Architeuthis

No, she does not make videos. I also make very little video only. In my MFT times I was focusing before I started video recording and during the recording by hand or seldom single spot AF actions (because of hunting, that was always a problem during video with EM1II and EM5II, with all the lenses I had). I cannot remember to have ever made video with the Tokina (I used it seldom, because I had the Canon 8-15)... Wolfgang

Adapted Canon 8-15mm is probably perfect, but 8mm fisheye may be too wide... A alternative to WWL-1, that is small and handsome and provides very good IQ is adapted Tokina 10-17mm (Canon EF version) with 1x glassless adapter (can be exchanged against 0.71x speedbooster for wider angle), Zen DP100 (N120 version without built in extension) and 20mm N120 extension (same extension can be used also with 0.71x speedbooster for wider angle, if required). This combo is not as wide compared to Canon 8-15mm, it covers practical the range of WWL-1, but is much smaller than WWL-1 and IQ is, at least, the same... Lisi, my wife, used this combination (with 1x adapter) on almost every dive on our last trip to Providencia. Highlight there are Carribean reefsharks that are non-baited/feeded. They come close sometimes, but not as close as e.g. oceanic whitetip sharks... Wolfgang

Very interesting. Can you see better IQ or other advantages, compared to photos made with other fisheye lenses, e.g. Canon 8-15mm? Thanks, Wolfgang

I cannot compare flare susceptability of WWL-1 or WACP-1 with WACP-C, as I only have limited experience (ca. 25 dives) just with WACP-C/Sony 28-60. The example I have posted above was a seldom event that was seen in three out of approx. 2000 photos. => What I can say is that the WACP-C is not really prone to flare in my hands (I am interested to hear from others how "flare performance" of WACP-C in real life is compared to WWL-1, WWL-C and WACP-1/2, but I think someone should open a separate tread on this, as Ridgebackpilot wants to hear about IQ with WWL-C (I guess on Nikon camera) compared to WWL-1 and WACPs and he did not get much info on this, so far...)... Wolfgang P.S.: I posted the example with flare from WACP-C, just to show that a wet lens is not required to produce similar reflections, but it does not really contribute to the topic...

Hi Hellhole, I have set focus in the focus menue to "AF-C". While I activate AF (usually by the thumb), I can turn the focus on the lens via the focus gear and see by color in the EVF which part of the image is in focus... I can do this additional manual focusing before I activate C-AF, in order to set the focus into the right range and speed the AF up, or I can do the manual part after or while AF for fine adjustments... I do not know whether this functionality exists also on the A7R4, as the A7R5 is my first Sony camera, but maybe a A7R4 owner can tell.. Wolfgang

According to Vincent, the Marelux sales manager, the new flash is already available: "...The apollo III already has started to ship out,the warranty is one year and is burning-out of flash tubes included in warranty...."

I cannot comment on IQ with WWL-C, as I do not have this lens. According to the Nauticam portchard, the WWL-C (which was, AFAIK, developed for compact cameras) the Sony 28-60 is not compatible with WWL-C (24mm plus small lens dimensions are required - just the Sony and Sigma 24mm lenses are listed for Sony FF cameras): https://drive.google.com/file/d/1WpealW6Kwx_OURxeLzOp5kqahbwutsol/view Wolfgang

Since the last LRc update, I notice a bug in LRc, develop module: When moving the eyedropper over the photo to select a pixel for Auto WB, the enlarged section for easier selection of the pixel shows always the same pixels, no matter how I move the eyedropper across the photo... => Did someone else also notice this behaviour on his computer (and maybe was able to resolve the problem), or is it peculiar for my configuration? I have Macbook Pro M1, 32 GB RAM, Mac OS 14 (v14.4.1) Thanks, Wolfgang

I was able to produce a similar type of flare, even without wet lens. Here a photo (not the best photo, but it has the flare on it) made with WACP-C/Sony 28-60/A7R5: 28mm; ISO200; f/10; 1/200s; 2* Z330. On three photos, out of many hundreds taken during a two week diving vacation, I saw this flare. I guess this flare comes from sun rays (the photos with flare are all near the surface, during decompression), or maybe from the flash... Wolfgang

Did you test how the software effects detail/resolution in the photos? (Some 100% crops of a photo, very well in focus and with a lot of details, before and after the different treatments would be very helpful) Wolfgang

Very likely the local dealer in EU has to extend the warranty on his own responsibility (maybe they have a special agreement with the manufacturer, but maybe not). They just can not sell the product without compliance with local regulations. In the case of the announced Backscatter HF-1 flash, Backscatter themselves give 1 year of warranty, while when bought from Panocean (=dealer in Germany), the warranty (given by Panocean) is 2 years. Panocean also sells Marelux, I did not ask explicitely about Marelux flashes, but very likely the situation is similar... => There have been times for EU citizens, when ordering from US, including customs and taxes, was cheaper compared to ordering from a dealer within EU. At present the situation is that (even without customs), e.g. the HF-1, is not only cheaper when ordered from the local dealer in EU, but also the warranty is twice as long. A no brainer to order locally at present... Wolfgang

I have both Nauticam and Turtle (A7R5): For me the Nauticam trigger has the best form factor and is the most sturdy one, but it is battery operated (I see this as an advantage) and synchronizes to the first curtain only. Turtle is rechargeable and the manual version allows to switch between 1st and 2nd curtain sync during the dive (the TTL version has to be programmed via PC for either 1st or 2nd curtain)... Wolfgang

Did you test the Tamron 17-50mm f/4 yet, Massimo? The zoom range would be great, but the reviews say it is, optically, a less than average lens (se e.g. here: https://opticallimits.com/sony/tamron-17-50mm-f-4-di-iii-vxd-review/)... Wolfgang

It would be interesting to see how the new Sony 16-25mm G behind 180 dome performs compared to the Tamron 17-28mm (it is difficult to image that the Sony, in real life, would perform significantly better than the very well performing Tamron; just a slightly different zoom range (unfortunately, the zoom ranges of both lenses is limited))... For me, personally, the new Sony 16-25mm G does not have high priority, as I currently have more than plenty of lens choice for WA photos with my Sony A7R5: adapted Canon 8-15mm fisheye (140mm dome), Tamron 17-28mm overlapping with Sony 20-70mm (170mm dome) and Sony 28-60mm (WACP-C). On our recent trip to Providencia Island (Columbia) I left the Tamron 17-28mm at home, for weight/lugagge reasons... Wolfgang

Thanks... It says "...Marelux provides 2 years warranty for its housing body, cable (such as fiber cable and HDMI cable), and 1 year warranty for electronic parts and components made of silicon, rubber and plastic...". I guess the flash tube is regarded to be an electronic part?

Interesting (my eye doctor says I have beginning cataract, but it is not yet at a stage that would deserve surgery)... I did not know that bifocal or even trifocal replacement lenses for cataract surgery exist. I guess the advantage of trifocal is that you do not need external multifocal glasses for near sight? What are the disadvantages? I do not understand how you focus with trifocal lens in the eye: upper part of vision is far and when you look down it is near (similar to how it would be with external multifocal glasses) or is it different? What means "...focusing by hands..."? Wolfgang

According to the GNs (44 vs. 40), the announced Marelux flash should be brighter at maximum power when compared to the announced Backscatter flash HF-1 (In addition, the Marelux appears to have three linear flash tubes, while the Backscatter appears to have two)... Can anybody comment who knows the preproduction models (I am close to preordering two HF-1, since I would like to have more flashlight power than my current Z330 can deliver)? How long is the warranty on Marelux strobes and does it include burn-out of the flash tubes? Thanks, Wolfgang

I asked Backscatter and my local dealer (Panocean in Germany) about warranty on the HF-1 strobes: Backscatter gives one year of warranty ("...like our MF-2 strobe and 4300 video lights..." (they did not specify whether flash tube burn-out is included in this warranty), while Panocean gives two years of warranty that includes flash tube burn-out...

Maybe you can put the list with articles and series numbers somewhere in the Internet for the public. Than everyone intending to buying second hand could request a photo with series number before buying and this may lead to the burglers... Wolfgang

I thought that the snoot is compatible, because the BS snoot is shown in the system diagram here, but this seems to be another snoot (I think n adapter for taking into account the larger diameter would be enough): https://www.backscatter.com/images/article/content/Hybrid-Flash/Backscatter-Hybrid-Flash-System-Chart.pdf I am really tempted to preorder two (I already see myself using two of them plus two MF-2, covering everything I want), but it just looks too good to be true - so will wait a while until more reference exists... Wolfgang

It seems the flash is using two linear flash bulbs instead of a circular one. This is surprising for such a powerful strobe (Backscatter says that one battery can deliver 19.08 Wh and the number of flashes delivered at power level +2 is 375. This would give 366 Joule/flash. When not the full capacity of the batteries is used until the flash stops working, what is reasonable, there should be still > 300 Joules/flash!). I am looking for a more powerful strobe since I use a Sony A7R5 camera with FF sensor (with MFT sensor, flash power was always more than enough). The two Z330, that I currently use, come to their limits in bright tropical sunlight... The fact that the MF2 snoot is usable, the existence of different diffusers with different angles and color temperature and the possibility to easily trigger remotely makes this strobes very attractive. Not attractive to me is the fact that it is a hybrid strobe, but I guess the additional LEDs for the video light do not add significantly to the weight and/or size of the entire strobe... It seems this is a very innovative design. I am eager to read reviews by independent photographers. Also the durability of the strobes has to be seen. Wolfgang

GN40 UW. This sounds too good to be true. How many Joule (Ws) are used up for a maximal flash? How equal is the lightening over the entire field of view? Wolfgang

I do not have Nauticam housing/flash trigger for Canon, but I have Nauticam flash triggers for both Olympus and Sony and Nauticam housings for EM5II (just sold), EM1II and A7R5. Fogging and battery issues are probably similar... The batteries for housings and flash triggers (both CR2023 and CR2450) last usually long (1-2 years with approx. 70 - 100 dives/year), even when one leaves vacuum and flash triggers on overnight, e.g. when diving in the early morning is planned and I want to sleep as long as possible. I always have a bunch of of spare batteries for replacement with me and sometimes this was already required (I have a spare flash trigger with me also, just in case)... The Nauticam housings are very resistant to fogging (I do not use silica gel packages). I had fog only twice so far: #1. I assembeld my NA-EM1II on a rain day (=constantly raining from 00:00 to 24:00) at the equator in a small hut covered with banana leaves and water was dropping in at some places. On the subsequent dives I had fog on the domeport. This happened just once, all the other dives were without fog... #2.: I assembled my NA-A7RV, also on a full rain day in an apartment in Tyrol/Austria. On the subsequent dive in a mountain lake there was fog inside the domeport. When I inspected the housing later there was a tablespoon of water inside (neither vacuum system nor moisture detector indicated this). Responsible for this tablespoon, that for sure produced the fog, was either an extension where a part got loose because of the lack of screws as provided by Nauticam (there is a tread on this somewhere here), or just me being sloppy when assembling the housing and trapping the water unintentionally - I will never know for sure... I had numerous other dives in cold mountain lakes with Nauticam housings and never had fog on them ... Wolfgang

The macroport 60 is sold now...

These items are sold now...