Christian K

Ridiculous. This Bernardo Cueto Riestra is either too lazy to grasp the issue and why it is unreasonable, or he just don’t care—which is his job as the secretary of tourism. I cancelled a WS in Socorro earlier this year and went to the Maldives instead to shoot sharks.

HSS Size/weight Battery type

I’ve taken the wwl-c off under water and shot the 24-50 @50, holding the wwl in hand. Not directly optimal but it worked occasionally. It’s more or less neutral uw thanks to a buoyancy collar. Much smaller than a dome. Very easy. Could stuff it in a pocket or, I’d imagine, use some kind of flip. Haven’t seen or heard about anyone doing it. Seem feasible tho. WWL-C covers a lot of WA/CFWA needs. You can lens correct afterwards if you want it straighter. Otoh it’s sharper than a FF WA zoom behind a dome (can’t fix that afterwards). But it’s not a full fisheye. So if you want to be able to do splits or need the full 180 degrees, add a dome or adaptation of your existing S&S dome to your budget to use the 8-15. I belive there actually are adapters made by Nauticam for S&S ports, again—talk to Magnus at exposure underwater. Surprisingly close race on the money, I’d have thought a Nauticam z8-rig would be noticeably more expensive than an isota ditto. Well, well…

Sounds to me like you have reached a decision 🙂. I’d suggest picking up the phone and have a chat with Magnus @exposureunderwater in Malmö. He’d be able to give you the lowdown. And I’m pretty sure he recently received a lightly used macro port that could or could not be a part of your z8-package. Lycka till!

Can’t help you with any real advice, sorry, but even if the mount is the same you are as Bon Jovi sings, halfway there. Where AI seem to screw it up is the flange distance. Camera bodies sit at different distances to the opening in different UW housings. This is camera model specific. So you need to examine the Isotta z8 housing compared to a Sea&Sea z8 housing and measure the cameras position in each, and then calculate what needs to be added or subtracted in the way of isotta extensions for each specific lens and port. If you’re lucky, someone trustworthy has already done it and you don’t need to make any mistakes. Or you can volunteer as a guinea pig 🙂. YMMV.

You need to double and triple check AI. Gets it wrong consistently.

The 14-30 is not quite as wide as the 24-50+wwl. It would be equivalent to app. a 11-31. It has a light barrel distortion at 24. You can unscrew the wwl uw and shoot the 24-50 behind the flat port, if you’d find a suitable situation for that. Slightly bent curves @24

I’m tagging along here since my diving in the Similans, Ko Bon/Tachai is more than 25 years ago. Need advice on smaller (less than 20 guests) liveaboard that is a decent choice for us photographers. Will be in Thailand in mid January on my way home from Indonesia, so might be able to revisit these sites and shoot some. Any ideas? I guess @bghazzal might have one or two…

I too have been intrigued by the MWL but kind of didn’t pursue due to the allegedly poor results unless shooting very stopped down. As @Chris Ross I too couldn’t find a lot of feedback on it. @Dave_Hicks does the Kraken glass give the same FoV (150 degrees IIRC) on the wide end? Am using a WWL now and find myself at either end, never in between, so zooming in between not that useful to me.

@Adventurer I'm not familiar with that reputation and I think you might be totally wrong there. According to Nauticam (having consulted Ryan Canon as well as a few others who frequently have used both wwl:s) there are no IQ differences, only different optimization for different focal lengths. So I don't know where you get that from? I've also researched the WACP-C as an option to the wwl:s and consulted Nauticam reps as well as a few "qualified" Nauticam shooters, ready to spend the €€€€, but they all advised any IQ variations would be hard to detect, much like the conclusion Interceptor came to in the pool test you referred to earlier. One big difference is if you're in the surface a lot and will have an issue with the wet "layer" of the optics. There are of course many variables going into what suits "you" and your shooting. YMMV.

Can't compare to WACP, but inme (wwl-c with z24-50) the WWL is a little bit more prone to ugly flares when shooting stills towards the sun than my old WA set-up with a dome (Hugyfot). Not a big issue as a tiny tilt will get rid of it. Do not know if this a specific wwl-c issue or z24-50 issue or the combination. I can only conclude that it sometime has occurred (rarely tho).

The Inon one is noticeably different in viscosity compared to Sea & Sea, more solid. Similar to Hugyfots. Nauticam (white in tube) seems like it could be the same as S&S (transparent in tube), difference in color which might mean nothing. All these damn tubes and containers. Feels somehow wrong to buy even more grease when I already own a life supply, but it would make things easier for sure.

Lube list? Which ones are the ”same”? I have Inon, Nauticam, Sea & Sea and Hugyfot atm. Not sure which ones are interchangeable.

So you had the same distance to the mat? The @28 behind wwl should give a bit more FoV than 16 recti behind a dome. Looks almost the other way around.

Have only used the wwl-c (nikon z24-50) but can say it is seem a little more prone to produce ugly flares than a lens behind a dome inme. Not a big issue as it can be mitigated by small angle adjustments when you’re facing the sun. Don’t know about the wacp or if it is a wwl (c) specific challenge. Sharpness should be pretty close, with an edge to the wacp, everything else being equal. Allegedly extremely tough to tell the difference in real world images though. @24 - 107 horizontal degrees and 130 diagonal

In my view (finder), def a fisheye for whales, whale sharks, manta rays and friendly sharks (baited), reef-scapes, big aggregations of fish and perhaps wrecks. A WACP / WWL for manta rays and baited + chance encounters with sharks, reef-scapes and fish aggregations of fish / schools. Others might do it different. Rectilinear 16 mm, 105 degrees FoV. A little bit more wouldn't have hurt.

Agree somewhat. Often numbers don't tell the whole story. Anyways, 11 degrees (107 on wwl/wacp) difference horizontally makes for quite some difference in many UW shooting situations inme and inmo. The "square" you have available to frame your image from a desired distance (less than 1.5 metres, preferably less) is quite a bit larger with a wacp/wwl, compared to a 16 mm rectilinear lens. Shooting style and preferences then vary of course and different shooters want different solutions. The WWL and WACP (full disclosure –– have not used WACP, so merely a qualified guess) have some mild barrel distortion, but not as much as a full-blown FE. Kind of like the Tokina on DX @ 16-17, perhaps a little less. Fisheye 180 degrees, trying to make use of the diagonal FoV.

We’re shooting in water. So ask yourself how much closer you can be to a subject / something you want to shoot with 25 extra degrees of FoV and what that does to IQ.

The FoV is quite different on those two options, a WACP (or WWL) and a 16-35 behind a dome. The former will give you 130 degrees on the wide end, a 16 will give you around 105 on a FF sensor. 130 degrees

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?

Ahh, right .. recall now it has a fixed port system. So it can't fit the z105 f2 which paired with a MFO3 is a pretty versatile combo, covering a lot of macro needs. Have no experience with the CMC or how good/bad it is. I'd say the Nauticam route is nice for a lot of WA needs, but perhaps not for macro in the case of Nikon Z50II.

For wide, the wwl-c is awesome. Please note that the 13-14 mm equivalent Chris mentions is on a fullframe camera. On your DX it is quite a bit wider than your 12-24, which equals a 18-36. 10-17 FE also a very solid option, shot it many years, and has the advantage of being able to do splits with a large enough dome (not as travel friendly as the wwl-c). Others can chime in on the Nauticam macro, but you could stick to a classic macrolens and port and shoot wide with the wwl-c and compact zoom IIRC. Not sure what port system the NAZA50ii uses?

I haven’t done any tests since I discovered it, but glad to hear. And my hunch is it won’t have any impact as it will be wet.

Have these blotches on my 75 dive old Nauticam port, and I have always meticulously kept and rinsed it in fresh water after every dive. I learned from Nauticam that I need to rinse it with deionized water to be sure ... A new one for me. I guess if you don’t have that at hand (!) keep it wet most of time and when you dry it—use a clean soft towel to wipe it off and make sure it’s absolutely dry.

Sobering report. I was on the Emperor Voyager mid March. That smoke, three breaths and you’re passed out. Five and you’re pretty much dead.