Architeuthis

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

The question to me is, whether this company did a bad job by (i) raising unjustified high expectations and in (ii) execution of the "expedition" (like no plan B, too many people in the boat, wrong season etc...)... I have been just once in La Paz in the early 90ies for a week and remember very well the meetings with the sea lions (very easy and especially pleasing to encounter them (except the big dominant males, when they get jealous...)). The sea mountain with the hammerheads was not possible then, because of the weather conditions (=not the fault of the diving base). Whales were visible seldom from far on the way to or back from the diving sites, but none of them UW... (I will not go there again as long as they have this strange rip off of UW-photographers at the border control, but as soon as this stops, we plan to be there...) The last photo with the mobulas is fantastic. I wished I ever will have such an occasion. Such an occasion is certainly worth a lot of troubles, maybe better to see the positive side... Wolfgang

I am late to this party, just my opinion (only Mark can decide what, at present, is the optimum for him): Any of the three options is a substantial upgrade to the TG-6. From compact to ILC is a big leap, both in size&weight and in money to invest (I estimate that both factors increase approx. like: RX100<<MFT<APS-C<FF)). RX100 vs. OM: I think the difference in IQ between Sony RX100x and MFT is not very big, but the MFT camera offers the possibility to change the lens (some are optically brilliant) and to prepare the setup especially for different purpose (for some a big advantage, others like the flexibility of a compact with wetlenses)... => In any case I believe a smart and elegant compact setup (e.g. RX100 in reliable alu housing (e.g. Nauticam, Isotta) and with high quality wet lens for WA (e.g. WWL-C - instead of the cheapest wet lens available in e.g. Alibaba) and macro (e.g. CMC) is much better than to go for a high end system camera that is housed in low quality plastic housing (high danger of flooding, buttons not available, non-ergonomical, or not working etc...) and using low quality wet lenses. I also read several times in different treads and forums that the cheap domeports of companies as e.g. Meike have really bad optical performance... => If I would not be sure jet, whether I liked better a compact or a ILC system, I would step up just to the next level and go for compact, but buy really good quality... Wolfgang

I just upgraded LRc to version 13.3, as well as the Mac OS to 14.5.0... => The bug is fixed now...😋 Wolfgang

First, let me thank all of you for the interesting comments...👍 Until now I was using my strobes (Z-330) at color tempearture as they come from the factory (5500 K). Two weeks ago, I pre-ordered two Backscatter HF-1 strobes with different types of diffusers (6500 K, 5500 K and 4500 K) and am glad to read how people use such filters (or some, not at all), to have a first orientation for my own experimentation... (I, personally, am convinced that it is better to adjust the color temperature relation between artificial and ambient light already before the light hits the sensor (this was the reason for per-ordering two HF-1's plus filters). There will be always corrections in post-processing, also using masks, but the smaller such manipulations are, the better the final outcome will be (this is at least my hope))...😊 Wolfgang

How do you get the subject/object focus distance from the EXIF data? I guess you have a special trick or program? => I just had a look at raw files from Sony A7R5 in LRc, obtained with Canon 8-15mm fisheye, Sony 28-60mm and Sony 20-70mm, but "Focus Distance" or "Subject Distance" values are missing in my case... Wolfgang

Big thanks for writing this together Massimo... 👍 As I understand your findings, there is a big difference between WWL1/WACP and a domeport: The domeport produces a small virtual image that is close to the domeport and is photographed by the (rectilinear) WA lens at short object distance. In contrast WWL1/WACP add additional optical elements to the front of a standard lens, the entire assembly (standard lens + WWL1/WACP) being an UW WA lens with fisheye characteristics. This is indicated by the long working distance that you read from the EXIF data (the distance is, of course, incorrect, as the specification in m is for the pure lens without WWL1/WACP and over the water)? Wolfgang

Here I found an interesting summary how to transport Li+, but also other, batteries on flights: https://petapixel.com/flying-with-lithium-batteries-what-you-need-to-know/ Wolfgang