Interceptor121

If you open a raw file with bridge and then save in psd you have smaller files and you can control more the process

Some test shots possibly not the most suited to the lens but gives an idea

Small buoyancy increase until they compress Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

No not those Mine are 40 grams negative in water almost zero with the sleeve on For now there hasn’t been a requirement for aluminum strobes My arm configuration is pretty much identical whatever port I have so don’t need to touch it once assembled Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Not sure what SF-01 is I use twin Sea and Sea YS-D2J latest generation I am aware people have had issues with this strobe series but the quality of light is great and the ergonomics perfect also with gloves or in the dark. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

WACP-C set up (original lens with no float collar)

I have done extensive study back in the day With the WACP-C or WWL-1 and included float collar I just use a combination of jumbo floats and normal floats from stix You can get 2 kg lift filling arm segments and I prefer them to buoyancy arms because their dry weight is less which makes them easy to check in

Just did what I used to do before just edit from lightroom and save two layers one smartobject with filter original 55 MB Tiff 1.46 GB....

Since the A1 I do not think I have used photoshop once as I have not done any stacking or backscatter removal and the images are even too sharp. I can save a file later to see

There are several possible permutations which end up with large files in photoshop Generally if you used layers you want to keep them as they contain the edits You can compress an image or compress the layers or both More compression less space and more processing time to save Photoshop does not have metadata unlike lightroom However if you saved a file as DNG and did some edits it keeps it as DNG if that is of any comfort I only use photoshop for sharpening and some specific taks like backscatter removal thankfully most images don't need extensive help The issue is that a raw file has a single color per pixel while tiff is RGB 32 bits so the space multiplies brutally 6.85x before you compress Lightroom maintains edits as metadata and as you noted

Nope The back of the glass doesn’t matter because the lens in the wacp-c bumps on the rim which is 66mm unless it is very small. The other lens has a much wide opening The wacp-c is 25.2 mm recessed because 11.5 mm are taken by the part that goes in the port and the glass is further down the metal rim. This is the official figure from Nauticam as well. The wacp-1 has the same base lens however it simply has a 35mm adapter from which you take out 11.5mm at the lens total 23.5mm The problem you have is that the wacp-c has a built in float collar so if you want to adapt to N120 mount you need an adapter ring the smallest is 15mm You are now at 40mm and the rear lens opening is 66mm The wacp-1 instead will sit at 23.5mm from the rim natively and is larger There will be a delta of 16.5mm between the two this is not small you may try to get the 15mm adapter ring but it may still vignette Considering your housing is N120 I would not consider the WACP-C Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Not at this stage

E-Mount users are very lucky that the WWL-1 is compatible with 3 lenses of which 1 zoom and 2 primes The 35mm lens has caught my attention but the port chart seems very dated. The Zeiss 35/2.8 is not the only lens in town anymore I was wondering if anyone has experience with 35mm lens with WWL-1 for the purpose of shark photos and similar

You can get a custom made adapter ring down to 10mm for the wacp-c However considering your port system is N120 and the wacp-1 works I would abandon the WACP-c entirely There is 25mm of space in the mount and even with a 10mm ring you are far away from the 23.5mm of the wacp-1 so likely you will have some residual vignette perhaps it will work at 28mm just fine Performance tests for this type lens on land are not a good indication of how it will work in water other than the vignette I would wait until you have taken this into a pool with a test set up Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

The position of this is native fisheye lens This could be interesting if you are using only N100 ports and smaller optics like the WWL-1 as I do Yet am unsure I would consider it myself Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

So that would mean is 100 cm throughout. Your image perspective gave the impression it grows with size but perhaps is the result of a phone photo!

The 4.33" acrylic is in total including the mpunt 12 cm diameter, the dome itself is 11cm Compared to the zen the base mount is the same as it is N120 system, the zen is itself 11cm so the difference is near nothing This is the set up to me looks shorter and smaller than this Nauticam lens. The mount of the Nauticam is N100 which is small but the port seems very long and the dome is bigger than 100 mm from your photo when you look at the shade

I think in terms of size this looks very similar to the acrylic port I doubt size will be a primary reason to prefer this set up However a 13mm lens will have more depth of field of a 15mm lens and therefore this Nauticam prototype lends itself better to wider apertures. I have seen example of cave shots at f/4 with the canon at 15mm with subjects in the distance this can be ok especially if the edges are the dark corners of a cave Considering the general reticence to manual focus of still shooters I can see Nauticam point of view of not bringing this lens to live production.

Looking to the amount of distortion the lens has by itself I think the lens field of view uncorrected is in effect wider than what a 28mm lens would have the reason why I disable lens correction for distortion is because it improves the edge performance when used on a curved adapter. As the image is not straight anyway it makes sense to do so Obviously a small lens like this has many compromises baked in distortion and vignetting are very strong so it is assumed you use the lens correction but I only really use chromatic aberration correction that can't be switched off

The 28-60 has distortion correction set to on and can't be switched off in camera However you can turn that off in lightroom and the lens shows vignette afterwards This is hood vignette When I use the WACP-C at distance closer than the recommended extension i get vignette on the rear lens not the hood I believe the flat port 45 is 3mm too long and as result you have this problem

What are the dimensions? Does not look much smaller than a 140mm dome and extensions?

Will sell altogether Lens Viewfinder (works perfectly though you are not likely to need it) Nauticam Adapter bought February 2 After careful consideration I decided this is not for me Price £699 including shipping UK. Other countries on request Lens perfectly working and very sharp with no marks that show on the photo. Probably sharper than all rectilinear lenses in dome out there

The DSLR housing are the biggest ones When you put a 4’33 almost flush on the housing the drag comes from the housing The Sony A1 housing is N100 and is a bit smaller than some DSLR The N120 port system is more or less the same size of the front of the housing so a smaller dome that protrudes a long way outside the hosing is no longer the same situation of the DSLR above the port and housing are on the same ball park reducing 1cm the port size accomplishes no streamlining anymore The sony A1 housing is also very negative as consequence of being smaller especially in terms of depth so you need much more floatation this ends up being a problem For practical purpose there is no difference between a fisheye dome and the wwl-1 very similar buoyancy and weight they take the same floats The 180mm wide angle port is more positive reducing the amount of floatation required so the strobe arms are more streamlined As net effect there is not much difference in terms of handling the bigger dome handles very well This is all practical not theoretical advice The olympus housings are much smaller and with a native acrylic fisheye much more compact In terms of streamlining the A1 (which I am an expert at that’s how I designed the system over 6 months before buying it) there are two key points 1. Avoid any form of WACP the topside weight makes your arm feel tired 2. If possible avoid rectilinear if you must choose a lens that works well with the 180 port so you can skip the 230 The lightest of my rigs is 5.72 kg the heaviest is the 180mm at 6.52 kg however the 8-15 with tc is 6.4 kg and more negative There are no native fisheye and zoom fisheye which makes it achieving a small system overall very tricky Really if small size is a priority the olympus system with native lenses and port is the only one that you can call compact Fyi the wwl-1 is a 4.33 port Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I am using those setups The Olympus housings are way smaller you can hide the camera behind a dome Not so the A1 those are SLR format with clam shell design you are in another category altogether There is nothing that will bring the op back to a Tokina on a APSC where the ports does not make a difference to the size of the housing this is a different game There are pictures of all the rigs on my blog you can have a look at them and see for yourself this is not theory it is practice I maintain weights and buoyancy in fresh and salt water on a spreadsheet and I weight them so this is not random pub talk this is the acrylic set up you can see that the housing is pretty big but the N120 ring is matching it. Even if you have another 1cm less for the DP100 (the nauticam is 11cm) the size of the N120 ring is the same and in fact it is better to have it flush This set up however is a prime. There is no Tokina 10-17 but you can put a TC on the 8-15 it extends the entire port 20mm While the 180mm port offers some resistance you have way less floats on the arms which means the current won't push your strobes away changing position The 180 port needs 700 grams less of float to be neutral and those are bulky and offer resistance in water

It isn’t really. It does help to have the camera and have tried the various options For starter the op is not looking for a cfwa set up, but more importantly from a bulk point of view on the nauticam system the fact that you use an adapter kills most of the streamlining The fisheye options protrude from the housing and have the larger N120 ports. With the N120 system and 65mm of adapter and extension ring there is no real benefit having a dome smaller in diameter than the N120 ring itself In addition the zen is glass and small and this makes it really negative. I settled on the 4.33” acrylic as it is a bit lighter and doesn’t loose too much lift and matches precisely the N120 ring. The op however is looking at moderate field of view for which fisheye is not a solution For rectilinear field of view the most compact set up is the Nikkor 15mm https://interceptor121.com/2023/02/19/nikkor-uw15-on-sony-mirrorless-for-photography-worth-it/ Not many people can deal with a manual lens and this set up has no lift you can’t balance without large float arms which themselves introduce bulk or you need to be happy with a very negative rig. In overhang environment I don’t think this is a particular good idea. The wwl-1 instead is pretty compact the dome size is 4.33” and you can still balance it. The rectilinear lenses with 180mm dome are in fact the only one you can easily make neutrally buoyant Considering that lots of the bulk are the float and the arms as the A1 nauticam housing is very negative, this ends up being a solution very easy to handle in water except against current And performs also exceptionally well with the tamron 17-28 beating the wwl wacp-c also in the edges 1 or 2 stops Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk