Canon R5 or Sony a7Riv

Okay, I know this is the great “Ford vs. Chevy” debate, but I’m in a bit of a quandary as to which way to go.  Here’s some background:

- I am upgrading from an older Canon APS-C system in a Nauticam housing.  While my current Tokina 10-17 and Canon 60 (APS-C) macro can be used in crop mode with either of these new cameras, I’m looking to use the appropriate  FF lenses.  
- I do mostly wreck/reef diving in South Florida waters.  Some travel will again be on the horizon.   Consistent auto focus and image quality is a key concern.
 

- For land photography, I lean towards the R5.  This would require a 230mm dome for use with the RF 14-35.  This same dome could also be used with the RF 24-105 or even the EF 8-15 fisheye.  From what I have read, I would need to live in the f/11 - f/16 range for sharper corners with the big dome.  That really strains the ISO and flash power.  While video is not the focus, it seems video would be easier on the R5.  Splits would be easier with the big dome.

- For Sony, the Nauticam WWL-1B and the Sony 28-60 looks very appealing.  Actually, this lens is the main reason I am considering the Sony.  It appears to be super sharp, even at f/5.6.  The WACP size and price pushes me toward the WWL option.  I have also heard the WWL needs to be “burped” at the beginning of each dive to make sure no air bubbles when entering the water.  No real issue, but just an extra thing to remember when that dolphin makes a surprise appearance.  
 

On paper they both look like great choices.  It really comes down to my historical preference of Canon vs. the sharp and size-friendly WWL-1 on the Sony.

What is your experience?  The good, the bad, and the ugly of either system?

Thanks for your comments!

3 hours ago, chipdiver said:

- For land photography, I lean towards the R5.  This would require a 230mm dome for use with the RF 14-35.  This same dome could also be used with the RF 24-105 or even the EF 8-15 fisheye.  From what I have read, I would need to live in the f/11 - f/16 range for sharper corners with the big dome.  That really strains the ISO and flash power.  While video is not the focus, it seems video would be easier on the R5.  Splits would be easier with the big dome.

What is your experience?  The good, the bad, and the ugly of either system?

Thanks for your comments!

It is possible to improve the f11-16 range on rectilinear wides with the S&S correction lens and it will give you a stop or two improvement over the bare lens.   Is you were to use the 24-105 I would guess you could relax the f11-16 requirement as well, most of the corner issues should be well under control once you zoom in to something like 20mm.   AF should not really be an issue for your wide angle shots.  Macro is where it will be tested.  The new Canon RF 100mm macro goes to 1.4x by itself and should be a good performer. 

@chipdiver

For what it's worth... my daughter dived with an A7III with the WWL-1b, then recently upgraded to the A7R4, and used it with the WWL-1b extensively in Belize this summer.

No issues with burping the lens (she forgot on several dives with no negative effect)... AF on the Sony (shooting with the 28-60) and the WWL-1b is fast (as in did not really hunt in any scenario we can recall).

Where I would say the biggest difference lies is that her A7R4 vs. my D850 (or my older D500) is when shooting macro - the D850 is just faster finding focus on subjects, small, moving, low light, etc.

Hi Chip, Since you ask this question in a PM I will just answer on this thread. 

First I would be recommending that anyone investing in a completely new system embrace the new tech and go mirrorless unless they have specific needs that a DSLR only provides. 

Second you can't go wrong with either system and if you are a Canon fan that is what you may want to stay with.

Third I have not had an opportunity to use the Canon R5, believe me it is not for a lack of trying but the manufactures I have contacted and obtained equipment on loan from in the past are reluctant due to the limited supply of cameras and lenses.

Regarding lenses you have some very compelling choices from both Canon and Sony. Sony has a large head start on Canon and Nikon so they have a much larger inventory of native mirrorless lenses and a much greater after market lens inventory. This gives Sony an edge in terms of land photography.

Regarding the Canon 8-15mm Fisheye I have used this lens with Canon and Sony mirrorless cameras with adapters from Canon, Metabones and Sigma seeing no difference in operating speed between the three choices. I have also used the fisheye with the 230mm ZEN Underwater dome port both U/W and for excellent splits. Remember that the blades or shade on any dome must be removed to use the 8MM end of the lens or it will vignette, same goes for the Nikon 8-15 which I have also used. 

I hear good things about the Canon 14-35 F/4L and as noted above it can be used with the Sea & Sea correction lens if you can find one. The S&S lens (the one I own) comes in 77mm the same as the Canon 14-35 lens and should work well with the 230mm port. Choices for Sony include the FE 12-24mm F/4 at the same price as the Canon 14-35, the Sony 12-24 also comes in F/2.8 but at a $3000.00 premium. These lenses have a rear filter holder and can't be used with the S&S lens. You also have two 16-35mm's in F/4 and F/2.8. I like the Tamron 17-28 F/2.8 with the S&S correction lens for Sony and find it covers most of my rectilinear lens needs. 

Regarding macro lenses the Sony 90mm F/2.8 is one of Sony's older lenses and has big heavy Zeiss glass so it does not focus as fast as some others unless you are using the Sony A1. On the A7R IV it still fast. I expect that the new Canon 100mm macro with its 1.4:1 magnification ratio should be a bit faster on the R5 but have not confirmed that is the case. 

I suspect that R5 and A7R IV have about the same AF speeds overall and that to gain a noticeable advantage you would need to consider the Sony A1 which is faster than any DSLR and most if not all mirrorless cameras. Other advantages of the A1 for U/W  include the native 1/400th second sync speed with mechanical shutter, blazing speed small size, excellent video and more. The A7R IV and A1 have an advantage over R5 regarding shooting in APS-C mode which I do a lot. The R IV results in a 26MP file while the A1 is 21MP. This extends any lens by 1.5X and with water contact optics like the WWL-1B the range is from 130 degrees to about 1.5:1 with CMC-1.

Regarding water contact optics Sony has an advantage with the super small 28-60 kit zoom and the more expensive Sony 24mm F/2.8. With the 28-60 you can go with the current WWL-1B or older WWL-1 and WACP-1 or with the 24mm and  WWL-C. I don't think that the  Canon mirrorless larger lens mount is going to allow a small enough kit zoom to work with WWL-1. As I have said several times in both these forum's and in uwpmag.com WWL-1 and the larger WACP-1 & 2 will always excel in image quality over rectilinear lenses and dome ports regardless of dome size.

Regarding video R5 excels over R IV and A1 exceeds R5 in just about every way. 

The current Sony A7R IV A released with the newer LCD is back to the original $3500.00 release cost and I don't think this LCD will make much difference in the overall scheme of things. 

Regarding the Canon 24-105 F/4 it is listed on the Nauticam port charts but the Sony FE 24-105 F/4 is not even thought it focuses closer, not sure if list lens is set in stone but that would eliminate Sony from the running.

Again both cameras are very highly rated and you could not go wrong either way the biggest difference appears to be in regard to the use of water contact optics below the $2000.00 mark.  

On 9/22/2021 at 10:00 AM, Phil Rudin said:

 

Regarding water contact optics Sony has an advantage with the super small 28-60 kit zoom and the more expensive Sony 24mm F/2.8. With the 28-60 you can go with the current WWL-1B or older WWL-1 and WACP-1 or with the 24mm and  WWL-C.

 

This is a great summary Phil. I wasn't aware of the option to use the WWL-C on full frame with the 24mm lens. if one were interested only in the best wide angle performance on Sony full frame would the 24mm/WWL-C or 28-60/WWL-1B be a better performer? I would be very curious if anyone has done that comparison. Although the 24mm lens costs a bit more than the 28-60, the WWL-C is a bit cheaper than the WWL-1, and a little smaller.    

I would say that if you are looking for best performance on full frame only at the wide 130 degree AOV the best combo is the WWL-1/1B with the Sony FE 28mm F/2 lens. If you are interested in reading my review of the Sony 28 F/2 WWL-1 combo it is a free PDF download in back issue #114 at uwpmag.com. Having said that I see little if any difference V. the 28-60 WWL-1B combo also in back issue #120.

Like myself an many others, when I first was ask to test a prototype WWL-1 about two years before its release I had a hard time wrapping my head around the idea that a "cheap" kit lens could produce significantly better image quality across a broader zoom range at lower F/numbers than an expensive rectilinear lens behind a quality glass 230mm dome port. If you are also a sceptic I would also recommend Alex Mustards a bit technical article, Nauticam's WACP article #99 also in back issues at uwpmag.com.  

Thanks Phil. I am not a skeptic about the value of water contact optics, as I think their value has now been well proven. I am mostly curious about the merits of the WWL-C on full frame with a couple of 24mm options for Sony cameras, which I did not previously know was a possibility. They both offer 130 degree field of view according to the port charts, but I was curious is anyone that has compared them had thoughts about other compromises.

If one already had both a 28mm f/2 and a 24mm f/2.8 (so lens selection was not an issue), would there be any reason not to go with the smaller and less expensive wwl-c, or stick with the tried and true wwl-1/b on a full frame sony? 

On 9/22/2021 at 1:12 AM, ChrisRoss said:

It is possible to improve the f11-16 range on rectilinear wides with the S&S correction lens and it will give you a stop or two improvement over the bare lens.   Is you were to use the 24-105 I would guess you could relax the f11-16 requirement as well, most of the corner issues should be well under control once you zoom in to something like 20mm.   AF should not really be an issue for your wide angle shots.  Macro is where it will be tested.  The new Canon RF 100mm macro goes to 1.4x by itself and should be a good performer. 

Thanks so much Chris!  Good suggestion.  I have done some research on the S&S correction lens.  Looks like a useful tool for a big dome for sure!

On 9/22/2021 at 2:38 AM, oneyellowtang said:

@chipdiver

For what it's worth... my daughter dived with an A7III with the WWL-1b, then recently upgraded to the A7R4, and used it with the WWL-1b extensively in Belize this summer.

No issues with burping the lens (she forgot on several dives with no negative effect)... AF on the Sony (shooting with the 28-60) and the WWL-1b is fast (as in did not really hunt in any scenario we can recall).

Where I would say the biggest difference lies is that her A7R4 vs. my D850 (or my older D500) is when shooting macro - the D850 is just faster finding focus on subjects, small, moving, low light, etc.

Great experience info - thanks!  I am hearing more people talk about the WWL-1B and are happy with the performance.  Just a newer technology I need to wrap my head around.  Thanks agian!

On 9/22/2021 at 1:00 PM, Phil Rudin said:

Hi Chip, Since you ask this question in a PM I will just answer on this thread. 

First I would be recommending that anyone investing in a completely new system embrace the new tech and go mirrorless unless they have specific needs that a DSLR only provides. 

Second you can't go wrong with either system and if you are a Canon fan that is what you may want to stay with.

Third I have not had an opportunity to use the Canon R5, believe me it is not for a lack of trying but the manufactures I have contacted and obtained equipment on loan from in the past are reluctant due to the limited supply of cameras and lenses.

Regarding lenses you have some very compelling choices from both Canon and Sony. Sony has a large head start on Canon and Nikon so they have a much larger inventory of native mirrorless lenses and a much greater after market lens inventory. This gives Sony an edge in terms of land photography.

Regarding the Canon 8-15mm Fisheye I have used this lens with Canon and Sony mirrorless cameras with adapters from Canon, Metabones and Sigma seeing no difference in operating speed between the three choices. I have also used the fisheye with the 230mm ZEN Underwater dome port both U/W and for excellent splits. Remember that the blades or shade on any dome must be removed to use the 8MM end of the lens or it will vignette, same goes for the Nikon 8-15 which I have also used. 

I hear good things about the Canon 14-35 F/4L and as noted above it can be used with the Sea & Sea correction lens if you can find one. The S&S lens (the one I own) comes in 77mm the same as the Canon 14-35 lens and should work well with the 230mm port. Choices for Sony include the FE 12-24mm F/4 at the same price as the Canon 14-35, the Sony 12-24 also comes in F/2.8 but at a $3000.00 premium. These lenses have a rear filter holder and can't be used with the S&S lens. You also have two 16-35mm's in F/4 and F/2.8. I like the Tamron 17-28 F/2.8 with the S&S correction lens for Sony and find it covers most of my rectilinear lens needs. 

Regarding macro lenses the Sony 90mm F/2.8 is one of Sony's older lenses and has big heavy Zeiss glass so it does not focus as fast as some others unless you are using the Sony A1. On the A7R IV it still fast. I expect that the new Canon 100mm macro with its 1.4:1 magnification ratio should be a bit faster on the R5 but have not confirmed that is the case. 

I suspect that R5 and A7R IV have about the same AF speeds overall and that to gain a noticeable advantage you would need to consider the Sony A1 which is faster than any DSLR and most if not all mirrorless cameras. Other advantages of the A1 for U/W  include the native 1/400th second sync speed with mechanical shutter, blazing speed small size, excellent video and more. The A7R IV and A1 have an advantage over R5 regarding shooting in APS-C mode which I do a lot. The R IV results in a 26MP file while the A1 is 21MP. This extends any lens by 1.5X and with water contact optics like the WWL-1B the range is from 130 degrees to about 1.5:1 with CMC-1.

Regarding water contact optics Sony has an advantage with the super small 28-60 kit zoom and the more expensive Sony 24mm F/2.8. With the 28-60 you can go with the current WWL-1B or older WWL-1 and WACP-1 or with the 24mm and  WWL-C. I don't think that the  Canon mirrorless larger lens mount is going to allow a small enough kit zoom to work with WWL-1. As I have said several times in both these forum's and in uwpmag.com WWL-1 and the larger WACP-1 & 2 will always excel in image quality over rectilinear lenses and dome ports regardless of dome size.

Regarding video R5 excels over R IV and A1 exceeds R5 in just about every way. 

The current Sony A7R IV A released with the newer LCD is back to the original $3500.00 release cost and I don't think this LCD will make much difference in the overall scheme of things. 

Regarding the Canon 24-105 F/4 it is listed on the Nauticam port charts but the Sony FE 24-105 F/4 is not even thought it focuses closer, not sure if list lens is set in stone but that would eliminate Sony from the running.

Again both cameras are very highly rated and you could not go wrong either way the biggest difference appears to be in regard to the use of water contact optics below the $2000.00 mark.  

 

Hi Phil - thank you so much for the incredibly detailed and valuable information!!

I have read your reviews on the water contact lenses.  Just because I have not seen them as much on the boats does not mean they are not the better route.  From all you have said, as well as Alex Mustard, this seems to be a new way of making much sharper images!  Count me as an older dog needing to embrace new technology. 

The size of the Sony Riv with the 28-60/WWL-1B is very compelling, especially when considering travel.  Yet another very interesting piece of real-world info you shared is regarding the use of crop-mode.  While  I had considered it with my current Tokina 10-17, I never put it together with the 28-60 for extra reach for even more versatility.  Honestly, this sounds like it would cover about 95% of my needs, if not more, aside from serious macro.  After all, a 26MP image is extremely valuable.  The same could be done with the R5, but that drops the res down to just shy of 18MP.  Again useful, but more limiting if a larger acrylic print is desired. 

I am finding very lightly used Riv's for about $2400.  Certainly a stronger point over the R5 price, even in the lightly used arena.  Even the Nauticam housing for the Riv is less than the R5.  Again, a compelling consideration.  

Speaking of macro, have you tried the Canon EF 100 f/2.8 L macro vs. the Sony 90 on a Sony body?  I wonder if the EF 100 would be a faster focus than the older Sony 90.

Other question - are you finding an external viewfinder useful with a mirrorless FF?  I have a Nauticam 180 viewfinder that I can transfer over from my current rig.  Not sure if it will be as needed as it is on a DSLR.

Thanks again for all you do for us in the UW world!  I am extremely grateful for your experience and insight. 

On 9/22/2021 at 1:00 PM, Phil Rudin said:

Hi Chip, Since you ask this question in a PM I will just answer on this thread. 

First I would be recommending that anyone investing in a completely new system embrace the new tech and go mirrorless unless they have specific needs that a DSLR only provides. 

Second you can't go wrong with either system and if you are a Canon fan that is what you may want to stay with.

Third I have not had an opportunity to use the Canon R5, believe me it is not for a lack of trying but the manufactures I have contacted and obtained equipment on loan from in the past are reluctant due to the limited supply of cameras and lenses.

Regarding lenses you have some very compelling choices from both Canon and Sony. Sony has a large head start on Canon and Nikon so they have a much larger inventory of native mirrorless lenses and a much greater after market lens inventory. This gives Sony an edge in terms of land photography.

Regarding the Canon 8-15mm Fisheye I have used this lens with Canon and Sony mirrorless cameras with adapters from Canon, Metabones and Sigma seeing no difference in operating speed between the three choices. I have also used the fisheye with the 230mm ZEN Underwater dome port both U/W and for excellent splits. Remember that the blades or shade on any dome must be removed to use the 8MM end of the lens or it will vignette, same goes for the Nikon 8-15 which I have also used. 

I hear good things about the Canon 14-35 F/4L and as noted above it can be used with the Sea & Sea correction lens if you can find one. The S&S lens (the one I own) comes in 77mm the same as the Canon 14-35 lens and should work well with the 230mm port. Choices for Sony include the FE 12-24mm F/4 at the same price as the Canon 14-35, the Sony 12-24 also comes in F/2.8 but at a $3000.00 premium. These lenses have a rear filter holder and can't be used with the S&S lens. You also have two 16-35mm's in F/4 and F/2.8. I like the Tamron 17-28 F/2.8 with the S&S correction lens for Sony and find it covers most of my rectilinear lens needs. 

Regarding macro lenses the Sony 90mm F/2.8 is one of Sony's older lenses and has big heavy Zeiss glass so it does not focus as fast as some others unless you are using the Sony A1. On the A7R IV it still fast. I expect that the new Canon 100mm macro with its 1.4:1 magnification ratio should be a bit faster on the R5 but have not confirmed that is the case. 

I suspect that R5 and A7R IV have about the same AF speeds overall and that to gain a noticeable advantage you would need to consider the Sony A1 which is faster than any DSLR and most if not all mirrorless cameras. Other advantages of the A1 for U/W  include the native 1/400th second sync speed with mechanical shutter, blazing speed small size, excellent video and more. The A7R IV and A1 have an advantage over R5 regarding shooting in APS-C mode which I do a lot. The R IV results in a 26MP file while the A1 is 21MP. This extends any lens by 1.5X and with water contact optics like the WWL-1B the range is from 130 degrees to about 1.5:1 with CMC-1.

Regarding water contact optics Sony has an advantage with the super small 28-60 kit zoom and the more expensive Sony 24mm F/2.8. With the 28-60 you can go with the current WWL-1B or older WWL-1 and WACP-1 or with the 24mm and  WWL-C. I don't think that the  Canon mirrorless larger lens mount is going to allow a small enough kit zoom to work with WWL-1. As I have said several times in both these forum's and in uwpmag.com WWL-1 and the larger WACP-1 & 2 will always excel in image quality over rectilinear lenses and dome ports regardless of dome size.

Regarding video R5 excels over R IV and A1 exceeds R5 in just about every way. 

The current Sony A7R IV A released with the newer LCD is back to the original $3500.00 release cost and I don't think this LCD will make much difference in the overall scheme of things. 

Regarding the Canon 24-105 F/4 it is listed on the Nauticam port charts but the Sony FE 24-105 F/4 is not even thought it focuses closer, not sure if list lens is set in stone but that would eliminate Sony from the running.

Again both cameras are very highly rated and you could not go wrong either way the biggest difference appears to be in regard to the use of water contact optics below the $2000.00 mark.  

 

One other question Phil - have you had any issues with chromatic aberration with the 28-60 / WWL-1B?

19 minutes ago, chipdiver said:

Hi Phil - thank you so much for the incredibly detailed and valuable information!!

I have read your reviews on the water contact lenses.  Just because I have not seen them as much on the boats does not mean they are not the better route.  From all you have said, as well as Alex Mustard, this seems to be a new way of making much sharper images!  Count me as an older dog needing to embrace new technology. 

The size of the Sony Riv with the 28-60/WWL-1B is very compelling, especially when considering travel.  Yet another very interesting piece of real-world info you shared is regarding the use of crop-mode.  While  I had considered it with my current Tokina 10-17, I never put it together with the 28-60 for extra reach for even more versatility.  Honestly, this sounds like it would cover about 95% of my needs, if not more, aside from serious macro.  After all, a 26MP image is extremely valuable.  The same could be done with the R5, but that drops the res down to just shy of 18MP.  Again useful, but more limiting if a larger acrylic print is desired. 

I am finding very lightly used Riv's for about $2400.  Certainly a stronger point over the R5 price, even in the lightly used arena.  Even the Nauticam housing for the Riv is less than the R5.  Again, a compelling consideration.  

Speaking of macro, have you tried the Canon EF 100 f/2.8 L macro vs. the Sony 90 on a Sony body?  I wonder if the EF 100 would be a faster focus than the older Sony 90.

Other question - are you finding an external viewfinder useful with a mirrorless FF?  I have a Nauticam 180 viewfinder that I can transfer over from my current rig.  Not sure if it will be as needed as it is on a DSLR.

Thanks again for all you do for us in the UW world!  I am extremely grateful for your experience and insight. 

 

Regarding the Tokina 10-17 it is a favorite with lots of APS-C users, I have seen the lens used to win a bunch of high end U/W photo contests but it is a mediocre lens at best. As a sidebar outstanding images always trump total image quality, corner sharpness and more. 

I tend to stick to the lens and port combos recommended by Nauticam since that is my operating system. I have used the Tokina with DSLR cameras I have reviewed and I like the range on APS-C but for me on Sony FF the 28-60/WWL-1/WACP combo would be my choice.

The release of the new A7R IV with the slightly better LCD has bumped the new price back to retail so the older version new or lightly used seems a good deal to me. One of the great things about Sony is that several of the cameras can be used in the same Nauticam housing. With a $160.00 camera tray exchange the Sony A7S III can be used in the Sony A1 housing. I have used the Sony A7R IV in my A1 housing with no noticeable loss of the controls I use. The rumor sites are saying the A7 IV will be announced next month and that it will have the same A7s III body which, if true this would allow me to have a $2500.00 (33MP???) backup to my A1 when I travel.

Regarding the Canon 100 macro I have a new one with NC port I would be happy to sell you. Backscatter in a review of the A7R IV said they got better AF speed with the Canon over the Sony 90mm. I greatly respect the reviewers at Backscatter but I did not find this to be the case. This could be as a result of my style of setting the camera over Backscatters. 

Regarding EVF over LCD I love my 45 degree accessory viewfinder for macro and find the 180 better for wide shots and moving subjects. That said I have found myself using the LCD more and more over the years and exclusively for blackwater diving.  

27 minutes ago, Phil Rudin said:

Regarding the Tokina 10-17 it is a favorite with lots of APS-C users, I have seen the lens used to win a bunch of high end U/W photo contests but it is a mediocre lens at best. As a sidebar outstanding images always trump total image quality, corner sharpness and more. 

I tend to stick to the lens and port combos recommended by Nauticam since that is my operating system. I have used the Tokina with DSLR cameras I have reviewed and I like the range on APS-C but for me on Sony FF the 28-60/WWL-1/WACP combo would be my choice.

The release of the new A7R IV with the slightly better LCD has bumped the new price back to retail so the older version new or lightly used seems a good deal to me. One of the great things about Sony is that several of the cameras can be used in the same Nauticam housing. With a $160.00 camera tray exchange the Sony A7S III can be used in the Sony A1 housing. I have used the Sony A7R IV in my A1 housing with no noticeable loss of the controls I use. The rumor sites are saying the A7 IV will be announced next month and that it will have the same A7s III body which, if true this would allow me to have a $2500.00 (33MP???) backup to my A1 when I travel.

Regarding the Canon 100 macro I have a new one with NC port I would be happy to sell you. Backscatter in a review of the A7R IV said they got better AF speed with the Canon over the Sony 90mm. I greatly respect the reviewers at Backscatter but I did not find this to be the case. This could be as a result of my style of setting the camera over Backscatters. 

Regarding EVF over LCD I love my 45 degree accessory viewfinder for macro and find the 180 better for wide shots and moving subjects. That said I have found myself using the LCD more and more over the years and exclusively for blackwater diving.  

More good insight - thank you!  I kind of figured that about the Tokina vs the WWL.  I wonder if I would really miss the fisheye vs 130 FoV?  Any thoughts on that?

I saw the a7iv release rumors.  Honestly, while giving up substantially in the crop-mode, I like the idea of a more manageable 33MP than the whopping 61MP of the Riv.  I was hoping it would match with the Riv housing, but it does not look to be the case.  Can the 7sIII work at all in an Riv housing?  (I know NC says no)  Investing in an A1 with the complete housing kit is out of my budget.

Regarding the tokina not really apples to apples. I have dedicated Fisheye lenses Canon 8-15 and Sony 16mm F/2.8 for A mount (not recommended) for full frame.

So I had the original Nauticam NA-A7R IV housing before it was replaced by the NA-a2020 housing which works with the A7R IV and A9 II I would not speculate as to what else might fit. 

My interest in the A7 IV would be as a travel camera that I could also use in the event of an A1 problem while on the road. I cover this need with the A7C for travel but can't be used as a backup to A1.

7 hours ago, chipdiver said:

Other question - are you finding an external viewfinder useful with a mirrorless FF?  I have a Nauticam 180 viewfinder that I can transfer over from my current rig.  Not sure if it will be as needed as it is on a DSLR.

 

There is a thread talking about using the Nauticam viewfinders with the A7RIV reporting the viewfinders don't perform so well on that camera.  This is the thread:

View archived post in: Nauticam viewfinder slr vs mil

A 45° viewfinder is certainly useful - mirrorless or DSLR for macro - once you get used to using one.  Allowing you to get into positions which would be near impossible otherwise. 

17 minutes ago, ChrisRoss said:

There is a thread talking about using the Nauticam viewfinders with the A7RIV reporting the viewfinders don't perform so well on that camera.  This is the thread:

View archived post in: Nauticam viewfinder slr vs mil

 

A 45° viewfinder is certainly useful - mirrorless or DSLR for macro - once you get used to using one.  Allowing you to get into positions which would be near impossible otherwise. 

Thanks Chris for sharing - good info.  Funny, I tried the 45 years ago and just could not get used to the angle idea, although I can see what it would be perfect for macro.  Always an adventure!

Another consideration when comparing the R5 to any of the Sony is the Nauticam housing weight (and price)... The R5 housing is 3.5kg, while the ones for Sony are 2.7kg. The housing for the R5 is also significantly more expensive.

6 hours ago, j0rd1l0p3z said:

Another consideration when comparing the R5 to any of the Sony is the Nauticam housing weight (and price)... The R5 housing is 3.5kg, while the ones for Sony are 2.7kg. The housing for the R5 is also significantly more expensive.

Good points.  That's been one of the driving forces to keep the Riv in the running.  That and the water contact lens, which seems to be a do it all zoom.  I just wish the Riv had better video abilities. 

Good points.  That's been one of the driving forces to keep the Riv in the running.  That and the water contact lens, which seems to be a do it all zoom.  I just wish the Riv had better video abilities. 

34 minutes ago, j0rd1l0p3z said:

Also, if you put all together the R5 setup (for macro and wide angle), dome, ports, etc... Maybe will come close in price to an A1 setup with 28-60 + Wwl-1 + CMC1...

Sent from my SM-N9860 using Tapatalk
 

I am historically a Canon person and love the new RF glass.  The water contact lens versatility with just the 28-60, and the strong praise from so many, has me leaning towards the Riv.