Architeuthis

Great and vivid discussion here... Some comments were a little bit harsh, but I could not read any personal insultation here that would justify banning of a member... Wolfgang

The choice of system/camera/lenses is, of course, very individual and different UW-photographers have different preferences... In early 2023, I switched from Olympus EM1II (MFT) to Sony A7R5 (FF). I am still experimenting and still do not have a final opinion, but it is unlikely that I ever will switch back to a MFT system. The FF system is better in many aspects (but, unfortunately, not in every aspect). Below the points that I find important to mention: #1.: 61 Mpixel vs. 20 Mpixel makes cropping much more forgivable. I am not using the native aspect ratio of the sensor all the time. I mostly show my photos to other people on a beamer that has an aspect ratio of 16:9 and therefore, whenever possible, I crop the final image for viewing to 16:9, to use the maximum of the projected area abd show a big slide (for print, I crop to the ratio of the print medium). When 16:9 is not so good for the motif, I take other ratios, as 3:2, 4:3 or even 1:1, depending what is the best to my feeling. This, together with a little bit of cropping, due to imperfect framing (well, i am not a perfect UW-photographer) makes already a lot of cropping, but in average, 40 Mpixel remain, what is still more than plenty... #2.: 14-bit vs. 12-bit RAW file. 14-bit give just a lot of more headroom in postprocessing, is it for enhancing the shadows or the adjustment of colors. Especially the better possibility to avoid blown-out sun, when the sun appears in the photo is important to me (of course overexposure of the sun has to be avoided when taking the photo, but upon postprocessing the better ability to enhance the shadows comes into the play). #3.: AF is working very well, both with EM1II and A7R5: I, personally, find that the difference in AF is overrated, when I read reviews and posts. For WA and normal range photos I find it, more or less, the same (at low light the EM1II was even slightly better, but maybe I am nostalgic). Even for macro there is not a big difference, especially when I consider the size of an object, relative to the frame. In this terms, the EM1II with the Pana 45mm gives the same magnification of an object. relative to frame, as the A7R5 with Sony 90mm plus SMC-1. C-AF&tracking (used to frame the photo finally) works pretty well with both combinations. EM1II plus CMC-1 would struggle, but then the object, relative to the frame, would be similar to Sony 90mm plus SMC-2 (which I do not have (yet), so I cannot compare). AI with object recognition works much better on A7R5 compared to EM1II, but in my hands, this is of limited use UW... I find, however, that sharpness and color on macro photos is (slightly) better with A7R5 (better must be so, as the macro setup is a monstrum compared to the slim EM1II/Pana 45mm setup) #4.: The difference in size and money is overrated to my feeling. Most money is spent, when buying a lot of different things, that are not used in the end, and switching from one system to the other. In addition, a fully equipped MFT setup with all lenses/domes etc. is also not cheap. Buying once and using for a long time the right stuff is the most "economical" () solution. When really short in budget, better not go for a system camera, but go for compact (both price and size advantage for compact). Differerence in size depends on the setup (see below, #5 "lens choice")... #5.: Lens choice (and size difference): (i) For the "normal range" (e.g. fishportraits), I was using the Zuiko 12-40mm f/2.8 behind 170mm domeport. With FF, I use the Sony 20-70mm behind the same domeport. Almost no difference in size, but the 20mm at the wide end is a sunstantial gain (I find IQ slightly better with the FF). Advantage for A7R5 here... (ii) Ultra-WA: EM1II with adapted Canon 8-15mm is practically same size as A7R5 with adapted Canon 8-15mm (both with 140mm domeport). With MFT this was outstanding IQ and zoom range, with FF no zoomrange, just 15mm (180° diagonal) and IQ is just good. Same size, but advantage for EM1II... (iii) Macro: EM1II with Pana 45mm (or Zuiko 60mm) makes a slim and smart setup. A7R5 with Sony 90mm plus SMC-1 is the biggest setup I ever used. IQ is, however, better with FF (I find well exposed photos "crisper" (sharper, more contrast and colors better (but just subjective feeling, did not make objective measurements). Lens choice is no comparison: with the MFT system one has the choice between 30mm, 45mm and 60mm dedicated macro lenses, all working perfect. Now even a dedicated 90mm macro with native 2:1 magnification is available. For Sony FF the dedicated 90mm is excellent, but that is it (A 50mm, but very slow focusing, 50mm is available; I read here that people even have to use adapted 60mm APS-C lenses for macro) Advantage for size and lens choice goes clearly to EM1II, but advantage for IQ to A7R5... (iv) WA: EM1II with adapted Canon 8-15mm was everything I ever wanted (great zoom range and outstanding IQ). The A7R5 WA is more problematic. At present, I use Sony 28-60mm with WACP-C. IQ is very good. The designation "C" in WACP-C stands for "compact", this seems a little understatement to me, it is a hughe piece of equipment to lug around. Also the setup is quite big. With EM1II the Canon 8-15mm does both Ultra-WA and WA. With A7R5 I need both Canon 8-15, plus WACP-C. Clear advantage for MFT here... At present, I would not exchange my Sony FF system against a MFT system. The FF system is, however, not just more expensive and heavier, but excels in any other aspect. There is light and shadow, as always, and it remains a very personal choice... Wolfgang

If this is just two particles more (or less), I will be very happy... But seriously now, I think the theories presented here are very important and explain a lot... 👍 In addition to these theories and also contributing to the undoubtetly (?) positive effect of pulling strobes back on backscatter, I believe that pulling the strobes "back", e.g. so that the front of the strobes is in line with the handles (maybe even behind the handles), uses the camera housing (and also the backside of the domeport) as some kind of "shade" that creates a shadow (with repect to flashlight) just in front of the domeport, minimizing backscatter from a very sensitive space... Wolfgang

Hi Turandot, It is operated by the Nauticam zoomgear for this lens: https://www.nauticam.com/products/o825-z-zoom-gear-for-olympus-m-zuiko-digital-ed-8-25mm-f4-pro She has the N120 version of the DP170, without any built-in extension. Then comes the 34.7mm N85 to N120 adapter plus 60mm of N120 extension (she uses 25mm + 35mm). The lens extends, but does not touch the domeport... Wolfgang

https://scubaboard.com/community/threads/martin-edge-the-underwater-photographer.647106/

I photograph in RAW and therefore I can shift the color temperature of the water to any value I want in post at high quality. I set the WB on the camera to "Auto" or to a preset value (e.g. color temperature of the flash), but this is just for viewing immediately in the viewfinder, or as a first suggestion after import in LRc. WB during making the photos is not very important for the way I make photos (with video this is, of course, a different story)... The trick with different color temperature(s) of the flash is that the temperature of ambient light is given, but one can adjust the temperature of the artificial flashlight with filters: hence the ratio in temperature of ambient/artificial can be adjusted by choosing different filters... => As some suggest above this ratio can be also adjusted by selectively adjusting temperature using masks (this is how I do it at present, by the way), but these masks are never perfect and sometimes artifacts become apparent. Wolfgang

It would be very interesting, if you could post the screen shots and, maybe, also your analysis (I guess histograms?) There is the problem as these are screenshots from videos and we do not know how they postprocess their videos and whether they do it always the same way... Maybe one could ask at Backscatter to give you the original photos? Wolfgang

I can report only for Sony A7R5, not on earlier versions: I have the Metabones V adapter and it works o.k. (with and without 1.4x TC)... Wolfgang

Would be nice to have more cycles, but for comparison: Eneloop AA white have 2100 cycles Eneloop AA black have 500 cycles

For me, this photo answers the question in the title of the tread "...How powerful strobes do you really need for wide angle? Weight and size considerations (or my GAS journey)..." => I would says for this type of WA photo the flashes could not be powerful enough (I struggle a lot with lightening similar fish shools with strobes)... And what is the problem with powerful strobes (except size and weight, but what kind of FF user cares about few 100 grams?)? And when max. power is too much, just turn them down a little, were is the problem (the opposite with small strobes is, unfortunately, not possible)...

I have here one used, but still working very well, Sea&Sea YS-D2 with ball mount (old Chinese version). It comes with two set of diffusers (2*100° and 2*120°) plus alternative mount option (can be exchanged against the ball mount). Asking 220 Euro, including shipping within EU (other destinations possible upon request and additional shipping charges)...

The comparison was made without, but also with diffusers (regarding YS-D2 and Z330). The problem is, that the images were taken in air and not in the water. Water will scatter the light and also the beam angles will be different... I never have seen such a weird intensity pattern with YS-D2 or Z330, as shown in the Retra "study", when I have used them without diffusers. If the strobes would perform like shown in the "study" UW, they would not be usable without diffusers.. Wolfgang

In addition to several other filters, Backscatter offers also blue filters for cooling down the temperature of their HF-1 strobes. Is this the diffuser/dome you would take? Wolfgang

Interesting link. Since the comparison is produced by Retra, there are, of course, conflicts of interest and I would not call this a "study" (as they do), but more an "advertising brochure" (same applies to the "review" of the new HF-1 strobes by Jim Decker from Backscatter 🙂 ).... Nevertheless, the light distribution of YS-D2 and Z330 without diffusers looks terrible, in the case with diffusers it looks much better ... => In they case they would be able to reproduce these patterns in water (these are UW strobes!), this would be really a strong argument and a step towards a real "study".... => Of course the reports/comparisons from users like you or Alex Mustard is a different story. These are people that have used different strobes for long and report from their own experience with them. I highly appreciate such information... Wolfgang

Can you please specify this more precisely? Is it the color temperature? Evenness of lighting? hardness/softness of light falling in? something else? Thanks, Wolfgang

The power consumption of Z330 at full power is approx. 130 Joule, I guess YS-D2 is similar... I seldom go to f/13, most of the time lower f-numbers. I use higher shutter speeds, 1/100s and shorter to avoid motion blurr. ISO up to 800, but, if possible, (seldom) base ISO, i.e. 100... I hate dark-blue waters that make people asking me whether I made the photo at dawn or at night (unless I take photos at dawn or in the night)... It is not just the distance, this would be easy. It is also the area covered (then you have to back up a little) and not seldom, the object itself... On the last diving vacation it were Carribean reef sharks. They encircle the divers during the entire dive, within distance for WA flash, but seldom (maybe 1x per dive, but often not even 1x) come < 1m, so close that they touch (almost) the domeport. I needed all the power the flashes could deliver. I also would have liked to have more power, for single shots, but especially for repetitive firing at 3 or 4 photos/second, in order to get multiple photos from a pass (turned out to be impossible with Z330 at the circumstances given, just too weak)... Wolfgang

Of course, and fortunately, it is individually different how people produce their photos. Whether strobe power is enough or not for me, depends not only on the type of photography (for e.g. macro any strobe will do it), but also on the camera type: when I was using Olympus MFT cameras (EM5II and EM1II), the strobes I was using (Sea&Sea YS-D2 and, later , Inon Z330) produced enough light/flash, even for WA in bright and clear waters. Now I have FF (Sony A7R5) and find myself using the Z330s, almost by "default", at full power for WA and sometimes I wished I had more light... For me, smaller strobes would certainly not do it for WA (I have an additional Backscatter MF2 with snoot for macro)... Another issue is the color temperature. I am convinced that the less correction is required in postprocessing, the better the final outcome is. Hence a strobe with color temperature to produce nice background color without much fiddling in-post is desirable for me... When filters are used to warm up the light, one should consider that this reduces the light output (the cold part is absorbed by the filter and the rest remains) => Since you have the means to measure light output, it would be great if you could measure how much f-stops are filtered away by warming up the light (the more warming up, the more f-stops are expected to be filtered out). I have pre-ordered two Backscatter HF-1 with filters/diffusers and hope that the quality of artificial light will improve, compared to the Z330s - but let's see, whether and how much they bring ... Wolfgang

I ordered two HF-1 and am waiting too. I also do not have info, whether they will arrive soon... Wolfgang

Some of the example split-photos from the Matty Smith homepage are against low sun. I cannot see problems with microscratches there. Maybe the borrowed domeport of RomiK is in an especially bad condition (or are these carefully selected example photos)? Regarding the domeport selection for split photos, when travelling with aeroplane, I have observed that (most) UW-photographers just take the domeport for split photos that they have taken with them (sometimes even 100mm; I remember few years ago there was an award winning split photos of Carribean reefsharks at sunset, that was taken with a 100mm minidome). It is just a problem of logistics: split photos are normally not taken on every day, so that it would be worth to carry a dedicated domeport for split photos in the luggage. Some take a 230mm domeport, as default, and use it for everything, from fisheye, normal zoom range to WA and, of course, also for split photos.... Maybe a 230mm domeport that is used for everything is the "cheap" (and most convenient compromise) solution that fruehaufsteher2 is looking for (but then no WACP for WA in the luggage and, instead, fisheye and rectilinear lenses). WACP&Co obviously do not work for split photos (except WACP2 and FCP, but these may be far away from optimum for splits)... => When diving "at home" (i.e. from the car) it is of course a different story and a dedicated port for split photos, e.g. Matty Smith, may be a lot of fun... Wolfgang P.S.: Today I got an EMail from FUN-IN Underwater Photo Equipment Co., the company that distribute Athena from far east. They write that Athena does not exist anymore, so no chance for a 200mm glass port at present... ☹️

"I wanted to chime in re:acrylic for splits as it is tempting for costs and weight but wouldn't it be prohibitive when you decide to do sunsets? Couple weeks ago I briefly tested used Oly setup I got for a friend no flash no nothing and this came up as split with 140mm fish eye acrylic dome. Granted it was used but in pristine conditions and judging my own Aquatica acrylic I have with GH5S it seems to me that micro scratches are unavoidable with acrylic. Invisible for regular shots but may show with sunsets based on subject...🤷‍♂️"... => A really important point, I did not think about it (I have only glas domeports so far, no plastic). Would be interesting to know what people, who use both glass and acryl regularily for split shots, say about this problem... "And second picture just to add to samples - 180mm dome with A1 and aperture 5.6. Seeing samples above I'd say WACP-C is going to be similar? "... => The outcome looks similar, but in case of the WACP-C sample photos, f/22, an aperture that should give reasonably sharp distant objects in the OW part with FF, was used, not f/5.0 (that gives certainly blurry OW parts)...

I did not know it is possible to make split photos with WACP-C (I own one since beginning this year, but did not use it for split photos, as Nauticam says it is not possible). The photo by Chip shows, what Nauticam says, i.e. that it is not possible to get both UW and over the water (OW) sharp, even at f/22 (when I have a closer look at fruehaufsteher2's photo, I now see that also the (close and hence easier to get sharp) OW fin of the shark is blurry). I think unless a blurry OW is desired, for creative reasons, the WACP-C is not a good choice... I have a Canon 8-15mm/Metabones V with Nauticam 140mm domeport and use it with Sony A7R5 for split shots (most of the time I use it just for extreme WA UW). Far from an ideal solution, as (i) the virtual image produced by the small dome is close and hence it is more difficult to get both UW and OW sharp and (ii) it is more difficult to get a straight waterline, especially when the sea is not calm, with the small dome. Since I have this combo with me, it is, nevertheless, my choice for split photos when I am abroad. I mostly use the 8mm circular fisheye mode. Here are two example images: Canon 8-15mm @8mm, 1/125s, ISO 800, f/22, 2*Z330: Canon 8-15mm @8mm, 1/125s, ISO 800, f/22, 2*Z330: Lisi uses the Zen DP170 with Tokina 10-17mm (seen on the second photo) or the rectilinear Zuiko 8-25mm for split photos (Olympus EM1II). The bigger dome works better for splits than the 140mm domeport... I have seen even an UW photographer making split photos with the Zen 100mm dome and Tokina 10-17mm (Nikon D500) and the results were nice (of course it is the most difficult combination). The reason he used this combo was just that he had it along with him and no other choice... For the future I am considering of acquiring a 200mm domeport that I think is ideal for rectilinear WA lenses on A7R5, as well as for split shots. The DP200 with rectilinear WA lens(es) would replace then the WACP-C, when travelling on air (both WACP-C and a DP200 is too much to carry...). In addition to providing WA, less extreme than the fisheye, the DP200 would provide very good split photo possibility. Unfortunately the Zen DP200 is not available at present. There is a 200mm domeport available from Athena, but I am not sure this is the same type of port, I have to do more recherches... Very tempting is the 12" Matty Smith acryl domeport, but I cannot see me carrying this domeport along for diving holidays an an aeroplane. It is just specialized for split photos (I even do not make split photos on every diving vacation, it depends on circumstances and motifs). This would be a special domeport, just for using it at home, but I guess I will not be able to resist acquiring one sooner or later... Wolfgang

I have a used, costum made, D&D Nauticam N85-N120 portadapter 30mm for sale (https://www.unterwasserkamera.at/shop/catalog/en/product_info.php?info=p6901_d-d-nauticam-n85---n120-portadapter-30mm.html). As the designation implies, this adapter serves to connect a port/domeport from Nauticam with N120 opening to a housing with N85 opening (e.g. MFT) and has an extension of 30mm. I have used it with the Zen DP170 (N120 version) and the Zuiko 8mm fisheye on MFT cameras (=> excellent IQ!). price new: 490 Euros As this is a rarely needed (but if needed, very useful) product, I ask for only 170 Euros including shipping within EU (surcharge for shipping outside EU upon request) Wolfgang

I have a used Nauticam N120 extension ring 10 with screws for sale (SKU # 21110; old version)... price new: 214 Euros asking 100 Euros including shipping within EU (other destinations with surcharge upon request) Wolfgang

I have a used Nauticam N85 to N120 60mm port adapter (SKU # 36204) for sale. I have used it previously with the Zen DP170 (N120 version) for the Panasonic 7-14mm WA lens... price new 489 Euros asking 250 Euros including shipping within EU (other shipping with appropriate surcharge upon request) Wolfgang

New price for Nauticam focus gear for Canon 100mm f/2.8 IS: 60 Euro incl. shipping within EU (other destinations with surcharge for shipping)... Wolfgang