EMWL angle relay lens question!

[Jordi Chias]

Hi all!

 

I am a EMWL user since 2022 and I am extremely happy with it... I've been using the the 130º and the 100º lenses with the straight relay lens in Canon cameras and I think the performance of the lens is very good opening a bunch of new possibilities... At the beginning I did some tests about using the lens with or without the intermediate relay lens and I decided not to use this in order to get the best possible quality... IMHO there is a slight advantage on quality if that intermediate lens is not used. I use a monitor turn side up the image and compose.

 

Three months ago a friend of mine bought the EMWL angled relay lens. When he came back from a trip to Indonesia he told me that the he was experiencing a lack of quality, mostly in the sides of the image, with this angled relay. He sent me some photos and he was right. We asked Nauticam and they said that this lens is not easy to use and maybe we were doing something wrong.

I asked my friend to let me try his EMWL angle relay lens and after many tests I am not able to get the same quality that I get with my combo (focus unit+ 130º objective). I have tested the lens with #focus unit 2 and #focus unit 3 (as recommended in the port chart), with Canon EF 100mm+ adaptor and Canon RF 100mm and I have taken many pictures at different f/stops, from F16 to F32.

I even asked another friend to lend me his angled EMWL relay lens in order to compare between two different units. Both perform similar... What I see is that there is a loss of quality, mostly in the side of the images (softness and cromatic aberrations) and when compared to the straight relay lens the results are noticeably worst.

I have found some posts online that talk about backfocus problems, so I decided to focus manually, so I first magnify the focus point to check if it sharp enough and after that I take the picture (I use a tripod to improve consistency of my test).

 

I want to do some more test this week and I'd be able post some images to illustrate what I say but before that, I wanted to know if someone has used this angled relay lens and can give some feedback or advice. I am not sure if I am doing something wrong....

 

Thanks in advance for your help

Edited October 23, 2024 by Jordi Chias

[Isaac Szabo]

In my testing I also found that the relay lens reduced image quality a little, so I too went with a monitor instead. To me it makes perfect sense that adding in a lens with 14 additional elements whose only purpose is to invert the image can only have a negative impact on image quality. Nothing in optics is perfect, and I think there are bound to be slight errors that accumulate with so many elements. 

 

I have not tried the angled relay, but I am not at all surprised if it degrades the image a little more than the straight relay. After all, it is manipulating the image to an even larger extent, and again, not in an effort to improve image quality. So I personally trust your results. 

 

If you do more testing, I would recommend starting at f/8 instead of f/16. Peak sharpness in my testing was around f/8-f/11, and by f/16 I noticed a significant reduction in the sharpness of fine details due to diffraction. So image quality comparisons done in the f/8-f/11 range will likely give clearer results than those done at f/16 and above. That said, obviously for real world shots you may sometimes value the extra depth of field over peak sharpness.

[BrightSea]

On 10/23/2024 at 11:59 AM, Isaac Szabo said:

In my testing I also found that the relay lens reduced image quality a little, so I too went with a monitor instead. To me it makes perfect sense that adding in a lens with 14 additional elements whose only purpose is to invert the image can only have a negative impact on image quality. Nothing in optics is perfect, and I think there are bound to be slight errors that accumulate with so many elements. 

 

I have not tried the angled relay, but I am not at all surprised if it degrades the image a little more than the straight relay. After all, it is manipulating the image to an even larger extent, and again, not in an effort to improve image quality. So I personally trust your results. 

 

If you do more testing, I would recommend starting at f/8 instead of f/16. Peak sharpness in my testing was around f/8-f/11, and by f/16 I noticed a significant reduction in the sharpness of fine details due to diffraction. So image quality comparisons done in the f/8-f/11 range will likely give clearer results than those done at f/16 and above. That said, obviously for real world shots you may sometimes value the extra depth of field over peak sharpness.

How do you like using a monitor, I have ordered a monitor and not yet underwater to test, I have an idea to acquire an EMWL 160.  67 year old eyesight thought the monitor may be useful with EMWL and otherwise, I am a bit concerned about the added size of equipment, you have anything to report?  Would appreciate someone telling of using monitor.  Thank you.

[Isaac Szabo]

2 hours ago, BrightSea said:

How do you like using a monitor, I have ordered a monitor and not yet underwater to test, I have an idea to acquire an EMWL 160.  67 year old eyesight thought the monitor may be useful with EMWL and otherwise, I am a bit concerned about the added size of equipment, you have anything to report?  Would appreciate someone telling of using monitor.  Thank you.

 

I've been using a monitor for all my shooting for around 4 years, and I really like it. I love being able to see the image no matter what weird position/angle I have my housing. A common example for me is being able to get really low perspectives without having to press my face down next to the substrate. 

However, a monitor won't be for everyone as there are some significant downsides:

• increased size/weight of the system - I made my own monitor housing and kept it fairly small, but many commercial models are surprisingly big/heavy
• increased complexity of the system - more things to setup/maintain and more things that can potentially go wrong
• reduced visibility in bright sunlight - my monitor isn't super bright, so visibility can be affected by bright/direct sunlight. I think many newer monitors are brighter and may not suffer from this as much.
• increased cost of the system - most underwater monitor housings aren't cheap

 

With the EMWL some of the size/weight/cost downsides of a monitor are offset by not having to use the middle relay lens, so I think a monitor is a particularly good option for EMWL users. 

Edited January 7 by Isaac Szabo

[SwiftFF5]

What @Isaac Szabo said.  I love my monitor, but it does have some down sides. 

[Chris Ross]

On 1/8/2025 at 7:05 AM, BrightSea said:

How do you like using a monitor, I have ordered a monitor and not yet underwater to test, I have an idea to acquire an EMWL 160.  67 year old eyesight thought the monitor may be useful with EMWL and otherwise, I am a bit concerned about the added size of equipment, you have anything to report?  Would appreciate someone telling of using monitor.  Thank you.

Wondering what specifically you might concerned about with your vision and how you think a monitor might solve that?  For myself my closeup vision is not so good so struggle to details up close a little.   I use a separate monitor on land for judging sharpness when the camera is low to the ground and for it to be a all helpful I need my reading glasses on.   So my take on that is you need good closeup vision to take advantage of the monitor or supplementary lenses on your mask, because by it's nature the monitor will be quite close in. 

 

UW is use a Nauticam 45° viewfinder and it provides a full bright image and it has diopter adjustment to allow me to see the details sharply and it's my preferred way of shooting.  Admittedly I don't shoot video, but the distance vision problems are the same.

[BrightSea]

9 hours ago, Chris Ross said:

Wondering what specifically you might concerned about with your vision and how you think a monitor might solve that?  For myself my closeup vision is not so good so struggle to details up close a little.   I use a separate monitor on land for judging sharpness when the camera is low to the ground and for it to be a all helpful I need my reading glasses on.   So my take on that is you need good closeup vision to take advantage of the monitor or supplementary lenses on your mask, because by it's nature the monitor will be quite close in. 

 

UW is use a Nauticam 45° viewfinder and it provides a full bright image and it has diopter adjustment to allow me to see the details sharply and it's my preferred way of shooting.  Admittedly I don't shoot video, but the distance vision problems are the same.

Hello Chris, appreciate your conversation.  I have always used Nauticam 45 viewfinder, recently acquired the new 45 which is an improvement over orignal and very helpful.  My issue is even with 45 viewfinder and Rx eye correction, still have compromised ability to see detail / sharp focus until cataract lens exchange is done.  I am thinking the monitor will provide, a larger/closer look, additionally a good view / larger view if using focus peaking when using manual focus.  Also, interested in EWML 160, a monitor will provide the ability to flip image without EWML Relay Lens.  Additional thinking, the investment in monitor vs relay lens might be a more useful placement of $'s, however, seems will be a completely new adventure using a monitor and fear more equipment to tote around and much too cumbersome to enjoy it's use underwater. The purchase of the monitor is gamble at this point.  Next is getting assembled and to the pool to see what I have gotten myself in to.

[Chris Ross]

8 hours ago, BrightSea said:

Hello Chris, appreciate your conversation.  I have always used Nauticam 45 viewfinder, recently acquired the new 45 which is an improvement over orignal and very helpful.  My issue is even with 45 viewfinder and Rx eye correction, still have compromised ability to see detail / sharp focus until cataract lens exchange is done.  I am thinking the monitor will provide, a larger/closer look, additionally a good view / larger view if using focus peaking when using manual focus.  Also, interested in EWML 160, a monitor will provide the ability to flip image without EWML Relay Lens.  Additional thinking, the investment in monitor vs relay lens might be a more useful placement of $'s, however, seems will be a completely new adventure using a monitor and fear more equipment to tote around and much too cumbersome to enjoy it's use underwater. The purchase of the monitor is gamble at this point.  Next is getting assembled and to the pool to see what I have gotten myself in to.

I would check how easy the focus peaking is to use in practice.  I know it can be problematic on my Olympus, it will depend on how it's implemented in camera or on the monitor.  I have a an Atomos Shinobi and find the monitor is more optimistic about what is in focus compared to the camera when using on land.  You could probably try all of this on land before committing to a housing for the monitor.

[BrightSea]

7 hours ago, Chris Ross said:

I would check how easy the focus peaking is to use in practice.  I know it can be problematic on my Olympus, it will depend on how it's implemented in camera or on the monitor.  I have a an Atomos Shinobi and find the monitor is more optimistic about what is in focus compared to the camera when using on land.  You could probably try all of this on land before committing to a housing for the monitor.

I wanted to avoid the expense of a monitor and housing, I have purchased a Kraken 7" version 2.  I am shooting a Canon R5 / Nauticam housing.  I am hoping the monitor will be useful, additionally hope that I do not need to depend on focus peaking, not ever used previously, however, I though it may be easier to discern on monitor compared to through viewfinder.  Dang, hoping for the best, as mentioned, headed to the pool to check it all out prior to an additional purchases.

[Davide DB]

3 hours ago, BrightSea said:

Kraken 7" version 2

 

Out of curiosity, what's new in version 2?

[BrightSea]

3 hours ago, Davide DB said:

 

Out of curiosity, what's new in version 2?

Hello Davide, it is redesigned, slimmer, weight similar to the 5" however provides 7" view.  New specifications, resolution 3840x2160 vs original version 1920x1200.  Each held title of being ultra bright 2200cd/m2 and 2200 nits.  All new to me, seemed the V2 was the way to go.  Kraken still selling KRM07 at discounted price of $1499, KRM07 V2 is $1999.