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.
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.
I currently use Olympus EM5-MII, NA-EM5MII, Zen DP170-N120, Nauticam 60mm Extension with Panasonic 7-14mm 4.0. Acccording to your data, shown in Alex's review, the WWL-1 with kit zoom-lens would perform better than this combination.
=> is this true in real life?
=> would the new WACP even perform better?
=> where is the rest of the data available (e.g. also center performance)?
In these combinations, the kit lens + WWL-1 is so good that I'm not sure how much benefit is left to be realized with WACP. In my personal opinion the real life benefits are greater than we can currently show in lab tests due to limits in our testing equipment and the extreme versatility and quality across the entire zoom range that WWL-1 offers. Further testing might change my opinion on this with some unique larger diameter lenses on m4/3, but I can recommend WWL-1 without hesitation.
I love the splits from Jeremy and David, and really like the drama in the thick and flowing water lines that splits with small domes create. They have a very different look, and that may not always be desirable, but appreciate the uniqueness and challenge to capture. The o-rign sourcing for WWL-1 was actually driven by a request from Eric Cheng using RX100 for high frame rates i the Bahamas, and I think the first o-ring that worked was a YS-250 strobe battery compartment o-ring.
The conclusion is the opposite to the recent Wetpixel review: WWL-1 is simpler to use with MFT and FF (Sony), but image quality is better with WW-lenses plus dome ports.
In my own experience this style of testing makes it really hard to get consistent, controlled results. In my tests WWL-1 + 28mm was a bit narrower than the Sony 28mm + Fisheye Conv combo. WWL-1 had soft corners, but they affected much less of the frame. This isn't a completely fair test, the Sony fisheye behind a dome was wider, but given the choice between the two I would take WWL-1.
There are situations where a full frame fisheye lens (like Sigma 15mm or Canon 8-15) and a metabones adapter will be more appropriate than the WWL-1 combo because of its wider fov with great overall image quality.
Is the Nauticam technology based on Alex's previous experiments with the Ivanoff-Rebikoff corrector, or is it a new concept? How proprietary is the technology?
No, not at all. Ivanoff-Rebikoff is overly restricting in field of view in my opinion, and I'm glad that isn't the route we pursued. Ivanoff is a corrective lens, WACP is a wide angle conversion and correction optic.
Can you explain how this concept differs from the older, (but still amazing) Nikonos RS concept.
RS 13mm is amazing, 170deg with fisheye distortion. This is a very difficult focal length than anything paired with WACP will ever be, and also has much more barrel distortion. I can certainly see how someone would want to travel with both...
I can't imagine a situation in which I'd find the narrow field of view of RS 20-35 (which is actually a 24mm lens at its widest) useful.
Both of these RS lensers are purpose built, single use optics. WACP is a wide angle conversion port (.36x magnification, converting 75 deg to 130 deg at its widest) for off the shelf lenses.
I recall the older zooms had a minimum focus distances of 0.5m or greater - the newer ones focus to ~ 0.38m. How close were you able to focus the lens behind the WACP in terms of working distance? Would newer (pro type - gold ring or L) zoom lenses be able to focus closer (with the WACP) as well as primes as they have closer focus limits?
All of the currently recommended combinations are focusing on the dome...
And my bonus question: any plan for a smaller WACP for APSC dslrs like the D500 or 7D serie?
This lens will actually perform better in terms of overall sharpness, and with a wider range of lenses, on APS-C. The smaller formats have benefits...
WACP compatibility is still being determined, and this is not a complete list. Updates will be continually as this product is brought to market in the coming weeks.
All of the current field testing is essentially to define the compatibility limits. Stress testing, if you will. Personally I expect some of the most popular prime options to be in the 35mm range for full frame, providing even better quality at a narrower field of view. There may actually be two different use strategies that emerge, with prime lenses providing the very best quality at narrower field of views (35mm = 120deg, and even 50mm = 100 deg), and zoom lenses like 28-70 providing very good quality across a wide range of coverage angles.
Ian, this is both a wide angle conversion and correction lens. It takes an existing lens, makes it wider, and works very hard to neutralize defects that are introduced by that action AND the air to water interface.
Many solutions to the fuzzy corners problem were explored, including lenses that were simply correctors (without wide angle conversion) for current wide angle lenses. This solution (wide angle conversion and correction for 75 degree fov primary lenses) turned out to yield the best mix of performance at a reasonable size and cost.
I'm sure this is just the beginning, and I very much look forward to seeing what Nauticam and other manufacturers create.
The OP is asking about what I consider to be a Nikon weakness, and that regardless of flash recycle time, you have to pull the trigger once for one frame when the flash is popped up. In other words there is no such thing as continuous shooting mode when the internal flash is popped up.
This is one reason that manual led triggers have been created for some housings... Pavel's TTL Converter is actually a very good manual trigger as well, I share his enthusiasm.
There are some solutions coming in the next few weeks to improve access to the lens release button, and provide cover solutions, when the foam ring is attached. I'll update this thread when I have them in hand.
WWL-1 is significantly wider than both of these, with some barrel distortion. Keep in mind the lens is full zoom through, and when you frame to match the fov offered by these two options a lot of the barrel distortion is cropped out in camera.
I'd suggest getting the lens serviced. My guess is that there is something mechanically wrong with the lens, or there is oil on the aperture blades, that is preventing them from closing during exposure.
G7 has indeed been cancelled. The issue, as speculated here, is the front - back depth of the hand grip. The thick grip would have moved the N85 Port mount forward, affecting compatibility with all of the micro four thirds lenses supported, and necessitating a port system dedicated to the G7 housing.
GX8 is no problem, and that high priority design is moving forward.