Nauticam WACP-C

[Interceptor121 767]

On 10/8/2022 at 5:58 PM, Samuel_l1 said:

Hello together

 

I had the opportunity today to compare both options wapc-c and wwl1-b. I can't say anything about the image quality, but the WACP-C focuses over water at a short distance of about 1m, it can't focus anything over it. so for me it can only be used very limited for splits.

in terms of size, weight and price, there isn't much of a difference compared to the wwl-1b. With the photos you can get an idea of it yourself and it's certainly not bad to add up and compare the prices of all the parts you need for each setup.

do i want a dry solution without worrying about the air bubbles between wetlens and port and can i do limited split? > wacp-c

would I like to be able to take pictures without a wide-angle lens and maybe even with a Markodiopter attachment, but this is also very limited and I have to take care of the air bubbles between the lens and the port > wwl1...

I haven't tested either option under water and that's just my personal opinion. Of course, it could still be synonymous that one optics delivers better image quality than the other...maybe :-P

Hi

Thanks for the comparisons. I see that when you weighted the WACP_C you did not include the extension ring while with the WWL-1 you included the port?

Can you tell me the actual dome size of the two adapters if possible?

[fruehaufsteher2 19]

4 hours ago, Interceptor121 said:

Thanks for the comparisons. I see that when you weighted the WACP_C you did not include the extension ring while with the WWL-1 you included the port?

Both the WAPC-C and the WWL-1 are on the pics with the attached port. If you look close at the WAPC-C you can see the extension.

[Interceptor121 767]

Both the WAPC-C and the WWL-1 are on the pics with the attached port. If you look close at the WAPC-C you can see the extension.

On the scale there is no extension or it doesn’t show clearly

And the images are from top so there is a perspective issue to see the size of the glass

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[fruehaufsteher2 19]

15 hours ago, Draq said:

I found a few different pockets that fit onto a 2" waist belt and hold the WACP-C cover nicely.   I was going to drill it and attach a tether, but the pocket thing works well and doesn't require any modifications to the lens cap.  If anyone is interested, I will figure out what the pockets are and post.

Yes please do. Today I got the response from my local dealer (PanOcean):

"Ich habe für Dich unsere Kappen getestet und größentechnisch wäre die Nauticam | 8.5 Zoll Dome-Port Neopren-Cover | PanOceanPhoto eine Möglichkeit. Da der Schnitt aber nicht auf das WACP-C angepasst ist, kann ich mir vorstellen, dass das Neopren-Cover beim Sprung ins Wasser verloren gehen kann. Wir geben Deine Rückmeldung aber gerne an Nauticam weiter, da Du nicht der Einzige bist, der ein solches Cover als sinnvoll empfindet."

"I have tested our caps for you and in terms of size, the Nauticam | 8.5 inch Dome-Port Neoprene Cover | PanOceanPhoto would be a possibility. However, since the cut is not adapted to the WACP-C, I can imagine that the neoprene cover could get lost when jumping into the water. However, we will gladly pass on your feedback to Nauticam, as you are not the only one who finds such a cover useful."

Edited January 26 by fruehaufsteher2

[fruehaufsteher2 19]

3 hours ago, Interceptor121 said:

On the scale there is no extension or it doesn’t show clearly

I just took my own WAPC-C an put it on my scale: Without extension and without caps it is 2.265g, with extension it is 2.394g

[Interceptor121 767]

I just took my own WAPC-C an put it on my scale: Without extension and without caps it is 2.265g, with extension it is 2.394g

Great!
As you have one can you tell me the diameter of the glass dome please?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[fruehaufsteher2 19]

38 minutes ago, Interceptor121 said:

As you have one can you tell me the diameter of the glass dome please?

About 125mm or 5"

[Draq 118]

17 hours ago, TimG said:

Yeah, worth posting. Please do.

 

I will get that information pulled together this weekend and post it.  I looked around for a neoprene cover that would work and could find nothing that I felt would stay on, and since I pack the thing with the hard cap anyway, just leaving it on for diving is pretty easy and offers added protection over a neoprene cover in a rinse tank, on the boat, etc.

[Phil Rudin 458]

When I reviewed the WACP-C for the current issue of UWPMAG.com the retail price for WACP-1 was $5159.00 and WACP-C was $3283.00 on the Nauticam.com website. Today WACP-1 is listed at $4832.00 and WACP-C is listed at $3075.00. If you are on the fence it may be a good time jump.

The WWL-1B appears to have gone up from $1465.00 to $1494.00. 

The Nauticam N100 30 extension ring used with WACP-C for Nauticam N100 housings has also dropped from $413.00 to $351.00.

Now the total cost for WACP-C is $3426.00 while WWL-1B with flat port is $2012.00 assuming the same lens and gear are used (not included in total cost).

Edited January 26 by Phil Rudin

[jplaurel 46]

The OP/TECH Hood Hat XL might work. It is neoprene and it is slightly conical in shape. The XXL is 114 at the opening and 127mm at the end.

OP/TECH USA Hood Hat - X-Large (Black) https://a.co/d/dokLQ4r

 

Edited January 27 by jplaurel

[Draq 118]

The WACP-C hard lens cap fits in the following:

Dive Rite Vertical Bellows RZ Pocket  (there is room to spare for a light or some other small item.  Fits on 2" webbing.  I like it better than the Highland tempest except it is not easy to remove from a waistbelt with a buckle.  This is also available in a horizontal instead of vertical.  They zip closed.  I have not tested the horizontal pocket and I see it is listed as 1.5 inches deep, so it cold be too small.

Highland Tempest Pocket fits with room to spare and has a small added pocket that sits flat if not used.  This one fits on a 2" webbing also but the mounting straps are velcro so easy to remove the pocket if not needed.  The closure on this is a zipper

Highland Zephyr Pocket is pretty much a perfect fit and is smaller than the prior two.  It also can be easily detached from webbing if desired.  Due to small size it is probably my favorite.  There is just enough room that one could put something small, like a 3" tropical size SMB without reel or a folding knife or small light, but the hard cap also fits fine if there is nothing else in the pouch.  This one uses a velcro flap to close

Highland Hurricane pocket fits like the Tempest, but is horizontal instead of vertical, so it takes up more room on belt but does not hang down much.  it seems to have slightly different construction and zips closed.  I am going to order one of these to try it out.  it might be the best option if oversized is OK, I can put a small SMB or a light in it.

The velcro mounting loops in the Highland make that brand my favorite because it is so easy to remove the pouch and leave it behind when not using the  WACP.  The other pouches feel like they will eventually get damaged being pulled over buckles on the waist belt.  if you don't have that problem, and okay with an oversized pouch, I like them better so far.

The horizontal dive rite pocket is set up to be used with a double ender and that could easily be clipped to a D ring, but I think it would then flop around quite a bit.

I realize the hard cap is intended for travel and not use while diving, but I think this is a better solution than a neoprene cover that may not stay on or drilling the hard cap and attaching it to a tether.  I am sure there are other pouches that would work as well or better, but this is what I have found.  If I some day find a neoprene cover that attaches securely, I would likely use that but in the meantime, this solution works fine.

 

Edited January 28 by Draq

[Alex_Mustard 0]

On 1/17/2023 at 5:12 PM, Phil Rudin said:

I think I can shed some light on this issue. When Alex Mustard first commented in this thread he described a WACP-C like lens he has been using for several years that was a prototype for what is now call the WACP-1. If I understand correctly and Alex can correct me if I am wrong, he was able to use the Nikon 28-70mm F/3.5-4.5 with full zoom through. 

I have both lenses in house at the moment and made some quick measurements today. The rear element of the production WACP-1 is 73mm (give or take a MM) while the production WACP-C has a rear element that is 58mm (give or take). The approximately 15mm difference explained why the 28-70 is losing AOV over the WACP-1 and apparently Alex's prototype. I suspect that Alex prototype lens may have a larger rear element than the production version WACP-C. 

I just got home from Cayman and bumped into the prototype WACP-C while putting away my things. The lens I have has a rear element of about 67mm (apologies that my ruler is hard to see - starts at 10cm goes to at least 16.7cm depending where you measure). So it does appear to have a larger rear element to a production WACP-C. Hence all the confusion!

[Interceptor121 767]

I just got home from Cayman and bumped into the prototype WACP-C while putting away my things. The lens I have has a rear element of about 67mm (apologies that my ruler is hard to see - starts at 10cm goes to at least 16.7cm depending where you measure). So it does appear to have a larger rear element to a production WACP-C. Hence all the confusion!

In my opinion having the fact that the rear element is smaller or larger does not imply that the lens will have wider field of view 

Some zoon lenses have a 67mm filter thread while other like the Sony have a 49mm filter thread

Generally the WWL-1 rear element of 48mm fits lenses with smaller filter thread those will have an entrance pupil close to the edge of the lens as the field of view is the same the lens is smaller and requires a smaller rear element for the wet lens

When you look at the Canon 28-80 instead this has a filter of 58mm coincidentally the same of the WACP-C

Finally some lenses compatible with the WACP-1 have up to 72mm filter thread hence the 73mm rear element

Now looking at the 28-60mm the field of view of the lens is what it is so if the adapter has the same magnification and lens is sitting right on the rear glass the field of view will not change however as anything performance as the edges improves with crop so the larger glass WACP-1 will be better than WACP-C or WWL-1

Finally if the position of the master lens goes further back compared to the lens in the dry port the field of view at close range will increase while at infinity it will be the same

Hence the impression that the WACP-1 may be wider. The adapter characteristic is the same however if it sits further behind it will be wider at close range but not at infinity

at close range the lens can get further away from the rear element of the adapter with the WACP-1 than the WACP-C or WWL-1 however all those adapters allow you to focus on the glass port and as the WWL-1 is smaller you can get closer to the subject which in turn negates the benefit of the larger lenses and moving the master lens away

In short you need to measure the field of view from the front of the adapter not from the focal plane of the camera

 

 

 

[Phil Rudin 458]

This was the question from Rabbit Fish back on page eight,

 

Has anyone used the WACP-C with the Nikon 28-70 F/3.5-4.5 + D850/Nauticam? The lens is listed in the port chart as having a reduced zoom range (34-70)  over the WACP-1 when used with a 35 mm N120 to N100 35mm Port Adaptor that Nauticam recommends. I would hate to loose 13 degrees on the low end. I was hoping this issue can be fixed with a slightly longer extension. 

 

This was my suspicion and the explanation for the reduction in the zoom range. 

 

I think I can shed some light on this issue. When Alex Mustard first commented in this thread he described a WACP-C like lens he has been using for several years that was a prototype for what is now call the WACP-1. If I understand correctly and Alex can correct me if I am wrong, he was able to use the Nikon 28-70mm F/3.5-4.5 with full zoom through. 

I have both lenses in house at the moment and made some quick measurements today. The rear element of the production WACP-1 is 73mm (give or take a MM) while the production WACP-C has a rear element that is 58mm (give or take). The approximately 15mm difference explained why the 28-70 is losing AOV over the WACP-1 and apparently Alex's prototype. I suspect that Alex prototype lens may have a larger rear element than the production version WACP-C. 

The Nikon lens has a 55mm filter thread while the Sony 28-60mm has a 40.5mm filter thread size which I believe makes it too large to work with WACP-C on Nikon DSLR cameras. On Nikon Z-cameras the adapted older Sony FE 28-70mm with 55mm filter thread gives full zoom through unlike the Z 24-70mm F/4s.   

 

2 hours ago, Alex_Mustard said:

I just got home from Cayman and bumped into the prototype WACP-C while putting away my things. The lens I have has a rear element of about 67mm (apologies that my ruler is hard to see - starts at 10cm goes to at least 16.7cm depending where you measure). So it does appear to have a larger rear element to a production WACP-C. Hence all the confusion!

 

2 hours ago, Alex_Mustard said:

 

 

•  

Edited January 29 by Phil Rudin

[Edward Lai 36]

To:  Rabbit Fish, Alex Mustard and Phil Rudin,

Sorry for my slow response as I don't always have the time to read posts here.  The production WACP-C has a rear opening of 65mm, more or less the same as the "Dry Lens" prototype that has been with Alex.  We have thickened the metal rim a little for production.

Our team did have a serious overlook that a perfectly-matched Port Adaptor hadn't been built for using the WACP-C with the Nikon 28-70mm F/3.5-4.5, which should have to be a little shorter than 35 mm.  We are working on the solution and should be able to decide the correct dimension by tomorrow.

Edward

[Edward Lai 36]

Hello Everyone,

We will add a 29.3mm Port Adaptor to our lineup for using the WACP-C with the Nikon 28-70mm F/3.5-4.5.

A very minor issue is that at the widest angle (the lens zoomed to 28mm) and focused to a subject closer than 10cm from the front element of the port, a very very slight vignette (almost invisible) may appear at one of the corners.

Edward

[fruehaufsteher2 19]

Now in Filitheyo and using A7IV, 28-60 and WACP-C. Clearly a no-brainer but my ability to set camera and flash correctly has room for improvement. 
ISO 100, f6,3, SF01 on level 4 or 5 is often ok… but not always. only snorkeling and Freediving down to 15m. Light changes every second you go deeper. 
 

I‘ll show pictures as soon as I am home. 
 

neoprene cover: using the leg piece of an old shorty. Works well. 

[jplaurel 46]

We are headed to Socorro next week with both the WWL-1b (on a Sony A7SIII for video and A1 for stills), and a WAPC (on a Canon 5DSR). We are also bringing the N100 extension so we should be able to compare the WAPC with the WWL-1b on the Sony A1. However, I doubt we’ll be able to do the kind of more controlled tests that we could do at a place, like Bonaire. So our takeaways may be subjective, but hopefully we’ll at least come away with some useful impressions.

Edited March 3 by jplaurel

[Alex_Mustard 0]

33 minutes ago, jplaurel said:

We are headed to Socorro next week with both the WWL-1b (on a Sony A7SIII for video and A1 for stills), and a WAPC (on a Canon 5DSR). We are also bringing the N100 extension so we should be able to compare the WAPC with the WWL-1b on the Sony A1. However, I doubt we’ll be able to do the kind of more controlled tests that we could do at a place, like Bonaire. So our takeaways may be subjective, but hopefully we’ll at least come away with some useful impressions.

Have a great trip. Hopefully you are routing through Mexico City so you can avoid the SJD customs officials with all those cameras. 

[jplaurel 46]

4 hours ago, Alex_Mustard said:

Have a great trip. Hopefully you are routing through Mexico City so you can avoid the SJD customs officials with all those cameras. 

Thanks Alex! We live in Seattle, so it’s a straight 4-hour shot to Cabo. Going through Mexico City would make it a whole day thing.

We already got hit for the tax in December, so we have all the paperwork that should cover us for 12 months.

It took some good-natured negotiation, but we ended up paying about $200 for a Nauticam Sony A1 housing, and another for the 5DSR housing. I’m hoping that will be the baseline for when we have to pay again next year.

Edited March 4 by jplaurel

[roberto.formiga 15]

Hi guys! I've just came back from Tiger Beach and had an amazing time photographing exclusively with the WACP-C. I'm using it in a Hugyfot housing with the Saga port adapter, tailored to perfectly match the Nikon 28-70mm F/3.5-4.5.

I've been able to use the full zoom range. As Edward Lai mentioned on his previous post though (regarding the new port adapter Nauticam is designing), an issue is that zoomed down to 28mm and focused at a subject touching the front element of the WACP, a very slight vignette shows up in the corners. During this trip I've never shot under this circumstances (shooting @28mm I'm photographing as wide as possibile with subjects within a certain distance, not touching the dome) and this issue was never a problem.

The overall image quality is very good, I'm happy with the sharpness and contrast. To me, the main benefits of this combo in comparison to a dome port solution are:

1) Flexibility: paired with the 28-70mm the WACP-C gives an enormous zoom range. While that doesn't compensate for an incorrect tecniche (as we all know it "get close to your subject" is paramount in underwater photography) the zoom capabilities allowed me to compose much better zooming in and out as if I was on land. It allowed me to fill the frame with the subject and to keep undesired divers, bubbles or fins out of the corners of the frame.

2) Transportability: I've packed everything, housing, camera, WACP-C, 180mm dome port, 2 Nikon lenses, 2 Retra strobes and all accessories (batteries, charges, fibers, etc) in a Thinktank backpack. With the 230mm dome that would be impossible.

3) Less drag: my rig is much more compact now and have less drag underwater hence I'm able to respond and compose faster while shooting, which translates in less lost opportunities specially for fast moving subjects.

I won't enter the corner sharpness discussion. To my observation on the field (not on a controlled test environment) the results are pretty good. One characteristic of the WACP-C that may be an issue depending on the shot is that it flares while shooting straight at the sun. The flares are not ugly and may also be used creatively.

Below I share with you some WACP-C photos

[jplaurel 46]

On 3/14/2023 at 11:49 AM, roberto.formiga said:

Hi guys! I've just came back from Tiger Beach and had an amazing time photographing exclusively with the WACP-C. I'm using it in a Hugyfot housing with the Saga port adapter, tailored to perfectly match the Nikon 28-70mm F/3.5-4.5.

I've been able to use the full zoom range. As Edward Lai mentioned on his previous post though (regarding the new port adapter Nauticam is designing), an issue is that zoomed down to 28mm and focused at a subject touching the front element of the WACP, a very slight vignette shows up in the corners. During this trip I've never shot under this circumstances (shooting @28mm I'm photographing as wide as possibile with subjects within a certain distance, not touching the dome) and this issue was never a problem.

The overall image quality is very good, I'm happy with the sharpness and contrast. To me, the main benefits of this combo in comparison to a dome port solution are:

1) Flexibility: paired with the 28-70mm the WACP-C gives an enormous zoom range. While that doesn't compensate for an incorrect tecniche (as we all know it "get close to your subject" is paramount in underwater photography) the zoom capabilities allowed me to compose much better zooming in and out as if I was on land. It allowed me to fill the frame with the subject and to keep undesired divers, bubbles or fins out of the corners of the frame.

2) Transportability: I've packed everything, housing, camera, WACP-C, 180mm dome port, 2 Nikon lenses, 2 Retra strobes and all accessories (batteries, charges, fibers, etc) in a Thinktank backpack. With the 230mm dome that would be impossible.

3) Less drag: my rig is much more compact now and have less drag underwater hence I'm able to respond and compose faster while shooting, which translates in less lost opportunities specially for fast moving subjects.

I won't enter the corner sharpness discussion. To my observation on the field (not on a controlled test environment) the results are pretty good. One characteristic of the WACP-C that may be an issue depending on the shot is that it flares while shooting straight at the sun. The flares are not ugly and may also be used creatively.

Below I share with you some WACP-C photos

Nice shots, Roberto. Glad to hear the WAPC worked out for you. We just got back from the Revillagigedos, and my wife used the WAPC with her 5DSR and the EF 28-80 f/3.5-5.6 V, and she loved it. I was using the WWL-1b with the 28-60 for video and I brought the N100 extension so I could use the WAPC, but never got around to it. I’ll post some video shortly.

[TimG 62]

Yep, nice pics, Roberto - especially the last one.

 Really good that you like your new system. Long may that be the case!

 

[dreifish 362]

Not exactly the same, but some recent shots with the Canon R5C, WACP-1 and EF 28-70 F3.5-4.5 lens. Jupiter, Florida (other side of the Bahamas channel )