10mm Laowa full frame lens.

[Adventurer]

1 hour ago, Phil Rudin said:

Also no profiles have been added to the Lightroom program used on the photos.

I think you misunderstood me, sorry, so I will clarify. 
 

Finding the NPP is a practical topside exercise without involving any math. Simply find the correct spot under the lens around which you can rotate it without having a parallax effect. Two telegraph masts or some other masts or sticks are a good target for that. If the more distant stick does not show up while rotating around that point under the lens you have found the NPP. Voila!

 

All you need to do then is measure the millimeter distance from the front of the lens. That’s all it needs to find the perfect extension ring.

Edited April 24 by Adventurer

[Phil Rudin]

I am having a very busy month so this is not something I would have time for anytime soon. Again regardless of the NPP I would be recommending whatever each housing manufacture recommends in their port charts. What works for me at present is 35mm extension for 140mm with dome shade removed and 20mm for the 230mm port without removing the shade. 

[Guest]

Now that we have a lens that had the same field of view of the wacp

it would be interesting to check Nauticam claims About the 3,4,5 stops…

[Phil Rudin]

I am not a big fan of shooting flat pool walls or tile but I can immediately see that the Laowa 10mm shot in a 140mm dome with 35mm of extension and the sunshade removed looks much flatter and has sharpness about as far out at F/13 as the WACP-C does at F/11. What is most noticeable is how much more the barrel distortion tends to make the walls curve into the corners with WACP-C while the pool light in both photos remains about the same.

 

Again WACP-C at 28mm is F/11 while the Laowa is at F/13.

 

Laowa first photo.

 

 

[Guest]

1 hour ago, Phil Rudin said:

I am not a big fan of shooting flat pool walls or tile but I can immediately see that the Laowa 10mm shot in a 140mm dome with 35mm of extension and the sunshade removed looks much flatter and has sharpness about as far out at F/13 as the WACP-C does at F/11. What is most noticeable is how much more the barrel distortion tends to make the walls curve into the corners with WACP-C while the pool light in both photos remains about the same.

 

Again WACP-C at 28mm is F/11 while the Laowa is at F/13.

 

Laowa first photo.

 

 

 

The claim was against the 230mm fisheye dome. I doubt that it will hold the 2 stops benefit idea

 

[Phil Rudin]

31 minutes ago, Interceptor121 said:

 

The claim was against the 230mm fisheye dome. I doubt that it will hold the 2 stops benefit idea

 

I am aware but for me it is more about a like size for travel so how well 140 preformed against the WACP-C is relevant to me. At some point I will compare 230 to WACP-1 which is clearly better than C. This is a lens that is about 1/4 th the cost of WACPC and 1/6 the cost of WACP-1. 

[hellhole]

i think its hard to beat the nauticam optics ... 

 

[Architeuthis]

9 hours ago, Phil Rudin said:

I am not a big fan of shooting flat pool walls or tile but I can immediately see that the Laowa 10mm shot in a 140mm dome with 35mm of extension and the sunshade removed looks much flatter and has sharpness about as far out at F/13 as the WACP-C does at F/11. What is most noticeable is how much more the barrel distortion tends to make the walls curve into the corners with WACP-C while the pool light in both photos remains about the same.

 

Again WACP-C at 28mm is F/11 while the Laowa is at F/13.

 

Laowa first photo.

 

 

 

 

This is really interesting - I did not expect that one could use a 10mm rectilinear WA lens behind the small 140mm dome...👍

 

What regards the image samples: the 10mm Laowa/140mm photo was taken at 1/2 f-stop more closed than the Sony 28-60mm/WACP-C photo. While the corners seem to be a tick better with the 10mm Laowa (one could say corner performance of WACP-C and Laowa behind the 140mm dome is similar?), the writing on the metal ring in the center seems to be  a little sharper with the WACP-C (or is this just the different color temperature that pretends better sharpness/microcontrast?)...

 

The Laowa 10mm seems to me a shiny new toy for UW-photographers...😊

(At the beginning of this tread I did not consider this lens to be of any value, but now I am close to order one...)

 

 

Wolfgang

 

Edited April 28 by Architeuthis

[Guest]

36 minutes ago, Architeuthis said:

 

This is really interesting - I did not expect that one could use a 10mm rectilinear WA lens behind the small 140mm dome...👍

 

What regards the image samples: the 10mm Laowa/140mm photo was taken at 1/2 f-stop more closed than the Sony 28-60mm/WACP-C photo. While the corners seem to be a tick better with the 10mm Laowa (one could say corner performance of WACP-C and Laowa behind the 140mm dome is similar?), the writing on the metal ring in the center seems to be  a little sharper with the WACP-C (or is this just the different color temperature that pretends better sharpness/microcontrast?)...

 

The Laowa 10mm seems to me a shiny new toy for UW-photographers...😊

(At the beginning of this tread I did not consider this lens to be of any value, but now I am close to order one...)

 

 

Wolfgang

 

The extreme field of view means fisheye type dome like 140mm or 230mm

the lens is not amazing but neither is the 28-60 to be fair

the Laowa is back ordered here until July

[hellhole]

i think we have to start a thread .. " i can't afford a WACP... what is the next best thing"

 

then list out all the 230/180/140 dome and what you will expect from it... with the respective lens... hahaha

Edited April 28 by hellhole

[Guest]

2 hours ago, hellhole said:

i think we have to start a thread .. " i can't afford a WACP... what is the next best thing"

 

then list out all the 230/180/140 dome and what you will expect from it... with the respective lens... hahaha

I can afford anything I want this is not the issue

Image quality does not necessarily relate to money spent see my comparisons WACP-C WWL-1 that show no difference between the two. To be fair Nauticam does not make the comparison but people imply one is better than the other while it seems really not the case

WACP-1 are bulky solutions much more heavy than a 230mm glass dome which is what you would need for this laowa considering the extreme field of view

In addition Laowa is rectilinear not every situations needs or want a distorted optic

[Phil Rudin]

10 hours ago, hellhole said:

i think we have to start a thread .. " i can't afford a WACP... what is the next best thing"

 

then list out all the 230/180/140 dome and what you will expect from it... with the respective lens... hahaha

I currently have both the WACP-C and WACP-1 and to me the obvious question is what are your needs and are you willing to own both a WACP-? and a complete wide-angle system for shooting splits. Second do you prefer your images to be rectilinear, fisheye or are you willing to spend enough to own both. Lots of choices out there and many more on the way.

 

Also while I believe that Nauticam provides excellent Wide Wet Optics choices they are not the only ones that offer these lenses and just like we have levels of price choice for land lenses like F/2.8 V F/4 you also have levels of choice for wet lenses. Not everyone has an SMC or CMC for super macro you have plenty of other choices in a verity of price ranges.

[Guest]

10 hours ago, Phil Rudin said:

I currently have both the WACP-C and WACP-1 and to me the obvious question is what are your needs and are you willing to own both a WACP-? and a complete wide-angle system for shooting splits. Second do you prefer your images to be rectilinear, fisheye or are you willing to spend enough to own both. Lots of choices out there and many more on the way.

 

Also while I believe that Nauticam provides excellent Wide Wet Optics choices they are not the only ones that offer these lenses and just like we have levels of price choice for land lenses like F/2.8 V F/4 you also have levels of choice for wet lenses. Not everyone has an SMC or CMC for super macro you have plenty of other choices in a verity of price ranges.

Phil do you still have a nauticam housing? The 20mm extension should be correct with that system and the 230mm dome I do not believe the additional length is required based on geometry

Due to the close working distance I think this lens will do very well for split shots with the 230mm glass dome assuming you can lift it from the water!

[Phil Rudin]

I could not afford to keep three housings so I sold NA-A1 and now have MX-A1 and MX-A7RV. I use the R V Marelux housing much more than the A1 housing now. The attached photo is with the Laowa 10mm, 20mm extension and 230mm dome on the Marelux A7R V housing. ISO 100, F/22, 1/200th sec. Small crop from the bottom because the lens much like a fisheye is a bit difficult to control when you get very close. The left arm is closer to the lens than the body and it is elongated making the arm look longer and the hand cropped out of the photo very big. Lighting is with two Marelux Apollo III strobes shot in manual. I plan to test this lens for splits with the 12 inch Matty Smith dome at some point using the same 20mm extension.

 

My guess for Nauticam would be the 230mm dome and just the N100 to N120 35.5 adapter.

 

 

[Adventurer]

On 4/28/2024 at 9:09 AM, Architeuthis said:

I did not expect that one could use a 10mm rectilinear WA lens behind the small 140mm dome...👍

Actually I expect it to work even better behind the small but full hemisphere dome of Marelux and Nauticam as these will allow a more correct positioning.

 

The 230mm+ domes have issues, as they are usually not full spheres and the lens hast to be pulled too far inside for optimal npp+radius match. Marelux inner port diameter is one of the largest in the industry with 110mm space. With optimal positioning on large domes you are very often hitting the limit at 116deg FOV, hence 14mm rectilinear lenses.

 

The 130deg FOV of the LAOWA 10mm are therefore challenging. 
 

But due to its really close minimum focussing distance it’s a perfect match for the 60mm dome radius of the full sphere 140mm dome.

 

We are still waiting for the entrance pupil data of that lens to surface on the web to confirm the best theoretical dome position and the above assumptions.

[Phil Rudin]

I will also be trying the Matty Smith 12 inch dome port at some point soon to see how it works with the Laowa for splits.

 

[hellhole]

thanks for pictures!  

[Architeuthis]

15 hours ago, Phil Rudin said:

I could not afford to keep three housings so I sold NA-A1 and now have MX-A1 and MX-A7RV. I use the R V Marelux housing much more than the A1 housing now. The attached photo is with the Laowa 10mm, 20mm extension and 230mm dome on the Marelux A7R V housing. ISO 100, F/22, 1/200th sec. Small crop from the bottom because the lens much like a fisheye is a bit difficult to control when you get very close. The left arm is closer to the lens than the body and it is elongated making the arm look longer and the hand cropped out of the photo very big. Lighting is with two Marelux Apollo III strobes shot in manual. I plan to test this lens for splits with the 12 inch Matty Smith dome at some point using the same 20mm extension.

 

My guess for Nauticam would be the 230mm dome and just the N100 to N120 35.5 adapter.

 

 

 

 

Do you notice a substantial difference in IQ between the 140mm and the 230mm domes (except better performance of 230mm for split photos)?

 

Wolfgang

[Guest]

5 hours ago, Architeuthis said:

 

Do you notice a substantial difference in IQ between the 140mm and the 230mm domes (except better performance of 230mm for split photos)?

 

Wolfgang

For a split you want the largest dome possible. it is not related to image quality but to the difficulty of getting your rig level with a small dome

I use my 180mm dome and plan to use the zen 230 the next time I do splits regardless of IQ

[Architeuthis]

15 minutes ago, Interceptor121 said:

For a split you want the largest dome possible. it is not related to image quality but to the difficulty of getting your rig level with a small dome

I use my 180mm dome and plan to use the zen 230 the next time I do splits regardless of IQ

Of course larger domes are more comfortable for split photos, especially in tubulent waters. In addition, the virtual image of the UW proportion is further away, the larger the dome, while the over the water proportion is always at the same (far) distance. Therefore a larger dome makes it easier to have both UW and over the water in reasonable focus...

 

My question to Phil is whether he can recognize a difference in IQ in the UW photos between the 140mm and the 230mm domeports...

 

 

Wolfgang

[Guest]

4 minutes ago, Architeuthis said:

Of course larger domes are more comfortable for split photos, especially in tubulent waters. In addition, the virtual image of the UW proportion is further away, the larger the dome, while the over the water proportion is always at the same (far) distance. Therefore a larger dome makes it easier to have both UW and over the water in reasonable focus...

 

My question to Phil is whether he can recognize a difference in IQ in the UW photos between the 140mm and the 230mm domeports...

 

 

Wolfgang

with 140mm the dome virtual image at infinity is at 28cm from the entrance pupil assume 7 cm total 35 from the focal plane this is more or less f/11

However with the 230mm dome this becomes f/6.3 which is a benefit of 1 2/3 stops. 

 

This lens is very short so for the purpose of splits will work much better than a 14mm rectilinear or 15mm fisheye on the topside and is one of the reason why am getting one

 

However I shoot all my splits rectilinear and many times in portrait

[Phil Rudin]

7 hours ago, Architeuthis said:

 

Do you notice a substantial difference in IQ between the 140mm and the 230mm domes (except better performance of 230mm for split photos)?

 

Wolfgang

Yes I understand your question and the answer is that so far and I will continue to use both ports U/W I don't see huge differences. On the off topic of the splits I have the 12 inch Matty Smith acrylic port which I have not yet used, so that recommendation will be a topic for another day. I am not in the habit of commenting on equipment I have never used and speculation is a just that. What I would say is the Laowa lens has 77mm filter threads which will allow me to use my 77mm grad neutral density filter for splits which could be an advantage and I also have the S&S 77mm correction lens to test. Not sure the S&S would add ant value to a fixed lens this wide. I am not clairvoyant so I will resort to my old school method of doing pool tests.

[Davide DB]

Phil testing the Laowa 10mm on split shots... 😄

 

 

 

[Phil Rudin]

This would be a little closer to accurate. 

 

 

[Adventurer]

On 4/30/2024 at 3:30 PM, Interceptor121 said:

with 140mm the dome virtual image at infinity is at 28cm from the entrance pupil

WRONG! Massimo, I think you have fallen into a trap here.

 

1st: The name of the dome „140mm“ does not refer to the dome glas radius nor the dome glas diameter. Marelux and Nauticam simply relate the marketing name to the biggest diameter they could find on the product, which is something like the sunshade tip to sunshade tip distance.

 

The advertised radius of the Nauticam 140mm is only 69mm AFAIK.

Marelux and Nauticam radius are identical AFAIK.

My own measurements on the MARELUX calculate into 60,14mm.

 

2nd: 

Quote

A smaller dome can be used however the dead non focus area now moves into the water. As the infinity point is still set at 3x the dome radius from the surface using this smaller dome means less focus range can be used by the camera.

Source: great website named Interceptor121.com

 

If try to follow your math, you seem to have simply multiplied the dome diameter by 2 to get to 28cm. Please correct me if I am wrong and show me a different way how you got to the 28cm value referenced above. I may have overlooked something. Thanks. 
 

3rd: https://marinewildlife.co.uk/info/underwater-photography-dome-port-theory-practice/ is a second source confirming triple radius and explains the other dynamics factors involved very well.

 

Nauticam radius value should give approx 21cm.

My more conservative measurement 18cm.

I should add that I measure inner glas radius not outer glas radius.

So up to approx 9 mm glas thickness looks plausible and would match/explain the difference in my measurement and publicly available Nauticam radius info.

Edited May 1 by Adventurer