horvendile

Unless they are at some place at the website I have not found, the answers are not on the website. The information on viewfinders is muddy and technically incomplete. Oh, they say both are great and one of them is sometimes better for some cameras. Ok. Granted, they don't mention the Z8 among the cameras benefiting from the 0.8 but then again they don't always update the information on their site. They don't say anything about flip adapters for WWL-C. This is a very big purchase for me and I want to make as few guesses as possible. Unfortunately, my experience is that product websites in the diving industry are at best enthusiastic - and then Nauticam's is one of the better. If I want more information then I can ask the manufacturer (and they forward the questions to the reseller, it appears, but he doesn't have the technical information), or I can ask here. Well, I'm doing both. And in the end I hope to make an informed decision.

Why would I want the 40 deg version? Does the 32 deg (32213) not cover the whole EVF? In that case, I would totally agree. The reason for taking the WWL-C off is to be able to shoot @ 50 mm through just the flat port, in case there are shy sharks semi-close by. That's a realistic scenario on my next trip. And secondarily, to be able to put a CMC-1 or similar there. Not as a complete macro solution, but nice to have the option. I already have the 24-50 since several years. Bought it for topside use when I want a small and light casual zoom.

New update! I'm now investigating the Nauticam path exclusively. One thing not entirely clear is the choice of viewfinder (pun not really intended but I can also just run with it). Nauticam's modern 40 degrees 0.8:1 or the 32 degrees 1:1 seem to be the best choices, but not really sure which one of them. Since Nauticam says they developed the 0.8:1 with certain EVF:s in mind, they should be able to tell me whether the Z8 is one EVF which would benefit. I hope they will also tell me of differences between exit pupil and eye relief. I don't know how else I would choose between them. I have no way of testing before ordering. On using S&S ports on Nauticam, Nauticam says that "The port mount to lens mount spacing in NA-Z8 is 66 mm". I just measured on my S&S housing, and down to a mm or so it's the same. At least if you count from the outer part of the port mount. That should mean that I could EITHER get a Nauticam N120 Bayonet ring for Sea & Sea ports - one of these I suppose https://www.uwcamerastore.com/nauticam-n120bayonet-ring-for-sea-sea-ports-30203 for each port I want to keep and it should work on the Nauticam housing. OR one adapter for all ports, such as https://sagadive.com/en/product/aro-de-extension-adaptador-seasea-nauticam/ The latter would add 20 mm, so any port currently requiring 20 mm or more of extension should be fine. Of those two alternatives, when looking at my current ports, changing the mount of the port seems better. The first alternative, I mean. Nauticam has also advised against using flip adapters for the WWL-C. They don't think the flip adapters guarantee exact enough positioning of the wet lens. Well, what do I know. I guess it'll have to be a (double) bayonet holder on a strobe arm, then.

All right, so here's a general update on the things I remember that I found out today! Isotta says that yes you can use S&S ports on Isotta housings, but not the other way around, on account of the double o-rings on Isotta ports. I don't know, maybe it's possible to remove one o-ring and then it would work, and then again maybe not. If Isotta is right it can't be done, then that rules out the cheap option of continuing with my S&S housing, provided I want the WWL-C Sea & Sea intended to make a solution for 24-50 and WWL-C but hasn't had resources to do that yet. (Ok this I learned earlier than today.) Given that what needs to be done is more or less a) figure out the length from lens mount to the front glass in Nauticam's solution, in order to make the very simple port b) figure out the diameter of the 24-50, in order to make the zoom gear I kind of despair about S&S. Also, their homepage looks like something from 1998 and is not well maintained. I get the impression that S&S is not that interested in making underwater housings and ports. What S&S is interested in making is strobes. This got me into the jungle of TTL flash triggers, because yes, I do think TTL works fairly well. I thought that as long as you had a TTL trigger for your camera brand you were all set. Ha. Ha. Ha. Oh no. To the credit of S&S, they do list which triggers work with their strobes. This is important; I have YS-D1 now and may upgrade in the future but maybe not right now. Apparently the UW Technics TTL triggers work well with Nikon and newer S&S strobes. Nauticam's own trigger, however, is currently under evaluation. Ok, whew, good find Dan, I thought Nauticam's trigger would be the safe option. Now to take a look at UW technics trigger... hang on... comparing the user manuals of the Nauticam trigger and the UW Technics trigger, it's obvious that it is the effing SAME TRIGGER. In their version of the manual, Nauticam has removed references to UW Technics. But it's absolutely the same. My god, this is driving me crazy. Viewfinders! If I go the Nauticam route, which right now seems like the wise choice (that or do nothing), there's an Inon 45 degrees viewfinder (I like that) for about 5000 SEK, or a Nauticam similar viewfinder for about 17000 SEK. That's a whopping difference. How much image quality difference is there in practice? Do I pay thrice the price for a modest or a dramatic increase in visibility? No one knows. At times like these I wish the uw photography world were larger, like the computer nerd world, where you can always find a test of the most obscure parts. I have sent some questions to Nauticam too, but that was earlier today and it's totally fine they haven't replied alreay. Phew!

Well, starting with the comparison. I think it might be easiest to just upload a screenshot of the spreadsheet! I wrote it for myself but I think it should be possible to understand for English speakers too. The Nauticam section is with prices from Swedish shop exposureunderwater. The Isotta section is with prices from uwcamerastore, except for a few things that may be bought from Sweden. In this screenshot I used 11.5 as exchange rate € - SEK. The flip adapter x2 may have to be swapped out but it's the same price in both sections. So, this is my calculation for a setup with only the WWL-C. (Continued below the screenshot) For macro I expect to be able to use my current port with Isotta. If I go Nauticam I expect I need a new port, which is the macro port 80. The focus gear I consider optional. It would be nice but I don't have one now. Question is how useful it would be to be able to use my current WA ports. I expect the WWL-C to replace my need for the 14-30 and 24-70. However, if I want to continue using the fisheye there would be an advantage in being able to use current ports. And, as for the low-budget option of continuing to use my S&S housing - I've sent a question about the flange distance. I've also asked about 3D-printed zoom rings. It's worth investigating.

I sent him an e-mail with some questions earlier today!

Again, thanks! Turns out S&S doesn't have a zoom ring for 24-50. I guess I could see if my existing zoom ring would fit, though I'll have to wait a week. But without zooom ring, S&S is no longer an option. And yes it would theoretically be possible to 3D-print one but in practice, probably not really. And I'm given to understand that you want to be well placed with your lens för WWL-C. "It's probably about 20 mm" sounds shaky. I do have a 20 mm extension, which could maybe see me over for using my existing macro port(s) on an Isotta housing. It's worth considering. Also, I did find a Saga adapter to use S&S ports on Nauticam housing, but if the flange distance is larger on Nauticam than S&S it doesn't help much. However. I did put one Nauticam WA package and one Isotta WA package together in a spreadsheet. Final prices will depend on the euro - SEK exchange rate, I've used 11.5 SEK for a euro now. Then I get Nauticam: 89000 SEK Isotta: 84000 SEK Not much of a difference really. Mind you, that's with Inon 45 degree viewfinder, I don't know how much superior Nauticam's own is. It costs three times as much. A macro port for nauticam would set me back about 5500 SEK more. So yes, Nauticam is a bit more expensive than Isotta but not a big difference, and then I have a Swedish retailer. I'd say the omens indicate a Nauticam solution - either that, or do nothing and stay put. Well, I won't have to decide today. And I could investigare Isotta a bit more.

Related to the subject in general: Has anyone tested the Nikon 24-50 with the SMC-1? nauticam lists CMC-1 as a functioning option. Thing is, I already have an SMC-1, and I thought it would be neat being able to use that on a 24-50 setup. I'm not expecting it to be a complete macro solution, but possibly useful? On the other hand, that would make most sense with SMC-1 and WWL-C mounted on a dual flip holder, and I recall someone saying that becomes too front heavy.

Thanks. I was confused. This takes some of the advantages going the Isotta route away. I would still be able to use my S&S wide-angle ports, which all have at least 20 mm of extension on my S&S housing, but the whole point of switching brands would be using WWL-C for most WA shooting. I would NOT be able to use my macro ports, which are monolithic. I have also started making a spreadsheet comparing costs for Isotta and Nauticam, and if I discount the need for new ports (admittedly a big if), Nauticam doesn't seem that much more expenisve.

Okay, one thing bothers me, if I start mixing housings and ports from different manufacturers. I'd need to know each manufacturer's distance from camera lens mount to housing lens port mount. I don't even know what that distance is called so I have difficulties searching for that information. Is it easily obtainable? For example, Isotta has a port for using WWL-C as stated above, and Isotta ports can apparently be used on S&S housings, but if the distance from camera to port hole is different between Isotta and S&S I expect to run into trouble. Same if I want to use S&S ports on Nauticam housing. Not saying it would be insurmountable but definitely something that needs to be handled.

Thanks, great thread. I have some investigating to do. Lucky me that next week of my vacation will be rainy!

It's a drawback that it doesn't take front filters (though understandable why). I find that the Sea & Sea correction lens helps quite a lot with the Nikon 14-30 behind a dome port.

...wait a minute. If Isotta takes S&S ports directly, does it work the other way around too? Can I use Isotta ports on my S&S housing? And in that case, could I use the Isotta solution for WWL-C on my S&S housing? Then it would still be my Z7 camera, but vastly cheaper.

That's very good intel, thanks! There are reasons for looking at Nauticam specifically, namely what's carried by retailers in my not-really-neighborhood. But I'll definitely investigate the Isotta alley.

Oh, update to this. Sea&Sea are late. No new flat port sighted.

Hi! I'm here for my sort of bi-annual visit. Today about wide-angle shooting. Today I use a Sea&Sea housing with a Nikon Z7. For wide and not-so-wide angle I have three lenses, all with appropriate ports. The 8-15 fisheye on FTZ, with a small dome port. The 14-30/4 with Sea&Sea correction lens, with a large glass dome port. The 24-70/4, with the same glass dome port. This one is rarely used but could potentially be good for eg shy sharks. I have, once again, started considering switching to a Nauticam housing to go with my Nikon Z8. This would require new ports all around (also for macro which I don't even go into here). For WA I would then use the 24-50 lens, which I already own, together with a nauticam WWL-C wet lens. I'm hoping this would more or less (not quite) cover all my three lenses of today. It seems to have about the same angular coverage as the 14-30, though with a distortion profile somewhere bewtween rectilinear and fisheye - correct? If there's a shy shark, I should be able to flip the WWL-C away and shoot at 50 mm through just the flat port, right? (You might say, if it's that far away, don't bother to take the shot, but oh yes I would take the shot.) Fisheye - well it's obviously not as wide as the fisheye, I would have to dive with the WWL-C and see if I'm happy or if I want a fisheye port too. Expected pros with this switch: Would be able to use my Z8 underwater, with better AF than my Z7. Would get access to the front buttons on my camera (I think?), which my Sea&Sea housing does not allow. Significantly reduced weight and bulk when travelling, which is important. (Unless compared to only bringing the fisheye with today's equipment, that's probably similar) Expected cons with this switch: Hugely expensive, as these things are measured by my humble circumstances Have I missed or misunderstood anything important?

So... update! This is what I heard. S&S made some trials with existing ports but didn't get very good results. Apparently they now aim to design and produce a new flat port suitable for 24-50 and WWL-C use, and also a 24-50 zoom gear. Hopefully this will exist in about three months. If that turns to reality, it's very good news for me. Much more wallet friendly than switching to Nauticam everything.

Update: Hopefully I'll get an update från S&S within a month. If I don't outright forget about it I'll post about it here.

Thanks for all the replies! Definitely some food for thought. As a matter of fact I'm already in contact with him. He has told med that S&S are doing some evaluation for this specific setup, ie 24-50+WWL-C on S&S housing. I guess there are more people than me hoping that would work. So I'll probably wait a bit and see if that leads anywhere. As for building my own fit... nah, after reading here, it's just too much work with stuff I have neither talent, equipment nor interest for. So if the S&S track doesn't lead anywhere I shall probably have to either go full Nauticam or be happy with what I have.

Hm, it does sound like while using WWL-C on my current housing might be theoretically possible, I probably shouldn't. I'm not much of a fiddler.

Hi! I pop up here every 6-12 months or so. This time I'm thinking about the Nauticam WWL-C. Currently I dive with a Nikon Z7 in a Sea&Sea housing. I also own (among other things) the 24-50/4-6.3 and a Z8. I understand that the 24-50 and a WWL-C may take care of very much of one's non-fisheye wideangle photography, and in a convenient package. Question 1: Can you use the lens more or less wide open with good image quality? One thing I like with my 14-30 + Sea&Sea correction lens behind a large dome is that I can get decent corner results even at fairly large apertures. Would like to do that with a potential 24-50 + WWL-C setup also. Question 2: Is there a good way to use the 24-50 with a Sea&Sea housing? It's not in their port chart. And, provided you can, is it possible to use it with the WWL-C and get good results? The brute force solution is to switch to Nauticam equipment for my Z8 but that's quite the budget undertaking.

Just an update on how it went: I brought the 14-30 with Sea&Sea correction lens and 230 mm dome, as well as 8-15 fisheye with small dome. I used the 14-30 on the first wreck dive. Then I switched to the fisheye which stayed on for the rest of the trip. Not what I expected before the trip. Turned out that the fisheye distortion didn't bother me with the wrecks. Also, 14 rectilinear mm looked a bit too extreme. 16 mm was generally nicer. I understand none of this is news to most of you, but I discover it for the first time! Though there is a case for the rectilinear lens. In some circumstances it allows for more dramatic perspectives. And I wished I had taken it for the Thistlegorm penetration, where I sometimes wanted to photograph without strobes. With the S&S correction lens I can keep the aperture at f/5,6 or slightly smaller and get decent corners. That would have been nice for light-gahtering purposes.

Thanks! No, I don't expect any sharks at all. Northern route, yes.

Hi! In late 2023 I went to Dauin in the Philippines to photograph critters. Unfortunately I got pneumonia and only did a few dives - here's a picture from one of them. The main part of the image is some kind of camouflage crab, legs to the right. Encircled in red is... well, is it a shrimp? We had Klas Malmberg, pretty big in Sweden's uw photo world, with us on the trip and it was he who pointed out that there's a shrimp. I forget the name. I should trust him, he knows his stuff. I just. What do you say, is that really an animal? I mean, I can sort of convince me that it is. But. I just.

Thanks for the replies! Ok you have me convinced, I'll bring the fisheye too. I'm fairly certain - no, I think - I will most often not want the fisheye look on the wrecks. But I'll try it, I might like it! The 24-70 would likely be for topside, should I bring it. I could switch it out for my 24-50 if I want to save on weight. (I think the 24-70 might have a place for sharks I don't expect to come right up to me, but that's another trip, don't expect any sharks here) As for weight allowances my bet is on not getting my hand luggage weighed. It mostly works out. When it doesn't, and it turns out my meek bag weighs 17 kg, it can become kind of sweaty. Has happaned once.