Jump to content

Draq

Member
  • Content Count

    577
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    29

Draq last won the day on August 28

Draq had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

91 Excellent

About Draq

  • Rank
    Tiger Shark

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male

Additional Info

  • Show Country Flag:
    United States

Recent Profile Visitors

12406 profile views
  1. When I purchased a WWL for use on M43, I thought the ability to remove and replace the WWl sounded promising. But in my limited time with it, I found the idea less that fully satisfactory. It is a large, somewhat heavy and expensive thing to be futzing around with underwater and carrying when not in use. I have seen some examples of people installing a sort of "bridge" over the top of the housing, onto which they can mount the WWL when not in use, and maybe that works ok, but you might want to give the issue some thought before deciding. I am sure it can be done and perhaps in a way that works well. This looks doable, at least.
  2. I would be interested in the housing only, if you are willing to break up your set. Will also send email.
  3. Yes, I do already have the lens. Never have tried to use it underwater and not sure I would. I am just a bit confused about the port chart.
  4. Well, going off on a side road for a moment, I wonder if anyone with a more technical grasp of this stuff can help me understand this: The WACP-C port chart shows compatibility for the Sigma 18-35 lens for the Canon N120 EF mount, using Extension Ring 40 and a N100 - N120 25mm adapter, but does not show the lens as compatible for the Nikon F mount. Unless it is just something that has not been evaluated yet, that confuses me. I am also surprised that a 72mm diameter lens works with the WACP-C
  5. It is odd to me that a thread about a new product becomes so contentious. I would think there are those who are or may be interested in purchasing/using the product, and therefore discuss it, and those who are uninterested for whatever reasons, and who will pay little attention. But it seems there is a lot of hate, or at least angst, about this particular product I have never handled a WACP or even seen one in person, let alone used one, so all I know about it is what others have said, and I have to separate the wheat from the chaff. But anyway, There have been some comments comparing the WWL or WACP to something like an 8-15 FE. I don’t see the water contact optics as a “competitor” to those lenses. The water-contact optics’ potential value to me (and I assume others) lies in providing an option for those times when one needs greater “reach” than is available with a fisheye, or when one wishes to minimize the distortion found in fisheye shots. I don’t want to use the term rectilinear as that seems to generate superfluous technical comments about how straight is straight. Note that I am not so much talking about the WACP-2, or frankly, even the WACP-1, as their weight and cost and size significantly complicate the issue and are impractical for many hobby users. The point has been raised that a $3000 Sony GM lens in a 230mm, $2100 dome port may match or exceed what a WACP-C and kit lens can do. Perhaps, but we are talking about an expensive, huge, heavy setup that is brand specific. But perhaps it illustrates the potential value of something like a WACP-C. If I can even get close to what that huge, heavy and expensive combination can produce with a WACP-C, is it not perhaps a good option? I think the real “value” in these optics are twofold: 1. I can perhaps obtain with a WACP-C a greater zoom range and somewhere between “almost as good” and “much better” results in a smaller and lighter package, at a similar cost, compared to a 230mm glass port and a quality wide angle zoom lens. (Example: Zen 230mm port and Nikon 16-35 lens and 77mm S&S correction filter $3200. Nauticam WACP-C and Nikon 18-55 lens ($3500). That is a big deal to me. I take several trips a year to dive and take photos, on a variety of aircraft and carriers, and I face luggage weight limitations and carry-on limitations frequently. A 2.2kg optic of 170mm diameter is far more manageable than a 230mm dome port and weighs the same or less. And the cost is similar.I take several trips a year to dive and take photos, on a variety of aircraft, and I face luggage weight limitations and carry-on limitations frequently. A 2.2kg optic of 170mm diameter is far more manageable than a 230mm dome port and weighs the same or less. And the cost is similar. 2. If the WACP-C can allow me to obtain similar results at f8 as I could get with a wide zoom and 230 dome at f11 - f14 (if I was willing to transport one of those with me), then I can get greater flexibility in iso and shutter speed, which can offer creative options for depth of field, greater flexibility when flash is not desired, and possibly faster flash recycling and more shots per set of batteries. It also decreases the chance image degradation due to diffraction, although admittedly that is a minor point in most cases. I know some will dismiss these potential benefits due to the ability of modern cameras to perform well at high iso, but for me, it is a value. So, again, I think when we argue about how a WWL or WACP compares to a fisheye, it misses the point, at least for me. If I get a WACP-C, I will likely still travel with my 8-15 and mini dome. There are times I want the tiny dome and times I want the FE perspective. So, what about the newest debate, WWL vs WACP-C? It certainly appears from some who have actually used these optics, that at least for some formats and perhaps specific lenses, there is not much image quality difference and perhaps only about a ¾ stop benefit to the WACP-C. In my case, my WWL that I purchased for M43, does not work on my Nikon, so it does not matter, but for those with systems that can take either lens, perhaps the WWL is the more reasonable option Unless one is dissatisfied with the WWL. If choosing between the two, weight, size and cost would matter most, I suppose. It would be nice to see some controlled tests, but that will probably be a while. As I think about it, there is a third potential benefit to such a lens, compared to a 230 dome. Many of my dive trips are not on photo-oriented boats or at photo seminars on land and I also visit places I have never before visited. I can't count how many times I have jumped in the water with my mini dome and fisheye and the only things of interest were not really suitable to that lens, or I had a macro lens or a wide angle in a larger dome and found that I wished I was better set up for CFWA. Sometimes these are in situations where I am going to get one dive at that site, so no opportunity to change lenses and go back. I am not sure this is a really big deal, but it is one more situation in which the issue is not simply sharpness of some part of the frame.
  6. That is true. There are a few sites on the south side that the boats will go to when conditions are poor on the north side, but they are not that great. The picture is actually from the cut to the ocean just outside the dive resort and on the south side. We had bad dives on the north for a couple days, then a couple mediocre dives on the south side, then it was too rough everywhere and all dives were cancelled. For Craig, it is also worth noting that on Grand there are other things to do. Little Cayman is truly little with only a couple of non-diving diversions. In any event, the islands closer to North America are more prone to bad weather in winter than the islands to the south. For the most part, in the Caribbean, I look to the Lesser Antilles December to mid-February.
  7. Never dived Aruba. Always heard it was a fun, beach resort kind of island with mediocre diving. have a non-diving friend that was there earlier this year and said the snorkeling wasn't interesting. Besides Curacao, Sint Maarten or Turks and Caicos? But T&C just got hit by a hurricane, so...?? Diving is probably better in Bonaire, but not that much different and there is nothing much to do but dive, hence my Curacao suggestion. Plus if you shore dive you can do so from places that are alos beach resoprts with food, for the non-diving lady. Ostrich farm, casinos, some old plantation tours, Mt. Christoffel, Shete Boca, Aquarium, slave museum (if it is still there), substation (expensive). Or maybe someplace with a sandals resort or something like that? Never been to one. Anywhere in that area I think 80-82 degrees more likely than 85, except maybe near surface.
  8. I was wondering about that, too. I just looked and the 8-15 is listed as compatible with the FTZ adapter. https://www.nikonusa.com/en/nikon-products/camera-lenses/dslr-lenses/index.page Also, Craig, bear in mind that although something like the WACP goes as as wide as 130 degrees, you certainly don't have to shoot it at its widest. From everything you have said, I would consider going with the 8-15 if you are ok with fisheye, but understand that unless you like the circular images, it is basically a 15mm FE lens on full frame. Or take a serious look at the WACP-C with a Nikkor 24-70 lens. I don't think the WACP-C is just for compact cameras at all. Probably works best with Sony full frame, but I am strongly considering getting one to use with my D500 and an 18-55. I am sure it is "less good" compared to the WACP-1, but is the largest/heaviest thing I am willing to carry.
  9. I was of the impression that the WACP-C does not allow focus at infinity in air, making split shots problematic. But I could be remembering incorrectly.
  10. Hergen, thank you for your comment, it provides an interesting insight. If I used the Sony system and was on the fence between the two water contact options, your comments would cause me to lean in the direction of the WWL. It is always helpful to hear from people with actual experience with a product or technique.
  11. I suppose anyone who is interested can watch the video and form their own opinions about what Mr. Lai said. I feel that i have a fairly good grasp of the English language and understood what he was saying. Nevertheless, and going back to my first comment, please share your experiences with the WACP that lead you to state that "in the centre any lens does pretty much the same in fact some rectilinear lenses behind domes are sharper than water contact optics in the centre because the lenses are just better" And understand, Mr. Lai spoke of an increase in performance across the image, not just the very center or the edges. If you can back up your claim that the WACP is no better, and in some instances worse, than a wide angle zoom in a dome, I would like to understand that and what lenses and domes we are speaking of. Having seen Alex's comment above, I would add that if we are somehow talking about the very tiniest bit of the center of an image, it seems largely irrelevant to any real-world discussion, but I would still be interested in the particular lenses and ports in question and how you compared them to a WACP.
  12. https://wetpixel.com/articles/wetpixel-live-intro-to-nauticam-optics At about 17:15 and again around 18:30...WACP has greater detail and contrast throughout the picture, according to Mr. Lai. Suggests a major difference compared to a dome port. Edit to add You may want to actually watch the whole thing.
  13. This is quite different than what Edward Lai told Adam Hanlon and I believe others who have used the WACP have said. I am sure many who may be interested in purchasing one of these products would like to know more. Would love some details on which cameras and lenses you used with the WACP. Was it the WACP -1 or -2 (I assume it was not he -C, since those are not available yet)? Can you share some of your comparison photos or data? It may aid me in deciding if I want o purchase a WACP.
  14. I remember your earlier posts, when you first got the 230mm dome and were displeased about the size. I have simply refused to even consider dealing with it and that was a big factor in going with DX instead of FX when I was ready to upsize from M43. I was surprised that even my primary retailer of dive photo stuff discouraged me from going with full frame, even though that meant less money for them. Although I am happy with my 8-15 or 10-17 in a small domes, there are times I don't want fisheye, and using any wide angle zoom in a 170 or 18o dome invoIves some serious compromises, so I seriously considered getting a WACP-1 last year, going so far as to buy a clean used lens compatible with the WACP, and putting the wacp in my online "shopping cart" several times. After experimenting with how I would transport it safely and what its weight would do to my carry on allowance, I concluded that I just would not be happy trying to transport a 200mm wide, 10lb lens. I also totaled up the weight of camera, housing, arms, strobes and wacp and realized it would be unpleasant carrying that to and from boats or down to the shoreline, and that I would be "that guy" to the boat crews who hand it down to me and take back for each dive. I abandoned the idea. However, the new WACP-C is only 170mm, about the same diameter as the dome I now have, and it only weighs about a pound more than the dome. I can fit it in my carry-on bags. As far as the 130 degree angle of view, you can get some sense from a chart here https://www.nikonians.org/reviews/fov-tables and here https://www.scubapix.com/blog/wacp-wide-angle-conversion-port-explained/ Short answer, though is that a 14mm lens in a dome is about 115 degrees, so 130 is wider. I will need to let someone with a better grasp of geometry provide more detail on comparing diagonal field of view. The wacp port chart shows that you can use the 24-70, and a Nikkor 28-75 but not throughout their entire zoom range, and you can also use a Sony lens with an adapter. I don't know much about lenses for the Z cameras, so cannot add more on that.
  15. Confusing. Nauticam still has his other videos on their site and he is sponsored to some extent by Nauticam. I would think that if his assessment is that the WWL and WACP offer similar results at such different price points, that would not be something nauticam would like to promote. None of this matters to me, as the WWL is not recommended for my equipment, although I still have one I bought to use with M43. It would be interesting to hear more about what Mr. Spalink thinks.
×
×
  • Create New...