Nauticam Fisheye Conversion Port shipping Mid January

[bghazzal]

Out of curiosity, would anyone know what cinema camera is it seems to be mounted on here?

Housing looks like a RED Digital Cinema V-Raptor housing - not sure if the lens here is the FCP-1 (or is that the WACP-2?), but if it is indeed, I would love to see some video footage shot with this combo!

 

Edited February 9 by bghazzal

[fruehaufsteher2]

The combo in your video was exhibited at the boot by PanOcean. As far as I remember you are correct and it is the FCP. 
on my pic they had just swapped it for the WACP-1 I think. 

[Alex_Mustard]

Realised that I hadn’t shared this video of us chatting about the FCP:

 

 

[Guest]

2 hours ago, Alex_Mustard said:

Realised that I hadn’t shared this video of us chatting about the FCP:

 

 

interesting comment at 11:30

 

In essence this lens has flexibility benefits but not an edge on IQ compared to fisheye or WACP-1. You say similar to WACP-C which for me is same as WWL-1

[Davide DB]

3 hours ago, Interceptor121 said:

In essence this lens has flexibility benefits but not an edge on IQ compared to fisheye or WACP-1. You say similar to WACP-C which for me is same as WWL-1

 

So you are lucky that you don't have to spend all that money 😉

 

[Guest]

2 minutes ago, Davide DB said:

 

So you are lucky that you don't have to spend all that money 😉

 

You never have to ... I will try and test it to compare to 8-15 and teleconverter if it is much better I will consider it maybe

[ChipBPhoto]

17 minutes ago, Davide DB said:

 

So you are lucky that you don't have to spend all that money 😉

 

Quest for new gear, whether needed or not.

Hey, I have to have at least one vice. 😂

[ridgebackpilot]

14 hours ago, ChipBPhoto said:

Quest for new gear, whether needed or not.

Hey, I have to have at least one vice. 😂

 

If underwater photography is your only vice (albeit an expensive one), you're a fortunate man!

[DreiFish]

@Alex_Mustard -- setting aside the zoom flexibility, how does the image quality (sharpness, contrast) with the FCP compare with the Canon 8-15mm? Better? Equal? Worse? 

 

How about flare resistance? 

[Chris Ross]

1 hour ago, DreiFish said:

@Alex_Mustard -- setting aside the zoom flexibility, how does the image quality (sharpness, contrast) with the FCP compare with the Canon 8-15mm? Better? Equal? Worse? 

 

How about flare resistance? 

See @Interceptor121 post above here linking to a video by Alex Mustard where he comments on the image quality being good but not as good as a fisheye behind a dome.  Answers at least part of your question.

[DreiFish]

55 minutes ago, Chris Ross said:

See @Interceptor121 post above here linking to a video by Alex Mustard where he comments on the image quality being good but not as good as a fisheye behind a dome.  Answers at least part of your question.

 

Strange.. I watched the same video and got a different viewpoint. From 10:50 onwards:

 

" into your question about the image quality I would say that it's not as much of a wow image quality as the wacp1 I think if you go from shooting say a rectilinear behind a dome port to the wacp1 almost everyone I know who bought a WACP if you want is being like oh wow it's my favorite lens I love it I love the image quality um this [the FCP] it delivers on the image quality but not by as big a margin over a standard fisheye and I think that's partly because the standard fisheye behind a dome is generally very good and I think also that this is probably slightly less good than a wacp-1 um it's probably a little bit more similar in terms of image quality to a wacp-c or or that sort of thing so still you know better than a dome port but not by as big a margin  as the very best of the the nauticam optics"

To me what Alex is saying is that the FCP is better than a fisheye, but not by as wide a margin as the WACP-1 is better than a standard rectilinear lens behind a dome port. And that it's not quite as sharp as a WACP-1. 

But I'd like Alex to confirm if that's the case, because the two statements are confusing and contradictory to me. I own the WACP-1 and a Canon 8-15 with 140mm dome. I've always felt that the Canon 8-15 was sharper and more contrasty than the WACP-1 with the Canon 28-70F3.5-4.5 lens. 

So yeah, a more nuanced comparison is needed in my view. Not only for sharpness, but also for contrast and, importantly, flare handling. 

[Chris Ross]

2 hours ago, DreiFish said:

 

 

But I'd like Alex to confirm if that's the case, because the two statements are confusing and contradictory to me. I own the WACP-1 and a Canon 8-15 with 140mm dome. I've always felt that the Canon 8-15 was sharper and more contrasty than the WACP-1 with the Canon 28-70F3.5-4.5 lens. 

So yeah, a more nuanced comparison is needed in my view. Not only for sharpness, but also for contrast and, importantly, flare handling. 

Yes clearly he talks about margin between fisheye and FCP but then says it's not as good as a WACP, more like a WACP-c but is that for margin over non water contact or absolute image quality?  Hopefully @Alex_Mustard will chime in to clarify.

[Guest]

5 hours ago, Chris Ross said:

Yes clearly he talks about margin between fisheye and FCP but then says it's not as good as a WACP, more like a WACP-c but is that for margin over non water contact or absolute image quality?  Hopefully @Alex_Mustard will chime in to clarify.

Wacp-c is not as good as a fisheye hence this is not as good as fisheye either

why would it be?

[Chris Ross]

1 hour ago, Interceptor121 said:

Wacp-c is not as good as a fisheye hence this is not as good as fisheye either

why would it be?

This is exactly the point we are hoping to clarify.  It sounds like Alex says the FCP is  a touch better than a fisheye in a dome then he says it's more like a WACP-c.  It depends if he referring to the difference between fisheye and FCP and the difference between rectilinear and WACP-c or not.  Others have clearly stated that the fisheye in a dome is better than the WACP. 

 

It's problem of semantics, English language is so easy to give convoluted explanations that can be hard to decipher.

[Architeuthis]

I believe most discussions on IQ of rectilinear vs. fisheye vs. WACP are about blurriness of the corners, especially at wider aperture (I guess that Alex talks about IQ in the corners in the video)...

 

There is also IQ in the center and this type of IQ, I personally, regard much more important. Presumably UW the IQ in the center is pretty similar for all types of lenses and ports, taking into account that the optical conditions UW are rate limiting for this type of IQ (and not the optics) - but this still has to be shown by objective testing (e.g. by measuring resolution UW in aquariums like Nauticam have). Subjective rating by single testers involves probably a lot of "gut-feeling", that in turn is (unintentionally) influenced by size, weight and price of the optics used (the more, the better central IQ is possibly rated)...

 

 

Wolfgang

Edited February 19 by Architeuthis

[Guest]

21 hours ago, Architeuthis said:

I believe most discussions on IQ of rectilinear vs. fisheye vs. WACP are about blurriness of the corners, especially at wider aperture (I guess that Alex talks about IQ in the corners in the video)...

 

There is also IQ in the center and this type of IQ, I personally, regard much more important. Presumably UW the IQ in the center is pretty similar for all types of lenses and ports, taking into account that the optical conditions UW are rate limiting for this type of IQ (and not the optics) - but this still has to be shown by objective testing (e.g. by measuring resolution UW in aquariums like Nauticam have). Subjective rating by single testers involves probably a lot of "gut-feeling", that in turn is (unintentionally) influenced by size, weight and price of the optics used (the more, the better central IQ is possibly rated)...

 

 

Wolfgang

I have to review my pool tests however for a shot mid range my recollection is that this is mostly related to the master lens itself

a wet optic will not improve centre resolution of the underlying lens

in fact the field of view expansion should overall simply distribute the spatial resolution of the lens across a wider angle this may be better at the edges than a rectilinear lens in a dome but I am pretty sure in the center things change little

if you shoot at f/8 and smaller the gap between lenses closes considerably therefore even a lens like the sony 28-60 is much closer to a better lens at f/11 then f/5.6

underwater photography mantra is sharpness across the frame as if it was a landscape shot however this has to be achieved with much closer focus point which calls for small apertures that destroy lens resolution 

The water contact optics have an effect on depth of field more than they have on sharpness i shoot video mostly in manual focus I focus initially and unless I get much closer than my initial focus point everything stays in focus this is not the same if I use a dome

it may well be that the fcp behaves like this and allow that type of shot your fisheye would not but I have not tested this systematically 

it can easily be done though in a pool and I will have a look when I am able to be back in the pool water

Edited February 20 by Interceptor121

[RomiK]

On 2/19/2024 at 1:54 AM, DreiFish said:

 I've always felt that the Canon 8-15 was sharper and more contrasty than the WACP-1 with the Canon 28-70F3.5-4.5 lens. 

 

 If I could voice my opinion I would say this - topside we can always see differences between good and - mediocre - lenses. Good example in m43 world Lumix lenses and their counterparts Leica variants. The differences in color rendition, sharpness, micro contrast, all that woodoo which makes the image pop up, especially in challenging light conditions, all these are staggering.

 

Now why would that be different underwater?  It's like putting lipstick on the pig. Slapping another piece of optics, no matter how well calculated from geometry standpoint, on a mediocre lens like this Canon 28-70 (or my Sony 28-60) will not make better image than superb 8-15L (or my Sony 14 1.8G) behind the glass dome. It just won't. So kudos to Nauticam they try something new to extend their revenue stream but what is the expertise behind their lens R&D except for mathematical modeling really.... I'd say CaNiSoSig patents are worth something for a reason... glasses, coatings and all that... Not saying that their WACPs FCPs are worthless, not at all, they have their use cases but only people who can really benefit from these use cases should invest there, they definitely are not general public fix them all solution nor holy grails of underwater photography is what I think 🙂

Edited February 20 by RomiK

[Guest]

1 hour ago, RomiK said:

 

 If I could voice my opinion I would say this - topside we can always see differences between good and - mediocre - lenses. Good example in m43 world Lumix lenses and their counterparts Leica variants. The differences in color rendition, sharpness, micro contrast, all that woodoo which makes the image pop up, especially in challenging light conditions, all these are staggering.

 

Now why would that be different underwater?  It's like putting lipstick on the pig. Slapping another piece of optics, no matter how well calculated from geometry standpoint, on a mediocre lens like this Canon 28-70 (or my Sony 28-60) will not make better image than superb 8-15L (or my Sony 14 1.8G) behind the glass dome. It just won't. So kudos to Nauticam they try something new to extend their revenue stream but what is the expertise behind their lens R&D except for mathematical modeling really.... I'd say CaNiSoSig patents are worth something for a reason... glasses, coatings and all that... Not saying that their WACPs FCPs are worthless, not at all, they have their use cases but only people who can really benefit from these use cases should invest there, they definitely are not general public fix them all solution nor holy grails of underwater photography is what I think 🙂

The equation that I use is

Quality of the lens x water effect

Imagine your lens is 100% and another lens is 50%

If the water effect of a dome if 50% you get 50% total

If your water contact optic is 100% you also get 50% from the other set up

In general fisheye lenses that are curved do not have a drop in quality as much as a non distorted optics therefore the likelyhood that the FCP with Sony 28-60 beats the Canon 8-15mm is low

For me it would be more interesting to compare the FCP with the Canon 8-15 with the 1.4x TC

Although the 2.1x zoom range of the 28-60 + FCP is attractive when I look back at my photos with the 8-15 on MFT which was similar zoom I have rarely 8mm and 15mm in the same dive. Mostly it was for situations where I had a scorpion fish and in the same dive a close focus wide angle of a larger pinnacle

If however the FCP beats the Canon 8-15 the Canon 8-15 with 1.4 tc and the WWL-1 with the 28-60 then this is interesting assuming you are happy with the weight

I was at Alex home a week ago and the FCP is definitely a chunky piece of equipment much more than any of the set ups I use right now the dome size though is not super large probably to avoid exploding the size hence in the same zoom range I think it does worse than the WACP-1 and similar to the WACP-C that has a 5" dome surface

[ridgebackpilot]

7 hours ago, RomiK said:

 

 If I could voice my opinion I would say this - topside we can always see differences between good and - mediocre - lenses. Good example in m43 world Lumix lenses and their counterparts Leica variants. The differences in color rendition, sharpness, micro contrast, all that woodoo which makes the image pop up, especially in challenging light conditions, all these are staggering.

 

Now why would that be different underwater?  It's like putting lipstick on the pig. Slapping another piece of optics, no matter how well calculated from geometry standpoint, on a mediocre lens like this Canon 28-70 (or my Sony 28-60) will not make better image than superb 8-15L (or my Sony 14 1.8G) behind the glass dome. It just won't. So kudos to Nauticam they try something new to extend their revenue stream but what is the expertise behind their lens R&D except for mathematical modeling really.... I'd say CaNiSoSig patents are worth something for a reason... glasses, coatings and all that... Not saying that their WACPs FCPs are worthless, not at all, they have their use cases but only people who can really benefit from these use cases should invest there, they definitely are not general public fix them all solution nor holy grails of underwater photography is what I think 🙂

 

You're forgetting one thing: Water contact optics correct the image for water. Dome ports don't.

 

That's why a mediocre lens behind a WACP or WWL optic will produce higher quality images than a first-rate lens behind a dome port. This is especially evident in the corners of the image.

 

I think of the water contact optic as the finest possible lens for underwater applications. Dome ports, even used with the best lenses, just can't compare. 

 

Now if you want the best possible quality images, then pair a high-quality lens with a water contact optic!

Edited February 20 by ridgebackpilot

[Guest]

2 hours ago, ridgebackpilot said:

 

You're forgetting one thing: Water contact optics correct the image for water. Dome ports don't.

 

That's why a mediocre lens behind a WACP or WWL optic will produce higher quality images than a first-rate lens behind a dome port. This is especially evident in the corners of the image.

 

I think of the water contact optic as the finest possible lens for underwater applications. Dome ports, even used with the best lenses, just can't compare. 

 

Now if you want the best possible quality images, then pair a high-quality lens with a water contact optic!

The water contact optic corrects spherical aberrations field of curvature and chromatic aberrations at the edges

they dont do anything in the center of the image 

[Erik H]

3 hours ago, Interceptor121 said:

The water contact optic corrects spherical aberrations field of curvature and chromatic aberrations at the edges

they dont do anything in the center of the image 

 True, but define center. My understanding, although I haven't seen any formal testing, is that the correction already has a considerable impact very soon after leaving the parallel plane

[Guest]

1 minute ago, Erik H said:

 True, but define center. My understanding, although I haven't seen any formal testing, is that the correction already has a considerable impact very soon after leaving the parallel plane

24mm lenses perform very well behind domes that is not small by any means we are talking about 84 degrees fov

if you have one of those lenses you can see it for yourself 

the benefits start to become interesting for field of view larger than 100 degrees

nauticam had long time ago a comparison between olympus 7-14 and wwl-1 with the small panasonic 14-42

the benefits off center were clear however a critical piece of information was missing the done used to test the 7-14 didn’t have sufficient field of view so the lens was too close to the done and off the ideal position exacerbating the dome defect 

get a lens that first perfectly in the dome snd results change

[DreiFish]

It looks like Alex did answer my original question -- somewhat -- in the comments to this YouTube video (

 

@Alex_Mustard

7 days ago

As I said in the video - because I was in Raja Ampat I didn't do detailed tests on image quality. I just got on with shooting great images with the lens. But my feeling is that the FCP is at the very least matching, and I felt out performing the image quality of a fisheye and dome. I have always been disappointed with the 8-15mm on teleconverter - even though I got the expensive gear to be able to use it. It just seems a wasteful use of the great sensors on FF mirrorless cameras. Fine at 20MP, wasteful at 45MP. Some people love the fisheye + TC solution, or don't care because they are focused only on Instagram, but I always see its limitations as soon as you look away from the central area of the frame.  So I would say in image quality terms WACP1>FCP>fisheye with dome>fisheye+TC with dome, would be my solution. All work, all can get great shots, just with differing levels of image quality. And if I am going half way round the world to get a shot - and it will take the same effort to get it with any of those setups, I would always want the best setup on my camera. It is extra image quality without extra talent!

[Guest]

7 hours ago, DreiFish said:

It looks like Alex did answer my original question -- somewhat -- in the comments to this YouTube video (

 

@Alex_Mustard

7 days ago

As I said in the video - because I was in Raja Ampat I didn't do detailed tests on image quality. I just got on with shooting great images with the lens. But my feeling is that the FCP is at the very least matching, and I felt out performing the image quality of a fisheye and dome. I have always been disappointed with the 8-15mm on teleconverter - even though I got the expensive gear to be able to use it. It just seems a wasteful use of the great sensors on FF mirrorless cameras. Fine at 20MP, wasteful at 45MP. Some people love the fisheye + TC solution, or don't care because they are focused only on Instagram, but I always see its limitations as soon as you look away from the central area of the frame.  So I would say in image quality terms WACP1>FCP>fisheye with dome>fisheye+TC with dome, would be my solution. All work, all can get great shots, just with differing levels of image quality. And if I am going half way round the world to get a shot - and it will take the same effort to get it with any of those setups, I would always want the best setup on my camera. It is extra image quality without extra talent!

From memory Alex has a Nikon 8-15 with Nikon TC

he sent me some images once and yes they looked average 

however he doesn’t have the canon 8-15 with kenko as I do

i have shot this combination I don’t see major issues at all and looks much better than his Nikon combo

personally I am quite exigent on image quality and I will want to test the FCP in a pool myself before I commit to the spend but also to the bulk of that set up 

[Guest]

This is a canon 8-15 + Kenko shot close up at f/16 (as you are close) for me this is very sharp