Architeuthis

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)

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...