All Activity

On Sony a good combo seems to be: 140mm dome Canon 8-15 Sony 2.0 TC My current wide angle setup is the mechanical Nikonos 15 or Sea&Sea 12mm and nothing is lighter or more compact. However doing CFWA is a challenge with them and I intend on going the route above at some point as a general traveling setup. Perhaps not as perfect as the RS or WACP-C but significantly cheaper and a touch more versatile.

With a large dome you can do over unders. But inme wide rectlinear lenses are not as good as Naticam wet optics for corner to corner sharpness. You need a fisheye for that. The wwls are quick and easy to burp, and inme often not even needed, the wacp and dome has the advantage of being ready immediately. In my short but sweet experience with WWL:s … a little sensitive to creating ugly (not cool looking ones) flares when you shoot against the sun. Have never experienced that delicacy with domes. Maybe a wwl-c specific?

Size for travel. RS13 weights 1070g total (lens and port). Some sizes/weights were discussed here. Actual size is this: And its sharper than any water contact optic and most (if not all) dome combos. Drawbacks are fixed 13mm and availability.

Hey Chip, Thanks for the great feedback. It’s good to hear that flare isn’t a major issue. May I ask when you tend to use your dome instead of the WACP-C, and vice versa?

thanks for you response. Why did you get rid of the WACP-C?

Hey Chris, Thanks for the great feedback. I like the fisheye option, but since it's not a native Sony lens and requires adapters, I'm a bit hesitant. I was also thinking that with whales, having the flexibility and extra reach of a 16–35mm could be really useful? So, to summarize: if you were heading to French Polynesia specifically for whale photography, what would your lens choice be? I'll also be going to Fakarava afterwards to dive the Wall of Sharks, so I'm trying to find the best overall setup for the trip.

Investment in a Nikonos 13 might be an option (specially for humpback encounters), but expensive and not suitable with your August timeframe tho. I got rid of my WACP-C and got RS13, havent missed WACP-C a single bit.

I definitely agree, some handle the spotlight effect well, some don't the bobtail beinf an example of the latter, whilst a nice shot of the bobtail itself I'm less keen on the lighting. Critters sitting on substrate is always a little tricky for me. I'll definitely try that next time, thanks for the tip! It works great in that example.

Natural red light does not exist at a certain depth. What you see here is a derivative of green fluorescent protein (GFP), a red-fluorescent protein found inside the anemone. The protein generates the red light from green or blue light. (The fluorescence is excited by light with a very specific, shorter wavelength). If the flash is too strong, it will overpower the fluorescent light. Without flash it should work. No idea why it doesn’t in your case. I photographed a similar looking anemone some years ago without problems.

I believe you are talking about different lenses. @dentrock is talking about the Sony 16-25, you are talking about the 16-35 II. I think the issue with the 230mm dome is living with it for travel, the size and weight when diving with it, including the drag when trying to swim with it.This is as much or more of a concern than the expense. With whales you are jumping off a boat and swimming around trying to get in position - a 230mm dome is not going to make that easy. you are also asking about flare, and mentioned problems with your ikelite port with reflections - these are different issues and causes. Acrylic ports are known to cause reflection issues and glass domes are less prone to this. Unless you are going for artistic effects flare is probably best dealt with by planning to be dropped on the sunny side of the whales and good operators will try to achieve this. If I were doing it I'd want to be using a fisheye lens, they work well in small ports and are quite sharp, you do need to pay attention to corners as they can be easy to include stray fins and other distractions on the edge of the frame. The WACP will certainly work, it's just not quite as wide.

Hey @AlexUW26 - great questions. Everything has a trade off. Have I experienced flare when aiming at certain angles pointing up towards the sun? On occasion, yes. And with the WWL as well. Is it frequent or did it impact my overall photo session? Not in the least. It’s something you can easily see when making the image, and equally easily slightly modify the angle to eliminate the momentary flare. It actually has nothing to do with depth as I have encountered it at 100’. Its simply the light coming in. As an added bonus, it is incredible if you like CFWA images. It can focus at near macro closeness making it an all around solution. As I said, everything has a trade off. The smaller size, sharpness, and versatility easily offset the minor quirk. I have other lenses and domes I use for specific needs, but for a great all around solution I personally feel it’s a winner. Hope this helps! Chip

Really nice pictures. Thank you!

For years, I have come across anemones which have such vibrant, red/pink tentacles. They are rare to see and every time I take a picture of them, the color looks drab. I try all different settings, even without strobe but it always looks so dull yet to the naked eye, it glows. What am I doing wrong? Below is an example of an unprocessed picture of an anemone that to the naked eye, was so vibrant.

Yes, same thought here. I was of the thinking that the WACP would be at least as good as the WWL and IMO the WWL is not prone especially to flare. Flare has not been a problem for me in thousands of shots and I love to shoot back against the sun for CFWA and other WA shots. This photo, divers and boat, is fairly horrid, I missed the moment but it demonstrates that the WWL does not flare. In fact, I cannot recall ever seeing flare though I am sure it can occur, any lens can flare into the sun. The fish ball photo shows flare, Canon S90, Inon UFL165AD (acrylic dome), a lens that is prone to flare if not careful, I have never had the WWL ever do anything like this under much worse conditions.

With my Ikelite large dome, the reflections were quite bad. Even if I covered the text on the lens, I would still get noticeable flare when shooting towards the sun. If the WWL handles flare well, though, wouldn't the WACP-C perform similarly? Or are there some optical differences between them that affect flare resistance? I was under the impression that their image quality was very comparable.

How have you found flare with the WACP-C? Is it generally manageable when shooting whales or other large animals near the surface with the sun nearby? And in what situations would you choose a dome over the WACP-C, or the WACP-C over a dome?

I have never owned or used a glass dome with a WA or FE lens. However, I have a 4.33 acrylic dome and a fisheye and I find the WWL much sharper corner to corner and much less prone to flare shooting into the sun and general internal reflections. I too am curious as to why the various flavors of the WACP would be prone to flare? Such would certainly be a part of my "dream" system, I thought. Flare can be artistic but it can also be quite annoying.

What about your experience with flaring? Is it something you run into often, or is it generally manageable? For example, how does it perform when shooting whales or other large animals close to the surface with the sun in the frame or just outside it? Would you recommend the WACP-C or a dome setup in that situation?

Thanks for your response! Yes, the 16-35mm f/2.8 II is the lens I'm talking about. I saw that Nauticam recommends the 230mm dome for it, but that's quite a serious investment. That's actually why I started looking into the WACP-C as an alternative. Ideally, I'd like to keep the setup relatively compact and not spend a fortune. I usually shoot around f/8-f/9 and don't mind going to f/11 if needed. I've been using the acrylic Ikelite dome port so far, so I'm not really spoiled by high-end glass domes. Curious to hear what your experience has been and whether you've had good results with a smaller dome on this lens.

there was a issue with the shop handling the sticker orders. Stickers going out today for those who have ordered sorry about the delay and issue. @akarnani thanks for letting us now.. and thanks for the donation and support.

Using 'Screen/viewfinder display (3) -> screen' has the following effects: If I switch the Nauticam housing to viewfinder mode, I can't activate 'display off'. If I switch the Nauticam housing to LCD mode, I can activate 'display off', but the viewfinder switches off after a few seconds in any case, even if I have my eye on the viewfinder. The camera doesn't seem to detect the eye on the viewfinder in this mode. Therefore: if I want to use 'display off', it makes the most sense for me to activate Auto2 and then switch the housing to LCD so that the 'display off' function can be activated.

+1. Too many missed pictures in galapagos right after the drop where I had to remove - clean - put on wwl1... Plus WACP-C is soooo much sharper on long end than WWL... I think where WWL makes sense is video for wide/portrait shots. For photo I havent had much luck with CMC on that 28-60 flat port so I wouldnt say wide/macro would make much sense to justify wwl1.

Exactly what @Nemrod said, and this is the main reason I invested in the WACP-C. The dry port eliminates the chance of any tiny bubbles between the port and WWL, especially in a rapid entry situation. I also have the 140 dome I use for a variety of lens. For me personally, I prefer the extra zoom range the Sony 28-60 with the sharpness and more open aperture options the WACP-C or WWL provides.

So I have had Nauticams X5 housing under water in the wild finally. First impression on the boat was - amazing! Sharp as a knife with amazing contrast when viewed on the phone. But then I came home and got it on the big screen. And on Apple Vision Pro. And the problems began to surface. I knew about the stitching and actually in the blue it is not that bad. And they work with Insta (supposedly) to improve it. But something very weird is going on in the optical department and it is consistent from multiple dives multiple days which precludes the camera being wrong positioned inside of the housing if that would be even possible (it is quite tight in it). Long story short - the regions close to stitch line maintain excellent sharpness from near to far, something that has been advertised by Nauticam. But the regions farther from stitch lines - or in between , like in the middle of the 180deg image - are blurry from near to far. Very weird and kinda confirming the something in the optical department is off. So for now cant recommend it to anyone.

ill check it out and see where the disconnect is. sorry about that.