Nauticam Fisheye Conversion Port shipping Mid January

[Chris Ross]

Without the port charts coming out and assuming they include the diagonal coverage at short and long ends it's basically guess work.  You can do some calculations based upon assumptions to work out what the field of view might be.  SO if you assume 180° diagonal and an Equi-solid projection you get this with a comparison to a WACP - from a post of the FCP thread over on wetpixel:

 

If you don't get 180° diagonal with the FCP then the fields will be proportionally narrower all round and if the projection is different (the formula to work out how field changes with focal length ) then the field at the long end will change.

 

This is as good as you will get with current information, hopefully the port charts will show the zoom range when they eventually come out.  I wouldn't expect the fields to be hugely different from this.

 

I would though say that the range will be larger than the Tokina 10-17, which is a 1.7x zoom, the 28-60 is a 2.1x zoom.  If the wide end is indeed fixed then a higher zoom ratio will give you more reach on max zoom.  Likewise the 28-70 would be 2.5x and the Nikon 24-50 would be a 1.8x (28-50 being available.)  The problem with the Nikon 28-70 is lack of a solution for a screw drive lens on Nikon Z.

[Guest]

2 hours ago, Brandon Cole said:

Hi, 

Does anyone know the true angle of coverage zoom range of the FCP with the popular lenses?

 

I've read 170 (and also 180) degrees at the widest... which I assume is at 28mm, whether it's the Sony 28-60 or the ancient Nikon 28-70 or the new Nikon Z 24-50 (when zoomed in to 28mm.)

 

But what about the long/narrow end? I've read (and heard) "130 degrees"... and also "about the Tokina 10-17 at 17", which I believe was 100 degrees at 17mm on DX... 130 and 100 degrees are noticeably different, so apparently there's some inaccuracies in the grapevine at this time. I've also heard "about 110 degrees."

 

I assume that the narrow end of the particular zoom lens being used with the FCP will dictate the narrowest angle of coverage... So, does anyone know the true angle of view at 60mm on the Sony 28-60 lens? At 50 on the Nikon Z 24-50? And, not to forget the past, the long end of the ancient Nikon 28-70 and Canon 28-70 slow, cheap, kit lenses?

No

It is not easy to calculate this as the amount of distortion reduces as you zoom and therefore the field of view drop more

 

On the Sony 28-60 you are probably looking at around 80-90 degrees diagonal with a less distorted frame

[Chris Ross]

The calculations take care of the non linear change in distortion, what we don't know is what projection it follows.  The WACP seems to follow close to stereographic projection while many Fisheye lenses follow Equisolid.  The diagonal field could be between 98° and 76° at 60mm on the 28-60 depending upon which projection is followed.

[Alex_Mustard]

I agree with the points made by @Interceptor121 and @Chris Ross. Important points are

1) Lenses like Sony 28-60mm have bigger zoom range than lens like Tokina 10-17mm. So it is already greater than what we’ve had available before (Tokina 10-17mm - FoV 180-100ish, 8-15mm+TC FoV 180-110 - both pretty compromised optically). 

2) The FCP expands the angle of view more at the edges of the frame - like a fisheye - so when you zoom in you get an even greater zooming effect because the camera lens is no longer looking through this part of the FCP lens. So at 60mm the FCP expands the view less than at 28mm, so you get an even larger zoom range.

3) Field of View is not the only thing that matters. The small front element size of the FCP means you can fill the frame with smaller subjects with the FCP when zoomed in - than you could with another lens with the same theoretical FoV behind a standard dome port. 

 

My guess-timate on a practical FoV with the 28-60mm is about 175-85ish 

 

I’ve got the production FCP now (me pointing at it) photo next to the prototype for comparison (if you have seen it).

 

 

 

Hope this helps, 

 

Alex

[Chris Ross]

17 minutes ago, Alex_Mustard said:

I agree with the points made by @Interceptor121 and @Chris Ross. Important points are

1) Lenses like Sony 28-60mm have bigger zoom range than lens like Tokina 10-17mm. So it is already greater than what we’ve had available before (Tokina 10-17mm - FoV 180-100ish, 8-15mm+TC FoV 180-110 - both pretty compromised optically). 

2) The FCP expands the angle of view more at the edges of the frame - like a fisheye - so when you zoom in you get an even greater zooming effect because the camera lens is no longer looking through this part of the FCP lens. So at 60mm the FCP expands the view less than at 28mm, so you get an even larger zoom range.

3) Field of View is not the only thing that matters. The small front element size of the FCP means you can fill the frame with smaller subjects with the FCP when zoomed in - than you could with another lens with the same theoretical FoV behind a standard dome port. 

 

My guess-timate on a practical FoV with the 28-60mm is about 175-85ish 

 

I’ve got the production FCP now (me pointing at it) photo next to the prototype for comparison (if you have seen it).

 

 

 

Hope this helps, 

 

Alex

Thanks Alex, many people seem to be  interested in field of view and if the FCP or whatever other wet lens combination would also allow them to shoot more skittish big animals that are often shot with a 16-35 rectilnear with the FCP combination. 

The horizontal field at 60mm zoom looks like it should be between that achieved by a 20mm up to maybe a 28mm lens, so it should have similar but not quite as much reach but the sharks should look slightly fatter than you might get with a rectilinear lens.

So basically a 10-17 lens on steroids.

[ChipBPhoto]

Based on the photo @Alex_Mustard posted, it appears the lens hood could be removable for 180ish fisheye images? (White dots on both the body and hood)  

 

I am curious as to the overall size for travel.  (Rough diameter and height using a basic ruler or tape measure) 

[Davide DB]

16 minutes ago, ChipBPhoto said:

I am curious as to the overall size for travel.  (Rough diameter and height using a basic ruler or tape measure) 

 

It seems in the same ballpark of a WWL

[Alex_Mustard]

It is bigger than WWL. It is between WACP-C (bigger than) and WACP-1 (smaller than) in size. 

[Alex_Mustard]

51 minutes ago, ChipBPhoto said:

Based on the photo @Alex_Mustard posted, it appears the lens hood could be removable for 180ish fisheye images? (White dots on both the body and hood)  

 

Eagle-eyes! Yes, you can also use the FCP with 14mm prime or 14-zoom (like 14-30mm Z, 14-35mm RF) as a circular fisheye (with zoom). The prototype couldn't do this - so I am excited to try this feature. So you will actually be able to use the FCP with different lenses for different types of shots. 

[ChipBPhoto]

9 minutes ago, Alex_Mustard said:

 

Eagle-eyes! Yes, you can also use the FCP with 14mm prime or 14-zoom (like 14-30mm Z, 14-35mm RF) as a circular fisheye (with zoom). The prototype couldn't do this - so I am excited to try this feature. So you will actually be able to use the FCP with different lenses for different types of shots. 

Very excited to learn more and try it!  Seems this will dramatically expand the cross lens and brand functionality. 

Edited January 5 by ChipBPhoto

[Guest]

1 hour ago, Alex_Mustard said:

It is bigger than WWL. It is between WACP-C (bigger than) and WACP-1 (smaller than) in size. 

Looks like the same size of the 140mm dome.

WACP-C is 130mm WACP-1 is around 160mm

 

My issue on this product other than the price is the weight

 

I would like to see it on a scale but I presume the A1 in housing with the FCP will be around 9kg before you add strobe and arms which add another 3 kg to the set up minimum 

You will need some muscle like the WACP-1

 

However if the dome is 140mm in water this is still perfectly manageable with currents

[Brandon Cole]

Thanks to everyone who replied! Very helpful. 

 

[ColdDarkDiver]

9 hours ago, Alex_Mustard said:

 

Yes, you can also use the FCP with [...] 14-35mm RF

Well, I wasn't that interested until you wrote this. Unlike the 26-60 which is seems a totally fine lens, the 14-35 is a real pleasure to shoot with.  Even if just using the longer end of the lens with the hood on the FCP it would be a remarkable combination of color, stabilization, and image quality.  I hope that plays out and I imagine the Nikon one is also very nice in contrast to the 28-60 sony. 

[Architeuthis]

On 1/5/2024 at 1:21 PM, Alex_Mustard said:

 

Eagle-eyes! Yes, you can also use the FCP with 14mm prime or 14-zoom (like 14-30mm Z, 14-35mm RF) as a circular fisheye (with zoom). The prototype couldn't do this - so I am excited to try this feature. So you will actually be able to use the FCP with different lenses for different types of shots. 

Is it known, whether such a compatible 14mm lens for Sony FE mount exists?

[Alex_Mustard]

https://www.sony.co.uk/lenses/products/sel14f18gm

 

[Guest]

7 minutes ago, Alex_Mustard said:

https://www.sony.co.uk/lenses/products/sel14f18gm

 

I have this lens it makes very nice low light landscapes but focuses at 25cm hence not good for dome

Would be interesting to see how it works with this adapter

[Alex_Mustard]

I am pretty sure the picture behind Phoebe and Edward was taken with the Sony 14mm and FCP (by Phoebe? during testing): - hope link to Facebook works https://www.facebook.com/photo/?fbid=10159990773428348&set=pcb.10159990775473348

Edited January 7 by Alex_Mustard

[Guest]

6 minutes ago, Alex_Mustard said:

I am pretty sure the picture behind Phoebe and Edward was taken with the Sony 14mm and FCP (by Phoebe? during testing): - hope link to Facebook works https://www.facebook.com/photo/?fbid=10159990773428348&set=pcb.10159990775473348

Lines are a bit too straight

Anyway the 14mm is a great lens for topside I will probably use it only for split shots with a custom 12" dome

Maybe I can borrow yours before committing to Matty,,,!

[Alex_Mustard]

 Actually realising it is Phoebe’s shot, she shoots the Canon mainly, so I am pretty sure that will be with 14-35mm, which she already told me was her personal favourite lens with the FCP ‘as an amateur’. I guess because of the ability to shoot circular fisheye, normal fisheye and zoom in a bit more too.

 

 

[Phil Rudin]

Like 121 I own the Sony FE 14mm GM and it is an exceptional lens popular with astro photographers because it's a bright F/1.8 wide open. With Circular fisheye I would point out that corner sharpness is a bit of a moot point making center sharpness much more relevant. I would also point out that circular images like Phoebe's while lovely add an interesting prospective that for some should be used sparingly. I have been using the Canon 8-15mm for over eight years now and find myself using the 15mm FF end of the lens much more than the circular fisheye end.

 

To that end I would offer a second choice for use with the FCP for circular shots. I have used the Rokinon 14mm F/2.8 lens for several years in both the 230mm port and an eight inch Aquatica acrylic port. The Rokinon also branded Samyang, focuses 5cm closer than the Sony 14 at 20cm is about 2.3 mm shorter so extensions won't be much different and in the US it is $500.00 v. the $1500.00 for the Sony. At F/8and F/11 the lens has great center sharpness and is usable into the corners even on high MP cameras. As an occasional circular fisheye shooter this lens may offer better value without noticeable loss of image quality.

[ChipBPhoto]

5 hours ago, Alex_Mustard said:

 Actually realising it is Phoebe’s shot, she shoots the Canon mainly, so I am pretty sure that will be with 14-35mm, which she already told me was her personal favourite lens with the FCP ‘as an amateur’. I guess because of the ability to shoot circular fisheye, normal fisheye and zoom in a bit more too.

 

 

This is very interesting and opens up new possibilities.  On land I am a Canon photog.  The 14-35 is a fantastic lens and one I use often.  Who knows, I may even bring my R5 under the waves. 

[Phil Rudin]

This lens has now been posted on the Nauticam web site for $6941.00US no photos or description at this time and no listing in the port charts. Will be interesting to see the initial list of supported lenses. Listed as 170 degrees with a 28mm FF lens.

Edited January 12 by Phil Rudin

[Guest]

5 hours ago, Phil Rudin said:

This lens has now been posted on the Nauticam web site for $6941.00US no photos or description at this time and no listing in the port charts. Will be interesting to see the initial list of supported lenses. Listed as 170 degrees with a 28mm FF lens.

The £5,700 I posted were accurate

[ChipBPhoto]

I’m sure it’s amazing, but at $7,000 that puts it in a very unique and limited group who can afford it and/or are willing to pay for it.  Unfortunately that’s not me at this time.  We will see what the future holds or if there is a smaller, more affordable version that may come out down the road.  (I.e. WWL series) 

[TimG]

Yeah, sounds fabulous but hard to justify if you do a couple of dive trips a year. Rental would be nice!