Dome or flat, and lighting

Just now, Barmaglot said:

Yes, but didn't someone post here recently about problems getting it to work with a SeaFrogs housing?

Oh right - I don't remember seeing that. Thanks. Oskar from Retra often looks in so can always comment.

This is the thread:

View archived post in: STROBE PROBLEM

It's possible that the problem was between the Retra converter and @Jleonf314's YS-01 strobe, but he never did indicate whether or not he's seeing light flashes from the converter.

Oh right thanks. Yeah, I remember this now.  Yeah, he wasn't using a Retra strobe. 

Thanks for all the bits of information. 

Right... decision time.... For now, I'll stay with the Seafrogs A7iii housing with the 6" dome and the 16-35 GM. I'll get a sync cord, and consider TTL for the next housing when I do upgrade. So with the seafrogs + sync cord option, which strobe should I get:

z-330 or the YS-D3 mark 2? 

The latter comes with a diffuser and stuff, so price wise they're the same. I think the z-330 is a bit smaller, so fits better in the suitcase (though not by much). The YS-D3 does have some very impressive refresh numbers - at quarter output, it's got no recharge time, and 0.6 seconds at half output. I expect I can't go wrong with either given that I've been shooting with no lights till now. 

Masters of underwater photography - what's the final verdict?

14 hours ago, Phil Rudin said:

Both questions ask and answered but I would add that the reason such wide lenses are used underwater is so that you can get as close to your subject as posable reducing the amount of water you are shooting through. The 16-35 allows you to do that better than 28-75 a lens which I have owned. I have personally tested (not reviewed) the 16-35mmm F/2.8 and I have opted for Tamron 17-28 F/2.8 with the Sea & Sea correction lens and Zen 230mm dome port. This lens works very well with both A1 and A7R IV and is part of my budget holy trinity of F/2.8 lenses for above water work including the 28-75 F/2.8 and 70-180 F/2.8. All of these lenses plus the Tamron 20, 24 and 35mm F/2.8's 1:2 lenses use the same 67mm thread mount so one filter fits all making packing much easer. Seafrogs has a zoom gear for the 17-28 and at some point I suspect they may offer a 28-75 gear. All that having been said for best wide angle image quality at the lowest price I still favor the Sony FE 28-60 with Nauticam WWL-1B. I would suggest the 8 inch (203mm) dome over the Six inch (153mm) dome for any wide lens if a proper extension is offered. Seafrogs has just introduced a six inch (153mm) optical glass dome port with an instructional video. The video states that compared to the acrylic six inch dome it all but eliminates corner distortion. I respectfully disagree with Seafrogs on this issue. This is simple physics small ports, glass or acrylic just don't work well wide wide rectilinear lenses. I have tested six inch, 170mm, 180mm, 200mm, eight inch, and 230mm dome ports from a number of manufactures both acrylic and glass, with and without S&S correction lenses. Large ports like the Nauticam & Zen 230mm and nine inch ports like the Aquatica port are the only solution for best corner sharpness on full frame cameras. Because the S&S correction lens is made for ports in the 230mm range it actually adds to the problem on some smaller ports.

Regarding Sea & Sea products the company has just changed hands and is now owned by the well respected Fisheye company. Which products will be carried over in the product line is still unknown and prior to the acquisition the correction lenses had been discontinued so at this time would need to be found in the used market.   

Seafrogs has also just released a Sony A7C housing for the FF 24MP compact which offers a port for the 28-60 kit zoom. 

Most of this equipment except for Seafrogs housings I have tested for uwpmag.com starting with the Sony A7 II and most Sony cameras moving forward. All of these articles can be accessed as a free PDF downloads in the back issues at the top of the magazine home page. Just open the back issue page and type Phil Rudin into the search engine for a full list of reviews.

Hi Phil,

I'm kitting up my Sony A7SIII hoping that I can resume my diving trips early next year after a very long break due to COVID-19, and narrowed down to two options:

1) The Sony FE 12-24mm F/2.8 GM or Sony FE 14mm F/1.8 GM with the Nauticam 230mm optical glass dome port. I'm planning to get either of these lenses for astrophotography anyway.

2) The Sony FE28-60mm F/4-5.6 with the WWL-1 and CMC-1, both of which I already own when I was shooting on the M43 system. This setup will of course be the most versatile especially diving in places like Raja Ampat or Komodo where there are wide-angle and macro subjects to shoot on almost every dive.

Besides the cost difference between the two options, which is really the cost of the 230mm dome port and not an issue for me, the main differences are the ability to do split shots with option 1, which is useful as I'm hoping to do more snorkeling to swim with orcas, humpback whales, etc. But I'll have to deal with the bulk when traveling (I travel for all my dives since there's no place to dive in Singapore) and I understand that the 230mm dome port is huge. I read somewhere in the forum that you travel with the Sony 12-24mm (can't remember if it's the F/2.8 GM or the F/4 G) and a 230mm dome port. So I'm wondering what is/are the main/overriding reason/s that you settled on this setup instead of using the WWL-1/B?

For solely macro shoot, I already have the Sony FE 90mm F/2.8 Macro G so I can just decide whether to dive with a wide-angle or macro setup depending on the dive spot, a compromise that many underwater photographers or videographers always need to make.

I have read your reviews "Sony's FE 12-14mm F/4 G lens" (UwP105), "Nauticam WWL-1 & Sony Full Frame" (UwP114), "Nauticam WWL-1B Review" (UwP120) which you discusses the use with the Sony FE28-60mm F/4-5.6 and "Sony FE 14mm F/1.8 GM lens" (UwP122). I don't recall you ever reviewing the Sony FE 12-24mm F/2.8 GM. All these reviews are very informative and helpful.

Thanks in advance,

John

1 hour ago, ashic said:

Thanks for all the bits of information. 

Right... decision time.... For now, I'll stay with the Seafrogs A7iii housing with the 6" dome and the 16-35 GM. I'll get a sync cord, and consider TTL for the next housing when I do upgrade. So with the seafrogs + sync cord option, which strobe should I get:

z-330 or the YS-D3 mark 2? 

The latter comes with a diffuser and stuff, so price wise they're the same. I think the z-330 is a bit smaller, so fits better in the suitcase (though not by much). The YS-D3 does have some very impressive refresh numbers - at quarter output, it's got no recharge time, and 0.6 seconds at half output. I expect I can't go wrong with either given that I've been shooting with no lights till now. 

Masters of underwater photography - what's the final verdict?

Hey ashic

The Inons have a great reputation over the life of the Z240, the Z330s predecessor. I had Inons for more than 15 years and thought them great (that was the Z220 then the Z240). As you say, compact, reasonably powerful, use AA batteries and work very well with Eneloop rechargables. All I've read of the Z330 so far has been extremely positive. (Let me just re-state I have now switched to Retras)

Personally I'd be slightly wary of the YSs given the number of issues I've read about on WP with the D2 version. Maybe that's not such an issue with the D3.  

It's always possibly of course you can get a rogue model of any gadget. But, from all I've seen, read and experienced, I'd give the Inons a Big Thumbs Up.

6 hours ago, John Lye said:

Hi Phil,

I'm kitting up my Sony A7SIII hoping that I can resume my diving trips early next year after a very long break due to COVID-19, and narrowed down to two options:

1) The Sony FE 12-24mm F/2.8 GM or Sony FE 14mm F/1.8 GM with the Nauticam 230mm optical glass dome port. I'm planning to get either of these lenses for astrophotography anyway.

Hi John,

I have used the 14mm F/1.8, 12-24mm F/2.8 and 12-24mm F/4 all behind the Zen 230mm Optical glass dome port. The reason for buying the Zen over the Nauticam has nothing to do with overall quality but with laziness. Because I use the port with the Canon 8-15mm fisheye the port shade/blades need to be removed for the 8mm circular fisheye or it will vignette. It is easier too remove the Zen blades than the Nauticam shade. 

Regarding 12-24 F/2.8 and 14mm F1.8 I use both a lot and do a lot of split images with both. The issue for you is how big a difference you will see on your 12MP S III v. my A1 (50MP) and A7R IV (61MP). I think with 12MP's the gap with 12-24 F/4 and Rokinon 14mm F/2.8 (also reviewed) would be closer than with 50MP and up. If I had to pick one of your two choices it would be the 14mm F/1.8 because of size, weight, filter system size for landscapes and of course cost V. 12-24 F/2.8.

Regarding cost the Nauticam 230mm fisheye II port after recent price increases is $2439.00, 55mm port extension for 12-24 2.8 is $441.00, zoom gear 244.00 and lens is $3000.00, total about $6124.00. Buy comparison The 28-60 is $500.000 (without A7C kit discount) WACP is $5159.00, zoom gear is $253.00 and no port extension with the N100 to N120 35.5 port adapter II, total around $5912.00. With the WWL-1B, N-100 flat port 45, zoom gear $253.00, lens $500.00 and bayonet mount $103.00 price drops too around $2733.00. 

6 hours ago, John Lye said:

2) The Sony FE28-60mm F/4-5.6 with the WWL-1 and CMC-1, both of which I already own when I was shooting on the M43 system. This setup will of course be the most versatile especially diving in places like Raja Ampat or Komodo where there are wide-angle and macro subjects to shoot on almost every dive.

If not shooting splits the WWL-1B will out preform both lenses at lower F/numbers and the WACP is even better with the kit lens. 

Besides the cost difference between the two options, which is really the cost of the 230mm dome port and not an issue for me, the main differences are the ability to do split shots with option 1, which is useful as I'm hoping to do more snorkeling to swim with orcas, humpback whales, etc. But I'll have to deal with the bulk when traveling (I travel for all my dives since there's no place to dive in Singapore) and I understand that the 230mm dome port is huge. I read somewhere in the forum that you travel with the Sony 12-24mm (can't remember if it's the F/2.8 GM or the F/4 G) and a 230mm dome port. So I'm wondering what is/are the main/overriding reason/s that you settled on this setup instead of using the WWL-1/B?

I have not settled on either system for travel, I chose the one I think will work best for me during my travels or in some cases take both. I have attached a photo of my carry-on shoulder bag with the 230mm port standing on its side with room to spare for the WWL-1B. I find that the shoulder bag is least likely to be weighted when checking in for international travel so a good place to put heavy items like lenses and ports.

For solely macro shoot, I already have the Sony FE 90mm F/2.8 Macro G so I can just decide whether to dive with a wide-angle or macro setup depending on the dive spot, a compromise that many underwater photographers or videographers always need to make.

I have read your reviews "Sony's FE 12-14mm F/4 G lens" (UwP105), "Nauticam WWL-1 & Sony Full Frame" (UwP114), "Nauticam WWL-1B Review" (UwP120) which you discusses the use with the Sony FE28-60mm F/4-5.6 and "Sony FE 14mm F/1.8 GM lens" (UwP122). I don't recall you ever reviewing the Sony FE 12-24mm F/2.8 GM. All these reviews are very informative and helpful.

Our readers, in the survey by UWP magazine most frequently request reviews for less expensive equipment like WWL-1B and Tamron 17-28mm F/2.8 rather than WACP-1/2 and 12-24mm F/2.8. I try to pick equipment that is most mainstream but see the value in the higher end equipment as well. My bottom line for 12-24mm F/2.8 would be well above the F/4 version both above and below water. 

Thanks in advance,

John

9 hours ago, ashic said:

Thanks for all the bits of information. 

Right... decision time.... For now, I'll stay with the Seafrogs A7iii housing with the 6" dome and the 16-35 GM. I'll get a sync cord, and consider TTL for the next housing when I do upgrade. So with the seafrogs + sync cord option, which strobe should I get:

z-330 or the YS-D3 mark 2? 

The latter comes with a diffuser and stuff, so price wise they're the same. I think the z-330 is a bit smaller, so fits better in the suitcase (though not by much). The YS-D3 does have some very impressive refresh numbers - at quarter output, it's got no recharge time, and 0.6 seconds at half output. I expect I can't go wrong with either given that I've been shooting with no lights till now. 

Masters of underwater photography - what's the final verdict?

Regarding the choice of strobes I bought the first two Inon Z-220 strobes inported into the US and have been using Inon ever since. Lately I have added two Backscatter MF-1 strobes for a lot of my macro work because of the small size and high output although with a narrower beam angle good for macro, they also have matching snoots for creative macro work. 

I have not yet tested the latest Sea & Sea YS-D3 MK II strobes so have no input in that regard. 

On 10/3/2021 at 10:35 PM, Phil Rudin said:

Most of this equipment except for Seafrogs housings I have tested for uwpmag.com starting with the Sony A7 II and most Sony cameras moving forward.

By the way, if you don't mind me asking, do you have any plans to review the newer SeaFrogs housings?

11 hours ago, Phil Rudin said:

Hi John,

I have used the 14mm F/1.8, 12-24mm F/2.8 and 12-24mm F/4 all behind the Zen 230mm Optical glass dome port. The reason for buying the Zen over the Nauticam has nothing to do with overall quality but with laziness. Because I use the port with the Canon 8-15mm fisheye the port shade/blades need to be removed for the 8mm circular fisheye or it will vignette. It is easier too remove the Zen blades than the Nauticam shade. 

Regarding 12-24 F/2.8 and 14mm F1.8 I use both a lot and do a lot of split images with both. The issue for you is how big a difference you will see on your 12MP S III v. my A1 (50MP) and A7R IV (61MP). I think with 12MP's the gap with 12-24 F/4 and Rokinon 14mm F/2.8 (also reviewed) would be closer than with 50MP and up. If I had to pick one of your two choices it would be the 14mm F/1.8 because of size, weight, filter system size for landscapes and of course cost V. 12-24 F/2.8.

Regarding cost the Nauticam 230mm fisheye II port after recent price increases is $2439.00, 55mm port extension for 12-24 2.8 is $441.00, zoom gear 244.00 and lens is $3000.00, total about $6124.00. Buy comparison The 28-60 is $500.000 (without A7C kit discount) WACP is $5159.00, zoom gear is $253.00 and no port extension with the N100 to N120 35.5 port adapter II, total around $5912.00. With the WWL-1B, N-100 flat port 45, zoom gear $253.00, lens $500.00 and bayonet mount $103.00 price drops too around $2733.00. 

 

I l i

Thanks for the detailed reply. I’ll probably get the two setups (Sony FE 12-24mm F/2.8 GM with the 230mm port and the Sony FE 28-60mm F/4-5.6 to work with my WWL-1 and CMC-1), and use an old shoulder bag for the 230mm port like you do; never imagine I’d repurpose the bag this way!

8 hours ago, Barmaglot said:

By the way, if you don't mind me asking, do you have any plans to review the newer SeaFrogs housings?

I contacted SeaFrogs last winter and requested a loan of equipment for review and the reply was that they were not interested. I would be happy to review the latest Sony A7C housing because I own the camera and some of the supported lenses including the 26-60 for the new SF flat port. 

12 hours ago, Phil Rudin said:

I contacted SeaFrogs last winter and requested a loan of equipment for review and the reply was that they were not interested. I would be happy to review the latest Sony A7C housing because I own the camera and some of the supported lenses including the 26-60 for the new SF flat port. 

Sometimes I get the feeling UW photo manufacturers don’t actually want to sell their products…

Absolutely ridiculous. I can think of two reasons for this:
 

1. They're clueless and don't realise an even "moderately good" rating from Phil would boost their sales significantly considering the extreme costs of the "good" housings. 

2. They fear a terrible review because they're obviously not in the same league as Nauticam, etc. 

Now (for the time being), I'll happily stay on the Seafrogs as I don't dive and shoot underwater often enough to justify the cost, and I imagine there's many out there who are similar. As such, not providing a pretty cheap review unit seems plain dumb. 

I haven't used Nauticam housing so can't comment on the comparison, however my Fantasea housing for RX100VI is miles ahead of Seafrogs A7III housing in-terms of overall quality. The camera doesn't fit flash to align all the button and dials and therefore a lot of turning and twisting to change the settings. As an example the mode dial, I had to keep turning it a dozen times to engage it and once it did, it would skip several dials and get me to a mode I didn't want. 

I contacted Seafrogs support who sent me spare dials to replace it and it didn't help, since the issue is the actual camera not seating all the way in and flash where the dials are properly aligned. 

On 10/8/2021 at 1:46 AM, newdiver said:

I haven't used Nauticam housing so can't comment on the comparison, however my Fantasea housing for RX100VI is miles ahead of Seafrogs A7III housing in-terms of overall quality. The camera doesn't fit flash to align all the button and dials and therefore a lot of turning and twisting to change the settings. As an example the mode dial, I had to keep turning it a dozen times to engage it and once it did, it would skip several dials and get me to a mode I didn't want. 

I contacted Seafrogs support who sent me spare dials to replace it and it didn't help, since the issue is the actual camera not seating all the way in and flash where the dials are properly aligned. 

 

It sounds like an alignment issue. Do you have a cover on the camera? Are all the rubber inserts in the housing in tact / in place? I've had an issue with the 16-35GM zoom gear where it'd just slip from time to time even if fixed with the top lever thing. I added some tape under two of the rubber pads in the gear and that seems to create enough grip for it not to slip. Similarly, I have some issues with the power lever, and I resolved that by adding a bit of tape on top of the bottom right rubber to elevate the camera slightly, and that solved it for me. 

Yes, these things shouldn't happen, but the damn thing's been watertight for quite a few dives now, and it's only £500 or so. You get what you pay for I guess, and for the price, it's pretty decent. Just needs a bit of diy to resolve the issues - which I think vary from unit to unit. Once I figured out the problems, I just spent about an hour on land tweaking tape here and there until everything worked. And it did!

On 10/9/2021 at 12:31 PM, ashic said:

It sounds like an alignment issue. Do you have a cover on the camera? Are all the rubber inserts in the housing in tact / in place? I've had an issue with the 16-35GM zoom gear where it'd just slip from time to time even if fixed with the top lever thing. I added some tape under two of the rubber pads in the gear and that seems to create enough grip for it not to slip. Similarly, I have some issues with the power lever, and I resolved that by adding a bit of tape on top of the bottom right rubber to elevate the camera slightly, and that solved it for me. 

Yes, these things shouldn't happen, but the damn thing's been watertight for quite a few dives now, and it's only £500 or so. You get what you pay for I guess, and for the price, it's pretty decent. Just needs a bit of diy to resolve the issues - which I think vary from unit to unit. Once I figured out the problems, I just spent about an hour on land tweaking tape here and there until everything worked. And it did!

It is an alignment issue and it is how it looked in their video of the a7iii housing they sent me. There are no covers on the camera obviously and I have removed the rubbers one by one and it just doesn't sit flash against the dials.