Architeuthis

I have put some images taken with Canon8-15mm/2x Sony TC into this tread, also with links to DPReview, for full resolution pixel peeping (see October 7th, 2024): => Although IQ with Sony 2x TC seems o.k. for me, I think it is, more or less, comparable to WACP-C/Sony 28-60mm, I am reluctant to use it and have ordered the Sony 1.4x TC now...

Is it known how AF is in comparison to the Metabones V and Sigma MC-11 adapters? I have A7R5 and use Canon 8-15mm with Metabones V, mostly for photo (there is no switch for photo/video on this adapter, but a confusing switch between "regular" and "advanced" mode (Metabones says C-AF&tracking should work with this lens also in video mode, when set to "advanced")) and can report about this combo: C-AF&tracking works well with the pure lens and also with Kenko 1.4x/2x TCs, as well as with Sony 2x TC (I do not have so far a Sony 1.4x TC; with 2x TCs AF sometimes hunts, I guess because the widest aperture is f/8). I have very little experience with video, but remember that I do occasional refocusing by the dumb during the recording and this also works well (cannot remember now whether this is with or w/o TC)... Regarding the second question, I cannot say about FF but was using the Canon 8-15mm on MFT (Oly EM1II and EM5II) both with Nauticam 140mm fisheye domeport and with Zen DP170mm (non-fisheye for rectilinear WA; to some extent similar to the Ikelite 8" "compact" domeport that Chris was linking): IQ in center and corner was pretty similar in practice, MAYBE even a small tick better with DP170. This indicates that positioning is not really critical with fisheye lenses and the larger radius more than compensates for the wrong positioning (the 140 domeport is, however, much more handsome UW)... => The situation, especially in the corners, may, however, well be different when using the larger FF sensor (but see the Ikelite description)... Wolfgang

=> Via shutterspeed the brightness/intensity of the bluewater is adjusted, but not the color/temperature/tint of the water.. When one adjusts the water color in post via WB, also the color/temperature/tint of the forgeround object changes and quite often becomes to cold, especially when a "cold" strobe was used to lit it. Then one has to use masks in LR and adjust the color of bluewater and foreground separately. Not only a lot of work, but often masking is not perfect and artifacts can be introduced in the photo... => Hence I prefer to use warm diffusers (e.g. 4500K) and then no or less adjustments are needed... Wolfgang

Since the monthly vs. annual payment price is more or less the same, I am not sure that there will be an increase of the monthly rate also here in Austria. As often, there is no official information by Adobe available up to now (except the info about prices in $$, but there the cheaper monthly rate is just adjusted to match the annual rate)...😟 => In order to be on the save side, I changed my Abo from monthly to annual payment...

When one compares test photos between the 28-60mm and the 24-50mm at comparable focal lengths and apertures, one can see that the 24-50mm performs pretty similar, the 28-60mm is maybe even a small bit sharper: https://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=1525&Camera=1175&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=0&LensComp=1687&CameraComp=1538&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=1&APIComp=2 => Since the wider f/2.8 aperture and 24mm are not needed UW (in connection with WWL/WACP), I am not tempted to buy and test the 25-50mm for UW use... Wolfgang

It seems that the Adobe standard photography subscription (LR&PS plus 20 GB cloud storage) will raise from 9,99$/month to 14,99$/month, starting from January 2025. The annual subscription stays constant at 119$/year, therefore one should change to annual subscription: https://www.dpreview.com/news/5008248286/adobe-photoshop-lightroom-monthly-plan-price-increase-december-2024 I live in Austria/Europe and since ever pay 11,99 Euro/month (annual subscription is almost the same with 143,14 Euro/year). When I look at the Adobe homepage, I still see the old pricing there... => Does someone know, whether the price increase is happening also outside US (=should one change to annual subscription also in EU)? Thanks, Wolfgang

It is the older model, made in China. There is written "Made in China" on the strobe...

Regarding the Tokina 10-17mm, I think this is perfect for APS-C. The question is whether a 100mm domeport is sufficient or whether to take a 140mm domeport (which is also not monstrous)... No question, WWL/WACP have their own place. I use WACP-C on Sony FF and can say that one can go far below f/11 and still have good IQ. Overall IQ with WACP-C/Sony 28-60mm is o.k., but not outstanding... On the WA side, however, when I use WACP-C, I often have the urge to zoom out more than 130° and to take a 180° fisheye lens instead (but can not zoom in further with the FF system). So at the end, I take both WACP-C and (8-)15mm fisheye with me and use them alternately at different dives... On the long side WWL/WACP is amazing, as one can make photos of quite small subjects, even nudies. After longer diving holidays, when I can make multiple dives with different lenses, I find out that the keepers are the ones made with a true macro lens, they are just better. So at the end I keep only WACP-C photos of smaller subjects for documentation, which I was not able to photograph with the macro rig... In case a comparable zoom fisheye lens (e.g. 15-35mm, f/4) with high optical quality would exist for FF, I would not hesitate to exchange the big, heavy and expensive WACP-C against the fisheye lens with a 140mm domeport. As said above, I easily could waive the ability to shoot small subjects with the WA setup (I am also not a big fan of rectilinear WA lenses for UW use). Of course, this may be a very personal opinion... I believe the Canon R7 camera is quite the optimum for UW use of APS-C, since you can use the huge repertoire of Canon EF lenses, in case comparable RF lenses do not yet exist, especially macro. Macro lenses are the weak point of Sony cameras, both APS-C and FF... Wolfgang

I was using the screen for the first two years of UW-photopgraphy with EM5II and was happy. Then I switched to EM1II with 45° viewfinder and it was a revelation. Now A7R5 with 45° viewfinder and I had to use the screen again for the last two diving holidays (end of 2024), since the viewfinder was broken and at Nauticam for repair (water inbrake, repair still under warranty) - I was surprised that it is possibe to make UW photos without viewfinder, but no comparison (especially close to the surface where due to high ambient light, I was not able to see much on the screen)... As the others write, nothing exists for FF that is comparable to Canon 8-15mm on MFT or Tokina 10-17mm on APS-C. I am not sure that the heavy and expensive Nauticam FCP is a real substitute (maybe for the Tokina): I know of people who take both FCP and WACP with them (maybe because FCP is said to be good only at f/13 and more?)... => the A7R5 is a phantastic camera (DR, Megapixels (and optical sharpness) for cropping, AF), but a high optical quality zoom fisheye, e.g. 15-35mm f/4, is really missing... Wolfgang

Not really. I made some icons for applying basic actions as lens profiles plus initial settings in LR and PS (e.g. clarity, starting conditions for WB etc..), but these contain just text as "Sony 90mm", "Canon 8-15mm" etc...

I have now upgraded to software version 6.0.3.21385 (Mac OS is 15.1.1). The Loupedeck CT console is now again reponsive and changes its look when switching from one program to another ("dynamic mode" in the Loupedeck software needs to be swithced "ON")... The problem with the monochromatic icons in LRc still persists...

I guess that the white rings are remains of a fight with an octopus...

Since about one year the owner is Logitech, well known for producing mice and consoles of all kind, só maybe not brand-new... (https://loupedeck.com/de/blog/logitech-acquires-loupedeck/). Logitech also has their own console for LR and PS, called Logitech MX console... I suspect the disaster with the icons and now the lacking support has to do with this takeover ... Wolfgang P.S.: Despite I am retired and a man of independent means, right now I do not have time to process photos and deal with the loupedeck problems (but just returned from beautiful diving holidays in Tansania), as I am busy with Xmas preparations (especially preparing cookies for grandchildren, grandnephews, children and nephews(nice) 😋). After the holdidays I will have time again for working on photos and will try to solve the problem (=downgrading to earlier firmware?)...

Hi Tim, I have installed version 6.0.2.21225. The result is that it stopped now working on my PC (Macbook Pro M1, newest OS; it does not switch to the LRc look when I start LRc)... 😋 I wrote already several times to the customers support, first complints about the icons and lately about non-working, but no response about the non-working issue... The new owner distributes its own hardware and I fear they have little interest in supporting the old one (i.e. Loupedeck CT)...🤮 Wolfgang

Bluewater Photography Guide says that SMC-1 and MFO-1 can be used in serial combination: https://www.uwphotographyguide.com/Nauticam-announces-the-Nauticam-Mid-range-Focus-Optimizer1-(MFO-1) This, however, seems to be a misinformation as Alex clearly states here that SMC-1(3) and MFO-1 should be used alternatively and not together (he says that serial combination will lead to double correction of flat port abberation and hence a loss in IQ): => The only problem with Sony 90mm plus SMC-1 that I was able to recognize so far is slight vignetting in the corners when I use SMC-1 at the longest object distances and smallest magnifications that SMC-1 allows. These are, however, object distances and magnifications that I better cover with the pure macro lens w/o any diopter attached... => I also wonder what the benefits of using MFO-1 on Sony 90mm with flatport are: does sharpness improve just in the periphery or is it increased also in the center (when it is the center, it may be worth going for it (but I did not recognize any sharpness problems in the center yet))? Wolfgang

Thanks...👍 I have never seen them with my own eyes (only tropical relatives that exist more shallow). Friends using rebreathers told me that they see them frequently in Croatria, even at places close to were we often use to dive (it would require, however, practical U-profile dives to 56m using compressed air and I am not ready for this)...

It would be very helpful if Nauticam can provide sample images like e.g. with and w/o MFO-1 that clearly show the benefit of using MFO-1. And does it improve IQ also when a macro lens through domeport is compared to macrolens&MFO-1 through flatport (especially interesting for shorter focal lenses, where the flatport makes most detoriation of IQ)? It seems to me that the MFO-1 is better mounted permanently to the flatport when making macro. But then, what when another diopter will be used that increases the magnification substantially above 1x (like SMC-1 that is essential for macro on FF)? Is SMC-1 used in addition to MFO-1 via e.g. a flip holder (as many use the SMC-1 now)? Or is MFO-1 removed and SMC-1 mounted instead (either via (unhandy) double flip holder or by dismantling MFO-1 and storing in a pocket)?

I still do not really understand the advantage of using this new diopter (when looking at the Nauticam portchard for the Sony 90mm macro, I see that max. magnification and working distance are pretty similar with or without MFO-1)... You say that sharpness of the image and other qualities are improved. Can you please explain this in more detail (As far as my understanding is, any additional glass added to a lens (e.g. TC or diopter) leave IQ, at the best, untouched. How is it possible that sharpness improves?)... Thanks, Wolfgang

Wow, Retra reacted really fast to the Backscatter HF-1. If I would not have bought recently two HF-1s (at present, I like them a lot, since they do a great job) and serious reviews would show that the Retra Maxi performed as good as the specs suggests, I might have considered them instead... Anyhow it is good that affordable and powerful strobes become now available, after Inon stopped production of the Z330... I fear Retra may come out with a smart model with circular tubes and integrated Li+ batteries (instead of 8 NiMh batteries, 4 being in the supercharger extension) - this may be the point where I cannot hold myself back and will order some... Wolfgang

This is indeed a stone-coral, one of the few ones in the Mediterranean: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cladocora_caespitosa With "corals" I mean the class of Anthozoa ("Blumentiere" in German). These animals are really beautiful in the Adria. Also Gorgonia belong to this group. This September we were able to see/photograp even a precious coral (Corallium rubrum) in the Kornati national park at quite shallow depth of approx. 33m (they are almost extinct at recreational divers depths)... Is the new owner the son of Jani (his name was Tommi)? Jani was the previous operator, he also made the guide aboard the old Vranjak. Or is it the son of the previous captain (I cannot remember his name just now)?

Thank you for this interesting report, Klaus...👍 In the old days (before 2000) I have been twice for a week on the old Vranjak and it was fantastic and outstanding. Later there appeared a new boat, the Vranjak II (maybe this is th erecent Vranjak) and now it seems even the operator has changed. We certainly will book a trip in the near future (as far as I know one should reserve a place optimally 2 years in advance, I guess the scedule for 2025 is pretty full 😊). We go to the Adriatic at least twice a year (for us it is aprox. 4h driving by car). Especially the corals (e.g. in Vis and Kornati islands) easily compete with any other destination. The Anthias colonies at red Gorgonia fields (alomost) beat the Red Sea, but one must go at least 30m, better pretty deeper, to see the beauty. Macro motifs, like nudies, are beautiful and abundand. As Klaus writes, it may not be a favorite destination for people coming from far away, but for people living close... => Also complete charter is available, if made well in advance, maybe one of us should organize a special UW-photographer safari (best time is second week in September - first week in October, then 7mm semidry is sufficient)? Wolfgang

The heavier weight, or better the negative buoyancy, was only a problem on the first dive: I had the floats mounted the same way as I had for the relatively neutral Z330, i.e. most floats on the inner arm, to have buoyancy close to the center of gravity. The result was a rig with strong torque, because of the backwards positioned HF-1s that pulled the rig down. Now I put the floats more on the outer arm and I do not recognize any more that they are heavier than the Z330s... Regarding the Li+ batteries, It is much better to travel with 8 batteries, sufficient for two HF-1 and one MF-2, compared to the 16 NiMh batteries plus two 21700, previously for two Z330s plus HF-2. Li+ is certainly the future. I find the negative and anxious feelings of some people too innovation skeptical and also a little bit ambiguous. There are so many Li+ batteries on board of aeroplanes (and also diving vessels) already now, because of handys and computers. The minority of Li+ batteries is from divers, is it video lights or diving torches, where Li+ batteries are already the standard. Now come some additional Li+ batteries from UW flashes - so what? Regarding airline restrictions, the 21700 need to be carried as carry-on luggage, not as check-in luggage, up to 20 are allowed. The restrictions start at 100 Wh capacity (2 allowed) and at > 160 Wh the real problems start, see e.g. here: https://www.iata.org/contentassets/6fea26dd84d24b26a7a1fd5788561d6e/passenger-lithium-battery.pdf => In summary, no regrets so far (Tomorrow, November 13rd, I will take off for the next dive trip 😋(Tansania, Mafia island))... The HF-1s are a substantial upgrade compared to the Z330s, regarding color temperature and power. Light distribution is very good according to my experiences, but see Alex Mustards review on HF-1 (He writes the HF-1 belongs to the best UW flashes available and he likes them a lot, but the Retras provide more even and softer light distribution and hence, are even better)... Wolfgang

I have Macbook M1 Pro, approx. four years old. Still very good for photo (LRc & Photoshop) and video editing (DaVinci freeware version). When the notebook was new, all LRc editing was fast as a flash, but in the meantime the AI based filters came out. These consume much more processor time. As I use the computer, the AI filters are the most demanding tasks. Processing a single photo (e.g. NR via AI) lasts up to a minute (estimated, A7R5). I guess with the new M4 Pro this may be half or even less of the time (I did not see benchmarks for these AI applications for comparison, but maybe someone has already tested.)... New applications demand more power. 32 MB RAM are still sufficient and 2TB SSD is o.k. (I have programs and not yet finished projects on the SSD and this is approx. 1TB (only 1TB would be limiting for me). I have the 14" version, as I find this much more convenient for traveling. At home, I connect the notebook to a calibrated 27" monitor... Wolfgang

I cannot tell about the Retras, but I can compare Z330 against HF-1... Already after one two week diving holiday, I can say that with HF-1 (with 4500K flat diffusers) the color of the sea needs little correction in most cases (WA with 180° fisheye and WACP-C with 130° and less; combination of both flash and natural light). With Z330, I had to adjust this color much more, not seldom using masks in LR. Also the susceptibility to backscatter seems to be less with HF-1 (I guess the flat diffusers have a narrower beam angle compared to the Z330 with the built in dome diffusers, but cannot say exactly, it is just a subjective impression)... I did not recognize a difference in evenness or softness of the light distribution. Not seldom I get a darker area in the middle (no matter wich flashes), but the reason is that I did not position the strobes correctly (usually I use "9-3", "10-2" up to "semi-rabbit ear (also something like 3-9, but on elongated arms", depending on motif (depending on how far I want to reach the flashlight and also how reflective the bottom is)) - in my case it happens when the strobes are too far out for the distance of the subject... Wolfgang

I am not in the Nikon system, so others have a better overview - but I just see that Nikon came out with a new APS-C model (unfortunately not with a smaller stacked sensor, similar to Z8 and still with 20 Mpixel): https://www.dpreview.com/reviews/nikon-z50ii-initial-review#II Depending on how good the AF works UW, it may be a good camera for UW. I am not sure, but I believe that the old Nikon 8-15mm fisheye and the Tokina 10-17mm fisheye (Nikon version) are not usable on the Z mount, but as far as I know, one can use the Canon EF version of Tokina and the Canon 8-15mm via adapters on Z-mount (plus all Z mount lenses and also the old Nikon lenses that work via adapter)... Maybe worth a consideration? Wolfgang