Architeuthis

I have just finished and printed an extension ring for the Nauticam zoomgear for the Canon 8-15mm fisheye lens with Sony 1.4xTC to be used via adapter (Metabones V in my case) on Sony cameras (A7R5)... After printing, I cut threads for three grub screws into the ring in order to fix it firmly to the Nauticam aluminium gear. Canon815_2xSony.stl

I find it difficult to find in the Internet a description how, exactly, HSS is working. Therefore my argumentation may have faults, but I can see none of them so far... According to what I was able to find out about HSS just now, the pulse frequency in HSS is mode is very high, up to 100 kHz, what makes the individual pulses merge and causing the flash to provide a single pulse, with, more or less, constant (but a little fluctuating) intensity that lasts for the duration of the entire exposure (=much longer than the shutter speed adjusted). => This would mean that in HSS mode the individual pixels are exposed to flashlight for exactly the time that is adjusted via the shutter speed. i.e. a single pulse ...

Who ever has come to this conclusions and what are the logical arguments behind it? Is there a single practical evidence on a real photo? HSS does not mean that a distinct region on the sensor is repeatedly exposed by the pulse of flashes, produced in HSS mode. Every single pulse of the strobe in HSS mode exposes a single, small region on the sensor and only once. The different regions of the sensor are exposed sequentially in order to achieve a shutter speed that is shorter than the "regular" flash syncronization speed, as the shutter is not able to syncronize the entire sensor region at once at a speed higher than sync speed (exceptionally fast sync speed is achieved via global shutter, as Sony A9III)... This means a single particle producing backscatter is exposed only once, is it in HSS or in "normal" mode. A photo produced in HSS mode should be identical to a photo produced by a single flash, when the flash is set to low power (providing short flash duration equivalent to a single HSS flash pulse)... => It is not visible to me how sequential flash exposure of different and consecutive regions of the sensor should give a different backscatter pattern, when compared to an exposure produced with a single flash... Wolfgang

Statistical comparison is NOT and NEVER can be relevant, when loss of human lifes are concerned - the safety standrards clearly should/must be better - no arguing and dot... Statistics is, however, relevant, when comparing the safety on liveaboards in different regions of the planet. I believe these standards are pretty the same and very low everywhere. Consider e.g. the terrible accident in California/US, few years ago, that costed the lives of approx. three dozends of divers (you can find a detailed discussion in Scubaboard). Somebody posted in Scubabordt a ground plan of the vessel: a common sleeping room for all (approx. 3 dozends) divers, double bunk beds in three etages, extremely obstructed. I believe such a boat would not have been approved, even in Egypt... => I just find it not fair when people are focusing now on Egypt, creating the illusion that liveabords are safer in other regions of the world... Wolfgang

Is there a solid statistical analysis available how the numbers (e.g. 16 boats lost in 5 years) compare to other regions of the world? I mean that one needs to normalize these numbers to the sheer number of diving vessels that cruise in the Red Sea - I guess the number of vessels cruising there is many hundreds - with the number of vessels that cruise in other regions (usually a few vessels per region - and also there boats are lost from time to time). Only then a comparison of the numbers of accidents makes sense... My personal observation is that the safety protocols in diving vessels are poor in Egypt, but I did not observe that these protocols are any better in other regions of the world (e.g. our Safari boat in Raja Ampat 2020 did not even have a second emergency exit from the lower deck in case of fire)... Wolfgang

It seems, after a period of deficiency, new UW strobes are sprouting like mushrooms: https://www.xadventurer.com/index.php?route=product/product&product_id=218 160 Ws, circular flashtube, 4800K, 7000 lumen video light (CRI90), Li battery pack, 150m depth rating

I fear the change of flight dates is a common issue these days... ☹️ Last November, on our way to Mafia Island/Tansania we had a similar issue with Turkish airline: The route was with Turkish airline from Vienna to Istanbul, Istanbul to Dar es Salaam and from Dar es Salaam to Mafia via domestic airline. I booked the first two flights as a package from Turkish and the domestic flight separately. Few days before departure, Turkish airline wrote me that the flight from Vienna to Istanbul was postponed for one day (but not the connection flight from Istanbul to Dar es Salaam, that was still one day before our arrival in Istanbul ...). I wrote Turkish airline bureau in Vienna whether they are crazy. The changed the scedule and we flew one day earlier (domestic airline and hotel were fortunately able to change the scedule accordingly)... => A lot of flurry, fortunately for nothing... => If possible, I book always via an agency as a package tour (would nor have been possible in this case), then the agency has to deal with these troubles... Wolfgang P.S.: When we were in Raja in 2020, we booked a package tour via agency (flight plus homestay plus safari) - no problems experienced....

Thank you for doing the measurement, Adventurer...👍 I do not understand what you mean with your last sentence: when a hemispherical dome as Nauticam 140mm is used and the entrance pupil is placed right at the center of curvature, there should be no vignetting - right? => When I use my Canon 8-15, Sony A7R5, Nauticam housing and 140mm Nauticam domeport with the 30mm extension recommended in the port chards, I cannot see any vignetting, neither with the 8mm circular fisheye image nor with the 15mm 180°diagonal image... In accordance no vignetting with Kenko 1.4x/2x or Sony 2x TC, when I correct for the length of the TCs by appropriate extensions... As a sidenote, there is a tread made by Dreifish, where he tested different extensions (in 5mm increments) UW. His outcome was that 35mm extension is optically even better than 30mm for the Canon 8-15, based on perspective UW/OW in split shots: I tested both 30mm and 35mm, but since I did not see a difference in IQ, I personally still prefer 30mm as the shorter extension is more convenient (with 35mm sometimes I could see part of the shade in the image, probably due to sensor IS and camera movement during photographing)... Wolfgang

Just in case you did not know so far, otherwise ignore: the Nauticam housings, as you buy them, usually have all the required electronics built in already. The only item required in addition is the mechanical valve plus the pump. When going for another vacuum system, one has to acquire another, complete, system. I would not bother to do so, I find this too roundabout (but I did not compare the prices, maybe one could save a few $$)... Wolfgang

Here is a long tread about the Canon 8-15mm with 1.4x and also 2x TCs: Bottomline is that high quality 1.4x TC is very good and even 2x TC is o.k. I have no first hands experience with the Nikon 8-15mm, but possibly the situation is similar...

uses Since you ask I can tell you that it is not my opinion, but a physical fact, that it is impossible to influence the spectral properties of ambient light by adjusting the shutter speed of a camera that is used to take a photo. By changing the shutter speed the amount of ambient light that is collected varies, but its spectral properties remain what they are... I believe that confusion in this discussion arose, because the effect of automatically occuring WB, color profiles and other processing tools are mixed with the effect that shutter speed has on spectral properties of the data collected on the sensor (=raw file). #1.: The crucial point is the discussion of the effect of shutter speed on the original raw data collected by the camera. Regarding the raw file, this file does not even contain any color information, just intensity is encoded, from black to white in different shades of grey (either 12 bit (=4096 different shades of grey), 14 bit (=16384) or even 16 bit (=65536 different shades)). The only color information that is contained in the raw file is the type of Bayer array of the sensor (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bayer_filter). Color information is introduced at a later stage, when the file is opened and the type of Bayer array is taken into account to process the raw data and produce a colorful picture. As Chris Ross rightfully states, shutter speed influences intensity values on all the different pixels on the sensor the same way, no "if and but" is possible at this stage ... #2.: The other point is how processing of these raw data leads to different colors (=adjusting WB). Usually people adjust temperature and tint of their UW photos in post via software, e.g. LR. To some extend, such processing is already done automatically by the camera/processing software (Auto WB/ color profile) and this is how the photo appears on the screen, as a first suggestion for further adjustments by the photographer. The way of automatic adjustments varies from camera model to model and, beyond that, can be finetuned in the camera menue - hence an almost infinite number of possibilities exists and the outcome can be different from model to model and from photographer to photographer. I would say this outcome is, more or less, unpredictable. Here comes ChisH into the play, when he says rightfully that in his hands camera X and flash Y give best results already as they work by themselves and little adjustment of colors is needed in postprocessing (under these conditions shutter speed may even influence temperature/tint of the "original" image on the screen, depending on camera model and also how the photographer tunes the automatic features of the camera in the menue)... => As the bottomline I would say everybody is right in his own way, but please nobody confuses spectral properties of water with, in practice unpredictable, automatic processing of raw data (spectral properties of raw data are constant and invariable by shutter speed)... Wolfgang

I switched from Kenko 2x HD to the Sony 2x TC and think the results are a tick better and also the required extension is shorter (Canon 8-15mm, Metabones V adapter, A7R5, Nauticam 140mm fisheye dome). I do not observe significant increase of CA, compared to the pure 8-15mm fisheye, when I use the 2x TC. I have posted full resolution UW photos here. Canon 8-15mm with and w/o 2x Sony TC and WACP-C/Sony 28-60mm are compared (real images, no test screens): https://www.dpreview.com/forums/thread/4779356 https://www.dpreview.com/forums/thread/4779452 https://www.dpreview.com/forums/thread/4779455 My personal judgement was that regarding sharpness/microcontrast in the center, the pure 8-15mm is better, while WACP-C/28-60 and 8-15mm/2xTC perform similar (maybe WACP-C a tick better @28mm, but a tick worse @60mm when compared to 8-15mm/2xTC). I think your test images show similar findings: the 2x TC softens the images to some extend... All combinations loose IQ towards the edges, I was unable to find a difference, worth mentioning, between combinations in this aspect (I consider the IQ in the edges as secondary, as long as IQ there is reasonably o.k.)... => Of course the FOVs of 8-15mm/2xTC and WACP/28-60mm are only overlapping and not the same, but when I read in reviews that IQ of WACP-C and FCP-1 are similar, I have no urge to buy FCP and test it out (for sure I can make photos with 8-15mm/2x TC at apertures much wider as f/13 (f/13 appears to be the limit for FCP))... => I personally have ordered now a Sony 1.4x TC and plan to use the 1.4x by default, just to be on the safe side when IQ is concerned... Wolfgang

Maybe of interest for Nikon Z camera owners: A new Sony E to Nikon Z adapter appeared: https://petapixel.com/2025/01/13/viltrox-af-adapter-brings-all-that-e-mount-glass-to-nikon-z-for-only-99/

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...