Architeuthis

Although the 28-60mm is a kit lens (and therefore is regarded by some to be inferior) it is quite a sharp lens, much better than the older Sony 28-70mm (see e.g. https://dustinabbott.net/2020/11/sony-fe-28-60mm-f4-5-6-review/ or https://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Sony-FE-28-60mm-f-4-5.6-Lens.aspx)... Therefore I think that an alternative lens for WACP/WWL-1 is not really required (only 28mm and up are useable with these optics and 50mm is not so much). It would be great if WWL-C, that requires 24mm and up, would be working with this lens (but maybe the lens is too big)... Wolfgang

MAYBE (in the case the port of Seafrogs is longer) one could ask Saga or WWW.unterwaserkamera.at to make a Seafrogs/Nauticam adapter and just use the Nauticam ports for the required lenses (or MAYBE such an adapter already exists?)? Wolfgang

I believe most discussions on IQ of rectilinear vs. fisheye vs. WACP are about blurriness of the corners, especially at wider aperture (I guess that Alex talks about IQ in the corners in the video)... There is also IQ in the center and this type of IQ, I personally, regard much more important. Presumably UW the IQ in the center is pretty similar for all types of lenses and ports, taking into account that the optical conditions UW are rate limiting for this type of IQ (and not the optics) - but this still has to be shown by objective testing (e.g. by measuring resolution UW in aquariums like Nauticam have). Subjective rating by single testers involves probably a lot of "gut-feeling", that in turn is (unintentionally) influenced by size, weight and price of the optics used (the more, the better central IQ is possibly rated)... Wolfgang

Here I have more example photos: First some kind of "reference": a closeup of approx. the closest crop area in order to see what blurr is caused by the printer and not by the lenses. The photo was made with the Sony 90mm macro lens. Closeup: Sony 90mm G macro; f/9.0: => Any irregularity in the lines and blurriness comes now from the laserprinter. We can see that the resolution lines are usable up to the number of 11, i.e. roughly 3850 lines/image heigth in the test settings used (what is pretty good). Then I made a test photo under the test setting (=entire test chart with three resolution charts fills, more or less, the frame) with the presumably best lens that I have and made an extreme crop of the central area (this area, is indeed and extreme crop, the length of the zoomed in image is approx 570 pixels)... Sony 50mm f/1.2 GM; f/4.0: => this is supposed to be a very good resolution/microcontrast... And this is now compared to the Sony 28-60mm, that I will use soon behind the WACP-C. Just the bare lens, but I guess the resolution will not increase because of the WACP-C, but the high quality water contact optics will likely also not male it worse : Sony 28-60mm 28mm; f/4.0: Sony 28-80; f/8.0: And here the 28-60mm lens, but zoomed in: Sony 28-60mm; @60mm; f/5.6: => Interested to hear what you say about this little test and how you rate central sharpness compared to the fisheye with and without TCs... Wolfgang

What lens did you use? WWL-1 or fisheye with TC?? Wolfgang

Yes. Canon 8-15mm gives 16-30mm when used with 2x TC (15-21mm are usable when paired with 1.4x TC). There are small differences between DX (1.5x) and Canon APS-C (1.6x). Hence the Tokina gives the same angle of view as 15-25.5mm (DX) and 16-27mm (Canon APS-C ) would give on FF. Sony APS-C has crop factor of 1.5x, like DX...

This is an interesting comparison. I believe the comparison could be valid if a WA (or better fisheye lens) with similar angle of view is taken and compared WACP-C (as Massimo says UW, but also over the water will give a hint (who of us is going to take the equipment UW, just to answer such a crazy question?😁)). Then one may be able to find out to which extend the aperture number is changed by the WACP/WWL... I think aperture value is altered for sure, as AOV and focal length change and this change is in favor of WACP/WWL, but certainly not by simply multiplying with the 0.36x factor that Nauticam gives (is this even a factor for focal length or maybe the change in size of an object at a given distance or something else?)... Wolfgang

I am wondering whether there is information how WWL/WACP water contact optics affects aperture value: When using a teleconverter, because the focal length is changed by the TC and the absolute diameter of the aperture opening remains the same, the aperture number (focal length/aperture diameter) multiplies accordingly (e.g. 2x and 1.4x with appropriate TCs). Nauticam homepage says that WWL/WACP multiplies focal length by 0.36x. Does this mean it acts like a speed booster and apertures values of e.g. the Sony 28-60mm f/4-f/5.6 becomes f/2-f2.8 at the extreme ends? A photo taken with WWL/WACP at f/8 of the lens would be in fact taken at f/2.9?? Wolfgang

Here is another series, same photos at higher magnification, the results are surprising to me: w/o TC; 14mm; f/4.0: 1.4x TC; 14mm; f/5.6: 2x TC; 16mm; f/8.0: Above the three combinations, all at focal length to give approx 180° diagonal. Here a similar crop from the 2x combination at the long end: 2x TC; 30mm; f/8.0: => The surprise to me is that the 1.4x TC performs worst. First thought was, that the photo is blurry, because out of focus. I made, however, two independent photos and they look similar. Also the structure of the blank paper itself, without the printing, looks in focus and just alike the other photos. It is just the transition from black to white that gets more blurred with the 1.4x (I guess this transition is, to some extend, a measure of microcontrast?). I am quite sure that all photos are in focus, but will try to make another series in the future, just to check... What may be the reason? My guess: #1.: The photos with different TCs, but all at approx. 180° diagonal, are obtained at different focal length of the original lens. The performance of a zoom lens is very well known to depend on focal length used... #2.: The 1.4x TC was the first that I bought and it is not the highest quality available (the HD pro grade was not available at the time of purchase), while the 2x TC is the highest grade ("HDpro")... Wolfgang

Yes, with the 2x TC, 16mm are derived from adjusting 8mm at the lens itself...

And here another series, at comparable and close to real life aperture of f/8.0, but at the widest end possible for each combination: w/o TC; 14mm; f/8.0: 1.4x TC; 21mm; f/8.0: 2x TC; 30mm; f/8.0: I am eager to hear what you people think and how you would rate IQ. If wantes, I can also show other series... Maybe I will take the 2x TC once UW, just to have real life pictures, but my expectation is that it is not really worth going for it... Wolfgang P.S.: My personal rating is that the pure resolution of the combinations is good in all cases, but the photos get more and more "mushy", the more TC is used (worsening of microcontrast?)...

Here come now some cropped sections from the center. I think the corners do not make sense with fisheye lenses (it has a reason why serious test sides do not measure resolution performance of fisheye lenses), but UW and behind domes the corners of fisheye lenses are always good compared to rectilinear. Note also that the ratio of the image heigth of the glued in and printed out test chart is ROUGHLY around 3,5x, so the numbers in the test chart need to be multiplied with 350 to give resolution in lines/image heigth. Due to the print out process numbers between 1 (= approx. 350 lines/IH) and 6 (= 2100 lines/IH) make sense, sometimes one could go as far as 8 (= 2800 lines/IH). 2800 l/IH may not seem much with precious lenses and modern cameras, but many here doubth that such resolutions can be achieved UW, because of the diffraction of light in water and by the particles and/or solutes in water etc. ... Here the first series, again "wide" open, but at the shortest possible focal lengthes: w/o TC; 14mm; f/4.0: 1.4x TC; 14mm; f/5.6: 2x TC; 16mm; f/8.0: More to come...

Hi Fabian, I did not use a 2x TC UW so far, but I have both Kenko 1.4x and 2x and the Canon 8-15mm fisheye lens. To be precise these are (there are different models around): #1.: Kenko C-AF 1.4x Teleplus Pro 300 and the #2.: 2x Teleplus HDpro. I do use the 1.4x UW with the Canon 8-15mm with Sony A7R5. As Massimo writes in his reviews, IQ is o.k. with 1.4x TC. I. personally, find the usable range of 15-21mm a bit small, but better than nothing... I once bought the 2x TC and tested it on a grill party at home with the Canon 8-15mm (but this was with the MFT camara, an Olympus EM1II that I had then). The photos were so low contrast that I did not further test for UW use... Instigated by your question, I just went out with my A7R5 and made some over-the water photos with Canon 8-15mm, without TC and with 1.4x and 2x TCs. I think this should give an impression of the overall IQ and whether it makes sense to test out further UW... I tested at the extreme focal lengthes at different aperture values and changed the object distance to make the test chart, more or less, fill the frame... Here first three uncropped photos w/o and with 1.4x and 2x TCs at the extreme focal lengths and aperture "wide" open: w/o TC; 14mm; f/4.0: 1.4x TC; 21mm; f/5.6: 2x TC; 30mm; f/8.0: In subsequent post(s) I will show comparable crops of the central part of the image at different settings... Wolfgang

I hope the f/1.4 is a "silent post" error and in fact it is a 15-35mm zoom fisheye of the "art" optical grade... Really interesting, but it is unlikely it will replace my Canon 8-15mm fisheye in case it is just a prime lens... Wolfgang

I have the BenQ SW270c (QHD resolution). It fully fits my requirements and I can recommend it... I find the hardware calibration very useful and easy, also the possibility to switch between sRGB, aRGB and BW via the special "hockeypuck". I am not sure that with software calibration the results would be similarily good. The hood that is delivered along with the monitor is extremely useful and improves IQ a lot in real life (if going for another brand, I would co-order such a hood immediately)... In case I would have to buy a monitor now, I would go with the 32" and 4k option, as you already did (no real need for this, 27" and QHD are great, but just in case). No need to look at a bigger monitor from further distance, in case the size of the photo would be too large (what I doubt will be the case), one can make the window smaller and use the rest of the space for something else... Maybe a look at Eizo, but they are in another league financially (maybe also in quality)... Wolfgang

My photo rucksack was weighted already several times by different airlines. It was always o.k., but limit then was 12kg, now it is 7-8 kg with many airlines. I have now a big fishing vest for traveling - in case there are problems I can stuff items into it until the weight fits, after passing control I would put the items back (so far it was never necessary)... Wolfgang

In case someone persuades a company to produce such an UW fisheye lens, please tell them we want a zoom lens...😃 Wolfgang

MAYBE the 24-50 f2.8 will work together with WWL-C...

Thank you Dave... I am a Nauticam/Sony/A7 user. I guess that the gearwheel part of the Nikon zoomgear will fit also to Nauticam N100 housings for Sony FF? Does anyone know? If yes, it will be easy to use just the gearwheel part and put e.g. a cylinder structure on it via software (e.g. ThinkerCad) to fit the appropriate Sony FE lens... Wolfgang

Here is another table that shows the different extensions (in mm) that I have calculated, tested and proved in practice to work very well with different domes (Nauticam 140mm, Zen 170mm and Zen 100mm, all without buit-in extensions and N120 versions). NT: not tested; Green: calculated optimum extension and tested to work very well; Yellow: calculated optimum in parenthesis, but extension tested and works very well... Wolfgang

I think that the photo series by Chris shows much better the difference and similarity between rectilinear and fisheye than any comparison of angle of views, is it diagonal, horizontal or vertical can do... I was using the Canon 8-15mm fisheye with 140mm dome for several years on EM5II and EM1II and can only second that this is an excellent and versatile combination for WA, CFWA and ultra-WA on MFT. Since I started to use it, I never again used the Oly 8mm fisheye and only very seldom the Pana 7-14mm behind a bigger dome... My wife is still using the Tokina 10-17mm with Zen DP100 (N120 version without extension, with both 1x and 0.71x adapter) on EM1II. I think now that this is the ideal combination for MFT as this combination is even more compact (due to the 100mm dome; the Canon with 140 dome makes a rig the very similar size as now my FF rig is, when I use this lens...) and, depending on adapter used, covers two different, but overlapping focal length ranges (1x adapter, e.g., for shy sharks). I know that it is hard to believe that IQ with this lens, that performs miserably over the water, is UW, more or less, the same as with the Canon L series lens, but it is a fact, proven by many. Certainly the use of 0.71x speedbooster, that makes the image circle smaller, helps to improve IQ, but even with the 1x glassless adpater IQ is very good (maybe one should not use the Tokina with the 1.4x TC)... Here is a table that shows the calculated diagonal angles of view of Panasonic, rectilinear, 7-14mm and the Canon 8-15mm, Tokina 10-17mm and Zuiko 8mm fisheyes in different configurations (1x glassless adapter, 0.71x speedbooster and 1.4x TC): Value for Zuiko 8mm fisheye is from product specifications, while for Canon and Tokina fisheyes it was calculated according to equisolid fisheye. The difference between 170° and 180° is probably very small in practice... Wolfgang .

Here is the link that Chris requested: Adapter for Nauticam focus gears for the Canon 8-15mm and the Tokina 10-17mm fisheyes for use on MFT with 1x glassless adapter (the Nauticam gears are build to work with the 0.71x speedbooster). While the regular versions work as they are, the versions for use with Kenko 1.4x TC may need some shortening by abrasion: https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fo/dzjpn1s8wbfhbkyru8l4j/h?rlkey=u8ne953g3iymcyexmgczbmj9e&dl=0

If seeing it optimistic, it may be similar to the situation between Sony A7R4 and A7R5: same sensor (at the first glance this does not seem to be much of an upgrade), but substantially improved AF performance - in this case it may be well valuable for UW? Wolfgang P.S.: I must say, however, that in my hands, macro AF performance of my last MFT camera, EM1II, was closer to A7R5 than to the previous MFT generation (EM5II). Maybe the need to improve AF perfomance is not so urgent for OM as it was for Sony FF...

I have printed out the snoot for Inon Z330 (small version) according to this file here and it works perfect: https://www.thingiverse.com/thing:4753831 This file and numerous other files for UW-photography can be found on this Webside here, type in e.g. "Z330" or "Zoom gear", but I cannot confirm that everything works (I printed just the snoot): https://www.stlfinder.com/ Wolfgang

There is the new Kraken strobe, that also may be worth considering: Wolfgang