Architeuthis

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)...

I had problems with the weight on the first time: As usual (with Z330 that has little downforces), I put the floats on the inner arms, close to the camera housing. As a result, the heavy HF-1s, when pulled far back to avoid backscatter, resulted in a torque momentum turning my rig down on the backside and up on the front. Uncomfortable for the wrists... On the next dive I put some of the floats on the outer arms, near the strobes, and everything was fine, perfect balance and no torque... The HF-1 is bigger than Z330 and more weight to carry on land, but I am still young and have no problem lugging around all the gear... I also can say that it is clearly easier to avoid backscatter with the HF-1 with flat diffusers, compared to the Z330 with dome diffusers, when a 180° fisheye lens is used... I bought all available diffusers and domes. This is not only expensive, but also a hughe amount of plastic. Too much to use, even to test out, everything and also too much take everything along for a trip. The 4500 K flat diffusers and maybe another set of 5500 K flat diffusers for green water are probably enough (Alex says the flat diffusers cover already an area enough for 180° fisheye and this is what I also see). I used so far the 4500 K flat diffusers in cloudy green water and even there the color temperature is o.k. (but 5500 K may be better)... Wolfgang

Great photos... How did you create the bubbles (I guess that the Tartisan lens does not create the bubbles by itself?)? Did you use an external strobe and something to diffract the light?

I have Z330 and now HF-1s. Cannot comment on the Kraken 160s or Retras... Here is a review by Alex Mustard on the Kraken 160 strobes (starting at about 13:00): And here one entire video by him on the HF-1: When searching for powerful WA strobes with high quality of light, i think one should also take the Seacam 160 into consideration...

I just got a suspicious EMail from somebody, whom I do not know: Lawrence Williams <[email protected]> "... Good day, I am checking to know if you would be so interested in buying some gears in case you might feel so interested in buying Sony RX100VA with Nauticam housing and Z330 Strobes and WWL-C wide angle - $2000 Suunto d5 - $400 New! Cressi Scorpion BCD, Size Medium. Great Travel BCD! #1 BCD per Scubalab! - $350 Blacktip Tech DPV with 12ah Dewalt Batteries and extras $1500 Nauticam/Panasonic LX10 with Dual Big Blue 15,000 Video Lights Complete System $900 Oceanic Atom 2.0 $120New Shearwater Teric - Open Box - Return - $700 Shearwater Peregrine - $250 Bare Sentry Pro Dry crushed neoprene drysuit $650 prices include shipping kindly leave a message if you feel interested to buy ..." MAYBE it is a serious offer, but this is hard to believe. Who would send out series EMails to unknown people for selling his equipment (and from where does this guy have my EMail adress?)?

Here it is: https://www.dpreview.com/articles/9830877104/canon-eos-r5-ii-for-video-what-you-need-to-know?utm_source=self-desktop&utm_medium=marquee&utm_campaign=traffic_source

This is another interesting test side, as they have tested both the 24-50mm and the 28-60mm Sony lenses... An extract for non-native German speakers: Interestingly the resolution measurements show that both lenses are very good (around 85 - 90 lp/mm at moderate apertures (for 24-50mm at all focal length, for the 28-60mm lens only values for 28mm are given), similar results to what is visible from the test images linked by Dreifish. Both lenses suffer from 50%-60% degradation of resolution towards the corners and both also from longitudinal chromatic aberration. Certainly the 28-60mm does not need to hide when it is compared to the 24-50mm, when over the water performance is considered (the constant f/2.8 aperture of the 24-50mm seems irrelevant for UW use)... Of course it is impossible to predict how well a lens will work together with WACP-C, but I agree with Dreifish that a bad lens is normally not a good starting point (but both 28-60mm and 24-50mm Sony lenses are good, but not excellent, performers)... Wolfgang

The land comparison is interesting. I, personally, find the differences at comparable apertures and focal lengths between Sony 28-60 and 24-50 quite small. Sometimes the 28-60 may be even a little tack better. This is in contrast to a comparison of the Sony 28-60mm with the older 28-70mm lens that is clearly worse (same webside)... => It seems to me that the advantage of the 24-50mm lens over the 28-60mm lens for over the water use is the wider and constant f/2.8 aperture. This is, however, of little relevance for UW where smaller apertures are normally used. It may, however, be that the performance of the lenses with the WACP-C is different, as a lot of optical elements are added to produce a completely different "patchwork" lens, optimized for UW...

The Sony 28-60mm is the standard lens for use with WACP-C for many, including me. Nauticam now lists the Sony 24-50mm G lens as also compatible with WACP-C (an additional 35mm N100 extension is required)... Did someone already use both 28-60mm and 24-50mm Sony lenses with WACP-C and can say whether it is worth to switch to the (presumably) optically better 24-50mm G lens and sacrifice the 50mm-60mm range? Or is the final outcome in IQ the same and the 24-50mm lens just brings disadvantages (vignetting at 24mm, longer extension and less zoom range)? Thanks, Wolfgang

These are all very interesting comparisons. I would say that the intensity in the center is similar between HF-1 with 5500 K diffuser and Ikelite DS230 w/o diffuser. The carpet is, however, much darker with HF-1, compared to Ikelite. I interpret this the way that light distribution is clearly more even with the Ikelite w/o diffuser compared to HF-1 with diffuser... => This sounds pretty bad as even light distribution is something highly desired by everybody... One must say, however, that normally for WA one uses two flashes and the objects in the center are normally lit by the periphery of the flash beams. The centers of the flash beam lit at most the corners of the scenery and these may be the problematic regions where light drops off in real life conditions (so more intensity there may be well a benefit). In the center the two flash beams add up and give good brightness. I cannot remember that ever I had a problem with WA and two flashes, where the center was not bright enough due to uneven light distribution of the flash beam (YS-D2s and Z330s; all linear flash tubes) - unless the object in the center was close and I did not pull the flashes close enough together... Maybe the more uneven light distribution becomes a problem when WA with a single strobe, but few people do this... Wolfgang

I have Sony 90mm and SMC-1. It is certainly not possible to focus at infinity distance when the SMC-1 is mounted. As the others above write, working distance, where focus can be achieved, is 45mm - 93 mm and the maximum magnification that can be achieved (at 45mm), is 2.2x. When the working distance is bigger (up to 93mm), magnification is, accordingly, less...

Here in Austria we have crystal clear, but really cold, lakes in the mountains. In summer and when the weather allows, a lot of sunshine in the shallow regions. Similar situation to Egypt (sun intensity may be less, but vis is definitely better)... On my first dive with HF-1, I had problems with the rather high downforce, when I pulled the strobes far back with the fisheye lens/dome on the rig. But now I have redistributed the floats (shifted floats towards the strobe-ends of the outer arm instead of having them on the inner arm) and buoyancy is perfect. I can release the entire rig, it not just stays at level, but also does not twist and/or tip over. I was just not used to have strobes, that weight so much in water (YS-D2s and Z330s before, downforces are almost negligible). Yes, strobe power control should better be "paddle" style, but this is a luxury problem. Guess one becomes accustomed to this within few dives and then it goes via vegetative nervous system... I have used the strobes now few times with the flat diffusers and Canon 8-15mm fisheye/140mm domeport in cloudy waters (gravelpond with 2-3m vis. maximum; plenty of backscatter). I find avoidance of backscatter in these conditions considerably easier compared to my Z330s with dome diffusers...

Thank you again. I just see it was taken with WWL-C (thought it was with the new Laowa 10mm). So maybe the corners are not so important in this case... Here is BTW the link to Alex's review of the HF-1 strobes: Wolfgang

Thank you for the nice example photo...👍 It would be great if you could provide the uncropped version (to see how performance is far from center)....