Nauticam Fisheye Conversion Port shipping Mid January

[Guest]

6 hours ago, Chris Ross said:

It's in the port charts it says you can zoom between 28 and 45mm.  Nauticam list the available zoom range for all lenses behind their wet lenses.

The tamron 28-75G2 is a large aperture lens with 67mm thread

I would not assume it works

the lens on wacp chart is the first generation

there is no gear for G2

[Alex_Mustard]

It is not a proper review - as I don't think I am the person to do that, but Peter Rowlands asked me to share some thoughts on the production FCP-1 in the latest issue of UWP Mag (issue 137 - for future reference):

https://www.uwpmag.com (warning - scroll quickly past the photos of me in my Tux!)

 

 

Alex

Edited March 4 by Alex_Mustard

[Guest]

18 hours ago, Alex_Mustard said:

It is not a proper review - as I don't think I am the person to do that, but Peter Rowlands asked me to share some thoughts on the production FCP-1 in the latest issue of UWP Mag (issue 137 - for future reference):

https://www.uwpmag.com (warning - scroll quickly past the photos of me in my Tux!)

 

 

Alex

I read the article all shots are f/13 and smaller which for me are similar with any lens as high resolution sensor drop a lot after f/8 even

are there examples at f/8 anywhere?

i shoot my canon + kenko at f/8-f/11 max f/16 and the issues are solely depth of field relates

[Chris Ross]

On 3/2/2024 at 8:21 PM, Interceptor121 said:

The tamron 28-75G2 is a large aperture lens with 67mm thread

I would not assume it works

the lens on wacp chart is the first generation

there is no gear for G2

Yes I know, no one mentioned the G2 version, the post is responding to a question about the Tamron lens that is on the port chart which is the 28-70 f2.8 Di-III RXD which also has a 67mm filter thread.

[Alex_Mustard]

For me f/13 is an ideal aperture for most wide angle on full frame. Because in standard shooting it is hyperfocal meaning that both your foreground and background details are both fully in focus. It also tends to give excellent corner sharpness. It makes for more engaging compositions of scenes - because all elements can full engage the viewer and makes the composition more engaging. 

 

It is easier to shoot more open - you won’t need such powerful strobes for a start, but then the different elements (foreground/background) of the images won’t all be contributing as strongly to the composition and the final image will be less impressive to the viewer. 

 

Theoretically there is a very tiny loss of sharpness due to diffraction between f/8 and f/13, but this is a completely minor issue compared to the image quality losses from dome ports and particularly shooting through water as we do underwater.

Edited March 5 by Alex_Mustard

[Guest]

5 hours ago, Alex_Mustard said:

For me f/13 is an ideal aperture for most wide angle on full frame. Because in standard shooting it is hyperfocal meaning that both your foreground and background details are both fully in focus. It also tends to give excellent corner sharpness. It makes for more engaging compositions of scenes - because all elements can full engage the viewer and makes the composition more engaging. 

 

It is easier to shoot more open - you won’t need such powerful strobes for a start, but then the different elements (foreground/background) of the images won’t all be contributing as strongly to the composition and the final image will be less impressive to the viewer. 

 

Theoretically there is a very tiny loss of sharpness due to diffraction between f/8 and f/13, but this is a completely minor issue compared to the image quality losses from dome ports and particularly shooting through water as we do underwater.

I am not sure I am aligned. By f/16 almost any lens with a proper size dome and correct positioning has no corner issues unless you are focussing on the glass and this is definitely not the case for fisheye lenses which this fisheye correction port aims at replacing/expanding

 

The whole Nauticam mantra for WACP was shoot at f/5.6 so you need less strobe power, if we are saying f/13 f/14 is the way forward then many lenses reach hyperfocal as long as they are wide enough and this is a weak argument

 

Example 16mm lens focussing at 30 cm near limit is 21 cm (technically inside the dome) far limit is 0.52 with a dome radius of 11cm the far limit is further away than the dome infinity point and everything is in focus

 

The other comment is that water contact optics in my experience do not behave exactly like a dome and even at f/8 i can get everything in focus even if I am not in the envelope of the dome surface.

 

If one has to get a water contact optic to shoot f/13 and this has a benefit of two stops to rectilinear are we saying that would shoot f/26 I do not think so or this supposed advantage is just marketing hype (which it is in my opinion) 

 

Tamron image at f/11 at the lens MOD everything is sharp if something behind is not in focus it is a DOF issue not a lens dome issue

 

 

 

Edited March 5 by Interceptor121

[Architeuthis]

Here is another interesting review on the FCP-1 by Nicolas Remy: https://theunderwaterclub.com/nauticam-fisheye-conversion-port-fcp-field-review/?utm_source=scubaboard.com&utm_medium=community&utm_campaign=scubaboard-FCP-review

Edited March 7 by Architeuthis

[Architeuthis]

On 3/5/2024 at 10:41 AM, Alex_Mustard said:

For me f/13 is an ideal aperture for most wide angle on full frame. Because in standard shooting it is hyperfocal meaning that both your foreground and background details are both fully in focus. It also tends to give excellent corner sharpness. It makes for more engaging compositions of scenes - because all elements can full engage the viewer and makes the composition more engaging. 

 

It is easier to shoot more open - you won’t need such powerful strobes for a start, but then the different elements (foreground/background) of the images won’t all be contributing as strongly to the composition and the final image will be less impressive to the viewer. 

 

Theoretically there is a very tiny loss of sharpness due to diffraction between f/8 and f/13, but this is a completely minor issue compared to the image quality losses from dome ports and particularly shooting through water as we do underwater.

 

When you compare the range of DOF, at given aperture (e.g. f/13) at given focal length of the lens (e.g. 28mm), between FCP-1, WACP-1 (and comparable rectilinear lens behind dome) - is the same to be expected?

 

 

=> I do not think so, at least when one compares FCP-1 (170° AOV @28mm) with WACP (130° AOV @28mm). The effective aperture values of the entire system (lens+water contact optics) are always smaller than the one set at the lens, since the f-value is a pure number without dimensions (f-value = focal length (mm)/aperture diameter (mm)) and when focal length is reduced, the f-value gets smaller, accordingly (more so with FCP-1 than with WACP). DOF will change accordingly...

 

 

 

Wolfgang

Edited March 7 by Architeuthis

[Guest]

10 hours ago, Architeuthis said:

Here is another interesting review on the FCP-1 by Nicolas Remy: https://theunderwaterclub.com/nauticam-fisheye-conversion-port-fcp-field-review/?utm_source=scubaboard.com&utm_medium=community&utm_campaign=scubaboard-FCP-review

Balanced review. Flexible but not matching the best of breed across the zoom range

[Guest]

6 hours ago, Architeuthis said:

 

When you compare the range of DOF, at given aperture (e.g. f/13) at given focal length of the lens (e.g. 28mm), between FCP-1, WACP-1 (and comparable rectilinear lens behind dome) - is the same to be expected?

 

 

=> I do not think so, at least when one compares FCP-1 (170° AOV @28mm) with WACP (130° AOV @28mm). The effective aperture values of the entire system (lens+water contact optics) are always smaller than the one set at the lens, since the f-value is a pure number without dimensions (f-value = focal length (mm)/aperture diameter (mm)) and when focal length is reduced, the f-value gets smaller, accordingly (more so with FCP-1 than with WACP). DOF will change accordingly...

 

 

 

Wolfgang

That’s right even if what changes is the apparent distance not the focal length (this is not a focal reducer) the depth of field increases 

frankly shooting f/13 f/16 is not an issue with any decent optics and the review you posted is spot on

however if the adapter make things look further away this means the lens will work better than a dome that pushes the camera to focus super close

[Architeuthis]

10 hours ago, Interceptor121 said:

That’s right even if what changes is the apparent distance not the focal length (this is not a focal reducer) the depth of field increases 

frankly shooting f/13 f/16 is not an issue with any decent optics and the review you posted is spot on

however if the adapter make things look further away this means the lens will work better than a dome that pushes the camera to focus super close

 

Is it known, BTW, how these Nauticam water contact optics (WWL/WACP/FCP) work?

 

Do they produce a small virtual image that is photographed by the lens attached to the camera, just alike domeports do, but the image is smaller and thereby WA is created from normal focal length?

 

Or are the lenses in the dome acting as additional optics, alike a converter that is attached to the front of a lens, that convert the regular normal range lens to a WA fisheye lens, built to be immersed in water (like the old Nikonos lenses)??

(I thInk this is how Nauticam gives the impression these ports work, but I have not seen a detailed description yet)...

 

[Guest]

2 hours ago, Architeuthis said:

 

Is it known, BTW, how these Nauticam water contact optics (WWL/WACP/FCP) work?

 

Do they produce a small virtual image that is photographed by the lens attached to the camera, just alike domeports do, but the image is smaller and thereby WA is created from normal focal length?

 

Or are the lenses in the dome acting as additional optics, alike a converter that is attached to the front of a lens, that convert the regular normal range lens to a WA fisheye lens, built to be immersed in water (like the old Nikonos lenses)??

(I thInk this is how Nauticam gives the impression these ports work, but I have not seen a detailed description yet)...

 

They are demagnifier lenses. In majority of cases also work topside

Unlike a dome some of them are near fisheye topside and then drop field of view in water

The elements allow correction of aberrations which would be avoided with a dome only with perfect positioning

Some aberrations like spherical aberrations etc are not corrected by aggravated by a dome

[Architeuthis]

16 hours ago, Interceptor121 said:

Balanced review. Flexible but not matching the best of breed across the zoom range

There is an interesting tread on Scubaboard, where Nicolas Remy posted the link to his review, that I posted above: https://scubaboard.com/community/threads/nauticam-fisheye-conversion-port-detailed-review.643996/

 

I asked him there about the f/13 issue and he writes that the DOF is very shallow with FCP-1, compared to e.g. WACP (like Alex he prefers to use FCP-1 at f/13, but uses wider apertures with e.g. WACP-1). He thinks that f/13 on FCP-1 compares to f/7.1 - f/8 on WACP-1 with respect to DOF and with WACP-1 he closes aperture only more (e.g. to f/13) when he needs to do so because of too much light available...

 

=> It seems to me that FCP-1 is not a better substitute and complete replacement of WACPs. FCP is just more versatile as it covers a longer and wider range, but WACPs allow to collect more light (in case it is necessary). This goes at the cost of AOV (but when using a fisheye, as Canon 8-15mm, that provides AOV comparable to FCP, I seldom use apertures so small as f/13 - at lower light, the FE (without zoom in possibility) may be the better choice)...

Edited March 8 by Architeuthis

[Guest]

1 hour ago, Architeuthis said:

There is an interesting tread on Scubaboard, where Nicolas Remy posted the link to his review, that I posted above: https://scubaboard.com/community/threads/nauticam-fisheye-conversion-port-detailed-review.643996/

 

I asked him there about the f/13 issue and he writes that the DOF is very shallow with FCP-1, compared to e.g. WACP (like Alex he prefers to use FCP-1 at f/13, but uses wider apertures with e.g. WACP-1). He thinks that f/13 on FCP-1 compares to f/7.1 - f/8 on WACP-1 with respect to DOF and with WACP-1 he closes aperture only more (e.g. to f/13) when he needs to do so because of too much light available...

 

=> It seems to me that FCP-1 is not a better substitute and complete replacement of WACPs. FCP is just more versatile as it covers a longer and wider range, but WACPs allow to collect more light (in case it is necessary). This goes at the cost of AOV (but when using a fisheye, as Canon 8-15mm, that provides AOV comparable to FCP, I seldom use apertures so small as f/13 - at lower light, the FE (without zoom in possibility) may be the better choice)...

this could simply be due to the surface of the glass vs the field of view

 

Depth of field depends on magnification if you are very close of course you have less and with a fisheye you get close

Either way this FCP-1 is not interesting for me. I like the Canon 8015 with kenko and i just bought the 2x

[Chris Ross]

9 hours ago, Architeuthis said:

There is an interesting tread on Scubaboard, where Nicolas Remy posted the link to his review, that I posted above: https://scubaboard.com/community/threads/nauticam-fisheye-conversion-port-detailed-review.643996/

 

I asked him there about the f/13 issue and he writes that the DOF is very shallow with FCP-1, compared to e.g. WACP (like Alex he prefers to use FCP-1 at f/13, but uses wider apertures with e.g. WACP-1). He thinks that f/13 on FCP-1 compares to f/7.1 - f/8 on WACP-1 with respect to DOF and with WACP-1 he closes aperture only more (e.g. to f/13) when he needs to do so because of too much light available...

 

 

I think the response perhaps need to be qualified to confirm the Depth of field is less at the same framing - meaning the subject is the same size in the frame.  You will shoot closer with the fisheye compared to the WACP to get the main subject the same size but for regular lenses on land this will result in the same amount of depth of field with varying background coverage.  What also happens on land is the blurring of the background detail comes in faster with longer focal lengths even though the actual depth of field is the same.

 

Again with regular lenses depth of field is purely a function of magnification and f-stop.  I think if indeed the FCP reduces depth of field it probably indicates something about how it works.    I have read that dome ports actually increase depth of field - perhaps the FCP works like a lens in air and gets the depth of field that a lens in air achieves?

[Guest]

7 hours ago, Chris Ross said:

I think the response perhaps need to be qualified to confirm the Depth of field is less at the same framing - meaning the subject is the same size in the frame.  You will shoot closer with the fisheye compared to the WACP to get the main subject the same size but for regular lenses on land this will result in the same amount of depth of field with varying background coverage.  What also happens on land is the blurring of the background detail comes in faster with longer focal lengths even though the actual depth of field is the same.

 

Again with regular lenses depth of field is purely a function of magnification and f-stop.  I think if indeed the FCP reduces depth of field it probably indicates something about how it works.    I have read that dome ports actually increase depth of field - perhaps the FCP works like a lens in air and gets the depth of field that a lens in air achieves?

All water contact lenses have a dome without they would loose foeld of view and there would be more aberrations

the lens aperture and fstop dont change and neither does the focal length however the apparent distances changes this means depth of field of the fcp in the same shooting point is more than the wacp

However as the perspective is different is inappropriate to compare two lenses with different field of view

one should compare this adapter with a 16mm fisheye lens

[Kamaros]

Has anyone had a chance to shoot the FCP with the old Nikon 28-70 yet? The port charts list it as compatible but with "slight" vignetting from 28-31mm. I haven't seen any photos shot under those conditions yet, so I was wondering how bad the vignetting was. A little cutoff at the corners can be easily dealt with in Photoshop, but it would be a dealbreaker for me if you're effectively forced to shoot at 32mm or higher (or at least be a very good motivator to replace my D850 with an A7RV, which I've been reluctant to do because the autofocus speed of their 50mm macro lens seems to be something of an inside joke at this point).

[SSY]

On 3/29/2024 at 1:44 AM, Kamaros said:

Has anyone had a chance to shoot the FCP with the old Nikon 28-70 yet? The port charts list it as compatible but with "slight" vignetting from 28-31mm. I haven't seen any photos shot under those conditions yet, so I was wondering how bad the vignetting was. A little cutoff at the corners can be easily dealt with in Photoshop, but it would be a dealbreaker for me if you're effectively forced to shoot at 32mm or higher (or at least be a very good motivator to replace my D850 with an A7RV, which I've been reluctant to do because the autofocus speed of their 50mm macro lens seems to be something of an inside joke at this point).

 

A bit late on this but for anyone who is wondering on the Nikon 28-70 + FCP and comes across this:

 

 

28-31 range ""slight vignetting issues" more specified:  if looking at focal length from metadata afterwards, only 28mm, 31mm, and 34mm register, so ambiguous description of "slight" maybe because the lens is actually somewhere in between these registered focal lengths when taking the picture along with it being a bit of a funny older lens.

 

anyhow, at just a casual glance of my photos

@ 28 metadata focal length:  there is always a little cutoff, quick crop in LR suffices for me though depends on your personal tolerance. For images where I am certain it was at 28mm fully wide the cutoff will definitely be noticed, but definitely some where they were taken at 29-30mm and it was slight.

 

 

@ 31 metadata focal length: most of the time no cutoff at all, though there were a few and it was just slight.

 

most of the above was done with latest recommended extension of 45, I did some testing with ER50 also and definitely had some more cutoff but still usable images with cropping.

 

net net I'd say practical shooting wise since you can't really see what exact length you are at underwater, I would be starting the dive with it at 31mm and be fairly comfortable knowing that I shouldn't expect to need to crop

 

been out of this scene for a while so these are just comments from a casual enthusiast (the type that rarely looks at their photos until weeks or months later) so take it fwiw

 

 

[Architeuthis]

Quite some time passed since the FCP-1 became available. I am sure that several here have acquired one. There should be numerous people now that have long-term experience...

 

 

I am curious and would be grateful to hear from FCP-1 users:

 

How does the FCP-1 perform in general?

Is FCP-1 a complete substitute for WWL/WACPs, just with more range at the fisheye end, or do you still use your WWL/WACP, depending on circumstances?

 

 

Wolfgang

[fruehaufsteher2]

I can write briefly about my experience with the FCP, but please note the limitations.

I ordered and received the FCP as an early adopter and took it with me to Egypt (Marsa Shagra). Pictures mainly CFWA, camera Sony A7 IV, port extension 30mm (! Nauticam recommends 35mm!). Aperture mostly 6.3 to 8.
I was deeply dissatisfied with the image sharpness, even in the centre of the picture the giant triggerfish looked like it had a double contour.
In Egypt, I had no idea why my pictures were so blurred. Back home, Alex Mustard mentioned that you really do have to stop down to at least f/13. I only realised the missing 5mm of the port extension much later.
So there are several reasons for my dissatisfaction:
- User error port extention
- User error too open aperture (however, I would then rather blame the concept)
- Defective product (it is from the first series).

 

It is not possible to find out what the error really was because the port has disappeared with the thieves. But I wouldn't buy it again (I ordered Retras today instead)

 

You have to zoom in to see what I mean. All pictures are similar with regard to sharpness. Look especially around the mouth.

 

SONY ILCE-7M4

JPEG

FE 28-60mm F4-5.6

6 MP·2417 × 2527·2.2 MB

ISO 250

43 mm

0 ev

ƒ7.1

1/200 Sek.

Edited June 12 by fruehaufsteher2

[TimG]

1 hour ago, fruehaufsteher2 said:

It is not possible to find out what the error really was because the port has disappeared with the thieves. But I wouldn't buy it again (I ordered Retras today instead)

 

Sounds like someone almost did you a favour! Enjoy those Retras!

[ChipBPhoto]

10 hours ago, Architeuthis said:

Is FCP-1 a complete substitute for WWL/WACPs, just with more range at the fisheye end, or do you still use your WWL/WACP, depending on circumstances?

 

I too look forward to hearing more first-hand accounts.

 

Until then, this may answer a bit of the questions:  Sony 28-60 as an example:

 - WACP-C/WWL-1:  Angle of View 130-69 degrees

 - FCP-1:  Angle of View 170-74 degrees

 

On paper the FCP covers a wider beginning at 170 degrees and zooms to a similar 74 degrees.  Other lenses on other systems may vary, including up to a full 180 degrees with a 14mm lens and the shade removed.

 

Having played with one yesterday, I can report the physical size comparison is substantially larger/heavier than the WWL or WACP-C.  It is roughly the same overall size as the WACP-1.  If travel size/weight are considerations, this may be a factor.  

 

As with the WACP-1/C and WWL, a standard larger dome is still a better choice.

 

As a side note, the shade is super easy to remove/replace underwater should a circular fisheye be desired, with the right lens.

 

Edited June 12 by ChipBPhoto

[ChrisH]

4 hours ago, fruehaufsteher2 said:

I ordered and received the FCP as an early adopter and took it with me to Egypt (Marsa Shagra). Pictures mainly CFWA, camera Sony A7 IV, port extension 30mm (! Nauticam recommends 35mm!). Aperture mostly 6.3 to 8.
I was deeply dissatisfied with the image sharpness, even in the centre of the picture the giant triggerfish looked like it had a double contour.
In Egypt, I had no idea why my pictures were so blurred. Back home, Alex Mustard mentioned that you really do have to stop down to at least f/13.

 

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.

 

[fruehaufsteher2]

50 minutes 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!

 

Of note! It’s not about depth of field, nothing was sharp at no distance. 
 

I know sufficient about the plane of focus and depth of field. But if there is no sharp image at any distance or this can only be achieved with a pinhole camera, then I question the concept. 
But it could be that the wrong port extension was to blame. 

 

[ChrisH]

9 minutes ago, fruehaufsteher2 said:

Of note! It’s not about depth of field, nothing was sharp at no distance. 
 

I know sufficient about the plane of focus and depth of field. But if there is no sharp image at any distance or this can only be achieved with a pinhole camera, then I question the concept. 
But it could be that the wrong port extension was to blame. 

 

Ah ok, so you did not get any sharp pictures? Yes, then I think there should have been something wrong with the unit you got or the extension.

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?