Jump to content

dreifish

Member
  • Content Count

    585
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    82

Everything posted by dreifish

  1. Keep in mind that if your objective is to have less noise than with the GH5, then the A1 will provide roughly a 2 stop noise advantage -- that is, you'll get about 1/4th the noise you would get on the GH5. However, if you're shooting the A1 in APS-C crop, then you're using a smaller area of the sensor and magnifying that area more. That mean you're also magnifing the noise. So the noise performance of the A1 in APS-C crop will only be about 1 stop better than the GH5. Or another way to say it is you'll only get half the noise. If you further zoom in to a 2x crop, then effectively you'll have the same amount of noise on the A1 as you would on the GH5... that's just physics. There's no free lunch here.
  2. I think this is a highly dubious statement -- the A1 has the exact same codecs, bit depth, and bit rates as the A7S III in 4k. 4k at 60p can be recorded in 280mbps (4:2:2) or 200mbps (4:2:0) (the Panasonic GH5 is 150mbps in 4:2:.0) Plus the additional 8k h.265 codecs at either 200, 400 or 540mb/s. There's nothing lacking in the codecs and they are similar in terms of bit rates to the h.265 codecs found on other Panasonic/Canon/Nikon cameras. Sure, perhaps the compression implementation from Sony may not be quite as good as it is from Panasonic, but in real world usage, you're not going to notice any difference. Many people, including quite discerning users, find the A7S III codecs more than sufficient for professional use, even for special shots in big budget documentaries or Hollywood films. So no.. you don't need an external recorder to take advantage of the sensor on the A1 or the A7S III, and the internal codecs are more than good enough. For the vast majority of people, an external recorder like the Ninja V and shooting in Prores Raw is not required and not really benefecial on the A1 or A7S III.
  3. Nice comparison photos, Samuel. Size/diameter differences between the WACP-C and WWL-1 seem pretty minimal. I would expect any image quality differences to be equally minimal (with the same lens behind the water-contact optic, that is). But unfortunately, outside the Sony system, I don't believe any other systems allow the use of both WWL-1 and WACP-C/WACP-1 with the same lens. So you're sort of stuck with the water contact optic that works for your system/lens. (As an aside, I tried using the Canon RF 24-70F2.8 with the WACP-1 and found that from 28 to ~35mm (i.e. at the wide end) there was vignetting. This is I believe because the RF 24-70F2.8 has an 82mm front filter thread, which is actually slightly wider than the back glass element of the WACP-1. From 35-70 however, the lens worked fine with a 50mm extension ring between the R5C housing and WACP-1. By comparison, the Canon RF14-35F4 (which has a 77mm filter thread) works just fine from 26mm-35mm with a 30mm extension ring. So I think the WACP-1 can only be used with lenses up to a 77mm filter thread, basically.
  4. I would think the A7S3 or A1 would be the natural upgrade path. Perhaps the A7 IV is also worth considering if you don't need 4k60.. Don't see any reason why you couldn't keep the WWL-1 and use it with the Sony 28-60 lens at F5.6 (which I assume is what you're currently using with your GH5?). That should give you about a 2-3 stop advantage in terms of noise performance in these circumstances. I suspect the corners on the 28-60 at F5.6 would be sufficiently sharp for such blue water shots, and I'm not convinced that the WACP-C (or WACP-1 for that matter) would be necessary to get acceptable results at F5.6. My learning has been that image quality has more to do with the lens behind the adapter than the adapter itself. With the same lens, I think the differences in image quality between the WWL-1, WACP-C and WACP-1 are likely to be minor.
  5. 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.
  6. 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/
  7. 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.
  8. 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
  9. 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.
  10. 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.
  11. 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.
  12. 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.
  13. 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
  14. One small correction -- the Macro Port is Macro Port 87 (for the Nikon 105mm Macro) not 94 as stated in the initial post)
  15. 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:
  16. 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?
  17. 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.
  18. 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.
  19. 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.
  20. I purchased both the Lee and Rosco gels from Adorama and B&H Photo Video.. they didn't always have them in stock in standard 24x22" sheets.
  21. Accumulated over the years, selling now that I've moved on to a Canon system: Nauticam Macro Port 94 for N120 - for Nikon 105mm Macro Nauticam Focus Gear for Nikon 105mm Macro Nauticam 70mm externsion ring for N120 Nauticam Focus Gear for Sony FE 16-35F4 OSS Nauicam N100 Flat Port 32 for Sony FE 28mm F2 lens Nauticam Flash Trigger for Sony Nauticam M67 to Bayonet Mount Converter (x2) Nauticam Bayonet Mount - CMC / SMC Adapter Nauticam Bayonet Mount Lens Holder Nauticam Flip Diopter Holder for M67 Macro Port Inon UCL-165LD Close-up Lens (Diopter) Will consider all reasonable offers.
  22. Olympus 60mm macro & Nauticam N85 Macro Port 65 (sold!)
  23. The gel film filters are also ultimately plastic or some similar petroleum-derived product, if I had to guess (but I'm no chemist). I've used CTO gels on strobes for many years where they're exposed to salt water and never noticed any degradation. I've also used other blue gel filters in front of video lights to match them to ambient illumination. I don't see why the Kelden gel filters would be any different. I think you would be fine using the gels externally between your port and the UWL-H100 rather than internally between the lens and the port glass. The risk of loss is probably higher, fair enough. But I'm sure Daniel Keller knows what he's talking about when he suggested using the Keldan filters externally.
  24. Salt water isn't going to destroy a plastic filter. It'll be just fine. Nor would putting it between the lens and the port lead to any air bubbles if you do it underwater.
  25. Adding photos here: Housing: N85 - N120 Adapter Macro Port 35 Macro Port 29, 35 and 14-42 lenses and gears: Macro Port 65 Panasonic Flash Triggers (Nauticam + Panasonic mini flash DMW-FL70)
×
×
  • Create New...