Nauticam Fisheye Conversion Port shipping Mid January

[Alex_Mustard]

Although I am massively behind on my image processing - there are 70+ FCP shots on my website now. They are not test shots, but hopefully they show the variety of images the FCP can produce:

 

https://www.amustard.com/library/page/search/FCP/1/

 

Alex

[DreiFish]

3 hours ago, ChrisH said:

 

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.

 

 

 

I recognize that this is a fairly close-focus kinda scene, but even so, I'd say that at F13, FCP shows much less depth of field in this situation than a traditional fisheye or fisheye with teleconverter would. Would you expect to get such a narrow slice of the image in acceptable focus shooting a 15mm fisheye at F13? Not my experience so far..

 

So it's not just that there's no improvement in image quality, you're getting more zoom range at the expense of both image quality and depth of field, which is a pretty big tradeoff. 

[RomiK]

@Alex_Mustard thanks for pointing at your FCP images 🙏 Would you be able to post test shots showing distortions at various zoom levels? I am sure there must be some 🙂. I am impressed with sharpness @Sergio images shown at full res at the focal level and I am not too concerned about overall DOF. So I may succumb to YOLO syndrome 😂. Although I wonder whether the whole new system of Canon  R7 coupled with 8-15 wouldn’t provide similar results at about the same price to me 😂 (already have 8-15)

[DreiFish]

3 hours ago, Alex_Mustard said:

Although I am massively behind on my image processing - there are 70+ FCP shots on my website now. They are not test shots, but hopefully they show the variety of images the FCP can produce:

 

https://www.amustard.com/library/page/search/FCP/1/

 

Alex

 

Excellent resource, @Alex_Mustard. A critical examination of the images (pixel-peeping, I mean 😄) does seem to support the conclusion that (a) the foreground sharpness (or maybe it's micro-contrast?) is not on the same level as a native fisheye and (b) the zone of acceptable focus is narrower, rendering more blurred out backgrounds. 

 

For example, look at the surface water in this shot (upper left corner) in this shot - linked, not copied! (F11, 32mm) The fish school is in focus, but the background is very blurred. Granted, the slight zoom and 1/30 shutter speed might contribute to that.

 

Or this shot (F13, 22mm, 1/60s). 

 

Or this shot. 

 

 

 

Another shot to showcase foreground sharpness and background (F13, 30mm, 1/200s). 

 

Compare this with a somewhat similar photo I've taken with the GH5 and Canon 8-15mm. Personally, I don't really see a image quality improvement you'd expect to see with a native fisheye on full frame.

 

Or this shot from Alex 

 

With a couple taken with the Canon R5C, 8-15mm fisheye at 15mm, F8

 

 

What were your subjective observations on this topic, @Alex_Mustard?

[DreiFish]

Nicholas Remy's review has a detailed section addressing the depth of field issue. It's definitely less than with a fisheye lens. https://theunderwaterclub.com/blog/nauticam-fisheye-conversion-port-fcp-field-review/

[ChipBPhoto]

Since it’s been a few months, here are the links to Alex’s reviews of the FCP and comparing it to the WACPs.  Thought it would be useful to add to all the great experiences and comments we are getting.

 

 

 

 

 

Edited June 15 by ChipBPhoto

[Chris Ross]

On 6/14/2024 at 10:40 PM, 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.

 

For those who don't want to download the zip file here is a centre crop, quite sharp where it's in focus.

 

1/100 @ f13 ISO100 and 29.5mm

 

So quite shallow depth of field from being in so close - do you recall the approximate size of this soft coral?

 

[Adventurer]

Well I might get stoned for this critical comment, but… looking at the (in my opinion) superior results of classic fisheye lenses:

 

Will the FCP be Nauticam’s personal revival of the Nikonos RS disaster? 
 

Weight, size, price and dismal performance increase definitely point into that historic direction.

[fruehaufsteher2]

The advantage is the impressive zoom range. So maybe the FCP is most attractive for filming. 
For ultrawide Canon 8-15 behind appropriate dome is great, for FOV 130-70 the WWL or WACP with 28-60(70) is great. Both solutions have better sharpness/resolution but none has that range. 
 

So for the „one size fits all“ population the FCP is great. 

[Adventurer]

1 hour ago, fruehaufsteher2 said:

FOV 130-70

130 FOV is not as magic and easy to handle.

10mm FF lenses get you there.

 

If you enjoy the more practical FOV 114-63 existing 

14-35mm give you a better real world experience underwater.

[Davide DB]

1 hour ago, fruehaufsteher2 said:

The advantage is the impressive zoom range. So maybe the FCP is most attractive for filming.

 

Hummm 

Who uses a fisheye for filming? No professionals unless in special cases. 
WWL and WACP are comparable to rectilinear lenses because the distortion is slightly noticeable and practically imperceptible.

[fruehaufsteher2]

To be clear: I have finished the FCP chapter. I‘ll stay with WACP-C as sharpness and zoom range is what I need. 

[DreiFish]

3 hours ago, Adventurer said:

130 FOV is not as magic and easy to handle.

10mm FF lenses get you there.

 

If you enjoy the more practical FOV 114-63 existing 

14-35mm give you a better real world experience underwater.

 

Not sure I agree with this.. even with a 180mm dome, the 14-35 is floaty at the front (if paired with a magnifying viewfinder), throwing the whole camera trim out of wack. You have to fight its tendency to turn nose up throughout the dive.

 

That's simply not an issue with the wet optics. They're heavy out of the water, but in the water, they're only slightly negative, and they trim out much better, especially paired with a magnified viewfinder.

[Chris Ross]

7 hours ago, Adventurer said:

130 FOV is not as magic and easy to handle.

10mm FF lenses get you there.

 

If you enjoy the more practical FOV 114-63 existing 

14-35mm give you a better real world experience underwater.

Comparing rectilinear and wide lenses on the diagonal field of view is a bit misleading.  The field of view on the horizontal axis of the WWL/WACP is actually about the same a 14mm rectilinear lens due to the barrel distortion.  The view is stretched most in the corners. 

 

I prefer to use the horizontal axis to compare as when you are framing a subject like a shark for example you don't usually place it along the diagonal. 

 

Due to the barrel distortion the zoom ratios are not totally comparable as you are zooming into centre  section which looks enlarged  with a fisheye.  

 

I use a Canon 8-15 on my OM-1 which on first glance is a 2x zoom.  However if you use the horizontal field of the lens to compare you find the framing is similar a 5.8mm zooming to 28mm rectilinear lens  so this is like a 4.8x zoom lens.  I have done the calculations to show how the horizontal field changes when you zoom and then taken images with the 8-15 at 15mm and my 7-14 lens at 14mm (m43 camera) and apart from the barrel distortion the field that is framed is remarkably similar. 

 

The WWL behaves more like a fisheye zoomed into a 130 deg diagonal field than a 10mm rectilinear lens and I've done the calculations to show this and the 10mm takes in a wider horizontal view.  The increase in zoom ratio is not as much as the 8-15 lens shows as the distortion is a lot lower.

 

This is the technical view - it somewhat ignores the end result.  The barrel distortion pulls the subject forward to be more prominent in the frame and places it firmly front and centre - this is the fisheye look and you can't replicate it with a rectilinear.  That not to say there is no place for rectilinear lenses - there certainly is whether it is shooting video, the need to have straight lines remain straight in a wreck or needing more reach for smaller shy subjects.  Recognize what the difference is and then make your choices to suit your application and the look you prefer.

[Adventurer]

6 hours ago, DreiFish said:

Not sure I agree with this.. even with a 180mm dome, the 14-35 is floaty at the front (if paired with a magnifying viewfinder), throwing the whole camera trim out of wack. You have to fight its tendency to turn nose up throughout the dive.

Well 0.4kg underwater weight are a bug not a feature. If you do not like a nose up system during your dive you can fix this affordable with less than $10 of car wheel trim weights.
 

This is more easy and less expensive than having to put money in specialized and bulky float arms or bouyancy collars.

 

I see nose up systems beneficial to your photography and video underwater. Your framing will include the water column and result in more please imagery. Especially with 45 deg Viewfinders this help 😉

 

 

Edited June 19 by Adventurer

[Davide DB]

4 hours ago, Adventurer said:

I see nose up systems beneficial to your photography and video underwater. Your framing will include the water column and result in more please imagery. Especially with 45 deg Viewfinders this help 😉

 

Sorry I don't agree with this.
For video I have talked about it so many times. A nose-up housing is the worst thing that can happen: it requires you to apply a force with your wrists that leads to unstable footage. A photo 'lasts' 1/60 of a second while a video shot even 30 seconds.

 

Regarding weight I give an example for my GH5 with a 6" polycarbonate dome. (very light). The housing. without lights or flash is practically neutral but totally unbalanced with the nose upwards creating huge problems for video. To get it back to a correct trim, I had to add a 700 gram collar. Now the camera is trimmed but very heavy so I had to add the floating arms. In short, a dog biting its own tail!
With the WWL-1B everything is more stable and neutral by default.

 

P.S.
Probably with a crystal dome the problem is less extreme, but I think you are talking about domes larger than 6".

[Architeuthis]

On 6/15/2024 at 10:03 PM, ChipBPhoto said:

Since it’s been a few months, here are the links to Alex’s reviews of the FCP and comparing it to the WACPs.  Thought it would be useful to add to all the great experiences and comments we are getting.

 

 

 

 

 

 

This is an interesting video. My take is:

 

#1.: FCP substitutes WWL-1/WACP-C as it covers a wider range at similar IQ, compared to WWL-1/WACP-C (IQ here means mostly corner sharpness).

#2.: When one is interested to make photos at wider apertures and still have good corner sharpness, then WACP-1/WACP-2 is an alternative, albeit at more narrow AOV...

 

=> I am still wondering about the DoF issuer raised by Nicolas Remy in his review, claiming that f/13 and more narrow is required for good photos with FCP. With WWL-1/WACP-C, I seldom use f/13, but more often wider apertures (down to f/7.1) with WACP-C/28-60mm. This is also how WWL-1/WACP-C is advertised by Nauticam (3 f-stops better than rectilinear behind planport (WACP-1 is 4 f-stops, WACP-2 is 5-f stops better)). In addition, virtually everybody uses WWL/WACP at wider apertures...

This issue needs more clarification by people who use both FCP/WACP-C...

 

=> It seems that the only "hobbyist" who dared to purchase FCP is Fruehaufsteher2. I wonder whether the FCP is to just too expensive or whether there are other reasons (f/13 issue?)...

 

At present, my preference is to stay with Canon 8-15mm/140mm dome plus WACP-C/28-60...

 

 

Wolfgang

[ChipBPhoto]

I had a chance to play with an FCP yesterday at Reef Photo.  While not uw, I did see first hand how the zoom range is very impressive.  Its overall size/weight was not as bad as I expected.  It definitely felt lighter and more manageable to me than the WACP-1, while a bit larger than the WACP-C.  The weight and mass does sit closer to the housing than a traditional large dome solution which should yield a reasonably balanced feel in water.

 

I would agree there is a trade off of depth of field to achieve the unprecedented zoom.  I can see how this will be a very solid option to capture a wide variety of subjects ranging from fisheye to CFWA to zoomed details in a single dive.  If only 1 lens/port would go on a trip, I can see how the FCP will appeal to many.

 

Is it for everyone?  No.  Then again, nothing is.  In a generalization, this is my opinion of how the port options play:
 

FCP - I believe it is a high-quality tool with an emphasis on versatility.  Those that want a 1-port, ultra-wide solution will most likely be happy with the choice.  This versatility does come with a higher cost to purchase.

 

WACP-1 - Those who want the ability to have noticeably improved sharpness at more open apertures will most likely prefer the WACP.  The in-water mass and resulting stability could appeal to pro video creators using FF systems.
 

WACP-C/WWL - Similar idea of the WACP, with a smaller size.  It may require a more narrow aperture for large DoF.

 

DOMEs - Those who have and enjoy the more traditional domes may wish to stay with their current system.  Nothing at all wrong with that.  Also the best solution for splits.

 

As with everything, check it out for yourself and decide what best fits your personal needs. 
 

Edited June 19 by ChipBPhoto

[Chris Ross]

1 hour ago, ChipBPhoto said:

 

I would agree there is a trade off of depth of field to achieve the unprecedented zoom.  I can see how this will be a very solid option to capture a wide variety of subjects ranging from fisheye to CFWA to zoomed details in a single dive.  If only 1 lens/port would go on a trip, I can see how the FCP will appeal to many.

 

 

I don't know that I would say it's a CFWA solution seeing the soft coral posted by Sergio, the lens was zoomed to 29.5mm and the DOF in that image was remarkably narrow.  The shot was out of focus both in front of and behind the plane of sharp focus at f13.  Certainly expect to do better with a fisheye and dome.

[ChipBPhoto]

5 minutes ago, Chris Ross said:

I don't know that I would say it's a CFWA solution seeing the soft coral posted by Sergio, the lens was zoomed to 29.5mm and the DOF in that image was remarkably narrow.  The shot was out of focus both in front of and behind the plane of sharp focus at f13.  Certainly expect to do better with a fisheye and dome.

 

Domes are an excellent option with an extensive track record of success.  If DoF is a higher priority, and versatility is not a top desire, I would agree a traditional fisheye/dome or WACP could be a better solution.  

 

I personally prefer to have a sharper subject with a softer background for separation in my CFWA.  For me, versatility tends to be a top priority which could make the FCP a solid overall choice for the type of images I like to create.  While I do not have the talent of Alex, the images he shared do show the quality the lens is capable of producing in a variety of settings.

 

They're all different tools and it's a matter of balancing the desired usage and output priorities.  Time will tell how this new wet lens fairs in the wild. 

 

[fruehaufsteher2]

25 minutes ago, Chris Ross said:

Certainly expect to do better with a fisheye and dome.

Is there any way of calculating dof in water behind a dome? It doesn't depend on the dome, right? Just on the magnification by the water?

[DreiFish]

6 minutes ago, ChipBPhoto said:

 

Domes are an excellent option with an extensive track record of success.  If DoF is a higher priority, and versatility is not a top desire, I would agree a traditional fisheye/dome or WACP could be a better solution.  

 

I personally prefer to have a sharper subject with a softer background for separation in my CFWA.  For me, versatility tends to be a top priority which could make the FCP a solid overall choice for the type of images I like to create.  While I do not have the talent of Alex, the images he shared do show the quality the lens is capable of producing in a variety of settings.

 

They're all different tools and it's a matter of balancing the desired usage and output priorities.  Time will tell how this new wet lens fairs in the wild. 

 

I think the comparison should be between the FCP and a fisheye zoom like the Canon 8-15mm + 2x TC behind a 140mm dome port. Not with a fixed focal length fisheye or one of the less extreme wet optics like WACP-1/2/C or WWL-1/C.

 

Comparing the FCP to the 8-15 fisheye + TC,  it's not at all clear to me that the FCP has any versatility advantages at all. The 8-15 + 2x TC covers similar range, perhaps with better image quality, and certainly with better depth of field. It's smaller and lighter, too. Only thing missing is a 1st-party zoom ring for this combination from Nauticam or other housing suppliers (AFAIK). So you have to determine the right port extension (70mm on Nauticam n120 I think) and make a custom zoom gear. But the end result is.. better, and much cheaper?

[ChipBPhoto]

40 minutes ago, DreiFish said:

But the end result is.. better, and much cheaper?

 

Agreed, this would be an interesting comparison.  Over the coming months we will see how this new addition actually performs. 

 

Edited June 19 by ChipBPhoto

[Architeuthis]

5 hours ago, fruehaufsteher2 said:

Is there any way of calculating dof in water behind a dome? It doesn't depend on the dome, right? Just on the magnification by the water?

 

To complicate things, DoF does depend on the dome: the larger the radius, the more DoF...

[ChrisH]

6 hours ago, DreiFish said:

Comparing the FCP to the 8-15 fisheye + TC,  it's not at all clear to me that the FCP has any versatility advantages at all. The 8-15 + 2x TC covers similar range, perhaps with better image quality, and certainly with better depth of field. It's smaller and lighter, too. Only thing missing is a 1st-party zoom ring for this combination from Nauticam or other housing suppliers (AFAIK). So you have to determine the right port extension (70mm on Nauticam n120 I think) and make a custom zoom gear. But the end result is.. better, and much cheaper?

I don't know about the 2x TC, but Seacam has a dedicated zoom gear for the 1.4x TC from Kenko with the fisheye lenses. That is what I use if I do need more flexibility.

But the TC also introduces a hit in the image quality: it tends to work not as good when shooting against the sun and will introduce more flare. Other than that, I find the image quality to be fine for me.