All Activity

If I understand correctly, you would like me to use the original size image, crop a corner and upload the crop sample? I will do what I think you are asking for.

It doesn’t matter Chris, in both exercises the corners massively loose image quality and resolution (sharpness). The lens is 24mm FOV but i lacks corner sharpness as the straightening lens correction digital process degrades IQ massively. You will simply never get high quality sharp corners with that lens and a Nauticam WWL-C as the corners are never recorded on the sensor @ 24mm. Period. The interesting exercise is looking at RAW files that have been shot @28mm or 30mm to learn if combining the RF24-50 STM with WWL-1B or an Marelux Aquista 110 or Aquista 130 is going to be the better solution.

Recently had an issue with my vacuum valve not working so have replaced it. Sadly, it's still not holding a green light so seems the problem was greater than that single issue. I can't see anything obvious so was hoping for some guidance on trouble shooting it to see if i can find the issue and fix it myself. Any ideas?

In fact fisheyes play better with domes, the Canon 8-15 is an amazingly sharp lens and the Tokina 10-17 works better UW than it does on land. This is because of dome port optics where the lens is focusing on a virtual image located around 3 dome radii from the dome surface. The Rectilinear wides are designed to focus on a flat plane. so struggle more and more towards the corners. The focal plane of a fisheye lens is curved around the lens so it matches the shape of the virtual image. I dive temperate waters around Sydney and shoot mostly macro with some use of the 12-40 lens (24-80 equivalent) on offshore dives and also using my 8-15 fisheye there on occasions. I have a 7-14 lens (14-28 equivalent) and it uses the same dome as the 12-40, but I rarely use it. I'm not sure the 10-18 would be a great lens for CFWA. To be really effective this requires the lens to focus on the glass of a small dome. Fisheyes do this, but rectilnears have poor corner performance in small domes. Fisheyes have barrel distortion which enlarges the centre of the field relative to the edges and this has the effect of bring the subject forward with the background seemingly receding and this gives the images more impact. The Tokina 10-17 zooms from 180° diagonal fisheye all the way through to about 23-24mm focal length range, so effectively combines the fisheye with the range of of a lens like the 10-18, it just doesn't quite have the reach, but it's close. The 22-24mm focal length range refers to the width of the frame of a wide angle (rectilinear) lens zoomed to about 24mm or so.

The lens correction is removing barrel distortion and you can demonstrate this on a fisheye image with the lens correction tools in your IP program. Here is an example image taken with a Panasonic 8mm fisheye: If you use the lens correction tool it removes the barrel distortion at the cost of a reduced field of view: You can see that the image has lost the edges and it hasn't even been fully de-fished yet, so it doesn't actually stretch the image into the corners, but crops them out. I expect the lens correction on the 24-50 does something similar and I expect what Canon has done is that the 24-50 is actually wider than the a standard 24mm lens, knowing full well it will lose the corners when the barrel distortion correction is done. Unless you are doing raw conversions in Canons software the correction will be done using Lightroom's standard lens correction tool. It would be an interesting exercise to compare an image cropped out of the raw file with one that is automatically corrected and also to determine if the 24-50 has the same maximum field as a regular 24mm lens.

Thanks for the pictures! Do you know if they were all taken at the minimum focal length? Can you use the 24mm lens without vignetting? Could you perhaps show 100% crops from the relevant corners?

I’d say it’s a bull, but I’m not certain. I very much appreciate the thoughtful and balanced nature of this conversation! Thanks for all the links, they will keep me occupied over the weekend as I learn more.

Already done and discussed several times. This is the WWL-1B on the Marelux Sony A1 housing using the Sony FE 28-60mm kit zoom with the flat port 32. You will see that the blue lens release has to be filed down a bit for easer release. The Marelux Aquista 130 & 110 wet wide lenses can also be used on the equivalent Nauticam housings with recommended lens/port combinations using the Marelux bayonet mount which is for 67mm. The Nauticam WACP-C and WACP-1/1B can also be used on Marelux with the respective N100 and N120 port adapters.

Hola a todos,según mi experiencia,os puedo escribir lo que yo estoy usando actualmente,tengo caja estanca nauticam y sony A7R2,el adaptador nauticam version 2 con los lados desmontables,puedo usar ambas lentes nikonos 15mm,la versión 1 y la versión 2 más moderna,el único inconveniente es que tuve que modificar los 2 mandos en la versión 1 para que no rozaran contra la caja estanca,esto lo consegui rebajando el diámetro unos milímetros los mandos originales....,respecto a los problemas de enfoque,tuve que avanzar la cámara 0,5mm acercándola a la lente,eso se consigue limando 0.5 el borde de la zapata donde va montada la cámara,...actualmente tambien uso el 12mm y el 17mm sea sea,,ambos van bien tambien e incluso el 20mm nikonos,,espero les sirva de ayuda. English translation: Hello everyone, based on my experience, I can tell you what I'm currently using. I have a Nauticam waterproof housing and a Sony A7R2. I'm using the Nauticam adapter version 2 with detachable sides, and I can use both Nikon 15mm lenses, version 1 and the newer version 2. The only drawback is that I had to modify the two knobs on version 1 so they wouldn't rub against the waterproof housing. I achieved this by reducing the diameter of the original knobs by a few millimeters. Regarding focusing problems, I had to move the camera 0.5mm closer to the lens. This is done by filing down the edge of the hot shoe where the camera is mounted by 0.5mm. I also currently use the 12mm and 17mm lenses, both of which work well, and even the Nikon 20mm. I hope this is helpful.

I agree with @John Liddiard Add strobes to your TG system, and you’ll see a big difference in your images. You can also shoot video. It’s a very popular system for a reason, and best for fish portraits and macro. You can also add a wet wide angle lens, even the Nauticam WWL-1. You might start with an “air” lens to reclaim the ability to shoot 25mm (which is narrowed underwater without it, and almost equivalent to your Sigma 16mm, mentioned above). This will also allow you to retain the excellent close focusing capabilities of the native camera. Ultimately the decision will be yours, and many of us clearly have our own opinions about what works. Also, several of us have ventured down various photographic rabbit holes and lived to tell the tale - with much smaller bank accounts - which informs our opinions.

I am dropping the package price for the Dome port (value of $700) and lens setup to $875 with free shipping in the US. You will need to PM me to discuss shipping options for outside the US.

Hello Tailwind_marseille. My opinion: primes are fine, but you might reconsider the Sigma 16mm for APS-c. It’s a great topside lens, but you’ll find the angle of view underwater less than ideal for most subjects. Zooms really do add flexibility and using the 16-35mm means that you’re heading down the full-frame rabbit hole which means bigger lenses and more expensive housings. Consider using a kit lens, which tend to be smaller, and add wet wide angle and close-up lenses. This will cover most everything underwater - maybe not as well as dedicated lenses and ports - but it will create a portable kit and you can use it for years. If you find you like fish portraits and nudibranchs, then a dedicated macro is the way to go. Good luck! Craig

That kit is not for the faint of heart!

This is from another thread that evolved into the direction of some direct FullFrame Canon 24-50 STM image samples including the very interesting RAW files @ 24mm focal length paired with the Nauticam WWL-C lens. I'd like not to give up on this lens, though - just think you have to use other conversion optics tailored to start working @28mm or more. It's funny that you will not only have to close your aperture to improve corner sharpness but also have to zoom in 🫠😄 .. that's new!

I fully agree - "fisheye look" is something that one loves or hates. Some UW-photographers hate it, but many like it (includig the ones that have wetoptics e.g. WACP/WWL from Nauticam (that also creates fisheye optics, but not as radical as circular or 180° diagonal as the diagonal angle of view is smaller (< 130°)))... I don't think that one should use the Tokina 10-17mm fisheye with TCs. This lens is developed for APS-C(DX) and at 10mm, starts more or less, with 180° diagonal (addition of a TC would, to my personal opinion, rather decrease versatility). In addition the optics of this lens is below average (on the surface) and it is o.k. for UW, but there are no reserves for "blowing up" the image with TCs. When using this lens on MFT sensor, the sharpness is better when the lens is adapted via the 0.71x speedbooster (that compresses the image circle and so increases sharpness on the sensor), compared to using the glassless 1x adapter (when using this lens with the glasless 1x adapter, the zoom range is pretty comparable to the WWL/WACP configurations BTW)...

DOOMSDAY DEVICE!!!

This is super useful ! Thanks. Indeed, I was not sure how a dome port would affect optics. In the example you link to a wide-angle lens is used. Is it the same with a fisheye (I guess so... ?), or a fisheye "naturally" already has more corner softness (I'm thinking either of the Tokina 10-17mm or the Canon 8-15mm) ? The Sony ecosystem, mostly due to the autofocus and friends/family using it, should be the way to go for me. I also looked into the Sony 10-18mm F4 wide-field as a possibility - it would be nicer for wrecks, but I would lose the extra FOV from the fisheyes... On the other hand, I would play with it topside more often than with a fisheye. For macro... yeah, this is a little more tricky. I would be happy with CFWA (or fisheye), and the idea of using a teleconverter, line Tinman suggests, sounds interesting.. Regarding travelling, I'm not putting that into the equation. I've been diving mostly at my backyard which has plenty of life - even more since the coastal area became part of the Calanques National Park. I'm putting this kit together to shoot locally. If one day I'll go elsewhere and happen to dive there (this past summer I was in the Azores, and it was beautiful !) I'll just have to use my photographic memory instead... :P Won't a small dome (small means 6 inches... ? 4 .... ?) introduce more corner aberrations ? And would those be less obvious when zooming in? Another question, when you add a teleconverter does the minimum focusing distance of the lens change? The housing might be the weak link here... unless I find a more premium housing in the used market, I might have to go with Salted Line / Seafrogs. yeah, thanks for pointing this out. Chris post and the article he linked to make that clear enough ! I'm leaning towards the Sony 10-18mm lens that would work fine while using the Salted Line A6xxx housing (zoom ring available) and shouldn't require adapters, inside a 6 inch dome. But, I'm attracted by the possibilities of the Tokina (or the Canon).

Thankfully Landvogt1893 send me the RAW files and we can have a look at the two uncorrected RAW files to learn how much of the image is actually black and artificially generated. I have activated Lightrooms overlay to give you a better idea of the dimensions. If you want to shoot 4x5 you still have some black corners, but much less, which you could also fill with Photoshop's content aware fill: There seems also be some lens flaring in the 2nd image provided. Here is one of the corners, Waso was so curious about: I have also made this illustration of the corner to show you where the lens correction moves the corner to fill the frame: So, what do we learn from this? In my view it’s quite surprising to spend more than $1,000 / €1,000 on the Nauticam WWL-C for dismal results like these - especially when strong in-camera corrections and additional processing make the output look somewhat “artificial”. Especially if you could also have gone for the much cheaper INON UWL-95S (roughly half the price) and achieved similar ( or maybe even better ) results, with a more compact setup - assuming you’re pairing it with the Canon RF 24–50mm STM. 🫣 At the same time, in some parts of the world the WWL-1B and the WWL-C cost the same - or the WWL-1B is even available for less. Considering that the WWL-1B (optimized for 28mm) also has a reputation for higher image quality than the WWL-C (optimized for 24mm), I don’t really understand why Nauticam doesn’t recommend zooming slightly to 28mm and choosing the WWL-1B instead of the WWL-C.

Yes, I use the dual flip all the time now, with the AOI +6 and the CMC-1 - had to balance it with a buoyancy block, but it's fine. On the LX10 the main issue is that the port is so short the lens can bump into the housing, and do get in the way of the lights for macro, but it's manageable. It shouldn't be an issue with a longer port. Streamlining and macro don't go together 😁 my "compact" LX10 rig in BW neutral buoyancy configuration - some people have nicknamed it the Nostromo... I'm a little torn on the 90 vs. 100mm - I was planning on getting the 90mm because there are good deals now, but after looking into it it looks like tracking / video AF might be really optimised on the new 100mm, which could be interesting... I feel I might regret getting the 90mm as a first (and final, for a while) purchase... grass is always greener, all that 😅

What species of shark is this one, by the way?

Interesting - I did not know that the noise made with plastic bottle attracts sharks because they think there is a shark somewhere eating fish... I have seen myself that "plastic bottle noise" attracts sharks: years ago a guide practiced it sucessfully at Daedalus Reef/Egypt to attract hammerhead sharks at a depth of approx. 30m. It was very impressive, but I did not feel that it was dangerous (the hammerhead sharks there are shy and, unfortunately, other divers quickly approaching the few "scouts" chased them away, before the entire school showed up ☹️) I think there must be other, additional, factors, e.g. baiting/feeding that makes sharks agressive and dangerous...

The Atom has a Red light mode! The snoot mod I built worked well, dove it tonight.

Not rumors - it is true. I do Shark Tank around twice a year, and was there late Dec. Hardly any sharks to be seen. The dredging should be done by March or so - let’s see how long it takes the sharks to return. I’ve been diving Shark Tank and Fuva for the past 4-5 years and both locations are getting busier. Even before the dredging, the number of sharks at Shark Tank had come down a bit - too many boats, too much feeding. I was seeing shed tons of fish heads, etc lying at the bottom. And Fuva is becoming a bit of a circus now, with divers and freedivers constantly pirouetting down into the shark feeding area, likely to meet their quota of social media footage. FWIW, a more convenient way to get to Fuva, for whom the connection works, is SL Airways which has a direct flight from Colombo to Gan. A few days in Gan/Addu make a nice complement to Fuva - you get mantas and a lovely shipwreck there. These days, that’s my preferred itinerary for diving that region, especially given how busy the Fuva tiger site has gotten.

The Atom flash with the snoot looks very good ... I have good experience with using MF-2 with OS-1. In the "snoot mode" the MF-2 has enough power for the way I make macro photos (not enough power, however, for my taste, when I use MF-2 without snoot). The only drawback of the MF-2/OS-1 combo I see is the lack of a red aiming light (maybe the new MF-3 has red light?), since some critters get scared by the white illumination when adjusting the frame... I am now thinking to acquire a snoot for my HF-1s ("Bazooka" as Adventurer calls it 😄). Alternatively an additional Atom flash with snoot, both for snooting and as a spare flash...

$1100 for the housing plus $165 for the periscope stick (Ø37x350 Carbon Fibre Aluminium Float Stick (Buoyancy 190g)) Well cheaper abroad obviously.