Nauticam D850 Housing is smaller then the Nauticam Housing for Nikon Z72?!?

[ido 18]

I am a Nikon shooter. I Have the Nikon D850 and the Nikon Z72.

I am now at the final stage of my research before buying my first UW housing and equipment .

For land photography (wildlife)  I prefer the D850 over the Z72. I was sure that the housing for the Z7 will be smaller and lighter than the housing for the D850. 

Surpassingly I discovered it is the opposite.. Strange... 

Edited February 19, 2021 by ido

[TimG 62]

Strange indeed.

It does speak to the slight myth that having (slightly) smaller cameras leads to smaller equipment underwater. Not so much!

[njdiverjoe 0]

I heard that the reason for the housing being bigger than expected was due to needing to get the FTZ adapter(with it's built-in tripod foot!) in there to accommodate F mount lenses.

[Wira Wijoga 0]

On 2/19/2021 at 9:54 PM, ido said:

I am a Nikon shooter. I Have the Nikon D850 and the Nikon Z72.

I am now at the final stage of my research before buying my first UW housing and equipment .

For land photography (wildlife)  I prefer the D850 over the Z72. I was sure that the housing for the Z7 will be smaller and lighter than the housing for the D850. 

Surpassingly I discovered it is the opposite.. Strange... 

This had me puzzled too. The isotta housing for the z7ii is much smaller compared to the Nauticam regardless needing an extension ring for the ftz . What i dont understand is, most of the sony FF housing, i.e A7s iii (being just a fraction smaller than nikon), their nauticam housing is much smaller vs nikon. The sony a7siii housings are sized similarly between Isotta and Nauticam.     

[Phil Rudin 485]

I think you are trying to make this more complicated than it needs to be. The simple reason that Nauticam housings for Nikon and Canon mirrorless camera  are larger than the Sony housings is that Sony had no competitive DSLR system that could be carried over to mirrorless. C&N DSLR owners already own N120 Ports, extensions and gears so it made sense to allow those accessories to be carried over to new mirrorless housings by giving them N120 port openings. This also allows DSLR lenses to be carried over using an adapter for the new larger mirrorless lens mounts. The difference in the greater depth of the mirrorless housings is also a no brainer. All of the latest mirrorless camera housings take full advantage of the articulating LCD screen, allowing it to be tilted further upward for ease of use. The new Nauticam Sony A1 housing takes full advantage of this feature by allowing the LCD to be fully in view even with the 45 degree optical finder installed on the housing. While surface reviewers bemoan the absence of the front facing LCD on A1 and other cameras it would not allow for the screen to be tilted in the housing. Regarding Sony housings they can be smaller because they are built around the N100 not the N1200 port opening.    

[Wira Wijoga 0]

On 5/7/2021 at 11:18 PM, Phil Rudin said:

I think you are trying to make this more complicated than it needs to be. The simple reason that Nauticam housings for Nikon and Canon mirrorless camera  are larger than the Sony housings is that Sony had no competitive DSLR system that could be carried over to mirrorless. C&N DSLR owners already own N120 Ports, extensions and gears so it made sense to allow those accessories to be carried over to new mirrorless housings by giving them N120 port openings. This also allows DSLR lenses to be carried over using an adapter for the new larger mirrorless lens mounts. The difference in the greater depth of the mirrorless housings is also a no brainer. All of the latest mirrorless camera housings take full advantage of the articulating LCD screen, allowing it to be tilted further upward for ease of use. The new Nauticam Sony A1 housing takes full advantage of this feature by allowing the LCD to be fully in view even with the 45 degree optical finder installed on the housing. While surface reviewers bemoan the absence of the front facing LCD on A1 and other cameras it would not allow for the screen to be tilted in the housing. Regarding Sony housings they can be smaller because they are built around the N100 not the N1200 port opening.    

I thought so too Phil,  and agree those are the reasons when the z7 and z6 first came out 2.5 years ago. However with the mark iis launch and the scheduled Z lens roadmap, I thought it's a missed opportunity for Nauticam to not have a more compact housing for nikon's latest FF (Z7ii/6ii). It was encouraging at first when they launched a much smaller housing for the slightly smaller z50 cam (0.25 inch - W & H) while still allows the use of the FTZ and legacy lenses with an additional port extension).  Im hoping their housing will be more compact for their future Z ff housing although i doubt that would be the case for the upcoming z9 considering that the cam will have a built in vertical grip. 

Edited May 9, 2021 by Wira Wijoga

[ChrisRoss 150]

You can view the housings with cameras installed on Nauticam's website and reviewing this you see that the big reason for the large housing is the clamp mechanism for the separate back of the housing, comparing the two housing/camera images you can see there is some small scope to reduce the size but not to the dimensions of the Isotta Z7 for example which also uses a 120mm port. 

The Nikon Z50 has a 100mm port but it has the same removable back and is still larger than the Isotta Z7 housing (328mm wide vs 282mm wide).  The Nauticam A7C is quiet a bit smaller at 307mm wide and this is largely achieved by using the clamshell style back and also benefits from a less pronounced viewfinder hump, only enough to allow mounting a flash trigger.

To me the limit seems to be the closure style rather than the port series, there are possibly other mechanical limits, but those back closures on the Nauticam do take up a bit of space.

[pbalves 54]

I think there are other points to be considered to the housing not be smaller.

Being smaller, it increases the weight of the system underwater, and it became more hard to have it properly balanced. Of course you can add more floaters, but it is more difficult to handle it.

Being smaller make it even more difficult to organize access to all the button. For this type of cameras the users want to have access to all the possible controls of the camera.

Smaller (and lighter) is nice for the traveling. But most important feature of the housing is to be ergonomic underwater and allow the diver/photog to increase the ratio of keepers.

[Nicool 30]

Interesting conversation! The housing width is something, but when it comes to air travel packing, I found the height of the housing is a bigger constraint.

Recent housings that don't use the pop-up flash have been able to reduce on that side, the next constraint will be that port diameter indeed.

I am curious why we see 120mm diameters being used by manufacturers, as I can't think of a lens that would need that width, even with zoom gear. Maybe the venerable 14-24mm f/2.8 Nikon lens, a pretty large beast, but most would be thinner.

[ChrisRoss 150]

1 hour ago, Nicool said:

Interesting conversation! The housing width is something, but when it comes to air travel packing, I found the height of the housing is a bigger constraint.

Recent housings that don't use the pop-up flash have been able to reduce on that side, the next constraint will be that port diameter indeed.

I am curious why we see 120mm diameters being used by manufacturers, as I can't think of a lens that would need that width, even with zoom gear. Maybe the venerable 14-24mm f/2.8 Nikon lens, a pretty large beast, but most would be thinner.

120mm is the ID of the port sealing surface on the housing not the ID of the port opening.  The Nauticam 230mm N120 done type II was introduced to allow the Canon 11-24mm to fit, the only difference is larger ID on the port opening.  The dome opening often needs to be a little bigger than the lens to allow space for a zoom gear to fit through as well.  The Canon 11-24 is 108mm OD.  The Nikon 14-24 is 98mm OD, so the N100 port would be too small for that one as well, there are probably a few other examples.

[Wira Wijoga 0]

On 5/9/2021 at 11:51 AM, ChrisRoss said:

You can view the housings with cameras installed on Nauticam's website and reviewing this you see that the big reason for the large housing is the clamp mechanism for the separate back of the housing, comparing the two housing/camera images you can see there is some small scope to reduce the size but not to the dimensions of the Isotta Z7 for example which also uses a 120mm port. 

The Nikon Z50 has a 100mm port but it has the same removable back and is still larger than the Isotta Z7 housing (328mm wide vs 282mm wide).  The Nauticam A7C is quiet a bit smaller at 307mm wide and this is largely achieved by using the clamshell style back and also benefits from a less pronounced viewfinder hump, only enough to allow mounting a flash trigger.

To me the limit seems to be the closure style rather than the port series, there are possibly other mechanical limits, but those back closures on the Nauticam do take up a bit of space.

Interesting observation about the clamp mechanism chris ! 

The Nauticam a7c is a dream in term of compactness ! Which is very much in line with one of the benefit of having a mirrorless system.  Maybe this type of housing n mechanism should be the way forward. I hope they have such compact housing for nikon ff mirrorless in the future !  

I think they could have launched a much more compact housing for the z7ii. Knowing that they already could downsized it with the earlier-launched na z50 housing with N100 opening (that allows the use of the FTZ and legacy lenses, preowned ports and gears with just 1 additional port adapter extension N100 to N120) despite only slightly smaller camera than z7ii. 

Edited May 12, 2021 by Wira Wijoga

[njdiverjoe 0]

If you guys want photos of any part of the Nauticam Z7ii housing I'd be happy to snap some for you

[ChrisRoss 150]

10 hours ago, Wira Wijoga said:

Interesting observation about the clamp mechanism chris ! 

The Nauticam a7c is a dream in term of compactness ! Which is very much in line with one of the benefit of having a mirrorless system.  Maybe this type of housing n mechanism should be the way forward. I hope they have such compact housing for nikon ff mirrorless in the future !  

I think they could have launched a much more compact housing for the z7ii. Knowing that they already could downsized it with the earlier-launched na z50 housing despite only slightly smaller camera than z7ii. 

We can speculate all we like, the clamp system seems to be one of their signature features for ease of use, along with overall ergonomics of their housings.  The Z7 is only 10mm difference in width to the D850, but the Z7 hosuing features an M28 bulkhead for HDMI that doesn't feature on the D850 housing and the number and placement of controls is quite different all of which may have an influence on what is feasible while still maintaining the ergonomic features that are a feature of the housing.

The A7C is the first compact clamshell style housing for full frame, if it proves popular it may convince Nauticam there is a market for a smaller housing with a full frame sensor.

But we also need to consider the A7C has a lens that can utilise the WWL rather than a WACP.  Making a compact housing doesn't save you anywhere near as much overall bulk and weight if you need to mate it with big domes or even the WACP, which is currently the case for the Nikon and Canon lenses currently available.  Getting something the size of the A7C would need Nikon or Canon to produce a full frame body of the similar dimensions and also to have a lens that could mate with a WWL I think to allow production of something fully comparable.

[Phil Rudin 485]

While I agree that the A7C housing was able to be reduced in size due to the clam shell (hinged on one side) locking system I don't agree that the Nauticam locking system is what makes the housing larger. 

The Nauticam housing for the new Sony A1 and all other Sony FF housings have the N100 mount and use the same locking system as the Nikon Z7 II/Z6 II  housing which uses an N120 port system. Surprise, surprise the width of the Sony housing is 20mm less than the Nikon housing with the N120 port mount.  

The idea that the Canon 11-24mm F/4 and Nikon 14-24mm F/2.8 can't be used with the N100 port mount is also incorrect. The Sony FE 12-24mm F/2.8 is 97.6mm OD, while the Canon 11-24 F/4 is 108mm and the Nikon 14-24mm F/2.8 is 98mm OD the problem again is not with the lens because all of these lenses can be mounted from the front of the housing. 

The big difference is that Nauticam's top recommendation or best results for the Canon and Nikon lenses is the 250mm dome port while the Sony only needs the 230mm dome port for like results. I have been advised by the design team that because the distance from the rear of the mirrorless lens to the sensor is much shorter than with a DSLR or Mirrorless with an adapted DSLR lens the port can be smaller assuming a full frame sensor. 

Also consider that at 847g for Sony v. 1180g Canon and 1000g Nikon you have less weight to offset so the housing can be smaller. If you add the extra weight of the 100 meter 230mm port at 2.67k v. the 40 meter 250mm at 2.81k (250mm 100 meter port weight not listed) that is even more weight to travel with. 

All this brings me back to my original premiss that Nauticam chose the N120 mount system for Canon and Nikon mirrorless so that the large C&N section of the Nauticam community could migrate over from DSLR's without needing to buy new ports, extensions and gears.

Also as a point so no one will be confused the Sony FE 28-60mm which was released with the Sony A7C also works just as well with all Sony mirrorless cameras and allows the Nauticam WWL-1/1B to be used with any Sony FF camera. 

 

[adamhanlon 0]

2 hours ago, Phil Rudin said:

I have been advised by the design team that because the distance from the rear of the mirrorless lens to the sensor is much shorter than with a DSLR or Mirrorless with an adapted DSLR lens the port can be smaller assuming a full frame sensor. 

This is an interesting idea. Taken at first value, it seem to mean that full frame mirrorless camera, with a specific mirrorless lens has a greater depth of field than SLRs? Of course, mirrorless lenses will be optimized for their sensor to rear lens element distance, but my (somewhat intuitive) thought is that moving the lens and sensor closer together would tend to exacerbate the curvature of the virtual image as presented to the sensor and make corner sharpness a bigger problem?

Of course, this is very off topic, for which my humblest apologies.  

[Phil Rudin 485]

Thanks for jumping in Adam, I think the idea is the same as with smaller sensor mirrorless cameras. The recommended port size for the Olympus M43 7-14mm is 180mm while the Nikon 14-24mm is 250mm. Both lenses have the same 114 AOV but the corners are as sharp or sharper with the smaller port on M43. I agree in part that this is due to greater DOF with the M43 system but I think other issues are involved as well. 

I think it has more to do with modern lens design than with extra DOF. When Canon and Nikon went to full frame DSLR's from film they used the film mount and tried at first to convince film owners that their film lenses would work just as well on digital as they did on film. As we all know that did not turnout to be the case for the most part and the wider the film lens the worse the performance on digital. I would be willing to bet that the best wide lenses for DSLR's are the ones that were designed for DSLR cameras. Also I would be willing to bet that most full frame DSLR users have long ago ditched their wide film lenses for more modern designs, the Nikonos RS 13mm being the exception. 

All three of the lenses I referenced above 11-24, 12-24 F/2.8 and 14-24 F/2.8 have excellent field reviews out of the water so the corner issues related to proper port size remain constant. I trust that if Edward Lai thought the $3000.00 Sony FE 12-24mm F/2.8 preformed better with the 250mm port he would have recommended it. My conversation regarding the shorter distance from lens to sensor v dome size was with Zen Underwater. Adam, when Edward does another video talk with you perhaps you could ask him about this issue I would be keen to hear his thoughts. 

[Wira Wijoga 0]

12 hours ago, Phil Rudin said:

All this brings me back to my original premiss that Nauticam chose the N120 mount system for Canon and Nikon mirrorless so that the large C&N section of the Nauticam community could migrate over from DSLR's without needing to buy new ports, extensions and gears.

Thanks for sharing the interesting insight from the design team Phil ! 

Makes me wonder even more that they did not opt with N100  when they launched the housing for z7ii  last Jan. Knowing that nikon mirrorrless lens wide angle 14-30mm been launched since 2 years ago and 14-24mm nov 2020 and that nikon already announced the lens roadmap for their macro lens when the z7ii was launched last oct. (Nikon doesnt have native z fisheye yet, but neither does sony, and the F mount 8-15mm works well with the ftz). 

If to begin with, their setup was already travel oriented (i.e wide/fisheye dome 4.33, 140mm or even 180mm & macro port 60 with extension 30).

As it is, with the nauticam Nikon z50 housing, Nikon apsc dslr nauticam shooters have the option to migrate to a much more compact travel friendly mirrorless apsc system N100 mount. (with only having to buy 1 port adapter N100 to N120, and still be able to use their already owned gears and ports) https://www.nauticam.com/pages/n100-nikon-z-mount-dx-format-port-chart .

This option currently not available to nauticam Nikon FF shooters as the only option is the larger na z7ii/z6ii housing which was sized similarly W &H with the nikon's D850 instead of with i.e  much smaller Sony a7siii housing that has m24 opening (camera body is only 4mm smaller W&H). 

Not unless changing to other housing brands, which currently uncomplicated for some with the help of port mount adapters that would negate the need of buying new ports.    

  

Edited May 12, 2021 by Wira Wijoga

[ChrisRoss 150]

On the issue of mirrorless lenses with smaller flange lengths (distance from lens to sensor, this does not give any inherent advantage for UW work and does not change depth of field at constant sensor size.  That is purely a function of image magnification and f stop. 

Wide angle lenses for DSLRs are all retrofocus design - simple lenses focus at about the focal length of the lens from the image plane so with a flange distance of at least 40mm on a DSLR, any lens with a shorter focal length can't focus on the sensor unless it is a retrofocus design.  These retrofocus lenses are complicated to design and introduce more compromises into the lens design.  This is why traditionally rangefinder WA lenses (like Leica)  had such a great reputation, they were not retro focus lenses.

As Phil mentioned film lenses often did not translate well to digital - one reason is the microlenses on each pixel work best when light hits the sensor perpendicular, film WA lenses often had the rays hitting the corners at quite an angle leading to abberations.  Also as we got into higher MP counts, sensors started to out resolve film, showing up weaknesses in design.  Also with digital, people could load their images into photoshop, examine them at 100% and obsess over the image quality in the corners.

What lowering the flange distance on mirrorless does is allow designers more degrees of freedom, the retrofocus designs are less severe and they now have the ability to add corrective elements to get the light rays closer to perpendicular in the corners.  This means there can be an overall increase in quality of lenses for wide angle. 

One thing that is not often talked about is curvature of field, lenses will not necessarily have a flat plane of sharpest focus,  the lens designer relies upon the user stopping down the lens for depth of field and it is less of an issue.  The plane of sharpest focus can bend towards the camera or away.  If it bends towards the camera that will help get the edge of the virtual image in focus - if it bends away it will make things worse.  This links discusses:  https://petapixel.com/2016/12/21/field-curvature-tricky-problem-photography/

This could easily be the reason some lenses don't play well behind domes.  It is not enough to be an issue on land but the aberrations are additive and can make a marginal situation worse when combined with a curved virtual image.  I don't have any evidence for that but it could well explain why some lenses are better behind domes.

To be clear on the N100 vs N120 port issue you can indeed use the large lenses on N100 but you need the N100-N120 converter in the mix and can't insert the camera with lens attached on those large lenses.  And as Phil rightly points out why bring out a new housing which forces users to change ports If they have to go from N120 to N100 they might also decide another housing looks like it is worth trying out.

On the issue of m43 vs full frame, a lot of the difference can be put down to depth of field, in addition m43 wide lenses are indeed very good quality and need to be sharp wide open as stopping down is not necessary for depth of field and in any case they soon move into diffraction and they have the added bonus that the image circle is smaller so it's easier to get the plane of focus flat for the lens designer.

[Phil Rudin 485]

I would also point out that M43 lenses are not dealing with 45-60+ MP sensors and many may fall short if M43 sensors in the 40MP range ever arrive. 

In the case of the Canon and Nikon mirrorless offerings I think Nauticam made a wise choice sticking with the N120 mount even if it makes the housings noticeably larger. I have seen mutinies in the forums when camera manufactures released a new body with a battery upgrade, followed by endless bitching about owning four and five of the old batteries being replaced. 

I like the N100 for Sony and the N85 for M43 because legacy lenses were not a significant issue so Nauticam was able to build the systems around a clean slate. Also the reason I moved to M43 from film, M43 lenses are "full Frame" as in made for the sensor size not film lenses adapted to 35mm or APS-C with a crop factor. 

My macro lenses for Sony use N100 ports and my dome ports for wide lenses use the N100 to N120 II adapter. The change from the original adapter to the N100-N120 II also caused some to bitch because they had to buy a new adapter to move forward from a rather pathetic battery to a larger much more user friendly battery, hence the need for the II adapter to accommodate the deeper battery grip.

  

[Wira Wijoga 0]

On 5/12/2021 at 2:18 PM, ChrisRoss said:

To be clear on the N100 vs N120 port issue you can indeed use the large lenses on N100 but you need the N100-N120 converter in the mix and can't insert the camera with lens attached on those large lenses.  And as Phil rightly points out why bring out a new housing which forces users to change ports If they have to go from N120 to N100 they might also decide another housing looks like it is worth trying out.

Hi Chris,

On the nikon case, with N100 z50 housing with the additional N100 to 120 adapter, is it really that we wont be able to insert the camera with lens attached say with the largest native z 14-24mm F2.8s (89mm diameter) or the F (dx) mount Nikon 10-24mm (83mm) ? 

thanks ia

 

Edited May 14, 2021 by Wira Wijoga

[ChrisRoss 150]

Depends on the diameter of the lens, the specs say that the F mount 14-24 is 98mm I would expect  it wouldn't go through.  The Z mount version says 89mm and I guess that one would fit.

The ID of the housing opening is as I understand it is 100mm and the walls and locking mechanism and bayonet will take up space so the ID will likely be something like 96mm or possibly a little less.  The limiting factor will be the locking mechanism inside the N100 extensions if they are used - N120 extensions won't be a problem.  I expect most other lenses will fit through.

The lenses that don't fit through an N100 port require installing the body without lens then the N100-N120 adapter/extensions, then the lens followed by an N120 port.  The lens are normally largest at the front so the lens mount end and zoom gear will fit through the smaller port.  So, it's possible but not as convenient but it only applies to a handful of lenses.

[Wira Wijoga 0]

13 hours ago, ChrisRoss said:

Depends on the diameter of the lens, the specs say that the F mount 14-24 is 98mm I would expect  it wouldn't go through.  The Z mount version says 89mm and I guess that one would fit.

The ID of the housing opening is as I understand it is 100mm and the walls and locking mechanism and bayonet will take up space so the ID will likely be something like 96mm or possibly a little less.  The limiting factor will be the locking mechanism inside the N100 extensions if they are used - N120 extensions won't be a problem.  I expect most other lenses will fit through.

The lenses that don't fit through an N100 port require installing the body without lens then the N100-N120 adapter/extensions, then the lens followed by an N120 port.  The lens are normally largest at the front so the lens mount end and zoom gear will fit through the smaller port.  So, it's possible but not as convenient but it only applies to a handful of lenses.

Thanks for the Info Chris,

Found this website http://www.cameradecision.com and did some checking just now n glad to know my Nikkor 8-15 and 16-35 diameters are all less than 89mm. Fortunately all of the listed suggested wide-zoom lenses on nikon nauti port chart with /less wide than 16mm, the diameters are all less than 90mm.  All of the fisheyes (and apsc dx) lenses are smaller and should be ok too, with the Nikkor 8-15 being the largest vs tokina 10-17, sigma 15, and nikkor 16.    

As you suggested, seems like it applies to  some of the wide zoom nikon FF mount (FX) with FL between 12-15mm and has around 90mm+ that might be affected.

Thanks !