200 min of run time from 4x 18650 should be sufficient, right?
- Wetpixel :: Underwater Photography Forums
- → Ryan's Content
There have been 6 items by Ryan (Search limited from 23-July 18)
The cause of this situation is an instagram feed that was posted on our web page nauticam.com, and managed by my team in the USA. The purpose of the feed is to aggregate content from instagram using hash tags associated with our brand for a gallery on our site. I love this user generated content - and feel that it takes down some of the intimidation factor associated with complicated gear, and makes what we do approachable and attainable. My feeling is also that this provides a great avenue for exposure outside of instagram, which in theory everyone benefits from, and many users have reacted to positively. My personal and ultimate goal was to promote the photographers that use our brand alongside the products we make.
I never asserted any ownership of the image - which Julian has claimed above. That was not in the emails we exchanged, and my feeling is that this point is embellished in the account here to add more of an emotional charge to the situation. His comments on the facebook thread suggest justification and bullying, which also simply did not happen. My private explanation to him was simply how the feed worked. I feel that my replies to Julian are actually taken out of context here, but I appreciate his bringing this specific issue to our attention, and the feedback we have received as a result.
We have absolutely no interest in violating any copyright. Someone uses #nauticam because they want an association with our brand, and if they no longer wish to have that association they can remove it, or refrain from using it. What better association is there than having that image fed into the brand web page? We are not saving the image on our servers or modifying it in any way. The entire instagram tag, comment, and user information is retained in accordance with their embed terms. The instagram poster has complete control over the image.
We learned a few things from all of this... It is clear that instagram posters appreciate the courtesy of a permission request before an image is shared on our branded site, and that there is a higher level of sensitivity to feeds pulled outside of the instagram app than content shared within it. That makes sense, and we have already implemented a strategy to manage this permission process for the future.
I am deeply sorry for the situation. I am sorry that a platform built to show the incredible work of our user base has inspired these feelings. I'm grateful that Julian brought this to our attention so we could remedy it, and apologize to anyone else that feels this action was inappropriate on our part.
@Ryan: "At any given field of view WACP (with a compatible lens) will be sharper in the corners than any lens behind a dome resulting in the same FOV at the same aperture."
Is this true for rectilinear WA lenses only - or is this also the case for fisheye lenses?
Hi Wolfgang - that is an interesting point of clarification, and something worth testing. Thinking from the full frame perspective I didn't see a direct FOV equivalency, but on DX a 15mm or so fisheye is roughly equivalent to the 18-19mm lenses with WACP.
I'll see if we can test that in the lab.
I haven't looked at this in a while, so have six months of catching up to do...
A question: I have the 12-40mm 2.8 Zuiko Pro lens. Would the WWL-1 (or WACP) give better results with this lens, compared to the standard zoom lenses, or does it perform worse?
This lens is not compatible with WWL-1, and has not been tested with WACP.
Do you have any experience with Sony FF/28-70 with WWL-1?
We are going to add the Sony FE 28‑70mm F3.5‑5.6 OSS Full‑frame E‑mount Zoom to WACP compatibility when that is next updated. The best port combo is 37303 + 21120 + 85201 for A7II / A7III / A9 Systems. Performance is about the same as WWL-1 with 28mm f/2 overall, but there is significant versatility added in being able to zoom through the lens' zoom range, and the combo is attracting some interest. There is also substantial interest in this from video shooters.
I understand that you are only testing lenses from 28mm because wider lenses will vignette with the WACP. However, as previously noted, Nikon has discontinued its 28-70mm lenses and replaced them with 24-70mm lenses which offer significant optical and other improvements. A more modern lens would be an advantage for use outside the housing. The fact that it would vignette at its widest setting would pose no obstacle to using it behind the WACP within the 28-70mm range (or even using it wider in situations where losing the corners would not be a problem). Could we have some tests with a lens that is actually currently available?
Obviously we want to test as many lenses as possible, but this is a not a trivial process.
Would also love to see a test of the Sony 28mm f2.8 on a Sony FF behind the WACP.
Do you mean 28mm f/2? If so, this hasn't ben a priority because it is very well supported by WWL-1, but I would expect that it is also quite good or better with WACP. This is my assumption, and has not been tested to my knowledge.
It would also be very helpful if you could specify the maximum lens diameter that can be effectively used within the WACP, perhaps using front filter thread size as a proxy, since this is more widely reported on lenses than the actual diameter. The excellent review by Alex and Jason failed to specify if they were using the Nikon 28-70mm f2.8, which has a 77mm filter thread, same as one of Nikon's current 24-70mm f2.8 lenses) or the Nikon 28-70mm f3.5-4.5, which has a filter thread of only 52mm.
Unfortunately we can't - there is no direct correlation between filter thread and compatibility. I will say that we have not tested any lens with a 77mm filter thread that works. We do have success with one lens that has a 72mm filter thread on DX, but this could be coincidence as much as anything else.
I have a Canon kit lens 24-105 f4 that I used once underwater and never again - is that likely to be too big for the WACP at 664g? Would the Canon 24-70 be a better choice?
None of the various 24-105 version, and none of the 24-70 f/2.8 iterations are compatible on full frame Canon.
Has any one tried the WACP with a Red Weapon and a 17-55mm or any other DX Kit lenses. Very interested in this for video work in the 6K-8K range i.e. 1,3x - 1,6x crop.
17-55 has been tested on APS-C and will not be recommended.
On an 8K Helium or 6K Dragon sensor 28-80 has proven to be wide enough to create interest, and on smaller sensors the Canon 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 IS STM Lens is proving to be a good option. Sigma 18-35 f/1.8 is also interesting, but the available zoom range will depend upon the format.
The primes are also worth looking at here... Which one depends on the coverage angle desired, but 28mm f/2.8 with IS and STM from Canon outstanding.
I'm also with you since I'm also a user of RED 6K. Much more info is needed with other lens combinations.
In video, we need all the light that we can and there are many times where we need to shoot wide open (depending on the lens that could be f4, f2.8 or even wider).
So far the recommendation emphasis had been in a slow 3.5 - 4.5 lens, which is of limited use for video work in less then ideal light conditions (if we have ideal light conditions, we could use smaller apertures, so no real need for the WACP). In my point of view, it's biggest usefulness is where the dome ports start to fail, at wider apertures, let's say from f5.6 and wider f-stops. So we really need to know how it performs in the f2.8 range and even f1.8 or f1.4.
I don't anticipate that we'll publish direct A-B comparisons here, there are just too many to document. We know it is better than options equivalent in coverage angle. Everyone I know that has used the lens agrees that it is better. The Mustard article clearly illustrates the advantages compared to Nikon 16-35 f/4, and you'll see more and more of those style comparisons the lens is used in the field.
I don't disagree that those comparisons have value, but realistically I don't expect that we'll wade into that. I've used the lens enough to draw my own conclusions, though. At any given field of view WACP (with a compatible lens) will be sharper in the corners than any lens behind a dome resulting in the same FOV at the same aperture. I don't see the value in trying to determine how much better (and whether that performance is usable) from photos on the internet, I'd buy / rent / borrow a lens and test for myself.
Are there any updates with regard to new lenses (i.e. DX or EFs lenses) or test charts that have been shot with the WACP
The next time a chart is published it will include some 35mm primes for full frame (resulting in approximately 110 deg diagonal fov), Sigma 18-35 f/1.8 and Canon 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 IS STM as APS-C zooms, and the Sony FE 28‑70mm F3.5‑5.6 OSS Full‑frame E‑mount Zoom. There may be more, but that is what I remember off the top of my head.
Has anyone tried the WWL-1 with a DX camera or do you need to step up to the WACP?
There has never been an Canon APS-C or Nikon DX format recommendation made for WWL-1. I got the following feedback via facebook message today from someone using WACP with 7D Mark II and the 18-55 STM lens:
-I was flipping out under water
The circuit is definitely temperature compensated, and if you are seeing a solid green go back to flashing yellow the most likely cause is that you actually have a very slow leak, not an issue with the temp comp in the circuit.
Our recommendation is to stop pumping when it turns green. Pump too much, you defeat the purpose of the monitoring.
I'd suggest emailing innovation at nauticam.com with your housing serial number, a shipping address, and communicate the Thursday deadline. A lot can be done before Thursday via the right channels. To my knowledge a similar issue has been reported one time by a UK customer, and that defective board was replaced under warranty.