Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Posts posted by Interceptor121

  1. 1 hour ago, ColdDarkDiver said:

    It would be wonderful to get increased information on adapting this lens to Nauticam optics.  Its not listed on any of the port charts for the WWL-C, or the WACP-C or WACP-1 - all of which would be wonderful to know if and how they work.  Especially for Full Frame.  Is that information forthcoming? And thank you for commenting on this thread. I look forward to seeing this (hopefully) reach production.

    This works already 



  2. Thank you, now it is clear.

    Magnification in photographic terms is the ratio of the frame size in the image and the sensor size
    If you take your macro lens on land and go as close as you can to a ruler and take a shot then put that macro port underwater go as close as you can you will get the same frame size but from further behind
    The photographic magnification didn’t change but the apparent magnification standing at the same distance did
    This however is irrelevant to your objective as photographer in terms of frame size and photographic magnification

    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
    • Like 1

  3. This is not quite clear to me. You say it increases magnification resulting in the same as on land. Do you mean it increases working distance, but magnification stays the same?

    The apparent focal length increases but the working distance also increases so you get the same magnification from further away
    With a dome port you are closer but the field if view is the same as topside
    Magnification doesn’t change but with the flat port you are further away
    Generally for true macro you don’t want to be closer but for a zoom lens that is not a macro lens where you could be at half a meter a dome may help
    Your position changes not the maximum magnification you can get

    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
    • Like 1

  4. Mine goes from red to flashing green to a solid green. It is on a NA-XT3 housing. It starts out blue when I turn the switch on,

    Maybe we see the flashing differently but the point is flashing only means air is being sucked out once solid it has reached at least the required differential pressure
    You should not use the camera if the light is not solid as the system is not armed
    The moisture sensor though acts independently

    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

  5. Quick question for those more invested in the optical physics side of underwater photography. Do Flat ports just change the FoV of macro lenses (I think about 30% compared to on land?) or does magnification get changed too? Basically, will the same macro lens behind a dome port produce less magnification or have a different working distance, compared to on land. Asking because I'm interested in trying the 4" semidome for my 12-50mm lens.

    A flat port increases magnification and working distance resulting in exactly the same magnification that you have on land
    With a dome port assuming all is correct you will get the same situation at the land working distance
    Hopefully this was clear enough

    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
    • Like 1

  6. the light does not go into flashing green

    it goes from blue to amber when you start pumping and then to solid green 

    I do not recall seeing any official statement about the pressure differential which in any case will not be strong in the order of 100-200 mbar

    Note that if you keep pumping it does not get more green but if you had a flood this pressure delta will make the water go in quicker


  7. I am not a user of retra strobes however having had several discussions with them I think it is commendable that they continue to bring innovation out.

    I also think it is understandable that older model are being discontiuned once stock is sold out as long as they honour the warranty this is nothing strange 

    Like anything a consumer needs to decide if the new features are worth a change bearing in mind that offloading their now discontinued item can be costly but nothing lasts forever.

    I tend to keep my strobes for at least 5 years I do not use them enough to justify changing them quicker and for cameras in my underwater housing this is at least 3 years but usually more like 5

    Any time I buy something I do a lot of research to be sure I am happy with the limitations and trade off of what I got and then simply ignore new products coming out. However I also recognise that if I bought a product that did not fit the bill I would be looking for a change much quicker. It has not happened yet though

    • Like 2

  8. On 6/5/2023 at 9:43 AM, makar0n said:

    As an update re Turkish Airlines allowance - make sure to get something in writing (like an email) when you call them to arrange that extra luggage and confirm it has been added both ways! Also do keep tickets and baggage tags from your first leg.

    We have originally called, and were assured all is well, 2x 30kg (in addition to the standard check in allowance) was added , but we will not receive any confirmation and it wont show on the ticket. On the way out, from Germany, it was all fine - just mentioned diving luggage and was allowed to check in 4 bags, almost 110 kg in total for 2 people.
    However on the way back, in Manila, the fun started - first they refused any diving luggage, then upon literally opening Turkish Airlines website on a laptop and shoving it in their faces, they were adamant it is part of (and not in addition to) checked luggage and were very keen to levy excess baggage charges (not even sports baggage charges, 90 Euro for the whole bag up to 32kg, but instead excess counted at about 70 Euro per 3kg) claiming also diving thing does not apply in Manila because Manila is so special. Took 50+ minutes arguing first with check in person, then supervisor, then manager (got to be a Karen alright xD) , and then she finally called somebody up who seems to have resolved that as she did check in the luggage straight away and walked away with a sour face without uttering a single word. What I think helped to convince them was also the fact that we had our first leg tickets with all the baggage tags, hence were able to prove that the bags were accepted back in Germany without any issues.

    I am not surprised. Ground staff funny enough do not seem to know their own airlines rules. And some airports are very keen on charges,

    A typical example is equipment containing lithium batteries. You go on the airline website and it tells you it is fine to check it in as long as there is a protection mechanism to prevent activation but the spares need to go in the carry on

    I made the mistake of telling turkish airlines about my dive light and ended up carrying 3kg more in handluggage which was more than allowed but they let me do it anyway.

    I spent half hour on the phone to avianca to confirm i can pack diving equipment as standard cargo and exceed the linear limit for oversize but she told me not the clause on oversize takes precedence on the diving one. I said but then if I buy a sport equipment allowance I am actually getting another bag as your website says. It went nowhere in the end I bought the sport equipment as I prefer to check in stuff and not break my back in hand luggage so this did not matter.

  9. 6 hours ago, dhaas said:

    Talk about splitting hairs.......

    So what if a slightly longer extension means you need to back  what, 2 inches to achieve the same FOV (Field OF View) ???

    I don't think the opinions based on measurbating are worth much when:

    1) The poster doesn't even own the lens and port and extension being discussed for real world underwater shooting. Plus never even been in the water with it!

    2) Continually preaches because what they bought for more $$$$ it has to be "better".......

    3) Believes everyone wants the same exact focal lengths, equipment choices, similar type of photos, etc.

    Please, no activity or whatever has to be the same for everyone.......

    The Sony 20-70mm with a 170-180mm dome will satisfy many users who want a one lens choice even small compromises are really there.

    I'd contend in 99.99999% of photos no one would ever, and I mean EVER notice said "deficiencies" unless they want to pixel peep at 200-300% in the corners.

    Plus every stunning photograph EVER was CROPPED as a first edit.......

    PLEASE, just buy what you want and practice enough to learn your rig's strengths. Then go make underwater images YOU are happy with.

    You'll be happier and enjoy yourself more underwater :)

    Just one old guy's opinion!






    An image with subject only in the centre is not represantive of image quality by any means

    And even your answer is brutally wrong because having the right extension is paramount to image quality. You are putting a lens behind a dome with a specific objective which is to preserve field of view. If you get the extension totally wrong you may end up with a flat port this not only kills field of view but also creates chromatic aberrations

    This is why many images of rectilinear lenses underwater with systems like seafrogs that do not allow to position the dome properly look always terrible

    In fact it is not about the money is about the knowledge. If you make a choice of wanting to use a small port, which in fact I have done myself using the 180mm wide angle port, you need to choose the lenses that best fit that port which means those that are built in a way to be more compatible.

    As consequence such lenses get the * for best performance on the nauticam chart even with the smaller dome while others don't even if they offer a smaller field of view.

    For E-mount the Sony primes 20mm G and 24mm GM fall in this category and in my view also the 24-70GM2. The tamron 1728 and 20-40 do very well and won't benefit much out of larger port.

    A bunch of other sony lenses will not do so well with a smaller port because their working distance is long or the lens is small and the working distance in proportion is too long requiring a larger radius dome

    The Sony 20-70mm G is not a cheap lens at all. It costs £1,399 in UK the Tamron 20-40mm instead costs £879 and in UK is even overpriced. Now exactly the opposite of what you said you will be spending less with the tamron and get better performance with the 180mm dome. I can shoot this lens at f/5.6 and it looks good. You will be giving up the range between 40 and 70 for a fish portrait compared to a longer lens. 

    It would be nice to have an all around lens that has a lot of zoom and works with a relatively small wide angle port but the Sony 20-70mm is not that lens otherwise I would have bought it already 

  10. 1 hour ago, Phil Rudin said:

    Fear not Wolfgang I am sure you will be pleased with the results behind the 170/180mm dome. The fact is that you can easily focus down to about 2 to 3cm in the 180mmm port. This zoom lens will get you a bit closer on the 70mm end with about a 1cm difference on the wide end. While I own several lenses that will focus all the way to the glass I can't ever remember wanting to ram my expensive port glass into the subject I am photographing. If you were to choose the 230mm option then it will be focusing inside the glass. I use the light in my pool to test close focus, it is 15cm (6 inches) across so you can get an idea of how close you can get at both ends of the lens.

    I have used the Marelux Sony A7R V housing for these photos with the MX-180mm dome and 50mm of extension. The conversion for the Nauticam housing with the N100 to N120 35.5 port adapter would be an extension around 30mm with 180mm port.

    Since the $1100.00US Sony FE 20-70mm F/4 covers the zoom range of both the $2300.00US Sony FE 24-70mm F/2.8 II and the $700.00US Tamron 20-40mm F/2.8 I will not be investing in either of these lenses nor do I believe the F/2.8 aperture adds any value for U/W work.

    Images both at F/13 AV light, #1 at 20mm and #2 at 70mm.




    Focussing inside the glass occurs only if the extension is too long for the specific dome it is not related to the dome radius of its own

    You can have a relatively narrow lens with an extension longer than necessary and focus on the dome however the loss of field view means the dome will have pincushion distortion and the edges will pull

    Many lenses due to the lack of close working distance loose substantially field of view so they effective focal length is no longer 20mm or what you think

    This is why a lens that focusses close combined with a correctly positioned dome bears better result and even so you can bet that your fisheye lens is nowhere near 180 degrees and your wide angle lens of 20mm is actually 22-24mm field of view due to to close focus point


  11. 24 minutes ago, Architeuthis said:

    For FF this might be a valuable substitute for a fisheye lens with versatile zoom range (that does, at present, not exist). This comes at the expense of lugging around another 4 kg of optical glass...:unsure:

    For MFT the adapted Canon 8-15 is optically brilliant and I cannot imagine that a kit lens behind this monstrous adapter could perform better...

    Also the Tokina performs surprisingly good, when one considers what a bad lens it is optically on the surface...

    Hard for me to imagine that anybody with a small sensor (MFT/APS-C/DX) will exchange the Tokina or Canon fisheyes (behind 100 or 140 domeports) against this hughe wetlens. My mother used to say that it is very easy to make tasty food when using a lot of salt and/or butter, but the art is to prepare it using small amounts. I think Nauticam should consider this and produce smarter and smaller solutions...:D

    Since there is no information by Nauticam so far and they did not say much at the scuba show, it may be that it is just an experimental prototype and it is nor going (yet) into production?



    There is a challenge driven by the master lens itself 

    Other than the sony 28-60mm that yes it is not very sharp at 28mm but improves later there are no small 28-60 or 28-70 lenses around on full frame 

    As the master lens front element has a 67 mm or larger filter thread the adapters grow in size

    It would be interesting to test this new solution against the Canon 8-15mm and the new Kenko HDX Pro teleconverter (which I have) to see how it does

    Consider that the kenko solution adds a 20mm extension ring to the dome and that the tc itself is not heavy either so overall the solution is large but nowhere near 2kg as the dome is less than 700 grams

    My experience with the TC is quite positive however when you zoom in the quality drops and so does the depth of field so you need to stop down more and more however at wide end I do not see any difference compared to the naked lens and the field of view is actually wider (which is bizarre) and even more distorted.


    • Like 1

  12. Agree, it will be very interesting to see if produces a Tokina 10-17 equivalent lens with good optical qualities for full frame and other formats.  It could be a better option than adapting the 8-15 lenses on smaller formats as well, depending on what lenses it is compatible with.

    Not sure
    This adapter is going to be heavy the tokina adapted remains a strong and cost effective proposition for dx and mft
    This new port seems very much a full frame option we shall see

    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

  13. 5 hours ago, ChrisRoss said:

    I agree with you, however the point of this analysis is purely to compare coverage and give people an idea of what zooming in to 17mm or whatever the lens behind the new adapter zooms to does to change field of view.  People often want to compare coverage between fisheye lenses and rectilinears for things like big animals and this is the best way to convey the change in coverage as you mostly don't place a  shark along the diagonal.  

    It has nothing to do with the impact of the shot or the way the fisheye works or even the fact that the fisheye makes the shark look chunkier compared to a rectilinear.  It about the fact that the shark is too small in the frame with the fisheye and people want to visualise how much bigger it appears by using a fisheye zoom compared to a 16-35 equivalent lens for example. 

    You could perhaps use this analysis to show that a 3x zoom lens behind a fisheye conveter, assuming it works well over the entire zoom range, would be a valid alternative to a 16-35 lens behind a 230mm dome for reach when shooting sharks for example - you might be able to get the reach and the fisheye effect.

    One issues of fisheye lenses is that the vertical field of view is smaller than a rectilinear lens of the same focal length as I demonstrated before

    If instead of a shark you are shooting a school of barracudas or a bait ball that is circular you may need to step back if you only have a fisheye lens with reduced field of view as it happens with the likes of WACP or WWL lenses where the vertical field of view is smaller than a 20mm lens

    This is why a zoom fisheye that goes all the way to 175 degrees diagonal (no diagonal fisheye is 180 degrees) and allows zoom to maybe down to 130 degrees is nice. If it did 100 to 175 would be like the tokina on DX and as Phil said at the beginning that would be awesome

    I am looking forward to understanding more about the compatibility of this adapter

  14. 1 hour ago, Architeuthis said:

    I did not have time yet to test my Sony 20-70mm UW (the DP170 is occupied most of the time by my wife :pardon:). But here I saw another review by Opticallimits: https://www.opticallimits.com/sonyalphaff/1169-sony2070f4g

    => similar to the lenstip review they find the lens is excellent, except bokeh and (uncorrected) distortion at 20mm (both issues not very relevant for UW use)...



    Nauticam has a zoom gear on their website but the port chart not updated yet

    As previously discussed the relative short length of this lens combined with the working distance of 30cm means a very large radius is required. There will be a good distance close to the 180mm/DP170 dome where the lens will not be able to focus and I am not clear what the impact will be on IQ but I am not over confident that this will work well

    The Sony 24-70GM2 can focus right on the 180mm dome but yet it is not marked as optimal while the 250 port is. As as I can see the 24-70gm2 works really well. Yes 24mm is not as wide as you would want

    I have now a Tamron 20-40mm that works perfectly with the 180mm dome and I have no plans to invest in the 20-70mm G lens

  15. Ok but that is the WACP-C.
    I saw this new product on Nauticam FB page. Out of the blue or Nauticam ambassadors are still under embargo?

    Nauticam went and tested this in Palau I think?
    Maybe they don’t have lots of test data
    Fisheye conversion lens with zoom goes against adapted fisheye with teleconverter.
    In many cases people were not happy with a teleconverter however if the difference is 3 kg in weight I would still prefer a teleconverter to this
    We need to see the zoom range and lens compatibility to see what is the position on the market

    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
    • Like 1

  16. Hello ,
    I was in Malpelo   15-24  April 2023 . 
    I shot with Canon 80D  with  Canon FE 8-15 mm    ,  in this trip I used  at 15 mm   for  shark ,   Seacam 160D  strobe .
    The  problem is  to approach  the  shark    if  you want to light them   , so  I found  the  Canon FE at 15 mm on my cropped  sensor  the  good  solution .
    Be  aware  El Niño is  coming  , we  do not found  the  famous  hammerhead wall  in the  shallow ...  they  are  always deep  (  35-40 mm )img][img]img][img]img][img]  ,  just few  individual  .  Water temp  :  27 ° C  till  28-30 m  ;  22° C  at 35 m .
    Fantastic  experience  anyway  ,  hope  you will have  more luck .
    all my best
    Paolo Isgro
    here some shot   (  more  in my Flickr gallery   :  
    a><a href=https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/52856434164_2561ee6449_b.jpg' alt='52856434164_2561ee6449_b.jpg'>  

    Thanks Paolo
    June is wet season not good for hammerheads. Water is 25 and thermocline is deep at 26 meters
    I am looking for fish schools and silky sharks which are there with warm water
    15x1.6 corresponds to my WWL-1 set up.
    For hammerheads you need to go January to March but that is not the purpose of this specific trip
    Thank you for your feedback

    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

  17. 11 minutes ago, Alex_Mustard said:

    Not this again. You are correct in theory. But when it comes to photography, underwater photography it is the fisheye’s diagonal coverage and barrel distortion that actually makes the images eye catching. 

    In underwater photography we can only light our foreground, so a lens that makes the lit foreground pop out towards the lens and then background recede especially towards the corners creates an image with more feeling of depth, as well as one that suits what we can light with our flashes. It allows the subject to fill lots of the frame, while still have space and depth in the rest of image. It is win-win.

    Rectilinear lenses suit underwater scenes where everything is more distant. And this can be very effective (see the work of Alex Dawson with WACP-2 - and usually without strobes). But for most styles of wide angle photography the fisheye look of enhancing/magnifying the foreground, and receding the background produces far more eye catching images of far more subjects. 

    If you are going to shoot a wall, use a rectilinear. If you are going to take an impactful, eye-catching underwater photo use a fisheye.

    I agree the centre is magnified and pops. Fisheye lenses underwater like on land are to shoot close that is why they focus really really close

    It is also correct however to remind ourselves that 130 180 degrees is pure theory and normally there is nothing interesting in the extreme edges. The edges are a problem only when they look ugly

    I do not think Chris was saying that you should shoot rectilinear and neither am I however we need to calm down with claims such as 

    The lens is x stop sharper at the edges for the same diagonal field of view

    The statement above is pure fantasy as there are not rectilinear lenses that exceed 120 degrees diagonal so the comparison is not even possible. I wish this misleading and incorrect marketing approach is abandoned asap as it makes people think about something that practially does not exist and is irrelevant if it did

  18. 10 hours ago, ChrisRoss said:

    If you assume the 10-17mm is  180° on the 10mm end, calculations show it should be about 98° at the 17mm end.  If you compare horizontal field which is more useful to compare to rectilinear lenses you get 144° to 81° and 81° is about the field of a 21mm rectilinear on full frame.  

    That's right the whole 180 degrees 98 degree is a bit of an illusion

    This is an image taken on a tripod with my Tamron 17-28mm at 17mm


    On the same tripod position this is the Canon 8-15mm with Kenko 1.4X teleconverter which is 21mm.


    In theory the first lens would have had 93 degrees and the second 101 degrees horizontal however with measuring tape at hand this was in reality much less with a shooting distance of 1.35 meters. As lenses behind dome are in reality focussing much closer this means the underwater field of view is significantly narrower than advertised.

    You can also see a few other things.

    1. The rectilinear lens at 17mm has significantly more field of view on the vertical axis

    2. The centre of the fisheye lens image is magnified

    3. The diagonals are heavily compressed and mostly contain something that is not really that relevant

    In my tests of the Canon 8-15mm with kenko teleconverter I have seen that the teleconverter is not the same as cropping the image. The resulting output at 15mm is actually wider than the lens at 15mm and the quality is identical

    However when you zoom in the quality starts to drop as it can be seen here the Tamron 17mm is significantly sharper everywehere and especially at the edges and this is my same experience underwater.

    We should not get confused by the barrel distortion effect when we look at field of view nor sharpness as fisheye lenses are in fact not very sharp at all at the edges and remain so underwater. The difference is that the centre of the frame pops so the image looks different. To get sharp edges at close range you will be shooting at least f/16 it does not matter fisheye or dome, WACP or any other adapter. Far targets will look fine at f/11 or even f/8.

    I look forward to knowing more about this Nauticam adapter however if the weight is over 2 Kg at it seems I do not think I will consider it for my A1

  19. The second option would be a nice trick, but it false back from 1/400 to 1/350 when I change to 1/2.

    Olympus is actually correctly implementing half stops
    The difference between 1/350 and 1/400 is 0.2 Ev and 1/400 is not a full stop on the nominal table (1/500)
    If 1/400 matters to you then 1/3 are required
    I can’t disagree with this implementation

    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

  20. No conjecture I am on mirrorless since 2015 and in fact I shot everything with the LCD until now
    With regards to the LCD the only issue is your eyesight as clearly the LCD is six times at least bigger than the evf lcd on a mirrorless and even the magnified viewfinder is not as big
    In addition you still have the viewfinder on the back of the housing where you can use the dioptric correction
    While for dslr two view finders were more usual I have not met one person with a mirrorless that regularly uses two
    In fact I know a few that had two and sold the straight one
    If there was no HDMI lag the best solution is a nice 5” monitor that can be angled as you like is very bright and has many other uses however the lag kills it as I have experienced myself

    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

  • Create New...