Jump to content

Recommended Posts

On 8/20/2022 at 10:39 PM, dreifish said:

To me, the WACP photo here looks similar to a crop of the full fisheye photo. Just look at the way the trees bend in the upper corners of the frame. Perhaps just a touch less barrel distortion?

 

untitled-0477.thumb.jpg.569e9d72b0143005078aef582122f108.jpg.1cac7b00b7394fad283b0af9dcb05393.jpg

dreifish, You need to go back and read the captions for the photos I posted because you kind of proved the point regarding barrel distortion. This photo was taken with the Nikon Z6 and the Nikon 8-15mm FF fisheye at 15mm so it is a fisheye photo and it does have more barrel distortion than the ones taken with WWL-1, WACP-1 and WACP-2.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is WACP-C on the Nauticam NA-A1 housing for Sony A-1. As advertised it fills the gap size wise between the WWL-1B and WACP-1. For me the weight and size difference is noticeable over WACP-1. 

The big difference for me is better overall image quality at wider apertures over dome ports, a wider and longer AOV over any lens in a dome and price. The WACP-C weights almost a pound less than the typical 230mm glass port, uses a smaller port extension for the Sony 28-60mm zoom and covers a range from 130 degrees to 69 degrees.

If you have not seen the latest Wetpixel interview with Edward Lai he mentions using the Sony FE 28-60mm lens and that they were "astonished" at how good the lens is. He also said that because it is so small it can be used with WWL-1, WACP-C and WACP-1.

If you do the math I think the WACP-C makes much more sense than buying an expensive F/2.8 or F/4 zoom, then adding the S&S correction lens and a 230mm port to attempt to get better corners.

 

IMG_3506.jpg

IMG_3503.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks @Phil Rudin! That looks like a nicely balanced overall setup on the A1. Like a few others in these forums I’ve used the Sony A1, 28-60mm lens and WWL-1 with great success. I’d be fascinated to see some comparison shots between the WWL-1 and the WACP-C, to see how much of a step up this provides in image quality. I know that the WACP’s corners will be sharper at wider apertures, but what would be particularly interesting is how much sharper/better the centre of the frame is. As Alex Mustard pointed out, any of the WACP’s should theoretically be slightly better than the WWL-1 because the light doesn’t have to pass through the Glass - Water - Glass boundaries of the wet lens. The real question is how noticeable this difference is. If it’s meaningful then I’d look to upgrade. Having said that, I absolutely love how compact the WWL-1 is for travel, so I’m loathe to add more weight and bulk to my kit!

 

In previous forum threads, reviewers have shied away from comparisons between the WWL-1 and WACP-1 because it was such an apples vs. oranges comparison in terms of price and size. Now that there are three tiers of Nauticam water contact optics in close(r) proximity of each other, maybe this comparison would make more sense.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, shanesmith.photos said:

Thanks @Phil Rudin! That looks like a nicely balanced overall setup on the A1. Like a few others in these forums I’ve used the Sony A1, 28-60mm lens and WWL-1 with great success. I’d be fascinated to see some comparison shots between the WWL-1 and the WACP-C, to see how much of a step up this provides in image quality. I know that the WACP’s corners will be sharper at wider apertures, but what would be particularly interesting is how much sharper/better the centre of the frame is. As Alex Mustard pointed out, any of the WACP’s should theoretically be slightly better than the WWL-1 because the light doesn’t have to pass through the Glass - Water - Glass boundaries of the wet lens. The real question is how noticeable this difference is. If it’s meaningful then I’d look to upgrade. Having said that, I absolutely love how compact the WWL-1 is for travel, so I’m loathe to add more weight and bulk to my kit!

 

In previous forum threads, reviewers have shied away from comparisons between the WWL-1 and WACP-1 because it was such an apples vs. oranges comparison in terms of price and size. Now that there are three tiers of Nauticam water contact optics in close(r) proximity of each other, maybe this comparison would make more sense.

I'm in exactly the same place. I'm not sure it is worth the money to move from the WWL-1B to the WACP-C. This has to do with current abilities as a photographer as much as it does anything else. I'm just not sure I will see a noticeable difference. But, I would love to see some real-world data comparing the two.

- brett

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/21/2022 at 5:03 PM, TmxDiver said:

I'm in exactly the same place. I'm not sure it is worth the money to move from the WWL-1B to the WACP-C. This has to do with current abilities as a photographer as much as it does anything else. I'm just not sure I will see a noticeable difference. But, I would love to see some real-world data comparing the two.

- brett

I am confused by these many different options and, in the absence of objective testing, try to get an overview about differences in IQ. I am not willing to acquire all these different options and test them out my myself, therefore I try to get as much information as possible by reading and asking people...

In this context, I saw an interesting article at the Nauticam homepage, entitled "Halmahera/Indonesia with the Sony A7IV". The author was using WWL-1 and WACP1 side by side on a diving trip (it seems that the article is now offline))...

I asked at Nauticam who the author was and what his impressions on the IQ difference between WWL-1 and WACP-1 were. Phil Burghard from Nauticam wrote to me that the author was Hergen Spalink and:

" I spoke to him about this and in his opinion he could barely see an image quality difference for the Sony 28-60mm f/4-5.6 combined with the WWL-1B and WACP-1. For the size, weight and cost, he highly recommends the WWL-1B combination. For the aperture value, Hergen felt very comfortable opening up to f/5.6 with good corner performance."
 

It may well depend on the lens behind the Wetoptics, but for the Sony 28-60mm I would interpret it this way that the WAPC-C (situated between WWL-1 and  WAPC-1 in optical quality) is not worth going for, as the difference between WWL-1 and WAPC-C, if existing, probably must be very, very small...

Wolfgang

 

P.S.: I do not think that comparing WWL-1, WAPC-C and WAPC-1 is "apples to oranges", as the final outcome on the image is practically the same (same FOV and distortion), except MAYBE center and corner sharpness. Objective measures are not existing/accessible and different authors have different opinions (The lowest common denominator of different reports is, however, that the differences in IQ is small, if existing). Hence it is totally justified to ask for objective measures of differences in IQ as the differences in size, weight and money to spend are obvious...

Edited by Architeuthis

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You raise an interesting point.  The video is still available, even if not on Nauticam's webpage at https://vimeo.com/695456827.  I wonder, though, if the differences between the WACP and WWL might be different for stills rather than video?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, Draq said:

 

 

You raise an interesting point.  The video is still available, even if not on Nauticam's webpage at https://vimeo.com/695456827.  I wonder, though, if the differences between the WACP and WWL might be different for stills rather than video?

 

Of course I do not know, it is interesting that also a video exists. The original article was about stills and my questions to Nauticam were also about stills performance...

Wolfgang

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Confusing.  Nauticam still has his other videos on their site and he is sponsored to some extent by Nauticam.    I would think that if his assessment is that the WWL and WACP offer similar results at such  different price points, that would not be something nauticam would like to promote.

None of this matters to me, as the WWL is not recommended for my equipment, although I still have one I bought to use with M43.

It would be interesting to hear more about what Mr. Spalink thinks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Architeuthis said:

I am confused by these many different options and, in the absence of objective testing, try to get an overview about differences in IQ. I am not willing to acquire all these different options and test them out my myself, therefore I try to get as much information as possible by reading and asking people...

In this context, I saw an interesting article at the Nauticam homepage, entitled "Halmahera/Indonesia with the Sony A7IV". The author was using WWL-1 and WACP1 side by side on a diving trip (it seems that the article is now offline))...

I asked at Nauticam who the author was and what his impressions on the IQ difference between WWL-1 and WACP-1 were. Phil Burghard from Nauticam wrote to me that the author was Hergen Spalink and:

" I spoke to him about this and in his opinion he could barely see an image quality difference for the Sony 28-60mm f/4-5.6 combined with the WWL-1B and WACP-1. For the size, weight and cost, he highly recommends the WWL-1B combination. For the aperture value, Hergen felt very comfortable opening up to f/5.6 with good corner performance."
 

It may well depend on the lens behind the Wetoptics, but for the Sony 28-60mm I would interpret it this way that the WAPC-C (situated between WWL-1 and  WAPC-1 in optical quality) is not worth going for, as the difference between WWL-1 and WAPC-C, if existing, probably must be very, very small...

Wolfgang

 

P.S.: I do not think that comparing WWL-1, WAPC-C and WAPC-1 is "apples to oranges", as the final outcome on the image is practically the same (same FOV and distortion), except MAYBE center and corner sharpness. Objective measures are not existing/accessible and different authors have different opinions (The lowest common denominator of different reports is, however, that the differences in IQ is small, if existing). Hence it is totally justified to ask for objective measures of differences in IQ as the differences in size, weight and money to spend are obvious...

 

Thanks for the research. This is enough for me to decide to stick with the WWL-1B and not spend the money for the WACP-C which, in my particular case, would probably have neglible and no noticeable increase in quality. 

- brett

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

having owned and shot the wacp-1 and shot the wwl-1 for several months, if a lens could use both options, I'd not even consider the wacp-1 considering both size and price. I personally haven't seen anything compelling about the wacp over the wwl in terms of image quality, looking at images of mine side by side from both, good luck finding a difference. Perhaps wide open there is an advantage for the WACP but realistically, how often are the majority of us shooting wide angle at apertures that wide? This is not to dump on the WACP, it is a phenomenal optic, but is it worth 4 times the price of the wwl...well...

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Matt Sullivan 

Am I really going to disagree with you here? (maybe just a little a bit...)

Also owning both and diving both, I think there is a difference between these two, but it's not super evident where you might notice this. For me, it's fairly evident when shooting larger subjects, like people or larger pelagics.

It's a subtle difference, but it's there (at least to my eyes). Having said this, I'll travel with the WWL-1B often, however I only drag along the WACP-1 for special occasions.

 

Edited by oneyellowtang
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/24/2022 at 5:33 AM, oneyellowtang said:

@Matt Sullivan 


Also owning both and diving both, I think there is a difference between these two, but it's not super evident where you might notice this. For me, it's fairly evident when shooting larger subjects, like people or larger pelagics.


 

Actually not really if you shoot people and pelagic mid water with nothing in the corners the lenses are equally sharp in the centre depending on which master lens you have behind

The WACP has an edge when there is something in the ....edges hence the reason nauticam refers to corner sharpness

in the centre any lens does pretty much the same in fact some rectilinear lenses behind domes are sharper than water contact optics in the centre because the lenses are just better

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, Interceptor121 said:

Actually not really if you shoot people and pelagic mid water with nothing in the corners the lenses are equally sharp in the centre depending on which master lens you have behind

The WACP has an edge when there is something in the ....edges hence the reason nauticam refers to corner sharpness

in the centre any lens does pretty much the same in fact some rectilinear lenses behind domes are sharper than water contact optics in the centre because the lenses are just better

 

This is quite different than what Edward Lai told Adam Hanlon and I believe others who have used the WACP have said.  I am sure many who may be interested in purchasing one of these products would like to know more.  Would love some details on which cameras and lenses you used with the WACP.  Was it the WACP -1 or -2 (I assume it was not he -C, since those are not available yet)?  Can you share some of your comparison photos or data? 

It may aid me in deciding if I want o purchase a WACP.

Share this post


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

This is quite different than what Edward Lai told Adam Hanlon and I believe others who have used the WACP have said.  I am sure many who may be interested in purchasing one of these products would like to know more.  Would love some details on which cameras and lenses you used with the WACP.  Was it the WACP -1 or -2 (I assume it was not he -C, since those are not available yet)?  Can you share some of your comparison photos or data? 

It may aid me in deciding if I want o purchase a WACP.

Where have you head Edward Lai saying that the WACP has a benefit in the centre exactly?

https://wetpixel.com/articles/review-nauticam-wide-angle-corrector-port/P2

All measures are the corners. In the centre you won't see any major difference due to the fact a fisheye optic does not affect the centre

Edited by Interceptor121

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
https://wetpixel.com/articles/wetpixel-live-intro-to-nauticam-optics

At about 17:15 and again around 18:30...WACP has greater detail and contrast throughout the picture, according to Mr. Lai.  Suggests a major difference compared to a dome port.

Edit to add    You may want to actually watch the whole thing.

I think your (and Adam for what is worth) intepretation of what he says is full of imagination a lens does not improve the quality of light as no lens has got 100% transmission or can improve the color rendering it can only deteriorate it. A water contact optic does better than a dome at the edges where certain effect occur but in the centre no issues are there to be corrected.

So a better lens in the centre behind a dome will be better than a cheap zoom lens in the centre with a water contact optic. Frankly nobody ever had an issue with sharpness in the centre with any type of port including flat. The issue occur as you move away from the centre

A dome is in effect a lens as it is a flat port made by a single element when you shoot right through it there is no problem

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
43 minutes ago, Interceptor121 said:

I think your (and Adam for what is worth) intepretation of what he says is full of imagination a lens does not improve the quality of light as no lens has got 100% transmission or can improve the color rendering it can only deteriorate it. A water contact optic does better than a dome at the edges where certain effect occur but in the centre no issues are there to be corrected.

This is only true in the very tiny centre point of the frame. From this single point outwards, even in the central area, the curved air/water interface is causing issues, which become increasingly exaggerated the wider from this centre point, hence why the wider the angle of coverage the more the problems are most obvious. But it is misleading to suggest that none occur in the central area. 

Of course, a flat port performs even better than a dome port at the very centre of the frame - because there is no virtual image etc, but I am not suggesting using a flat port for wide angle shooting!

Alex

Here is the only actual data I have for this (note these lines are drawn between data collected at 4 positions, I’d expect the lines to actually be curves). You can see the flat port (in water) matches the lens performance in air at the very, very centre. But quickly falls behind the dome. The dome also begins to fall away increasingly quickly from the lenses performance in air (even by reasonably modest Fields of View - say just 50˚ - which is a very large portion of the frame is the lens sees to 130˚, like the WACP). The graph shows light ray aberrations against the field of view of the lens at that point (this is based on an existing 90˚ lens (roughly equivalent to  a 20mm on FF, 14mm on DX or 10mm on M43). Of course this is not that wide compared to the WACP - the topic of the thread.

In short the WACP is attempting to occupy the space between the green line and the grey line. As close to the green line as poss.

MUSTARD_WACP_010.jpg

Sorry for jumping into the discussion - that first paragraph came up on the previews of the new posts feed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I suppose anyone who is interested can watch the video and form their own opinions about what Mr. Lai said.  I feel that i have a fairly good grasp of the English language and understood what he was saying.

Nevertheless, and going back to my first comment, please share your experiences with the WACP that lead you to state that "in the centre any lens does pretty much the same in fact some rectilinear lenses behind domes are sharper than water contact optics in the centre because the lenses are just better"  And understand, Mr. Lai spoke of an increase in performance across the image, not just the very center or the edges.  If you can back up your claim that the WACP is no better, and in some instances worse, than a wide angle zoom in a dome, I would like to understand that and what lenses and domes we are speaking of.

Having seen Alex's comment above, I would add that if we are somehow talking about the very tiniest bit of the center of an image, it seems largely irrelevant to any real-world discussion, but I would still be interested in the particular lenses and ports in question and how you compared them to a WACP.

Edited by Draq

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hergen here.  Phil let me know about this thread.  The article I wrote is still up:

https://www.nauticam.com/blogs/news/halmahera-with-the-na-a7iv

With every system there is an optimum configuration based on what's available and what you want to do with it (video/stills/reefs/blue water).  My observation was that with the Sony A7IV (and other A7 models such as A1, A7SIII), the current combination of WWL-1B and the 28-60mm is extremely compact and is able to deliver real wold results that are difficult to differentiate from WACP-1 with the added benefit of being a wet-lens, meaning you also have 28-60mm behind a flat port or throw on CMC-1/2 for macro.  It's also smaller and lighter weight than WACP-1, great for travel and situations where a smaller rig is beneficial.  If you are moving between systems that may not have an ideal option (or any option) for WWL-1B, the WACP-1 may be a better option.

I have not yet used WACP-C so cannot comment on that.

 

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Would be nice to see any real comparission between the WACP-C and the WWL-1B. Just from the pictures they seem to share the same optics but there is maybe more to consider when it comes to compare these. I have the impression the WACP-C won't be able to use for half-half shoots so that maybe also shifts the balance more to the cheaper option. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, Alex_Mustard said:

This is only true in the very tiny centre point of the frame. From this single point outwards, even in the central area, the curved air/water interface is causing issues, which become increasingly exaggerated the wider from this centre point, hence why the wider the angle of coverage the more the problems are most obvious. But it is misleading to suggest that none occur in the central area. 

Of course, a flat port performs even better than a dome port at the very centre of the frame - because there is no virtual image etc, but I am not suggesting using a flat port for wide angle shooting!

Alex

Here is the only actual data I have for this (note these lines are drawn between data collected at 4 positions, I’d expect the lines to actually be curves). You can see the flat port (in water) matches the lens performance in air at the very, very centre. But quickly falls behind the dome. The dome also begins to fall away increasingly quickly from the lenses performance in air (even by reasonably modest Fields of View - say just 50˚ - which is a very large portion of the frame is the lens sees to 130˚, like the WACP). The graph shows light ray aberrations against the field of view of the lens at that point (this is based on an existing 90˚ lens (roughly equivalent to  a 20mm on FF, 14mm on DX or 10mm on M43). Of course this is not that wide compared to the WACP - the topic of the thread.

In short the WACP is attempting to occupy the space between the green line and the grey line. As close to the green line as poss.

MUSTARD_WACP_010.jpg

Sorry for jumping into the discussion - that first paragraph came up on the previews of the new posts feed.

That graph is comparing a lens with the same lens behind a dome and a flat port

This does not mean that that same lens behind a WACP would perform better than the dome in the centre does it?

And my other argument is that generally the lenses behind those adapters are cheap kit lenses that have a significant gap from a top performing lens in the centre

So to give an example a kit lens may do only 35 lpmm in the centre vs 50 lpmm of a good lens so even if the WACP closes the gap it does not necessarily close a very big gap

In addition a lot of comparatives are based on mirrorless lenses that correct distortion and loose resolution at the edges due to warping which is exaggerated in water. You eliminate the correction and the same lens improves

So to think that a cheap zoom kit lens behing a water contact optic does better than a superior lens in the centre behind the dome remains to be seen 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hergen, thank you for your comment, it provides an interesting insight.  If I used the Sony system and was on the fence between the two water contact options, your comments would cause me to lean in the direction of the WWL.  It is always helpful to hear from people with actual experience with a product or technique.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hergan and I have known each other for several years and I respect his opinion regarding how well WWL-1/1B works with the Sony FE 28-60mm. It is a very compelling kit because it can also be used with closeup lenses like the CMC-1/2. With cameras like A7s 12MP and A7 IV 24MP I agree that you would be hard pressed to see a large difference V. WACP-1. With higher res cameras like A7R IV 61MP and A-1 50MP the gap begins to widen especially at the 28mm 130 degree end of the lens.

I also think 121 missed the part of the Edward Lai interview where he described the Sony 28-60 "kit" lens performance as being I believe the word he used as astounding and explained that mass production reduces cost but not always quality. Just to assume that a "kit" lens is always going to be low quality is wrong. 

 

 

 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, Draq said:

Hergen, thank you for your comment, it provides an interesting insight.  If I used the Sony system and was on the fence between the two water contact options, your comments would cause me to lean in the direction of the WWL.  It is always helpful to hear from people with actual experience with a product or technique.

Glad to be of help.  The biggest and most expensive is not always the best for every situation.  Sometimes a certain combination just works extremely well together and deliver results.

  • Like 2

Share this post


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

Hergan and I have known each other for several years and I respect his opinion regarding how well WWL-1/1B works with the Sony FE 28-60mm. It is a very compelling kit because it can also be used with closeup lenses like the CMC-1/2. With cameras like A7s 12MP and A7 IV 24MP I agree that you would be hard pressed to see a large difference V. WACP-1. With higher res cameras like A7R IV 61MP and A-1 50MP the gap begins to widen especially at the 28mm 130 degree end of the lens.

I also think 121 missed the part of the Edward Lai interview where he described the Sony 28-60 "kit" lens performance as being I believe the word he used as astounding and explained that mass production reduces cost but not always quality. Just to assume that a "kit" lens is always going to be low quality is wrong. 

 

 

 

I think you are not understanding what I said

First the 28-60mm is a cheap lens made of plastic in China and is slow that does not mean it lacks sharpness. On land lenses are praised not just for sharpness (almost any lens is sharp enough) but because they operate at wide aperture and perform better in certain conditions those are made of metal and in most cases made in Japan or in other authorised factory with higher quality standards.

When you look at how this lens does at 28mm and compare even with the 16-35mm 2.8 the resolution figures at f/5.6 are very similar there is no gap to be closed

However there are other cases like the canon or nikon where the cheaper lens falls way behind the most expensive 16-35mm lens with sharpness falling around 20-30 in the centre and a bit less but still enough in the sides

Which means that when you look at the curve that Alex Mustard has put there your starting point for the better lens is 30% upper in terms of resolution and the curves meet at more than 30-40 degrees away from the centre

So it is not possible to generalise that in all conditions even in the centre a water contact optics beat a superior wide angle optic and moreover the water contact optics does not make a lens sharper it just corrects certain chromatic aberrations better than a dome which is in effect a lens made with a single element as you move towards the edges.

Finally I do not buy the idea that Adam seems to suggest in the video but actually Edwards does not mention that a dry solution is much better than a wet solution because in most cases the wet lens is extremely close to the port and that thin layer of water is thin enough not to make a major difference anyway. So I am not surprised that perceptually someone may try the WACP and WWL-1 with the same lens and conclude that the difference is not that much.

The fact is that for certain format there is no wet lens option therefore generalised comparisons are not possible.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sponsors

Advertisements



×
×
  • Create New...