Nauticam MWL-1 compatible with Panasonic LX10?

[MrTW 0]

Thinking about adding the MWL-1 to my LX10 in a Nauticam housing but not sure if the LX10 is actually compatible with the MWL-1 since it is designed for 60mm.

Asked my local supplier and they don't think it should be an issue.

However, it would be great to get some more feedback here as well before paying quite a bit of money - Is anyone using this particular setup?

Thanks for any pointers. 

[Davide DB 414]

42 minutes ago, MrTW said:

Thinking about adding the MWL-1 to my LX10 in a Nauticam housing but not sure if the LX10 is actually compatible with the MWL-1 since it is designed for 60mm.

Asked my local supplier and they don't think it should be an issue.

However, it would be great to get some more feedback here as well before paying quite a bit of money - Is anyone using this particular setup?

Thanks for any pointers. 

 

Nauticam port chart states its compatibility:

Panasonic Lumix DMC-LX10 17414 NA-LX10 Housing  -  Zoom from 65mm  -  approx. 130°

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1hhsQB4t2e1i-smf2mCNkj3DzIAoEgRIH/view

[MrTW 0]

1 hour ago, Davide DB said:

 

Nauticam port chart states its compatibility:

Panasonic Lumix DMC-LX10 17414 NA-LX10 Housing  -  Zoom from 65mm  -  approx. 130°

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1hhsQB4t2e1i-smf2mCNkj3DzIAoEgRIH/view

Excellent - Thank you! 

Now, I wonder if the MWL-1 is worth the money compared to other wet lenses... but I guess that's probably another can of worms.

Thanks again.

[ChrisRoss 150]

There's no doubt it will work and form images, however the MWL needs to be stopped down to f16 or it starts to become soft according to the reviews I have seen on full frame cameras.  I have not seen reports by anyone testing on m43 sensors and if you need f16 on the smaller sensors or if the requirement  scales with sensor size.  The concern is m43 sensors are getting pretty soft with diffraction by f16.

[hyp 104]

My suspicion, although this would have to be confirmed by someone actually trying it out, is that you could use equivalent apertures on smaller sensors, so roughly f8 on mu43 and I believe f5.6 on the LX10. I'm basing this on the fact, that the image does not actually get softer at wider apertures, on the images I've seen on FF, but that it's just that DoF is not sufficient for the corners anymore. It's still a theory though, which I will confirm once I get the Weefine/Kraken WFL-09s, but that will be still a while, because I'm not going to get an opportunity to dive until next summer.

[MrTW 0]

Thank you ChrisRoss and hyp!

I got feedback from Backscatter and they are saying this:

"I would not recommend the MWL-1 as its not sharp and on the LX 10 has a very limited zoom range... for a wide lens the WWL-C is your best option."

Looks like there is no point going with the MWL-1 and be limited at best. The WWL-C might be a better option for my setup.

Appreciate the feedback here!

[ChrisRoss 150]

28 minutes ago, MrTW said:

Thank you ChrisRoss and hyp!

I got feedback from Backscatter and they are saying this:

"I would not recommend the MWL-1 as its not sharp and on the LX 10 has a very limited zoom range... for a wide lens the WWL-C is your best option."

Looks like there is no point going with the MWL-1 and be limited at best. The WWL-C might be a better option for my setup.

Appreciate the feedback here!

Just be aware that the MWL and WWL-C don't really perform the same way, the MWL can be flipped out of the way while the WWL-c in theory can be removed from port and the rig used without it, while in practice you have a 150mm dia expensive piece of glass you need to store somewhere and it doesn't have a tie off point.  in theory you can add a bayonet fitting to park it on the rig but in practice the lens is as big as your housing.    They are only really alike in providing a large field 130° for WWL and 150° for the MWL.

However for the LX-10 you only actually get a 108° field as you need to zoom in to 32mm to avoid vignetting.

I'm not saying don't get the lens just be aware that in practice you will probably want to keep it on for the whole dive and you don't get the full 130°

[MrTW 0]

14 hours ago, ChrisRoss said:

Just be aware that the MWL and WWL-C don't really perform the same way, the MWL can be flipped out of the way while the WWL-c in theory can be removed from port and the rig used without it, while in practice you have a 150mm dia expensive piece of glass you need to store somewhere and it doesn't have a tie off point.  in theory you can add a bayonet fitting to park it on the rig but in practice the lens is as big as your housing.    They are only really alike in providing a large field 130° for WWL and 150° for the MWL.

However for the LX-10 you only actually get a 108° field as you need to zoom in to 32mm to avoid vignetting.

I'm not saying don't get the lens just be aware that in practice you will probably want to keep it on for the whole dive and you don't get the full 130°

that's really good feedback - thank you!

The main reason I got excited about the MWL-1 was the fact that I can use the MWL-1 on a double flip together with a macro lens. Not sure if I want to start swapping out lenses during a dive and then drag a large WA lens with me if not in use - I might be better of just having dedicated macro or WA dives. 

That said, looks like the WWL-C is still the better option for a compact camera compared to other WA wet lenses in terms of usability (?).

[ChrisRoss 150]

1 hour ago, MrTW said:

that's really good feedback - thank you!

The main reason I got excited about the MWL-1 was the fact that I can use the MWL-1 on a double flip together with a macro lens. Not sure if I want to start swapping out lenses during a dive and then drag a large WA lens with me if not in use - I might be better of just having dedicated macro or WA dives. 

That said, looks like the WWL-C is still the better option for a compact camera compared to other WA wet lenses in terms of usability (?).

In terms of image quality for reef scenics and some CFWA work and probably also pelagics it is probably your best option, if you decide to get it you can then decide how you feel about pulling it on and off in the water.  As it will focus on the dome , you can get right in close to critters that aren't likely to swim away and get reasonable image size in the frame so you could do some WA macro type work for certain subjects on the same dive.  The only caveat is that 108° is not that wide, somewhere around a 14mm equivalent WA lens, but I don't think there are any other options to get you this wide.

 

[MrTW 0]

On 12/16/2022 at 1:11 PM, ChrisRoss said:

In terms of image quality for reef scenics and some CFWA work and probably also pelagics it is probably your best option, if you decide to get it you can then decide how you feel about pulling it on and off in the water.  As it will focus on the dome , you can get right in close to critters that aren't likely to swim away and get reasonable image size in the frame so you could do some WA macro type work for certain subjects on the same dive.  The only caveat is that 108° is not that wide, somewhere around a 14mm equivalent WA lens, but I don't think there are any other options to get you this wide.

 

Thank you!

Speaking of alternatives to the WWL-C; do you have experience with the WWL-1B as a decent fit for a point and shooter?

A fellow forum member here recommended that lens as well.

[ChrisRoss 150]

They are basically the same but the WWL-1B is designed for a 28mm lens at widest while the WWL-C is designed for 24mm.  if you look at the Nauticam port chart you'll see that the WWL-C gets a slightly wider field (108 vs 100 deg) and the WWL-C is slightly cheaper.

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1saHXxkHaq3SNR9o0uQjuHvOS5zWhZA9v/view

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1YEP2KoAQ9IOfVZw-wAdiZgEleK_Hs7vJ/view