Architeuthis

It may change a little the way how to use and store diopters. Often, a single flip diopter with SMC and the bare lens in macroport is used... With MFO-1 on the macroport (mounting MFO-1 on the flip diopter would not make too much sense, except to be able to photograph subjects >1m away, what is not the usual application of a macrolens), one could have a SMC on the flip holder, for coming closer for small subjects, but needs to remove the MFO-1 before using the SMC. So either one uses a double flip holder with both SMC and MFO on it (not really handsome), or one waives the flip diopter, screws the MFO or SMC on and mounts a receipe on an arm to store the diopter not in use...

20mm - 1000mm focus distance sounds indeed fantastic, but it is hard to believe: according to port charts, focus distance of Sony 90mm with SMC-1 is 45mm - 93mm (at 2.2x maximum magnification) and with SMC-2 is 22mm - 36mm (at 3.4x)...

The first serious reviews of this lens look good, e.g. here: https://dustinabbott.net/2024/10/tamron-90mm-f2-8-di-iii-macro-vxd-review/ => AF seems to be faster and IQ a tad sharper compared to the Sony 90mm macro... Less of interest for Sony photographers who already have the native 90mm macro and the latest camera models (e.g. me with A7R5), but possibly of interest for people who have older camera models, where AF is not working well with the native macro lens... Possibly of interest for Nikon Z (but as far as I know the native 105mm is very good and the focal length comes close). A pity that Tamron did not come out with a macro lens with complementary to the existing ones (I personally would have liked 120 or even 150mm; also magnification bigger than 1:1)... Wolfgang

Hi Michi, I used YS-D2 and Z330, exclusively in manual mode, on EM1II and EM5II and never had a problem with flash power (Triggered via Oly miniflash or Nauticam flash trigger using multifibre optical cables)... Now I use Z330 and HF-1, manually, with A7R5 with optical cables (Nauticam or Turtle-manual flash triggers) and it works without problems. There may be differences in menue between A7R5 and A1, but here are the flash settings that I use in the "Exposure Color" Menue Tab. Maybe it helps: Wolfgang

Finally I managed to put the full resolution photos to DPReview. I had to split into three treads...😋 https://www.dpreview.com/forums/thread/4779356 https://www.dpreview.com/forums/thread/4779452 https://www.dpreview.com/forums/thread/4779455

Here another series of photos with Lisi. Canon 8-15mm/2xTC, Canon 8-15mm w/o TC and Sony 26-60mm/WACP-C are compared: #1.: Canon8-15/2xTC @15.9mm, f/16, ISO400, 1/125s, 2*HF-1 (4500K flat diffusers): #1a.: 1:1 crop: #2.: Canon8-15(no TC) @15mm, f/13, ISO400, 1/100s, 2*HF-1 (4500K flat diffusers): #2a.: 1:1 crop: #3.: Sony 28-60mm @28mm, WACP-C with N100 30mm extension, f/11, ISO400, 1/100s, 2*HF-1 (4500K flat diffusers): 3a.: same photo, 1:1 crop: I would say that the differences between Canon 8-15mm, Canon 8-15mm/2xTC and WACP-C are, at the best, subtile. For me subjectively, with regard to resolution and sharpness, the Canon 8-15 wins and Canon 8-15mm/2xTC and WACP-C are second place (pretty on par, WACP-C may be slightly better @28mm, while slightly worse @60mm, when compared to Canon 8-15mm/2xTC (Canon 8-15mm/2xTC seems to me more constant in IQ over the entire zoom range))... => For me, the Canon 8-15mm/2xTC is certainly an option for UW... => I am interested to hear how you judge the performance of the Sony 2xTC Wolfgang

I was able to use the Canon 8-15mm/Sony 2xTC on our last diving holidays in Murter/Croatia for 6 dives and can show some photos, for comparison (photos processed, slightly cropped and hughly reduced in size to allow posting here - I will put the full resolution, unprocessed photos in DPReview/UW Forum). The aim of the series is to compare the resolution/sharpness in the middle of the frame, because the fear is that this is greatly detoriated by the 2xTC.. Visibility was intermediate (I estimate approx. 15m-20m) with plenty of particles providing backscatter. I had Sony A7R5 in Nauticam housing, Nauticam domeport 140mm. Extension used was N120/35&25mm in addition to the N100/N120 35.5mm adapter: #1.: A photo of a scorpionfish (Scorpaena scrofa). Canon8-15/2xTC @29.9mm, f/16, ISO400, 1/125s, 2*HF-1 (4500K flat diffusers): #1a.: same photo, but 1:1 crop from the 61 Mpixel sensor and from the in focus region, to judge for details (possibly "swallowed" by the 2xTC): #2.: Same fish was so kind to remain in position (😋), so I could zoom out and make another photo. Canon8-15/2xTC @15.9mm, f/16, ISO400, 1/125s, 2*HF-1 (4500K flat diffusers): #2a.: same photo, 1:1 crop: I also had the Sony 28-60mm/WACP-C combination with me, that I used more often on this trip. For comparison, I show here a photo from the same species, similar framing, taken on another day: #3.: Sony 28-60mm @60mm, WACP-C with N100 30mm extension, f/16, ISO400, 1/125s, 2*HF-1 (4500K flat diffusers): #3a.: same photo, 1:1 crop: I will post another series of photos in a subsequent post to this tread... Wolfgang

This graph is interesting, albeit I must admit that I do not really understand what, exactly, it means... Maybe one can say that the parameter quantified for shadow improvement, is the same for all cameras at base ISO, for "conventional" cameras it makes a jump when the second gain kicks in, and then, for the GH-7 this parameter rises continously with ISO instead of making a jump? I am in occasional contact with Massimo by EMail and he writes that he can raise "Exposure" in LR by +3 EV without noise problems (I find it a pity that he does not participate here any more). This sounds to me more like raw files from a FF camera (e.g. the Sony A7R5 that I have at present) - but better this new technology, that blews up the raw files to 16 bit, brings a substantial benefit... I am eager to see the final results of serious reviews and the comparison to other cameras, e.g. the exposure series in DPReview, that will come out, hopefully, soon... Wolfgang

Hi Hedonist, The loss of resolution, due to diffraction, is pretty similar between these two lenses (stopped down the resolution of different sensors is by far not limiting): https://www.lenstip.com/214.4-Lens_review-Canon_EF_100_mm_f_2.8_L_Macro_IS_USM_Image_resolution.html https://www.lenstip.com/561.4-Lens_review-Sony_FE_90_mm_f_2.8_Macro_G_OSS_Image_resolution.html The smallest aperture possible with Sony 90mm is f/22 (probably because of the problem of loss in resolution). It is, of course, a matter of personal taste, and much more of the required DOF, how much one stops down such a lens, but (theoretically) best results are obtained at f/4... Wolfgang

Hi Sinetwo, Since you say Canares Islands were dissapointing: I was really excited and can strongly recommend the village "La Restinga" on El Hierro, a small Canary island. This village was a depot/harbour for fishermen for centuries (Columbus himself started one of his expeditions to the new world from the shelted harbour). Really wonderful diving with beautiful marine life, mostly lots of fish... We were there in March 2017 (with drysuits, when I remember correctly water was 17 °C top to bottom) and with the diving base "Fan Diving". Günther, the owner (from Austria), is a passionate UW-photographer by himself and knows very well how to provide diving for UW-photographers (he is the only guide on his base and takes maximum 6 clients). You could contact him and ask, whether they are active in winter (there may be always a sheltered region were diving is possible). In case communication in English is a problem, there are at least 4 other diving bases in this little village (La Restinga is a Mekka for scubadiving, little other tourism there (some sailing boats that sail against or come from the Americas, maybe some sports fishermen); there is no hotel, guests live in private apartments, cook for themselves or go to restaurants)... Wolfgang

Seems to be an overworked version of SMC-1: https://www.uwcamerastore.com/nauticam-super-macro-convertor-3-smc-3-81203 Interested to hear/read what the benefit will be...

As I see it, dual gain is implemented in several sensors, as you mention. In these previous models, however, the low gain A/D conversion is working at low ISO and at some, higher, ISO value, the high gain A/D converter replaces the low gain one (resulting in 12- or 14-bit raw files)... The novelty with GH7 is that both low and high gain amplifiers work in parallel and from both signals a 16-bit raw file is generated (16-bit to allow encoding both the more coarse steps derived from low gain (what provides high DR) and the smaller ones derived from the high gain A/D (this one provides the smaller, lower noise, steps derived fro the shadows)...

It is, maybe, a little bit off-topic, as it regards the photographic abilities of GH7, not the videographic ones. I find this, technically, very interesting and think it is worth to mention: GH7 produces 16-bit raw files (FF and APS-C so far 14-bit and previous MFT cameras 12-bit). This is justified by a novel type of A/D conversion, low gain and high gain A/D converters are working in parallel (citation from DPReview: https://www.dpreview.com/reviews/panasonic-gh7-initial-review#WN): "...The other benefit of the new sensor is the improved version of the camera's dual output gain system. In a nutshell, the sensor employs two parallel readout paths with different gain levels: a low-gain path to capture highlights and a high-gain path to capture cleaner shadows. The data from both paths is combined as a 16-bit Raw file, allowing enough room to encode the wider dynamic range..." Massimo (his GH7 UW-photo review is linked in a previous post) says he can increase exposure in LR by 3 EV without problems with noise in the dark areas. This sounds to me pretty comparable to FF raw files... When I look, however, at the data from photons to photons, DR is essentially the same as GH9II, what has the same sensor. This DR is far smaller than FF. Shadow improvement is, at certain ISO values, slightly better compared to FF, but this is by far overcompensated by the higher DR that FF has: https://www.photonstophotos.net/Charts/PDR.htm#Panasonic Lumix DC-G9M2,Panasonic Lumix DC-GH5M2,Panasonic Lumix DC-GH6,Panasonic Lumix DC-GH7,Sony ILCE-7RM5 https://www.photonstophotos.net/Charts/PDR_Shadow.htm#Panasonic Lumix DC-G9M2,Panasonic Lumix DC-GH5M2,Panasonic Lumix DC-GH6,Panasonic Lumix DC-GH7,Sony ILCE-7RM5 It will be interesting to read what more reviews, about both over the water and UW use of GH7, will reveal... => In case the parallel dual gain A/D conversion is a really useful innovation, this technique will certainly trickle down to FF, sooner or later (together with 16-bit raw files)... Wolfgang

Nicolas Remy has updated and completed his review of HF-1 (many more dives, now also on use of diffusers): https://theunderwaterclub.com/blog/backscatter-hybrid-flash-final-review/?utm_source=scubaboard.com&utm_medium=community&utm_campaign=scubaboard-Hybrid-Flash-final-review

It is, of course and as always, a matter of personal preference. The diving style of hedonist must be very special, I have, so far, never seen an UW-photographer diving like this. Maybe a photo exists (I mean this serious, just interested to see how it looks, maybe I can then understand better what the reason is)? I cannot imagine how I drag a complete system camera rig behind me, just attached via one or two lanyards. Even when no flashes would be attached. With a GoPro this is o.k., but not a huge rig... Second thing is what are divers without camera doing with their hands? Many have them entangled before their body, some entangled at the chest. There is no real use for the hands during most of the time. The two handles of the rig are the natural places where to put the hands, so they get some use... I only release the camera while I am e.g. setting a buoy. Then the rig hangs on the lanyard (interesting to hear from Dave that he has fabricated a backup (photo?); the lanyard of Lisi, my wife, already once broke during setting a buoy, but I could rescue the rig instantly, as I was close to her). Additional use of lanyard is, of course, for all kind of emergency. I clip the rig to a D-ring on my vest immediately after I got it from e.g. people on a boat and I clip it out just before handling it over back to the boat after the dive. The lanyard is, in fact, seldom used, it is mostly for backup purpose.. Wolfgang

Better wait with firmware update (3.0) for Sony A7R5 (but it looks like Sony has removed the update from the internet anyhow): https://www.sonyalpharumors.com/not-again-sony-suspended-the-firmware-update/

I have both WACP-C/Sony 28-60mm and Zen DP170/Sony 20-70mm. WACP-C for real WA (although I miss the diagonal 180° range, but this is another story). DP170/Sony 20-70mm for the "normal" range, I like it a lot for fish-portraits. There is some overlap at the wide end, but these combinations clearly cover a different range. For our next trip in November (Mafia Island in Tansania, lugagge is even more restricted than usually), I am thinking of leaving either the Zen DP170 or WACP-C, maybe even both of them, at home and just use one (or none) of them. My main WA would be Canon 8-15mm fisheye/Nauticam 140mm (with and w/o TCs)... The Sony 20-70mm will come with me in any case, for over the water use (clearly better than the Sony 28-60mm, but it i larger)... Wolfgang

There was a tread in the old forum where Alex Mustard showed photos obtained with Sony 90mm & CMC-1 (I cannot find it now). It is possible but, depending on working distance, everything off the center can be quite blurry. SMC-1 is the diopter to take for Sony 90mm... I found this old tread here, where Phil Rudin explains this (no photos): https://wetpixel.com/forums/index.php?/topic/68080-sel90mm-vs-kit-lens-cmc-1/&tab=comments#comment-430396 Wolfgang

I think it could as you see everything pushed up by +2 (I guess EV?)... Although your image looks to me underexposed by -3 to -4 EVs...

As always, you are the voice of reason... I am here with Lisi, she has a Nauticam MFT housing with 45° viewfinder, but she would not give it to me, even if it would fit my housing (actually it does not)... I will follow your advise and dismantle the problematic viewfinder to be an the safe side (but I really don't like this prospect)... Wolfgang

Is it the "...Small floods have happened when people jump into the water from up high with their gear, and the gear slams into the water...." point? In my case the droplets showed up after a fall 40cm-50cm. The WACP-C part hit first the deck (I cannot remember that the viewfinder was hitting the ground). It was the first dive of the day, everything was dry and one wonders from where the water for the droplets came... I did two dives today (43m and 28m, 1h each). The situation did not change, not even a little bit (and the vacuum was stable overnight). Very likely not a leak. As the situation is now, it is still better than the standard viewfinder, but maybe I will insert the standard viewfinder, just to be on the safe side... I have contacted both Nauticam/Int. and Panocean and both say I have to send it in after I return. They do not see a way to repair it on-side here... I thank all for their valuable comments and suggestions...👍 Wolfgang

I have a problem with my Nauticam viewfinder "Nauticam full format angle viewfinder 40°/0.8:1 (SKU no. 32214)": I am currently diving in Murter/Croatia. While I was putting on my diving gear on the dive boat, a high wave came and my setup (Sony A7R5 in Nauticam housing with WAPC-C (protection cap fortunately still on)) fell off the seat onto the floor. Everything seems to be fine, but in the viewfinder I can see a few droplets of a liquid (water?, oil?) even before submersion. So it's not water that comes in from outside through a leak. I think this droplets occured by the mecanical shock... The droplets are an obstacle to viewing (it works, but I would like the viewfinder without the droplets). I did two dives back then. First up to 42 m, second up to 20 m, 1 hour each. The droplets are still the same... Here a photo, how the droplets inside the viewfinder look like (difficult to get them in focus, as they are inside): => Did someone ever have a similar experience and knows what I can do to eliminate the droplets? Thank you, Wolfgang

As an addition to the plea for the fisheye: for sharks you can use the 1.4x TC (there is so far only a single person here, who dares to use the 2x TC, most people fear that IQ is not good enough). With 1.4x the shark still has to come close, but IQ will be very good in case it does... With more narrow angles of view the chances to get a shark into the entire frame are better, but no matter how brilliant the lens/domeport combination optically is, there is so much water inbetween the shark and the lens that IQ suffers in most cases (unless extremely good vis)... Wolfgang

I had a similar problem with my A7R5, that costed me a lot of photos for the first monthes of diving. I think your problem may be closely related, if not the same. When I reviewed the photos UW through the EVF, they looked well exposed. After transferring the raw files to the PC and importing into LRc, I found out that many photos were underexposed... My problem was that the "AUTO Viewfinder Brightness" is "ON" by default in the A7R5. After turning this menue item "OFF", everything is o.k. and I see the correct exposure of the photos in the EVF... Look e.g. here and search for "AUTO Viewfinder Brightness" for the intsructions how to turn it "OFF": https://www.colbybrownphotography.com/the-complete-setup-guide-for-the-sony-a7r-v/ Wolfgang

=> Just out of interest: are you sure that one cannot use the Canon 8-15mm fisheye on R mount cameras with the 2x RF TC? The Canon 8-15mm is not a native RF lens, but constructed for EF mount. Therefore it needs a glasless adapter to work with R mount cameras (in this case the adapter is provided by Canon instead of Metabones and the length of the adapter is different to the Metabones adapter). It may well be that this adapter provides enough space for the protruding element of the 2x TC (but I did not test it nor measure it)...