Architeuthis

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)....

I am extremely thankful for the lots of time and efforts that you invest to provide us with these very interesting test images...👍 (I must say, however, that I would expect companies that sell their products (domes, water contact optics etc..) to provide us with such information, so that we know in advance what we get when we purchase a product. Not only after investing in enormous amounts of redundant gear and careful testing (as almost nobody is able/willing to do)) I am, however, confused about some results and realy hope I misunderstood something, or maybe something is wrong in the test settings: #1.: Your WWL-C performance is terrible overall. Several posts report, however, that this combo with Canon lens is outstanding. How can the difference be explained? If IQ really is so bad, maybe it is because WWL-C was constructed for compact (WWL/WACP-C was constructed for APS-C and WACP-1 for FF, so they should perform better?)? => I did no careful tests with my WACP/Sony 28-60mm, but from about a dozen of dives with WACP-C I got the impression that IQ (center) MAY BE little better with a rectilinear lens (Sony 20-70mm) behind 170mm dome (also a dozen dives with this combo), but similar to the adapted Canon 8-15mm fisheye lens w/o TC (many dives with this combo). As said these are just subjective impressions from real diving... #2.: When I look at your different test photos, I come to the conclusion, that Canon 8-15mm+2x Kenko TC IQ is better than WWL-C/Canon (fearfully other water contact optics perform similar 😟?). I made some photos UW in very bad vis conditions here locally (Canon+2x Kenko TC) and results are not brilliant, as bad vis is rate limiting factor for IQ, but seem useable. I think problems with IQ, in case they exists, will mostly come out in very clear waters... #3.: I am puzzled about the light loss by using the 2xTC: it is clear that minimum f-number of the Canon 8-15mm changes from f/4 (w/o TC) to f/8 (with 2xTC). How can it be explained that there is a light loss at the same f/13 used? Could this be a problem with the adapter that does not transmit the correct, actual, f-number (f/13 set on the lens itself is actually >f/22 when the 2xTC is mounted): If this is the case, part of loss in sharpness could be explained by the very high f-number (approx. f/25) used? Without relying on the adapter and th eelectronic display on the camera, one needed to adjust the aperture to f/6.3 manually on the lens to get a real aperture of f/13 with the 2x TC mounted... Wolfgang

Here I am again...😊 From the two FCP reviews that I know and have read and by comparing these photos to your photo, I find that IQ could not have been better with FCP (maybe at pixel peeping level and with test charts one could find a difference, but then both reviewers say that the FCP should be used at f/13 and more, while your photo was made at f/8 (and still has plenty of DOF!))... => As a result I have now the Sony 2x TC here (a certain advantage of Sony over the Kenko is certainly that the extension needed is shorter, but very likely also IQ will be better). I printed in 3D an adapter for the standard Nauticam zoomgear that fits, and now I am considering the right extension to add to the 35.5mm N120 adapter for the first immersion (Nauticam A7R5). According to Nauticam, the additional 25mm extension is too short just a little (-2,19mm): However, DreiFish recommends from his tests with the bare Canon 8-15mm, that 5mm more would be better for the 140mm domeport: => according to Dreifish, 55mm would be -7.19mm too short, what sounds a lot for the small 140mm domeport. A 60mm extension would restore the -2.19mm difference. According to DreiFish, the corner performance will improve a little. Even 65mm extension may work, but the longer the extension the more unhandy the entire rigg will become... Here a table with deviations from "optimum" according to Nauticam and DreiFish: I think I will give the 60mm extension a try for the first dive... Wolfgang

Just out of curiosity (of a WACP-C owner). Would it possible to test the WACP-C and compare to the Canon 8-15mm with TC?

Just a little more info on the HF-1 accus. There is a very long tread on Scubaboard about the HF-1 flashes: https://scubaboard.com/community/threads/backscatter-hybrid-flash-hf-01-preliminary-review.645397/page-3 On page 3 Jim Decker from Backscatter says the following (people were disputing about other 21700 accus to use): "...Just want to clear up the battery debate. The Hybrid Flash requires 21700 batteries with at least 15A current. Currently Nitecore has 5300 and 6000mah batteries with a 20A draw, which is what we recommend and the only batteries we approve right now for the Hybrid Flash. The Xtar 21700 batteries only have a 10A draw which is fine for the Mini Flash 2 and Macro Wide 4300 video light. The Xtar batteries internal protection circuitry will shut down the battery when drawing more than 10A current. This will happen immediately when turning on the flash as it starts to charge the capacitors. The protection circuit prevents over discharge, and this is why you should always use protected Li-ion batteries in consumer devices! ..."

The HF-1 require the Nitecore NL2153HP accus. No wonder when they do not work with similar, but different products. I ordered them here (EU; I did not want to pay the extra fees for import from USA: https://www.nitecore.de/akkus/21700-li-ion-akkus/nl2153hp/nitecore-li-ion-akku-21700-5300mah-nl2153hp

Does the Sony FE 16-25mm perform better compared to the 16-35mm GM II behind the 180mm domeport or just equal? (For additional over the water use one may prefer to get the more expensive 16-35mm GM II)