Nauticam Fisheye Conversion Port shipping Mid January

[fruehaufsteher2]

29 minutes ago, ChrisH said:

 

My first guess would be that the wrong extension should have more impact at the edges, but the center of the frame should have been sharp. That is just a guess though.

On the other hand, if the extension was too short, maybe the 28-60 could not focus close enough for the FCP to work properly? Did you try different zoom settings?

That were my thoughts also. But I tried all zoom settings and all distances. It was more pronounced in wide angles and shorter distances but noticeable at all times. 

[Architeuthis]

14 hours ago, ChrisH said:

 

Yes, you have to shoot them stopped down! At least f13, maybe f16. Don't know about the technical science behind it, but those lenses really have a small depth of field!

 

I had a WeeFine wet lens for testing and had the same effect, which for me did defy the whole purpose of the concept back then (could not zoom with that lens, so got not more flexibility). But it was great for CWFA, you could really get very close. Because of using a "normal" lens and then the wetlens, the distance between you as a diver and the subject is bigger than with a fisheye and skittish subjects allowed me to get much closer than with a fisheye and a small dome.

 

But I did't like the small depth of field (even if not shooting CFWA). The pictures with the WeeFine did not just look as good as with a regular fisheye lens to me. But it is a different lens and different price point!

 

Nicolas Remy made the same experience with the FCP: https://www.divephotoguide.com/underwater-photography-special-features/article/review-nauticam-fisheye-conversion-port-fcp-1

 

So I think the FCP is all about flexibility, it will not give you any advantage in allowing you to shoot wider apertures. For a normal fisheye lens I usually use f13 too.

 

 

 

In case it turns out that only f/13 and smaller is suitable for the FCP, the FCP concept is very different from WWL/WACP:

The positive characteristic of WWL/WACP is that it allows to make photos at relative wide apertures, when compared to rectilinear lenses (corner sharpness issue): Most use it starting already at f/7, sometimes even wider apertures, when ambient light is limiting.

I cannot observe with my WACP-C that sharpness in the center is affected by widening up the aperture (same with rectilinear WA lenses behind dome). Maybe Martin's FCP was defective and/or the wrong extension was responsible. If not, his findings are certainly not a recommendation for FCP.

When I remember correctly, Remy Nicools wrote in his review that stopping down to f/13 and more is required to get enough DOF for the entire image. He did not write that FCP has to be stopped down to f/13 and more to provide good center sharpness...

 

Corner sharpness is, of course, a different issue to center sharpness and the depth of field issue (but DOF and corner sharpness are related: the more DOF, the better also the corner sharpness will be). I am not aware of any comparison, how much DOF is available, at comparable AOVs and distances, when rectilinear WA lenses, WWL/WACPs and FCP are compared (with rectilinear WA lenses, DOF increases with the radius of the dome). Is such a comparison available somewhere?

 

 

 

Wolfgang

 

Edited June 13 by Architeuthis

[ChrisH]

42 minutes ago, Architeuthis said:

 

 

In case it turns out that only f/13 and smaller is suitable for the FCP, the FCP concept is very different from WWL/WACP:

The positive characteristic of WWL/WACP is that it allows to make photos at relative wide apertures, when compared to rectilinear lenses (corner sharpness issue): Most use it starting already at f/7, sometimes even wider apertures, when ambient light is limiting.

I cannot observe with my WACP-C that sharpness in the center is affected by widening up the aperture (same with rectilinear WA lenses behind dome). Maybe Martin's FCP was defective and/or the wrong extension was responsible. If not, his findings are certainly not a recommendation for FCP.

When I remember correctly, Remy Nicools wrote in his review that stopping down to f/13 and more is required to get enough DOF for the entire image. He did not write that FCP has to be stopped down to f/13 and more to provide good center sharpness...

 

Corner sharpness is, of course, a different issue to center sharpness and the depth of field issue (but DOF and corner sharpness are related: the more DOF, the better also the corner sharpness will be). I am not aware of any comparison, how much DOF is available, at comparable AOVs and distances, when rectilinear WA lenses, WWL/WACPs and FCP are compared (with rectilinear WA lenses, DOF increases with the radius of the dome). Is such a comparison available somewhere?

 

 

 

Wolfgang

 

No, the FCP should (and will) be sharp even if shooting at wider aperatures. 
 

But I don‘t think it will give you an advantage in depth of field compared to Fisheye lenses, maybe it could have even less. So if you want the background not to be blurred you will have to stop down the same (or maybe more?) than with a normal fisheye lens. If you want/need the whole picture to be sharp is a matter of personal taste and preference but most big wide angle scenes other than shooting fish in the blue are normally shot like landscape over water, with enough depth of field to have the entire picture sharp. 
 

So, without having access to a FCP, I would guess (!) that it is indeed different to the WACAP/WWL, where the compromised optics of rectilinear lenses for underwater use are corrected and the goal is better optical performance. 
 

The FCP to my impression is more an approach to introduce more flexibility to a fisheye solution, rather then to improve  optical performance. 

[Sergio]

I will add my 2 cents to the discussion even though I don't see myself very qualified to chip in as I am still in the very early learning phase of underwater photography and photography as it is;-)

I bought a completely new system based on the Z8 and when pondering what way to go for a wide angle system I splurged (had some sort of YOLO fart coming out of somewhere) and changed my original decision of buying a wwl-c to getting an FCP. 

I just came back from a trip to the Philippines where I could put my baby to work and have to say that overall I am quite pleased. While I do like sharp pictures, I was also struggling with the new mirrorless options and got a lot of blurry photos because it (please note that I did not say I 😆) focused on the wrong spot. 

I thought to add 2 photos which I thought show that the FCP does/can provide sharp photos but the DOF is definitely there. 

Both photos are simple raw exports, no processing, and cropping was applied and none are masterpieces, especially with the diver photo bombing. In the first one (from the bottom up), I focused on the background (an obvious mistake), but you can see that the Gorgonia and diver are reasonably sharp (at least to me), while in the second photo, the soft coral is sharp and the background is blurry which is a DOF thing I think, but I quite like it that way as it doesn't detract from the centerpiece, especially when you go close.

The one thing I like about the FCP is its flexibility in having a range from 170 to about 70. The reason I went with the FCP was essentially this: what would be the alternative? Of course, there are several, such as fisheye with a Kenko 1.4 to get reach, wwl-c, etc. But none of them has the same reach and would mean to have several ports to lug as well. And since I heard a lot of good things about water optics I wanted to give it a go and grow with it over time as I believe this port just like any other system needs a lot of use and trial and error until one gets it - unless one is a pro or gets to use it daily, which I can't.

I cannot comment on the image quality between the FCP and let's say a fisheye and dome (I don't think you can compare the FCP with WACP, etc as they don't distort the photo like a fisheye does from what I read, so would be rather comparable to rectilinear lenses), but from everything I read, it should be at least on par with a fisheye if not a little better but with the additional reach in being to zoom in and out quite a bit.

The 2 real downsides are of course the price and the weight. If however, you start adding all the parts for a fisheye, kenko, and maybe 2 ports to also do CFWA you will end up close to the same weight I think, and might even be a bit bulkier. Well, the price still stands, but when you have the YOLO bug, then nothing will stop you...

 

Edited June 13 by Sergio

[TimG]

YOLO? That's a new one on me. And we don't have it on the abbreviation thread......

 

We've got GAS (Gear Acquisition Syndrome) but YOLO????

[Sergio]

11 minutes ago, TimG said:

YOLO? That's a new one on me. And we don't have it on the abbreviation thread......

 

We've got GAS (Gear Acquisition Syndrome) but YOLO????

It's a medically induced syndrome I was told which makes you believe You Only Live Once 🥳

[fruehaufsteher2]

Looking at these pictures I am sure that my FCP had a technical problem.

The weight wasn't a big issue for me. Still anything fits in the backpack and the difference between carrying 12 or 13 kg is marginal.

[Architeuthis]

2 hours ago, Sergio said:

I will add my 2 cents to the discussion even though I don't see myself very qualified to chip in as I am still in the very early learning phase of underwater photography and photography as it is;-)

I bought a completely new system based on the Z8 and when pondering what way to go for a wide angle system I splurged (had some sort of YOLO fart coming out of somewhere) and changed my original decision of buying a wwl-c to getting an FCP. 

I just came back from a trip to the Philippines where I could put my baby to work and have to say that overall I am quite pleased. While I do like sharp pictures, I was also struggling with the new mirrorless options and got a lot of blurry photos because it (please note that I did not say I 😆) focused on the wrong spot. 

I thought to add 2 photos which I thought show that the FCP does/can provide sharp photos but the DOF is definitely there. 

Both photos are simple raw exports, no processing, and cropping was applied and none are masterpieces, especially with the diver photo bombing. In the first one (from the bottom up), I focused on the background (an obvious mistake), but you can see that the Gorgonia and diver are reasonably sharp (at least to me), while in the second photo, the soft coral is sharp and the background is blurry which is a DOF thing I think, but I quite like it that way as it doesn't detract from the centerpiece, especially when you go close.

The one thing I like about the FCP is its flexibility in having a range from 170 to about 70. The reason I went with the FCP was essentially this: what would be the alternative? Of course, there are several, such as fisheye with a Kenko 1.4 to get reach, wwl-c, etc. But none of them has the same reach and would mean to have several ports to lug as well. And since I heard a lot of good things about water optics I wanted to give it a go and grow with it over time as I believe this port just like any other system needs a lot of use and trial and error until one gets it - unless one is a pro or gets to use it daily, which I can't.

I cannot comment on the image quality between the FCP and let's say a fisheye and dome (I don't think you can compare the FCP with WACP, etc as they don't distort the photo like a fisheye does from what I read, so would be rather comparable to rectilinear lenses), but from everything I read, it should be at least on par with a fisheye if not a little better but with the additional reach in being to zoom in and out quite a bit.

The 2 real downsides are of course the price and the weight. If however, you start adding all the parts for a fisheye, kenko, and maybe 2 ports to also do CFWA you will end up close to the same weight I think, and might even be a bit bulkier. Well, the price still stands, but when you have the YOLO bug, then nothing will stop you...

 

 

Great, thanks. What were the conditions (aperture, but also other parameters)?

=> The sharpness of the in focus area does not look very impressive, but this is probably due to the data reduction for putting the photos here. Maybe a 100% would show sharpness better...

[Sergio]

I reduced the resolution quite a bit as there’s an upload limit I ran into in another thread i posted, so I used the same export settings not thinking about how the files would look here - quite crappy actually;-)

I’ll try to do it again.

[ChipBPhoto]

4 hours ago, Sergio said:

I just came back from a trip to the Philippines where I could put my baby to work and have to say that overall I am quite pleased.

 

Thanks so much for your feedback and examples!  It's good to hear you are happy with it overall.  Sounds like a great trip!

 

4 hours ago, Sergio said:

It's a medically induced syndrome I was told which makes you believe You Only Live Once 🥳

 

I will try to convince my bank account that it needs to step up its game to keep up with my serious case of YOLO!  But what happens if you have both YOLO and FOMA (Fear of Mission Anything), or does one feed the other??!?  

Not that I would admit to having either... 🤣 

[Sergio]

4 hours ago, Architeuthis said:

 

Great, thanks. What were the conditions (aperture, but also other parameters)?

=> The sharpness of the in focus area does not look very impressive, but this is probably due to the data reduction for putting the photos here. Maybe a 100% would show sharpness better...

 

1 hour ago, ChipBPhoto said:

 

Thanks so much for your feedback and examples!  It's good to hear you are happy with it overall.  Sounds like a great trip!

 

 

I will try to convince my bank account that it needs to step up its game to keep up with my serious case of YOLO!  But what happens if you have both YOLO and FOMA (Fear of Mission Anything), or does one feed the other??!?  

Not that I would admit to having either... 🤣 

Fear not my son and spread your mission to  anybody who wants to sell you anything 😜

[DreiFish]

3 hours ago, Sergio said:

I reduced the resolution quite a bit as there’s an upload limit I ran into in another thread i posted, so I used the same export settings not thinking about how the files would look here - quite crappy actually;-)

I’ll try to do it again.

 

I do hope that it's a compression or focusing issue.. because otherwise, err.. nothing in those pictures is particularly sharp, certainly not what I would expect from a Z8. 

[Adventurer]

9 hours ago, DreiFish said:

I do hope that it's a compression or focusing issue.. because otherwise, err.. nothing in those pictures is particularly sharp, certainly not what I would expect from a Z8. 

Don’t underestimate the DOF issues this optical category produces, once you move the concept to a full frame sensor.

 

If you compare land based 28-60mm DOF to a 10mm lens, the latter will give you 130 FOV and more DOF sharpness.

 

This water contact optic category that throws the image into the distance enjoys an excellent reputation for compact cameras, microfourthirds and previously camcorders, because they crop in on the center part of the optic.

Edited June 14 by Adventurer

[DreiFish]

4 hours ago, Adventurer said:

Don’t underestimate the DOF issues this optical category produces, once you move the concept to a full frame sensor.

 

If you compare land based 28-60mm DOF to a 10mm lens, the latter will give you 130 FOV and more DOF sharpness.

 

This water contact optic category that throws the image into the distance enjoys an excellent reputation for compact cameras, microfourthirds and previously camcorders, because they crop in on the center part of the optic.

 

I've been shooting full frame and m4/3 systems for more than 10 years, with fisheye, rectilinear lenses, the WACP-1, WWL-1 and WWL-C (on full frame). None of these DOF issues show up there.

 

(Yes, I'm familiar with Interceptor's investigation as to how water contact optics act to essentially project the image further from the sensor proportional to their coefficient of magnification, thus actually decreasing DOF)

 

The problem with the DOF theory is that there isn't any particular part of Sergio's picture that is sharp -- not the foreground coral subject, not the background with the diver. And there's no noticeable difference in sharpness between foreground and background. It's uniformly unsharp. It looks like either the focus is entirely off (front-focused or back-focused) or the lens/FCP combination has optical quality issues. 

[Sergio]

nullSorry guys. I uploaded those photos with an export setting I had for a previous export at 1200 pixels on the longest side - didn't notice it.

For some reason, I cannot upload the full jpg which is about 20MB as I am getting an error -200, so I cropped the first one (background sharper than the foreground) here and will post the 2nd in a separate message as there is a file limit per upload.null

[Sergio]

and here is the 2nd one, also cropped where the foreground is in focus while the background isn't

[Sergio]

Well, I just looked at those images when clicking on this website and somehow the server downsized them to 180KB from 8, resp 10MB. It seems as if this site is compressing uploaded images quite a bit. So, uploading both images in a zip file now. Sorry for all those messages.

DSC_6319.zip

[fruehaufsteher2]

13 minutes ago, Sergio said:

Well, I just looked at those images when clicking on this website and somehow the server downsized them to 180KB from 8, resp 10MB. It seems as if this site is compressing uploaded images quite a bit. So, uploading both images in a zip file now. Sorry for all those messages.

DSC_6319.zip 18.57 MB · 3 downloads

Thank you, very helpful!

As sharp as I expected for mine.

[RomiK]

4 hours ago, fruehaufsteher2 said:

Thank you, very helpful!

As sharp as I expected for mine.

 

So it seems at lower aperture numbers FCP offers some kind of separation - first image the diver in the background not sharp, the gorgonias in the middle tack sharp and the foreground blurry... But where it's sharp it's tack sharp! 👍 Very dangerous situtation here! 🤑🤑🤣

[DreiFish]

7 hours ago, fruehaufsteher2 said:

Thank you, very helpful!

As sharp as I expected for mine.

Thank you Sergio -- this is helpful. In the full size images, it does appear that the first one the focus is somewhere on the diver or the gorgonians in the background not lit by the flash. It's really hard to say much about the sharpness from this image because the subject in focus is both unlit and far in the background, so normal water diffraction robs some of the expected sharpness.

 

Second image, (parts of) the foreground coral are reasonably sharp. But definitely depth of field is limited, as even the front part of that coral (in front of the point of focus) is blurry. So maybe field of acceptable focus is ~10-20cm in depth?

 

EXIF data shows this shot as F13, 1/100s at 29.5mm focal length. So this is basically at the widest end of the zoom range. If depth of field is so limited at such a wide field of view.. then yes, the FCP acts very differently than a traditional fisheye lens. It has a much narrower zone of acceptable focus. It's going to be basically impossible to keep an entire scene (foreground and background) in focus. 

[Sergio]

12 hours ago, RomiK said:

 

So it seems at lower aperture numbers FCP offers some kind of separation - first image the diver in the background not sharp, the gorgonias in the middle tack sharp and the foreground blurry... But where it's sharp it's tack sharp! 👍 Very dangerous situtation here! 🤑🤑🤣

Please don’t rule out the photographer who was at fault here. The z8 is completely new to me and I’m still struggling to get the right AF modes set which in this case was clearly the case. I’ve been trying a lot of different modes with this camera and some work better than others. So if things are blurry in the wrong places that’s me to who is to blame not the camera 🙈

[Sergio]

9 hours ago, DreiFish said:

Thank you Sergio -- this is helpful. In the full size images, it does appear that the first one the focus is somewhere on the diver or the gorgonians in the background not lit by the flash. It's really hard to say much about the sharpness from this image because the subject in focus is both unlit and far in the background, so normal water diffraction robs some of the expected sharpness.

 

Second image, (parts of) the foreground coral are reasonably sharp. But definitely depth of field is limited, as even the front part of that coral (in front of the point of focus) is blurry. So maybe field of acceptable focus is ~10-20cm in depth?

 

EXIF data shows this shot as F13, 1/100s at 29.5mm focal length. So this is basically at the widest end of the zoom range. If depth of field is so limited at such a wide field of view.. then yes, the FCP acts very differently than a traditional fisheye lens. It has a much narrower zone of acceptable focus. It's going to be basically impossible to keep an entire scene (foreground and background) in focus. 

This shot was done at very close focus distance, so wouldn’t it be normal to expect a more shallow DOF? And again don’t rule out the incompetent photographer that took the shot 👀

[Architeuthis]

52 minutes ago, Sergio said:

This shot was done at very close focus distance, so wouldn’t it be normal to expect a more shallow DOF? And again don’t rule out the incompetent photographer that took the shot 👀

When this photo was really taken at f/13, as Dreifish read out from the EXIF data, I agree with Dreifish that DOF is very shallow compared to other optics, e.g. WACP-C. When the aperture was wide open, this is what one would expect, more or less.

But still it depends how close the soft coral was, when very close you get this even at f/13...

 

Maybe you have a photo that is not CFWA, e.g. reefscene, and was taken at wide aperture f/7 and smaller numbers? Would be interesting to see such a photo...

 

Wolfgang

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[RomiK]

10 hours ago, DreiFish said:

Thank you Sergio -- this is helpful. In the full size images, it does appear that the first one the focus is somewhere on the diver or the gorgonians in the background not lit by the flash. It's really hard to say much about the sharpness from this image because the subject in focus is both unlit and far in the background, so normal water diffraction robs some of the expected sharpness.

 

Second image, (parts of) the foreground coral are reasonably sharp. But definitely depth of field is limited, as even the front part of that coral (in front of the point of focus) is blurry. So maybe field of acceptable focus is ~10-20cm in depth?

 

EXIF data shows this shot as F13, 1/100s at 29.5mm focal length. So this is basically at the widest end of the zoom range. If depth of field is so limited at such a wide field of view.. then yes, the FCP acts very differently than a traditional fisheye lens. It has a much narrower zone of acceptable focus. It's going to be basically impossible to keep an entire scene (foreground and background) in focus. 

 

So I am (just thinking out loud, not that I would have anything to back it up with) that unlike  fisheye lens that is built to project reality on the sensor in a certain way which by nature brings large DOF the FCP compresses the virtual image in a fisheye like manner but this image is further interpreted by rectilinear lens (and not very good at that - kit lens) with its own corrections and then projected onto the sensor which may result in shallower DOF?

 

first image is from Oly EM1II with 8mm fisheye I was testing for friend of mine and the other three are WWL-1B at widest all with lower aperture values. The Oly was right at the anemone.

 

[ChrisH]

13 hours ago, DreiFish said:

EXIF data shows this shot as F13, 1/100s at 29.5mm focal length. So this is basically at the widest end of the zoom range. If depth of field is so limited at such a wide field of view.. then yes, the FCP acts very differently than a traditional fisheye lens. It has a much narrower zone of acceptable focus. It's going to be basically impossible to keep an entire scene (foreground and background) in focus. 

 

I wouldn't go that far to say it is impossible to get an entire scene in focus, as these shots here are take at really close distances, making it kind of CFWA shots. Also I don't think Nauticam would come up with such an expensive product, if it would be optically flawed like that. Of course we will have to wait and see what other user experiences will be like...

 

But, as I stated before, the shots and reviews so far all suggest in my opinion that unlike the rectilinear wet lenses, the FCP might not introduce optically superior solutions, but rather give you more flexibility. You might not gain any advantages on apertures that you can use, maybe you might be even forced to close aperture more than with a fisheye (we will see on that also with further user experience). But you will have more flexible setup during the dive, which might be worth it for some people.