Nauticam WACP-C

[Interceptor121 768]

3 hours ago, adamhanlon said:

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.

That is not how it works in water unfortunately and the hyperfocal distance does not mean the lens is sharp throughout it only means the focus is acceptable

In addition put a few meters of not clear water add the fact the strobes will not make it and you are back there

If you are in the shallow you can close the aperture and the gap closes

I think benefits are evident when you shoot something that is almost flat with details close in the corners that you can properly illuminate and see. Almost all examples that want to show case those lenses are like that

If there is a manta with a reef 3 meters behind that is far distorted and not lit I cannot care less looking in the corners to start with let alone the physical challenges

[JYk 20]

I wonder if the Sigma 28-70 F2.8 would fit with the WACP-C but maybe this lens gets to big when zoomed in?

Edited September 30, 2022 by JYk

[Alex_Mustard 0]

9 hours ago, JYk said:

I wonder if the Sigma 28-70 F2.8 would fit with the WACP-C but maybe this lens gets to big when zoomed in?

I tested this with both the WACP-1 and WACP-C when both first appeared. The Sigma fits and is a sharper lens than the Nikon lens on land, but the Nikon works much better behind the WACPs. It was ages ago that I tried it - and if I had a pool I would like to do more tests of different lenses. I need a friend with a pool!

[JYk 20]

Thanks @Alex_Mustard for your reply. I think I made the mistake to just ask for Sigma. I had the quite new Sigma for Sony E-Mount in mind and not the Nikon version. 

I didn't saw any fast zooms on the WACP-C list so I think its not designed for these lenses. If it could fit with a good zoom range, it would be awesome. 

[Samuel_l1 4]

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

[fruehaufsteher2 19]

Hi @Samuel_l1 thanks so much, that’s great help. While eagerly waiting for delivery of my new a7iv housing with the wacp-c I had significantly concerns whether the wwl1b wouldn’t have been the better solution. 
But with your hints especially with regards to the bubbles I now am sure that the decision for WAPC-C was right. 

[dreifish 362]

Nice comparison photos, Samuel. Size/diameter differences between the WACP-C and WWL-1 seem pretty minimal. I would expect any image quality differences to be equally minimal (with the same lens behind the water-contact optic, that is).

But unfortunately, outside the Sony system, I don't believe any other systems allow the use of both WWL-1 and WACP-C/WACP-1 with the same lens. So you're sort of stuck with the water contact optic that works for your system/lens.

(As an aside, I tried using the Canon RF 24-70F2.8 with the WACP-1 and found that from 28 to ~35mm (i.e. at the wide end) there was vignetting. This is I believe because the RF 24-70F2.8 has an 82mm front filter thread, which is actually slightly wider than the back glass element of the WACP-1. From 35-70 however, the lens worked fine with a 50mm extension ring between the R5C housing and WACP-1.

By comparison, the Canon RF14-35F4 (which has a 77mm filter thread) works just fine from 26mm-35mm with a 30mm extension ring. So I think the WACP-1 can only be used with lenses up to a 77mm filter thread, basically.

[Marc Casanovas 2]

Low resolution but interesting...

https://www.facebook.com/media/set/?vanity=NauticamThailand&set=a.494436099369728

[Phil Rudin 461]

Hi Marc, thanks for the link. Regardless of the resolution it clearly allows you to see the differences between the distortion of the fisheye, the WACP-1 and C and rectilinear lenses behind a large dome port.

[stillviking 5]

19 hours ago, Marc Casanovas said:

Low resolution but interesting...

https://www.facebook.com/media/set/?vanity=NauticamThailand&set=a.494436099369728

Great link to be honest! In my opinion of corners sharpness:

F4:

WAPC-1 > Dome + Fisheye > WAPC-C > Dome + Rectilinear.

F8-F11:

WAPC-1 > WAPC-C > Dome + Fisheye > Dome + Rectilinear.

Edited October 19, 2022 by stillviking

[Draq 118]

9 hours ago, stillviking said:

F4:  WAPC-1 > Dome + Fisheye > WAPC-C > Dome + Rectilinear.

F8-F11:  WAPC-1 > WAPC-C > Dome + Fisheye > Dome + Rectilinear.

The resolution of the pictures makes it hard to judge, but your conclusion seems to fit with what those who have tested these optics say.  For most of us, life is full of compromises.  I have yet to get it in the water, but I went ahead and purchased a WACP-C.  Assuming it performs as I expect, it does something I cannot do any other way, including the WACP-1; giving me a "less wide than fisheye" lens in a size I can deal with and a weight I can easily manage.

I can carry the WACP, camera, macro, 8-15 fisheye (not shown) and the "kit" lens in a small shoulder bag that can be safely carried aboard and stowed under the seat on any aircraft as well as being a manageable size and weight around the dive resorts, on the liveaboards and so on and giving me an ultra-wide (weitwinkel) to slightly wide lens without the dome issues.  Housing, strobes, ports, etc., still will go in a hard case as always.  If I need a longer reach, then I will have to take something like a 17-70 and a dome, but that is not something I commonly use.

As it happens, the hard cap for the WACP-C also fits easily in a pouch during dives, so I don't need to rig up a tether or bolt snap to it.

Now to see if I like using it!

[tobbe1 3]

I have been testing my WACP-C together with the Sony 28-60  f4-5.6 in a pool. It seems to work great for subjects far away from the camera, and the corners are really sharp at lower f-stops. However when i shoot subjects close up I don't see a big advantage using this combo. At apertures below F10 I get issues with with depth of field for close up photos, and there are also a bit more barrel distortion compared to my Sony 16-35 behind a 180mm glass dome. WACP is not a silver bullet and as always there are pros and cons, but is will be a great tool for some situations and the zoom function will be interesting to explore a bit more.

Edited October 23, 2022 by tobbe1

[roberto.formiga 16]

Hi, I've adapted the WACP-C to my Hugyfot D850 housing with the (very well made!) SAGA adapter. The combination fits perfectly and the Nikon 28-70mm works in it's full zoom range, no vignetting observed from my land test shots. Very compact size for a full-frame setup, I'm very happy with it. Not tested in water yet.

There goes some pictures of my setup:

 

Note how small it is compared to the Zen 230mm glass domeport (right) and the Hugyfot 170mm acrylic fisheye port (left):

[phil.elsasser 10]

I recently took the WACP-C and the Sony 28-60mm to Socorro and am very happy with the results I got.  I brought along the 8-15mm and 180mm dome thinking it would be nice for real close up Manta shots, but actually never put it on.  Here are a few of my favorites.  

 

The only drawback that I found to the combination was that in the shallows (<40ft) if I was shooting into the sun, there is very noticeable lens flare.  I am unsure if its from the cheap sony lens or the WACP.  It's a bit annoying, but mostly manageable.  

[JYk 20]

Anyone tested the Sigma 28-70 F2.8 Sony E lens with this port? 
I don't think it will fit for the full zoom range, but maybe it will be usable? Lens got a 67mm filter diameter and extends round about 2,5 cm for full zoom. 

[Phil Rudin 461]

For those interested my review for the Nauticam WACP-C is now posted in the current issue #130 of uwpmag.com. This is a free PDF download. 

For the review I used the Sony A7R V, Sony FR 28-60 zoom, Nauticam NA-A1 housing for Sony A-1 and Inon Z330 strobes.

 

[mochikat 4]

I got mine today! Fits beautifully in the Pelican 1535 carry on. It's a bit bigger but somehow it fits better than old WWL-1 or MWL-1 combo with separate port.

I can't believe it all fits - Sony A7C w 28-60mm lens inside the housing, WACP-C attached, 45 degree viewfinder, 90mm macro lens and port, SMC with flip adapter, 2 Inon Z330s, Backscatter mini flash and snoot, focus light. Literally everything except arms and clamps. 

Can't wait to test it out next week.

IMG_6116.HEIC

[Alex_Mustard 0]

On 11/2/2022 at 4:20 PM, roberto.formiga said:

 

It looks really good on the Huge housing.

[Architeuthis 156]

2 hours ago, Alex_Mustard said:

It looks really good on the Huge housing.

O.k. the setup looks good, but what about the photos?

I am asking, because I am now upgrading to a FF Sony camera and a WA lens+dome will be the next acquisition for me.

I hope you do not misunderstand me for being so direct, but as I was a scientist in my former live (now retired and completely happy to be so), I am used to ask direct questions: I read (maybe even in this tread) that you almost never use WACP-C, but instead prefer to use WACP-1 most of the time (In the absence of MTFs or other benchmark measurements your words are the gold standard for me). Is it correct when I conclude that the WACP-C does not satisfy the high resolution capabilities of FF systems?

I am not sure whether to acquire WACP-1 (heavy and bulky!) or WACP-C (much better in this regard, but IQ has priority, otherwise I could stay easily with my MFT system that I am using now (and I suspect it is not so small and light compared to FF as one often would believe))...

 

Wolfgang

Edited January 6 by Architeuthis

[Alex_Mustard 0]

On 1/6/2023 at 2:22 PM, Architeuthis said:

O.k. the setup looks good, but what about the photos?

I am asking, because I am now upgrading to a FF Sony camera and a WA lens+dome will be the next acquisition for me.

I hope you do not misunderstand me for being so direct, but as I was a scientist in my former live (now retired and completely happy to be so), I am used to ask direct questions: I read (maybe even in this tread) that you almost never use WACP-C, but instead prefer to use WACP-1 most of the time (In the absence of MTFs or other benchmark measurements your words are the gold standard for me). Is it correct when I conclude that the WACP-C does not satisfy the high resolution capabilities of FF systems?

I am not sure whether to acquire WACP-1 (heavy and bulky!) or WACP-C (much better in this regard, but IQ has priority, otherwise I could stay easily with my MFT system that I am using now (and I suspect it is not so small and light compared to FF as one often would believe))...

 

Wolfgang

Sorry for the slow reply, just seen this. 

I have both lenses and I have enjoyed having both. I have tended to use the one that is most suited to the trip. Some trips that is WACP-C, some it is WACP-1 and some trips I take neither. The WACP-C is great, but the WACP-1 is a bit better. And when you know that, and you have already paid for both, and you have the baggage allowance, you might as well take the better one (WACP-1).

But starting from scratch the WACP-C gives you most of the WACP-1, for less money and less bulk. That is an attractive proposition. 

Alex

It is not always easy to remember which I took on which trip, but these are WACP-C shots I've not shared before (Martin Edge in the second one):

 

[Architeuthis 156]

Thank you Alex, Phil and all the others for the valuable information - really a great forum here...

 

Maybe also the different lenses (Sony 28-60 vs. Nikon) behave not the same behind different WWLs/WACPs (different sharpness/contrast in center and corners, different field curvature)) and this is why Phil prefers the WACP-C and Alex the WACP-1?

 

Wolfgang

 

[Phil Rudin 461]

I can't speak for Alex but I have both WACP-1 and WACP-C and I have used both with the same camera and lens so I am able to access the differences between the two. I am guessing that Alex has done the same.

My preference for WACP-C is based more on ease of use rather than the one F/stop difference between the two. 

Also Alex is a Professional Photographer supporting his family off of his work. While I am also paid for my work but I am a retired Professional Police Officer living off my pension and investments. The inference being that the very highest image quality may be more important for Alex.  

Edited January 9 by Phil Rudin

[Draq 118]

I think Phil explains it pretty clearly.  Underwater photography is a hobby for me.  I purchased a WACP-C although I have no doubt that the -1 is better, but I spent a lot of time looking at weight, diameter, length, my packing preferences  and the luggage restrictions of various airlines, and concluded the -1 was a no-go  (I also added up the total weight of my setup with the WACP-1 and calculated the likelihood I would have the nerve to ask boat crews to hand it down and take back on dives and the chances of me  not suffering medical issues from carrying the thing around a dive resort).

I posted a picture some posts back in this thread of the WACP-C in my "personal item" bag that fits under the seat of any aircraft and I can also fit it in a cabin-legal carry-on.  I don't check cameras or lenses and to me, the WACP is more of a lens than a port.

The WACP-1 would simply not travel well for me and would be restricted to only specific trips.  The -C can go with me anytime I want.  I would think anyone without those space and weight concerns would be better served by the -1.  

If I encounter anyone with a WACP-1 on a dive trip, I would love to try it out for a couple of dives, and then give it back when it is time to pack and fly home.

 

 

[JYk 20]

Interesting discussion. Do we have any good data regarding the WWL-1 and the WACP-C in comparison? Question is if the price to performance ratio could be in favor for the WWL-1 or maybe both of them perform equal and you're hard to find any difference in pictures of both systems?

Edited January 10 by JYk

[Architeuthis 156]

17 minutes ago, JYk said:

Interesting discussion. Do we have any good data regarding the WWL-1 and the WACP-C in comparison? Question is if the price to performance ratio could be in favor for the WWL-1 or maybe both of them perform equal and you're hard to find any difference in pictures of both systems?

When buying new, one should also consider the N100 port 45 that is required together with WWL1-B. WACP-C does not require an additional port . According to the Nauticam US webside, WWL-1B+port is 1899 Euros, while WACP-C is 2901 Euros...

Port+WWL-1 is certainly the optimum in case one plans to use the port also without WWL-1 and with diopters for macro. In case WWL-1 and port are used exclusively for WA, the price difference is not very big and WACP-C may be the better choice (in case it is indeed optically better)...

 

Wolfgang