ChipBPhoto

Hi, @Peter Vanek You are asking the same questions I have asked myself. Attached is a very detailed review and comparison of the FCP-1 by Nauticam Ambassador Nicolas Remy. I found it to be consistent with usage reports from my friends who own it as well as others optics. I agree with the summary: Incredible wide angle versatility with a tradeoff of DoF and sharpness at more open apertures. The Underwater ClubNauticam Fisheye Conversion Port (FCP): field review - Th...Transform your standard kit lens in a fisheye zoom-through fisheye lens with full frame image quality.

Hey Wolfgang, Thanks for sharing! First, as all have seen I enjoy and primarily use the Nauticam optics such as the WACP and WWL. With that said, I also use a Canon 8-15 with the Sony 2x TC for something a bit wider when needed. While I personally find the Sony 28-60 behind the optics to be a faster and more consistent focus lock due to the 8-15 having to negotiate both the adapter and TC, I have been equally pleased with the image quality of both. This is especially true now with the modern software that allows a little tightening of the images in post as needed. The macro images have a sharper feel and are also excellent. I agree that this exercise shows there is a great deal of overlap which provides terrific flexibility in a single dive with today's options. It ultimately comes back to using the right tool for the right job as the best strategy whenever possible. We just do not have to be quite as singularly range limited as we have been in the past. Again, thanks for illustrating the options! chip

Correct, in Sony world the mid-macro range is overlooked in modern FF terms. Perhaps Sony research may show this to be a small market opportunity in the overall lens needs and sales. Maybe Laowa or similar may provide a fresh solution in the future, again depending on if it is viewed to be a profitable venture. With that said, I agree that either the MFO-3 or MV60 could be a win with the upside of having the equivalent of 2 high-quality lens options in the same dive. Besides, it's only money, right? At least that's what I have to tell myself. 😳 😆

Hi @CCRphoto, A mid macro has been a challenge in the Sony world. For me, this specific need is for blackwater dives where a quick focus is a must. My personal solution has been a Canon EF-S 60 macro with a Metabones adapter. Yes, this is a APS-C lens, but in blackwater the vignette is a moot point. As for performance, I find it surprisingly quick to focus and quite sharp at 1:1. It works well with Sony AF-C. It is unfortunately a discontinued lens, but I find them fairly frequently on the pre-owned market at a very reasonable price. A modern and more versatile option is using either a Nauticam MFO-3 or Marelux MV60. Both work with the 90 or 100 macro lens and convert the view to a wider 60mm macro equivalent. It is more of an investment, but offers greater variety in macro performance.

Congratulations on a successful inaugural dive! Happy to hear it was both productive and enjoyable. The images you shared and the fact your partner didn’t to need to talk you off a ledge are wins! Both are what it’s all about. 😎

I have to agree with the opinions and experience above. While the WWLs are terrific wet mount options, the WAPC-C is the way to go for a dry mount solution. I started with a WWL and heard the real world encounters with small bubbles between the lens and port from people I personally know and trust. Modern auto focus can easily lock on to those and miss the focus of your intended subject. The WACP-C is ready for action as soon as you hit the water!

Hi @Architeuthis I have the same issue. For me it seems to be when I use DeNoise in LR and then try to send the image to PS at some point later in the workflow. If I have an image with DeNoise activated that will not load in PS, but then I toggle off deNoise it will process as normal in PS. So the choice become DeNoise in LR or have the ability to use PS which for me includes Backscatter Xterminator. I am not saying this is the only issue or the full solution, but just reporting what I have experienced. Enjoy! Chip

@TropicLeslie I agree that it seems like dust spots. They can be quite common on mirrorless sensors. To start, thoroughly clean both your lenses. This is key! (I use Zeiss disposable lens wipes.) Then test the sensor by photoing a light colored wall out of the housing and review the image(s) for dark spots. Dust spots are often not visible in dark areas of the photo. Repeat this with both of your lenses. If you see the same dots using both lenses it is most likely dust on your sensor. Carefully clean the sensor with a manual bulb dust blower such a Giottos Rocket, but do not use canned air, a power blower, or similar. High powered air can damage the sensor. If the dots are not seen, place the camera back in the housing then repeat the test with both lenses to check the port. The goal is to find the origination of the spots by a systematic process of elimination and then resolve the issue. Good luck! chip

Hi @sean.mcdive I recently helped a buddy setup an m43 rig. His primary lens is the 12-50. For wide to medium he added the WWL-C and has fantastic results. As a long time Nauticam wet optics user I saw no significant difference between my WWL-1B quality and that of his -C. The noticeably smaller -C option takes advantage of the entire zoom range while being more proportionally sized for the m43 footprint. This also gave an incredible range of photographic options during his dive. The minimal fisheye effect is far less than the 8mm and covers a rang that is not found in other lens choices. Coupled with the unique Nauticam zoom gear, he also has a decent macro at ~42mm with this single lens. Yes, the dedicated 60 macro will be sharper, but this creates a bit of an all purpose option. Enjoy! chip

Hey @Dave_Hicks - good question. The WACP-1 is basically the best all around of the Nauticam water contact optics. (You need a crane and a trust fund for the WACP-2) It is a bit sharper than the WWL series or WACP-C and you can open the aperture even wider without sacrificing sharpness. That’s a huge win to gain additional ambient light. (I.e. think f/8-9 instead of needing f/13) There is also a tremendous increase in the size and dry weight. Dry, the WACP-1 is 10 lbs compared to the WACP-C at 5 lbs. The WWLs are even smaller as you know. For me personally, the relatively small sharpness difference between the 1 and C or even the WWLs is not worth the increased mass out of the water. Hence the reason my primary is the C, or WWL for travel. Don’t get me wrong, the WACP-1 is truly a top performer. I have friends that are working pro videographers that swear by it for good reason. For my personal needs I would rather have smaller, lighter rig size.

Hi @DocTock - very fair questions and ones we all face. As background, I own and constantly use: WWL, WACP-C, WACP-1, and domes. It comes down to the right tool for the right need and personal taste. For overall general dives my go-to is the WACP-C/WWL. Reasons: 130 degree FoV on the wide end, zoom ability, edge-to-edge sharpness, solid corner sharpness specifically, ability to use more open apertures while maintaining sharpness, incredible close-focus capabilities such as focusing on a starfish with the dome almost touching the arm. The WWL is a wet mount lens with the WACP-C being very similar but a dry mount. I typically dive the WACP-C when home simply because I do not need to travel and it is easy to handle on boat dives. The WWL offers basically the same quality in a smaller, easier to pack solution. The WWL is also less of an initial investment in water contact optics. While the WWL/WACP does produce a slight fisheye effect, I personally prefer that to stretched corners especially in a wide reefscape. Yes, I may on rare occasion de-fish the image slightly in post if the desired outcome warrants this. A rectilinear lens could be more appropriate if doing mainly wreck interiors or subjects that are predominantly defined straight lines. I use my domes mainly for splits or when I want to use a true fisheye lens (8-15) for ultra wide images. As an example, for my specific dive today I am using my 8-15 with a 2x TC behind a dome for the Goliath aggregation. I find this a bit wider than the WACP-C while allowing me some zoom if needed. Again, I stress this is all personal experience and personal taste. There is no definitive best solution for all. Others will swear by rectilinear lenses and domes. There are tradeoffs with every solution and I am not championing one over another. We can all dive what we want. I am sharing my experience and what I have seen based on using a variety of options. Enjoy! chip

Interesting…potentially macro, super macro, mid, and mid-wide with a 90/100 and a triple flip.

Hi @Dave_Hicks My thought is to have a cover that simply covers the outer shade, not including the float collar. Attached are some images. To the best I can determine, the shade dimensions are: 5.75" as the outer diameter of the lens shade at the top I am not able to determine if the base of the shade is the same as the top 1.75" as the height of the tallest point of the lens shade Bungee cords cross wrapped around the float collar would hold it in place. The current design of clipping inside of the shade is attractive, but also can easily come off if bumped just right while in the water. Having a cover that would cover the entire float collar would be too big for my taste to carry during a dive. A cover around the shade only seems to offer some protection while not becoming cumbersome during the dive. What are your thoughts?

I have not lost mine yet, but would like the same for a WACP-C. I do not have technical calipers, but the dimensions seem to be about: 5.75" as the outer diameter of the lens shade 1.75" as the height of the lens shade @Dave_Hicks as one of the resident 3D pros, is that all that is needed for the design? Thanks!

Thanks @Davide DB for sharing! I agree that it matches much of the hard work that @Dave_Hicks assembled and shared. As a person who prefers seeing over reading specs, I appreciate the stationary examples within a controlled underwater setting. This allows a side by side comparison. With the A-B slider, it literally is a side by side comparison. The fixed target is a good way to compare overall light spread and consistency. I find that the results match my personal experience with the various strobes and diffusers I have used in the wild. Beyond the power and pattern, durability, dependability, serviceability, buoyancy, and of course price also factor in the buying equation. Color temp consistency is also an interesting consideration. Hopefully this type of comparison can become more of an industry standard, or at least something that is repeated roughly every year as a reference tool.