Nauticam WACP-C

[fruehaufsteher2 15]

Truly size matters. But for me the WAPC-C has compact size and it fits perfectly in my new „Rollei“ backpack. Only weight could be difficult - what is seen in the picture has already 9kgs

So thrilled to see how the new combination A7 VI - 28-60 - WAPC-C will perform. Feb 15th the plane will bring us to Filtheo (Maledives)

I will show results as soon as I have them. 

[Alex_Mustard 0]

The Nikonos 15mm is excellent optically. But it is also manual focus and manual aperture. You will miss a lot of shots fiddling with those dials. As Massimo points out the Field of View of the 15mm Nikonos is just 90˚, while the WWL/WACP all give 130˚, zooming to possibly around 60˚ depending on the lens behind them. And have AF and the expose can be controlled from the camera. 

 

[Interceptor121 713]

32 minutes ago, Alex_Mustard said:

The Nikonos 15mm is excellent optically. But it is also manual focus and manual aperture. You will miss a lot of shots fiddling with those dials. As Massimo points out the Field of View of the 15mm Nikonos is just 90˚, while the WWL/WACP all give 130˚, zooming to possibly around 60˚ depending on the lens behind them. And have AF and the expose can be controlled from the camera. 

 

So that I am not off topic I will open a thread on the nikonos

[jplaurel 40]

On 1/18/2023 at 3:19 AM, Alex_Mustard said:

The Nikonos 15mm is excellent optically. But it is also manual focus and manual aperture. You will miss a lot of shots fiddling with those dials. As Massimo points out the Field of View of the 15mm Nikonos is just 90˚, while the WWL/WACP all give 130˚, zooming to possibly around 60˚ depending on the lens behind them. And have AF and the expose can be controlled from the camera. 

 

All true, Alex!

Those things are a little less troublesome for those of us who shoot video. For the most part, we're often parked at a certain shutter speed and a certain aperture. In my case, with the A7S3 or A1, I just let the camera ramp ISO up and down automatically, which they do so smoothly, that it’s all but undetectable in practice.

The only real headache is focus. That's less of a problem with a good monitor, but even with peaking or focus assist, you sometimes have to be at full aperture to achieve truly accurate focus. The Nikonos seems to have alot more DoF behind the point of focus than it does in front so, for video, if you focus on the tips of your fins or so, and stop down to f11, you're pretty much good to go for pelagics in a place like the Revillagigedos. But working at closer distances and dynamic situations is where the Nikonos becomes alot harder to work with.

Edited January 20 by jplaurel
Simplify

[Alex_Mustard 0]

Deleted post - shared wrong image by mistake! 

[fruehaufsteher2 15]

One question I put in another thread:

While giong in and out of the water there's always the risk that you bump on anything like ladder, side of the boat, rocks.... the cap that is delivered with the WAPC-C is too large to have it with you in the water.

Do you just climb in and out of the boat without a cap or do you have something like a neoprene cover?

[lambee01 22]

@Interceptor121 @Alex_Mustard @Phil Rudin

 

Dear fellow underwater photographers

This is now weeks if not months that I am following up and reading all the posts on the three topics :

-          the Nauticam WACP-C,

-          the fisheye and

-          the recently launched Sony FE 28-60 f/4-f/5.6

These are great discussions and a lot of insight has been given in addition to my own private exchanges and communications to some of you.

I am into underwater photography for more than 30 years having started with the Nikonos III then V, moving into analog (slides/positive) SLR into housings. Of course today digital SLR. FYI I'm today using a Sony A1 and a Sony A7rIV in Nauticam housings.

For the last almost 10 years, if I have upgraded cameras and housings I am still using the same 230, 180, 140 and 100 mm dome ports depending on the lens that I am using ranging from 15 mm Fisheye, 14mm, 20mm, 28mm , zoom12-24 and of course 16-35 in addition to 50 and 90mm Macro . It happens to me that I am using also at 24-70 but very rarely.

I had made progress in UW photography with the right mentors such as Jim Church, Michael Aw, Heinz-Gert de Couet, Martin Edge, Mark Webster. And I have even some book from Alex Mustard who has published under the 3 topics I mentioned before.

I have been myself published in some diving magazines (i.e EZ-Dive, Tauchen, Oceans, Plongee) in addition to Travel or general purpose magazines for a total of nearly 60 publications.

As I am getting older I have been looking at the option of WACP-C just for easier traveling, minimizing what we have to carry to live our passion.

It is amazing all what the innovation and progress that Nauticam has brought to the field. Really fantastic. I have lived the huge leaps and jump from SUBAL or SEACM to Nauticam.

However and this is the reason of this long message, for the last 25 years I have not heard anyone complaining about corner softness when using wide angle lenses behind a dome.

It is a well-known fact, known since Dome ports do exist, simply because it's optical physics. We know about it and we know how to balance it.

I have not heard in 25 years a single reader of any book or publication complaining about corner softness, but always being amazed by the beauty of the underwater world, which is what we want to communicate as underwater photographers.

I have not heard of a single publisher refusing images because of corner softness.

Not a single image in any competition is denied entry because corners are not sharp enough.

 

At the end and this is my position today I have decided to not move into the WACP-C and keep my domes. We need to keep in mind that today such progress has been made on camera sensors that we should not have any fears going high on ISO, and closing aperture at F11 to F16, which ensure corner sharpness as we expect. If I could not do it at the age of films (VELVIA, PROVIA 100 or 400) , it happens to me many times today that I soot at 800 if not 1600 ISO with my A1. And images are perfect. Even for my publishers who might be the same as yours.

I have reached a point today that I do not need a zoom underwater because before diving I almost know which picture I want to take and it drives the choice of my lens, a prime lens of course and not a zoom.

If there is a direction that Nauticam or any manufacturer should take for the future, it is to develop third party wet lenses, that would mount directly on the housing AND the camera, exactly as Nikon did in the past with the Nikonos  line of lenses. I am not personally dreaming of WACP-1 or -2 or -C, but of an auto focus, camera controlled aperture , prime 15 mm lens exactly as was the Nikonos 15 that I am still using on my Nauticam housings with the right adapters. This would be a real progress.

Without any arrogance, I believe that zoom lenses for underwater use such as the 28-60 are for recreational underwater photographers, hence they don't care about corner softness or sharpness and would not be ready to pay the price very high of such wet lenses as WACP line. If you are much more into semi professional or even professional UW photography, you go for professional lenses and would apply what I mentioned above.

Thanks everyone for all the discussions on that 3 topics on Wetpixel, and I am looking forward to any comments on the above.

 Eric

[lambee01 22]

In addition to the above, i am amazed to see how we could become obsessed at corner sharpness, or Mega pixel resolution, when we still DO NOT have decent options for CFWA as was the CFWA Nikonos kit.... Combining Macro AND Wide angle and not Macro OR Wide Angle.

 

Edited January 24 by lambee01

[dhaas 27]

Very well said.......Like many I came through the days of Nikonos, housed SLR film cameras (Aquatica and Ikelite) and since 2016 compacts for ease of travel and just plain enjoyable diving.

I still enjoy reading about technology and the WWL / WACP developments are incredible. But as lambee01 stated a lot of discussion here is on "measurbating" specs versus impact of an image.....

National Geographic photographers from David Doubilet, Jennifer Hayes, Brian Skerry, Laurent Ballesta and many more don't care about corner sharpness and neither do their publishers. Cropping any photo will improve the impact of a picture as I'm sure most who enjoy photography do anyway.

If I ever went back to a mirrorless or SLR I'd simply use dome ports with a decent wide angle lens, fixed or zoom. I personally prefer a non-fisheye image but recognize post processing can correct mild curvature (like Canon 8-15mm at 15mm) in post. 

With zooms my last SLR years I never put a zoom gear on it. Set one focal length and go down and shoot a lot. My housing was easy to open the back, slide camera out and turn the barrel. Go back down at a different focal length all without disturbing the dome port and shoot some more.

In 1990 Phil Rudin (a long time friend) and I spent 5 days with National Geographic photographer David Doubilet in West Palm Beach, Florida. We learned a lot! Although gear was a part of image creation the most important thing David said was something like this:  

"The most valuable component to imaging is time in the water. National Geographic has been generous allowing me to make images due to that benefit." 

I've been lucky diving 54 years this year (and still going.)

Looking back on my pictures I was lucky for lots of time underwater and enjoyed myself immensely. I captured memories I enjoy looking back and sharing with friends and family and yes, I had a few published. 

Not comparing me to Doubilet or other greats of course.......

Just one old guy's opinion and I hope you all get "more time in the water" to enjoy subsea image making

David Haas

 

Edited January 24 by dhaas

[Phil Rudin 446]

Thank you David for that walk down memory lane. Todays equipment regardless of what you buy is better than what we were using in 1990's. At the time I was using the attached Aquatica housing with a Nikon-F series camera and a 20mm which the sprites shot  were taken with. Doubilet has two Nikonos cameras around his neck with different wide lenses and a housing with macro port in the second image. 

Now we will resume our assigned topic of discussion. 

 

[dhaas 27]

Great memories with Ruthie Petzold plus me (last shot far right and first picture far right.) 

I could walk slowly up and down boat ramps after tearing my achilles tendon a few months prior. Complete tears like mine were a slapped in a cast and I was determined to be able to dive in the ocean and not miss our multi-day seminar!

Back then we all shot slides and you had to bring a sample (20 I think) to show Doubilet. The first evening we all loaded a carousel and a quiet fell on the darkened room........

David was quite complimentary while also pointing out what might be better in images from us all (there were only 9 people.) 

I think Phil, me, Ruthie Petzold and maybe one more person had housed SLRs. Several others showed up with a Nikonos V and 35mm lens. I think one guy rented a Nikonos 20mm lens......I think David Doubilet rolled his eyes thinking "how am I going to teach this class!" LOL.....

He brought 4-5  Aquatica housings and graciously guided us how to set them up and shoot. It was fabulous......

Keep enjoying your times beneath the waves....I plan on it!

 

 

Edited January 24 by dhaas

[TimG 62]

Fascinating and fun walk down Memory Lane, guys. If there's a desire, we can always set up a "Memories" thread. It could be pretty interesting!

As Phil suggests, let's get back to WACP-C discussion.

fruehaufsteher2 asked what you do with the cover when entering and leaving the water. Too big to handle? Leave it behind? Risk clanging the WACP glass?

[Phil Rudin 446]

In a similar thread on the WACP-1 several users were taking the storage cover with them into the water and using a verity of methods to clip it off on a BCD or other anchoring spot. I have used a 180mm dome port cover for WACP-1 with velcro fasteners and just anchored it to my BCD.

With the WACP-1 on Sony you have the N100 to N120 port adapter with the wheel that holds one side of the port cover. With WACP-C on Sony you use an N100 30mm port extension so it would be harder to anchor the cover to the WACP-C.

   

Edited January 24 by Phil Rudin

[mchiado 2]

I added an Apeks pocket yo my ScubaPro Hydros BC to hold a WACP-1 lens cap. 

Edited January 24 by mchiado
Typo

[TimG 62]

Some years back I used to use an empty paint pot (honestly!) which was the right diameter and just cut it down a bit for a domeport cover.

A short leash meant I could clip it on to my BC. If it got lost, I really would not have cared. I think it cost about .25c

It's worth too exploring the kitchen aisle at a supermarket: round food storage boxes, Tupperware... all make cheerful and frugal alternatives 

[Floris Bennema 21]

13 hours ago, Phil Rudin said:

With the WACP-1 on Sony you have the N100 to N120 port adapter with the wheel that holds one side of the port cover. With WACP-C on Sony you use an N100 30mm port extension so it would be harder to anchor the cover to the WACP-C.

 

For my WWL-1 with neoprene float on Olympus/Nauticam I fetched a round piece of neoprene and went to a tailor. He added some fabric and an elastic band on the back. Unfortunately the communication was not perfect, so I had to redo the band myself, as you can see :-( But it works fine!

Edited January 25 by Floris Bennema

[fruehaufsteher2 15]

Thank you so much @TimG for bringing up my question again - and I see that there are 2 options - taking the cap with me, what could be the easiest way. 

To the overall discussion about resolution of a lens... reminds me to the discussion about cooking gear - it's the cook, not the pan.

[TimG 62]

1 hour ago, fruehaufsteher2 said:

reminds me to the discussion about cooking gear - it's the cook, not the pan.

 

[Jolly 3]

On 1/24/2023 at 4:57 PM, lambee01 said:

In addition to the above, i am amazed to see how we could become obsessed at corner sharpness, or Mega pixel resolution, when we still DO NOT have decent options for CFWA as was the CFWA Nikonos kit.... Combining Macro AND Wide angle and not Macro OR Wide Angle.

 

Are you referring to the Nikonos closeup kit where you had to persuade fishes to swim into the metal frame?

Edited January 25 by Jolly

[Jolly 3]

(Canon) lens choice for WACP-C

Just got a housing for my 5D MkIV and a WACP-C is on the way   I could not resist. I would call it successor of dome ports for WA or the digital Nikonos solution. Honestly I think this is a great option. After decades we get true optical underwater solutions for digital interchangeable lens cameras.

As the WACP-C is asking for simple kit lens type zooms I am wondering what lens I want to get. For Canon fullframe Nauticam port list states three lenses.

28-80 II
28-80 V USM
28-70

Beside the focal length zoom range, what are the (limiting) criteria on lens choices for WACP-C? Lens diameter / length? Close focus capabilities?

For example there is the 28-80 IV USM lens on the used market quiet frequently. But the "V" version is hard to get here in Germany. I wonder if they just stated a few lenses but many more would work?

Julian

Edited January 25 by Jolly

[lambee01 22]

4 hours ago, Jolly said:

Are you referring to the Nikonos closeup kit where you had to persuade fishes to swim into the metal frame?

Yes, indeed, But with some experience and after some practice, you would not need the frame anymore. Just the lens

[Isaac Szabo 90]

On 1/24/2023 at 9:57 AM, lambee01 said:

In addition to the above, i am amazed to see how we could become obsessed at corner sharpness, or Mega pixel resolution, when we still DO NOT have decent options for CFWA as was the CFWA Nikonos kit.... Combining Macro AND Wide angle and not Macro OR Wide Angle.

Sorry if I'm misunderstanding you, but I don't follow. The Nikonos 15mm has a close focus of around 8" from the front element, which I'm not sure even qualifies as CFWA these days (it's also not as wide as most people want). If you also consider the RS system then the 13mm can focus to around 2" from the front element, which is actually pretty good. However, nowadays we have the Nauticam EMWL (perhaps the best ever CFWA tool), the Nauticam WWL-1 and WACP-C that can focus up to the front element, fisheyes in minidomes that can focus up to the dome, the Laowa 24mm probe, and many others. Plus the Nikonos lenses can still be used on modern digital cameras if you want. So in my view we have much better CFWA options now than back in the Nikonos days.

Edited January 25 by Isaac Szabo

[Tom_Kline 137]

I second what Isaac wrote. Using the N15 for CFWA is leagues behind new tools such as the EMWL. With the N15 lens one had to use as small an aperture as possible such as f/22 and use the depth of field scale to fit the subjects and then "guess aim" the rig at the subject(s). There were  a lot of failures plus the DOF scale assumes only a modest final image size such as the size of a page in a book. Many N15 images would not make the grade with today's pixel peeing. I have a couple of shots attached that show the DOF on the side of the N15 lens (the second or N version that is needed for TTL bodies as well as digital sensors).

Edited January 25 by Tom_Kline

[Draq 113]

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.

[TimG 62]

8 minutes ago, Draq said:

If anyone is interested, I will figure out what the pockets are and post.

Yeah, worth posting. Please do.