Architeuthis

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)

Thank you DreiFish, for this very informative and useful (for making buying decisions) testing....👍 I wished someone would do this also with Sony FE WA zoom lenses (I find it is a real pity that the companies producing these domes do not make their testing results available, so that people could see what they get when purchasing a specific domeport/lens combination)... Surprising to me is that the center performance of the Laowa 10mm is better with the big acryl dome compared to the 140mm glass dome. What could be the reason (aside from variability of the sample)? I speculate it may be the much smaller and closer virtual image that is photographed: eventually the very close distance performance of the lens is worse compared to the longer distance. It could, however, also be caused by small inaccuracies in the focus adjustment that come out more prominent with the smaller and closer virtual image...(?) I am trying to find out how zero extension on Nauticam RF FF housing (with the Laowa lens in RF version) compares to Nauticam Sony FF housing with 35.5mm N100/N120 adapter (that restores the right distance for Canon EF mount, when a e.g. Metabones adapter is used) for the Laowa lens in Sony FE version. Did someone make the exact comparison? Wolfgang

Thank you - great results...👍 I already was thinking about screwing the old 10mm extension on the 140mm permanently and then using an additional 20mm II extension, when I use it with the Canon 8-15mm. But better when te 10mm extension is not needed... What was the aperture used in the photo?

I would not be happy, but probably I would take the WACP-C...

I assembled Nauticam housing, 140mm dome, 35.5mm N100 to N120 adapter, A7R5 and Laowa 10mm at home: Additional 20mm extension is too much (vignetting!) and N120 10mm extension (type II) does not seem to fit on the 140mm dome... => I will make some photos at the next occasion, without any additional extension (I have the old 10mm N120 extension with screws here (it is available under "Classified"), but I really dislike the fumbling with the screws - I hope it will work without additional extension)... Wolfgang

Did someone already test for the optimum extension for the Laowa 10mm with Nauticam 140mm and Nauticam housing? As far as I understand Phil's postings, 10mm or 20mm with dome shade removed should do it, together with the standard N100 to N120 35.5mm adapter (Sony A7R5)... (I got the lens yesterday and will start soon...😊) Wolfgang

Do you know already, what the reason was and did you fix it? Did you experience the problem later again? I am asking, since I experienced a similar problem on two dives during my last trip: in about 25% of my photos the flashes did not trigger. Seemed to occur randomly distributed. The other dives were 100% o.k... This happened with a manual s-Turtle trigger on Sony A7R5 in Nauticam housing. I also have a manual Nauticam trigger and with this I never encountered such a problem (Also not with the s.Turtle TTL trigger that I used before the manual version). I think about two possible problems that may be responsible: #1.: Before these problems happened, I once took out the camera&trigger out from the housing and forgot to dismantle first the 2 LEDs from the housing. So I unintentionally disconnected the LEDs from the trigger (this is a connection with many tiny, fragile looking, contacts; another plus for the solid Nauticam trigger). Maybe one of these contacts has a loose contact now... #2.: It can also be that I just did not push the trigger strong enough into the hot shoe. Maybe the Sony hot shoe is too fragile and these tiny little contacts have a tendency to make loose contact here and there ... I will observe and follow this problem and report in the future how it develops... Wolfgang

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