Jump to content
  • fruehaufsteher2
    fruehaufsteher2

    By fruehaufsteher2 •

    FCP, WACP, WWL, EMWL - A short overview of what you need to know on Nauticam water contact optics

     

    Last year I decided to go big - switching from the tiny RX100 to FF (FullFormat). In my case, it was the A7IV as the best value for money. But having made the decision on the camera model is only one step - lens, housing and port is much more difficult. But with the support of the nice guys here and the old forum, I am now the happy owner of a sleek combination that is tailored to my needs. But how do you know what you need? This article might help.    

     

    The most common type of camera used by underwater photographers is one that is inserted with lens into a housing and has either a flat (flat port) or curved (dome port) front glass at the port.

     

    Even in the days of analogue photography with the Nikonos system, for example, water contact lenses were developed that explicitly take into account the refraction of light at the water-to-glass contact surface. This reduces distortions that would otherwise occur when light hits the port at an angle and cause blurring at the edges.

     

    Nauticam has therefore developed some different types of water contact optics that evolved and serve different purposes.

    FCP (Fisheye Conversion Port) and WACP (Wide Angle Conversion Port) are "dry" optics designed to turn a mid-range zoom lens on the camera into a wide-angle zoom when the combination is taken under the surface. WWL (Wet Wide Lens) is the older version, somewhat less compact and made of more components, wet lens, but otherwise very similar to WACP.

    EMWL (Extended Macro Wide Lens) takes a different approach: different underwater lenses are placed in front of a macro lens and a flat port in order to be able to adjust on different subjects - from macro to large fish.

     

    First and newest: FCP 

    IMG_8684.jpg

    Picture courtesly provided by Alex Mustard

     

    A dry lens that is attached directly to the housing with the appropriate (depending on the camera and lens) port extensions. 

    In concrete terms, you can imagine the FCP as an ultra-wide-angle lens for underwater use. A lens such as the Sony 28-60, Canon 24-50 or Nikon 24-50 is attached to the camera and the FCP is mounted on the housing. This achieves a maximum field of view of 175° - a real fisheye. In the zoom position, the field of view is still 85°, i.e. still quite wide-angle, comparable to a 24mm lens over water.

     

    Next WACP: Still new, especially the WACP-C

    85205-3_1a8e205b-73ad-4dfc-a860-2658b891

     

    The WACP ports with the endings -C for compact, -1 for the "normal" variant and -2 for the maximum variant are not quite as extreme. Also "dry" optics - see above. They are intended to cover a field of view of approx. 70°-130° - i.e. comparable to a lens with a normal focal length (approx. 30mm) to a slight fisheye wide angle (11mm). On the camera, the WACP-C and WACP-1 require similar lenses as for the FCP (for example Sony 28-60, Canon 24-50 or Nikon 24-50), but the largest variant requires a wider-angle lens such as 14-30mm to achieve the same field of view. These water contact lenses are quite bulky and heavy (WACP-C: 2.3kg, WACP-1: 3.9kg, WACP-2: 7.0kg) and offer better sharpness than dome ports, especially at the edges, but above all they provide a wide zoom range under water and focus even directly at the glass. The WACP-C, although labelled as a compact version, also fits some of the full-frame cameras and is the most suitable solution for me personally. 

     

    WWL-1(B): 

    4_e85324c9-4ced-491a-972e-70902c7d2d65_1

     

    AFAIK the two WWL ports (WWL-1 and the newer WWL-1B) are the predecessors of the WACP ports. The area of use is the same as with WACP: field of view approx. 70-130°, i.e. wide normal focal length to slightly ultra-wide angle/fisheye when using zoom lenses with a focal length range of approx. 25-60mm. The difference to the WACP solutions is the technical design. With WWL, you have a compact plan port on the housing and the WWL is mounted wet, i.e. with water between the front glass of the port and the WWL lens. Advantage over the WACP solutions: lighter overall, and you can remove the WWL under water and then have a lightweight telephoto lens (...no one ever does...). Disadvantage: The telephoto lens is rarely needed and air bubbles between the port and the WWL can be annoying. 

     

    EMWL: One size matters fits all

    EMWL_Housing_2-2.jpg

     

    The EMWL wants to be and can be an "all in one":

    The basic here is that an 90 mm macro lens is mounted on the camera and the corresponding port with flat glass at the front (flat port) is mounted on the underwater housing. A close-up lens (e.g. SMC-1) for magnification or the EMWL can be used on a flip port.

     

    The EMWL consists of two or three elements:

    • The focusing unit, which is available in variants for Nikon, Canon and Sony, is located directly in front of the macro port
    • An optional extension piece (relay lens) then follows, which turns the image upside down and brings the front glass closer to the subject
    • The actual lens, which is available in 160°, 130°, 100° and 60° angle of view versions, is located at the top. The 130° lens is particularly popular and is ideal for CFWA, but also for large fish or panoramic images.

     

    In contrast to FCP and WACP, the EMWL is a wet lens, so there is water between the port glass and the focussing unit, but also between the relay lens and the objective lens. Image quality is high in every direction but bubbles between the parts can be annoying and there have been issues about focus breathing.

     

    The main areas of application are thus:

     

    FCP: Fisheye wide-angle zoom, medium volume, compact

    WACP: Wide-angle zoom, medium to large volume depending on version

    WWL: Comparable to WACP, Lighter and slightly cheaper, but with technical disadvantages

    EMWL: fixed focal lengths that can be changed under water, somehow bulky, objectionable appearance

     

    To show the differences in size and appearance here a pic from Alex Mustard, showing (left to right) FCP (prototype), WACP-C, WACP-2, WACP-1 (Thanks, Alex!)

    IMG_7076 copy.jpg

     

    Cost (€)? You have already camera, housing and lens. And focus gear. And port extension. And arms, flashes and so on. Just the port:

     

    Rough estimates

    FCP: EDIT Jan 14th: Now on Nauticam website €6.482,00 (incl. VAT)

    WACP-C: €2.9k

    WACP-1: €4.5k

    WACP-2: €8.2k

    WWL-1b: €1.9k (with flatport)

    EMWL: €8.5k (with flatport, 60°, 100°, 130° optics, rely, focusing unit, flip-holder, SMC-1)

     

     

    If I made errors or incorrectness anybody please feel free to add or correct

    • Like 13
    • Thanks 3
    Go to articles

    User Feedback

    Recommended Comments



    ianmarsh
    1 hour ago, fruehaufsteher2 said:

    Sure, why not? 
     

    Interceptor 121's point was that no one reads the comments... seems to me that the most valuable information is exchanged when people interact with one another. 

     

    Thanks for the article, by the way👊

    • Like 2
    Link to comment
    Share on other sites
    brightnight

    I know the WACP-1 would never actually be used for above water shots but will above water shots be blurry? In testing the WACP-1 out my above water shots my shots were blurry but haven't had a chance to confirm everything looks sharp underwater. I assumed because it was a dry lens pictures would be sharp either way but perhaps it's just the lens correction that causes issues above water.

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites
    fruehaufsteher2

    AFAIK the WACP pulls the potential area of sharp focus close to the front element in a way, that above the surface there’s no way of focusing to infinity. 
    In your room you should be able to focus on things that are not more than 5-7m away, but not further. 

    • Like 1
    Link to comment
    Share on other sites
    DiversLens
    On 1/11/2024 at 9:41 AM, Guest said:

    it is not a scientific article it is however incorrect in many parts or has no base for the things you say

     

    In essence an opinion piece which is not what you need to make choices and should not be seen as 'technical' as you yourself did not really know what you have written about

     

    The lens are the same. The a mount is wet or dry is a consequence of size and inability to make the whole things smaller. It did not start like that it was a necessity

    The elements of glass are the same and if you made them the same size they would perform the same as in fact even with the size difference they do.

    Nobody has made any real study to understand if a wet mount is worse than a dry mount but when you look at performance you don't see a difference. To say that the dry mount is superior is therefore incorrect.

    This is exactly the question Adam asked Nautican and they told him you don't have to look at it that way is a matter the point was that the lenses become so large that removing them in water is a challenged and this is why the mount is fixed.

    The relationship between size and lens is driven by how big the lens is and how large is the aperture you want to shoot. And this is why you have many old legacy kit lenses used with those optics.

    WACP-2 instead works with newer lenses and is gigantic.

     

     

    I would like to thank you Interceptor121, as he has many good points. I was trying to choose which lens to buy (WWL-1B or WACP-C), but Nauticam could not give me the answer.  They told me that no comparative testing has been done, they just say the WACP-C has better optics.  Considering that WACP-C is double the price of WWL-1B, I would really would like to see some numbers and results of the test.  Thank you, Interceptor121 for your points.  

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites
    fruehaufsteher2

    Nauticam is absolutely right, there is no clear winner. WWL1b is slightly cheaper, but there is still a layer of water between the flat port and WWL. There can be bubbles here that the autofocus can focus on. If it is very cold, there may also be ice crystals. The WACP-C tends to be slightly better in terms of image quality, there can be neither bubbles nor crystals, but it is more expensive.
    Interceptor had problems with his port, and he generalized these problems to the WACP-C - which is not true. This does not do justice to the quality. 

    • Like 2
    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

Terms of Use Privacy Policy Guidelines We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.