Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

1 Neutral

About Glasshouse

  • Rank

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. I havn't shot with the 230 dome before so cannot offer any insights as a comparison. The lens is indeed the 'rebranded' Tamron. I went with this over the 24-70 F4 as it offers greater zoom through. The 28-75 will be fairly similar to your 14-30, a bit wider at both ends. It's also faster than the 24-70 at F2.8 which makes it useful as a portrait lens on a day to day basis on the surface. Im interested to see how far you can push that underwater, either way it's a nice to have. I will see if I can get in the pool at the weekend and get some sample shots for you at varying aperture / focal lengths so you can make your own comparisons in terms of quality - I am hoping to get out to the reef mid to October so will have some real world content then. The WACP on the Z9 housing is really nicely balanced, they are almost exactly the same height and width. It's about 300g negative at the front which is fairly easily resolved. In terms of packing the WACP, I was actually very pleasantly surprised after reading all the stories about how big and heavy it was. The lens comes with a padded travel bag as all Nauticam products do, however I can actually see myself using this one. Its a perfect fit with no wasted space due to the shape of the lens. It always annoyed me that the WWL padded case was too small to allow for the buoyancy collar installed - I assumed this was fixed with the WWL-1b? The WACP does also come with a hard caps, front and back, which I love, it's almost identical to the WWL-1 hard cap which I drilled a hole in the side to attach a small bungee (stolen off a GoPro grip). This means I can take it on the dive and clip it to the back of my BCD when not in use.. I don't have pockets big enough for it.. I was always very paranoid about the lens getting scratched when passing it up to a zodiac and them dumping it on the floor and this way I know its safe before I had it over.
  2. I agree, with my WWL-1 on M43, I almost always have the lens bayonetted but seldom remove it. I did use it on the flip adapter, along with a CMC-2 which did “work”. It doesn’t lock out of the way but you can hold it with one finger with the buoyancy collar. I do like how the smaller wet optics are now appearing in the full frame port charts for other mounts (not just Sony) - that was my main point in reference to the original question relating to size and weight. I’m thinking for trips like Lady Elliot in Australia where you have a 15kg weight limit. As a reference, my Z9 with 28-75 2.8 and WACP-1 (on paper) weighs in at just shy of 10kg. I haven’t actually weighed to confirm but I would imagine that’s pretty close. This is with no lighting.
  3. A new addition to the Z port chart is the 24-50 with the WWL-C. I’m considering this as an additional option for weight restrictive travel destinations weighing in at just over 1kg. Gives 130-80~ (All the way to 47 degrees if you include removing underwater and using the flat port) zoom through in addition to CMC-1 macro.
  4. I’ll have the 28-75 with WACP-1 on a Z9 next week. Hoping to get out to the southern Great Barrier Reef in October and will let you know how it performs. It doesn’t have the same zoom through (the Nikon gives 28 - 48mm) as the Sony that Chris mentioned however it’s native and faster. Im curious to know how the 28-60 Sony goes on the megadap adapter, I haven’t found any info on it but that could open up the possibility of WWL for weight / cost saving option.
  5. It looks like you are on to something with this. I just ran some tests and it seems in Photo mode, tint is adjusted when setting a custom white balance. In Video mode the same conditions resulted in a white balance with only the kelvin being adjusted. Tint was imported to resolve at 0. This would explain why you cannot white balance at depth in video mode. How deep where you able to custom WB in Photo mode? I should have my housing in a couple of weeks so will be able to test in more detail then. It would be nice to have a custom white balance preset for 'Deep' water to get as close as possible for exposure, even if its not 100% accurate.
  6. I had a chat and was told that the 28-75 had indeed been tested and didn't make the cut with the WACP-C. We were not able to determine if this was due to it physically not fitting or optically not making the grade - either way the answer was pretty definitive. WACP-1 is the recommendation for that particular lens.
  7. I'll check with Nauticam to see if we can get some clarity. The reason I wanted to check is that the 24-70 F4 is listed and this is a slightly bulkier lens (72mm filter thread). Im hoping it has just not been added yet as it hasn't been tested. I definitely like the idea of having a lighter cheaper version that sits between WWL and WACP-1.
  8. 35 1.8 S was listed as compatible with wwl-1 but has been replaced with the wacp-1 on the last revision of port charts, N120 Macro port 12 specifically says “This port is designed for use with the WWL-1 with the Nikon Z 35mm F1.8S lens.”
  9. Hey Phil, do you actually know that the 28-75 doesn’t work with the WACP-C or is that an assumption made from the current port charts? Haven’t tested the new megadap adapter (reviews look promising) but I would rather sacrifice some zoom through and use a native lens.
  10. Do you mind sharing the DR project file? It would be interesting to see how you approached the node structure. On my MacBook Pro, I run into play back issues when using NR which unfortunately seems to be a requirement with BRAW. I was reading that BRAW has no baked in NR where as if recording ProRes, it applies a certain level in camera.
  11. I could always switch to 3:1 compression at 60fps but thats pushing 2.1Gbps and there are only so many SSD's I can buy. I did do a bunch of test clips at 3:1 but no idea where they are. I find 8:1 gives a good balance of flexibility and file size. 12:1 you can see degradation. 5:1 you don't really see much gain. 3:1 I would only use if doing paid work which I don't plan on doing as this is a hobby for me. Out of curiosity what camera's are you talking about when referring to these higher bit rates?
  12. No worries Lionfi2s. Let me know how you go, interested to see what you can do! @Interceptor121 Did you get the 320mbps from size of file divided by the length of footage in Davinci Resolve? The footage was shot at 50fps (set in camera as 'High Frame Rate'), where as the timeline frame rate would have been either 24 or 25fps in camera. When you drop the footage in to Davinci Resolve when recorded in HFR it will automatically interpret the footage at the 'time line' frame rate effectively auto giving you slow motion. I usually set them back to 60 as I find it easier to manipulate the speed. A003_05231544_C031.braw is an 8 second clip and 670MB which makes it nice and easy to check as 4k DCI BRAW in 8:1 50fps is meant to be around 85MB/s (or 680mbps).
  13. Here is a link to a google drive folder that has a few clips for you to play with. Ive included a couple of clear water shots in Komodo from 15 and 20+ meters , a clip from Sydney, which has more 'challenging' visibility and a shot which I used as a test for the 'Recover Highlights' function found in the RAW panel. It's interesting to see how much can be recovered with this. The shots in Komodo were without red filter so you need to really crank the white balance. All were shot in 8:1 with 14-42mm PZ with WWL-1. I only got the Keldan Spectrum after that trip and its amazing the difference it makes when you have access to the second gain circuit of the dual native ISO. The Sydney shot is with the Keldan SF-2 and set of ScubaLamp V4K with ambient filters - if you watch to the end of the braw file you really get an idea of the conditions. Lastly, I included a couple of quick grades on the clips as reference.
  14. If I get chance this weekend, I’ll get some uploaded. Did you have anything specific your after?
  15. Could you clarify what you mean in terms of locked in to a product. I can open my BRAW files in Premier Pro as well as Davinci. I didn’t say IBIS didn’t have its merits. I said I prefer the flexibility of BRAW (even if it’s not got the official raw stamp of approval) as I find it easier to hold a camera still than getting all the other camera settings correct. This is my opinion based on my life experiences. My point was that you do not ‘need’ half the features we have access to. You ‘need’ to find a setup that works for you.
  • Create New...