Looking for best optical Quality setup for A1/A7SIII cameras for UW Videography

[Yehia 2]

Hello everyone,

I am currently in the process of setting up my underwater videography gear and would like to get some advice on the best optical quality that I can achieve using Sony A1/A7SIII cameras. I have done a lot of research and have found that using the 28-60 F4-5.6 with the WACP-1 and for macro, the Sony 90mm lens seems to be the best option.

I am planning to invest in the Nauticam housing, but I am unsure about the optics that I should get. There are a few options available, such as the 28-70 F3.5-5.6 OSS and 16-35 PZ F4. I am also unsure about whether I should go with the WACP-1 or WACP-C, as some people say that the optical quality is not significantly different to justify the price difference between them. So, I would like to get your opinion on what is the best combo I should use for wide-angle (mainly for videography).

for macro setup, everyone suggests the Sony 90mm lens, but I am wondering if there are any other better setups for macro.

Regarding lights, I've heard that Keldan lights are the best, but I'm not sure which model to go for. Additionally, I'm wondering if they're really worth the investment, as they do seem to be quite pricey compared to other dive light brands. Have any of you used Keldan lights before, and if so which model do you recommened? do you think they're worth paying 3x-4x more money for?

Lastly, I would like to ask for your opinion on whether there is a better setup that I should consider instead of the Sony A1. Is there another camera or setup that will provide me with better quality? I am looking for something within the price range of the A1 (my budget is 20-25k for the whole underwater setup excl. camera and lenses), so please don't suggest the RED V-raptor XXL with gates housings :p

I'd really appreciate any recommendations or insights you have, especially if you've had practical experience with the equipment you're recommending.

[Davide DB 492]

I'm scared to answer you

 

[Yehia 2]

19 minutes ago, Davide DB said:

I'm scared to answer you

 

Don't be. Go for it! 

[Davide DB 492]

I am not up to date with prices but I would also consider a kit with Canon R5C or if we are talking exclusively about video, Canon C70.

I am definitely not a fan of FF for video, in fact I think it is absolutely counterproductive and I think the MFT format is the best compromise there is. But I have now given up. We are conditioned by an army of kids on youtube and here we are on an essentially photography forum which is not the same as video. So long live to full frame!

 

 

[ChrisRoss 150]

I think the biggest problem is that people have tested One particular lens with one particular wet optic solution but there has not really been a comprehensive test between different lenses with a particular water contact optic.  There have been afew posts including the one by Nauticam Thailand  on their Facebook page which published some comparison shots.  There is a real shortage of full resolution images you can download at least that I am aware of.  The limiting factor in resolution is going to be the lens/water contact optic combination being used and the A1 is going to test that a lot more so than the A7SIII.  The Nauticam Thailand test images can be found here: https://www.facebook.com/media/set/?set=a.494436099369728&type=3

I think it is generally agreed that the water contact optics are an improvement on rectilinear lenses behind conventional dome ports but just how much is subject to debate.  You might like to review Massimo's review of the A1 with 28-60 behind the WWL-1 - the general conclusion being that the optic quality of the lens on land is OK but not fabulous and it doesn't get better behind a dome.  In the end the end the flexibility of a zoom lens behind a water contact optic wins out.  That's my take on it but I would suggestou read the review and draw your own conclusions: 

The macro is a little easier - if you are using Sony the 90mm macro is the only game in town, you could adapt other lenses but the AF performance would be wanting.  The 90mm macro is sharp, maybe not the sharpest but any advantage of lenses that are sharper on land may well be lost in the flat port water interface.  Macro lenses generally don't perform so well adapted.

[Interceptor121 767]

5 minutes ago, ChrisRoss said:

I think the biggest problem is that people have tested One particular lens with one particular wet optic solution but there has not really been a comprehensive test between different lenses with a particular water contact optic.  There have been afew posts including the one by Nauticam Thailand  on their Facebook page which published some comparison shots.  There is a real shortage of full resolution images you can download at least that I am aware of.  The limiting factor in resolution is going to be the lens/water contact optic combination being used and the A1 is going to test that a lot more so than the A7SIII.  The Nauticam Thailand test images can be found here: https://www.facebook.com/media/set/?set=a.494436099369728&type=3

I think it is generally agreed that the water contact optics are an improvement on rectilinear lenses behind conventional dome ports but just how much is subject to debate.  You might like to review Massimo's review of the A1 with 28-60 behind the WWL-1 - the general conclusion being that the optic quality of the lens on land is OK but not fabulous and it doesn't get better behind a dome.  In the end the end the flexibility of a zoom lens behind a water contact optic wins out.  That's my take on it but I would suggestou read the review and draw your own conclusions: 

The macro is a little easier - if you are using Sony the 90mm macro is the only game in town, you could adapt other lenses but the AF performance would be wanting.  The 90mm macro is sharp, maybe not the sharpest but any advantage of lenses that are sharper on land may well be lost in the flat port water interface.  Macro lenses generally don't perform so well adapted.

My analysis was aimed at photography with the 50 megapixels A1

I intend to also go for 4K video with the same combination. I think as a video user you need to consider a few factors:

1. Will you use filters

2. Will you take the lens off

3. Do you really need a macro lens or we are talking more about close up

My experience of the Red Sea is that you do not really have tiny macro subject as main stream so the lens could be there most of the time

The reef are relatively well covered by ambient light and filters or even custom white balance works very well

Although the WWL-1 needs to be stopped down to f/11 for edge sharpness in photos for video f/8 is fine as the extreme edges are cropped and 4K video with things that move is not really going to be one for the pixel peeper

WACP-C would be also ok if you do not want to use filters or not planning to do close up with the flat port and prefer a dry mount

I will do a write up for the WWL-1 in video in the next weeks I need to go through other 2-3 test cases so it may be in April

[tobyone 28]

This is related to the Kelden lights. They are extremely good, the only downside(I consider a big deal)is you cannot get the batteries recelled. Not very green. If anyone know were I can get them recelled,  let me know.

Wet lens vs dome: the video 16:9 or narrower aspect ratios, crops out the corners on most sensors, making corner sharpness less of an issue than with stills that use the whole sensor.

[Davide DB 492]

26 minutes ago, tobyone said:

This is related to the Kelden lights. They are extremely good, the only downside(I consider a big deal)is you cannot get the batteries recelled. Not very green. If anyone know were I can get them recelled,  let me know.

I own a pair of old Luna 8 CRI. Years ago I changed the led module with the latest from keldan and I recelled my four battery packs. The latest two packs were recelled by a company who assemble e-bike battery packs and occasionally they recel electrical appliances. 

34 minutes ago, tobyone said:

Wet lens vs dome: the video 16:9 or narrower aspect ratios, crops out the corners on most sensors, making corner sharpness less of an issue than with stills that use the whole sensor.

Yes, video is a completely different story. BTW I don't see the point of using a 50 MP camera to have a 4K moving image that has 8 MP. It's a logical compromise only if you're doing stills and video. But even then ...

[ColdDarkDiver 26]

On 3/12/2023 at 10:23 PM, Yehia said:

Regarding lights, I've heard that Keldan lights are the best, but I'm not sure which model to go for. Additionally, I'm wondering if they're really worth the investment, as they do seem to be quite pricey compared to other dive light brands. Have any of you used Keldan lights before, and if so which model do you recommened? do you think they're worth paying 3x-4x more money for?

There are many of us that use them, and I am pretty sure each one of us have gone through this exact debate.  After using Keldans, I have no regrets on purchasing them as the light they produce is so wonderful and smooth.  I have two of the 8x Flux 18k.  I was going to get the CRI, but in talking with some others, they suggested the one with higher light output. I didn't think I would use it but sometimes do use all of those lumens.  I also have used Light and Motion Sola 3600 (which are much cheaper so comparing apples and oranges here) and the light quality is a different league with the video shot with the Keldans far superior.  I have not used the less expensive brands that produce the same light output.  The other ones I was cross shopping were the Sola 15,000s which are also nice, but not that much cheaper.

[jplaurel 46]

On 3/13/2023 at 7:42 AM, tobyone said:

This is related to the Kelden lights. They are extremely good, the only downside(I consider a big deal)is you cannot get the batteries recelled. Not very green. If anyone know were I can get them recelled,  let me know.

Wet lens vs dome: the video 16:9 or narrower aspect ratios, crops out the corners on most sensors, making corner sharpness less of an issue than with stills that use the whole sensor.

The packs for my Keldans (Luna 8 and 4x) are pretty much just the cells soldered or welded together with shrink wrap and end caps. There’s not a lot to re-use, and on my old Luna 8 batteries, many of the LEDs are out anyway, so the end cap with the electronics is not much use.

Edited March 29 by jplaurel

[dreifish 362]

On 3/14/2023 at 8:45 AM, ColdDarkDiver said:

There are many of us that use them, and I am pretty sure each one of us have gone through this exact debate.  After using Keldans, I have no regrets on purchasing them as the light they produce is so wonderful and smooth.  I have two of the 8x Flux 18k.  I was going to get the CRI, but in talking with some others, they suggested the one with higher light output. I didn't think I would use it but sometimes do use all of those lumens.  I also have used Light and Motion Sola 3600 (which are much cheaper so comparing apples and oranges here) and the light quality is a different league with the video shot with the Keldans far superior.  I have not used the less expensive brands that produce the same light output.  The other ones I was cross shopping were the Sola 15,000s which are also nice, but not that much cheaper.

I've shot with Keldan 8xs on several occasions and own 4 DivePro G18 Plus lights (which can be purchased for ~$500-600 each if buying in bulk). The difference is more so in ergonomics and features than in light quality. In fact, I'd argue the G18s are a better option since they have a narrower 90* beam angle which is still perfectly adequate for 130 degree video and actually leads to more light falling on the subject than the Keldan's 110* beam angle. With the Keldan's you're not paying for better light quality really, you're primarily paying for better control ergonomics, ability to use a best-in-class remote trigger system, and slightly less negative boyancy. All important things, but if you're not shooting professionally or doing hundreds of dives a year.. maybe not worth the cost.

[dreifish 362]

On 3/13/2023 at 1:23 AM, Yehia said:

Hello everyone,

I am currently in the process of setting up my underwater videography gear and would like to get some advice on the best optical quality that I can achieve using Sony A1/A7SIII cameras. I have done a lot of research and have found that using the 28-60 F4-5.6 with the WACP-1 and for macro, the Sony 90mm lens seems to be the best option.

I am planning to invest in the Nauticam housing, but I am unsure about the optics that I should get. There are a few options available, such as the 28-70 F3.5-5.6 OSS and 16-35 PZ F4. I am also unsure about whether I should go with the WACP-1 or WACP-C, as some people say that the optical quality is not significantly different to justify the price difference between them. So, I would like to get your opinion on what is the best combo I should use for wide-angle (mainly for videography).

Lastly, I would like to ask for your opinion on whether there is a better setup that I should consider instead of the Sony A1. Is there another camera or setup that will provide me with better quality? I am looking for something within the price range of the A1 (my budget is 20-25k for the whole underwater setup excl. camera and lenses), so please don't suggest the RED V-raptor XXL with gates housings :p

If your primary use is video and you don't need 8k, A7SIII all the way over the A1. If you need 8k.. not sure the A1 is the best camera for you since it's limited to 30p in 8k and also does overheat in 8k by many accounts. I'd look at the Canon R5C instead if 8k is important to you, primarily for the 60p/raw capabilities/solid underwater white balance (not that the A7SIII or A1 is bad, they're equally good at underwater WB and some might even prefer the color to the canon colors). 

WACP-C is probably the sweet spot in terms of price/portability/image quality if using a system like Sony that allows it to be used. You could also go for the WWL-1 to save some money (on Sony), but from an ergonomic perspective, I'd recommend the dry port over wet adapter unless you have a very specific need to be able to remove the wet adapter underwater to shoot macro on the same dive, for instance. With the R5C, you're currently limited to WACP-1 until Canon releases some new lenses compatible with the WACP-C. (Though I don't really understand why the EF 28-70 isn't compatible with the WACP-C?, it seems like it should work?)

[ChrisRoss 150]

21 hours ago, dreifish said:

 With the R5C, you're currently limited to WACP-1 until Canon releases some new lenses compatible with the WACP-C. (Though I don't really understand why the EF 28-70 isn't compatible with the WACP-C?, it seems like it should work?)

I would think that if the R5C works with the 28-70/28-80 lenses you could use the WACP-C.  The N120 cinema port chart is here:

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1c5TxS2ARq_d8BfKwrHuCEU6n-4tUKLWs/view

It notes the 28-70 lens is not supported by the R5C in video mode, however it includes the 28-80 f3.5-5.6 V lens in the port chart without any limitations.

[dreifish 362]

Thanks for pointing out the updated Nauticam chart, Chris -- I hadn't seen it yet. Regarding the R5C, some individual copies of the 28-70 F3.5-4.5 do work with the R5C, but not every copy. All work fine in photo mode, but in the video mode, some versions throw up an error. I had to go through three different copies before I found one that works with the R5C also in video mode.

[ChrisRoss 150]

3 hours ago, dreifish said:

Thanks for pointing out the updated Nauticam chart, Chris -- I hadn't seen it yet. Regarding the R5C, some individual copies of the 28-70 F3.5-4.5 do work with the R5C, but not every copy. All work fine in photo mode, but in the video mode, some versions throw up an error. I had to go through three different copies before I found one that works with the R5C also in video mode.

Thanks for the updated information, sounds like the 28-80 might be a better bet for compatibility then?

[dreifish 362]

On 3/30/2023 at 4:44 PM, ChrisRoss said:

Thanks for the updated information, sounds like the 28-80 might be a better bet for compatibility then?

For compatibility, yes, but the 27-70 is better for image quality. I have both.