Jump to content
pooley

Nauticam WWL with full frame Canon

Recommended Posts

Hi, 

 

Just wondered  if anybody out there had any knowledge  of if the Nauticam WWL-1 can be used on Canon full frame, 

Basically,  I have a Nikon D500 housed  in a Nauticam for underwater use and am very happy with it,  and hadn't really thought of changing it, However, I couldn't take to using Nikon  gear topside  (long time Canon user here) and have ended up with an R5 - again I'm very happy using this for topside wildlife. 

It's got me thinking though as I've always fancied trying out the  Nauticam wet contact lenses. I could house the R5  and at a push I could stretch to the WACP. Only problem I can see with the WACP1 (apart  from  the cost obviously!) is  the weight for air travel, so much of that could be negated with the WWL-1. With that lens now supporting the Sony 28-60mm I thought  there may be an  option to use a similar Canon lens, but  there is no mention of it anywhere on the web. 

Unfortunately I'm not in a position to test the gear  myself, but (covid permitting) my next travel is planned to be Maldives, Florida, then Gualadloupe for the GWS so I think the water contact lenses  wold give  perfect shooting options

Anyone heard any whispers?

Mike

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Currently with the Nikon Z mirrorless cameras the only lens that can be used with the WACP where you can get full zoom through, 130 to 59 degrees is using the Sony FE 28-70mm and Techart Sony E to Nikon Z adapter. This works because the Nikon port mount is larger than the Sony port mount so the adapter mounts like a lens to the camera and then the Sony lens mounts to the adapter. With a Nauticam housings this requires a zoom gear for the Techart/Sony combo, so not the same zoom gear used with the lens in a Sony housing. I expect that you could also use the same Techart adapter with the Sony FE 28-60mm and WWL-1 if Nauticam makes a gear going forward but that remains to be seen. I expect that Nauticam may be the only housing manufacture to offer such a gear and lens combo. 

Sony's mount is 46.1mm while Canon RF is 54mm and Nikon Z is 55mm perhaps someone like Techart will make a Sony E to Canon RF at some point but you would still need a zoom gear that works for the Sony 28-60 zoom. The reason that the Sony lens works at all is that like most of the lenses that work well with the WACP the lens design is simple but it is also very small in diameter with a filter thread size of only 40.5mm smaller than many M43 lenses. I doubt that Canon will likely offer an RF lens this small. Unlike many the older 28-70mm range lenses from Canon and Nikon used on most DSLR cameras for the WACP the Sony 28-60 mm can actually AF at up to 30 FPS the new high speed frame rate coming on the Sony A-1. While this only works in compressed RAW or Jpeg it is still faster than any kit lens I am aware of.    

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nauticam don't list any lenses for full frame Canon and the WWL.  If any lens was going to work with it it would probably be something like the 28-70 f3.5-4.5 II or the 28-80 models.  Those lens is listed with the WACP-1 and have a zoom gear.  But first you need to find a flat port that fits it well and you'd need to test it. to be sure.  In addition to having a port of the right length to deal with vignetting, I believe there are entrance pupil requirements and the lens needs to not change length too much to not hit the port glass when zooming in. 

Unfortunately there doesn't appear to be anyone who has tested this despite extensive google search, it either has not been tested or the available Canon lenses do not meet Nauticam's quality requirements when used with the WWL.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I really don't think that gear availability should be a hindrance to anyone using a lens, as long as it is compatible. It is really easy to adapt existing gears or completely design new gears using 3d printing. When I bought my setup used it only came with a gear for the Olympus 12-40 lens but I wanted to use the Panasonic 8-18 lens. I just designed an adapter that made the old gear fit onto the new lens. Got the adapter printed by a 3d-printing service.

I'm a teacher by trade and I don't have any sort of engineering back ground. If I can do it, anyone can.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If the Sony FE 28-70 works with WACP-1 but not with WWL-1 I doubt that a Canon or Nikon FF 28-70/80 will work with WWL-1. As Chris points out the Sony 28-60 needs the N100 45 flat port to work with the WWL-1. This is a new Nauticam port designed specifically for this lens to be used with WWL-1, CMC-1 & 2 for any Sony full frame camera. It really shines when used with the Sony A7c and Nauticam NA-A7C housing. Combined this makes the smallest full frame U/W camera system to date and is as small as many M4:3 camera systems.

For the Sony 28-60 lens to be used with Canon or Nikon mirrorless cameras like the R5 in the original post Nauticam would need to offer a 45 flat port in the N120 size plus the originally mentioned lens adapter and zoom gear. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 hours ago, ChrisRoss said:

Nauticam don't list any lenses for full frame Canon and the WWL.  If any lens was going to work with it it would probably be something like the 28-70 f3.5-4.5 II or the 28-80 models.  Those lens is listed with the WACP-1 and have a zoom gear.  But first you need to find a flat port that fits it well and you'd need to test it. to be sure.  In addition to having a port of the right length to deal with vignetting, I believe there are entrance pupil requirements and the lens needs to not change length too much to not hit the port glass when zooming in. 

Unfortunately there doesn't appear to be anyone who has tested this despite extensive google search, it either has not been tested or the available Canon lenses do not meet Nauticam's quality requirements when used with the WWL.

 

 

22 hours ago, Phil Rudin said:

Currently with the Nikon Z mirrorless cameras the only lens that can be used with the WACP where you can get full zoom through, 130 to 59 degrees is using the Sony FE 28-70mm and Techart Sony E to Nikon Z adapter. This works because the Nikon port mount is larger than the Sony port mount so the adapter mounts like a lens to the camera and then the Sony lens mounts to the adapter. With a Nauticam housings this requires a zoom gear for the Techart/Sony combo, so not the same zoom gear used with the lens in a Sony housing. I expect that you could also use the same Techart adapter with the Sony FE 28-60mm and WWL-1 if Nauticam makes a gear going forward but that remains to be seen. I expect that Nauticam may be the only housing manufacture to offer such a gear and lens combo. 

Sony's mount is 46.1mm while Canon RF is 54mm and Nikon Z is 55mm perhaps someone like Techart will make a Sony E to Canon RF at some point but you would still need a zoom gear that works for the Sony 28-60 zoom. The reason that the Sony lens works at all is that like most of the lenses that work well with the WACP the lens design is simple but it is also very small in diameter with a filter thread size of only 40.5mm smaller than many M43 lenses. I doubt that Canon will likely offer an RF lens this small. Unlike many the older 28-70mm range lenses from Canon and Nikon used on most DSLR cameras for the WACP the Sony 28-60 mm can actually AF at up to 30 FPS the new high speed frame rate coming on the Sony A-1. While this only works in compressed RAW or Jpeg it is still faster than any kit lens I am aware of.    

Thanks lads it was worth a try but it looks like I need to stump up for the  WACP1 and excess baggage or stick with the D500 (not exactly a hardship seeing as I like the gear!)

 

The technical side of setting up doesn't mean too much to me but I do enjoy reading exchanges like this that teach me stuff I don't know

 

thanks again

 

Mike

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/20/2021 at 4:37 PM, pooley said:

 

Thanks lads it was worth a try but it looks like I need to stump up for the  WACP1 and excess baggage or stick with the D500 (not exactly a hardship seeing as I like the gear!)

 

The technical side of setting up doesn't mean too much to me but I do enjoy reading exchanges like this that teach me stuff I don't know

 

thanks again

 

Mike

 

Or sell the D500 rig and get a Sony a7c and WWL-1. You could probably do that and net out for less money than buying a WACP, and have a more travel-friendly rig, in the process.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
46 minutes ago, stuartv said:

 

Or sell the D500 rig and get a Sony a7c and WWL-1. You could probably do that and net out for less money than buying a WACP, and have a more travel-friendly rig, in the process.

Good luck with that! A second hand D500 and a Nauticam housing? $1500. Maybe.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, TimG said:

Good luck with that! A second hand D500 and a Nauticam housing? $1500. Maybe.

He's talking about a WACP. That's $4500.

$4500 + 1500 from selling the D500 will get you an a7c, a WWL-1, and probably a housing and some other stuff, too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't see any advantage in (any of) the a7's over the D500 for general underwater use.

It is (in my opinion) still the best camera around for taking pictures underwater. Better lens choices, better autofocus, very adequate resolution, IQ and ISO performance, good battery life, dual memory card slots, better viewfinder (OK, subjective if you like EVFs...)

Please note my use of the word "general" If you want/need a camera to shoot video, huge wide angle scenes, low light etc, there are better choices. 

My understanding with the WWL family is that compatibility is based on the the physical size of the lens' entry pupil. This is why it will work with some lenses and not others. 

Adam

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, adamhanlon said:

I don't see any advantage in (any of) the a7's over the D500 for general underwater use.

It is (in my opinion) still the best camera around for taking pictures underwater. Better lens choices, better autofocus, very adequate resolution, IQ and ISO performance, good battery life, dual memory card slots, better viewfinder (OK, subjective if you like EVFs...)

Please note my use of the word "general" If you want/need a camera to shoot video, huge wide angle scenes, low light etc, there are better choices. 

My understanding with the WWL family is that compatibility is based on the the physical size of the lens' entry pupil. This is why it will work with some lenses and not others. 

Adam

 

 

Interesting!

Where is the a7-series deficient in lens choices? Non-native fisheye? I think i've read that criticism. Is there no alternative lens that can be used effectively for that? Are there other lenses missing from the catalog of what you'd consider "necessary" for u/w shooting?

How is the D500 autofocus better than the AF on any of the current models of the a7-series? Yours is the first comment I've seen that any 5-year old camera body has better AF than any of the latest a7 lineup. I usually see Sony a7 AF touted as market-leading. Is the D500 AF faster? More accurate? More flexible in some way that makes it more useful underwater?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

SLRs always have the physical advantage of being able to offer phase detect off chip autofocus and a separate AF sensor. It has been frequently discussed here on Wetpixel and elsewhere, but on-chip phase detect is not (yet) as accurate, nor as fast. The D5/D850 and D500 all use the same AF system and are, for the moment, better than anything that is being used anywhere else, with the possible exception of the D6. 

AF is (for me) very much one of the most important factors to consider for underwater photography. Not only is the medium technically challenging, but due to needing a housing, we are somewhat forced into using it. 

When I hear of experienced and talented underwater photographers needing to switch to MF for macro with the Sony full frame cameras, this seems like a huge step backwards. I haven't used my Nikon SLRs in MF since the D2Xs!

There is currently no viable fisheye option for the Sony full frame mirrorless, unless you go with manual focus. In itself, this is (for me) a deal breaker for underwater use. You can use water contact optics, but none of them currently  offer a full 180° fisheye FOV. The Sony 90mm macro is not brilliant either, with a reputation for hunting. I believe it is better on the newer cameras however.

I use both 105mm and 60mm macro lenses a fair bit, and the lack of the latter for Sony is another drawback.

For what it is worth, I would level the same criticisms to Nikon's Z series. Nikon has announced native 105mm and 50mm macro lenses, so once these are on the market this addresses some of the lens availability issues and being able to use the 8-15mm fisheye with the FTZ adaptor does at least provide a viable fisheye option. The AF on the Z6/Z7 felt like the AF on a D800 (2012). I gather the Z6II and Z7II are much improved, but cannot back this up with actual use. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, adamhanlon said:

There is currently no viable fisheye option for the Sony full frame mirrorless, unless you go with manual focus.

Plenty of people report great performance with Canon 8-15mm via Metabones, and Tokina 10-17mm on the APS-C bodies.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Plenty of people report great performance with Canon 8-15mm via Metabones, and Tokina 10-17mm on the APS-C bodies.

Yes it works fine I have seen images from people on my same boat and they were not even advanced
Canon ef lenses for Sony work well and there is no need for any native lens


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, adamhanlon said:

There is currently no viable fisheye option for the Sony full frame mirrorless, unless you go with manual focus. In itself, this is (for me) a deal breaker for underwater use. You can use water contact optics, but none of them currently  offer a full 180° fisheye FOV. The Sony 90mm macro is not brilliant either, with a reputation for hunting. I believe it is better on the newer cameras however.

News to me, I must be doing something wrong!:scratch:

I've been using a Sony a7RIV for just over a year now.  I use Canon 8-15 fisheye on a Metabones converter (and occasionally with Sony 1.4X teleconverter as well).  Autofocus works fine (better than when I used the same lens on a Canon 7D Mkii).  Never even contemplated having to use manual focus.  I also use the Sony 90 macro,  no hunting whatsoever and sharp as a tack.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, the crucial missing word was "native." My apologies.

By using an adaptor, by definition you lose the optical advantages of the reduced lens:sensor distance that mirrorless offers. By using an adaptor, you do not gain any optical advantage over using the same lens on an SLR. I guess an interesting AF comparison would be back to back with the newer Canons? 

It is good to hear that the a7Riv seems to have fixed some of the focusing issues with the 90mm.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The optical advantage is really just an advantage in lens design opportunities. And that doesn't necessarily mean higher quality but also maybe smaller size for similar optical properties or otherwise. If there is no glass in the adapter - and there isn't - there will be no difference optically. There may be in terms of AF ranging from complete incompatibility through much slower operation all the way to no noticeable difference. 

There have been plenty of people reporting that lenses are even faster on newer bodies despite the adapter, just because of the advances in tech in the camera bodies.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The various adapters are just spacers that hold the lens the distance from the sensor that it was designed to operate at.  Canon EF lenses are designed to operate on Canon dSLR's with a certain lens/sensor distance.  Putting a Canon EF lens on a Sony mirrorless camera with a spacer holding it the same distance from the sensor will result in no loss of image quality from the lens.  If I wanted to use my Canon 8-15 on one of the Canon R series mirrorless cameras I would still have to use an adapter such as the Canon Mount Adapter EF-EOS R.

A cheaper option for a FF fisheye on Sony mirrorless cameras is the Sigma 15mm fisheye with Canon mount on a Sigma MC11 adapter.  Works out cheaper than a Canon 8-15 fisheye alone.  I have a friend who has just started using this combination on a Sony a7RIII.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Gudge said:

The various adapters are just spacers that hold the lens the distance from the sensor that it was designed to operate at. 

Optically this is correct and without any lens elements in the way performance is going to be equivalent to what it was on a native mount camera, but there are various electronics involved to allow for example a Sony camera to operate the diaphragm and the auto focus of a Canon EF lens.  It has to translate the commands being issued from one system to another system. 

The main point is you need to read the fine print, the Canon 8-15 is reported to work very well on Sony and other cameras with the metabones.  The Nikon mount sigma 15mm as another extreme example cannot be used on the FTZ adapter on Z series nikons as it doesn't have a focus motor.    The AF for fisheyes and wide angle lenses in most cases is very snappy as it is not that demanding, macro lenses are more demanding particularly as you approach 1:1 and may not perform as well on adapters.

Having reports from someone who has already done it is really invaluable and the adapter manufacturers will often report limitations for certain lenses.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Borrowed from elsewhere, but this shows why "native" e (or M or Z) mount lenses leverage the optical advantages of the mount system (and why using adaptors means that you lose the optical advantages of mirrorless designs....)

Using SLR lenses means that, at best, you will get the same optical performance as you would on an SLR. 

"Shorter flange distance allows lenses to be placed closer to the sensor, which in itself allows lens manufacturers to start building simpler, smaller, lighter and less expensive short focus lenses instead of the retrofocus types. In addition, the throat diameter combined with flange distance determines the maximum possible angle of incidence of the marginal rays from the lens, which is important in designing lenses – generally, the larger the angle of incidence, the easier it is to make high-performance lenses"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is true, but when speaking of adapted lenses for which there is no mirrorless alternative it doesn’t really make a difference. It really just means that in theory a smaller lens with the same functionality or better is possible. But right now it really is just that. A possibility. If you are happy with the lens on a DSLR you might as well use it on mirrorless. It‘s going to be a long long time until we get a native fisheye, let alone a fisheye zoom for FF mirrorless.

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Warning Off topic!

11 hours ago, hyp said:

If you are happy with the lens on a DSLR you might as well use it on mirrorless. It‘s going to be a long long time until we get a native fisheye, let alone a fisheye zoom for FF mirrorless.

Or...you could stick with the SLR until there are native options available...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yep. If you're happy with SLRs I would suggest exactly that. Personally I prefer the EVF and I also prefer the slightly more compact size, as a camera for me always is for above and below water. Definitely no point in going after the latest and greatest just for the sake of it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The reason why the Sony 28mm full frame works with the WWL-1 is because the lens is very small and has 40mm filter thread which means the WWL-1 is ok with it

When you look at APSC there are some lens that might work but full frame is not an option as all lenses are over 62mm so too big once you factor a zoom

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sponsors

Advertisements



×
×
  • Create New...