Architeuthis

As long as you are happy with this camera over the water, it will be fine for UW as well...

How is the IQ of photos made in the APS-C crop mode compared to photos using the entire sensor, but with 1.4x TC?

What one can say is, that cropping from a FF sensor will give identical results as using the lens on cameras with smaller sensors that have the pixel counts below: #1.: Using a 8-14(15)mm fisheye lens on FF and cropping 1.4x to APS-C gives 26 Mpixel (in case of Sony A7R5) and 28 Mpixel (for A7R6), etc... #2.: When cropping 2x the pixel count becomes simply a quarter, i.e. 15,3 Mpixel for A7R5 and 16,7 Mpixel for A7R6. => I believe it is a save bet that using the zoom FE lens on an APS-C camera gives the same IQ compared to an image from high resolution FF, that has been cropped to APS-C size (A6700, for comparison, has 26 Mpixel). => I am not sure about cropping down to MFT sensor size. 15-16 Mpixels are, however, still not so bad... The question is, how much IQ can be restored by the use of TCs (in case TCs are available) in comparison to cropping, when 1.4x or 2x TCs are considered... I would be very interested to see such a determination and comparison of imaging quality under standardized studio conditions (crop vs. TC), in case somebody would bother to do the tests...🙂

"If you decide you want both on a trip, consider picking up a WWL-1B. Basically the same quality as the rest, with the faster focus and greater zoom range of the WACP-C in a smaller, more travel friendly size. I planned on selling my WWL when I picked up the C, but it has been nice to have both for that reason. Edited Tuesday at 10:46 AM by ChipBPhoto" Regarding the AOVs, here is a comparison of diagonal AOVs between Nauticam wetlenses (from portchard, with Sony 28-60mm) and Canon 8-15mm +/- TCs (calculated for equisolid fisheye): I find the zoom range of Canon 8-15mm/2xTC more than plenty. I do not find that the zoom range of the WACP-C is better. On the contrary, for me personally, the wider AOV towards 170° is more important compared to the additional range at the narrow end, that the WACP-C/28-60mm delivers. When e.g. photografing shy sharks in suboptimal visibility, I am tempted to zoom in to the maximum (29,9mm in case of the Canon) in order to frame the sharks better, only to find out later that the distance is too much and hence IQ is really bad. In the end I take photos from the few occasions (if existing), when the sharks come closer and I can use shorter focal lengths... Similar is the situation for "macro" photography: Both Canon 8-15mm/2xTC and WACP-C/28-60mm allow to take photos of pretty small subjects at ridiculous short object distance (see e.g. the example photo for Canon 8-15mm/2xTC below). When selecting and postprocessing my photos at the end of a diving holiday, however, I keep (and put to my final slideshow) mostly photos taken with a dedicated macro lens on another dive (Sony 100mm +/- MFO-3 in my case), since larger object distance allows better ligth (sometimes also with snoot) and IQ (and also sharpness) with the macro lens is clearly better... => bottomline is that, for my personal needs, the narrow end of the combo, as well as "macro" capabilities, are nice to have for documentation of seldom occasions. For the real keepers the wide end is the really important part for me. Caonon 8-15mm/2xTC @29,9mm; 1/160s; F/9; ISO100; 2*HF-1 (4500K diffusers):

I have Canon 8-15mm, old Nauticam N120 140mm domeport and the 35,5mm N120/N100 adapter. No problem to use with pure fisheye lens (30mm N120 extension) and also with 2x Sony TC (60mm N120 extension)... => I guess the new Sony fisheye with N100 140mm domeport is a lot more smaller/lighter... (I guess also Canon 8-15mm +/- TC will be lighter/smaller with the N100 domeport, but not sure whether the assembly fits into it) I also have WACP-C/Sony 28-60mm, but the N100 version of WACP-C. Just needs a 30mm N100 extension, no N120/N100 adapter required.

It may be a similar situation to Tokina 10-17mm on APS-C: IQ bad over the water, but UW not really worse compared to excellent lenses behind domeport. Another consideration is comparison to Nauticam's FCP-1: I never used FCP and cannot say from own experince, but the big shots here say FCP is not as sharp overall compared to WACP-C. I conclude that, optically, FCP cannot be better compared to Canon 8-15mm/2xTC, maybe it is even worse. Maybe similar AF advantage as WACP has over f/8 of Canon 8-15mm/2xTC. But then focus shift issues might occur when, after focusing, aperture is closing from wide open to f/13, or even more, to achieve good corners (when focusing already at f/13, AF is likely also not so good in dim light)...

I fully agree (similar IQ, a tad better in dim light with WACP-C). At home I can easily choose bewteen Canon 8-15m/2x TC and WACP-C/Sony 28-60mmm. Problem starts when air travelling. Then I have to decide wich one of these two to take with me, then I always decide for the fisheye...

This, more or less, how I do it (I let LRc create the daily subfolders in a folder that I have precreated and take only the photos that I select as possible keepers; XMP files are stored along with the RAW files in the same directory). I find the LRc system, however, confusing: when I start and need to select a subfolder of a specific day, I see the volumes (one SSD at the PC and another NAS), but no subdirectories, as my LRc is configured at present. Under each volume, I just see the subdirectories representing individual days (I rather would prefer to have the entire path, e.g. ws_data/phts/2026/2026_06_Beli/2026-06-14 as specific example, and this long path just for higher subdirectories, where I have selected to see). That makes the selection and keeping the overview difficult. Furthermore, some daily subdirectories got lost in time in LRc, fortunately not on the volume (certainly my fault by pushing accidentially a wrong button). Upon reimport, LRc does not let me, since the photos are considered duplicates... After processing the photos of an individual trip get transferred to the NAS. I have to tell LRc individually for every daily subdirectory, that the location of the files has changed. Just a lot of unnecessary operations wasting my time... => These are just two complaints out of many. For me, the Library module is pretty unintuitive...

No it does not! I organize my photos very similar as you do, but I want to organize my photos completely outside of LRc (without the many extra troubles involved). I just do not need this module and there is no option to work without it...

Yes -absolutely! But Adobe should provide the option to do it the simple and individual way too. I think I am not asking for too much...

I use LRc and PS with Macbook Pro M1... Great software and no need for an alternative, but what makes me outrageous is the "Library" system: Instead of having the option to define the folders/subfolders from where to take the photos and where to place the Adobe specific files by oneself and just use the "Develop" module, one has to use the entire Adobe Libraray-system that I find complicated and confusing... I wrote them several times, but still they do not offer this simple and easy to implement option...

This item is sold now...