Architeuthis

Here is another interesting review on the FCP-1 by Nicolas Remy: https://theunderwaterclub.com/nauticam-fisheye-conversion-port-fcp-field-review/?utm_source=scubaboard.com&utm_medium=community&utm_campaign=scubaboard-FCP-review

This Google search does not look good...😐 It seems there is no real statistics, summarizing all events. This may be due to the fact that shark organizations do only include "unprovoked" attacks in their statistics and these "feeding/baiting" spectacles can certainly not regarded as "unprovoked"... Wolfgang

I have here a Sony A7R5 that I use in manual mode with two Inon Z330s and the Nauticam manual trigger in front curtain sync. (works reliable up to 1/200s in my hands)... Now I want to exploit the flash modes/possibilities better (and also use my s-Turtle2 smart trigger, that I have bought as a spare), e.g. switch from front-curtain to rear-curtain, test TTL for sharks and eventually use HSS with the Backscatter MF2 (that I also have)... I have assigned the different flash modes to the "C4" button on my Nauticam housing, so that I can switch between different available modes, listed below, UW. In the A7R5 manual I read that the following flash modes are available. The expressions in the menue are a little flowery and I can not clearly correlate them to specific physical modes: Flash Off: The flash does not operate. (o.k., at least this is clear) Autoflash: The flash works in dark environments or when shooting towards bright light. Fill-flash: The flash works every time you trigger the shutter. Slow Sync.: The flash works every time you trigger the shutter. Slow sync shooting allows you to shoot a clear image of both the subject and the background by slowing the shutter speed. (this flash mode in connection with the Nauticam trigger produces front-curtain sync. with manual flash settings) Rear Sync.: The flash works right before the exposure is completed every time you trigger the shutter. Rear sync shooting allows you to shoot a natural image of the trail of a moving subject such as a moving car or a walking person. When using the s-Turtle2 smart trigger could I: #1.: toggle between Flash Off/front-curtain (manual flash mode)/rear-curtain (manual flash mode) by toggling between "Flash Off"/"Slow Sync"/"Rear Sync" modes? #2.: When selecting TTL flash exposure instead of manual setting at the Z330s, could I produce the same Off/front-curtain/rear-curtain modes by toggling as in #1? #3.: When using HSS with Backscatter MF2, how do I have to set the A7R5 flash mode and the s-turtle2 smart trigger? #4.: Finally, what is the difference between "Autoflash"/"Fill-Flash"/"Slow Sync"? I assume this is all TTL flash exposure with front-curtain, but the automatic is slightly different for different light conditions?? Thanks, Wolfgang P.S.: I have send a similar message to Turtle and will keep this tread updated in case I get a response...

Is there a link, where the attacks and fatalities at Tiger Beach have been documented? I have read in the (Austrian) newspapers only about one fatality: it was a lawyer from Vienna, bitten in his leg and bleeded to death, but this was quite years ago?

Another tragedy, it seems there is indeed one diver missing: https://taucher.net/diveinside-sinking_of_the_sea_legend_in_the_red_sea-kaz9193 A report, based on the statements of three guest divers, sounds worrying: https://taucher.net/diveinside-fire_on_the_m_y_sea_legend-kaz9201 Of course we must be very careful with the cable salad that we produce, but I could not read anywhere that a Li+ battery was the reason for the disaster (engine room or kitchen are usually and most frequently the sources of fire on board)... Wolfgang P.S.: I think this tread would be better visible in one of the forum categories...

The housing (NA-EM5II) with acessories is still for sale (200 Euro OBO plus shipping). It must go to free shelf-space. Make an offer if interested...

Just another issue to mention, in case you decide to go with a native 8mm FE lens and the 140mm domeport: When you acquire the 34.7mm N85 to N120 adapter, you can use the N120 versions (without built-in extensions) of the Nauticam 140mm and the Zen DP170 directly with the Zuiko 8mm FE. Although the adapter is more expensive compared to a built-in extension or a N85 extension ring for a N85 version domeport, I regard this as better choice since you can use the N120 domeport later in case you acquire another system or even another, bigger, lens that requires a larger opening...

There is an interesting review of the new fisheye lens in Petapixel: https://petapixel.com/2024/02/27/sigma-15mm-f-1-4-dg-dn-art-review-wide-weird-and-wonderful/ It seems the lens provides extremely high IQ, but is constructed especially for distant objects and even a very big domeport will not help much: "...The Sigma 15mm is sharp at a distance but when the subject is within a few feet the image can get very blurry in the centers at f/1.4..." => Seems that this lens is indeed not fabricated for us... Wolfgang

The Canon 8-15mm can focus very close to the domeport, did not test systematically, but one can photograph pretty small subjects. With Nauticam 140mm (N120) it needs a 35mm N120 extension. Same extension as with Zen DP170 (N120 version without built in extension). It could be used also with Zen DP100 (N120 version without built-in extension) with a 30mm N120 extension, but this port is so small that the light-shade of the lens has to be removed to fit into the domeport. I used this combination few times at the beginning and IQ looked also o.k. ... Massimo made nice descriptions/tests of the use of Canon 8-15mm on MFT, some time ago: https://interceptor121.com/2019/11/02/fisheye-zoom-for-micro-four-thirds/ https://interceptor121.com/2019/11/30/canon-8-15-mm-fisheye-on-the-panasonic-gh5-pool-tests/ I almost forgot to mention: To use these combinations on Nauticam N85 housings you need, in addition, the N85 to N120 34.7mm adapter, e.g. here: https://www.panoceanphoto.com/Nauticam-N85-N120-34.7mm-Port-Adapter-Metabones => I hear it has been discontinued by Nauticam, but it seems there are still some around (not much demand I guess) Wolfgang

Just out of curiosity: could you compare, at similar AOV, the IQ in the center and also the sharpness in the edges between Tokina and WWL (at which f stops are the corners comparable)?

I cannot comment on all options, but have used some of them on EM1II and EM5II (Nauticam housings): ad (2): I used Oly 8mm behind Zen DP170 and IQ is excellent. Since I was using the adapted fisheyes, I did not use it again, because the IQ is the same and the ability to zoom in is a big advantage... ad (3): I used the Canon 8-15mm with 1x Metabones and Nauticam 140mm domeport. I would say this (but also the Tokina) is the FCP for the MFT system. Excellent IQ. One should, however, not forget the Tokina 10-17mm (Canon version), that I (and now Lisi is using it) used with Zen DP100 (N120 version without built-in extension), 0,71x speedbooster and 20mm N120 extension. I could not see a difference in IQ to the native Oly 8mm f/1.8 or the Canon 8-15mm - but this combo is incredibly compact (excellent CFWA usability, for better you might have to go for EMWL). The Tokina can also be used, at very good IQ, with the same N120 20mm extension and DP100 with the 1x glassless adapter and then delivers angles of views similar to WWL/WACP (when animals are more shy)... => I would say Canon 8-15mm when you plan to switch later to a FF camera, you can then continue to use lens, domeport and extension (this is what I did; ironically the size of the rigg is almost the same compared to MFT (but of course angles of view are less versatile)), but Tokina when you will stay with MFT (or plan to switch to APS-C later)... ad(4): I had the Pana 7-14mm and used it with Zen DP170. I seldom used it, because this combo was a dissapointment, not just corners, IQ lacked contrast, "mushy" even in the center. I almost always preferred, first the native, and then the adapted fisheyes. I have sold this lens already, no use for it. Lisi is now using the Zuiko 8-25mm f/4.0 rectilinear behind Zen DP170 and this combo gives excellent IQ and a very versatile zoom range, much better compared to Pana 7-14mm in both aspects (but not ideal for CFWA; she likes rectilinear much more than me)... Wolfgang

Were the photos made at 14mm? If yes, I believe the edges are, more or less, normal (what does "null" mean? When I look at the photos both have slightly blurred edges, pretty much the same)... Not all of the "blurriness" I see there is due to domeport optics. To some extend it is just a depth of field issue, as the substrate in the edges is closer as the central object is. There is also some kind of "rectilinear" distortion in the edges, that can be observed even without a domeport, when you make comparable photos over the water... WWL/WACP will improve "domeport blurriness" and "rectilinear distortion", but cannot help with out of focus issues. It will also introduce some kind of "fisheye distortion", that is, however, regarded as pleasant by many... Wolfgang

As Barmaglot says, the extension for the Nauticam zoomgear needs to be 40mm (other parameters remaining equal). I have a 3D file for such an extension printed and added it to the other extensions: https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/ihczuhycokiyjdyja2a13/Canon_815_2xKenko.stl?rlkey=wx5slo4sb2evhd43h81wkxuuk&dl=0 => Before printing, check the length of the Sony 2x TC that you intend to use. It may deviate from the length of the Kenko 2x TC (i.e. 40mm) as it contains glass optics... Wolfgang

It is possible to encounter a seahorse posing in the open water with an earpad or a facemask, but the chances are extremely small. Therefore such photos will be always suspects of un-allowed manipulations (without witnesses one will never know)... From what I know, judges in competitions are instructed to reject any photo that is suspicious of such manipulations - hard to understand that such photos made it (but one has to admit that these photos are very strong in showing the impact of pollution on the sea)... Wolfgang

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?)...