Adventurer

Most Acrylics have the same refractive index as water and are practically invisible. However they scratch more easily than glas. Small scratches become invisible as soon as water enters. Bigger scratches can be polished but the optical surface will degrade. Optical Glas is much more sturdy and will last longer. However anti reflective coating and other optimizations need to be applied for making it good glas! If you manage to scratch the glas by hitting a rock the glas is cactus. But it is very unlikely that you will ever have scratches on the hardened surface. Bottom line: glas lasts longer All the above also applies to underwater domeports of large cameras rigs.

The above RAW files shows what the sensor captures. The corners are pitch black with no photons hitting them. If you have an R5 or R6 II or other full frame camera you paid a lot of money for the FULL FRAME SENSOR; and you also collect more real light when utilizing the full frame of the sensor. Lens corrections makes you throw away a substantial amount of your expensive sensor. That’s just bad! In the case of the 24-50mm STM it is really really bad and I think it’s the lens in the RF system that throws away light, the by the largest amount. It‘s almost a circular fisheye 😆 You can solve this by zooming in and get sharper corner JPEGs and RAWs.

It doesn’t matter Chris, in both exercises the corners massively loose image quality and resolution (sharpness). The lens is 24mm FOV but i lacks corner sharpness as the straightening lens correction digital process degrades IQ massively. You will simply never get high quality sharp corners with that lens and a Nauticam WWL-C as the corners are never recorded on the sensor @ 24mm. Period. The interesting exercise is looking at RAW files that have been shot @28mm or 30mm to learn if combining the RF24-50 STM with WWL-1B or an Marelux Aquista 110 or Aquista 130 is going to be the better solution.

This is from another thread that evolved into the direction of some direct FullFrame Canon 24-50 STM image samples including the very interesting RAW files @ 24mm focal length paired with the Nauticam WWL-C lens. I'd like not to give up on this lens, though - just think you have to use other conversion optics tailored to start working @28mm or more. It's funny that you will not only have to close your aperture to improve corner sharpness but also have to zoom in 🫠😄 .. that's new!

Thankfully Landvogt1893 send me the RAW files and we can have a look at the two uncorrected RAW files to learn how much of the image is actually black and artificially generated. I have activated Lightrooms overlay to give you a better idea of the dimensions. If you want to shoot 4x5 you still have some black corners, but much less, which you could also fill with Photoshop's content aware fill: There seems also be some lens flaring in the 2nd image provided. Here is one of the corners, Waso was so curious about: I have also made this illustration of the corner to show you where the lens correction moves the corner to fill the frame: So, what do we learn from this? In my view it’s quite surprising to spend more than $1,000 / €1,000 on the Nauticam WWL-C for dismal results like these - especially when strong in-camera corrections and additional processing make the output look somewhat “artificial”. Especially if you could also have gone for the much cheaper INON UWL-95S (roughly half the price) and achieved similar ( or maybe even better ) results, with a more compact setup - assuming you’re pairing it with the Canon RF 24–50mm STM. 🫣 At the same time, in some parts of the world the WWL-1B and the WWL-C cost the same - or the WWL-1B is even available for less. Considering that the WWL-1B (optimized for 28mm) also has a reputation for higher image quality than the WWL-C (optimized for 24mm), I don’t really understand why Nauticam doesn’t recommend zooming slightly to 28mm and choosing the WWL-1B instead of the WWL-C.

Hi @KPV and @Hadley England, if you want help, you need to let us know the mm distance measurement of your Canon R8 lens bayonet flange to Seafrogs housing port bayonet flange. In other words, how many millimeters sits the camera inside the housing?

Actually the S220 can be perfectly paired with the MARELUX SOFT snoot, where the Marelux products brings the light to the table. I am actually thinking if I should beef-up my Backscatters HF-1 with their snoot, recently introduced and get a bazooka sized snoot system. Or should I better plug my tiny INON S-220 behind a MARELUX SOFT Lite, making it a compact snoot with huge iris knob, more easy to operate with thick gloves? 🤔

Yes, I think you are the man who can provide RAW images required by waso. But no, about the sharp corner part that was requested requested by waso, not you. So do you have an underwater RAW file at @24mm hand, you might want to share? It might also be interesting to find out how hard the black corners still come through with the camera submerged + WWL-C attached and at what zoom level ( @28mm @30mm ? ) there will be real corner projection onto the sensor by this lens combination. As I did buy the lens and also have a zoom gear for my housing, I am still pondering with the Idea of adding a wetlens in front to figure out if it is really worth it. I would be very thankful if you @Landvogt1893 could contribute it to this thread with image examples:

Wow, that's actually great news! .. for me as a user / potential buyer to finally see some quick competition catching up. We need more companies to break the Nauticam uw lens monopoly. If it's coming at a reasonable price, I'll probably order one from Hydronalin.

It's very ironic that you start to discuss about corner sharpness performance of a lens that does not project corners at all to the sensor 🤣 😂 ... But I am 100% with WASO and would love to see some RAW files with that lens + WWL-C.

After some research I found Nauticam was the only company to make an Nikonos V Adapter so far. There seem to be 3 iterations of it: N-85 / APS-C: # 3601 the first Nikonos 15mm Adapter, was made for SONY NEX-5 N-100 / FULL FRAME: Version One # 37201 N-100 / FULL FRAME: Version Two # 37202 ( which is described in this PDF manual ) Version One is reffered to, to be working with Sony A7 on some Nauticam dealer websites, whereas version two is supposed to be working with A7II onwards. The official Nauticam page says A7II / A9 / A7RIII / A7RIV / a2020 / A7C as of January 2026. It would support the different flange distances measures by some Nauticam Sony owners and explain why there are two versions and why some owners hat to modify their camera tray to get the lens working sharply. Does anybody know more detailed differences between the Version One and Two for FullFrame N100 ? I have attached images of all three variations below.

Thanks so much for the detailed breakdown, Alex — that’s exactly the kind of reality check people rarely hear, and it’s incredibly helpful. This line especially jumped out at me: I suspect that “15% zone” is the part most photographers are most curious about — not because we want loopholes, but because it’s where the work becomes visibly transformative while still being completely legitimate. And it’s also where a lot of the confusion (and insecurity) tends to live. Also, there are images where “noticeable processing” isn’t just optional polish, but part of what makes the photograph possible at all — provided it’s within the rules and properly declared. Things like HDR, stitches, and panoramas come to mind. A great example is the kind of wreck panorama work Tobi has produced in past years. That sort of result simply doesn’t happen without deliberate, skilled post work (and usually a pile of source frames). Which leads me to a cheeky follow-up wish: if Tobi is literally with you right now as an interview guest for the show, could you grab him before he flies back to Germany and persuade him to do a “behind the curtain” walkthrough of one of those stitched wreck panoramas? Seeing the RAWs/source frames and how the final panorama is assembled (and then what the contest-specific “acceptable limits” look like around that) would be absolutely gold. For example, something along these lines is exactly the kind of image that would make people go “wait… how is this allowed?” and then learn something genuinely useful: And good luck (and strong coffee) for the UPY 2026 RAW-check marathon — hoping for zero surprises and maximum honesty from everyone entering. Warmly, a grateful viewer

Dear Alex and Matthew, I just watched this episode and wanted to send a proper thank you (and also file a formal complaint, because you’ve made me feel oddly relaxed about competition submissions): The Underwater Photography Show - How We Process Our Underwater Photos: Seriously—thank you. You tackled the RAW-check topic in a way that didn’t feel like a courtroom drama, but also didn’t hide behind “trust us, it’s fine.” For the first time in a long time, a chunk of my contest anxiety quietly left the building. 🫠 For context: I’ve definitely done the two classic, equally ridiculous things that happen when confidence is low and the “invisible line” is unclear. On one end, I’ve submitted images almost untouched because I thought, “well, at least nobody can accuse me of anything.” Genius move - like entering a cooking contest with raw potatoes. On the other end, I’ve also gone full mad scientist in post because the line in my head kept moving, and I didn’t know what a jury would still consider reasonable. Your episode didn’t just explain the why; it cleared the fog. Now, since you’ve already built a perfectly good stage and proven you can talk about sensitive stuff without setting the internet on fire, I have a wish episode request-selfish, yes, but I suspect a lot of underwater photographers would binge it immediately. Could you do a special where a few brave souls (say, 3-6 volunteer UPY winners or past finalists) show their unprocessed RAW, then the final, and walk through what they actually did? Not in a “hand over the sacred secrets” way - more in a “here’s what a real, jury-safe workflow looks like when it’s done by someone who knows what they’re doing” way. Something that turns the abstract “how much editing is acceptable?” into concrete, visible examples. And if you ever feel like going full premium content: a second episode concept I’d call “Winners & Sinners” (said with love). Imagine one to three extremely confident underwater photographers volunteering for a constructive post-mortem with Alex in juror mode: why something failed the RAW check, or why the RAW check might have pushed it off the top spot. Done with full consent, with a genuinely educational tone, and with the kind of humour and care you two already bring - so it’s never a public shaming exercise, just a rare look behind the curtain. Alex, timing-wise, this might be a perfect one to record fairly soon while your judging impressions are still fresh. But to avoid any weirdness, speculation, or accidental comment-section chaos, you could feature images from earlier UPY years rather than the most recent winners - so nobody turns it into “this is about this year’s results,” and it stays purely about learning. I know it’s sensitive territory. But that’s exactly why it would be so valuable. The uncertainty is what makes people do silly things - like submitting totally unprocessed files out of fear, or editing until the pixels start writing resignation letters. A calm, example-based, behind-the-scenes look - done in your style - be wildly helpful and genuinely inspiring. Anyway: thank you again for the episode. You didn’t just explain RAW checks - you cured a little bit of the underwater photography community’s collective overthinking. Which, if you ask me, deserves at least a small trophy and a dramatic stingray fanfare. Warmly, a grateful viewer

Thank you, but can you confirm that you are using a Nikonos III Version 15mm lens in the same adapter as the Nikonos V 15mm ? I am in doubt that this is possible. I had to put the project aside in frustration, for the following reasons: The Nikon Z Mount has a Flange Distance of 16mm, the Canon RF Mount has a Flange Distance of 20mm, and the Sony E Mount has a Flange Distance of 18mm. Sony E Mount = 18 mm Nikon Z Mount = 16 mm ( -2mm ) Canon RF Mount = 20 mm ( +2 mm ) A Nauticam Full Frame Nikonos Adapter exists for Sony N100 Nauticam Sony (N100) Flange Distance = 28 mm * Marelux Canon Flange Distance = 51 mm ( + 23 mm ) * Nauticam Sony N100 flange distance has strangely been reported with 3 different measurements (by owners) in this forum: 28 mm, 27mm and 26mm . Hence, for getting a Sony N100 Nikonos adapter to work inside a Marelux Canon housing it would need to move 25mm, or even 28mm inwards, depending what customer measurement you trust. This seems nearly impossible with the knobs on the side, as the Nikonos II 15mm lens has a diameter to aperture + focus knob of 132 mm. Furthermore my flange distance Google research / Wikipedia Germany claims that: Wiki Nikonos Flange = 28.00 mm vs. Google AI pulls of = 46.50 mm ..but I measured the following flange on my Nikonos III camera * * I put the camera in B (bulb mode) and pressed the shutter to really reach down to film plane behind the shutter with a calliper lower silver contact: 32 mm upper silver lip: 39 mm ( + 7 mm ) not matching any of the two web-researched infos above. Can anybody confirm that the Nikonos II cameras flange distance is different from Nikonos V series ?

No, you should definitely not accept that and keep in mind what Alex said: I think several of us here, especially Alex and Matthew have experienced more than 2K or high definition in their digital underwater photos, even when taking pictures behind a dome port. It highly depends on your prudeness with port positioning and and dome size selection. .. maybe you can pass him a visit at look at the humongous amount of Nikonos glass he is hoarding 🤪 ( https://achtel.com/nikonos-lenses/ ) which makes me pack my bags and want to move to Australia, instantly! *Alex and Matthew own the "holy grail" (adapted Nikonos RS13 Fisheye) and a (hopefully well positioned) 8-15 fisheyes behind domes and may comment / judge their personal perceived resolution advantage. Alex on top may also compare it to his Ivanoff Zeiss 20mm experience and the Nikonos V 15mm lens on a full frame.