Architeuthis

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

The camera is sold now... Heavily used, but working, Nauticam housing for Olympus EM5II (with vacuum system, shutter release extension & padded travel bag etc.) goes for 200 Euros obo (buyer pays for shipping)... Wolfgang

The lens is sold now... The Nauticam focus gear for Canon 100mm f/2.8 IS is still available: 55 Euro obo (buyer pays porto)... Wolfgang

The new Monster adapter LA-FE2 has just been released: https://www.sonyalpharumors.com/new-product-release-monster-adapter-la-fe2/ We will see how good it will work...

The FCP-1 portchart is now available at the Nauticam homepage: https://www.nauticam.com/pages/copy-of-0-36x-wacp-wide-angle-conversion-port-chart

I previously had Olympus EM1II and now have Sony A7R5. I fully agree that there is not much difference in size and weigth for WA: with EM1II I was using mostly the Canon 8-15mm with Nauticam 140 domeport and occasionally the Zen DP170 with Zuiko 12-40mm or 8-25mm. Now I am using Canon 8-15mm with the 140mm domeport and occasionally the Zen DP170 with Sony 20-70mm and sometimes the Tamron 17-28mm (recently I acquired a WACP-C for WA) - pretty similar riggs in size and weight. A big difference is when making macro photos: The rig with EM1II with 60mm or 45mm macro lens (diopters are only required for special cases, e.g. clownfish eggs) is much, much smaller than A7R5 with Sony 90mm (SMC-1 quite often required, I take it with me on every dive). The macro FF rig is the biggest I ever had... => I do not know the release scedule of Nikon, but sooner or later they will release a mirrorless model that is on par witht the D500, presumably same technology as Z8, but DX. For a Nikon user it may well be worth waiting for such a model (what I hear and read the Sony APS-C cameras are not really outstanding)... Wolfgang

First, I cannot tell whether there is a difference at 15mm between Sigma and Canon 8-15mm, as I only have the Canon, which is excellent... Second, the advantage of Canon 8-15mm is that you can make circular fisheye photos. In addition, you can use the 1.4x TC and zoom in more narrow than the 180° diagonal fisheye, approximately to 124° diagonal, more or less the wide end of WACP (the usable zoomrange is, however, quite narrow (15-21mm) and you loose the option for circular fisheye, when using the 1.4x TC)... Regarding the domes, I use the 140mm domeport, as it already provides very good IQ and it is still small (100mm is regarded too small for high IQ on FF by many, but not all). From my personal experience, I know that IQ with the 170 domeport is at least as good as with the 140, but it is significantly more bulky (not so good for CFWA). On the other hand the 170 domeport works better for split photos (but also 140 works o.k.). Quite many use the 230 domeport for the Canon (and Nikon) 8-15mm - excellent IQ, very bulky, but even better for split photos (and also very well working with rectilinear WA lenses)... Wolfgang

I, personally, am a big fan of the "ultra-wide" angle, I like even the circular fisheye. For this purpose (UWA and circular), I currently use Canon 8-15mm with adapter and 140mm domeport. I still have to become familiar with the WACP-C (first longer occasion with many dives will be diving in the Carribean in March; I guess the WACP-C will be ideal for the carribean reef sharks...😊), but it might well be that later, when I am familiar with both WACP-C and Canon fisheye, I will use the Canon fisheye lens more often than the WACP-C... MAYBE, at a later stage, I will exchange the WACP-C for an FCP. But even if it will be possible to cover the entire range, from circular fisheye up to moderate zoomed-in WA, with FCP and two lenses, as Alex indicated in a previous post (28-60mm and ???), there will remain the need for the Canon fisheye in a domeport for split shots. There is plenty of time to see how the FCP story develops and decide later, presumably I will decide that I do not need a FCP... Wolfgang