Architeuthis

Here is a long tread about the Canon 8-15mm with 1.4x and also 2x TCs: Bottomline is that high quality 1.4x TC is very good and even 2x TC is o.k. I have no first hands experience with the Nikon 8-15mm, but possibly the situation is similar...

uses Since you ask I can tell you that it is not my opinion, but a physical fact, that it is impossible to influence the spectral properties of ambient light by adjusting the shutter speed of a camera that is used to take a photo. By changing the shutter speed the amount of ambient light that is collected varies, but its spectral properties remain what they are... I believe that confusion in this discussion arose, because the effect of automatically occuring WB, color profiles and other processing tools are mixed with the effect that shutter speed has on spectral properties of the data collected on the sensor (=raw file). #1.: The crucial point is the discussion of the effect of shutter speed on the original raw data collected by the camera. Regarding the raw file, this file does not even contain any color information, just intensity is encoded, from black to white in different shades of grey (either 12 bit (=4096 different shades of grey), 14 bit (=16384) or even 16 bit (=65536 different shades)). The only color information that is contained in the raw file is the type of Bayer array of the sensor (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bayer_filter). Color information is introduced at a later stage, when the file is opened and the type of Bayer array is taken into account to process the raw data and produce a colorful picture. As Chris Ross rightfully states, shutter speed influences intensity values on all the different pixels on the sensor the same way, no "if and but" is possible at this stage ... #2.: The other point is how processing of these raw data leads to different colors (=adjusting WB). Usually people adjust temperature and tint of their UW photos in post via software, e.g. LR. To some extend, such processing is already done automatically by the camera/processing software (Auto WB/ color profile) and this is how the photo appears on the screen, as a first suggestion for further adjustments by the photographer. The way of automatic adjustments varies from camera model to model and, beyond that, can be finetuned in the camera menue - hence an almost infinite number of possibilities exists and the outcome can be different from model to model and from photographer to photographer. I would say this outcome is, more or less, unpredictable. Here comes ChisH into the play, when he says rightfully that in his hands camera X and flash Y give best results already as they work by themselves and little adjustment of colors is needed in postprocessing (under these conditions shutter speed may even influence temperature/tint of the "original" image on the screen, depending on camera model and also how the photographer tunes the automatic features of the camera in the menue)... => As the bottomline I would say everybody is right in his own way, but please nobody confuses spectral properties of water with, in practice unpredictable, automatic processing of raw data (spectral properties of raw data are constant and invariable by shutter speed)... Wolfgang

I switched from Kenko 2x HD to the Sony 2x TC and think the results are a tick better and also the required extension is shorter (Canon 8-15mm, Metabones V adapter, A7R5, Nauticam 140mm fisheye dome). I do not observe significant increase of CA, compared to the pure 8-15mm fisheye, when I use the 2x TC. I have posted full resolution UW photos here. Canon 8-15mm with and w/o 2x Sony TC and WACP-C/Sony 28-60mm are compared (real images, no test screens): https://www.dpreview.com/forums/thread/4779356 https://www.dpreview.com/forums/thread/4779452 https://www.dpreview.com/forums/thread/4779455 My personal judgement was that regarding sharpness/microcontrast in the center, the pure 8-15mm is better, while WACP-C/28-60 and 8-15mm/2xTC perform similar (maybe WACP-C a tick better @28mm, but a tick worse @60mm when compared to 8-15mm/2xTC). I think your test images show similar findings: the 2x TC softens the images to some extend... All combinations loose IQ towards the edges, I was unable to find a difference, worth mentioning, between combinations in this aspect (I consider the IQ in the edges as secondary, as long as IQ there is reasonably o.k.)... => Of course the FOVs of 8-15mm/2xTC and WACP/28-60mm are only overlapping and not the same, but when I read in reviews that IQ of WACP-C and FCP-1 are similar, I have no urge to buy FCP and test it out (for sure I can make photos with 8-15mm/2x TC at apertures much wider as f/13 (f/13 appears to be the limit for FCP))... => I personally have ordered now a Sony 1.4x TC and plan to use the 1.4x by default, just to be on the safe side when IQ is concerned... Wolfgang

Maybe of interest for Nikon Z camera owners: A new Sony E to Nikon Z adapter appeared: https://petapixel.com/2025/01/13/viltrox-af-adapter-brings-all-that-e-mount-glass-to-nikon-z-for-only-99/

I have put some images taken with Canon8-15mm/2x Sony TC into this tread, also with links to DPReview, for full resolution pixel peeping (see October 7th, 2024): => Although IQ with Sony 2x TC seems o.k. for me, I think it is, more or less, comparable to WACP-C/Sony 28-60mm, I am reluctant to use it and have ordered the Sony 1.4x TC now...

Is it known how AF is in comparison to the Metabones V and Sigma MC-11 adapters? I have A7R5 and use Canon 8-15mm with Metabones V, mostly for photo (there is no switch for photo/video on this adapter, but a confusing switch between "regular" and "advanced" mode (Metabones says C-AF&tracking should work with this lens also in video mode, when set to "advanced")) and can report about this combo: C-AF&tracking works well with the pure lens and also with Kenko 1.4x/2x TCs, as well as with Sony 2x TC (I do not have so far a Sony 1.4x TC; with 2x TCs AF sometimes hunts, I guess because the widest aperture is f/8). I have very little experience with video, but remember that I do occasional refocusing by the dumb during the recording and this also works well (cannot remember now whether this is with or w/o TC)... Regarding the second question, I cannot say about FF but was using the Canon 8-15mm on MFT (Oly EM1II and EM5II) both with Nauticam 140mm fisheye domeport and with Zen DP170mm (non-fisheye for rectilinear WA; to some extent similar to the Ikelite 8" "compact" domeport that Chris was linking): IQ in center and corner was pretty similar in practice, MAYBE even a small tick better with DP170. This indicates that positioning is not really critical with fisheye lenses and the larger radius more than compensates for the wrong positioning (the 140 domeport is, however, much more handsome UW)... => The situation, especially in the corners, may, however, well be different when using the larger FF sensor (but see the Ikelite description)... Wolfgang

=> Via shutterspeed the brightness/intensity of the bluewater is adjusted, but not the color/temperature/tint of the water.. When one adjusts the water color in post via WB, also the color/temperature/tint of the forgeround object changes and quite often becomes to cold, especially when a "cold" strobe was used to lit it. Then one has to use masks in LR and adjust the color of bluewater and foreground separately. Not only a lot of work, but often masking is not perfect and artifacts can be introduced in the photo... => Hence I prefer to use warm diffusers (e.g. 4500K) and then no or less adjustments are needed... Wolfgang

Since the monthly vs. annual payment price is more or less the same, I am not sure that there will be an increase of the monthly rate also here in Austria. As often, there is no official information by Adobe available up to now (except the info about prices in $$, but there the cheaper monthly rate is just adjusted to match the annual rate)...😟 => In order to be on the save side, I changed my Abo from monthly to annual payment...

When one compares test photos between the 28-60mm and the 24-50mm at comparable focal lengths and apertures, one can see that the 24-50mm performs pretty similar, the 28-60mm is maybe even a small bit sharper: https://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=1525&Camera=1175&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=0&LensComp=1687&CameraComp=1538&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=1&APIComp=2 => Since the wider f/2.8 aperture and 24mm are not needed UW (in connection with WWL/WACP), I am not tempted to buy and test the 25-50mm for UW use... Wolfgang

It seems that the Adobe standard photography subscription (LR&PS plus 20 GB cloud storage) will raise from 9,99$/month to 14,99$/month, starting from January 2025. The annual subscription stays constant at 119$/year, therefore one should change to annual subscription: https://www.dpreview.com/news/5008248286/adobe-photoshop-lightroom-monthly-plan-price-increase-december-2024 I live in Austria/Europe and since ever pay 11,99 Euro/month (annual subscription is almost the same with 143,14 Euro/year). When I look at the Adobe homepage, I still see the old pricing there... => Does someone know, whether the price increase is happening also outside US (=should one change to annual subscription also in EU)? Thanks, Wolfgang

It is the older model, made in China. There is written "Made in China" on the strobe...

Regarding the Tokina 10-17mm, I think this is perfect for APS-C. The question is whether a 100mm domeport is sufficient or whether to take a 140mm domeport (which is also not monstrous)... No question, WWL/WACP have their own place. I use WACP-C on Sony FF and can say that one can go far below f/11 and still have good IQ. Overall IQ with WACP-C/Sony 28-60mm is o.k., but not outstanding... On the WA side, however, when I use WACP-C, I often have the urge to zoom out more than 130° and to take a 180° fisheye lens instead (but can not zoom in further with the FF system). So at the end, I take both WACP-C and (8-)15mm fisheye with me and use them alternately at different dives... On the long side WWL/WACP is amazing, as one can make photos of quite small subjects, even nudies. After longer diving holidays, when I can make multiple dives with different lenses, I find out that the keepers are the ones made with a true macro lens, they are just better. So at the end I keep only WACP-C photos of smaller subjects for documentation, which I was not able to photograph with the macro rig... In case a comparable zoom fisheye lens (e.g. 15-35mm, f/4) with high optical quality would exist for FF, I would not hesitate to exchange the big, heavy and expensive WACP-C against the fisheye lens with a 140mm domeport. As said above, I easily could waive the ability to shoot small subjects with the WA setup (I am also not a big fan of rectilinear WA lenses for UW use). Of course, this may be a very personal opinion... I believe the Canon R7 camera is quite the optimum for UW use of APS-C, since you can use the huge repertoire of Canon EF lenses, in case comparable RF lenses do not yet exist, especially macro. Macro lenses are the weak point of Sony cameras, both APS-C and FF... Wolfgang

I was using the screen for the first two years of UW-photopgraphy with EM5II and was happy. Then I switched to EM1II with 45° viewfinder and it was a revelation. Now A7R5 with 45° viewfinder and I had to use the screen again for the last two diving holidays (end of 2024), since the viewfinder was broken and at Nauticam for repair (water inbrake, repair still under warranty) - I was surprised that it is possibe to make UW photos without viewfinder, but no comparison (especially close to the surface where due to high ambient light, I was not able to see much on the screen)... As the others write, nothing exists for FF that is comparable to Canon 8-15mm on MFT or Tokina 10-17mm on APS-C. I am not sure that the heavy and expensive Nauticam FCP is a real substitute (maybe for the Tokina): I know of people who take both FCP and WACP with them (maybe because FCP is said to be good only at f/13 and more?)... => the A7R5 is a phantastic camera (DR, Megapixels (and optical sharpness) for cropping, AF), but a high optical quality zoom fisheye, e.g. 15-35mm f/4, is really missing... Wolfgang

Not really. I made some icons for applying basic actions as lens profiles plus initial settings in LR and PS (e.g. clarity, starting conditions for WB etc..), but these contain just text as "Sony 90mm", "Canon 8-15mm" etc...

I have now upgraded to software version 6.0.3.21385 (Mac OS is 15.1.1). The Loupedeck CT console is now again reponsive and changes its look when switching from one program to another ("dynamic mode" in the Loupedeck software needs to be swithced "ON")... The problem with the monochromatic icons in LRc still persists...