Advice wanted: A7R IV landscape photographer jumping into A1 4K video

Hi All,

As the title says, I’m going from landscape photography on the A7R IV to the A1 with the intent of taking more video in my life. Especially underwater. Did anyone make the jump from stills to videos either on land or underwater and have some nuggets of wisdom to share from their journey? I’ve watched plenty of YouTube videos on it, but most are from an on land perspective and I’d love to hear more from both sides. 
 

For UW hardware I’ll be shooting with 2x YS-D2 strobes, 2x Big Blue VL5800p video lights, an Isotta housing, and a Sony A1 paired with a 16-35 f/2.8 and 90mm macro option. I’ve got the 6” dome currently and am waiting for the right time to go with a larger dome. I’ve been told for video this is less problematic as soft corners aren’t as apparent. 

All feedback is welcomed feedback!
 

Thanks!

Matt

I made the leap and jumped in the wrong direction. I found that a dedicated Sony 4k video camera was the king. Combined with a Gates housing and wide-angle lens to accommodate the zoom capabilities. The difference is indescribable! The only IF, is affordability. Many of us have to go that route. However, if you can get good used, I would go for it. Gates (or other) mgrs. refurbish to new quality. 

I love my Sone A7R and it will do just about as good as any DSLR.

Have a look at the 28-60 +WWL1-B on Isotta thread. Might be a better option than the 16-35 behind a small dome.

2 hours ago, hyp said:

Have a look at the 28-60 +WWL1-B on Isotta thread. Might be a better option than the 16-35 behind a small dome.

I’ve already got the 16-35 and will eventually get a larger dome, but baby steps. As much as I’d consider the WWL option, I already have a 90mm as well. I don’t think it would be worth the travel struggle to do all of that and incur even more cost. 

22 minutes ago, MattPNW said:

I’ve already got the 16-35 and will eventually get a larger dome, but baby steps. As much as I’d consider the WWL option, I already have a 90mm as well. I don’t think it would be worth the travel struggle to do all of that and incur even more cost. 

The main reason to avoid a large dome is travel, they are much bigger than you might think from the specs.  The WWL-1/28-60 is instead of the 16-35/giant dome.   The WWL/28-60 is comparable to the purchase price of a large glass dome,  I'd suggest pricing things out and physically checking on the size of a 230mm dome.

on the subject of corner blurring this page has an image taken with a 17mm lens behind a 170mm dome at f8.  the 16mm behind a 6" dome will be worse:  https://uwaterphoto.com/?p=839

On the subject of video l would think that leaping straight into UW video without having any video shooting experience might be a big step as there are extra considerations shooting UW, like white balancing and stability.  If I was doing it I'd try putting some land based videos together before buying too much UW video gear.  Just to get a feel for editing and putting a story together.

I don't know if you have the lights yet or not, but 5800 lumens seems like a bit marginal for video, even 10,000 lumen plus lights are a lot weaker than strobes.  You might ask about them separately

2 hours ago, ChrisRoss said:

The main reason to avoid a large dome is travel, they are much bigger than you might think from the specs.  The WWL-1/28-60 is instead of the 16-35/giant dome.   The WWL/28-60 is comparable to the purchase price of a large glass dome,  I'd suggest pricing things out and physically checking on the size of a 230mm dome.

on the subject of corner blurring this page has an image taken with a 17mm lens behind a 170mm dome at f8.  the 16mm behind a 6" dome will be worse:  https://uwaterphoto.com/?p=839

On the subject of video l would think that leaping straight into UW video without having any video shooting experience might be a big step as there are extra considerations shooting UW, like white balancing and stability.  If I was doing it I'd try putting some land based videos together before buying too much UW video gear.  Just to get a feel for editing and putting a story together.

I don't know if you have the lights yet or not, but 5800 lumens seems like a bit marginal for video, even 10,000 lumen plus lights are a lot weaker than strobes.  You might ask about them separately

That link on sharpness is extremely helpful. The corner sharpness falloff is very drastic.

Do you feel 5800 on two lights is still not adequate? I would totally agree if it was just one light, but I haven’t tried it yet. I’ll be working on a lot of above water video work beforehand for practice. The white balance but doesn’t phase me, but there will definitely but some learning involved. 
 

If there was a 230mm dome, would the corner sharpness be similar to the WWL or even close(ish) to the WACP? I realize that’s the sharpest solution out there. I think that I could manage the travel on the dome with my scuba gear, but I’d really like to get the biggest bang for my buck with the great 16-35 f/2.8 GM lens that I’ve got since I’ve got to bring it for astro and out of the water photography anyways. 

@ChrisRoss Any chance you know of a good video or some photography shot with the 16-35mm f/2.8 and a larger dome? I did some googling and perusing here and was unable to find what I was looking for. Thanks!

57 minutes ago, MattPNW said:

That link on sharpness is extremely helpful. The corner sharpness falloff is very drastic.

Do you feel 5800 on two lights is still not adequate? I would totally agree if it was just one light, but I haven’t tried it yet. I’ll be working on a lot of above water video work beforehand for practice. The white balance but doesn’t phase me, but there will definitely but some learning involved. 
 

If there was a 230mm dome, would the corner sharpness be similar to the WWL or even close(ish) to the WACP? I realize that’s the sharpest solution out there. I think that I could manage the travel on the dome with my scuba gear, but I’d really like to get the biggest bang for my buck with the great 16-35 f/2.8 GM lens that I’ve got since I’ve got to bring it for astro and out of the water photography anyways. 

With two light the effects are not additive - same as strobes - the LH light illuminates the LHS of scene and the RH light the RH.  I don't have direct experience - I would suggest you ask the question directly in a another post.  Video lights are orders of magnitude less bright than strobes.  For example a test on the forum some time back showed that a 14,000 lumen video light was 6 stops less bright than a strobe.  ISO is not the answer as the light needs to over power ambient enough that you can colour balance.

Even with a 230mm dome the WWL is  better in the corners, many people are not happy with 16mm in 230mm dome unless they add the S&S correction lens.  Again this varies with individual standards and also subject matter - shooting big animals in the blue is less demanding than wide angle scenics.  Really the only thing that really needs a 16mm rectilinear is wrecks and potentially shy sharks. 

There are lots of posts on here discussing the merits of using of a WWL compared to rectilinear in a big dome and people are moving in that direction for a wide angle solution that is more compact.  Lots of discussion and eveb links to some test shots with a range of wet lenses and domes: 

View archived post in: Nauticam WACP-C

On 11/26/2022 at 3:30 PM, MattPNW said:

Hi All,

 

As the title says, I’m going from landscape photography on the A7R IV to the A1 with the intent of taking more video in my life. Especially underwater. Did anyone make the jump from stills to videos either on land or underwater and have some nuggets of wisdom to share from their journey? I’ve watched plenty of YouTube videos on it, but most are from an on land perspective and I’d love to hear more from both sides. 
 

For UW hardware I’ll be shooting with 2x YS-D2 strobes, 2x Big Blue VL5800p video lights, an Isotta housing, and a Sony A1 paired with a 16-35 f/2.8 and 90mm macro option. I’ve got the 6” dome currently and am waiting for the right time to go with a larger dome. I’ve been told for video this is less problematic as soft corners aren’t as apparent. 

All feedback is welcomed feedback!
 

Thanks!

Matt

I have just bought an A1 and today I had my first topside video outing

I would say that in general the camera is very capable but is not super configurable so good for beginners in video

In terms of optics I recommend you skip the 16-35 for video and for that matter any rectilinear lens with dome for video. The camera will keep focusing and the sharpness across the frame drops

I just bought a small Sony 28-60mm that I will use with the WWL-1 I already have for video. Based on what I have seen this set up is plentiful for 4k video and in fact even for still photos

2 hours ago, Interceptor121 said:

I have just bought an A1 and today I had my first topside video outing

I would say that in general the camera is very capable but is not super configurable so good for beginners in video

In terms of optics I recommend you skip the 16-35 for video and for that matter any rectilinear lens with dome for video. The camera will keep focusing and the sharpness across the frame drops

I just bought a small Sony 28-60mm that I will use with the WWL-1 I already have for video. Based on what I have seen this set up is plentiful for 4k video and in fact even for still photos

Maybe it’s just me, but I find videos with the fisheye look so distracting vs rectilinear. Especially if you’re around any swimthroughs, caves, straight (ish) lines, and have a diver or large subject swim in/out of frame. The distortion that occurs at the edge grabs my eye and I think it looks distracting vs smooth. Is the WWL not going to be the same story? I’ve got the 16-35GM already, which is incredible glass… so I’d like to at least take advantage of that since I’m going to be bringing it everywhere anyways.

I agree with the fisheye look distracting in video, but the WWL only has about 130° FoV at the widest setting. In my opinion this is much less extreme than a pure fisheye or even the look of the MWL at 150°. Maybe search around for a few videos shot on the WWL-1. There should be plenty around.

All my latest video are shot with WWL-1B and I rarely use it wide open.

It's slightly fisheye and it doesn't deform shapes too much.

A quick example here where there are mostly divers which retains normal proportion

On 11/26/2022 at 10:11 PM, bill1946 said:

I made the leap and jumped in the wrong direction. I found that a dedicated Sony 4k video camera was the king. Combined with a Gates housing and wide-angle lens to accommodate the zoom capabilities. The difference is indescribable! The only IF, is affordability. Many of us have to go that route. However, if you can get good used, I would go for it. Gates (or other) mgrs. refurbish to new quality. 

I love my Sone A7R and it will do just about as good as any DSLR.

Quite interested at what sony cam you got in a gates housing...

On 11/26/2022 at 7:30 PM, MattPNW said:

Hi All,

 

As the title says, I’m going from landscape photography on the A7R IV to the A1 with the intent of taking more video in my life. Especially underwater. Did anyone make the jump from stills to videos either on land or underwater and have some nuggets of wisdom to share from their journey? I’ve watched plenty of YouTube videos on it, but most are from an on land perspective and I’d love to hear more from both sides. 
 

For UW hardware I’ll be shooting with 2x YS-D2 strobes, 2x Big Blue VL5800p video lights, an Isotta housing, and a Sony A1 paired with a 16-35 f/2.8 and 90mm macro option. I’ve got the 6” dome currently and am waiting for the right time to go with a larger dome. I’ve been told for video this is less problematic as soft corners aren’t as apparent. 

All feedback is welcomed feedback!
 

Thanks!

Matt

Great topic i am lookign also at the a1 i ve been shooting stills for a long time and i ve been playing a lot with a gh4 everyone is really talkin high of the wwl 28-60 combo but i do know other people also who swear by the canon 8-15mm in a 230 mm dome... 

5800 seems abit tight on lumen i rarely shoot at full power to keep my batteries life you might want to consider anything between 10klument to 20k  big blue though is a great choice of brand. 

14 hours ago, MattPNW said:

Maybe it’s just me, but I find videos with the fisheye look so distracting vs rectilinear. Especially if you’re around any swimthroughs, caves, straight (ish) lines, and have a diver or large subject swim in/out of frame. The distortion that occurs at the edge grabs my eye and I think it looks distracting vs smooth. Is the WWL not going to be the same story? I’ve got the 16-35GM already, which is incredible glass… so I’d like to at least take advantage of that since I’m going to be bringing it everywhere anyways.

Actually the opposite. Sony lenses have distortion including yours and correct it in camera when you see things moving at the edges you get warping

So you need to disable distortion correction to make it work better

The optical effect in a dome is like this things get big when they are at the edges and become small in the center

with the WWL-1 things are smaller at the edges and get bigger in the middle which is something your eye will like

Personally I use super wide lenses only underwater, even topside I rarely use anything wider than 24mm because of

1. Perspective distortion and converging verticals

2. The foreground looks tiny unless is very close

So I prefer 35mm and narrower also for landscapes this is of course personal

On 11/29/2022 at 5:35 AM, nomadadv said:

Quite interested at what sony cam you got in a gates housing...

 

 

FDR-AX100/AX100E

On 11/29/2022 at 5:39 PM, hyp said:

I agree with the fisheye look distracting in video, but the WWL only has about 130° FoV at the widest setting. In my opinion this is much less extreme than a pure fisheye or even the look of the MWL at 150°. Maybe search around for a few videos shot on the WWL-1. There should be plenty around.

If you look at what the WWL does, the horizontal field of view is about the same as a 14mm rectilinear (FF equivalent)and most of the stretching to 130° diagonal occurs right up in the corners, where it is less noticable .  It's certainly nothing like a 180° diagonal fisheye.  What seems to happen with these lenses is that as you zoom the barrel distortion is less and less noticable so the WWL is similar to what you get when you zoom in on 10-17mm tokina fisheye for example it effectively crops the badly distorted areas out and what is left is quite moderate.  People have commented they like the barrel distortion from fisheyes in stills as for example a shark looks chunkier.  I also see comments that zooming in on any of the fisheye zooms makes the barrel distortion less noticable. 

The field of the WWL is somewhat like a 20mm full frame equivalent fisheye or the 10-17mm tokina zoomed to 13mm, as you zoom in the distortion becomes progressively less.  ypu could see on the example video posted that anything that crosses either the horizontal or vertical edge of frame looks fine,  you would see a little distortion if you placed something right in the very corner but that usually won't happen.

9 hours ago, ChrisRoss said:

ypu could see on the example video posted that anything that crosses either the horizontal or vertical edge of frame looks bad, you would see a little distortion if you placed something right in the very corner but that usually won't happen.

Do you think edge of the frame looks bad, really? 

6 hours ago, Davide DB said:

Do you think edge of the frame looks bad, really? 

no, don't know how that typo slipped in - I'll correct it -

1 hour ago, ChrisRoss said:

no, don't know how that typo slipped in - I'll correct it -

Hahahaha I'm not usually fussy and I'm happy but those corners looked good to me, That's why I didn't understand 

Maybe I have a couple of clips that can show the very slight fisheye distortion introduced by the WWL-1 and the incredible quality of corners compared to a straight, dome lens.
A few car wrecks. 
Panasonic 14-42 @14mm, F5.6, ISO 1000
I had to get so close (too close) because the ambient brightness @60 meters was so strong that my keldans couldn't light the wreck well. You can see the slight fisheye distortion in the center on the side of the car. But at the corners, objects coming out of the frame and the sand are almost perfect.
I challenge getting these results with a dome at F5.6.