RomiK

Do you have pictures with 30mm or 40mm extension so you can back up what you say? I said no speculations and theories to muddy up this thread please. It is a sample thread intended to help people make decisions without external confusions. Thank you.

... there was not much backlit on other two shots... and I think I know how to perform CWB 🙈 ... this thread is more about raw interpreters than anything else. If you would be interested in the other two raws I could provide them too... what was interesting to me was that LR was showing same WB yet interpreting raw files differently maybe the real question is where is getting LR WB info from and how is it interpreting... perhaps software developers might chip in...

It may be a name convention misuse from my side but I am trying to interpret what I see: - looking at unprocessed log footage on both camera and external monitor gives basically white screen (with zebras if you choose) - looking at log-to-709 conversion on the same monitors under same circumstances gives white areas (with zebras if you choose) - so you record the information but you don't see it - looking at log-to-HLG(or PQ) conversion on the HDR monitor gives the most information on what are you recording and what you can recover in post no matter which delivery format you choose So I am trying to give practical advice instead of discussing the conventions and I think what you see underwater matters the most. I think we can also agree on calling Shinobi an HDR monitor as it offers (at least some) interpretation of what you are recording into an HDR color space. And that's what matters me thinks. Not absolute nits. So Supe with all magnificent 3000nits of claimed brightness will give just that - a brightness but not possibility to see what are you recording. I hope I explained what I had in mind by HDR 🤷‍♂️. And I stand by that delivering in HDR is becoming a mainstream 🙂 Shinobi+Nauticam is $250+$2000=$2250 - I think since diving and photographing already requires so much $$$ and taking monitor underwater so much extra effort that extra $1000 is totally worth it but that's me Point taken...

I am inviting anyone to explore attached raw file shot with custom white balance in ambient light in about 30m depth. Any and all theories as to why colors are as such and the real ISO value are welcomed. Not even Sony's own editor was able to show blue water. My guess is the issue is with raw interpreters, the videos shot under the same white balance were showing fine. Lightroom this sample file shows as shot at 50000/150, the other files from other screenshot were both showing 33000/150 and one showed water blue and the other purple... have fun 🙂 20240318-085516.ARW

I started this topic to make it easier for users to search for answers. Please don't judge the images 🙈 they are here do showcase the lens optical performance in Nauticam's recommended setup. I used this lens on what supposed to be a check dive turned into a spectacular manta show in Addu atoll and the next boring dive next to a cleaning station. Except for one the images are uncropped - the entire frame. I would be anxious to see samples from this lens would provide on WACP-2 wide open to observe what - if any - benefits would water corrected optics bring. The real pictures would be awesome, not speculations and theories. Good luck anyone selecting their lenses 🤙

Thank you Jim 🤙 I am a (name) godfather to 5 mantas now! 😁. I am using 180mm glass and the camera is neutral with it and also with Shinobi monitor on it (no lights nothing just these two) 🤙

Guys, the drag with Nauticam will be actually less than Supe and other Chinese bricks. Their footprint is about the same and let's talk aerodynamics hydrodynamics there... plus that extra weight compensation must go somewhere and I tell you right away it takes more volume to compensate after the fact than if the object is already neutral ... and don't let me start on center of gravity 🙂 - even on neutral rigs try to make stable footage for example upwards 🙈 As for LUTs or at least some kind of log profile interpretation - in my experience they are necessary because otherwise you see like a white screen underwater with all that exposure compensation shooting log requires. Off course - I am talking Sony here and Canon for example treats HDMI monitors different - at least my R6 does - but then interpreting log to 709 doesn't give the best monitoring image either in case one wants to produce HDR video - which nowadays with iPhones and others is becoming mainstream. @Interceptor121 I don't know about yourself but I did use this kind of brick on about 40 dives. Granted it was WED7 but the physics apply universally - battery weight, material weight, dimensions, air volume available... so it may be proper to abstain from 'avoid commenting' especially from you as I am not the one theorizing on this forum - (e.g. 14mm lens and 20/25/30 port extensions...)

True for split shots one must choose the framing carefully though. I wasn’t quite happy with extremely stretched corners on a lot of shots so I think WWL WACP provide better wide angle experience. I was hoping to use this lens open for art of light only to realize that it is not meant to be. That’s why I would like to see results on WACP2 open.

There are pretty nice shots Jim, one can see you have steady hand 👍. I have used on that trip 16-35F4PZ which was kinda sweet that I mapped zoom to buttons on the back of the housing (A1) and when I wanted to follow the subject and even continue to S35 mode for extra reach it was super easy.

The main benefit of this 14mm 1.8 topside is that it is tack corner sharp wide open. Talk astrophotography. So it’s pointless to consider its use underwater in the dome no matter the extension when you have to stop it down to like F13 to get something that reminds you of readable corners. Plus this wide rectilinear is useless for composition except of wrecks interiors and even that carefully. You get much better results with Nauticam wwl or wacp and mediocre lens. I would like to see though how this lens performs in WACP2 if open. That could be interesting.

Awesome choice. Make sure you either get Nauticam extension for bayonet adapter release or you make your own (I did zip tie) - your wife will want to clean bubbles after each drop from zodiac - the buoyancy collar of wwl1B gets in the way.

I would skip adapted versions if I could (owner of gh5s here...) , you want good fast AF and also for video... I always ask myself a question - how much the trip(s) cost? Would extra couple hundreds make a difference... 12-35 is not wide enough. If I'd be already adapted Canon 8-15 I'd keep it. For new buys the 14-42 WWL1 is option #1 and Leica 8-18 in a 180mm glass would be particularly sweet. The art of light Leica provides is hard to match 🤙

Thank you! It’s fun! The luck brings great opportunities for the big stuff photos and then there are dolphins 🙈😂

Socorro is all about go big or go home. It's sharks, mantas, dolphins, shoals of fish. WWL1 - perfect! 8-15 canon on m43 - what's not to like? I wouldn't bother with other options. You need 16-35 equivalent and keep it simple. I had 16-35F4G on 180mm glass dome. Mantas and dolphins are very friendly and don't care about anything. Hammerheads - if you want to get closer to them switch off the video lights. They did not seem to be bothered with strobes. Here is quick teaser 🙂 (just quick stick in afternoon on the way back 🙈). Enjoy your trip 🤙

Last sample. Would anyone take guess which is which?🤷‍♂️ There are small whitish bubbles which I assume are on the outside, one visible big 'bubble' but the shape of aperture diaphragm and off course the flare. Is the big one really a bubble or is it a lens thing? Sony 28-60 WWL-1B

Another example of flare (HDR screenshot again), lower left corner develops even more with orange better defined... although truth is Hollywood is using flares even in post to dream up the shots 🙂 ... I would agree that there would be minimum of unwanted ugly flares from unintentionally positioned lights... the bubbles though piss me of at times... it takes one diver below... 🙈

little more effort and producing screenshots eh? WWL-1B 28-60 3 bubbles and one flare... bubbles in the middle of dive no idea where they came from... HDR screenshot so dismiss colors exposure etc... This hassle alone with bubbles coming from literally nowhere makes me think of WACP. It would be great to hear and see from WACP owners the flare thing...

It does ghost without bubbles and very easily, especially with light source - whether it be strobe or a sun in shallow depths - reflecting the surface of the lens which is quite easy given its shape ...

It would help if you could back up your claims with your samples... otherwise it's like he said she said and empty theories. I would be particularly interested in WACP flare samples and particularly in that 'flares much more' part. Thanks

Hmm... this thread made me think and review... also because still weighing pros and cons of switching from WWL-1B to WACP-C... these are movie screen grabs (jpegs from HDR screen so...) from some dreamy shots I was trying to make and it seems the flare is a thing with WWL-1 (it typically appeared in the opposite corner away from the light source and was moving within the frame). It is on stills too. My WWL1 was sitting in a closet for a year as I was using 180mm glass on my trips so when reviewing it caught me by surprise. I am wondering what experience do WACP owners have?

Strobes... could be either one really... this from wwl-1B... I think I was shooting this jelly between the strobes, they were little up front... but then with some luck the resulting crop may give that... 🙂

😱 uh oh the rule of thumbs is not to mess up with implants once implanted! It's not like you can change them at will. Your friend must have been real unfortunate as such strong aversion is very rare - see below. I would say this - there are several manufacturers of trifocals, some better some worse. Zeiss is one of the best but more below - there several applications for different specifics. One is night drivers. I you are a night driver they should recommend certain kind which is not as good in daylight but is more suitable for night drivers. For Zeiss AT Lisa types - yes, there are circular artifacts coming from spot lights in certain conditions (not oncoming traffic but imagine guiding lights in tunnels, lights lighting the street if you look directly at them... - the light must be real tiny intensive spot). But that's nothing for people driving through the night on average. And also the tolerance to these build over time. Professional truck drivers with night shifts - might be an issue. Might get too tired before get used to it and develop a block and aversion. Regular folks riding sometimes - nothing that difficult. - Another example - trifocals are light hungry - so if you work in a warehouse with less then average contrast light conditions you may get tired. When I go shopping into these big warehouses like Costco, Makro etc I always am hungry for light. Night vision is fine as there is - surprisingly - enough contrast. Fog is fine as - surprisingly - the daylight has a lot of intensity. But warehouses are less than ideal. But again - still nothing that would cut into benefits trifocals bring to life. - obviously like with everything all things are person specific. But given the amount of implants your friend must have been one of the very very unfortunate - either he got wrong type of IOLs given his profession or his mind could not overcome this which could happen but it is like one in tens of thousands. So my advice is not be scared of by negative experiences, these are really really rare but like in marketing - one satisfied customer will bring 10 and one dissatisfied will repel 1000 I reiterate for everyone interested - do it (at least the consultation) but also do your research as far as your profession and lifestyle.

I'd have to point you to some reading through google search... the design of lenses is circular ... so wherever you look and point your sight to you see sharp - within the lens parameters... With single or dual focus lenses you still needed glasses mostly for near reading as the lenses were set to see far. With trifocals no more, no glasses needed... I could really write pages but google better for that... the main takeaway is it works, the surgery is safe, performed annually on millions and the side effects are none. Yes there are some artifacts but in a manner which will not affect your life or quality of vision. The net is still huge benefit.

Thank you @TimG . To ease up worries for anyone and send you guys to your ophthalmologist for consultation 🙂 I would like to add that IOL replacement - or a cataract surgery as it is known - is a standard procedure and technology which has been there since 1950ies and more about it for example here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cataract_surgery Roughly half of population will undergo this surgery anyway because of a deterioration of lens due to age. I did it rather early at the age of 46 for convenience - couldn't stand wearing glasses during sport activities - and the team sold me on that idea just by stating that likely I'd have to go through that procedure anyway and this way I might enjoy clear vision much longer before death 🤣 From a diver's perspective there are no limits on this activity, you can dive the same 100m depths as before without worries 🤣. Photographers will still able to use their expensive viewfinders no change but the ones using the monitors will have to adjust to the fact that they will no longer focus by eyes - they will focus with their hands. Minimal focus distance is still pretty close, much much closer than before. I see clearly pixels on my retina monitor from the distance of 30cm. But because I no longer focus by eyes but by a distance to a subject (hence focusing by hands) the next crisp focus distance is - say - 50cm and so on. Between those the vision is like you compare sharpness of cheap zoom with a sharp prime. Ask you doctor about the Zeiss AT Lisa as that is the name of trifocal lenses I have, trifocals are on the market since 2012 roughly. Either way you won't need to spend big on prescription masks so you might actually save money 😁. Good luck 🤞.

For all aging folks with presbyopia I wanted to share my experience with IOLs which I have at the age of 56 for almost 10 years now. I know it's a controversial issue for some. Nevertheless I would recommend this solution to anyone whom their doctor would approve this. It has its own challenges and things to adjust to but by far - and not only for divers - it is the best thing they could do to solve the problem. Happy diving.