Architeuthis

I forgot to mention that Seacam said "This is not possible with a simple adapter", concerning my situation with Nauticam housing for Sony A7R5. I did not measure distances and compare to Seacam ( distance from housing mount to the sensor), but the information from Seacam suggests that the Seacam port, designed for Seacam housing, is too long for adapting to a Nauticam housing for Sony FF... I have no idea about Canon, but probably they will tell you when you ask them...

Just out of curiosity I asked Seacam whether they have tested more lenses/systems for use with OPP, especially Sony FF (I am just curious and not planning to acquire OPP in the near future). I was told that Sony FE 16-35mm f/2.8 GMII works perfect with OPP... They say that the right extension is critical, but they do not support use of their products on other parties housings (I have Nauticam). It should, however, not be a big problem to find out the right extension for an adapter, in case one wants to go rectilinear...

I can highly recommend a mask with glued in optical lenses (not just reading glasses in the lower area. E.g. I have a multifocal, near- sightedness and astigmatism corrected mask and I completely forget UW that my vision is impaired (the 700 Euros for such a mask is worth every cent; I have invested more money in some gear that I do not need/use)... Besides this, any of the optical stores (as e.g. recommended above) that produce such masks will glue you in reading lenses in a mask. You can buy masks with premounted reading glasses, e.g. here: https://www.uwfun24.de/polaris-maske-plus-tauchermaske-schnorchelmaske-mit-nahlesebereich-175-schwarz?etcc_med=SEA&etcc_par=Google&etcc_cmp=PerformanceMax&etcc_grp=&etcc_bky=&etcc_mty=&etcc_plc=&etcc_ctv=&etcc_bde=c&etcc_var=CjwKCAjwrNrQBhBjEiwAoR4VO-JI2bhFrJAjgnr3Czm1TjN7tJcH0QoRjfi5W0SoiVOOKTQ4v0QxXBoC0ZoQAvD_BwE&gad_source=1&gad_campaignid=20743095818&gclid=CjwKCAjwrNrQBhBjEiwAoR4VO-JI2bhFrJAjgnr3Czm1TjN7tJcH0QoRjfi5W0SoiVOOKTQ4v0QxXBoC0ZoQAvD_BwE or you can glue in the reading glasses by yourself, such as e.g. here: https://www.tauchversand.com/leseeinsaetze-fuer-jede-tauchmaske-1-75?srsltid=AfmBOooh5axfdLgnt5lieVMdEvn4vJGLUqmJH39IKZekxTNv5EvwAUmaR60 Wolfgang

I fear even the Kenko TC is not possible with native Sony FE lenses. As far as I know, the Kenko TCs are produced only for Nikon and Canon EF, see e.g here: https://kenkoglobal.com/product/teleplus_hd_pro_1_4x_dgx/#specifications

There are several factors: #1.: the prodruding element(s) of the Sony TC(s): the mechanical exception, i.e. TCs that work with almost any lens, are the Kenko TCs, that do not have such protruding elements. Native TCs (Sony, Canon EF, Canon RF, e.g.) have protruding elements that make it impossible to mount the TCs on most lenses, except the lenses for that the TCs have been designed for... #2.: The electronic communication of Sony TCs is often blocked by the firmware, even when the native TC fits mechanically, unless it is a lens that is approved by Sony to work with the native TCs... #3.: An exception is the arrangement Canon EF 8-15mm/Metabones V (Canon-EF to Sony FE)/Sony TC (1.4x or 2x), where the glassless adapter provides the space for the protruding element of the native TC(s) and the camera is communicating without problems with the TC/adapter/lens arrangement (It must be said, however, that this communication could potentially stop to work with any firmware update of the camera)... => It would be great in case it is possible to use the new AF fisheye lens with native Sony TCs, but it would be a very pleasant surprise for me in case it is possible (even if it is possible mechanically and electronically, there remains to be seen how the optical IQ is)... Wolfgang

This is interesting... You say the Sony 2x TC will fit into the Laowa 8-15mm f/2.8 fisheye lens? In case it fits mechanically and electronically it will be very interesting to see photois made with Sony 1.4x and 2x TCs...

When used as it is, i.e. circular fisheye and/or 180° diagonal fisheye, it is certainly an advantage (in case optical IQ is o.k.). I see no way to use TCs, therefore still no substitute for Canon 8-15mm & adapter...

A review about the older manual focus version came out: https://opticallimits.com/nikon/laowa-8-15mm-f-2-8-ff-zoom-fisheye-review/

The entire setup (camera with Canon 8-15mm fisheye, rectilinear WA lens plus dome/wetlens or macro lens plus port) will be almost the same, no matter whether you mount a real (MFT) camera or the GoPro with its tiny sensor. I find the GoPro with the fixed WA lens interesting for someone who wants a tiny UW camera, the interchangeable MFT lens version is too weak to use it UW as a system camera...

Interesting review... Did you have a chance to test IQ, when MFO-3 is used with the lens & 1.4x TC?

Yes, please ask... I think there are several interested...

I, personally, am not a compact camera UW photographer... This camera looks to be an alternative to the common Sony and Canon compact cameras used UW? https://www.dpreview.com/articles/9011490317/panasonic-l10-2026-tour-controls-changes DivePhotoGuideNauticam Announces Housing for the Panasonic Lumix L10

Can you please give details about the manufacturer and how to order the floats?

I have two HF-1's almost since they came out. At the first dive I was shocked by the torque that the (UW) heavy strobes produced on the rig (Nauticam/Sony A7R5), but coming from Z-330 I was used to place most floats on the inner arms. Since I place more floats on the outer arms no problem any more, everything is fine, no need to overtigthen the clamps... I never considered TTL, but I find it useful that with the Backscatter trigger for Sony I can switch to HSS just by switching the flash from "Manual" to "HSS", without any further adjustment on the camera...

I can only confirm the posts above how useful a 45° viewfinder in combination with EFV of the camera is. No problem with image review UW. The seldom problem I have is, when I intend to make a photo directly 90° downwards (e.g. for "circular" panning). Then I can use the "C1" custom button on my Sony A7R5 to toggle to the screen, but it is better not to use the 45° viewfinder on the rig in such a case, as it is an obstacle for viewing the screen...

Here is a tread about using the Canon 8-15mm f/4 fisheye with TCs: It seems to me that for a Canon FF camera the Kenko Teleplus HD pro 1.4x DGX TC is the best (Kenko also has the Teleplus HD 1.4x DGX TC, but this one is optically inferior): https://kenkoglobal.com/product/teleplus_hd_pro_1_4x_dgx/

PetaPixelSony a7R VI Review: The High-Resolution Camera to Rule Th...Sony's lead in the high-res camera segment has widened significantly.https://www.dpreview.com/reviews/sony-a7r-vi-review

This looks interesting, I never have dared to set my rig up like this... Are there certain conditions/circumstances were you use the "short" configuration vs. long arms (= are the long arms just superfluos ballast)?

The photo shows a dwarf gobi (Pleurosicya micheli) from Mafia Island/Tansania. It has attached two spirals at its side (I have seen such spirals at these dwarf gobies occasionally aready before). What is it (eggs, parasites)? Thanks, Wolfgang Sony A7R5; Sony 90mm f/2.8 macro lens; 1* Backscatter MF-2 flash with snoot; 1/200s; f/20; ISO100.

Here a written review from Alex Mustard on the OPP: https://www.amustard.com/seacam_opp/?fbclid=IwY2xjawRWpYtleHRuA2FlbQIxMABicmlkETF5VlZybEI5M2VkM3Z6VkRVc3J0YwZhcHBfaWQQMjIyMDM5MTc4ODIwMDg5MgABHrL_VAnrzLArTrNKHmqNk-rDr0RmjPEwp192aXJj4wLj6gI8B89VBYkxx2KB_aem_JeinsEUaFTq2fWVTuFXrHg (Now the question for me is, whether and how I could use the OPP with my Nauticam Sony A7R5 housing and with wich lens - it seems to be a great alternative to the WACP-C... 🙂)

It is the Sony 20-70mm f/4 G lens. It is not of the highest optical quality (Sony labels such lenses with "GM"), but is regarded a decent performer... Here you can find serious over-water reviews of both Sony 20-70mm and the Canon 8-15mm. The reviews state that both lenses are very sharp (but one cannot directly compare the absolute values in lp/mm, since the Canon values were measured on a completely different camera/sensor): https://www.lenstip.com/643.1-Lens_review-Sony_FE_20-70_mm_f_4_G_Introduction.html https://www.lenstip.com/311.1-Lens_review-Canon_EF_8-15_mm_f_4_L_Fisheye_USM_Introduction.html My "ratings" of the UW performance of different lens/port/water contact optics combinations are based on dozends, sometimes hundreds of dives and are completely subjective. No test carts and/or measurements, motifs and conditions are always different. It is a pity that the companies that develop and sell domeports and water contact optics do not make their measurements/test chart photos, that they certainly have, accessible to the potential customers (I suspect they have reasons)... Here links to some UW photos I made with Sony 20-70mm and some other combinations discussed here: https://www.dpreview.com/forums/threads/sample-photos-from-sony-20-70mm-f-4-and-a7r5-uw.4724115/ https://www.dpreview.com/forums/threads/canon-8-15mm-fisheye-lens-with-sony-2x-tc-on-sony-a7r5-sample-photos-part-1.4779356/ https://www.dpreview.com/forums/threads/canon-8-15mm-fisheye-lens-with-sony-2x-tc-on-sony-a7r5-sample-photos-part-2.4779452/ https://www.dpreview.com/forums/threads/canon-8-15mm-fisheye-lens-with-sony-2x-tc-on-sony-a7r5-sample-photos-part-3.4779455/ No, I never used them. I could spot several WACP-1s at UW photography workshops and immediately was sure that I do not want to deal with such big staff (I find the "compact" WACP-C version already big and heavy enough)...

The initial statement “You cannot improve a lens’s in-air optical performance underwater.” is clear and true, but exceptions exist... (The Tokina 10-17mm fisheye lens behind a domeport, e.g., performs clearly better UW compared to the performance at the surface (especially when used together with a 0.71x speedbooster)...) Are optical jewels automatically performing better compared to, average quality, kit lenses for UW WA? Certainly not. Too many factors that ruin IQ UW ... An UW WA setup that would provide the idential optical quality, as an average kit lens provides on the surface, would be a true gem and a favorite for all of us... Already in the center the sharpness is diminished, just by the water (absorption and diffraction of the light), even when it is clear, not to speak about bad vis, to an extend that goes below the standards we are used on the surface. Not to speak about the corners that never can be sharp when using a domeport (or water contact optics) and the unpleasant distortions that (mostly rectilinear) lenses produce away from the center... The question is rather: what system, in combination, gives the least impaired results (lens/domeport combination, fisheye lens (with and w/o TCs), water contact optics/lens combination)? The lens itself is certainly a contributing factor, but it must not be overrated: A high quality WA lens that does not perform well behind a domeport can not reach the IQ of a kit lens in compination with water contact optics (e.g. because of a field curvature that is opposite to the curvature of the virtual image produced by the domeport; entrance pupil that makes correct positioning difficult). Another example is a 180° diagonal fisheye lens that, just because of the shortest object distance and hence minimal IQ detoriation produced by the water, gives way sharper images compared to a lens with considerably larger object distance... Only with lenses that work very well together with a domeport and in very clear waters one may be able to see differences that come from the lens itself. In my personal experience, the Sony 20-70mm and Tokina 17-28mm (Sony FF) and the Zuiko 12-40mm pro (Oly MTF), all behind Zen DP170, perform very well UW and give (subjectively) sharper images compared to Sony 28-60mm/WACP-C (FF), but only when conditions are at their best. The pure Canon 8-15mm fisheye comes close in sharpness to the Sony 20-70mm/DP170, but when used with TCs (Kenko 1.4x Teleplus HD pro DGX or Sony 2x TC) IQ is comparable to 28-60mm/WACP-C... As far as I know, none of these lenses provides the highest optical standards on the surface, but the Sony 28-60mm kit lens is certainly the least performing lens of them and a league below the others (Chip reports, however, that 28-60mm gives better results with WACP-1, hence 28-60mm/WACP-C is not the last rung in the ladder)... Wolfgang

When the discussion comes to Kenko TCs for Canon EF mount, one must say that there exist TWO versions of both 1.4x and 2x TC: the "Teleplus HD DGX" and the "Teleplus HD pro DGX"... I have the Kenko Teleplus HD DGX 2x TC version and used it few times with the Canon 8-15mm on Sony A7R5. Unfortunately, the IQ suffers a lot with this TC (too much for my taste). In comparison the Kenko Teleplus HD pro DGX 1.4x TC works very well with this fisheye lens (for me and that is what also several others reported here)... I do not own the Teleplus HD pro DGX 2x TC, but in the tread linked below, Massimo ("guest") has tested it and found that it worked very well (maybe comparable to the Sony 2x TC, that can be used on Sony cameras together with the Canon 8-15mm with sufficient quality):

The occasion to have two macro lenses with different focal lengths at the same dive looks very tempting (but what about the often quoted "dedicated mindset" of the UW photographer 😄?). I have some questions, especially to people who use MFO-3 with Sony 100mm GM. According to Nauticam, the empirically measured FOVs, for objects at macro distance, behind planport are 24° without (corresponding to approx. 100mm) and 40° with MFO-3 (corresponding to approx. 60mm focal length)... #1.: How is the IQ of the 100mm lens & MFO-3 compared to a pure macro lens with shorter focal length, e.g. the Sony 50mm macro lens? #2.: What about using the MFO-3 together with the lens, when 1.4x, or even 2x, TCs are attached (I guess since the TCs already by themselves degrade IQ to some extend, MFO-3 makes it even worse?)? Thanks, Wolfgang

When the fisheye/domeport positioning is corrct, there is no reason why the sample images between UW and on the surface should be different. If not, not only optical flaws, but also barell- and pincushion distortion will be pronounces/enhanced, depending on how wrong the positioning is... Here a link to some samle photos taken with the 7-14mm fisheye lens: https://www.dpreview.com/products/canon/lenses/canon_rf_7-14_2p8-3p5_fisheye_l_stm/sample-photos