Architeuthis

I find these full resolution images are very revealing. At least one can say that 2x Sony TC in tropical Raja Ampat waters (very good visibility but not the best) does not perform worse than Canon 8-15mm alone in local ponds (I guess vis was medicocre). I mean mostly microcontrast and sharpness in the center (I believe this is the criterion whether a TC ruins IQ or not)... => I definitely will go for the Sony 2x TC now. Thank you ... 👍 Wolfgang

Thank you - very interesting...👍 What apertures were used? Do you also have WWL/WACP-x and could compare to these? I am very curious to see the results with TCs too.... Wolfgang

I believe the reason for the 34.7 mm extension and 0.71x speedbooster was the Tokina 10-17mm. It works perfect with the 0.71x, starting from 180° diagonal. IQ is improved by the speedbooster, as the image circle is compressed from APS-C format dimensions to MFT format... I could not see differences in IQ between the Tokina 10-17mm and the Canon 8-15mm on MFT, what sounds strange, but is true. I agree an extension for 1x adapter and Canon would have been better, at the latest when people switch later to FF they can continue to use this great lens (I think Nauticam has a 40mm N85 to N120 adapter that should roughly fit))...

I cannot say about video - never made video with the Canon 8-15mm so far...

I use Metabones V with Canon 8-15mm on A7R5. It focuses well. Sometimes, when dim light conditions, especially with 1.4xTC, AF hunts... I did not test Tokina 10-17mm on A7R5, as this is an APS-C lens, but the Tokina with metabones adapter works as good on Olympus EM1II as the Canon 8-15mm or also a native lens (e.g. Zuiko 8mm fisheye)...

Thank you, Fabian. The images look very good, very impressive, even at pixel peeping level (there may be some chromatic aberration in the images, especially at the transition of the white corals to the blue background, but I guess one could fix this in post in case one wanted to do so)...👍 As far as I am able to judge, I do not see better IQ with my WACP-C/Sony 28-60mm combination on A7R5 (but I use it generally at wider apertures, starting from f/7.1 and more)... May I ask that you also post few images without the TC, just with Canon 8-15mm alone, and explain the differences in IQ you mentioned (with and without TC), based on these photos? Did you also try the Sony 1.4x TC? Wolfgang

I cannot say about the Tokina 10-17mm EF on Canon R or Sony, but have used it on Olympus EM5II and EM1II. No problem with AF or IQ. Same for adapted Canon 8-15mm on EM5II, EM1II and Sony A7R5 (AF struggles seldom in low light with the A7R5 and on all three cameras in low light with the 1.4x TC). All cameras used Metabones adapters... The opposite was with Canon 100mm EF IS macro: no chance for reasonable AF on EM5II, poor AF on EM1II and bumpy, but usable AF, on A7R5. No comparison to the native lenses (Pana 45mm macro and Zuiko 60mm macro for Oly and Sony 90mm macro for Sony A7R5). I think that IQ (resolution) with the FF Canon lens on the small MFT sensor was not as good as with the native lenses, but still very good, just subjective impression, no test charts... Wolfgang

Some time passed, Fabian. How are you satisfied now, after using the 2x TC more often?

Sorry, I meant "Focus shift". "Focus breathing" is something else (it means AOV changes with focus distance)... "Focus shift" means that an area that is in focus at a wide aperture, can be out of focus upon closing the aperture (the actual macro photo is usually made at apertures widely closed, while we like to help AF with focusing at aperture wide open). This phenomenon should not play a role in high quality macro lenses, but it can play a role when additional optics, as diopters or monstrous water contact optics, are added (there are treads about this issue with EMWL, either here or in the old forum)...

I have set Aperture Drive in AF to "Focus priority". There are potential problems with focus breathing when using "Focus priority", I read about this when people use e.g. EMWL. So far, this works well for me with Sony 90mm and also with SMC-1 ...

I have the focus gear for Sony 90mm (A7R5). I find it helpful, as Fruehaufsteher2 says for pre-focusing (especially with SMC-1)...

=> Exact: the planport should be at the sortest distance from the front of the lens. This is provided by the 105mm planport. The same you get with 55m planport plus 20mm and 30mm extension (55+30+20=105), but when using shorter lens you can make the port smaller by omitting extensions...

Concerning 105mm macroport: I purchased the 105 macroport and regret it. I wished I would have gone for 55mm macroport plus a 20mm and a 30mm extension - more expensive at the beginning, but this makes one much more flexible, when one wants to use/test other lenses than the Sony 90mm macro... Another vote for the 45° viewfinder. It is extremely useful and in addition spares the neck muscles. I cannot imagine to give it away... Wolfgang

To complicate things, DoF does depend on the dome: the larger the radius, the more DoF...

The luck with the baggage is the point: When you are not able to put your luggage on the desk, when checking in with Satena, it may well happen that your luggage stays at San Andres, until you come back (at least it will cost you a lot of time and nerves to find someone who takes care(this was in our case the problem))...

Thank you for doing the analysis on the Backscatter test photos. I find them very interesting and revealing... #1.: As you pointed out rightfully after your analysis, there is indeed a difference between light distribution between linear and circular flash tubes. It seems there is no "magic" between different strobe brands, but instead the shape of the flash tube matters. Circular flashtubes just produce evener lighting (what remains to be shown with further test photos)... #2.: Second point is color temperature. Some say they do not mind, but others say it is very important. Good when there are filters available (for those who care), but better the strobe is powerful then, as the filters will take away a lot of light... #3.: There are also other, more technical, items as recycle time, HSS, remote control.. etc. that are also important for some of us... Good that different UW-photographers have different preferences what a strobe should deliver (some say any strobe will do it, what is also o.k.). No matter what the preferences are, careful test photos, as the ones produced by Backscatter and analysed by you, will be a precious help for many of us (as is the valued opinion of UW-photographers from their practical expereince)... => In this spirit, I hope you will continue to analyse new test photos, as they will appear (e.g Marelux Apollo). I suggest you produce an article here that is open and can be updated as new test photos become available... Wolfgang

This is an interesting video. My take is: #1.: FCP substitutes WWL-1/WACP-C as it covers a wider range at similar IQ, compared to WWL-1/WACP-C (IQ here means mostly corner sharpness). #2.: When one is interested to make photos at wider apertures and still have good corner sharpness, then WACP-1/WACP-2 is an alternative, albeit at more narrow AOV... => I am still wondering about the DoF issuer raised by Nicolas Remy in his review, claiming that f/13 and more narrow is required for good photos with FCP. With WWL-1/WACP-C, I seldom use f/13, but more often wider apertures (down to f/7.1) with WACP-C/28-60mm. This is also how WWL-1/WACP-C is advertised by Nauticam (3 f-stops better than rectilinear behind planport (WACP-1 is 4 f-stops, WACP-2 is 5-f stops better)). In addition, virtually everybody uses WWL/WACP at wider apertures... This issue needs more clarification by people who use both FCP/WACP-C... => It seems that the only "hobbyist" who dared to purchase FCP is Fruehaufsteher2. I wonder whether the FCP is to just too expensive or whether there are other reasons (f/13 issue?)... At present, my preference is to stay with Canon 8-15mm/140mm dome plus WACP-C/28-60... Wolfgang

The diopter (which SMC was it?) will certainly change DoF, as it reduces the working distance. DoF depends on (i) focal length, (ii) aperture and (iii) working distance. See e.g. the table in the link: https://www.photopills.com/calculators/dof-table The table is for use over the water. For a lens behind a planport, the focal length increases by approx. 33% ("diving mask effect"). There are other inexactness as well, but the table + corrected focal length will give you a reasonable approximation... Wolfgang

Great information, thanks to you and Backscatter ... 👍 Now we know that Chris's analysis gives valid numbers and also can compare the zones between the RETRA testing (in air at 60 cm distance) and the Backscatter testing (in water at distance of 1m). Here the beam angles of the different zones (for Retra calculated from Pythagoras and angular functions):

There is, of course, never a total warranty, but unless there are (small) cracks in the dome to see, it is very unlikely that any implosion will happen... Even small cracks may be no problem (but may impair optical performance), but then better ask at the manufacturer. In a Nauticam housing that I bought second hand there were small cracks to see in the rear window (not just scratches). I made a photo and send this to Nauticam, the response was that this is no problem (and it was no problem until now)... Wolfgang

When this photo was really taken at f/13, as Dreifish read out from the EXIF data, I agree with Dreifish that DOF is very shallow compared to other optics, e.g. WACP-C. When the aperture was wide open, this is what one would expect, more or less. But still it depends how close the soft coral was, when very close you get this even at f/13... Maybe you have a photo that is not CFWA, e.g. reefscene, and was taken at wide aperture f/7 and smaller numbers? Would be interesting to see such a photo... Wolfgang

This is interesting news...👍 As long as the screenshots are taken from a calibrated monitor (no extra contrast, HDR etc...) the analysis is be valid...

I had a similar problem with Nauticam housing last year: maybe half a teaspoon of water inside. I noticed it immediately, as it was in a very cold mountain lake and I got condensation on the domeport what made photos impossible... After the dive, I noticed that three screws of an extension were missing (already as it came from the factory). I wrote to several Nauticam dealers, some wrote this was probably the reason, other said it cannot be the reason. Backscatter was so kind to supply me, free of charge, with spare screws... Until today I do not know what the reason was, but after insertion of the missing screws and fixing the entire part with four screws, I never had this problem again... => I posted this in the old forum. Better have a look on the photo in the first post there and check, whether you also miss some screws (just to be on the safe side): https://wetpixel.com/forums/index.php?/topic/71358-dimensions-of-screws-for-nauticam-n120-extensions/ Wolfgang

Great, thanks. What were the conditions (aperture, but also other parameters)? => The sharpness of the in focus area does not look very impressive, but this is probably due to the data reduction for putting the photos here. Maybe a 100% would show sharpness better...

I cannot follow you, Adventurer: when flash duration (linear tubes) is 1ms to 4ms, you need shutter speeds between 1/1000s and 1/250s and have, more or less (decay of intensity is exponential), the entire light emitted in your photo. Only Sony AIII and compacts are able to do substantially faster sync. With few cameras that are able to sync. at 1/400s (e.g. Sony A1, Oly EM1II or OM-1), you already clip some light from a flash that lasts is longer than 2.5 ms... Even with circular flashtubes that have longer lasting pulses, the action can be frozen to the fastest sync. speed the camera is able to do, at the cost of some light loss. I never heard that such light loss plays a role in macro, as full strobe power is practically never used... I would be interested if you can give the special settings under which you observed these movement artifacts (focal length (I guess this was at WA with quite long exposure times?), shutter speed, aperture, was there ambient light in the play? etc...) - this is very surprising to me...