Jump to content


Photo
* * * * * 1 votes

Introducing Nauticamís WACP - The Wide Angle Corrector Port: Discuss Here


  • Please log in to reply
54 replies to this topic

#41 Ryan

Ryan

    Great White

  • Industry
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1101 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Fort Lauderdale, FL

Posted 08 March 2018 - 04:43 AM

@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?

 

 

Wolfgang

 

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.



#42 MJvC

MJvC

    Wolf Eel

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 139 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Cape Town

Posted 09 March 2018 - 01:12 AM

Hi Ryan

Thanks for the replies.

saw somewhere someone using the EF-S 15-85mm f/3.5-5.6 IS USM Lens on C200 with a WACP. Would this give more versatility (in terms of angle of cover) using a S35mm (DX) type sensor or would you still  recommend the 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 IS STM for S35 format.

Also  is the front element of the WACP replaceable by a Nauticam service center like Reef (or would it require sending back to Nauticam HQ if it got scratched) and what would the cost be to replace that element.



#43 jordi

jordi

    Lionfish

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 62 posts
  • Interests:photography

Posted 09 March 2018 - 06:25 AM

Hi Alex,

 

I've been checking the images you linked, which are very nice as always, and I've seen than in most of them you are using high F/stops. The  image quality is very good even in the corners but I am wondering what happens when you use open f/stops.

I've been checking some images by Todd Winner (at Nauticam's website), and even at low res you can see that at F5,6 the corners are not good. If this is the case I think is a very expensive investment if you must use a very old lens behind, which has slow autofocus and you are bound to use closed f/stops. So the only real avantage would be a bigger zoom range than with any other lens... Am I right?

 

 

There are more example shots from WACP on my website now - to show how it can be used. I have over 100 up there now, they are sorted chronologically, so newest are first: 

 

http://www.amustard..../search/"28.0"/

 

If the link does not work - search for: 28.0 

which brings up pictures taken with 28mm lenses (or 28-70mm) which is covers my use of the WACP.

 

Currently away shooting in the Indian Ocean - and expected to use the lens a lot (although it will be a while before I process, keyword and caption the best shots from this trip to add to my website). 

 

Alex



#44 twinner

twinner

    Wolf Eel

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 132 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Redondo Beach, CA

Posted 09 March 2018 - 09:14 AM

Hey Jordi,

 

f/5.6 is not going to be as sharp as f/11 or any high f stop but it is sharper than a dome at the same f stop and same FOV. That image in the cave is a bad example as I shot it with a slow shutter speed and probably introduced some camera movement. Overall I find it to be much sharper in the corners than a dome and the zoom range is pretty incredible.

 

Todd


Edited by twinner, 09 March 2018 - 10:01 AM.


#45 Walt Stearns

Walt Stearns

    Eagle Ray

  • Industry
  • PipPipPip
  • 372 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:West Palm Beach, Florida
  • Interests:Diving and underwater photography of course with a little rebreathers, cave diving, marine science and natural history thrown in.

Posted 09 March 2018 - 01:46 PM

Since I am also coming from the DX (Nikon D500) shooting camp, I am curious if the WCAP will work with the Nikon AF-S NIKKOR 18-35mm f/3.5-4.5G ED Lens. The lens features a comparable 35mm focal length equivalent of a 27 - 52.5 mm on DX format camera.

 

Physical dimensions of the lens run approx. 3.27” in diameter x 3.74" long (83 x 95 mm), which do not change when the zoom is racked out to 35mm like it does with the Nikon’s 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6G. The lens takes a 77mm filter, but I don’t quite understand what the issue is there where Ryan Canon mentioned it his post. 

 

Walt



#46 Alex_Mustard

Alex_Mustard

    The Doctor

  • Super Mod
  • 8591 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Peterborough

Posted 10 March 2018 - 07:36 PM

Hi Alex,

 

I've been checking the images you linked, which are very nice as always, and I've seen than in most of them you are using high F/stops. The  image quality is very good even in the corners but I am wondering what happens when you use open f/stops.

I've been checking some images by Todd Winner (at Nauticam's website), and even at low res you can see that at F5,6 the corners are not good. If this is the case I think is a very expensive investment if you must use a very old lens behind, which has slow autofocus and you are bound to use closed f/stops. So the only real avantage would be a bigger zoom range than with any other lens... Am I right?

 

 

 

Hi Jordi, 

 

The main reason for the higher apertures in many of my shots is photographic.

I guess it comes down to the fact I am using the lens now, not testing it, so I am selecting apertures based on what is appropriate, rather than what would test the ability of the lens.  Most of the images I have shot recently are in bright, shallow conditions and I am close to the subjects (so I have lots of flash). The small size of the WACP is advantageous in such situations compared with a big dome. Also when I am close focusing on a subject (such as the turtles) I needed to use a small aperture (not for corner sharpness, but for adequate depth of field). This is something that you need to consider with both the WACP and the RS-13mm.

 

Also, after last summer I returned the WACP to Nauticam and I am waiting for my own one to be ready (I just heard that it is). Since I still had an pre-production prototype of the WACP at home (much smaller and not as good as the final WACP, but still better than a dome port) I used that lens in Mexico, Florida and have it with me on my current trip. If the official WACP is 2-3 stops ahead of a dome, the prototype is about 1.5 stops (both have the same field of view). So I would use my more recent images as a guide to the types of shots that the WACP, rather than a measure of quality - as the production WACP is better.

 

Finally, although the 28-70mm f/3.5-f/4.5 is an old lens - it is a sharp one. Also it is actually has a faster aperture than the 16-35mm, which is f/4 (although it isn't AF-S). For wide angle subjects I don't find the AF a limitation.

 

Alex


Alexander Mustard - www.amustard.com - www.magic-filters.com
Nikon D5 (Subal housing). Nikon D7200 (Subal housing). Olympus EPL-5 (Nauticam housing).


#47 jordi

jordi

    Lionfish

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 62 posts
  • Interests:photography

Posted 11 March 2018 - 02:14 AM

Thanks a lot Todd and Alex for your answer!

I'd really appreciate if you can post any picture at F5,6 or lower when you have the final WACP Unit.

Thanks a lot for your help

 

Jordi



#48 MJvC

MJvC

    Wolf Eel

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 139 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Cape Town

Posted 25 April 2018 - 03:11 AM

Have Nauticam come out with a Newer Compatibility Chart with Zoom and Focus Gear part numbers for Nauticam's Cinema Housings If so please can you put up a link.

I am also looking for any Pool Chart Tests for this optic.

Thanks



#49 miguelpereira

miguelpereira

    Clownfish

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 25 posts

Posted 25 April 2018 - 01:38 PM

@AlexMustard: thanks for the wonderful detailed WACP review. I have a doubt that I was hoping you could help. I know it's an apple to oranges comparison but what's the resolution difference between a fisheye lens (the Nikon 8-15 @15mm for example) in a 230mm dome and the WACP?

#50 Alex_Mustard

Alex_Mustard

    The Doctor

  • Super Mod
  • 8591 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Peterborough

Posted 26 April 2018 - 12:02 AM

I don’t know. I guess it might be interesting to have the numbers of all lenses - fisheye to macro to know what we are used to having underwater. But generating these numbers takes a lot of work and I am not sure that it will happen. Alex


Alexander Mustard - www.amustard.com - www.magic-filters.com
Nikon D5 (Subal housing). Nikon D7200 (Subal housing). Olympus EPL-5 (Nauticam housing).


#51 miguelpereira

miguelpereira

    Clownfish

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 25 posts

Posted 26 April 2018 - 12:40 PM

@AlexMustard: I thought you had an idea. Not necessarily scientific data like resolution in lpm but a general idea like the quality is the same or one has a 1 stop advantage over the other. Maybe Nauticam has the data and will share it someday - the WACP is a very high investment specially for someone who has a 230mm dome and fisheye lenses and the Nikon 16-35 already (many of us have, me included).

#52 Alex_Mustard

Alex_Mustard

    The Doctor

  • Super Mod
  • 8591 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Peterborough

Posted 27 April 2018 - 12:17 AM

As a feeling - the 8-15mm is the best non-water contact fisheye you can use on a Nikon - it is noticeably sharper than other fisheyes.

 

But it is not as good as the RS 13mm fisheye or WACP. But of course, the images are totally useable for any application.

 

I was processing some recent shots of the Kittiwake wreck the other day and I noticed that the image quality wasn’t as nice as usual (most obvious as Chromatic Aberrations) and then I remembered that I had used the 8-15mm that day, rather that the RS13 or WACP I normally use for my wide angle. But of course the images are still very nice. It is a small difference - but when you know how it can be, you do notice it every time! 

 

But the main reason for using the WACP is that it has a totally different angle of coverage than the 8-15mm. The 8-15mm is 180˚ corner to corner @ 15mm. The WACP covers 130˚-57˚ corner to corner with the 28-70mm - making it a super versatile option. But I still always travel with a fisheye too - for shooting the biggest subjects (wrecks, scenery, very big animals, etc). I take the RS13mm when splits are not important and the 8-15mm when I expect to shoot some splits or want to use the 16-35mm too (they use the same dome).

 

Alex 


Alexander Mustard - www.amustard.com - www.magic-filters.com
Nikon D5 (Subal housing). Nikon D7200 (Subal housing). Olympus EPL-5 (Nauticam housing).


#53 TimG

TimG

    Sperm Whale

  • Moderator
  • 2115 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Amsterdam
  • Interests:Sunlight reefs, warm seas and fine wine. And Manchester City Football Club - English Premier League Champions (again) for 2017-18

Posted 27 April 2018 - 01:48 AM

 

But the main reason for using the WACP is that it has a totally different angle of coverage than the 8-15mm. The 8-15mm is 180˚ corner to corner @ 15mm. The WACP covers 130˚-57˚ corner to corner with the 28-70mm - making it a super versatile option. But I still always travel with a fisheye too - for shooting the biggest subjects (wrecks, scenery, very big animals, etc). I take the RS13mm when splits are not important and the 8-15mm when I expect to shoot some splits or want to use the 16-35mm too (they use the same dome).

 

Alex 

 

Which dome are you using, Alex? A DP230?? With a 20mm EXR for the 8-15mm?


Tim
(PADI IDC Staff Instructor and former Dive Manager, KBR Lembeh Straits)
Nikon D800 and D500, Nikkors 105mm and 16-35mm, Sigma 15mmFE, Tokina 10-17,  Subal housing

http://www.timsimages.uk
Latest images: http://www.shutterst...lery_id=1940957


#54 Crayfish

Crayfish

    Triggerfish

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 47 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Stanmore Bay Auckland New Zealand
  • Interests:Diving Photography Exploring

Posted 12 May 2018 - 01:38 AM

Any idea if the Nikon 28-85mm lens would be any good?

#55 dreifish

dreifish

    Sting Ray

  • Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 271 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:SE Asia

Posted 05 June 2018 - 06:19 AM

Those of you who have used the WACP -- do you find that it's significantly more prone to flare than fisheye/wide-angle solutions inside a dome port?

 

I ask because I've been using the WWL-1 a lot recently with the Olympus 14-42mm EZ and Panasonic 15mm F1.7 lenses and I've been noticing an unacceptable amount of flare with that combination as soon as the sun gets anywhere near the frame. So I'm curious if it's a problem with all wet wide angle adapters when compared to native lens+dome port solutions. 

 

Here's an example of what I'm talking about -- check out the lower right corner. 

 

PPAN0454.jpg