models that did not have the modern AF...

One consideration is the sensor: FF with low S/N and 14-bit/pixel and high Mpixel count vs. MFT with 12-bit/pixel and lower Mpixel count (and APS-C in the middle, but with 14-bit/pixel). I wonder how relevant this is for (mostly) flash enlighted and uncropped macro photos (maybe gigantic printouts are an exception)... Another consideration is the lens choice. The lens offering for UW suitable lenses of the different brands is mostly meager. I have now Sony A7R5 and only two 90mm macro lenses are available (one from Sony and one from Tamron; there is an old 50mmSony macro lens also, but many use adapted lenses for shorter focal length, e.g. for blackwater). MFT, in contrast, offers a rich choice of lenses for macro, also UW: 30mm (both Pana and Zuiko), 45mm Pana, 60mm Zuiko and the Zuiko 90mm super-macro lens... Independend from the camera system, I would consider Nauticam EMWL for WA macro and CFWA when money is not an object... Wolfgang

From the range of angles of view (AOV) available, it is no question that I prefer the fisheye/WACP option. As already said, my personal preference is similar to what Tim was writing: Macro +/- SMC-1(3) (Almost for sure I will acquire also the rumored Laowa 180mm AF 1.5x lens as a second macro option, when the UW performance is good) or, alternatively, the fisheye... The 20-70mm is a nice third option, when there are multiple dives possible, certainly no substitute for the fisheye. It is always good to have different lenses/perspectives for a slide show/image collection. It requires, however, an additional and bigger domeport plus substantial extension (170mm sphere section domeport for 20-70mm vs. 140mm hemisphere for Canon 8-15mm fisheye)... Amongst the fisheye setups (Canon 8-15mm w/o TC; Canon 8-15mm + 2x Sony TC; WACP-C/28-60mm), I clearly prefer the Canon 8-15mm + 2x Sony TC - it has the most versatile AOV range. I am still not at a final cinclusion regarding IQ, but according to my (very subjective) judgement, Canon 8-15mm + 2x Sony TC has very similar IQ compared to WACP-C/28-60mm (I look mostly at sharpness in the middle of the frame). The pure Canon 8-15mm gives maybe a little bit better IQ, but it can not much, it is maybe possible, but certainly hard to tell, which image was taken with TC and which w/o. Over time this lead me to prefer the Canon 8-15mm + 2x Sony TC setup: Just yesterday I returned from a 9-day diving holiday in Croatia and I always was using the Canon 8-15mm + 2x Sony TC (or, alternatively, the Sony 90mm macro +/- SMC1). The WACP-C remained untouched in the suitcase (and also the 20-70mm, but I rather would have taken the 20-70mm before the WACP-C, because of its excellent sharpness)... Wolfgang P.S.: you write that you plan to use the 20-70mm also for topside and you have already the Sigma 15mm (which domeport? can it also be used with the 20-70mm?). Certainly these two lenses are very good for the beginning and after a while you will know what is best for you...

I can only say about the Sony 20-70mm, that I use behind Zen DP170. It is very sharp, maybe it is the lens with the sharpest UW performance that I have. For me 20mm at the wide end is plenty of rectilinear WA and it is very useful for zooming in (I also have the Laowa 10mm, but used it so far only twice - I personally find rectilnear at such wide angle distracting). I use it mostly for fish portraits (and moderate WA), the focal length depends on how shy the creatures are, but I try to go to the minimum possible... When a wider angle than 20mm is needed, I use fisheye (Canon 8-15mm w/o and with Sony 2x TC; WACP-C/Sony 28-60mm), similar to what Tim was writing... Wolfgang

I have put now the 3D file(s) into the dropbox (https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fo/dzjpn1s8wbfhbkyru8l4j/h?rlkey=u8ne953g3iymcyexmgczbmj9e&st=85dnwgtz&dl=0). I must admit that the current extension ring works, but it is not perfect: when I screw it to the Nauticam Zoomgear, I have to do it so that there remains a small gap (1-2mm) between the gearwheel and the extension ring, to make it a little bit longer to make the zoom function work smoothly (i.e. the gearwheel of the camera housing and the zoomgear fit exactly): Canon815_2xSony.stl Canon815-2xSony.stl is 2mm longer and should fit perfectly (maybe it needs a little bit of abrasion, but I still have to print it out and test it). I would print out this version, but I cannot guarantee: Canon815_2xSony&2mm.stl Wolfgang P.S.: I fix every extension ring with three headless Allen screws (M2) to the zoomgear and the ring cannot detach during using it UW (or by mechanical agitation during transport etc...). The tools for making the treads in the plastic can be acquired at every hardware store for little money and it is easy...

I have printed here until recently, it was always o.k., but it comes at a cost: https://i.materialise.com/de/Account/Login Now a good friend of my son has acquired a 3D printer and it costs practically nothing (I gave him a six-pack for the last printout and he said this is much too much). So better have someone in the neighborhood to print it out...😄

Hi jjimochi, I did not know that there is a difference between mark 4 and 5 of the metabones adapter. Also nobody else reported about it, it seems you are the first to find out... Here I have deposited the Nauticam zoomgear extensions for various adaptations of Canon 8-15mm and Tokina 10-17mm. Only the ones were "Sony" is in the name are for Nauticam Sony housing, the rest are for adapted Nauticam Olympus housing: https://www.dropbox.com/home/Zoomgears The extension for the 2x Sony TC/Canon 8-15 is currently not among them. I can put it there (from my server at home) on Monday, when I am back from diving (currently Sveta Marina/Croatia 😊). Alternatively you can take any for the Canon 8-15mm lens and elongate the ring with a simple program (I use "Tinkercad")... In this link Gudge (post from February 6 2024) shows an entire zoomgear for the adapted Canon 8-15mm, I think for Sony/Nauticam (w/o TC): https://waterpixels.net/forums/topic/671-proven-3d-printed-parts-for-underwater-imaging/ Wolfgang

I have the 2x Kenko TC that you have linked (Teleplus HD 2x DGX). IQ with the Canon 8-15mm is clearly worse in comparison with Sony 2x TC. I one of the treads linked above, Massimo (now "guest") shows images obtained with the better Teleplus HD Pro 2x DGX and they look much better, very similar to the images with Sony 2x TC. See here for the currently available Kenko TCs: https://kenkoglobal.com/catalog/teleconverters/ Sony TC is more pricey, but shorter (=less extension) and can be used with Sony lenses as 100-400mm (Kenko works with Canon EF lenses, as Canon 8-15mm fisheye). The setup is correct... So far, I only used the 140mm dome which I find pretty small and handsome, so cannot say from own experience whether Zen 100mm also is o.k.. There are, however, multiple reports here in the treads that performance of Canon 8-15mm with Zen 100mm on FF is suboptimal (my wife used Tokina 10-17mm on MFT with the Zen 100mm and IQ is very good). I understood the postings this way that people use the Zen 100mm with FF only when they want to get very close in CFWA and the 100mm dome is a little bit smaller then (but now, since the EMWL is available, I guess many people switch to EMWL for such purpose, since this is clearly the smallest).. When the (standard) 35.5mm N100/N120 adapter is used, 30mm N120 additional extension is for the pure fisheye, without TCs. For the Sony 2x TC an additional 30mm extension is needed (60mm N120 extension in total; for the Kenko 2x TC 70mm extension are needed). You need a custom 3D printed Zoom gear (I believe one is available here under 3D parts) or a simple 3D printed extension ring, fixed by 3 Allen screws to the Nauticam zoomgear (I have the latter and it is for download under 3D parts)... Possibly the 30mm N100 extension could be reused. It needs to be mounted of course between A7R5 housing and N100/N120 adapter and the zoom gear need to be extended for the 30mm then... Wolfgang