Jump to content

Interceptor121

Member
  • Content Count

    2919
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    106

Interceptor121 last won the day on February 15

Interceptor121 had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

379 Excellent

About Interceptor121

  • Rank
    Humpback Whale

Contact Methods

  • Website URL
    http://interceptor121.com

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    Woburn Sands, UK

Additional Info

  • Show Country Flag:
    United Kingdom
  • Camera Model & Brand
    Panasonic GH5
  • Camera Housing
    Nauticam NA-GH5
  • Strobe/Lighting Model & Brand
    2x Sea and Sea YS-D2, 2x Inon Z240
  • Accessories
    Too many

Recent Profile Visitors

60076 profile views
  1. To add on the zemax testing that is not a fair comparative as distorted lenses compress corners while rectilinear most time enlarged them and dome has field of curvature of course Wacp and the likes should be compared with fisheye zooms (when available and in full frame I think not available) The only meaningful comparison possible today is tokina on Sony A6X vs WWL-1 or same or canon 8-15 on MFT vs WWL-1 Hence the need to clearly declare the distortion so that you know what’s the price to pay for sharpness Rectilinear lenses behind well designed dome ports have distortion less than 3% fisheye like are well above 10% Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
  2. I don’t have an issue with distortion but I do not like incorrect specifications (0.8x vs 0.57x) and statements like they have appeared elsewhere that the lens is rectilinear I also believe that testing lenses on reefs is not actually sufficient as those have no geometry anyway and real conditions mask the real optical performance There should be both a pool/controlled environment test as well as open water test I don’t make comment on the cost va value that is subjective but on the focal range for sure the WACP-1 is more useful than WACP-2 for video users Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
  3. Following my checks they have now updated the WACP-2 page with 0.57x magnification Considering the focal range of WACP-1 vs 2 I would say that the combination 28-70 or 28-80 lens and WACP-1 Is more interesting than 16-35 and WACP-2 WACP-1 10-29 semifisheye WACP-2 8-16 (7-14) or 9-20 (16-35) semifisheye Unless those extra 10 degrees are a deal breaker the WACP-1 is a better candidate especially for video Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
  4. Edward In no means am criticising the lens or the optical quality although as you know I prefer to test this stuff myself as most people out there have a creative approach and not engineering approach and this ends up with incorrect information leading to wrong expectations The question about afocal is important in the computation of depth of field for video use is not relevant to the quality question From a marketing point of view I would say that the correct positioning of this optic is as an alternative to prime fisheye not to rectilinear zoom lenses with the benefit of wider aperture Regarding the comment on dome distortion firstly lenses are never zero distortion they have as minimum 2-3% barrel distortion this is accepted With regards to dome obviously this is a single element and the key issue is field of curvature again this issue already exists on land and is magnified by the dome however as of today there is no other solution if you want to have distortion below 5% I think here the issue is more to understand if you really need straight lines or not Since Nauticam introduced the WWL-1 I have been shooting micro four thirds and I do not have issues major issues with rectilinear lenses within the limits of dome ports due to the crop factor Some of the issues the WACP 1/2 resolve are purely for full frame users but I am interested in the technology development anyway To that extent I would recommend performing rigorous test shots with grids and calculate distortion at least on one or two lenses and publish the details. If nobody knows how to do it or want to do it I will do it just send me a test rig Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
  5. Thanks Edward As far as I can see this lens is not rectilinear and it still has barrel distortion and therefore is not an alternative to a dome+rectilinear lens Seems just another wet adapter that works with wider lenses and has more field of view achieving a zoom quasi fisheye effect not available on full frame and 0.57x magnification as I calculated Is the optic afocal? Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
  6. https://interceptor121.com/2020/02/17/focussing-techniques-for-video-part-ii-auto-focus-settings/ Deep dive into settings and methods. Subscribe the blog and donate if this is useful
  7. I have seen the GX9 with WWL-1 CMC-1 and two Inon S2000 extremely compact set up
  8. I have used the 8.5 with tokina on a Nikon D7200 is very big and floaty nice for splits and not much else but it will work
  9. Yes this calculation appears correct however the 10mm extension is semifixed and goes with screws so once fitted you are pretty much done with it and it will be a permanent feature I would not use the 8.5" with the tokina unless you want to do split shots
  10. This thread should not transform itself into a full frame vs cropped discussion however if you are looking at high quality MFT it is pretty much the same as DSLR APSC in terms of bulk Full frame does need small aperture which in turn means more powerful strobes and larger domes. APSC and MFT are 1 1/3 to 2 stops less demanding this means smaller rigs and smaller strobes So can't just consider the housing you need to think about the port system and lighting Cropped sensor and MFT print well up to A3 unless you need more than that or you are after the best low light performance which usually is for top side you will trade the quality for less bulk
  11. Fundamentally you have 4 categories 1. Compact cameras 2. Small format APSC and MFT 3.Large MFT APSC DSLR 4. Full Frame While compact camera are significantly smaller and so are small MFT some large MFT bodies are very similar to APSC or even full frame However the glass weight differs both for the lens and the port If you use dome ports glass weights almost double than acrylic and size grows with sensor size There is a material weight and size difference once you pass step 3 for example a Sony A6xxx or a OMD EM5 are much smaller than a Nikon D500 or a Panasonic GH5 clam style housing. That becomes heavier and more expensive. Once you go in DLSR territory not only the ports get bigger but also the lenses some are in excess of 1 Kg
  12. The 34.7 mm is for the MFT metabones adapter that is smaller than the Sony emount Looking at the port chart the adapter is 50mm you can see it at last page Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
  13. If you need to zoom the lens it won't grip. This is the reason to use the adapter as is with the 50mm you can change anything else but that part can't unless you 3D print extensions to the zoom gear
  14. The way it works is that the part of the port system that hosts the metabones is what equalises the mount and then you can use the canon chart. If you don't use that adapter it is not possible to control the zoom on the tokina Adapter is 50mm flange difference is 44-18=26 this is covered by the metabone the other 24 mm is because lenses in DSLR bodies are more recessed than E-mount You must keep the first adapter as is and you can change the rest. in the case of tokina as the dome is one piece there is nothing you can change. if you wanted to use the 4.33 acrylic dome generic you need 20mm extension if I recall correctly And the reason you need the adapter is because the tokina does not fit in the N85
  15. Put the camera in the bathtub and find out yourself is what I do...
×
×
  • Create New...