Architeuthis

There was a tread about his distance, maybe you can get the required information from there: Furthermore, the Google AI says that Isotta and Sea&Sea are "cross-compatible", since they have the same distance - but this MUST be confirmed by Isotta, Sea&Sea or owners here, before building on this: "How big is the difference in flange distance between Isotta, Sea & Sea and nauticam housings for underwater use of FF cameras? In underwater photography housings, the "housing flange distance"—the mechanical measurement from the camera’s actual lens mount to the front opening of the housing where lens ports or extension rings attach—varies considerably across brands. [1, 2] Isotta and Sea & Sea share an identical native port mount design, meaning their housing flange distances are effectively the same, while Nauticam stands apart with a significantly longer flange distance on its standard full-frame (N120) housings. [1, 2] The Flange Distance Comparison When comparing housings designed for Full-Frame (FF) mirrorless cameras (such as Sony E-mount, Canon RF, or Nikon Z), the approximate mechanical distances from camera mount to housing port opening are: Isotta (B120 Mount): ~38 mm Sea & Sea (Custom Bayonet): ~38 mm (Native cross-compatibility with Isotta) Nauticam (N120 Mount): ~60 mm (ranging between 58.8 mm and 66 mm depending on the specific camera model’s native body depth) [1, 2, 3] The difference in housing flange distance between Nauticam and Isotta / Sea & Sea is roughly 22 mm. [1] Why This Difference Matters Because Nauticam positions its housing port opening roughly 22 mm further forward, it changes how lenses align inside the port system: [1, 2] Port & Extension Ring Lengths: If you cross-adapt a port between these brands, you cannot use the same extension ring sizes. A lens setup that requires a 40 mm extension ring on an Isotta/Sea & Sea housing will typically require a much shorter extension ring (or no ring at all) on a Nauticam housing to keep the lens elements perfectly aligned with the dome port's optical center. [1, 2] Native Cross-Compatibility: Because Isotta and Sea & Sea share the exact same physical bayonet system and flange depth, their native ports, extension rings, and dome ports can be swapped directly between housings without any adaptation. [] Using Nauticam Ports on Isotta/Sea & Sea: You can use Nauticam N120 ports on Isotta or Sea & Sea housings by swapping out the port's rear lug plate for a Sea & Sea style lug plate. Because the Isotta/Sea & Sea housing is shallower (~38 mm) than the Nauticam (~60 mm), the adapted Nauticam port will sit closer to the camera. To compensate, Isotta offers specific adapter rings (like the H18 and H26 B120-to-N120 adapters) which physically space the Nauticam port forward by 18 mm to 26 mm to perfectly recreate the correct optical distance. [1, 2, 4, 5] If you are trying to calculate a specific configuration, what camera body and lens model are you planning to use? I can help you look up the precise extension ring math or official port charts for your setup. [1]"

According to the posting below, Sea & Sea ports can be used on Nauticam housings via adaptors or minor exchanges at the ports basis:

I had once problems with condensation on a Nauticam 140mm domeport in a cold mountain lake on a rainy day: reason was a 120N extension where screws were missing (from factory). Few droplets of water came in (maybe half or quarter of a teaspoon), not enough for the vacuum or moisture systems to react, and this caused the condensation...

When DR is a foremost criterion for selection of a camera, the Sony A7V and Sony A7RVI offer indeed improved DR and are ahead of other camera models (they use a new technology of A/D conversion of the photoelectrons at the sensor): https://www.photonstophotos.net/Charts/PDR.htm#Canon%20EOS%20R5%20Mark%20II,Sony%20ILCE-1M2,Sony%20ILCE-7M5,Sony%20ILCE-7RM6 At the linked camera review site you can have a look by yourself, how the increased DR translates to better shadow improvement ("exposure latitude"; a photo of a test chard is made and in postprocessing the exposure is increased by 6 EVs to make the noise in the shadows visible): www.dpreview.com/reviews/image-comparison/fullscreen?attr144_0=sony_a7rvi&attr144_1=sony_a7v&attr144_2=canon_eosr5ii&attr144_3=sony_a1ii&attr146_0=100_6&attr146_1=100_6&attr146_2=100_6&attr146_3=100_6&attr177_0=off&attr177_1=off&attr177_2=efc&attr177_3=off&normalization=compare&widget=1011&x=0.14411875835858645&y=0.550063089572198 => It is, however, important to add that this increased DR of approx. 1 f-stop compared to older camera models (e.g. Canon R5II or Sony A1II) applies only to low ISO values (approx. in the ISO 100-400 range) and at ISO values above 600 the improvement is gone...

The camera system and the optics are two different items and should be treated separately... #1.: Regarding the camera, Canon R5II and Sony A1 have very similar DR, at base ISO as well as at elevated ISO, e.g. see here: https://www.photonstophotos.net/Charts/PDR.htm#Canon%20EOS%20R5%20Mark%20II,Sony%20ILCE-1M2 There is no improvement to expect in practice, when switching from Canon to Sony, but noise can be treated very effectively today with AI routines, e.g. in LRc. The Sony A1, as you say, is a little bit smaller compared to Canon, also with housing (the smallest FF camera with housing is the Sony A7cII (or A7CR); this may be the way to go when one intends to reduce size/weight of camera&housing). When it comes to metering and AF, I expect similar results with both cameras when the complicated menues are set to the right parameters (I only can say from own experience for Sony A7R5, which I have; metering and AF are excellent, but the menue is complicated and confusing. I needed some trial and error to get the rig configured to my needs. I also assigned several custom buttons to switch between different AF modes/areas UW (I think there is still room for improvement if I just understood the manual/menue better)) #2.: Regarding the optics, the WACP-2 is optically the best, but a monster (when zooming a little out, vignetting should not be a problem any more, provided the rigth extension is used). I only saw it once in my life and immediately knew WACP-2 is not for me. The difference in camera/housing is almost neglectible compared to the difference in size/weigth of the optics, when WACP-2 and e.g. a 140mm domeport with fisheye lens are compared... I have WACP-C with the Sony 28-60mm (many use this combo, are highly satisfied and there are similar configurations available for Canon), which is substantially smaller and lighter compared to WACP-2 (note that also the WACP-1 is clearly bigger/heavier compared to WACP-C). I do not think that for UW use f/2.8 is a big advantage compared to f/4-5.6 as one (normally) does not go below f/7 (at most f/5.6)to have sharp images also away from the center... I, personally, prefer the Canon 8-15mm, as it provides 180° diagonal compared to 130°, wich is the maximum for the WACP-C combo... The Canon 8-15mm fisheye in 140mm domeport provides not only 180° diagonal, but is also small and clever. When used with TCs, it can be used at more narrow angles of view. I only can say what combinations of 8-15mm/TCs work for Sony, but here are people posting here who use the Canon fisheye with TCs (see e.g. the post of user "WASO" in this tread here: https://waterpixels.net/forums/topic/3095-nauticamcanon-wa-questions/page/3/#comment-26191) Alternatively one could acquire Nauticams FCP, but I doubt this solutions does any better compared to fisheye lens with TC... All the best, Wolfgang

I am not familiar with the Canon lens choices, but very likely this choice is similar to the Sony system (it is a problem for UW, that the systems lack really very suitable lenses, e.g 15-35mm f/4 fisheye; but for these perspectives the wet lenses do exist)... I am sure a switch from Canon R5II to Sony A1 will not make a recognizable difference, but a careful evaluation of WA combinations available for Canon will certainly improve the photographic potential (WACP-2 with 14-35mm lens is (probably) optically very good, but extremely bulky and heavy). For baited/feeded sharks a fisheye lens with (or without) Teleconverter may be also very good but much more handsome (for me, personally, WACP-C with 130° diagonal maximum would not enough for such cases)..

I also lost a shakle from the Nauticam clamp and bought later another shakle at the hardware store, but in the meantine during ten diving vacation a keyring that I had with me was also fine...

Hi Chip, Are you sure the right extension for Canon+2xTC is 50mm? I use it with 60mm extension (35mm&25mm) and Dreifish even suggested more, based on his testing (but I get occasional vignetting by sensor stabilization when I take his suggestion)... In my files I see that for Canon+1.4x Kenko an extension of 50mm is required - your zoomgear should just fit in case you use the 50mm extension (maybe you have to remove the gear teeth wheel from the 35.5mm extension before it fits?). I do not use a separate zoomgear, but use an extension collar for my regular Nauticam zoomgear (placed in the DIY section for 3D print). I remember faintly that someone (Gudge?) fabricated an entire zoomgear and placed it also there... Wolfgang

I came from MFT (Oly EM5II/EM1II) and changed to FF (Sony A7R5). Indeed the size difference is the greatest when it comes to macro setups. The Nauticam/A7R5/Sony 100mm macro/MFO-3 (on flip adapter) setup is now the biggest ever, while MFT macro was smart and tiny...😄 Paradoxically not so much difference when WA is concerned (WACP-C; Canon 8-15mm fisheye; Tokina 17-28mm behind Zen DP170 - compared to MFT with similar optics)... => I wish you great dives and fun with your new setup. I am eager to hear about your experiences... Wolfgang

It is the combo, so i cannot say which element caused the flare... As said the flare occurs very seldom and is not a real problem...

I cannot say about WWL, since I never used it. I Have WACP-C/Sony 28-60mm and can say that flare occurs very seldom. Here is one of the few examples I have, when I got flare in the photo, when I photographed against the sun:

Maybe you should not let stress yourself by this single trip. It seems that up to now you were happily making photos with your A7R3 (If I had an A7R3, I also would consider an upgrade)? If no good bargain shows up, why not wait and make the next trip with the camera you already have and upgrade afterwards? Within the next half year, prices for new A7R6 will drop considerably, as well as Nauticam housings for A7R5 will appear on the second hand market...

I have A7R5 in Nauticam housing. I am very happy with the camera and have no urge to upgrade now. Both A7R5 and (for sure) A7R6 are very capable UW cameras. Even better AF and more DR of A7R6 is certainly tempting.. If buying new, I would go for A7R6, just because of the longer usable span from now (more futureproof). A budget friendly, and also very good, option is to look for a second hand Nauticam housing for R5, maybe together with camera. I guess several people will upgrade now and want so sell (I would not go for a new A7R5 housing now, the price is the same as for R6)... Wolfgang P.S.: I do not have a backup camera at present(sooner or later I will have to acquire a second body, since my over water photography is now restricted to the arrival and the last day before departure of a trip, during the rest of the time the camera is integrated into the setup; having one housing that fits both cameras is certainly an advantage )

PetaPixelThe Sony a7R VI Has the Best Dynamic Range of Any Full-Fr...The Sony a7R VI enters medium-format territory.

Just out of curiosity: in case one would switch from Nauticam (e.g. A7R5) to Marelux A75(R6) housing, would it be possible to mount a single adapter to the Marelux housing and continue to use all Nauticam ports/extensions (and adjust the regular Nauticam extensions for an easy to achieve distance (e.g. +/- 10mm) to compensate for the difference in sensor<->port mount distance)? Which one?