All Activity

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.

I have purchased V1 two months ago, there was no news of L10 then. Of course, L10 will be an excellent underwater camera, though I’ve heard it doesn’t have IBIS either. V-log looks pretty balanced between highlights and shadows. I agree with what you said about the port. R50V seems to be too big for me.

I place an order with a donation and a sticker back at the beginning of May but haven't gotten it yet. I'm guessing the system flagged it as having nothing to ship?

I usually will burp my WWL. It is bayonet and floods quickly and does not retain a large bubble. But jumping in hurriedly, I usually will find a myriad of tiny bubbles on the glass dome, rear element and port. I have found that if in a hurry swishing the camera about a little and fanning water to the dome and bayonet area will clear most of them rapidly without burping. I am pretty fast at burping the lens, maybe ten seconds but a lot can happen in ten seconds I suppose. Yes, that can be a disadvantage to a water contact optic.

Very nice, thanks for sharing. One compact you could also look into is the Lumix L10 as well: https://waterpixels.net/forums/topic/3591-panasonic-l10/ Though you won't get Canon colours, Panasonic WB is really good as well (and there's always the option to use a good filter like the Keldan SF -1.5), ans so is IBIS, the L10 has 4K 120fps and high bitrates. I shoot video on the old LX10, and would probably get an LX10 is I were to do a compact upgrade. Main downside for me with the L10 is the form factor, which forces you to use ports like with the LX100 series (body is virtually identical). Otherwise have you looked in the Canon R50 V (video version)? It does 4K60fps.

Hi divers, I’ve changed my camera from RX100 to Canon V1 since April, mainly because no lights or strobes are allowed in Malapascua and the diving depth, because Canon always has the top manual white balance performance since G16. Sony RX100M5A, on the other hand, performs strangely below 15 meters with ambient light. It turns out to be excellent even for clips shot below 20 meters which color restoration in Da Vinci is both easy and accurate. It’s surprised that still so few discussions about this camera after all this model has been released for almost a year. Besides white balance ability, I also like that it can shoot 10-bit 4:2:2 and HDR PQ (I don’t like CLOG3 personally) which gives me more flexibility in post processing, compared to 8-bit recording in RX100 series. Although I am satisfied with the overall IQ (can I use this term for video?), I notice the background to be somewhat soft both in photos and videos especially during high ISO. I guess it’s mainly because the diving time is so early that the lighting intensity is somewhat hampered. The viz is OK though, usually between 15-20 meters. Another thing I’m not comfortable with is that Canon V1 has a 1.4X crop when shooting in 4K 60P and the OIS stabilization is rather weak. A 1.4X crop makes it de facto a 1” sensor machine like Sony RX100 and to be honest I don’t find much difference in terms of image details between these two, both recorded in 4K. I’m looking forward to seeing the updated versions for Canon V1 series, maybe with a native 24-70mm or 24-100mm lens or no crop in 4K 60P or IBIS. The native 16-50mm lens without wet lens performs rather weak around edges of pictures. I also heard the rumors of RX100M8 these days though I doubt Sony will shorten the lens range.

Hi divers, I’ve changed my camera from RX100 to Canon V1 since April, mainly because no lights or strobes are allowed in Malapascua and the diving depth, because Canon always has the top manual white balance performance since G16. It turns out to be excellent even for clips shot below 20 meters which color restoration in Da Vinci is both easy and accurate. It’s surprised that still so few discussions about this camera after all this model has been released for almost a year. Besides white balance ability, I also like that it can shoot 10-bit 4:2:2 and HDR PQ (I don’t like CLOG3 personally) which gives me more flexibility in post processing, compared to 8-bit recording in RX100 series. I am satisfied with the overall IQ (can I use this term for video?), I found the background to be somewhat soft both in photos and videos especially during high ISO. I guess it’s mainly because the diving time is so early that the lighting intensity is somewhat hampered. The viz is OK though, usually between 15-20 meters. Another thing I’m not comfortable with is that Canon V1 has a 1.4X crop when shooting in 4K 60P and the OIS stabilization is rather weak. A 1.4X crop makes it de facto a 1” sensor machine like Sony RX100 and to be honest I don’t find much difference in terms of image details between these two, both recorded in 4K. I’m looking forward to seeing the updated versions for Canon V1 series, maybe with a native 24-70mm or 24-100mm lens or no crop in 4K 60P or IBIS. The native 16-50mm lens without wet lens performs rather weak around edges of pictures. I also heard the rumors of RX100M8 these days though I doubt Sony will shorten the lens range.

Not sure if your interest in the (presumably Nauticam) 230 dome was for the 16-25, but I found that lens works well even with the small 140 dome (radius 70mm), and not much further improvement with the 180 dome (radius 110mm). I used 25 adapter + 35 ext with the 140. Central area of sharpness when viewed at 100% was between 24 and 36mm diameter at f11. So if you are OK with f11 and this FOV range, it's a good compact rig. The Nauticam zoom ring for the 24-50 fits this lens, since they are made as a complementary pair. I'm not aware of a version "II" for this lens, so if it exists, disregard this post.

Why do you need to tell the TG series cameras that you are using a FCON T01 or a FCON T02 Lens. What does the camera do or not do if you don't ?

Nice work!