Alex_Mustard

I regularly use Nauticam ports (including the WACP) on my Subal housings (type 4 ports) - I use an adaptor from Saga. I am pretty sure that the difference in port to lens difference is 30mm longer like this (Subal housing sticking out more and the adaptor - compared to the original Nauticam port on a Nauticam housing). Alex

Best of luck

Nice set of pics!

Had to check this thread to see whether the question was photoshopping it into or out of images! Photographers are well aware that images with trash in can be good sellers and we now show off about taking worthy ‘environmental’ images in the same way we used to humbrag about competition wins. I even hear stories (dunno if they are true) of photographers staging photos of marine life interacting with plastic etc. To get back on point - I think the most important thing to consider with manipulation - is if you do it - be open and honest about it (including a note about it in the image caption). I don’t think most people have an issue with photoshopping - as long as they are not misled. Alex

I think it depends on what subjects you are planning to shoot. For me, on some trips it is my most used lens, on others I don’t even travel with it. It is great for big animal destinations with unpredictable diving (e.g. Galapagos, Maldives). But I prefer the straight fisheye when shooting scenics. Alex

Not interested in trying them. But if someone makes a housing that takes Nikonos V lenses - that could change. Alex

Thanks Tom. Hopefully a housing manufacturer will look into making a port adaptor for it. Alex

Does anyone who if a Nikonos V 15mm lens could be adapted to work with the Z series cameras with appropriate adaptor - like it is on the Sony mirrorless cameras?

Hopefully the Z6 and Z7 are the first step on this path and they will be followed by cameras that are more suited to underwater shooting. Alex

It is the best combination for the LSD - unsurprising as both are designed by the same company. Here is a photo from the recent Wetpixel workshop I ran in Lembeh: I find the bayonet mount for the different diffusers and rings a bit stiff on my Retra flashes - but it's strength makes perfect sense when using the LSD. Alex

British photographer Will Clark has used the WACP on canon FF pretty much exclusively for the last year. He is a good source to ask questions: He recently posted his contact email on his Facebook page (second post down, currently): https://www.facebook.com/bifter?hc_ref=ARRKamIRyg6UCxxC5EHOQljXkS2jpXmg-3eZWyptir3raCmllXx1jJTQAtBrMW8F9j4&fref=nf

My understanding is that the physically bigger the lens you want to use behind a lens like the WACP, the bigger the WACP has to be. And to make it work with a 24-70mm (f/2.8), for example, the WACP would have to much, much bigger to give any measurable image quality advantage over the current WACP and 28-70mm. And as such would weight 7-8KG and cost $10,000. So this approach was not considered because the current WACP and 28-70mm gives really noticeable image quality advantages over anything else available covering the same FOV underwater. I also feel that the simpler design of older lenses is better suited to being incorporated as part of the optical setup of the new lens (the WACP + zoom lens). I did test more expensive 28-70mm lenses with the early WACP prototype (not the production version) and these did not perform as well behind the WACP as they Nikon 28-70mm f/3.5-4.5. Despite being better lenses out of the water. The hard thing to get our head around is that a relatively cheap, old lens can out perform an expensive new one. Because we've all bought expensive pro-glass and seen the difference it makes to our pictures out of the water. What you have to factor in is how much image quality a dome port in water gives away. Which is much more than the difference between the old and new lenses. This is why the WACP works. The reason the WACP is not made for the latest pro lenses on land is that it would end up way too large to travel with and cost way too much (and actually gives relatively little improvement because there are diminishing returns on the water corrected optics). It is already at a size that causes production issues because of the availability of such large pieces of optical glass (bigger than even the mega expensive super telephotos). Alex

This caught my eye: “two exciting new features exclusively for the new Retra Flash”. I guess you will tell us in November. Alex

For me the main issue with the Z6 and Z7 for underwater use is that I don’t think that they AF with AF-D type lenses. This means lenses like the Nikon 16mm, Sigma 15mm fisheyes, the Tokina 10-17mm fisheye and the Nikon 28-70mm that we use with the Nauticam WACP, and any converted Nikonos RS lenses. In short a big loss for many underwater photographers. The only common lenses that work are the 8-15mm and 16-35mm. I have both of these, but for many people the need to have to but one (especially the 8-15mm) is a big financial penalty for switching to the Z-series. That said, I have not tried the Z series cameras yet. So I am not 100% certain on this. And Nikon’s promotional material isn’t exactly forthcoming on the matter - talking about what is compatible, rather than what isn’t. Alex Perhaps this Z discussion should be split into a new thread.