Canon R5 or Sony a7Riv

Regarding optical viewfinders I use the Nauticam 45 degree finder for macro all the time. Nauticam is also now introducing a line of 180 degree and 45 degree viewfinders for full frame that are 32 degree 1:1 or 40 degree 0.8:1 for your full frame viewing pleasure. 

55 minutes ago, Phil Rudin said:

Regarding optical viewfinders I use the Nauticam 45 degree finder for macro all the time. Nauticam is also now introducing a line of 180 degree and 45 degree viewfinders for full frame that are 32 degree 1:1 or 40 degree 0.8:1 for your full frame viewing pleasure. 

Very interesting!  Thanks for the good info.  Christmas is coming...maybe a new viewfinder??  

Does anyone use the a7Riv for video in deeper water?  (i.e. 60' or more). 

From what I have read, video is the Riv's weakness.  While there is no 4K/60 FPS, does anyone do 4K/30 FPS or 1080/60FPS?  How does it turn out?  Still photo is still my priority, but a little video would be nice as well.

3 hours ago, chipdiver said:

Does anyone use the a7Riv for video in deeper water?  (i.e. 60' or more). 

From what I have read, video is the Riv's weakness.  While there is no 4K/60 FPS, does anyone do 4K/30 FPS or 1080/60FPS?  How does it turn out?  Still photo is still my priority, but a little video would be nice as well.

It used to be the case that Canon manual white balance was better than Sony's, though the new iteration of Canon bodies required a 14 button push marathon to execute.  It might be worth posting this as a separate question on the video forum.

27 minutes ago, ChrisRoss said:

It used to be the case that Canon manual white balance was better than Sony's, though the new iteration of Canon bodies required a 14 button push marathon to execute.  It might be worth posting this as a separate question on the video forum.

Great suggestion - will ask in the video group.  Thanks!

On 9/25/2021 at 2:01 AM, steelhead said:

 

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 am also curious about WWL-C with 24mm prime vs WWL-1B with 28-60mm. WWL-C is cheaper and also slightly smaller.

Is it true that the zoom range for the 28-60mm won't be much useful given that zoom isn't recommended in the water? So it comes down to WWL-C vs WWL-1B both 130 degree fov, am I right?

4 hours ago, newdiver said:

Is it true that the zoom range for the 28-60mm won't be much useful given that zoom isn't recommended in the water? So it comes down to WWL-C vs WWL-1B both 130 degree fov, am I right?

There is no problem with zooming in UW photography - I'm not sure what concern you would have?  In general you get as close as you can underwater, but there's limits as some things won't let you get close or are too small to fill the frame well, so it is not a problem and a definite advantage to be able to zoom in and to frame the subject better.

I would suggest choosing the WWL-C if your lens zooms out as far as 24mm and the WWL-1/B if it is 28mm at it's widest or if you need to zoom into 28mm or more to avoid vignetting which will be the case for some compacts in particular.   The quality of both is very good.

There is also a decided advantage to be able to spin the zoom dial all the way out and be ready to shoot without fiddling around zooming in just enough to eliminate the vignette - more so with compacts where you have to power zoom.

5 hours ago, ChrisRoss said:

There is no problem with zooming in UW photography - I'm not sure what concern you would have?  In general you get as close as you can underwater, but there's limits as some things won't let you get close or are too small to fill the frame well, so it is not a problem and a definite advantage to be able to zoom in and to frame the subject better.

I would suggest choosing the WWL-C if your lens zooms out as far as 24mm and the WWL-1/B if it is 28mm at it's widest or if you need to zoom into 28mm or more to avoid vignetting which will be the case for some compacts in particular.   The quality of both is very good.

There is also a decided advantage to be able to spin the zoom dial all the way out and be ready to shoot without fiddling around zooming in just enough to eliminate the vignette - more so with compacts where you have to power zoom.

 

Don't you lose sharpness and contrast if you zoom in compared to getting closer to your subject, the lesser body of water the sharper and contrasty the image?

I actually don't have a lens at moment for WWLs. I have the 16-35 F4 used behind a 6" dome port from Seafrogs, however I am not happy with the results from the one dive trip that I had back in January this year. I mainly used F8-F12 and anything outside of the centre of the image is unusable. 

I was also asking in my own thread about Seafrogs a7c housing and I am kind of cooling down on the idea of new housing and new camera and sticking with my a7iii. As suggested by the helpful members there is not a significant difference between the a7iii and a7c housing, I might be able to reduce the bulk a bit if I replace the dome with a WWL. I don't have the lens or WWLs hence the question which route should I consider? WWL-C with 24mm prime or WWL-1B with 28-60 and this very much depends on the new 28-60 port from Seafrogs being compatible with the WWLs. Actually I don't think that Seafrogs have a port for 24mm f2.8 and I need to confirm that with them. I guess this might rule out the WWL-C option.

The only real concern for zooming underwater is if you're using the zoom instead of getting physically closer to your subject. If you do that then yes, you're likely to lower the IQ as you're shooting through more water than necessary. 

However, if you're as close as you can be and the subject doesn't fill the frame as you want it, then there is no problem zooming in - in fact here it may be better as you'll end up with more pixels on your subject. 

Mike

48 minutes ago, newdiver said:

Don't you lose sharpness and contrast if you zoom in compared to getting closer to your subject, the lesser body of water the sharper and contrasty the image?

It's a balancing act. With skittish subjects, you simply can't get too close without them bolting, so it's a choice between a non-ideal shot or no shot at all. With smaller subjects, a 130 degree FoV will render them a tiny speck even if they're right on the dome glass. With larger subjects, getting closer will reduce the IQ loss due to water, but it will also increase distortion - sometimes you may prefer to accept some loss of contrast for a better composition.

52 minutes ago, newdiver said:

WWL-C with 24mm prime or WWL-1B with 28-60 and this very much depends on the new 28-60 port from Seafrogs being compatible with the WWLs. Actually I don't think that Seafrogs have a port for 24mm f2.8 and I need to confirm that with them. I guess this might rule out the WWL-C option.

You've pretty much hit the nail on the head; while the 24mm f/1.4 will fit into the SeaFrogs basic flat port, it probably won't have the front element by the port glass, and the port itself is not threaded, so you cannot attach wet optics unless you find a suitable clamp-on adapter. The 28-60mm lens + flat port is the most flexible solution - you can shoot it with WWL for large subjects and reefscapes, zoom through the WWL if necessary for smaller subjects, take the WWL off and zoom in if you need a tighter view, and replace the WWL with an SMC or another close-up lens for macro.

9 hours ago, newdiver said:

Don't you lose sharpness and contrast if you zoom in compared to getting closer to your subject, the lesser body of water the sharper and contrasty the image?

I actually don't have a lens at moment for WWLs. I have the 16-35 F4 used behind a 6" dome port from Seafrogs, however I am not happy with the results from the one dive trip that I had back in January this year. I mainly used F8-F12 and anything outside of the centre of the image is unusable. 

I was also asking in my own thread about Seafrogs a7c housing and I am kind of cooling down on the idea of new housing and new camera and sticking with my a7iii. As suggested by the helpful members there is not a significant difference between the a7iii and a7c housing, I might be able to reduce the bulk a bit if I replace the dome with a WWL. I don't have the lens or WWLs hence the question which route should I consider? WWL-C with 24mm prime or WWL-1B with 28-60 and this very much depends on the new 28-60 port from Seafrogs being compatible with the WWLs. Actually I don't think that Seafrogs have a port for 24mm f2.8 and I need to confirm that with them. I guess this might rule out the WWL-C option.

Yes you do, but for the most part and depending on water quality once you are within about 1m the benefits of getting closer diminish.  In theory you can move closer and closer with the WWL as the combination will focus on the glass but in practice most fish will depart if you get within 300mm (1 ft) of them.  Another example might be a nudibranch sitting on reef- while you can get closer to them reef structure may force you sit further back to take the shot and zooming in will help you fill the frame.  This is all zooming in to get subjects larger in frame when you are already very close.  To me the flexibility of the zoom trumps any small increase in optical quality with a prime lens.

It's not at all surprising you are not happy with the 16-35 behind a 6"dome, it's way too small for such a wide lens.  While Sea Frogs housings work, many  of the combinations they sell will have similar problems to the 16-35 you noted.  Even the 8"dome is on the small side for rectilinear wides and this is even before you get into having correct extension for the lens.  The trick is finding the ones with acceptable quality.  If you can get the WWL to work it's is by far the best optical quality option.  

There are not many housing manufacturers that have suitable ports to use with the small lenses like the 28-60 in combination with the WWL.  Even if they list it in their port charts it is often a one size fits all port - it will work fine with lens alone but will vignette when you try to use it with the WWL.  If the Sea frogs 28-60 port fits well and has an M67 thread it may be your best option.

On 9/30/2021 at 10:15 AM, ChrisRoss said:

Yes you do, but for the most part and depending on water quality once you are within about 1m the benefits of getting closer diminish.  In theory you can move closer and closer with the WWL as the combination will focus on the glass but in practice most fish will depart if you get within 300mm (1 ft) of them.  Another example might be a nudibranch sitting on reef- while you can get closer to them reef structure may force you sit further back to take the shot and zooming in will help you fill the frame.  This is all zooming in to get subjects larger in frame when you are already very close.  To me the flexibility of the zoom trumps any small increase in optical quality with a prime lens.

It's not at all surprising you are not happy with the 16-35 behind a 6"dome, it's way too small for such a wide lens.  While Sea Frogs housings work, many  of the combinations they sell will have similar problems to the 16-35 you noted.  Even the 8"dome is on the small side for rectilinear wides and this is even before you get into having correct extension for the lens.  The trick is finding the ones with acceptable quality.  If you can get the WWL to work it's is by far the best optical quality option.  

There are not many housing manufacturers that have suitable ports to use with the small lenses like the 28-60 in combination with the WWL.  Even if they list it in their port charts it is often a one size fits all port - it will work fine with lens alone but will vignette when you try to use it with the WWL.  If the Sea frogs 28-60 port fits well and has an M67 thread it may be your best option.

Agreed, I was referring to a few meters and more and it will definitely be helpful within the one meter as you mentioned, one more thing that I forgot was attaching wet macro lens to it and zooming in. It will be very handy indeed.

The 16-35 and the 6" dome port was chosen as there wasn't much option with Seafrogs housing at the time with smaller port supporting the WWL. I didn't think how bad the IQ was going to be with the 6" dome until I discovered it for myself.

It will be a waiting game on the Seafrogs front to see when they will list the port for 28-60 and if the WWL work fine with it without vignetting. 

2 hours ago, newdiver said:

Agreed, I was referring to a few meters and more and it will definitely be helpful within the one meter as you mentioned, one more thing that I forgot was attaching wet macro lens to it and zooming in. It will be very handy indeed.

The 16-35 and the 6" dome port was chosen as there wasn't much option with Seafrogs housing at the time with smaller port supporting the WWL. I didn't think how bad the IQ was going to be with the 6" dome until I discovered it for myself.

It will be a waiting game on the Seafrogs front to see when they will list the port for 28-60 and if the WWL work fine with it without vignetting. 

A few meters is beyond the range that is useful UW, except in the clearest of clear shallow tropical water, you can take shots but you everything is rather muted.    You would only be in this range for really big creatures like whale sharks and whales that you can't safely get closer to and this tends to be at the surface.   2m is about the limit for strobes and even then it really only adds some colour.