Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Everything posted by Interceptor121

  1. Actually this is a bit subjective I have had two sea and sea strobes none of them had any issues I have had 4 inon strobes and one was defective I damaged the sea and sea (hit a door on land and cracked a part) was not impressed with after sales and decided to switch but the actual product was solid The YS-D2 has a design issue the bulb is too strong for the plastic casing and this results in the reflector getting hot In the updated version sea and sea has put in place this safety mechanism to protect the bulb. In some cases the users try to circumvent this issue and end up damaging the strobe Otherwise the strobe is well built has good coverage and power and the ergonomics work great I almost never shoot at full power is the benefit of an MFT camera usually f/16 on the strobe is plenty but in some cases I shoot full power never on rapid burst and so far no problem Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
  2. Yes the powerzoom lens was the one I was given it to test with the newest macro port 29 but I used that lens on land and I knew it was not the best hence I used the 14-42mm Mega OIS. Much better performance. Nauticam did the job as it has to be done and consulted a variety of people. I am not a pro like yourselves but I know a thing or two about camera and wet lenses so they decided to contact me as well. It went on for months actually between the first prototype, the lx100 housing and the bayonet system. The float collar I did not see until later on What it is important to understand is that while the lens may correct the additional issue that water gives to the optics it does not improve the lens itself To give an idea the 28mm f/2 on a ATRII 42megapixels has a resolution of 60 lpmm the 14-24 PZ has a resolution also of 60 lpmm however the sensor is 1.8 taller and so is the resolution hence in the centre this set up will trash the MFT camera as it happens on lens regardless of the wet lens you use. The olympus 14-42mm is even weaker. When it comes to the edges the situation will change though and the gap will close. However the same lens on APSC has a lower resolution of 50 lpmm and therefore the gap is almost none as the sensor is not much bigger In essence the various systems performance is unaffected by the water contact optics Today there is pretty much zero gap between MFT and APSC in terms of resolution until fuji released the 40 megapixel camera all APSC at 20-24 megapixels do not provide large gap. Full frame however has a benefit even at lower resolution as it is easier to make higher quality optics with longer focal length. What I am saying is that the same full frame camera will progressively improve from wwl-1 to wacp-1 but at which point will there be a gap you can actually measure depends on you as the optic is not improving the lens is just correcting the impact of water on the lens. On the other hand in the frame centre none of those optics will beat a better lens in the center in any format as there no corrections are needed but of course as you go off centre the situation changes
  3. The initial lens had an m67 mount this is now submerged by the collar of the wwl-1b The original wwl-1 has a float made of devynilcell or whatever is called with some screws this came out some time later The bayonet was a discussion about reusing inon LD mount however the lens was larger and the torque higher With regards to quality it is down to the lens the olympus zoom you tested is very average best result were with the panasonic 14-42mm non power zoom but this was not supported and had no zoom gear however I had already worked out the 35 port fitted and made a 3d printed gear Yet this is a cheap 5 blades lens vs the 7 of the sony 28mm that is also a prime Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
  4. Those however are mechanical devices with no electronic They do not address the issue of modern cameras and are manual focus only So I think it is not the same thing as the equivalent resolution of a film camera was around 2000 lpw Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
  5. That in the image is like a reflector of a mains powered studio light The hole in the middle is for a modelling light and a circular bulb is mounted around it The seacam strobes are very similar however as there is less space and the whole thing is inside a housing the effectiveness drops Contrary to what most people think light is more even when you are close to a softbox Once you are far away all lights starts to be more of a point source and the diffusion effects drops Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
  6. This is very strange as the strobe should recharge after firing and then when you turn it back on the condenser is still charged so the light should come up immediately For me this is an issue with the electronics not with the batteries as the second time around there would not be a recharge of the condenser
  7. Just a quick update as I have also refreshed some standard eneloop and broadly all have stayed at 1800 mAh or more with one exception Yes the Wh delivered by the eneloop was 1.95 while the eneloop pro bought the same year stayed at 2.48 So althought the ratio drops from the initial 2.5/1.9=1.3 to 1.27 there is essentially no reason whatsover to buy eneloop vs eneloop pro other than lifetime duration If you change batteries each dive and have two sets you need to go through at least 500-600 dives before the batteries are trash assuming you followed all usage guidelines. If you did not you would kill eneloop as well as eneloop pro
  8. When I said everything started I mean some meaningful volumes. Many things remain experiments for a very long time and to be frank credit to Inon whose lenses were actually pretty good to make this a more popular option. It is good that those solutions that have some kind of popularity have made it to the market before the compact camera has been pronounced effectively dead otherwise probably many things would have remain pilot stage To be completely honest I am amazed how small our community is and how little weight we have in the camera market so it is a good situation to have devices that can beat traditional solutions and are available sometimes at competitive cost. Going back to my initial reflection I think the guideline WWL -> MFT WACP-C -> APSC and WACP-1 -> full frame broadly holds However I am sure some people will consider the WACP-C based on weight more than cost. Nauticam may have introduced a size factor instead of a crop factor in that lens design WACP-2 different story optical design is different less demagnification more emphasis on pure correction I do not see that becoming easily as popular as the others but I see who shoots underwater cinema may prefer that to massive domes
  9. I think the point that I was making is that it all started when the RX100 came about and at that time we only had Inon products. I always do my own research I for example used different combination of wet lenses from what was suggested in 2014 on the boat that you lead where I was invited by Nauticam through Alex Most of the wet optics development comes from compact cameras and is then adapted to larger formats this is unusual as typical things go the other way around I think many people have been shooting a Tokina 10-17mm on APSC and that filled the gap between a fisheye and wide angle rectilinear lenses that now those water contact optics cover at least partially Tokina has just discontinued the 10-17mm I am not sure how quickly someone will produce an APSC lens with similar characteristics for mirrorless especially as Canon is not yet allowing suppliers to produce autofocus lenses and Nikon has just I think authorised a few While you can adapt EF mount lenses to many formats like the Sony A6XXX the MFT cameras and Fuji I see that due to the evolution of the camera market with the exception of Fuji nobody is really interested in making a professional level APSC. Even the new Canon R7 though has certainly good autofocus does not have better IQ than DSLR cameras that are now over 7 years old. I think water contact optics align well to the fact many people are almost forced to buy a full frame camera and most mirrorless have a gap in their lens lineup due to lack of 3rd party suppliers or simply interest in making certain type of lenses. Today Sony has the best support of 3rd party lenses due to their optics, those of Sigma, Tamron and others and yet when you go underwater you have nothing to cover the space between your rectlinear wide angle lens up to 120 degrees (with problems) and the fisheye 180 degrees. So water contact optics will no doubt become much more popular and the fact you have several choices (especially true for Sony users) for all weight and pockets is also great. I think this is a natural evolution of the camera market, the housing market and more importantly the lenses marketplace
  10. Nobody bothers measuring them as it is very difficult to measure a flash vs continuous light. If all flashs were equal there would not be a reason why cheap ones product ugly light and expensive ones nice light The same that happens on land goes underwater Users are fixated on the bulb and do not look at the whole system, it is the combination of bulb, reflector, front port that makes the beam not just the bulb I think a perfect example of this is Ikelite they have circular bulbs however I think the design is a bit dated and falls way behind some of the newer strobes but also some of the old strobes. The Sea and Sea YS-D250 being the first large scale Japanese product that were indeed very well designed but heavier and more expensive to make. Seacam first and OneUW and Retra later show how the end to end design can turn into a better outcome but there is more than the shape of the bulb I also agree with David Hicks that technique is far more important and you can get good results from the Z330 and from any strobe for that matter if you know how to position the strobes I would urge the op to try what David and I have recommended which is to use inward lighting and forget about the color temperature for a moment as that is not going to change the subject as you correctly pointed out
  11. The CRI or a tungsten bulb i.e. an old school light bulb is near 100 That doesn’t mean that the CRI of a flashlight is near 100 because there is a reflector and the plastic/glass that covers the bulb that do not transmit everything equally Having said that if you have ever taken studio shots you will know that nobody would ever fire a flashlight directly to the target without a light modifier as what matters are the shadows Shadows define the character of an image Unfortunately underwater we can’t take softboxes or even position lights and camera as it should be due to water and physical limitations The OneUw and to an extent the retra are very similar to a mains powered studio flash but of course smaller Filters and anything you put in front of the strobes do impact CRI as they select what light frequencies to attenuate In short you get what you pay for but as dave hicks shows the most important part is to know how to use your equipment Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
  12. Nice story I actually tested the WWL-1 prototype in mid 2015. I provided input that led to the bayonet system and the buoyancy collar I just looked at my old emails with Nauticam and it was already tested with the sony 28mm which is a very small lens and has a short flat port. Initially the lens was tested on sony rx100 but Nauticam also sent me an lx100 housing to test. This camera was a compact with MFT sensor I think the optics initially a compact camera idea proved very strong with larger formats however as I had already the inon UWL-100 with dome which wasn’t million miles away I didn’t buy the WWL-1 until I acquired the GH5 3 years later from using the lens Am not surprised the original WWL-1 wouldn’t work with DSLR the lenses are bulky and due to the mirror the whole port is much longer But again dry mount lenses existed since 2010-2012 but for compact cameras only Wet lenses in general were considered toys for who could not afford a system with ports Well not anymore Personally for a videographer the ability to remove a lens is far more important than edges sharpness as you move and there is always some motion blur but shooting wide medium close with a very wide lens is not always ideal which is why I insisted with the bayonet idea. When the bayonet was designed they had a delay as the adapter was not strong enough to hold the lens weight so it was redesigned With the incoming extinction of DSLR and lack of native mirrorless lenses wet optics fill a market gap which is significant so am not surprised the WACP and the other models sell well as many users want to upgrade their camera and do not find even enough options Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
  13. After numerous debates here I think some of the users are taking a similar position to the strobe dome issue and in my opinion confusing mechanical requirements with performance when looking at dry vs wet mount. I have looked at the WWL-1 WACP-1 and WACP-C the construction of the glass is pretty much identical 6 elements in 5 groups what seem to change is mostly the size The WWL-1 without float collar is 1.28 kg and ramps up to more with the new WWL-1B version. This lens was designed initially for compact cameras but it was also tested with a Sony A7 and 28mm lens with great results. With a weight of 1.35 kg even putting the lens on a bayonet there is substantial load on the port and this creates a torque that can be problematic for a water tight housing. So if the weight goes up it becomes completely inpractical to have a wet mount on a thread especially if you need to have a longer port the longest port on the chart for the WWL-1 is 56mm On the other hand larger glass may be required following the analogy with the dome when sensor size goes up. At this point you have something reaching 2KG with the included float collar it is not possible to have a wet mount you need something that can resist the torque so you go for a dry mount In addition as the glass is bigger the entrance pupil of the lens needs to be positioned further back so the lens housing, not necessarily the glass, is also longer. Looking at the WWL-1 with Sony 28-60mm it has a 45mm port and the lens is 97mm long total 143mm The same lens with the WAPC-C is 145+30= 175mm And with the WACP-1 is 176+35= 201mm It is apparent to me is that the glass construction is almost identical and the base of the WWL-1 design this has been then been enlarged and by necessity converted to a dry mount due to weight. It is possible that the dry mount translates into a benefit as there would be less reflections however the bayonet of the WWL-1 is well designed and with the hard cap the scene is pretty dark so I think the impact of the dry mount is less than what most people think Size instead, exactly as for domes, matters as the lens is positioned further away from the back of the water contact optics performance should improve is this directly linked to the difference in weight and cost I do not know but would like to know really for future reference. In my mind I am thinking WWL-1 up to 2x crop WAPC-C up to 1.5x crop and WACP-1 for full frame I guess this was a very similar thinking for Nauticam too in order to have 3 flavours of what is essentially the same core design
  14. That is not how it works in water unfortunately and the hyperfocal distance does not mean the lens is sharp throughout it only means the focus is acceptable In addition put a few meters of not clear water add the fact the strobes will not make it and you are back there If you are in the shallow you can close the aperture and the gap closes I think benefits are evident when you shoot something that is almost flat with details close in the corners that you can properly illuminate and see. Almost all examples that want to show case those lenses are like that If there is a manta with a reef 3 meters behind that is far distorted and not lit I cannot care less looking in the corners to start with let alone the physical challenges
  15. Shooting against means the background is away so not sharp anyway Shooting the reef instead as a subject is a different story You are not going to see anything the moment the background is a few meters away due to water particles lack of depth of field and other factors unless you close the aperture however if you close the aperture the benefit of wacp solution is diminished Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
  16. The flange distance difference is 2.5 and all lenses that are cross work with the same extension I think it would work if you want to use the lens It is not a particularly popular lens in nikon mount
  17. The Sigma 18-35mm is very popular for APSC cinema style cameras like the BMPCC Z_CAM Panasonic is a lens that is very popular for those that work on land due to the extremely high aperture that works in low light. Nikon lenses are not used on as adapted as they are not generally supported by conversion mounts As the N120 mount is the same I would think same distances apply and the lens works Either way the 18-35mm is a great lens and you would mostly get it for low light land video
  18. Sorry I think my post come across the wrong way many time What kicked this off was the discussion about corner sharpness vs a rectilinear lens None of those optics are rectilinear so the comparison is misleading. If you want straight lines you need to buy a wide lens and a large dome this is not changing any time soon. Then there is another trend about how much better are the WACP 1 2 C vs the wet lens which is also an interesting topic however this comparison is really only true for the Sony system as other systems do not have a wet lens And finally the argument of WACP vs fisheye zoom which is also not particular fit for purpose as the wet optics stop at narrowed angle but perhaps a better comparison than the rectilinear lens case It is great to have choice but sometimes there are some predicaments about this is better than that with no actual support data or even not comparable data and when someone then goes and does some measures like those german guys did surprises happen
  19. Did he say that to you in one of your youtube? I might have missed it. Look at the WACP is basically 6 elements in 5 groups the WWL-1 is 6 elements in five group The design of the WACP looks to me a WWL-1 stuck to a 35mm N100 - N120 adapter ring This is a bit different from the 45mm flat port of the WWL-1 but not so different The WACP needs 65mm of extension to hit the glass and the WWL 45mm so you would argue that is actually closer I really think someone who has the 2860mm lens should give a go to all those optics you may be suprised I would try the macro port 45 or similar with this Nikon Lens and the WWL-1 to see what you get
  20. Definition of a slow lens is a lens with a small physical aperture of high f-number. A fast prime lens is normally around f/1.4 you can shoot in very low light with no articial sources A high quality zoom lens for professional use is normally f/2.8 Example wedding photographer goes around with two camera one has a 24-70 and the other 70-200 mm at constant f/2.8 he can cover all situation with this combo A slow zoom lens starts normally at f/3.5 - f/4 and normally the aperture reduces as the lens zoom the implication is lens that is 70/2.8 has a physical aperture of 25mm which makes the lens big and heavy The 28-60mm lens instead is slow so at 60/5.6 is 10.71mm which makes this lens less than half the size of the 24-70 faster lens The slower lens is also less impacted by aberrations and therefore needs less correction resulting in ultimately less elements in the construction reduced weight which means you can use a plastic casing something you cannot do with a heavy lens that normally is made of metal. In terms of where lenses are made (I am talking about camera lenses which are precision equipment with electronics not underwater glass) even today many high quality lenses that are fast are made in Japan. Sigma only makes lenses in Japan. Other brands started a dual production in China or other markets (Vietnam) for certain models but not for all of them. As long as the equipment is there and quality can be assured there is no difference where something is made however as of today plenty of the highest quality camera lens are still made in Japan. So not I was not referring to the fps I was referring to the actual lens 'speed' in photography
  21. Actually I do not think any lens was designed with the Nikon AF 28-70 in mind WWL-1 I discussed with Nauticam when it was created it was for zoom lenses on RX100 Compact and worked with Sony 28mm full frame equally well. WACP-1 is an N100 lens which is the Sony system. The benefit is to fit lenses like the larger 16-35 that do not have any reasonable flat port option that do not work with the WWL-1 this allows also a bunch of other N120 system lenses to be used which normally have no flat ports to work with a wet lens zoom too much or can't have a 67mm thread mount (too wide or would vignette) The only lens that is native N120 is the WACP-2 all the rest firmly have a Sony camera in mind at the outset With respect to performance the effect of diffraction is limited in the centre as rays go in straight
  22. I think there is some confusion from the user base of why the optics like WACP came about. In essence those solution are very similar to a wet lens as long as the wet lens is sitting very close to the port Some lenses change size considerably when zoomed. You have two options 1. Use a short flat port and limit the zoom range 2. Try to design a dry port where the zoom moves inside the lens housing Those things have been around long before Nauticam started to produce water contact optics I remember the canon g10 a camera that had a very long zoom had a wet lens with a dry mount The solution is not designed like that because it is better but is designed with a dry mount out of necessity Then once you have the dry mount you can get some marginal improvements mostly on the edges due to the fact that the mount does not have any light leak so contrast will go up. You can also of course optimise the design but is not possible to optimise for each lens So I am not at all surprised that if you take the same Sony 28-60mm lens which is a slow but sharp lens and try the WWL-1 WACP-1 WACP-C you see small differences between them. It would be interesting to run this test so we remove the lens performance from the equation using a macro slide in a tank not in open water where conditions change and tests become purely subjective If someone had those pieces of equipment avaialble to test it would be interesting as opposed to spend time comparing to rectilinear lenses behind domes. Domes are designed to restore the field of view not to increase it and to avoid distortion so they have nothing to do with water contact optics
  23. It was your comment that made no sense as ‘large pelagic’ and people do not hang on the reef but are midwater so the corners don’t matter If you see some difference may be down to you wanting to see them as opposed to real differences being there It happens when you make a large investment to want to believe it is worth it Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
  24. The WAPC-C does not focus above water. The WWL-1 actually does and so does the WACP-2 None of those are a good idea for split shots
  • Create New...