Interceptor121

Sold

Hi Tom all lenses have focus breathing what bothers you specifically with the 8-15?

Mint never taken underwater only used in studio boxed with all parts £250 including postage

Precise measurements are not easy however it is around 120 degrees diagonal at 21mm Do not buy the teleplus pro 300 dgx that is now obsolete there is a new version

GoPro has sued this company for infringing a significant number of patents https://technode.com/2024/04/03/gopro-files-complaint-against-insta360-for-alleged-patent-infringement-report/

You cannot change topic sorry You went on to say that Nauticam is doing a scam which is out of order and that Marelux products are better They are not. We don't need to continue a trail of negativity and not open to include other brands And then of course nobody has got a glass foundry including car makers, the glass are made by specialist suppliers where is the surprise?

As I said Marelux products appear to be copies and likely the glass is made in the same factory So they do not bring anything new to the table and in addition have less products The wet lenses are stuff that is done mass market in china and sold under other brands. I believe Marelux may have invested in developing strobes but their optics are not something they are actually designing themselves

Marelux domes seem copies of nauticam ones i think you need to do some studies on geometry of such ports to understand what goes on before you are disappointed or maybe you are not disappointed as quality is subjective

Actually 15mm doesn’t fit well in the 180 dome now that I think about it

Because of the way it is designed the others one with flat back are inadequate unless are really round and majority are not nauticam by the way is by far the best in providing options

The nauticam wide angle port 180mm is one of the best ports for any lens up to 16mm. If you buy that port it is not wasted and if you have it you should try it I would not buy any other port from any other manufacturers on the market simply based on size because most of them won't work due to the way they are built with a flat back with the exception of the Zen DP230 Nauticam 230

Will surely take it to the pool in a few weeks

The second calculation is correct I would ignore the manual focus for any practical purposes you are not shooting off a tripod The fact that for some reason the lens can focus manually at 15mm closer does not really matter you can see from the spec that this value does not hold at any other focal length and the magnifications jumps so in general the principle does not hold and as soon as you zoom the lens it can't focus which is not really useful This lens is an exception the way it works but for me it is not different of any lenses that focuses at 28cm I would not loose my sleep on it unless you like the lens for other reasons and move on to something different To be clear you can use any domes size you like until the MOD is within 4x the radius but experience shows that as the dead zone progresses and the lens focus further optical quality drops and the lens starts focusing further and further away So for example if you shoot a split the water line would always come out funny

After positive discussion I have ordered this monitor and should have it next week Not sure I will be testing it in Grenada as this is a a photo orientated trip and I prefer not to test equipment on trips

Mint boxed only used in pool sessions. Selling as I have bought and housed the Sony 16-35GMII as I use this lens most top side. Asking price £175 or near offer shipping UK and Europe included Will add photos in a while but items are kept maniacally clear and boxed at all times so it comes exactly as it was shipped from China

You need to use exiftool or other advanced viewer that can decode the more obscure tags

Correct. The water contact optic pushes the image further away not only the focus point the entire image becomes smaller as you were shooting from far. The dome instead focuses at virtual distance that is very close however the field of view is unchanged and remains within the variation of the lens focus breathing. The systems are very different indeed

1/0.36x=2.77 meters however this is not true at all shooting distances as proven by the example at close range Empirical means backing up a theory with actual data which is what this article does. As I wrote correctly When you combine the wet lens with your camera lens the demagnification effect may be affected by the distance between the two lenses, the length of the optical path inside the camera lens and body, and inside the wet lens. When you read a wet lens specification on inon webpage you are finding something like this Maximum incident view angle (underwater) (*9) (9) When using XXX system . actual view angle may vary depending on camera / housing. Now one would like to know if the stated field of view on Nauticam site are accurate. Let's have a look at one example Sony 28mm vs Sony 28-60mm both are reported to have 130 degrees field of view however based on my EMPIRICAL observation I can tell that is not the case and the 28mm is slightly narrower and therefore those specifications have to be validated combination by combination. If you want to do your own test you can proceed by installing a tripod in a pool at specified distances from a shooting target and then reading what the camera thought it was focussing at. You will find that the relationship is not always linear and therefore the magnification is not either and also that depending on which part of the frame you focus the system reports different distances due to the fact the add on lens is not corrected for distortion. I am satisfied the model I have has the degree of accuracy to make decisions and therefore personally I am not going to do that. Ultimately the exact precision does not even matter is the principle that matters as it allows to compare with other optical system specifically with dome ports

Firstly the article is conceptual there are of course data points however the exact way certain things work in real life I think are not even fully known by the people that design the products. I think anybody with engineering or physics background can work out things you don't need to be doing this as a job. In this specific the details are in the exif of certain cameras although not necessarily 100% exact brand by brand help understanding the concept. I have also limited the knowledge article to equipment I have. I do believe that is broadly extendible however anyone should draw their own conclusions when making decisions. For example in certain system in effect there are no good lenses that focus close and indeed certain choices are preferrable to others. When you look closer into problems you can see that there is a lot of generalisation that goes on and in addition things move with time as camera and lenses develop. You should continuosly review performance as working on old assumptions is not effective

At present only sigma and tamron have licenses for canon rf apsc and no full frame

I have clarified the statement at the end In essence compared to a fisheye with a teleconverter on a smaller dome (140mm) at equal field of view a wet lens system provides a minimal to no improvement at close range also because it looses some of its demagnification effect Compared to a shorter optic say 14mm so half the focal length in a 9" dome instead the wet lens system looses straight on depth of field but recovers overall due to the fact you need to stop the lens behind a dome to fight the aberrations Yet the dome optic may have over 1 stop advantage and more resolution depeding on the lens used In practical terms... If you want to shoot very close those systems do not offer really a benefit assuming you have a performing fisheye zoom at equal field of view If you want to shoot fish schools the indeed have a penalty on shorter rectilinear optics and as normally the background is behind the benefit of a wet solution may be for example size unless you have a massive one and reduced drag The wet lens also offers flexibility in the zoom range which is very nice to have however as you need to stop down more and more to insane numbers when you zoom at the end most of the resolution gets eaten away by diffraction on a full frame system Those optics are generally more suited to the smaller sensor they were originally designed for For what I am concerned if I need to shoot schooling fish in 3 knots current I will take my WWL-1 because it has less drag but not a 230mm dome port If I need to shoot in calm conditions the big dome may actually offer a better solution (but so far I have not been diving in such calm conditions!) If I am shooting very close I would definitely not take a wet optic nor a rectilinear lens in a big dome but a fisheye with or not teleconverter At the end all those solution are complementary and there is no silver bullet that fixes it all

Wet lenses work much better on cropped sensors and compacts because of the increased depth of field f/8 is in reality f/16 full frame. When you look at compacts the increase is even more In fact on 2x crop MFT system a wet lens works perfectly However on a full frame camera the situation is different due to the larger sensor The depth of field of the wet lens is still higher than the naked lens of a factor of (1/m)^2 however when you compare it with a dome that reaches infinity at 4x from the entrance pupil of a shorter focal lenght half in my example the effect is less especially in front of the focus point the near part On the same account though if you use the Canon 8-15mm behind a dome the IQ is indeed even better

This post shows some shot I took in Italy last year where the issue of depth of field is very apparent I was shooting f.8 to maximise sharpness of the lens but I had not considered the depth of field so many shots are blurry in front when the subject is not the nearest thing to the lens https://interceptor121.com/2023/05/23/sony-28mm-prime-vs-28-60mm-zoom-with-the-nautical-wwl-1/ The shots with the grouper are the ones where the issue is clearer those should have been taken at f/13 and smaller apertures

The water contact optic doesn’t provide any stops improvement edges or not because it runs out of depth of field as it goes all the way to infinity compared to a dome solution so you end up f/13 or even smaller at close range. Which I guess most people have found out instead if you are shooting schools with nothing in front it looks great unless you shoot a pool wall or something flat this type or solution doesn’t have necessarily any benefit over traditional ones due to the way it works At close range it also looses field of view so there are several considerations