Hey everyone, an upcoming return trip to Truk Lagoon has got me looking at adding an ultra-wide option to my kit and would love to hear from anyone with firsthand experience shooting the Nauticam FCP-1.

I currently shoot an A1 II and A1 with the WACP-2 and WWL-1B respectively, both of which I love. I'm looking to supplement them with an ultra-wide perspective for megafauna, wreck interiors, and CFWA as well as to mix things up creatively.

I've always been intrigued by fisheyes, but committing to that perspective for an entire dive has held me back. Commitment issues? lol. Enter the FCP-1. The ability to go extremely wide and then tighten up the composition without changing optics seems like a real advantage. Is it too good to be true?

My biggest questions are about optical performance throughout the zoom range. Some reviews suggest stopping down to f/11–f/16 for acceptable corner sharpness, while others seem happy at f/8. Does sharpness improve as you zoom in? And at the narrower end, do you find yourself happy with the results?

I'd also be interested in hearing how it performs for video.

I understand that the FCP-1 isn't a replacement for the WACP-2 or WWL-1B, and I'm not looking for a do it all optic (would be nice though). I'm also realistic about the tradeoffs involved in such an extreme field of view. What I'm trying to understand is whether the FCP-1's flexibility makes it a genuinely versatile addition to my existing kit, or whether the new Sony fisheye would be the better performer at substantially less cost.

Would really appreciate any real-world feedback, particularly from anyone who's spent significant time shooting the FCP-1.

Worth a read through here for another, possibly better, option:

Hi @Grantmac, thanks for your reply. I'll give it a read. Do you shoot video as well as stills? I've heard Fisheye-TC-Metabones can introduce video AF challenges.

I have been shooting the FCP-1 w/ a Sony 28-60mm lens since first released a few years back - it's a very versatile set-up that does give good picture quality over the full zoom of the lens. I have not shot a WACP or WWL so I cannot compare the quality against the FACP. also I only shoot stills. The FCP is a good dome port to shoot with, but it is limited with the lens it is compatible with - I wish Sony had a GM lens that worked with the FCP over their standard 28-60mm as I think it could improve the picture quality some. I wish the FCP was more a "true fisheye" as it is rectilinear rather than a true fisheye like you would get shooting the Cannon 8-15mm fisheye, which I was disappointed in. Attached are a few pics from a recent Komodo trip

Hi @JMC22, great pics! Love the color rendering. Thanks, that's really helpful, especially hearing from someone who's used it since launch. I'm curious about your comment that it isn't a true fisheye. Are you referring to the amount of barrel distortion or something else about how the FCP renders images?

Edited October 8Oct 8 by Peter Vanek

2 minutes ago, Peter Vanek said:

Hi @JMC22, great pics! Love the color rendering. Thanks, that's really helpful, especially hearing from someone who's used it since launch. I'm curious about your comment that it isn't a true fisheye. Are you referring to the amount of barrel distortion or something else about how the FCP renders images?

With a true fisheye like the Cannon 8-15mm you get a slight bow in the picture (like below) whereas the FCP while written as a Fisheye conversion port, its a straight/flat across image - I wish the FCP had a slight bowed look especially in the pics @28mm to take a pic like the Canon 8-15mm lens..

If you have not seen this YouTube with Alex Mustard, it's worth checking out as it talks about the FCP and compairing it to the WACP/WWL: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=37qO1NGHAfk

Edited October 8Oct 8 by JMC22

This is really helpful! I'm really after immersive shots that go beyond the field of view I currently get with my WWL-1 and WACP-2. If the FCP-1 can deliver a 170° perspective without the pronounced distortion of a traditional fisheye, that's actually a huge plus for me, particularly for video.

A fisheye lens can produce a 180 deg diagonal image, which is around 140-145 deg horizontal field depending upon the the exact mapping of the lens in question. A true rectilinear cannot do this due to optical limitations so there has to be some barrel distortion.

There are several fisheye projections available including equidistance and equisolid which is what the Canon 8-15 uses. There is also stereographic which appears to be what is used in the new 10mm laowa lens and based on some calculations, I believe the WWL-1 and WACP use a similar projection I would expect that Nauticam has modified their optics from WWL/WCP to give it a wider field which results in a 170 deg field on the diagonal and is quite likely to use the same or similar projection. The Bob Atkins website shows a comparison plot of these projections, scroll down to the fisheye section.

Bob atkins field of view

Those same calculations show that while the WWL/ WACP have a 130 deg diagonal field which suggest they are equivalent to a 10mm lens their horizontal field is actually closer to a 13-14mm lens. This implies the horizontal field of these optics is less then expected and a true fisheye should have a wider horizontal field.

The other issue reported is that FCP seems to have less depth of field than what you would expect compared to a traditional fisheye when used for CFWA. If yiu serach the forum you might find that post.

Interesting point about diagonal vs. horizontal FOV. I hadn't really considered how much the different projections could affect the relationship between the two.

I'd assume Nauticam measures diagonal FOV consistently across the FCP, WACP and WWL, so the published figures should be directly comparable, even if the horizontal coverage doesn't scale proportionally. With the FCP offering 170° diagonally versus roughly 130° with my WACP-2 setup, I wonder how much additional horizontal coverage that actually translates to. A side-by-side comparison would be interesting. I have yet to find one.

On the DOF question, I'm curious if the FCP actually limited in how much depth of field it can achieve, or is it more a matter of having to stop down further to get comparable results, with the obvious penalty in light? I've read a few discussions about this on the forum, but the real-world reports are inconsistent. Some users reporting good results from F8-F11 while others stopping down in the F13 to F16 range.

Edited October 9Oct 9 by Peter Vanek

I don't generally shoot video. My only attempt was using the metabones and a Tokina 10-17 using ambient lighting. The AF was the least of my worries.

The FCP is not on the same level optically as the WACP lenses and i think is edged out by the WWL lenses as well in most instances. It's very good but is more comparable optically to the typical fisheyes like the CaNikon 8-15 lenses. The advantage is in the huge amount of versatility it provides. There is certainly some barrel distortion present but because it isn't as wide as a typical fisheye, it isn't so exaggerated. IMHO the FCP needs to be stopped down around f13 if you have anything important in the corners of the frame. The water contact optics in general (and i dont know the physics behind this) seem to give less DOF at a given aperture than a 'normal' lens at the same aperture.

With regards to overall versatility, the FCP is pretty unmatched. Optically your WACP2 will be better but if you want the wider FOV without sacrificing versatility and still getting nice image quality, the FCP doesn't really have an equal in that regard.

Edited October 9Oct 9 by MatthewSullivan

Hi Matthew, this is super helpful and reinforces why I'm interested in the FCP-1. If its optical performance is comparable to traditional fisheyes, the additional versatility is a pretty compelling advantage. The alternative I've been considering is the new Sony 8–14mm, but that largely locks you into a particular field of view for an entire dive.

I'm not looking to replace either my WACP-2 or WWL-1, but rather to expand my shooting options. I wouldn't expect the FCP-1 to match the WACP-2 optically, particularly given the differences in size, weight, and price. If achieving that level of performance required an equally massive front element, I'd be less interested. Traveling and diving with the WACP-2 is challenging enough!

Your comparison to the WWL lenses does give me some pause, though. I'd be more hesitant if there were a noticeable drop in image quality compared with my WWL-1. Is that primarily a matter of corner sharpness, or do you see differences across the frame?

I'm also curious about your comment that the FCP-1 needs f/13 for good corner sharpness. Is that primarily in CFWA situations where depth of field becomes a factor, or do you find the corners noticeably soft even if the subject is several feet away? And is that mainly at the widest end of the zoom?

I shoot both stills and video, so understanding how it performs around f/8–f/11 in more typical wide-angle situations would be especially helpful.

Thanks again for sharing your experience!

2 hours ago, Peter Vanek said:

Hi Matthew, this is super helpful and reinforces why I'm interested in the FCP-1. If its optical performance is comparable to traditional fisheyes, the additional versatility is a pretty compelling advantage. The alternative I've been considering is the new Sony 8–14mm, but that largely locks you into a particular field of view for an entire dive.

I'm not looking to replace either my WACP-2 or WWL-1, but rather to expand my shooting options. I wouldn't expect the FCP-1 to match the WACP-2 optically, particularly given the differences in size, weight, and price. If achieving that level of performance required an equally massive front element, I'd be less interested. Traveling and diving with the WACP-2 is challenging enough!

Your comparison to the WWL lenses does give me some pause, though. I'd be more hesitant if there were a noticeable drop in image quality compared with my WWL-1. Is that primarily a matter of corner sharpness, or do you see differences across the frame?

I'm also curious about your comment that the FCP-1 needs f/13 for good corner sharpness. Is that primarily in CFWA situations where depth of field becomes a factor, or do you find the corners noticeably soft even if the subject is several feet away? And is that mainly at the widest end of the zoom?

I shoot both stills and video, so understanding how it performs around f/8–f/11 in more typical wide-angle situations would be especially helpful.

Thanks again for sharing your experience!

Peter - if you don't know yet who Matthew Sullivan is - he is Alex Mustards partner on The Underwater Photography Show clip I sent you about the FCP-1 & he just started working for Reef Photo & Video, which is a part of the Nauticam retail sales division down in Florida - I would say outside of Alex Mustard who I think loves the FCP-1 and shoots regularly with it, Phil Burghard or Matthew with their employment @ Nauticam would be your best source of any further knowledge about the FCP-1

Best with your final decision....

Thanks for the background! I knew Matthew was involved with The Underwater Photography Show, but didn't realize he'd joined Reef Photo.

I've actually been going back and forth with Phil quite extensively about the FCP-1, particularly around lens compatibility and optical performance. Matthew's comments above were definitely helpful.

I'm still leaning toward the FCP-1. For an optic that's been out for a couple of years, I'm a little surprised there aren't more firsthand accounts from owners using it regularly. I'd love to hear from a few more people who've spent significant time shooting with it. The depth-of-field concern seems to be a recurring theme, and I'm just trying to better understand how much of a limitation it is in practice.

Given the investment, I want to make as informed a decision as possible. It ain't cheap, but then again, nothing about diving or underwater photography is—you even have to pay for the air you breathe! 🤣

Peter - here is another Youtube video from Alex that you might enjoy in your learning process - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TISvoWhsXRg&t=1350s

Thanks for sharing! I actually watched this one as well. I thought it was interesting that Alex mentioned he doesn't dive with the FCP-1 all that frequently, yet so many of his favorite images from the year were taken with it. That's a pretty compelling endorsement of what the optic is capable of!

Between this, the few reviews I've found, and the discussion on The Underwater Photography Show, my takeaway so far is that the FCP-1 offers tremendous flexibility, but with some compromises in image quality compared to its WWL/WACP siblings, along with a potential light penalty if it really needs to be stopped down to f/11–f/13 for optimal results.

As a hybrid shooter, that light penalty isn't insignificant, particularly when shooting S-Log3, exposing around +1.7 to +2 stops, and being relatively locked into shutter speed for video.

The FCP-1 is still very much a contender for me, but at less than half the cost, the new Sony 8–14mm fisheye is also in the running, especially given that I already have the WACP-2 and WWL-1 in my kit.

Still hoping to hear from a few more long-term FCP-1 owners about their experiences with it. That might be what ultimately tips the balance one way or the other.

@JMC22I'm curious, as someone who's owned and shot with the FCP-1 for a while would you buy it again? Or would you go in a different direction?

11 hours ago, Peter Vanek said:

@JMC22I'm curious, as someone who's owned and shot with the FCP-1 for a while would you buy it again? Or would you go in a different direction?

Based on the flexibility of being able to use a 28-60mm lens underwater, the quality of shots which I believe it produces is very good - yes I would buy again - but this is coming from someone that is not an expert, not going to enter any pics in contests, magazines or even post on social media.

One thing I would add is that I don't shoot this dome port with Auto White Balance set, I set my camera to 4400k with my Retra flash, which I find gives a good white balance

Hi, @Peter Vanek You are asking the same questions I have asked myself. Attached is a very detailed review and comparison of the FCP-1 by Nauticam Ambassador Nicolas Remy. I found it to be consistent with usage reports from my friends who own it as well as others optics.

I agree with the summary:

Incredible wide angle versatility with a tradeoff of DoF and sharpness at more open apertures.

The Underwater Club

Nauticam Fisheye Conversion Port (FCP): field review - Th...

Transform your standard kit lens in a fisheye zoom-through fisheye lens with full frame image quality.

I have owned the FCP since the beginning. Echoing others, it is amazingly flexible in terms of the zoom range. In my experience, there's really nothing else like it (in terms of FOV range) when using the 28-60. I do not think you can compare it to the Sony 8-14, the Canon 8-15, Nikon 8-15, etc.. Continuing to do so, in my opinion, and with all due respect, completely misses the boat. The latter fisheye lenses, and others, are all much smaller physically. Less expensive. And with no real/practical/useful FOV range on FF (unless used with 1.4x TC, in which case range is still less to the narrow end than FCP.) I am ignoring the circular fisheye end of those lenses. And I have not used a 2x TC, so I won't comment on the narrow end of an 8-15/14 with a 2x TC.

I also do not think you comparisons between the FCP and the WWL or WACP really make sense, because neither of the latter go wider than 130 degrees. (I guess you can make a comparison between 130 and the narrow end... but why would anyone buy the expensive and large FCP if you don't need 170 to 180 degree fisheye coverage?)

I was one of the first to publicly comment that it seemed like the depth of field with the FCP was less than what I expected when comparing how it looked at say f8 with a traditional fisheye lens properly configured behind dome/extension rings. (And also less than WACP-1, which I also own. But once again, not really an apples to apples comparison.) Depending on the scene and focal distance, less depth of field with FCP may not be a big deal... or it may be a bonus... or it may be disappointing. I will say that if depth of field is important to the scene/subject, then when possible, I try to stop down to f13 to f16 by lowering shutter speed and/or ramping up ISO. RE fisheye barrel distortion- the FCP has some. I would not say that is "rectilinear-like" in its look.

In terms of sharpness, the FCP (with 28-60) when properly shot is plenty sharp enough for professional use and publication. I would not still own the FCP if it was not.

Edited October 10Oct 10 by Brandon Cole
adding a paragraph

Hey @Brandon Cole, thanks for such a detailed response! I really appreciate hearing from someone who has extensive firsthand experience with the FCP.

Just to clarify my thinking a little, I was initially looking for a way to get a wider FOV than the 130 degrees I can already achieve with the WACP-2/WWL-1, particularly for wrecks and megafauna. That search naturally led me to the usual fisheye suspects. As I weighed those options and looked at the associated costs, I stumbled upon the FCP-1. I was vaguely familiar with it, but hadn't fully appreciated its capabilities in terms of flexibility.

That flexibility is precisely what caught my attention. Given how much of the FCP's range overlaps with what I already own, I was really just trying to better understand the tradeoffs involved in gaining that additional field of view.

My takeaway from the various reviews and experiences shared here is that one of the more significant tradeoffs seems to be the light required to achieve comparable depth of field, particularly when stopping down to f/13–f/16.

Out of curiosity, between your WACP-1 and FCP-1, which gets more bottom time?

Thanks again for sharing your experience. It's exactly the kind of firsthand insight I was hoping to get from this discussion!

@ChipBPhoto Thanks, Chip! I appreciate you sharing Nicolas's review. It's very helpful to see the technical comparisons alongside the firsthand experiences from owners here. The flexibility is certainly impressive, and I'm getting a much clearer picture of the tradeoffs involved.

14 hours ago, Peter Vanek said:

Out of curiosity, between your WACP-1 and FCP-1, which gets more bottom time?

You're welcome, Peter. It depends on the trip, target subject(s), and conditions. I usually take just one of the monster water-contact optics on a trip, so I make the decision which to take based on the specifics. On a "classic coral reef" sort of trip, I'm more likely to take the FCP. On a "pelagic expedition" the WACP is more frequently used. I shoot a wide variety of subjects and scenes in a wide variety of places all over the globe. So one tool sometimes is a better choice than another.

If you simply need a tool to give you wider FOV than your current gear, then a dedicated fisheye lens is my suggestion as it will accomplish 180 degrees of coverage in a much smaller/lighter/cheaper way, meaning you can add this to your gear bag alongside the huge and heavy WACP2. Another thing to consider- fisheye lenses behind a dome can also be used for splits/over-unders. Both the FCP and WACP-1 do not perform well in this task.

Thanks, that's really helpful insight, especially coming from someone who owns and regularly shoots with both. It's interesting to hear how you prioritize one over the other depending on the destination and subjects.

At less than half the cost, and a fraction of the weight, the new Sony 8–14mm fisheye is another option I'm seriously considering. Even with the dome and associated hardware, the complete setup comes in around $3,400, with the added benefit of being useful topside as well. I know it has nowhere near the flexibility of the FCP, but it ticks the beyond 130 degree FOV box.

Like you, I travel extensively to dive, and between dive gear, UW photography equipment, and topside camera gear, I frequently find myself traveling with three or four 32 kg bags. Adding another large optic to the mix is no small consideration!

I'm still intrigued by the FCP, but I'm trying to be realistic about how much equipment I want to haul around the world. Your experience has definitely given me more to think about. Thanks again for sharing!

My pleasure, Peter.