Jump to content


Ryan

Member Since 22 Feb 2003
Offline Last Active Oct 06 2017 08:46 AM
-----

Posts I've Made

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

04 October 2017 - 06:57 AM

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.

 

 

Here is another review on WWL-1: https://www.bluewate...l1-review-tests

 

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.


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

02 October 2017 - 06:00 AM

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...


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

30 September 2017 - 08:48 AM

The current compatibility chart is available here:

https://drive.google...mIxR0dTY0E/view

 

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.


In Topic: No news from Nauticam?

24 July 2017 - 12:31 PM

Check out nauticam.com, new content is being migrated there.


In Topic: Fuji xt-2

09 March 2017 - 08:41 AM

Nauticam took a wait and see approach to X-T2 demand, monitoring requests before deciding whether or not to produce the housing.  In the end there was sufficient demand, and this will be rolling out in the next few weeks.