Jump to content

Recommended Posts

30 minutes ago, fruehaufsteher2 said:

I'd like to add that also from objective measures the 28-60 is a very performant lens (in contrary to the 16-50 APSC-lens for the A6xxx-cameras).

https://sonyalpha.blog/2020/12/07/sony-fe-28-60mm-f4-5-6/

 

This lens due to the small form factor fits WWL-1 WAPC-C and WAPC-1 it is a unique proposition

Other brand lenses may fit WAPC-C and WACP-1 but not the WWL-1

The study of UW foto film https://uwfoto.net/vergleich-domeports-vorsatzlinsen-und-korrektivports/ shows that actually the gap with a rectilinear lens of high quality 12-24 2.8 is not 3 stops in the corners etc however the cost of this set up is actually higher than the water contact optic (WACP) 

One thing is certain Sony mirrorless camera currently offer the best opportunities in the Nauticam range. The housing are less expensive, water contact optics are more supported so you have plenty of choice.

Sony is playing very good marketing strategy by making sure that their video orientated camera A7S3 remain low pixel count and their full frame photo orientated have enough limitation and rolling shutter so that there is no overlap.

As @gotmuck puts it once you try all options with the 28-60mm lens do you see enough difference to trade off on cost and weight? He does not, and based on his examples I would agree that a wet lens may be better especially if you shoot video.

However if you have a canon or nikon kit zoom lens you only have the choice between WAPC-C and WACP-1 again you need to consider the cost implications but in terms of bulk both lenses are quite heavy and the canon and nikon housing are also heavier than sony

For reference the price ratio considering the WWL-1B as 1 in UK stands as 

WWL-1 = 1

WACP-C = 2x

WACP-1 = 3.2x

And am pretty sure the optical quality in the centre is similar while am not sure the one stop benefit in the edge is worth the one stop in terms of price. in terms of weight the comparison is also similar.

Again no point talking about rectilinear lenses as none of those are rectilinear but the comparison among the wet options is more interesting for me

 

Edited by Interceptor121

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Interceptor121 said:

This lens due to the small form factor fits WWL-1 WAPC-C and WAPC-1 it is a unique proposition

Other brand lenses may fit WAPC-C and WACP-1 but not the WWL-1

The study of UW foto film https://uwfoto.net/vergleich-domeports-vorsatzlinsen-und-korrektivports/ shows that actually the gap with a rectilinear lens of high quality 12-24 2.8 is not 3 stops in the corners etc however the cost of this set up is actually higher than the water contact optic (WACP) 

One thing is certain Sony mirrorless camera currently offer the best opportunities in the Nauticam range. The housing are less expensive, water contact optics are more supported so you have plenty of choice.

Sony is playing very good marketing strategy by making sure that their video orientated camera A7S3 remain low pixel count and their full frame photo orientated have enough limitation and rolling shutter so that there is no overlap.

As @gotmuck puts it once you try all options with the 28-60mm lens do you see enough difference to trade off on cost and weight? He does not, and based on his examples I would agree that a wet lens may be better especially if you shoot video.

However if you have a canon or nikon kit zoom lens you only have the choice between WAPC-C and WACP-1 again you need to consider the cost implications but in terms of bulk both lenses are quite heavy and the canon and nikon housing are also heavier than sony

For reference the price ratio considering the WWL-1B as 1 in UK stands as 

WWL-1 = 1

WACP-C = 2x

WACP-1 = 3.2x

And am pretty sure the optical quality in the centre is similar while am not sure the one stop benefit in the edge is worth the one stop in terms of price. in terms of weight the comparison is also similar.

Again no point talking about rectilinear lenses as none of those are rectilinear but the comparison among the wet options is more interesting for me

 

For what it's worth, i've now shot WACP-1 on an the Canon R5 C with both the recommended Canon 28-70 F3.5-F4.5 old kit lens and the new RF 14-35mm F4 lens (using a 30mm extension ring).

The RF 14-35F4 is only listed for use with the WACP-2 on Nauticam's charts, not the WACP-1. However, to my slight surprise, the RF 14-35mm works perfectly in the 26-35mm range and produces slightly better results than the old 28-70 kit lens. Even at F4 (The 28-70 has very bad chromatic abberation at F3.5 that only clears up to an acceptable level at F5.6 in my view). So yes, ablosutely, the quality of the kit lens you have behind the wet contact optic matters.

But as far as I can tell, there's little if any difference in the optical formula for the WWL-1, WACP-C, WACP-1 and WACP-2. Nauticam just scaled up the size of the glass elements, but it's the same geometries and configuration. So I'd suspect the quality of the lens you use behind the wet contact optic will actually have a bigger impact on the overall quality of your images than moving from a WWL-1 to a WACP-C or WACP-1 or WACP-2. 

(Oh, and for what it's worth, I again confirmed to that the Canon 8-15 behind a 140mm dome is superior to the WACP-1 for stills at F8 and above.. not only in the angle of coverage (and thus how close you can get to the subject), but also in perceived sharpness and resolution. At F4 or F5.6, the WACP-1 + 14-35 are more comperable (the corners of the 8-15 get mushy at these lower apertures). For me... I'd still choose the fisheye any day for wide angle photos, and the WACP-1 (or WACP-C, WWL-1, WACP-2) for video.

I have shot the WWL-1 on m4/3 and WACP-1 on a 45mp full frame camera with different lenses, so the results are not exactly comparing apples to apples. That said, I'm in the camp of those that think the differences in real world images are not worth the increase in price and size. This comparison test (in German) also suggets the same conclusion: https://uwfoto.net/vergleich-domeports-vorsatzlinsen-und-korrektivports/

The WACP-1 is slightly sharper in the corners then the WWL-1, but it's not the drastic 2-3 stop difference Nauticam's marketing is suggesting. Maybe 1 stop. The improvement for the WACP-C should be even less.

My conclusion? If you can find a modern lens that will work behind the WWL-1 for your system, that's probably your best option. As between the WACP-C/WACP-1/WACP-2, the difference in the lens behind the wet corrector is probably more important than the wet corrector itself. Modern lenses are superior to old kit lenses, and Nauticam's port charts aren't exhaustive. After my experience with the WACP-1 and RF 14-35F4, I wouldn't be surprised if the RF 24-70F2.8 or RF 28-70F2 actually work just fine behind the WACP-1 or WACP-C with the correct extension port, even though they're not listed on the official charts. Perhaps the zoom range you can use will be limited (because of the extension of the lens when zoomed), but they still may prove to be better solutions than the old Canon 28-70 F3.5-F4.5 kit lens.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Regarding the costs:

I had asked for two different configurations at PanOcean in Germany:

Nauticam housing with WAPC-C and Nauticam housing with WWL-1B, but especially including all necessary gear for the 28-60

The price is high but the difference is lower than expected:

The variant with WAPC-C comes for 7k€ and the variant with the WWL-1B for 6k€ so the difference is 1k. With the less areas for failure (wet lens) and the possibility for split shots I decided to go for the WACP-C.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was of the impression that the WACP-C does not allow focus at infinity in air, making split shots problematic.  But I could be remembering incorrectly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, fruehaufsteher2 said:

Regarding the costs:

I had asked for two different configurations at PanOcean in Germany:

Nauticam housing with WAPC-C and Nauticam housing with WWL-1B, but especially including all necessary gear for the 28-60

The price is high but the difference is lower than expected:

The variant with WAPC-C comes for 7k€ and the variant with the WWL-1B for 6k€ so the difference is 1k. With the less areas for failure (wet lens) and the possibility for split shots I decided to go for the WACP-C.

The WAPC-C does not focus above water. The WWL-1 actually does and so does the WACP-2

None of those are a good idea for split shots

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/25/2022 at 5:08 AM, 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

 

Yes, thank you Dr. Obvious... We understand that ;)
 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yes, thank you Dr. Obvious... We understand that
 

It was your comment that made no sense as ‘large pelagic’ and people do not hang on the reef but are midwater so the corners don’t matter
If you see some difference may be down to you wanting to see them as opposed to real differences being there
It happens when you make a large investment to want to believe it is worth it


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, dreifish said:

For what it's worth, i've now shot WACP-1 on an the Canon R5 C with both the recommended Canon 28-70 F3.5-F4.5 old kit lens and the new RF 14-35mm F4 lens (using a 30mm extension ring).

The RF 14-35F4 is only listed for use with the WACP-2 on Nauticam's charts, not the WACP-1. However, to my slight surprise, the RF 14-35mm works perfectly in the 26-35mm range and produces slightly better results than the old 28-70 kit lens. Even at F4 (The 28-70 has very bad chromatic abberation at F3.5 that only clears up to an acceptable level at F5.6 in my view). So yes, ablosutely, the quality of the kit lens you have behind the wet contact optic matters.

But as far as I can tell, there's little if any difference in the optical formula for the WWL-1, WACP-C, WACP-1 and WACP-2. Nauticam just scaled up the size of the glass elements, but it's the same geometries and configuration. So I'd suspect the quality of the lens you use behind the wet contact optic will actually have a bigger impact on the overall quality of your images than moving from a WWL-1 to a WACP-C or WACP-1 or WACP-2. 

(Oh, and for what it's worth, I again confirmed to that the Canon 8-15 behind a 140mm dome is superior to the WACP-1 for stills at F8 and above.. not only in the angle of coverage (and thus how close you can get to the subject), but also in perceived sharpness and resolution. At F4 or F5.6, the WACP-1 + 14-35 are more comperable (the corners of the 8-15 get mushy at these lower apertures). For me... I'd still choose the fisheye any day for wide angle photos, and the WACP-1 (or WACP-C, WWL-1, WACP-2) for video.

I have shot the WWL-1 on m4/3 and WACP-1 on a 45mp full frame camera with different lenses, so the results are not exactly comparing apples to apples. That said, I'm in the camp of those that think the differences in real world images are not worth the increase in price and size. This comparison test (in German) also suggets the same conclusion: https://uwfoto.net/vergleich-domeports-vorsatzlinsen-und-korrektivports/

The WACP-1 is slightly sharper in the corners then the WWL-1, but it's not the drastic 2-3 stop difference Nauticam's marketing is suggesting. Maybe 1 stop. The improvement for the WACP-C should be even less.

My conclusion? If you can find a modern lens that will work behind the WWL-1 for your system, that's probably your best option. As between the WACP-C/WACP-1/WACP-2, the difference in the lens behind the wet corrector is probably more important than the wet corrector itself. Modern lenses are superior to old kit lenses, and Nauticam's port charts aren't exhaustive. After my experience with the WACP-1 and RF 14-35F4, I wouldn't be surprised if the RF 24-70F2.8 or RF 28-70F2 actually work just fine behind the WACP-1 or WACP-C with the correct extension port, even though they're not listed on the official charts. Perhaps the zoom range you can use will be limited (because of the extension of the lens when zoomed), but they still may prove to be better solutions than the old Canon 28-70 F3.5-F4.5 kit lens.

I think there is some confusion from the user base of why the optics like WACP came about.

In essence those solution are very similar to a wet lens as long as the wet lens is sitting very close to the port

Some lenses change size considerably when zoomed. You have two options

1. Use a short flat port and limit the zoom range

2. Try to design a dry port where the zoom moves inside the lens housing

Those things have been around long before Nauticam started to produce water contact optics I remember the canon g10 a camera that had a very long zoom had a wet lens with a dry mount

The solution is not designed like that because it is better but is designed with a dry mount out of necessity

Then once you have the dry mount you can get some marginal improvements mostly on the edges due to the fact that the mount does not have any light leak so contrast will go up. You can also of course optimise the design but is not possible to optimise for each lens

So I am not at all surprised that if you take the same Sony 28-60mm lens which is a slow but sharp lens and try the WWL-1 WACP-1 WACP-C you see small differences between them.

It would be interesting to run this test so we remove the lens performance from the equation using a macro slide in a tank not in open water where conditions change and tests become purely subjective

If someone had those pieces of equipment avaialble to test it would be interesting as opposed to spend time comparing to rectilinear lenses behind domes. Domes are designed to restore the field of view not to increase it and to avoid distortion so they have nothing to do with water contact optics

Edited by Interceptor121

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

  • "So I am not at all surprised that if you take the same Sony 28-60mm lens which is a slow but sharp lens and try the WWL-1 WACP-1 WACP-C you see small differences between them".

Not trying to be picky 121 but I am not sure of your your definition of slow is but the Sony 28-60 will AF at the A-1 top speed of 30 FPS. That is twice as fast as the older Sony 28-70 and 28mm F/2. That is also as fast as the Sony 12-24 F/2.8 you referred to. Also the fact that the lens is made of "plastic" in China does not mean it is of cheap construction. Many of Sony and others top quality lenses are made in China. The Nauticam WWL and WACP line are also made in China are you suggesting that if they were made in Japan that they would be superior? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think many people on this thread are weighing whether to choose water contact lenses or dome port/lens combinations, and/or which water contact lens to choose, so it is wrong (and unhelpful) to state that they have nothing to do with each other!

I'm also not sure where I suggest that a dry solution is superior, but in essence, shooting through air will always be preferable optically to shooting through water. Even a "thin layer" of water can affect image quality, albeit that this may be a small performance difference in reality. My understanding is that this is the reason that Nauticam elected to opt for a conversion port, as opposed to a wet lens, when looking at SLR underwater optics.

WACP-1 was designed for use with Nikon AF 28-70 f/3.5-4.5 D. It is a zoom lens, but has only 16.42mm of extension "difference"  in its entire focal range. I think it is incorrect to suggest that Nauticam designed corrector ports solely to allow for zoom lenses. The design was (and is) simply to maximise potential optical performance

 

Share this post


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


WACP-1 was designed for use with Nikon AF 28-70 f/3.5-4.5 D. It is a zoom lens, but has only 16.42mm of extension "difference"  in its entire focal range. I think it is incorrect to suggest that Nauticam designed corrector ports solely to allow for zoom lenses. The design was (and is) simply to maximise potential optical performance

 

Actually I do not think any lens was designed with the Nikon AF 28-70 in mind

WWL-1 I discussed with Nauticam when it was created it was for zoom lenses on RX100 Compact and worked with Sony 28mm full frame equally well.

WACP-1 is an N100 lens which is the Sony system. The benefit is to fit lenses like the larger 16-35 that do not have any reasonable flat port option that do not work with the WWL-1 this allows also a bunch of other N120 system lenses to be used which normally have no flat ports to work with a wet lens zoom too much or can't have a 67mm thread mount (too wide or would vignette)

The only lens that is native N120 is the WACP-2 all the rest firmly have a Sony camera in mind at the outset

With respect to performance the effect of diffraction is limited in the centre as rays go in straight 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well - I guess in this instance you are wrong! WACP-1 was designed and tested with the Nikon 28-70. As it happens, WACP-C was also designed with the same lens in mind, but times (and lens options) have changed since it was originally designed....

There are numerous housings within the Nauticam range that are N100 and not Sony! My understanding on the design of WACP-1 was that N100 made the size of the exit pupil easier, reducing overall size on the lens. It should also be stressed, that it has (thus far) always shipped with an N120 converter.

Share this post


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

 

 

  • "So I am not at all surprised that if you take the same Sony 28-60mm lens which is a slow but sharp lens and try the WWL-1 WACP-1 WACP-C you see small differences between them".

Not trying to be picky 121 but I am not sure of your your definition of slow is but the Sony 28-60 will AF at the A-1 top speed of 30 FPS. That is twice as fast as the older Sony 28-70 and 28mm F/2. That is also as fast as the Sony 12-24 F/2.8 you referred to. Also the fact that the lens is made of "plastic" in China does not mean it is of cheap construction. Many of Sony and others top quality lenses are made in China. The Nauticam WWL and WACP line are also made in China are you suggesting that if they were made in Japan that they would be superior? 

Definition of a slow lens is a lens with a small physical aperture of high f-number.

A fast prime lens is normally around f/1.4 you can shoot in very low light with no articial sources

A high quality zoom lens for professional use is normally f/2.8

Example wedding photographer goes around with two camera one has a 24-70 and the other 70-200 mm at constant f/2.8 he can cover all situation with this combo

A slow zoom lens starts normally at f/3.5 - f/4 and normally the aperture reduces as the lens zoom

the implication is lens that is 70/2.8 has a physical aperture of 25mm which makes the lens big and heavy

The 28-60mm lens instead is slow so at 60/5.6 is 10.71mm which makes this lens less than half the size of the 24-70 faster lens

The slower lens is also less impacted by aberrations and therefore needs less correction resulting in ultimately less elements in the construction reduced weight which means you can use a plastic casing something you cannot do with a heavy lens that normally is made of metal.

In terms of where lenses are made (I am talking about camera lenses which are precision equipment with electronics not underwater glass) even today many high quality lenses that are fast are made in Japan. Sigma only makes lenses in Japan. Other brands started a dual production in China or other markets (Vietnam) for certain models but not for all of them.

As long as the equipment is there and quality can be assured there is no difference where something is made however as of today plenty of the highest quality camera lens are still made in Japan.

So not I was not referring to the fps I was referring to the actual lens 'speed' in photography

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is odd to me that a thread about a new product becomes so contentious.  I would think there are those who are or may be interested in purchasing/using the product, and therefore discuss it, and those who are uninterested for whatever reasons, and who will pay little attention.  But it seems there is a lot of hate, or at least angst,  about this particular product

I have never handled a WACP or even seen one in person, let alone used one, so all I know about it is what others have said, and I have to separate the wheat from the chaff.

But anyway,

There have been some comments comparing the WWL or WACP to something like an 8-15 FE.  I don’t see the water contact optics as a “competitor” to those lenses.  The water-contact optics’ potential value to me (and I assume others) lies in providing an option for those times when one needs greater “reach” than is available with a fisheye, or when one wishes to minimize the distortion found in fisheye shots.  I don’t want to use the term rectilinear as that seems to generate superfluous technical comments about how straight is straight. 

Note that I am not so much talking about the WACP-2, or frankly, even the WACP-1, as their weight and cost and size significantly complicate the issue and are impractical for many hobby users.

The point has been raised that a $3000 Sony GM lens in a 230mm, $2100 dome port may match or exceed what a WACP-C and kit lens can do.  Perhaps, but we are talking about an expensive, huge, heavy setup that is brand specific.  But perhaps it illustrates the potential value of something like a WACP-C.  If I can even get close to what that huge, heavy and expensive combination can produce with a WACP-C, is it not perhaps a good option?   

I think the real “value” in these optics are twofold:

1.  I can perhaps obtain with a WACP-C a greater zoom range and somewhere between “almost as good” and “much better” results in a smaller and lighter package, at a similar cost, compared to a 230mm glass port and a quality wide angle zoom lens.  (Example:  Zen 230mm port and Nikon 16-35 lens and 77mm S&S correction filter $3200.  Nauticam WACP-C and Nikon 18-55 lens ($3500).  That is a big deal to me.  

657649060_TwinOtterinterior.png.e88ca82500d38a5b0dc8cf560139fb33.png

I take several trips a year to dive and take photos, on a variety of aircraft and carriers,  and I face luggage weight limitations and carry-on limitations frequently.   A 2.2kg optic of 170mm diameter is far more manageable than a 230mm dome port and weighs the same or less.  And the cost is similar.I take several trips a year to dive and take photos, on a variety of aircraft,  and I face luggage weight limitations and carry-on limitations frequently.   A 2.2kg optic of 170mm diameter is far more manageable than a 230mm dome port and weighs the same or less.  And the cost is similar.

2. If the WACP-C can allow me to obtain similar results at f8 as I could get with a wide zoom and 230 dome at f11 - f14 (if I was willing to transport one of those with me), then I can get greater flexibility in iso and shutter speed, which can offer creative options for depth of field, greater flexibility when flash is not desired, and possibly faster flash recycling and more shots per set of batteries. It also decreases  the chance image degradation due to diffraction, although admittedly that is a minor point in most cases.   I know some will dismiss these potential benefits due to the ability of modern cameras to perform well at high iso, but for me, it is a value.

So, again, I think when we argue about how a WWL or WACP compares to a fisheye, it misses the point, at least for me.   If I get a WACP-C, I will likely still travel with my 8-15 and mini dome.  There are times I want the tiny dome and times I want the FE perspective. 

So, what about the newest debate, WWL vs WACP-C? It certainly appears from some who have actually used these optics, that at least for some formats and perhaps specific lenses, there is not much image quality difference and perhaps only about a ¾ stop benefit to the WACP-C.    In my case, my WWL that I purchased for M43, does not work on my Nikon, so it does not matter, but for those with systems that can take either lens, perhaps the WWL is the more reasonable option Unless one is dissatisfied with the WWL.  If choosing between the two, weight, size and cost would matter most, I suppose.

It would be nice to see some controlled tests, but that will probably be a while. 

As I think about it, there is a third potential benefit to such a lens, compared to a 230 dome.  Many of my dive trips are not on photo-oriented boats or at photo seminars on land and I also visit places I have never before visited.   I can't count how many times I have jumped in the water with my mini dome and fisheye and the only things of interest were not really suitable to that lens, or I had a macro lens or a wide angle in a larger dome and found that I wished I was better set up for CFWA.   Sometimes these are in situations where I am going to get one dive at that site, so no opportunity to change lenses and go back.  I am not sure this is a really big deal, but it is one more situation in which the issue is not simply sharpness of some part of the frame. 

 

 

Edited by Draq

Share this post


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

Well - I guess in this instance you are wrong! WACP-1 was designed and tested with the Nikon 28-70. As it happens, WACP-C was also designed with the same lens in mind, but times (and lens options) have changed since it was originally designed....

There are numerous housings within the Nauticam range that are N100 and not Sony! My understanding on the design of WACP-1 was that N100 made the size of the exit pupil easier, reducing overall size on the lens. It should also be stressed, that it has (thus far) always shipped with an N120 converter.

Did he say that to you in one of your youtube? I might have missed it. 

Look at the WACP is basically 6 elements in 5 groups the WWL-1 is 6 elements in five group

The design of the WACP looks to me a WWL-1 stuck to a 35mm N100 - N120 adapter ring

This is a bit different from the 45mm flat port of the WWL-1 but not so different

The WACP needs 65mm of extension to hit the glass and the WWL 45mm so you would argue that is actually closer

I really think someone who has the 2860mm lens should give a go to all those optics you may be suprised

I would try the macro port 45 or similar with this Nikon Lens and the WWL-1 to see what you get

Share this post


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

It is odd to me that a thread about a new product becomes so contentious.  I would think there are those who are or may be interested in purchasing/using the product, and therefore discuss it, and those who are uninterested for whatever reasons, and who will pay little attention.  But it seems there is a lot of hate, or at least angst,  about this particular product

I have never handled a WACP or even seen one in person, let alone used one, so all I know about it is what others have said, and I have to separate the wheat from the chaff.

But anyway,

There have been some comments comparing the WWL or WACP to something like an 8-15 FE.  I don’t see the water contact optics as a “competitor” to those lenses.  The water-contact optics’ potential value to me (and I assume others) lies in providing an option for those times when one needs greater “reach” than is available with a fisheye, or when one wishes to minimize the distortion found in fisheye shots.  I don’t want to use the term rectilinear as that seems to generate superfluous technical comments about how straight is straight. 

Note that I am not so much talking about the WACP-2, or frankly, even the WACP-1, as their weight and cost and size significantly complicate the issue and are impractical for many hobby users.

The point has been raised that a $3000 Sony GM lens in a 230mm, $2100 dome port may match or exceed what a WACP-C and kit lens can do.  Perhaps, but we are talking about an expensive, huge, heavy setup that is brand specific.  But perhaps it illustrates the potential value of something like a WACP-C.  If I can even get close to what that huge, heavy and expensive combination can produce with a WACP-C, is it not perhaps a good option?   

I think the real “value” in these optics are twofold:

1.  I can perhaps obtain with a WACP-C a greater zoom range and somewhere between “almost as good” and “much better” results in a smaller and lighter package, at a similar cost, compared to a 230mm glass port and a quality wide angle zoom lens.  (Example:  Zen 230mm port and Nikon 16-35 lens and 77mm S&S correction filter $3200.  Nauticam WACP-C and Nikon 18-55 lens ($3500).  That is a big deal to me.  

657649060_TwinOtterinterior.png.e88ca82500d38a5b0dc8cf560139fb33.png

I take several trips a year to dive and take photos, on a variety of aircraft and carriers,  and I face luggage weight limitations and carry-on limitations frequently.   A 2.2kg optic of 170mm diameter is far more manageable than a 230mm dome port and weighs the same or less.  And the cost is similar.I take several trips a year to dive and take photos, on a variety of aircraft,  and I face luggage weight limitations and carry-on limitations frequently.   A 2.2kg optic of 170mm diameter is far more manageable than a 230mm dome port and weighs the same or less.  And the cost is similar.

2. If the WACP-C can allow me to obtain similar results at f8 as I could get with a wide zoom and 230 dome at f11 - f14 (if I was willing to transport one of those with me), then I can get greater flexibility in iso and shutter speed, which can offer creative options for depth of field, greater flexibility when flash is not desired, and possibly faster flash recycling and more shots per set of batteries. It also decreases  the chance image degradation due to diffraction, although admittedly that is a minor point in most cases.   I know some will dismiss these potential benefits due to the ability of modern cameras to perform well at high iso, but for me, it is a value.

So, again, I think when we argue about how a WWL or WACP compares to a fisheye, it misses the point, at least for me.   If I get a WACP-C, I will likely still travel with my 8-15 and mini dome.  There are times I want the tiny dome and times I want the FE perspective. 

So, what about the newest debate, WWL vs WACP-C? It certainly appears from some who have actually used these optics, that at least for some formats and perhaps specific lenses, there is not much image quality difference and perhaps only about a ¾ stop benefit to the WACP-C.    In my case, my WWL that I purchased for M43, does not work on my Nikon, so it does not matter, but for those with systems that can take either lens, perhaps the WWL is the more reasonable option Unless one is dissatisfied with the WWL.  If choosing between the two, weight, size and cost would matter most, I suppose.

It would be nice to see some controlled tests, but that will probably be a while. 

 

 

 

 

Sorry I think my post come across the wrong way many time

What kicked this off was the discussion about corner sharpness vs a rectilinear lens

None of those optics are rectilinear so the comparison is misleading. If you want straight lines you need to buy a wide lens and a large dome this is not changing any time soon.

Then there is another trend about how much better are the WACP 1 2 C vs the wet lens which is also an interesting topic however this comparison is really only true for the Sony system as other systems do not have a wet lens

And finally the argument of WACP vs fisheye zoom which is also not particular fit for purpose as the wet optics stop at narrowed angle but perhaps a better comparison than the rectilinear lens case

It is great to have choice but sometimes there are some predicaments about this is better than that with no actual support data or even not comparable data and when someone then goes and does some measures like those german guys did surprises happen

Edited by Interceptor121
  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think it is great to see passionate debate on the forums again - that is what they exist for - it is a Wetpixel tradition. Members benefit from thrashing through all the issues and many more benefit from reading the opposing views and forming their own opinion. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, going off on a side road for a moment, I wonder if anyone with a more technical grasp of this stuff can help me understand this:

The WACP-C port chart shows compatibility for the Sigma 18-35 lens for the Canon N120 EF mount, using Extension Ring 40 and a N100 - N120 25mm adapter, but does not show the lens as compatible for the Nikon F mount.  Unless it is just something that has not been evaluated yet, that confuses me.

I am also surprised that a 72mm diameter lens works with the WACP-C

 

Share this post


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

Well, going off on a side road for a moment, I wonder if anyone with a more technical grasp of this stuff can help me understand this:

The WACP-C port chart shows compatibility for the Sigma 18-35 lens for the Canon N120 EF mount, using Extension Ring 40 and a N100 - N120 25mm adapter, but does not show the lens as compatible for the Nikon F mount.  Unless it is just something that has not been evaluated yet, that confuses me.

I am also surprised that a 72mm diameter lens works with the WACP-C

 

The Sigma 18-35mm is very popular for APSC cinema style cameras like the BMPCC Z_CAM Panasonic is a lens that is very popular for those that work on land due to the extremely high aperture that works in low light. Nikon lenses are not used on as adapted as they are not generally supported by conversion mounts

As the N120 mount is the same I would think same distances apply and the lens works

Either way the 18-35mm is a great lens and you would mostly get it for low light land video

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, I do already have the lens.  Never have tried to use it underwater and not sure I would.  I am just a bit confused about the port chart.

 

 

Share this post


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

Yes, I do already have the lens.  Never have tried to use it underwater and not sure I would.  I am just a bit confused about the port chart.

 

 

The flange distance difference is 2.5 and all lenses that are cross work with the same extension I think it would work if you want to use the lens

It is not a particularly popular lens in nikon mount

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 hours ago, Interceptor121 said:


It was your comment that made no sense as ‘large pelagic’ and people do not hang on the reef but are midwater so the corners don’t matter
If you see some difference may be down to you wanting to see them as opposed to real differences being there
It happens when you make a large investment to want to believe it is worth it


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

No need to justify $ spent on u/w photography (until the wife starts noticing...). Subjectively, diving with a D850 and the WACP1 was a much better rig choice than a large dome in Fr. Polynesia diving with whales, dolphins, and sharks (while shooting other divers on the trip as well). It was easier to handle and gave better results on our 2nd trip (first time I took the large dome/lens combo, it was okay, but not great)

I get that your imagination might be limited in how you shoot large animals or other divers, but others (here and elsewhere) shoot them against blue water, reef backgrounds, rocky backgrounds, etc. Shooting a diver against a colorful reefscape is an easy way to see the impact of corner sharpness.








 
 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
No need to justify $ spent on u/w photography (until the wife starts noticing...). Subjectively, diving with a D850 and the WACP1 was a much better rig choice than a large dome in Fr. Polynesia diving with whales, dolphins, and sharks (while shooting other divers on the trip as well). It was easier to handle and gave better results on our 2nd trip (first time I took the large dome/lens combo, it was okay, but not great)

I get that your imagination might be limited in how you shoot large animals or other divers, but others (here and elsewhere) shoot them against blue water, reef backgrounds, rocky backgrounds, etc. Shooting a diver against a colorful reefscape is an easy way to see the impact of corner sharpness.








 
 

Shooting against means the background is away so not sharp anyway
Shooting the reef instead as a subject is a different story
You are not going to see anything the moment the background is a few meters away due to water particles lack of depth of field and other factors unless you close the aperture however if you close the aperture the benefit of wacp solution is diminished


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is somewhat specious as an example, but using a full frame camera with a 14mm lens at f/2.8, the focus is from 1.16m in front of the sensor plane to infinity. So there is plenty of depth of field to shoot both a pelagic subject and reef behind it and expect optical sharpness in the background.

Lighting the background and the softness caused by diffraction are challenges, but are certainly possible, particularly in clear, shallow water. 

The testing suggests that WACP is sharper across the aperture range, although the difference between them and lens/port combinations  becomes less marked at smaller apertures.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sponsors

Advertisements



×
×
  • Create New...