Ryan

I think this just boils down to personal preference... Personally I use the bayonet lens holders if I'm using a system that supports both wide and macro on the same dive, like a mirrorless system with a midrange zoom, WWL and wet mount macro lens. If I'm using a housed long macro (90/100/105 depending on brand), I'd prefer the flip and SMC-1.

CMC-1 is the better lens for use with Olympus 60mm macro. You might find some dated references recommending SMC-1, but that was simply due to that lens being created first, and having some benefit with the lens. CMC-1 came later, and is a stronger magnification optimized for shorter macro lenses and smaller formats. With CMC-1 mounted, the system can focus on subjects between 22mm and 70mm from the front of the lens, capturing an image between 8.5-19.5mm wide. CMC-2 was also released as a less powerful, more user friendly option. CMC-2 offers working a distance between 33-122mm, and captures an image area between 10-30mm wide.

200 min of run time from 4x 18650 should be sufficient, right?

The cause of this situation is an instagram feed that was posted on our web page nauticam.com, and managed by my team in the USA. The purpose of the feed is to aggregate content from instagram using hash tags associated with our brand for a gallery on our site. I love this user generated content - and feel that it takes down some of the intimidation factor associated with complicated gear, and makes what we do approachable and attainable. My feeling is also that this provides a great avenue for exposure outside of instagram, which in theory everyone benefits from, and many users have reacted to positively. My personal and ultimate goal was to promote the photographers that use our brand alongside the products we make. I never asserted any ownership of the image - which Julian has claimed above. That was not in the emails we exchanged, and my feeling is that this point is embellished in the account here to add more of an emotional charge to the situation. His comments on the facebook thread suggest justification and bullying, which also simply did not happen. My private explanation to him was simply how the feed worked. I feel that my replies to Julian are actually taken out of context here, but I appreciate his bringing this specific issue to our attention, and the feedback we have received as a result. We have absolutely no interest in violating any copyright. Someone uses #nauticam because they want an association with our brand, and if they no longer wish to have that association they can remove it, or refrain from using it. What better association is there than having that image fed into the brand web page? We are not saving the image on our servers or modifying it in any way. The entire instagram tag, comment, and user information is retained in accordance with their embed terms. The instagram poster has complete control over the image. We learned a few things from all of this... It is clear that instagram posters appreciate the courtesy of a permission request before an image is shared on our branded site, and that there is a higher level of sensitivity to feeds pulled outside of the instagram app than content shared within it. That makes sense, and we have already implemented a strategy to manage this permission process for the future. I am deeply sorry for the situation. I am sorry that a platform built to show the incredible work of our user base has inspired these feelings. I'm grateful that Julian brought this to our attention so we could remedy it, and apologize to anyone else that feels this action was inappropriate on our part.

Hi Wolfgang - that is an interesting point of clarification, and something worth testing. Thinking from the full frame perspective I didn't see a direct FOV equivalency, but on DX a 15mm or so fisheye is roughly equivalent to the 18-19mm lenses with WACP. I'll see if we can test that in the lab.

I haven't looked at this in a while, so have six months of catching up to do... This lens is not compatible with WWL-1, and has not been tested with WACP. We are going to add the Sony FE 28‑70mm F3.5‑5.6 OSS Full‑frame E‑mount Zoom to WACP compatibility when that is next updated. The best port combo is 37303 + 21120 + 85201 for A7II / A7III / A9 Systems. Performance is about the same as WWL-1 with 28mm f/2 overall, but there is significant versatility added in being able to zoom through the lens' zoom range, and the combo is attracting some interest. There is also substantial interest in this from video shooters. Obviously we want to test as many lenses as possible, but this is a not a trivial process. Do you mean 28mm f/2? If so, this hasn't ben a priority because it is very well supported by WWL-1, but I would expect that it is also quite good or better with WACP. This is my assumption, and has not been tested to my knowledge. Unfortunately we can't - there is no direct correlation between filter thread and compatibility. I will say that we have not tested any lens with a 77mm filter thread that works. We do have success with one lens that has a 72mm filter thread on DX, but this could be coincidence as much as anything else. None of the various 24-105 version, and none of the 24-70 f/2.8 iterations are compatible on full frame Canon. 17-55 has been tested on APS-C and will not be recommended. On an 8K Helium or 6K Dragon sensor 28-80 has proven to be wide enough to create interest, and on smaller sensors the Canon 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 IS STM Lens is proving to be a good option. Sigma 18-35 f/1.8 is also interesting, but the available zoom range will depend upon the format. The primes are also worth looking at here... Which one depends on the coverage angle desired, but 28mm f/2.8 with IS and STM from Canon outstanding. I don't anticipate that we'll publish direct A-B comparisons here, there are just too many to document. We know it is better than options equivalent in coverage angle. Everyone I know that has used the lens agrees that it is better. The Mustard article clearly illustrates the advantages compared to Nikon 16-35 f/4, and you'll see more and more of those style comparisons the lens is used in the field. I don't disagree that those comparisons have value, but realistically I don't expect that we'll wade into that. I've used the lens enough to draw my own conclusions, though. At any given field of view WACP (with a compatible lens) will be sharper in the corners than any lens behind a dome resulting in the same FOV at the same aperture. I don't see the value in trying to determine how much better (and whether that performance is usable) from photos on the internet, I'd buy / rent / borrow a lens and test for myself. The next time a chart is published it will include some 35mm primes for full frame (resulting in approximately 110 deg diagonal fov), Sigma 18-35 f/1.8 and Canon 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 IS STM as APS-C zooms, and the Sony FE 28‑70mm F3.5‑5.6 OSS Full‑frame E‑mount Zoom. There may be more, but that is what I remember off the top of my head. There has never been an Canon APS-C or Nikon DX format recommendation made for WWL-1. I got the following feedback via facebook message today from someone using WACP with 7D Mark II and the 18-55 STM lens: -I was flipping out under water -The stm lens is super fast -Super flexible -Never had a better wide angle optic in front of my housing

The circuit is definitely temperature compensated, and if you are seeing a solid green go back to flashing yellow the most likely cause is that you actually have a very slow leak, not an issue with the temp comp in the circuit. Our recommendation is to stop pumping when it turns green. Pump too much, you defeat the purpose of the monitoring.

I'd suggest emailing innovation at nauticam.com with your housing serial number, a shipping address, and communicate the Thursday deadline. A lot can be done before Thursday via the right channels. To my knowledge a similar issue has been reported one time by a UK customer, and that defective board was replaced under warranty.

In these combinations, the kit lens + WWL-1 is so good that I'm not sure how much benefit is left to be realized with WACP. In my personal opinion the real life benefits are greater than we can currently show in lab tests due to limits in our testing equipment and the extreme versatility and quality across the entire zoom range that WWL-1 offers. Further testing might change my opinion on this with some unique larger diameter lenses on m4/3, but I can recommend WWL-1 without hesitation. I love the splits from Jeremy and David, and really like the drama in the thick and flowing water lines that splits with small domes create. They have a very different look, and that may not always be desirable, but appreciate the uniqueness and challenge to capture. The o-rign sourcing for WWL-1 was actually driven by a request from Eric Cheng using RX100 for high frame rates i the Bahamas, and I think the first o-ring that worked was a YS-250 strobe battery compartment o-ring. In my own experience this style of testing makes it really hard to get consistent, controlled results. In my tests WWL-1 + 28mm was a bit narrower than the Sony 28mm + Fisheye Conv combo. WWL-1 had soft corners, but they affected much less of the frame. This isn't a completely fair test, the Sony fisheye behind a dome was wider, but given the choice between the two I would take WWL-1. There are situations where a full frame fisheye lens (like Sigma 15mm or Canon 8-15) and a metabones adapter will be more appropriate than the WWL-1 combo because of its wider fov with great overall image quality.

No, not at all. Ivanoff-Rebikoff is overly restricting in field of view in my opinion, and I'm glad that isn't the route we pursued. Ivanoff is a corrective lens, WACP is a wide angle conversion and correction optic. RS 13mm is amazing, 170deg with fisheye distortion. This is a very difficult focal length than anything paired with WACP will ever be, and also has much more barrel distortion. I can certainly see how someone would want to travel with both... I can't imagine a situation in which I'd find the narrow field of view of RS 20-35 (which is actually a 24mm lens at its widest) useful. Both of these RS lensers are purpose built, single use optics. WACP is a wide angle conversion port (.36x magnification, converting 75 deg to 130 deg at its widest) for off the shelf lenses. All of the currently recommended combinations are focusing on the dome... This lens will actually perform better in terms of overall sharpness, and with a wider range of lenses, on APS-C. The smaller formats have benefits...

The current compatibility chart is available here: https://drive.google.com/file/d/0BzggKvdoNvhkUmppUmIxR0dTY0E/view WACP compatibility is still being determined, and this is not a complete list. Updates will be continually as this product is brought to market in the coming weeks. All of the current field testing is essentially to define the compatibility limits. Stress testing, if you will. Personally I expect some of the most popular prime options to be in the 35mm range for full frame, providing even better quality at a narrower field of view. There may actually be two different use strategies that emerge, with prime lenses providing the very best quality at narrower field of views (35mm = 120deg, and even 50mm = 100 deg), and zoom lenses like 28-70 providing very good quality across a wide range of coverage angles. Ian, this is both a wide angle conversion and correction lens. It takes an existing lens, makes it wider, and works very hard to neutralize defects that are introduced by that action AND the air to water interface. Many solutions to the fuzzy corners problem were explored, including lenses that were simply correctors (without wide angle conversion) for current wide angle lenses. This solution (wide angle conversion and correction for 75 degree fov primary lenses) turned out to yield the best mix of performance at a reasonable size and cost. I'm sure this is just the beginning, and I very much look forward to seeing what Nauticam and other manufacturers create.

Check out nauticam.com, new content is being migrated there.

Nauticam took a wait and see approach to X-T2 demand, monitoring requests before deciding whether or not to produce the housing. In the end there was sufficient demand, and this will be rolling out in the next few weeks.

Hi Nicolas, Thanks for the info, it is very helpful. The strobe settings look right, assuming the ACC magnets are down. I don't see photos of the fiber optic cables, from the second video it doesn't look like they are genuine Nauticam cables. PN 26211 should be used here. Four different strobes were tested today in my office, and they are all firing. If you can test the proper cables that would be a good next step.

Can you post photos of the optical cables, and a photo of exactly how you have the dials on the back of the strobe set?

They are shipping now, but my guess is that dealers are filling preorders placed in January... Shipping forecasts will have to come from individual dealers based on their order queues.

The currently shipping YS-250 work with the standard manual trigger, fired optically. There were some very early YS-250 strobes that were not compatible optically with our previous LED flash trigger. The updated part in D5 and D500 has more power, but we haven't been able to test those early units unfortunately (because we don't have them any longer). We are hopeful that these recent updates allow all YS-250 to be triggered optically (manual power).

The standard LED flash trigger that ships in these housings is manual only. An accessory part, #26307, TTL Converter for Nikon (Compatible with NA-D5/D500, Sea & Sea YS-D and Inon Strobes), $430 is available to add TTL functionality with Sea & Sea YS-D1, YS-D2, Inon D-2000, S-2000, Z-240. Future revisions or iterations of that part are planned to support Sea & Sea YS-250, and Ikelite DS-160/DS-161. The TTL Converter supports both optical and electrical triggering. With the currently compatible flashes, we recommend optical triggering for the best performance and accuracy. YS-250 and DS-160 don't have optical/slave TTL functionality, so they'll require electrical triggering.

This could be done in virtually any housing as long as you accept some functionality compromise, and are adventurous with DIY gearing, or are willing to pay dearly for custom stuff. You need two lens controls - Aperture, and Focus, for total control. Only Seacam has two lens controls on the housing body. So theoretically in that housing you could have full lens control. Another option would be to just preset aperture, and create a focus gear. This is far more commonly done in these kind of installs, and this can be done in basically any housing.

The OP is asking about what I consider to be a Nikon weakness, and that regardless of flash recycle time, you have to pull the trigger once for one frame when the flash is popped up. In other words there is no such thing as continuous shooting mode when the internal flash is popped up. This is one reason that manual led triggers have been created for some housings... Pavel's TTL Converter is actually a very good manual trigger as well, I share his enthusiasm.

There are some solutions coming in the next few weeks to improve access to the lens release button, and provide cover solutions, when the foam ring is attached. I'll update this thread when I have them in hand.

I just noticed the request above for comparisons, and have these v. Panasonic 7-14 and Olympus 9-18. https://www.evernote.com/l/AOLgDuGdr6RCtI_MOcA2i1CWuv-7CvNuimM WWL-1 is significantly wider than both of these, with some barrel distortion. Keep in mind the lens is full zoom through, and when you frame to match the fov offered by these two options a lot of the barrel distortion is cropped out in camera.

We'll test the lens behind available domes as soon as we can to see if it is any better than 16-35 /4, or 28 /2 with WWL-1. I have high hopes for the lens based on Touit 12mm. I'm also skeptical that it will have better corner sharpness than 28 with WWL, but that is a "different" combo having a bit of barrel distortion and a wider 130 deg FOV. My quick WWL-1 tests with A7 v. 28 /2 & SEL-057FEC and 16-35/4. https://www.evernote.com/l/AOIqdRrEETlOYYP-6eFWgfnQwXftHgB3eK4

Just for the sake of clarity and warranty transparency, this part is made by the Nauticam USA service team, and is not a Nauticam part.

230 domes are not modular, but DP-100 may be. The best source of up to date product info is glass at zenunderwater dot com, and a photo of the exact part goes a long way to determining any rolling changes that have happened along the way that could affect compatibility. I actually answered Paul's inquiry from Dec 4 2014, so I'd be the unhelpful one. I'm guessing the point that was unsatisfactory is that we don't sell these parts for user install, and we would always recommend that other dealers do the same. This may not always be the most convenient solution, but we've found this to be the best way to avoid unexpected incompatibilities, stuck parts, and damage from DIY modification.