Architeuthis

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

Best solution when staying with Zuiko 8mm ... 👍 And when you counterbalance the gain from selling the N120 version, it will be little money in summary...

The advice from Cris is very good. Tokina 10-17mm or Canon 8-15mm. Same IQ compared to Zuiko 8mm, but much better versatility. It comes, however, at a cost (I believe it is worth every cent), maybe the price is comparable (the speedbooster is not cheap), but you can count together the current price of items by yourself... Another possibility is, that you do not need an extension as short as 17mm and, in practice, it could be somewhat longer. I was using e.g., the Zuiko 8mm with the 34.7mm N85/N120 adapter, as well as with a custom made 30mm N85/N120 adapter with the Nauticam 140mm domeport, with very good results (the extension recommended by Nauticam is 30mm). Theoretically there should be no difference between 140mm and 100mm domeports regarding extensions, since both are hemispheres (but there may be a difference in practice)... Wolfgang

A drawback is that it is manual focus only...

https://www.sonyalpharumors.com/first-image-of-the-new-laowa-af-180mm-f4-5-1-5x-apo-and-12mm-f-2-8-zero-d/

nomfo4 is way sharper - it seems that mfo4 is not in focus... Anyway I am thankful for these interesting comparison shots...👍

Thanks for posting the images...👍👍👍 The difference is really small, according to my subjective judgement. When I look directly on the screen, the lower one looks a little bit more contrasty (could be easily changed with LR in postprocessing with one of the contrast sliders). When I download the images and magnify them on my screen, the upper one shows a little bit more detail... Which lens was used (camera was OM-1?)? => Now I would like to have someone post similar comparisons with the Sony 90mm macro and FF... Wolfgang

I have a question regarding the EMWL relay unit: when one does not mount this acessory "relay" unit and just uses the "focusing" unit and the "objective lens", what kind of inversion does the image in the EVF show: (i) upside down, (ii) mirror image or both (i)&(ii)? Thanks, Wolfgang

Yes, please show all the images...

When travel weight is the primary concern, also WWL-1B with flatport and 28-60mm lens may be an option, probably the lightest combo for Sony FF (For Nikon Z a standard zoom lens exists, that allows to use the lighter WWL-C). FOV of WWL-1B, however, remains the same compared to WACP-C (when I travel with my WACP-C, I always take the Canon 8-15mm/140mm domeport/N100-N120 adapter with me in addition, for the really wide WA)... Maybe the Tamron 17-28mm with Zen DP170 (plus N100/N120 adapter and extensions) comes also into this weight range (I did not count the grams so far), but FOV is not extremely wide either at the short end... It is certainly impossible to take all this in the cabin with handluggage. Domeports, WACP-C, extensions/adapters go to the check-in lugagge and we (two UW photographers) have always two additional suitcases ("diving" luggage) of check-in luggage. When we go with little airplanes to small islands, we have to book an extra-seat for the additional luggage with the airline. Of course, when some check-in luggage gets delayed or even lost, this is a problem, certainly on the arrival-trip...

Barmaglot has already linked treads with plenty of information... I have Sony A7R5 and use it with 28-60mm/WACP-C, Canon 8-15mm (with and w/o Kenko and Sony 1.4x and 2x TCs; now I use it predominantly with Sony 2x TC when longer focal lengths are needed) and can say something, but it is from from my subjective experience, I do not make optical benchmark tests UW: "1) will changing to this be a dent on image quality?": IQ of the pure Canon 8-15mm fisheye lens is at least as good as the 28-60/WACP-C combo, even a bit sharper. Together with the 2x Sony TC the Canon 8-15mm provides very similar IQ, compared to the 28-60/WACP-C combo (maybe WACP-C is a bit better at 28mm, but gets a bit less sharp at 60mm). "2) is the mini dome viable and a decent option? Primary consideration is the weight savings. However I do see the 140mm glass dome recommended more.": I just used 140mm glass dome on FF. My wife is using 100mm glass dome together with the Tokina 10-17mm/0.71x speedbooster on MFT (Oly EM1II). Both give very good results in IQ. I did not use 100mm glass on FF, but several people write that this is a bad compromise for FF (most use it just for specialiced photis as very CFWA, but I find 140mm also very good for this). The acryl dome should not be different from glass, just the radius matters, except some flair when photos are made against the sun and acryl is much more prone to scratching (one does not see minimal scratches in most pohotos, but when photos are made against the sun these minimal scratches can show up without mercy). "3) what is the equivalent field of view at the 15mm end? can I still get normal rectilinear wide angle shots? I know the 8mm end is a full circular fish eye.": At 15mm you get 180° diagonal FOV with a fisheye on FF. When using the 2x Sony TC, you start with 16mm (approx. 170°, what is pretty wide) and end with 30mm (approx. 85°). This compares to 130° at 28mm up to 68° at 60mm for the WACP-C combo. I, personally, do not miss the 85°-68° range of the WACP-C, since the working distance is already often too large to give good IQ at this long range. On the other side, I permanently miss the range wider than 130° when I am with the WACP-C combo. The WACP-C does not give rectilinear optics, but it gives fisheye look. Just more moderate fisheye look, just as longer focal length fisheye lenses do. I, personally, do not like extreme rectilinear WA UW. The Sony 20-70mm in 170mm WA dome is enough for me regarding rectilinear WA (Tamron 17-28mm is also very good, but zoom range is limited). When wider, rectilinear lenses produce extreme elongations towards the edges that I do not like at all (I also have Laowa 10mm that behaves o.k. behind the 140mm glass dome, but used it only for two dives, I really dislike the optics towards the edges)... "4) anything else I should consider?": you could also consider the FCP-1 that gives similar FOVs as the Canon 8-15mm with 2x Sony TC behind 140mm dome, but I am not aware about strict tests that compare the optical IQ of both FCP-1/28-60mm and 8-15mm/2x SonyTC/140mm domeport (I believe the difference in IQ must be small, since some professionals still prefer the WACP-1 over the FCP-1 (because of IQ), when FOVs wider than 130° are not required)... Wolfgang

In the new UwP144 (May/June), there is a review about MFO-1 (with Sony 90mm macro): https://www.uwpmag.com/ Just a repetition of what has been already told/advertised: works nice, a little more magnification, better IQ and better AF, but still no side by side demonstration of the improved IQ... In case somebody here has the MFO-1 on a flip holder it would be really great to see comparable photos with and w/o MFO-1...

Looks good to me. Color temp is maybe a bit cold... 👍 Just out of curiosity, I checked the price: very well priced in Europe (899 Euro) vs. almost twice in US (1699$): https://www.backscatter.com/AOI-Ultra-InTeLi-Underwater-Strobe-UIS-P1 Onderwaterhuis BasisAOI UIS-P1 Ultra InTeLi StrobeThis compact innovative new underwater strobe from AOI features a ring flash tube, COB light and supports both Sony TTL and OM System RC and manual exposure. .. => US customers probably better wait, I have the impression that the tax regulations are changing daily (hopefully tax will return to normal soon)...