Did someone use the Nauticam 250mm dome with fisheye lenses on FF?

[Architeuthis]

I am pondering about acquiring an additional dome for Sony FF. Ideal for my lens repertoire (Tamron 17-28mm, Sony 20-70mm) is a 170/180mm dome and I already own the Zen DP170. I also would like to use the DP170 with Canon 8-15mm fisheye for splits, but the problem is that we are two UW photographers in the family and Lisi quite often uses the Zen DP170, so I seldom use this dome in practice: We need an additional domeport. Buying another DP170 (or Nauticam 180) seems too redundant to me, therefore I think of another domeport...

The Nauticam 230mm (almost) fisheye domeport with a radius of 120mm would be a nice addition, but the Nauticam 250mm WA domeport, with a larger radius of 160mm seems better for rectilinear lenses (at least in theory) and certainly works also better for splits (currently I do the splits with Nauticam 140mm fisheye domeport and Canon 8-15mm)...

On the smaller MFT sensor (Oly EM5II and EM1II) I have very good experience with using non-fisheye domeports ( the DP170) with fisheye lenses (Zuiko 8mm, Canon 8-15mm and Tokina 10-17mm). IQ is at least as good compared to a dedicated fisheye domeport (Nauticam 140). Not expected by theory, but a fact...

 

=> My question is whether someone has experience with using fisheye lenses behind the non-fisheye Nauticam 250mm domeport on a FF camera. How is the IQ is compared to using a dedicated fisheye domeport as e.g. Nauticam (or Zen) 230mm or Nauticam 140mm?

 

Thanks, Wolfgang

 

 

 

 

[Guest]

The 250mm port has a larger radius but a very small field of view 

this results in you pushing the lens forward to ensure it doesn’t vignette

which in turn increases further the barrel distortion and reduces the field of view

i would consider a plastic 12” dome for splits not this super heavy glass port

[Architeuthis]

1 hour ago, Interceptor121 said:

The 250mm port has a larger radius but a very small field of view 

this results in you pushing the lens forward to ensure it doesn’t vignette

which in turn increases further the barrel distortion and reduces the field of view

i would consider a plastic 12” dome for splits not this super heavy glass port

The 250mm dome is perfect for rectilinear lenses down to 17mm (16mm would very probably also not do harm). Regarding fisheye lenses, I did not notice barrel distortion when using DP170 with MTF sensor, where the situation is similar. Barrel distortion is certainly there, it is predicted by theory, but fortunately it is irrelevant under these circumstances in real life.

I guess, but have no idea or proof, whether it would work also for FF. It would be very interesting whether someone has tested this out. Spending 2700 Euro for a (possibly negative) experiment is too much...

 

Wolfgang

[Phil Rudin]

If you look at the Nauticam dome selections you will see that the 250mm and 180mm are shown as wide angle domes while the 230mm and 140mm are listed as "Fisheye" domes. On full frame this will make a difference and of course with the 8mm end of the 8-15mm fisheyes you will need to remove the dome shades. 

If splits and photos at or near the surface is all you intend to do with a large dome port on FF I would also consider the Matty Smith Photo 12 (305mm) or 17 (432mm) inch acrylic domes. I own the 12 inch model which can only be used to two meters and is great for snorkeling with large animals, reef scenes and more. It is much lighter than glass, comes in several different mounts including Nauticam, it has no shade to interfere with the 8mm end of the 8-15 fisheye and is less expensive at around $1190.00US plus shipping from Australia.

I have used the 12 inch dome with both fisheye and wide rectilinear lenses like the Sony FE 12-24mm F/2.8. It works very well with both. My review is in issue #130 at uwpmag.com in the back issues.

mattysmithphoto.com

 

[Architeuthis]

2 hours ago, Phil Rudin said:

If you look at the Nauticam dome selections you will see that the 250mm and 180mm are shown as wide angle domes while the 230mm and 140mm are listed as "Fisheye" domes. On full frame this will make a difference and of course with the 8mm end of the 8-15mm fisheyes you will need to remove the dome shades. 

If splits and photos at or near the surface is all you intend to do with a large dome port on FF I would also consider the Matty Smith Photo 12 (305mm) or 17 (432mm) inch acrylic domes. I own the 12 inch model which can only be used to two meters and is great for snorkeling with large animals, reef scenes and more. It is much lighter than glass, comes in several different mounts including Nauticam, it has no shade to interfere with the 8mm end of the 8-15 fisheye and is less expensive at around $1190.00US plus shipping from Australia.

I have used the 12 inch dome with both fisheye and wide rectilinear lenses like the Sony FE 12-24mm F/2.8. It works very well with both. My review is in issue #130 at uwpmag.com in the back issues.

mattysmithphoto.com

 

 

Thank you Phil for the important information...

The specialized split domes by Matty Smith will certainly work even better for splits. Currently I am using the Nauticam 140 dome (shade removed) with Canon 8-15mm for splits, with a not very high keeper rate for splits, but selected photos are o.k. My aim is to cover, in addition to better splits, the not extremely wide WA range (for the "really" wide WA, I will not give the NA140/8-15mm combination out of my hands, I love it ❤️). I could cover the moderate WA range with the Zen DP170 that we already have, but this dome is too often in use by my wife, we need something additional that can be used in paralell (a second 170/180 dome seems redundant to me).

The 250mm dome weights 0.14kg more than the 230 dome, but I would expect much better rectilinear WA properties from the 250mm dome (for splits the 250 also works better)...

An alternative to cover the "moderate" WA would be the water contact optics by Nauticam. Already the WACP-C comes into the weight range of the 250mm dome and I would have to make the splits still with the 140 dome...

 

Edited December 21, 2023 by Architeuthis

[Chris Ross]

7 hours ago, Architeuthis said:

Thank you Phil for the important information...

The specialized split domes by Matty Smith will certainly work even better for splits. Currently I am using the Nauticam 140 dome (shade removed) with Canon 8-15mm for splits, with a not very high keeper rate for splits, but selected photos are o.k. My aim is to cover, in addition to better splits, the not extremely wide WA range (for the "really" wide WA, I will not give the NA140/8-15mm combination out of my hands, I love it ❤️). I could cover the moderate WA range with the Zen DP170 that we already have, but this dome is too often in use by my wife, we need something additional that can be used in parallel (a second 170/180 dome seems redundant to me).

The 250mm dome weights 0.14kg more than the 230 dome, but I would expect much better rectilinear WA properties from the 250mm dome (for splits the 250 also works better)...

An alternative to cover the "moderate" WA would be the water contact optics by Nauticam. Already the WACP-C comes into the weight range of the 250mm dome and I would have to make the splits still with the 140 dome...

 

I'm not sure I'd want to travel with a 250mm dome.  You could also look perhaps at the 8 1/2" acrylic dome from Nauticam, it's a step up from the 170mm dome.  You could also consider one of the Sea and Sea domes and just change the lug ring over to Nauticam.  They have a 210mm acrylic and a 200mm glass dome you could look into.   How much of an improvement you see with a bigger dome is most likely going to depend on the lens in question, the Sony rectiliear wides seem to perform quite well in smaller domes, though the 12-24 might be stretching the friendship anything smaller than a 230mm dome.    https://www.seaandsea.com/         If you click on the instructions they include a procedure to change dome to a Nauticam mount.              

on the question of fisheye I would expect minimal improvement with a bigger dome once a certain minimum size is passed and placing it a little too close to the glass may indeed lose a little field of view, but there are plenty of people using fisheyes with the entrance pupil closer than optimal point.  A prime example is the ikelite dome port for CFWA, the factory recommended setup has the entrance pupil well forward of the centre of curvature.  They certainly seem less sensitive to the problem.  This link shows some shots with a Nikon 8-15 and the ikelite CFWA port:  https://www.ikelite.com/blogs/reviews/nikon-8-15mm-fisheye-compact-8-inch-dome-underwater-photos

[Guest]

On 12/21/2023 at 8:57 AM, Architeuthis said:

The 250mm dome is perfect for rectilinear lenses down to 17mm (16mm would very probably also not do harm). Regarding fisheye lenses, I did not notice barrel distortion when using DP170 with MTF sensor, where the situation is similar. Barrel distortion is certainly there, it is predicted by theory, but fortunately it is irrelevant under these circumstances in real life.

I guess, but have no idea or proof, whether it would work also for FF. It would be very interesting whether someone has tested this out. Spending 2700 Euro for a (possibly negative) experiment is too much...

 

Wolfgang

You will loose field of view as result of the dome small angle of view this is a much stronger consequence than the distortion

This however also happens on the 230mm but less as it has 142 degrees field of view

Acrylic 12" or 16" much better solution for split or get a 14mm rectilinear and the 230mm dome (or still better acrylic 12)

[Architeuthis]

I thank you all for the very valuable advise, that helped me in making a decision...

 

To keep you updated, what I finally did: I just pulled the trigger for a WACP-C. This, together with Canon 8-15 (+/- 1.4x TC), will cover (almost) all my WA needs.

 

Maybe, later, I will go for a dedicated port for split photos, but I do not see a way to carry this, in addition to all the other stuff, with me on air travel (for the time being, the Canon 8-15 with 140mm dome will remain my split photo equipment)...

 

Wolfgang

[ChipBPhoto]

Hi Wolfgang - congrats on the WACP-C.  I use the same setup on my Sony FF. (WACP-C + 8-15/140 dome)  I have found it works great overall and is relatively easy for travel.  Best of luck!  

[Guest]

On 1/3/2024 at 10:14 AM, Architeuthis said:

I thank you all for the very valuable advise, that helped me in making a decision...

 

To keep you updated, what I finally did: I just pulled the trigger for a WACP-C. This, together with Canon 8-15 (+/- 1.4x TC), will cover (almost) all my WA needs.

 

Maybe, later, I will go for a dedicated port for split photos, but I do not see a way to carry this, in addition to all the other stuff, with me on air travel (for the time being, the Canon 8-15 with 140mm dome will remain my split photo equipment)...

 

Wolfgang

 

 

One thing that I do not like of the WACP-C is the extension that is too long, in my view the flare issues reported depend on that so I have asked Nauticam for a 20mm extension ring this is not yet confirmed

 

I did develop a solution for this problem however as I have no interest in testing it because the WACP-C has no IQ benefit on the WWL-1 this has been left as unfinished project

 

[Phil Rudin]

Regarding the Nauticam recommendation for n100/30 for WACP-C I had posted images on WP showing a wider AOV with the Marelux extension which can also be found in another thread on this site. Regarding the WP post Ryan advised that Nauticam chose the longer extension to avoid vignetting. Hardly apples to apples between Nauticam and Marelux so to each their own I guess. Will be interested to see if Nauticam makes the N100 extension in 20mm.

[Architeuthis]

I just got my package from Panocean and unpacked it:

 

=> I am very positively surprised by the smallness and handyness of the N100/30mm extension ring (although it has the "old" locking mechanism). Sony/N100 is the way to go...🙂

 

=> When holding the "compact" WACP in my hands, I am very glad that I went for the C version and not anything taller/heavier, like e.g. WACP-1 or 250mm glass domeport. A substantial piece of gear, alike the size of a handball (WACP-1 would be the size of a football then). I estimate that carrying it in a suitcase will be like carrying two Zen DP170...🙄

 

I think now that, in order to complement my equipment, I will later go for the "small" Matty-Smith acryl domeport for split photos that Phil recommends ("small" instead of "large" will suffice, since I am an amateur afficionado, not a professional... )...

 

 

Wolfgang

Edited January 10 by Architeuthis

[Alex_Mustard]

Share some pictures of the new gear!

[Architeuthis]

Here are some pictures. I must say on the pictures the difference looks smaller as it is in real life, when holding the gear in the hand:

 

N120 and N100 30mm extensions (according to the kitchen scale, the weight is 203 g and 140 g, respectively)

 

 

And here WACP-C (2249 g) compared to Zen DP170/N120 (912 g):

 

 

 

[Guest]

1 hour ago, Architeuthis said:

Here are some pictures. I must say on the pictures the difference looks smaller as it is in real life, when holding the gear in the hand:

 

N120 and N100 30mm extensions (according to the kitchen scale, the weight is 203 g and 140 g, respectively)

 

 

And here WACP-C (2249 g) compared to Zen DP170/N120 (912 g):

 

 

 

The WACP-C thanks to the integrated float collar is not small.

It is 17cm wide while the zen dp170 is 18cm wide the difference between the two is very small and the weight dry and wet is smaller for the zen. it is the same situation for the Nauticam 180mm wide angle port

 

 

[Guest]

On 1/5/2024 at 6:47 PM, Phil Rudin said:

Regarding the Nauticam recommendation for n100/30 for WACP-C I had posted images on WP showing a wider AOV with the Marelux extension which can also be found in another thread on this site. Regarding the WP post Ryan advised that Nauticam chose the longer extension to avoid vignetting. Hardly apples to apples between Nauticam and Marelux so to each their own I guess. Will be interested to see if Nauticam makes the N100 extension in 20mm.

Longer extension more chances of vignetting

the reason why the wacp-1 is so big is to accommodate lenses that extend while zooming. Due to the distance to the glass when retracted you need a larger optic to make it work

in addition a 20mm extension doesn’t exist. There is a gap of more than 1cm between the sony 28-60 front element and the rear of the wacp-c with a 30mm extension. As the lens is longest when zoomed out and is tiny there is no need to make it shorter 

that doesn’t mean it would not work better if you had a shorter extension and certain issues like flare are worse if light csn bounce on the lens walls that are matt black but still reflective