Jump to content
pooley

Nauticam WWL with full frame Canon

Recommended Posts

Hey Mike
I'm using the same setup: D500 with either the 8-15 or the Tokina 10-17 plus a Kenko 1.4 TC. As you may have read in previous posts, it's a different Kenko TC needed for those two lenses (annoyingly!). I find it hard to tell the difference in IQ between the two lenses.
Like you, I prefer FF topside but was convinced by Adam of the benefit of DX underwater (having moved from the D800 to the D500) and I think Adam was right.
So what are you now trying to achieve? Adding the 1.4 TC to your 8-15 will give you approx 18-33mm on DX; if you had the inexpensive Tokina you'd have approx 15-25mm. Adam reported that the Nikkor 10-24 is very good with DX. I don't know what it's like (or which one it would need) with the 1.4 TC but that would produce 14-35.
It would seem an over-egged and hugely expensive jump to get, say, an FF Nikkor 16-35 which would give you 24-52 on DX (a bit pointless, I'd argue).
 
Hi Tim, first thigs first- ready for the derby on Sunday

I might look at adding a rectilinear as an alternative, I'll do some research as I'll not be getting wet anytime soon sadly.

I was just musing over how much of an improvement I would get switching to water corrected optics over what I already have, along with the flexibility offered with the zoom through focal range on offer with the likes of a WACP.

Problem is, its really difficult to put into words the differences, especially with all the different shooting conditions we go into. Everyone seems to rave about the WACP but it's not really something that's easy to quantify on paper.

Maybe I just stick with what I have, it's not like I have a poor setup.

Up the blues

Mike

Sent from my SM-G973F using Tapatalk

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, pooley said:

Hi Tim, first thigs first- ready for the derby on Sunday emoji6.png

I might look at adding a rectilinear as an alternative, I'll do some research as I'll not be getting wet anytime soon sadly.

I was just musing over how much of an improvement I would get switching to water corrected optics over what I already have, along with the flexibility offered with the zoom through focal range on offer with the likes of a WACP.

Problem is, its really difficult to put into words the differences, especially with all the different shooting conditions we go into. Everyone seems to rave about the WACP but it's not really something that's easy to quantify on paper.

Maybe I just stick with what I have, it's not like I have a poor setup.

Up the blues emoji123.png

Mike

Sent from my SM-G973F using Tapatalk
 

Hey Mike

Always ready for the derby. Win that and I think the title is ours :P

You are right of course about the difficulty of comparing and also, in my view, quantifying the improvement. As you say, you have got an excellent setup. Would a move to, say WACP, really offer that much improvement given the cost? So hard to say without actually doing it. It seems to come down to possible small gain at huge cost. But then it's so nice to plan, exploring, research....

I must admit (to myself if not to my partner) that I have made a number of "sound investments" in my gear over the years which, after a few dives, I've thought... errrr....  (Rectilinear with a D800 and 230 dome was one of them!)

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, hyp said:

Thank you for your reply. I was in fact aware of the problem with advertisement money and products coming from the same guy. Many specialist publications have that same problem and if you look general diving magazines, I have yet to see a negativ review published on anything. 

I understand it cannot be changed, but it is unfortunate for those of us, who have to juggle cost with image quality to find an acceptable compromise. Sometimes a product may not be anywhere near to the standard of a Nauticam Housing or Wetlens, but might still be a good fit for someone with limited funds. These kind of products barely get any reviews (apart from people copy/pasting the spec sheet). In the end you will only see how much worse a cheap product is, once you hold it in your own hands.

The other unfortunate fact is the way that UWPMAG is published. The pdf format means that high rez images are not available and wetpixels forum image quality is not helping here either. You probably have a whole host of test images that are inaccessible to the public and I wish they could be made more available.

In general, while i enjoy reading through UWPMAG and while I see the benefit of publishing a print-like edition, I think there is also a good reason why modern online publications are not published that way.

HYP, 

First I have done 92 reviews to date for UWPMAG which include a verity of equipment from thirty different equipment manufactures. This is not the only magazine I have worked for and not the only format in which my images have been published. I try to obtain a verity of equipment at different price points but it is not always easy. I personally own Sony full frame cameras but way more than fifty percent of the equipment I review each year on average comes from other manufactures. Items I am given on loan for the peruse of these reviews. I have had a number of companies turn down my request for review equipment so it becomes more complicated to review some of the items I would like too. 

Second at least half of the equipment I have reviewed came from manufactures that have not spent a dime of advertising money in the magazines I have worked for. My goal and the goal of UWPMAG is to publish detailed and well balanced reviews on the latest equipment to hit the market. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe you misunderstood me and if then I apologize. I wasn't trying to attack your work. As I said you are one of the very few people doing worthwhile reviews at all. I was just bemoaning the fact that unlike above water cameras (who have a much larger market) we are much more limited in the amount and detail of the reviews we get. I understand the realities and reasons behind this (smaller market / much higher complexity), but it is unfortunate anyways.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, hyp said:

Maybe you misunderstood me and if then I apologize. I wasn't trying to attack your work. As I said you are one of the very few people doing worthwhile reviews at all. I was just bemoaning the fact that unlike above water cameras (who have a much larger market) we are much more limited in the amount and detail of the reviews we get. I understand the realities and reasons behind this (smaller market / much higher complexity), but it is unfortunate anyways.

No offense taken I wish we had a larger voice in the market as well.  

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, Phil Rudin said:

No offense taken I wish we had a larger voice in the market as well.  

Amen!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Quote

What most don't understand is that Wetpixel, UWPMAG.com and other take advertising dollars from they very people we source the equipment from

I'm not sure where this comment is going, but I need to stress that we do not and never will allow advertising incomes to influence the outcome of reviews. We have lost advertisers because of reviews in the past, and will do so again if they tie a favorable review to their spend. 

Our lack of reviews is because we are currently locked down and have been unable to travel for a year...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@pooley

Water contact optics are awesome, but the truly wonderful news is that you do not really need them! 

Take for example Raja Ampat, home of some of the most amazing and photogenic reefs on the planet. If my goal was to shoot only wide angle scenics, there is no doubt that the D850 (insert FF of your choice), the WACP, and some big heavy strobes would be my preferred best tools for the job. But...if I was planning to shoot some macro, some splits in the mangroves and maybe some fish portraits, I would chose the D500. 

If you take one camera on a trip to do it all, I think it is unbeatable. Of course, if you travel with two set ups...take the full frame/WACP too!

Adam

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
47 minutes ago, adamhanlon said:

 

I'm not sure where this comment is going, but I need to stress that we do not and never will allow advertising incomes to influence the outcome of reviews. We have lost advertisers because of reviews in the past, and will do so again if they tie a favorable review to their spend. 

Our lack of reviews is because we are currently locked down and have been unable to travel for a year...

Adam we are on the same page when it comes to the content of reviews. I don't request free stuff from manufactures and I don't allow the manufactures to read my reviews any sooner than when the new magazine is posted. I do at times ask for assistance in answering questions I may have about some pieces of equipment as many come to me before the manual has been released. My comment about advertising dollars is that I personally don't want to compare items of equipment that are completely different. I have used the 65MP Phase-one and Nauticam housing but I see no upside to a review comparing it to the Canon SL3 I reviewed recently. I have also reviewed the Nauticam housing for the Sony A7R IV and the review you posted in Wetpixel for the Aquatica housing for the same camera. Even if I wanted to do a comparison review and I do not the logistics of having both systems in house at the same time adds another level to getting the information out in a timely fashion. I think our readers are smart enough to find both reviews in the back issues and come make an intelligent selection or not. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, pooley said:

Chris, current setup is d500 body, nikon 8-15mm along with kenko 1.4x and 4" and 8" domes.

For macro I have the 60mm and 100mm along with the nauticam smc-1.

Mike

Sent from my SM-G973F using Tapatalk
 

If you are using the 8-15 on DX (or even on FX), I would expect the quality is already very good- you could add the WACP and an 18-55 on your existing kit for more reach possibly slightly better corners on near rectilinear, but it's a big chunk of cash to lay down.  The big benefit of the WACP it seems to me is the larger zoom range without the corner problems of rectilinear wides.

Share this post


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

Amen!

 

4 hours ago, hyp said:

Maybe you misunderstood me and if then I apologize. I wasn't trying to attack your work. As I said you are one of the very few people doing worthwhile reviews at all. I was just bemoaning the fact that unlike above water cameras (who have a much larger market) we are much more limited in the amount and detail of the reviews we get. I understand the realities and reasons behind this (smaller market / much higher complexity), but it is unfortunate anyways.

One thing I think would be very good for reviews and it seems to be lacking in otherwise very thorough reviews is having at least one full size image posted that can be downloaded - with detail out to the corners for WA shots.  A lot of reviews post shots which look great but they might be 1200 x 900 pixels at most and frankly almost anything will look half decent at that resolution. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, ChrisRoss said:

If you are using the 8-15 on DX (or even on FX), I would expect the quality is already very good- you could add the WACP and an 18-55 on your existing kit for more reach possibly slightly better corners on near rectilinear, but it's a big chunk of cash to lay down.  The big benefit of the WACP it seems to me is the larger zoom range without the corner problems of rectilinear wides.

 

3 hours ago, adamhanlon said:

@pooley

Water contact optics are awesome, but the truly wonderful news is that you do not really need them! 

Take for example Raja Ampat, home of some of the most amazing and photogenic reefs on the planet. If my goal was to shoot only wide angle scenics, there is no doubt that the D850 (insert FF of your choice), the WACP, and some big heavy strobes would be my preferred best tools for the job. But...if I was planning to shoot some macro, some splits in the mangroves and maybe some fish portraits, I would chose the D500. 

If you take one camera on a trip to do it all, I think it is unbeatable. Of course, if you travel with two set ups...take the full frame/WACP too!

Adam

 

7 hours ago, TimG said:

Hey Mike

Always ready for the derby. Win that and I think the title is ours :P

You are right of course about the difficulty of comparing and also, in my view, quantifying the improvement. As you say, you have got an excellent setup. Would a move to, say WACP, really offer that much improvement given the cost? So hard to say without actually doing it. It seems to come down to possible small gain at huge cost. But then it's so nice to plan, exploring, research....

I must admit (to myself if not to my partner) that I have made a number of "sound investments" in my gear over the years which, after a few dives, I've thought... errrr....  (Rectilinear with a D800 and 230 dome was one of them!)

 

Gents, 

Thanks for all the replies, I've enjoyed the discussion. I'm a sucker for squeezing out every last detail, but I think the benefit / cost ratio isn't going to be beneficial enough for me, especially with the added travel weight problems. I do know however, it  will continue to bug me that there is that option out there to improve the IQ!

I would have liked the extra zoom range - that really appealed to me, but I'll look into rectillenears - something to read if nothing else!

The car engine disintegrated a few hours ago so it looks like the WACP money is heading in another direction anyway...!

Thanks again

Mike

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

 don't want to compare items of equipment that are completely different

I agree Phil, but I think we need to very wary of suggesting that the image quality with any lens will be the same with WWL and WACP, unless we have back to back testing. 

While I get that they are aimed at different markets, I'm not sure some of your comments reflect this, and it sometimes seems (to me) as if you are suggesting that they are equal in performance. My expectations are that this will not be the case, but if I can see test images side by side that support this, I will happily adjust these!

I also fully understand the problems we all have with reviews and tests. It is certainly on the list of things that I plan to try and fix using the Wetpixel platform, The global pandemic has rather thwarted many plans currently but we do still have some good stuff going on. For example,  @Natalie Gibb is currently shooting the a7S III and WACP-1 in the cenotes, with a  goal of getting her to test its low light performance to the limits! It is early days with this review, but expect to see her findings here on Wetpixel, and her initial assessment of the set up on Wetpixel Live soon...

I should also point out that Wetpixel does buy review gear if needed, we do try and get manufacturer/dealer support, but if we feel the product is important, will pay for it...We are of course very grateful when support is available :) 

Share this post


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

I agree Phil, but I think we need to very wary of suggesting that the image quality with any lens will be the same with WWL and WACP, unless we have back to back testing. 

While I get that they are aimed at different markets, I'm not sure some of your comments reflect this, and it sometimes seems (to me) as if you are suggesting that they are equal in performance. My expectations are that this will not be the case, but if I can see test images side by side that support this, I will happily adjust these!



I also fully understand the problems we all have with reviews and tests. It is certainly on the list of things that I plan to try and fix using the Wetpixel platform, The global pandemic has rather thwarted many plans currently but we do still have some good stuff going on. For example,  @Natalie Gibb is currently shooting the a7S III and WACP-1 in the cenotes, with a  goal of getting her to test its low light performance to the limits! It is early days with this review, but expect to see her findings here on Wetpixel, and her initial assessment of the set up on Wetpixel Live soon...

I should also point out that Wetpixel does buy review gear if needed, we do try and get manufacturer/dealer support, but if we feel the product is important, will pay for it...We are of course very grateful when support is available :) 

I fail to see anywhere in my review for UWPMAG or on this site where I have even come close to suggesting that both lenses are "equal in performance". What I did say was that they have different price points and that WACP is heaver than WWL-1. I also said in my review for UWP that it would be better to test the differences between the lenses on higher MP cameras in a future review. I also said that readers are not going to be able to see a difference in the two lenses in the review. This is based on the sizes of the images as published in UWP not on the quality differences of the glass.  

The weight difference between WWL-1 and WACP-1 is very noticeable while you are walking the rig to the water but once underwater you hardly notice any difference. If you are a pixel-peeper you will not be able to see the difference between the images taken with both wet lenses in this review. In a followup review I will try to show the differences in corner and overall image quality with a higher MP camera like Sony A7R IV or A1. UWPMAG.com issue #119.

On Wetpixel I said that I had I had tested both wet lenses with the Sony A7C and 28-60 lens and I posted one pictures taken with each lens. Nowhere did I address any type of conclusion about the differences between the two lenses nor would I expect anyone reading the post to be able to come to a conclusion based on the image size allowed on your site.  The only conclusion if you want to called it a conclusion is that I think it is likely those buying the $2100.00 are more likely to chose the WWL-1 than WACP and that those that can justify a $3400.00 to $6500.00 camera are more inclined to buy WACP. If you or your readers have concluded that somehow this means both lenses perform the same then I would suggest you are reading something into my post that was not intended.

In a second WP post I also concluded that both WWL-1 and WACP produce better corner sharpness than the lenses I have tested with a 230mm. Again if you or your readers have drawn a conclusion that my statement means both lenses preform the same this again was not my intent.

Like you Adam I tested one of the prototype WWL-1 lenses at least a year before it was release for sale. I was under a NDA and ask not to post any of my images, they only went to Nauticam for scrutiny. In 2020 Nauticam USA provided a production WWL-1 and the Sony 28mm F/2 for review. After returning the equipment I later found a used WWL-1 which I now own. I have never reviewed the WACP for UWP because Alex M. did an outstanding job of explaining and testing the lens for UWP and WP. I also later purchased WACP for my personal work. I don't have the budget to buy lenses or other equipment just for the purpose of doing a review. What I own I use both above and below water.

I think a review of the Sony A1, 28-60 zoom and WACP may be in my future not as a WACP review but as a test of the total package just as Natalie Gibbs is testing the 12MP lowlight king A7s III with WACP-1.     

From Wetpixel-To answer Adams question about side by side tests with the Sony FE 28-60mm and WWL-1 V WACP-1 yes I have. I used both for my review of the Sony A7C and Nauticam NA_A7C housing in the current issue #119 of wupmag.com. I intend to do the same with the Sony A7R IV and A1 where you have more than twice the numbers of MP's. 

For me the issue would be who is going to buy a retail $2100.00 camera and kit lens and then add a $4700.00+ water contact lens.

So my conclusion would be that the WWL-1 is very well suited to the A7C and the WACP is very well suited to cameras like the A7R IV and A1. 

From Wetpixel-Regarding the comparison of WWL-1 and WACP my takeaway is that the W/A lens I own, 12-24 F/2.8, Tamron 17-28 F/2.8, Sony 16-35 F/4, Rokinon 14mm F/2.8 and more don't produce better corner sharpness with the 230mm port than either of the water contact lenses.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well gents, 

I've enjoyed the responses in this thread. End result is, I would love to go the water contact route, but I'm going to go with my current setup along with a recitillenear 10-24mm add on to my current setup, and I've agreed to spend the extra money on a trip to tiger beach. If my friends who see the results criticise the results due to a lack  of definition then so be it - I'll get to be up close and personal with some very impressive sharks!

Thanks for all the input - if I win the lottery in the meantime, I'll be going there with the WACP!

Mike

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/5/2021 at 6:13 PM, TimG said:

I must admit (to myself if not to my partner) that I have made a number of "sound investments" in my gear over the years which, after a few dives, I've thought... errrr....  (Rectilinear with a D800 and 230 dome was one of them!)

 

 

just reading back threads on WACP and the above jumped out at me. Could i have your partners email address please ;-)

 

No scratch the email address request - lets just negotiate for silence :-)

Edited by John Doe II
realised WP is very profitable !

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/4/2021 at 8:48 PM, adamhanlon said:


I gave up buying camera gear as an investment a long time ago :) Don't tell my wife :)
 

Adam, I am sure we can come to some arrangement whereby you are guaranteed of my silence on these matters. I never realized WP could be so profitable :-)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, John Doe II said:

No scratch the email address request - lets just negotiate for silence :-)

I find life is a negotiation..... :crazy:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, TimG said:

I find life is a negotiation..... :crazy:

I thought there would be one of two outcomes to this.....

1/ I would make some money

2/ I would get banned :-)

 

About the WACP I - I ended up with 2 of them! I bought one brand new a few hours before the price went up and I just picked up another as part of a bundle in a deal for some gear. One is earmarked for the Nauticam C200 housing I bought, now i need to find a use for the other. Thinking of getting a Subal adaptor for it to fit my D800 Subal housing. I also have a Seacam D800 housing but have the Seacam Nikonos conversion lens for that, so it doesn't feel like there is any need of the WACP I on the Seacam.

I have to track down the fellow who makes the conversion bits to fit the WACP to the Subal. I am sure his info is on the forum here somewhere, if only my search foo were up to the challenge !

Edited by John Doe II

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, John Doe II said:

I thought there would be one of two outcomes to this.....

1/ I would make some money

2/ I would get banned :-)

 

About the WACP I - I ended up with 2 of them! I bought one brand new a few hours before the price went up and I just picked up another as part of a bundle in a deal for some gear. One is earmarked for the Nauticam C200 housing I bought, now i need to find a use for the other. Thinking of getting a Subal adaptor for it to fit my D800 Subal housing. I also have a Seacam D800 housing but have the Seacam Nikonos conversion lens for that, so it doesn't feel like there is any need of the WACP I on the Seacam.

I have to track down the fellow who makes the conversion bits to fit the WACP to the Subal. I am sure his info is on the forum here somewhere, if only my search foo were up to the challenge !

Here you go: 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, ChrisRoss said:

Here you go: 

 

Thank you Chris - will look into this. Would the same lenses used for *optimum results in the Nauitcam be used in the Subal ? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, John Doe II said:

Thank you Chris - will look into this. Would the same lenses used for *optimum results in the Nauitcam be used in the Subal ? 

I expect the only thing that matters is the spacing, so the answer is most likely it depends - the adapter most likely adds extension so you may need to adjust the extension tubes used to compensate and it may not be possible to get the exact spacing from the combination of extension tubes available.  For example I expect the 28mm f2.8 might be off the list as it uses no extension.    I can't find any information on the extension added by the SAGA adapter.  Most likely best to contact them and letting them know what lenses you are thinking of using.

Share this post


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

I expect the only thing that matters is the spacing, so the answer is most likely it depends - the adapter most likely adds extension so you may need to adjust the extension tubes used to compensate and it may not be possible to get the exact spacing from the combination of extension tubes available.  For example I expect the 28mm f2.8 might be off the list as it uses no extension.    I can't find any information on the extension added by the SAGA adapter.  Most likely best to contact them and letting them know what lenses you are thinking of using.

yep - i have sent them an email, so will see what they say.

In the thread that you posted, Alex Mustard mentions that he uses the WACP with his Subal with type 4 port opening. My Subal D800 housing has just been serviced and upgraded from type 3 to type 4 port opening, so that will help.

Thanks for your assistance.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sponsors

Advertisements



×
×
  • Create New...