Jump to content

dreifish

Member
  • Content Count

    581
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    81

dreifish last won the day on August 22

dreifish had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

342 Excellent

About dreifish

  • Rank
    Tiger Shark
  • Birthday 02/10/1983

Contact Methods

  • Website URL
    https://www.youtube.com/andreivoinigescu

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    Florida

Additional Info

  • Show Country Flag:
    Canada
  • Camera Model & Brand
    Panasonic GH5
  • Camera Housing
    Nauticam NA-GH5
  • Strobe/Lighting Model & Brand
    Sea&Sea DS-02
  • Industry Affiliation
    Fridge Magnet Films

Recent Profile Visitors

21141 profile views
  1. For what it's worth, i've now shot WACP-1 on an the Canon R5 C with both the recommended Canon 28-70 F3.5-F4.5 old kit lens and the new RF 14-35mm F4 lens (using a 30mm extension ring). The RF 14-35F4 is only listed for use with the WACP-2 on Nauticam's charts, not the WACP-1. However, to my slight surprise, the RF 14-35mm works perfectly in the 26-35mm range and produces slightly better results than the old 28-70 kit lens. Even at F4 (The 28-70 has very bad chromatic abberation at F3.5 that only clears up to an acceptable level at F5.6 in my view). So yes, ablosutely, the quality of the kit lens you have behind the wet contact optic matters. But as far as I can tell, there's little if any difference in the optical formula for the WWL-1, WACP-C, WACP-1 and WACP-2. Nauticam just scaled up the size of the glass elements, but it's the same geometries and configuration. So I'd suspect the quality of the lens you use behind the wet contact optic will actually have a bigger impact on the overall quality of your images than moving from a WWL-1 to a WACP-C or WACP-1 or WACP-2. (Oh, and for what it's worth, I again confirmed to that the Canon 8-15 behind a 140mm dome is superior to the WACP-1 for stills at F8 and above.. not only in the angle of coverage (and thus how close you can get to the subject), but also in perceived sharpness and resolution. At F4 or F5.6, the WACP-1 + 14-35 are more comperable (the corners of the 8-15 get mushy at these lower apertures). For me... I'd still choose the fisheye any day for wide angle photos, and the WACP-1 (or WACP-C, WWL-1, WACP-2) for video. I have shot the WWL-1 on m4/3 and WACP-1 on a 45mp full frame camera with different lenses, so the results are not exactly comparing apples to apples. That said, I'm in the camp of those that think the differences in real world images are not worth the increase in price and size. This comparison test (in German) also suggets the same conclusion: https://uwfoto.net/vergleich-domeports-vorsatzlinsen-und-korrektivports/ The WACP-1 is slightly sharper in the corners then the WWL-1, but it's not the drastic 2-3 stop difference Nauticam's marketing is suggesting. Maybe 1 stop. The improvement for the WACP-C should be even less. My conclusion? If you can find a modern lens that will work behind the WWL-1 for your system, that's probably your best option. As between the WACP-C/WACP-1/WACP-2, the difference in the lens behind the wet corrector is probably more important than the wet corrector itself. Modern lenses are superior to old kit lenses, and Nauticam's port charts aren't exhaustive. After my experience with the WACP-1 and RF 14-35F4, I wouldn't be surprised if the RF 24-70F2.8 or RF 28-70F2 actually work just fine behind the WACP-1 or WACP-C with the correct extension port, even though they're not listed on the official charts. Perhaps the zoom range you can use will be limited (because of the extension of the lens when zoomed), but they still may prove to be better solutions than the old Canon 28-70 F3.5-F4.5 kit lens.
  2. The answer is in this thread. https://wetpixel.com/forums/index.php?/topic/69515-full-frame-upgrade-for-hybrid-shooters-sony-a1-vs-canon-r5-c-vs-nikon-z9-ama/
  3. Nauticam has tested a lot of lenses that aren't on the port chart -- because they don't work acceptably well. So what's on the port charts is what works best. The "huge potential benefit" of a broader usable aperture range is really overplayed, in my view. Sure, in the best case scenario you can shoot at F5.6 with the WACP-1 and you'd have had to shoot at F16 lets say to get comparable sharpness behind a dome. Are those 3 extra stops really going to be the difference between being able to get a shot and not being able to? I don't think so. In most environments most of us spend time shooting, there's plenty of light and full frame camera sensors are good enough that you can shoot at F16 all day and still stay below 3200 ISO. Your results will be clean enough that it doesn't matter. Lower ISO/less noise is not a very compelling reason for the wet contact optics to exist IMO. Different angles of view/rendition than rectilinear zoom lenses or fisheye lenses is a pretty good reason though.
  4. Tim, you might be wrong on this one, especially in reference to the new Inon z330s Mark II. According to Reef Photo & Video's testing, they're about 1-2 stops more powerful than the Retras ProX. https://reefphoto.com/blogs/trending/how-good-are-the-current-strobes-for-light-intensity-and-coverage Wish I'd seen this review before buying my Retras
  5. What exactly is fragile among this giant pile of aluminium that is going to be protected by a hard case if checked in better than a rigid Thinktank-style roller? Certainly, we've got no hope in hell to get these 'carry-on' bags under 10kg in my view, let alone 7kg. But why are you so worried about it being checked? Have you had equipment damaged in the past? You can fit a WACP-1 in a soft-sided roller, barely. Or a soft 'personal item' tote bag or backpack. You definitely can't fit it in a Pelican Air 1535.
  6. Less of a concern in the U.S. -- I've yet to have a carry-on weighed by a U.S. airline. Europe is probably a different matter entirely. The roller bag is similar to a Thinktank, but bought off Taobao for about 1/3 the price Has served me well for 5 years now. My contingency plan if asked to check it in is to point out that it's full of lithium batteries and very expensive camera equipment and wear down the airline staff until they agree it's not worth the effort . But in all honesty -- I'm not so worried about it being gate checked. The housing, WACP-1 and retra strobes are all just hunks of solid aluminium. What's going to happen if they get bumped around a bit? At worst, they'll get some surface scuffs.
  7. I got a WACP-1 and will be testing it in the water next week. The size is definitely daunting. Makes me wish I had waited a few more weeks for the WACP-C to ship. But alas, I have a trip now.. Maybe I'll pick up the WACP-C later as well. On the bright side, I did still manage to squeeze the Canon R5-C housing, WACP-1, two Retra strobes, and even a 45 degree viewfinder in a rolling carry-on. Minimal viable kit for shooting. The carryon weighs... wait for it... 23 kg.
  8. Do you mean you have 2 Keldan Luna 4x (10k lumen) light? Or 4 Keldan lights? If you do indeed only have 2 10k lumen lights, then yes, once you add the filters which cut about 1 2/3 stop of light, you're basically working with 3000 lumen lights. That's much too weak to make any difference for wide angle video. Given how little influence the video lights have, it doesn't matter whether you do CWB with the lights on or off.. practically, 90+% of your illumination is coming from the ambient light, not your video lights. Switching the Luna 4x for Luna 8X will help a little bit, but you still only have 30k lumens to start with, before accounting for the light loss from the filters. And unfortunately the Keldan lights have a 110 degree beam angle, which further reduces the illuminance that actually falls on your subject. In my experience, you need about 60k lumens of video lights (think, 4 Keldan 8x's) before you start adding the blue filters if you want the lights to actually make a difference.
  9. Only a few items left.. Nauticam GH5 Housing GH5 Body Panasonic 14-42 F3.5-5.6 ASPH Mega OIS lens & zoom gear + N85 Macro Port 35 with bayonet mount adapter Olympus 14-42 F3.5-5.6 EZ & Nauticam Zoom Gear + N85 Macro Port 29 Nauticam WWL-1 with float collar Olympus 60mm macro & Nauticam N85 Macro Port 65 Panasonic 45mm macro Olympus 9-18 with Nauticam Zoom gear Nauticam flash trigger for Panasonic GH5 Nauticam n85 to n120 34.7mm port adapter
  10. One small correction -- the Macro Port is Macro Port 87 (for the Nikon 105mm Macro) not 94 as stated in the initial post)
  11. I think the article and the tests show a couple of interesting things: 1. The WWL has significant barrel distortion: 2. The WACP-1 has the same amount of barrel distortion: 3. The WACP-1 produced equivalent results at F5.6 to the WWL at F7.1. That's only a 2/3 stop improvement... 4. Apparently, the WACP-1 was actually wider according to the test. But I wonder if this might not be because the length of the flat port + WWL-1 is different than that of the WACP-1, leading to a different distance from lens to subject if the tripod wasn't moved. Certainly, seems a bit of an odd outcome otherwise:
  12. To me, the WACP photo here looks similar to a crop of the full fisheye photo. Just look at the way the trees bend in the upper corners of the frame. Perhaps just a touch less barrel distortion?
  13. Hi Draq, I think Intercepter 121's main point is that the WACP line (and the WWL as well) are not true replacements for rectilinear lenses because they have barrel distortion that turns straight lines curved. Judge for yourself in Alex's wreck pictures. Whenever you put straight lines near the horizontal or vertical edges, they warp: https://www.amustard.com/library/64/CAY17_am-11438.jpg https://www.amustard.com/library/64/CAY17_am-10919.jpg https://www.amustard.com/library/66/CAY17_am-10886.jpg https://www.amustard.com/library/68/USA18_am-11180.jpg Are they less fishy than fisheye lenses? Not clear. Intercepter 121 argues that for the same angle of view, they are just as fishy as a zoomed in fisheye lens. I tend to think that actually they have slightly more rectilinear characteristics, but even I am not sure anymore looking at Alex's pictures. I think it bears careful testing. Now, if you just want the same angle of view as a 16-35 lens or 11-24 lens in a smaller form factor than using a 230mm dome, and don't care about barrel distortion, then Interceptor 121's second argument is that you might as well use a zoom fisheye and 160mm dome if you're on APS-C or m4/3 cameras and you'll get results as good or better than with the WWL/WACP. Is the zoom range the same? Not exactly. The Canon 8-15mm fisheye on m4/3 gives you a diagonal angle of view range from 170 degrees (at 8mm) to 84.5 degrees. The WACP with a 28-70 lens gets you 130-59 degrees on the diagonal. So you get more at the wide end with a fisheye, and less at the tight end. On APS-C, the Tokina 10-17 gets you 180 degrees - 98 degrees on the diagonal. But then again, I don't know that anyone really uses the WACP for the 90 to 60 degree focal length range. That's roughly equivalent with a 24-37mm rectilinear zoom. At that range, you get perfectly fine results with a traditional 16-35 or 24-70 lens behind a 180mm dome port. Which I think is easier to travel with (and probably cheaper) than the WACP.
  14. This has been my impression as well comparing the Canon 8-15 (behind a 140mm dome) with the WWL-1 14-42mm combo. The fisheye is.. sharper and more importantly, has better contrast. But where the situation get muddy is the conclusion that the distortion is the same between a zoomed fisheye and the WWL-1. I think this is not exactly true. Subjectively at least, they have different renditions. And I would venture a 'feeling' that the WWL-1 has less barrel distortion than the zoomed-in Canon 8-15 at similar fields of view. A fisheye renders an image according to an equisolid projection, but interestingly enough, the exact formula differs between different fisheye lenses. So the Lumix 8mm fisheye doesn't distort quite the same way as the Olympus 8mm fisheye or the Canon 8-15... A rectilinear lens renders an image according to a rectilinear projection. And the WWL-1 and presumably the WACP-1/2/C? Probably a different projection function than either the fisheye or rectilinear lenses. The end result is that I don't think you can conclude that the rendering of a fisheye like the 8-15 and nauticam's wet lens range is exactly the same for the same field of view. But what is true is that all of these projection functions should be more similar than different at tighter angles of view. It's at wider angles of view that the distortion really differs. Take a look at this graph from the paper linked below. The closer you are to the center of the image, the less pronounced the differences between rectilinear and equisolid angle projection. For those technically minded, this paper might be a good starting point: http://michel.thoby.free.fr/Fisheye_history_short/Projections/Models_of_classical_projections.html Ultimately, what we need is for someone to test the WACP-1/2/C against a fisheye lens like the 8-15 at tighter angles of view. I will do just that using APS-C and m4/3 crop on the R5 C once I get my WACP-1.. or WACP-C.. whichever ships sooner. But what I will say is that in m4/3 crop, I find that the canon 8-15 even at 15mm still has too much barrel distortion to look natural in video. This was not at all the case with the WWL-1 even at 130*. So no, Massimo.. I don't think the zoom fisheye lenses are a 1:1 substitute for Nauticam's wet optics on APS-C or m4/3 sensors.
  15. Well, for macro the red filter on lens/blue filter on lights mixed light style will work, but you're inherently sacrificing some of the warmer reds and oranges of the subject compared to filming macro with no filters at all and relying on your video lights to provide full spectrum illumination. Not to mention you'll be forced to shoot at a higher ISO because both the filters on the lights and on the lens reduce the amount of light your sensor is receiving. So you'll get 'balanced' color, but in a more limited spectrum and with ultimately a noisier image. I personally wouldn't choose this option.
×
×
  • Create New...