Christian K

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.

Welcome, me to recently back from the Maldives.

55 going on 56. Been scuba diving since 1985 and photographing UW since 1999.

I just try keeping it wet all the time, salt or fresh water doesn’t matter, until it eventually has to open for battery change. Has worked for me.

You need to figure out what your priorities are. All modern cameras are good but one has an edge on this and another one on that. 33 is more than 25. You can take stunning images with 12 mp cameras like the D700 too… But you’d need to create the image in the view finder and not in post processing to a larger extent. If you can, get a quality alu-housing. I used Hugyfot for many years and switched to Nauticam in 2025 when I went mirrorless (remained clueless). Wet optics one big reason and then the z24-50 that can use the slightly more compact WWLC nudged me towards Nikon. If you are cool with second hand, I bet there are great deals to be had on complete sets of very competent equipment.

I shoot a z6iii UW in a Nauticam housing and it is a great little set-up inmo. It is my first mirrorless camera and I come from Nikon DSLR:s since 2005, so I am used to Nikon. I value the compact size of the z6iii (travel and fly) compared to the z8 and especially the z9, but what you win in travel friendliness and overall compactness, obviously you loose a tad performance (speed, cropability). The z5ii was not released when I bought the z6iii and it might have been my pick over the 6iii. I say might, because I haven't held it or tried one. z6iii should overall be a little more responsive (quicker AF etc) and video is a few notches up compared to the z5ii, if that matters to you. But a z5ii in a Nauticam housing with the z24-50 and WWL-C is for sure a tactical nuke. A lot of bang for its size. Check out this review.

Some input on many of the optics discussed in this thread.

Not big on macro tbh. I think it was a ”wish” from SONY-shooters, yes, and perhaps especially from Dr Mustard 🙂 Was toying with the idea about getting a z105 so a MFO3 kind of would make sense as a compliment. Perhaps the 60 and adapter plus z105 and its port would be swifter than a z105+MFO3?

Cheers. Good and thorough run through of various WA options and what they can bring to the table.

Teleconverters do degrade the image. So a ”better” lens+teleconverter might give you a worse IQ result than a ”lesser” lens w/o converter in some other combo/set-up. Worth considering.

Thanks @Dave_Hicks Nice colors! And personally , I’m a sucker for divers/people in frame. So effective zoom range 12-15? What kind of FoV do you appreciate to get there with the TC, approximately? And what’s your verdict on fuzz and sharpness all across compared to using the wwl? Difficult to say perhaps and not that important in such a locale, but would you consider this a more or a less straight option to the 24-50+wwl?