D850: Nikonos RS 13mm conversion or Nauticam WACP?

Apologies for dredging this topic back to the top, but what was a theoretical discussion previously now how has become a (somewhat) real choice for me, and I'd love to get people's opinions (and @Alex - if you're reading this post, I would be very interested in your opinion specifically given you've had the opportunity to shoot both water contact lens solutions).

After shooting macro w/the D850 (in a Nauticam housing) in Anilao last month I struggled through learning some of the ins & outs of shooting full frame for the first time underwater. In short - this camera/housing pairing grew on me by week's end.

However, I didn't think I would use it (or have the opportunity to use it) shooting wide angle anytime soon... In short, things have changed, and I might have a chance to shoot some mantas/sharks later this spring.

Given the hefty price of the Nauticam WACP, I wanted to also potentially look at the alternative of acquiring a used RS 13mm lens (one avail. on eBay right now) and getting it converted. The cost of the 13mm lens + the conversion almost makes this a (very expensive) wash between these two solutions.

So assuming I could spare the $, which solution would people recommend? This would be mainly for shooting sharks/mantas and CFWA reef scenes.

I'm not sold on dropping the $ on either solution yet - just trying to get some insights on strengths/weaknesses of either approach.

And for anyone that wants to suggest sticking with a more conventional superwide dome - I have the somewhat unique challenge that my 15 year old daughter is now shooting with an Oly u/w, and my wife & 13 year old son also shoot video u/w, so space (when we travel) is at an absolute premium in our bags (weight is a bit less of an issue - although the WACP seems to be quite hefty, so need to take that into consideration).

All thoughts/comments welcome...

- Matt

I think that it is important to be aware that the Nikonos 13mm RS is a fisheye, whereas the Nauticam WACP is rectilinear.

Whilst the converted 13mm is a great option, if you wanted to save money, the Nikon 8-15mm fisheye, along with a 170mm dome would probably give very good optical results. The weights/space of this combination is not that far away from that of the 13mm RS. However it will be significantly less expensive and does not need to be converted and shipped around Europe to do so!

If you wanting to shoot rectilinear wide angle, the "best" conventional option would be the Nikon 16-35mm f/4, a 230mm dome and a 70mm extension. This is pretty bulky (although probably around the same weight as the WACP). I think it is probably a similar cost too. Optically though, the WACP is much better option.

Adam

due to the reason, that I started a parallel thread about Nikon D850 an fisheye (and I don’t want to hijack this thread): what are the costs for the Nikonos Fisheye solution? Of course the costs to find a Nikonos 13 on ebay are variable....

What is necessary to bring this solution for a Nauticam housing? And who can do that?

Rgards, Sascha

Sascha -

I managed to source a Nikonos 13mm RS and sent it to Andrej Belic (abelic.net is his website) in Germany (or Austria ?).

He has access to the pieces/ technician to be able to change the internal lens so that it will communicate fully with a modern DSLR - I shoot Nikon D800 in a Nauticam housing.

He also has the additional piece of metal that is needed to interface between the lens and the Nauticam housing.

For me, the biggest issue (after sourcing the lens!) was dealing with shipping from the USA to Germany and back. That should be far less of an issue (and export duty cost) for you.

@DocTock: thanks a lot for the advice! Which port are you using or is the Nikonos used as a port? But how is then the connection to the camera? Do you have a photo how this looks like? Lots of questions but thank you for every piece of information!!!

Regards, Sascha

 

If you wanting to shoot rectilinear wide angle, the "best" conventional option would be the Nikon 16-35mm f/4, a 230mm dome and a 70mm extension. This is pretty bulky (although probably around the same weight as the WACP). I think it is probably a similar cost too. Optically though, the WACP is much better option.

 

Adam

I'm glad you mention this Adam, because I'm shooting video with a very similar setup:

RED Weapon 6K, Nauticam Weapon LT housing, Nikon 16-35mm f4, 230mm dome port, but with a 30mm+50 mm extension (total = 80mm, instead of the 70mm you mentioned).

Nauticam suggests in it's website that we should even use a 90 mm extension: https://www.nauticam.com/pages/port-charts

Have you noticed any lower image quality in the corners with your 70mm option in any conditions? I'm asking this because I was even considering to update my extension to the recommended 90 mm, although I don't thing that a 10 mm increase will make any visible improvement (I'm vey happy with my setup so far).

Another different story is light. Although the 16-35 f4 is an amazing lens, for video in some situations a faster lens is needed. So I'm looking for the options and one that comes to my mind is the Nikkor 17-35mm f2.8 (1 stop faster) or even the Sigma Art 18-35 f1.8, although with a narrower FOV and only usable from 20mm to 35mm (to cover the RED bigger then traditional S35 RED's sensor).

But opening the aperture to 2.8 or 1.8, brings again the question of corner sharpness of dome ports (although only in the cases where we have some parts of the subject/scene in the corners). Which bring us to the WACP alternative. But then we need to seed a comparation test chart at this wide open apertures with a WACP and a big dome. That is the kind of comparation that could make it clear how many stops we really gain with the WACP, so each of us could decide to make the additional investment or not.

Another question: is the WACP completely rectilinear, even at 130º?

Besides the high price, it's also a very heavy piece of equipment (not very travel friendly), so it's not easy to just jump in and buy it. And we also need to buy the N100 to N120 adapter and (maybe) some specific extension ports.

Hi Rui,

This is whole other topic!

We should start another thread. I have no idea how the Nauticam Digital Cinema housings are set up with lens and ports...

I used the the 70mm extension with a Zen 230mm dome on the D800/D810 in Nauticam housings. I have no idea why there seems to be a discrepancy with different size/types of Nauticam domes.

Adam

@DocTock: thanks a lot for the advice! Which port are you using or is the Nikonos used as a port? But how is then the connection to the camera? Do you have a photo how this looks like? Lots of questions but thank you for every piece of information!!!

 

Regards, Sascha

To the OP @oneyellowtang - the advantage for me to the RS conversion is it allows me to carry a full macro and WA kit in my photo-backpack.

@Sascha

The Nikonos RS lens is a port with a lens.

In the image below, you can see there is a dark metal ring between the Nauticam housing and the RS lens (dome portion).

That is the adapter (has o-ring on inside) that is needed for this Nauticam - RS solution.

To attach the lens, you first mount the adapter to the housing and the camera to the housing.

Then you attach the RS unit (it has it's own o-ring) to both the housing and the camera body at the same time.

Now I understand! Thanks a lot DocTock! How would you rate the quality improvement in comparison to a normal Fisheye like the Sigma 15 or any other?

Sorry for the slow reply - I have only just spotted this post. I would definitely suggest a read of my article about this is FREE UWP Magazine (Issue 100) - the cover of which is taken with a WACP!:

http://www.uwpmag.com

Perhaps most important to state, I don’t see these two as an either/or - both are fisheyes - but they do not cover the same range of field of view at all. The RS-13 is a 175˚ fisheye. The WACP (with a 28-70) is a 130-57˚ fisheye. Of course, given that both are expensive, many consider this an either/or question - but that is a financial issue, not a photography one! Which is more useful comes down more to what you mainly shoot. I use the RS13 much more than the WACP on average, but on some trips (shooting big animals) I use the WACP more.

I’ll add more in a second - just going to bring the article up to copy and paste some text!!

Alex

This is the start of the article:

If you want to see examples from each you can use the Search tool on my website

http://www.amustard.com/image-search/

Type 13.0 for images with RS-13

Type 28.0 for images with WACP

The pictures are in chronological order with the most recent first (not necessarily the best examples of the lenses)! Also note that the 28.0 search actually picks up the 28-70mm lens - and therefore the older images (page 6 onwards are not with the WACP).

Alex

On 1/12/2018 at 1:25 AM, DocTock said:

The Nikonos RS lens is a port with a lens.

 

In the image below, you can see there is a dark metal ring between the Nauticam housing and the RS lens (dome portion).

That is the adapter (has o-ring on inside) that is needed for this Nauticam - RS solution.

 

To attach the lens, you first mount the adapter to the housing and the camera to the housing.

Then you attach the RS unit (it has it's own o-ring) to both the housing and the camera body at the same time.

So the RS lens is converted to standard Nikon DSLR mount? Do these lenses have their own internal focus and aperture motors? Do you think that after the conversion, the lens could be used on a different camera system (Sony A7 for example) with an autofocus adapter?

Thanks.

10 hours ago, Tobi-Wan said:

So the RS lens is converted to standard Nikon DSLR mount? Do these lenses have their own internal focus and aperture motors? Do you think that after the conversion, the lens could be used on a different camera system (Sony A7 for example) with an autofocus adapter?

 

Thanks.

Short answer to your first and second question is no. The third question: possibly.

Firstly the RS lenses have a double mount. The inner mount is almost the same as the F mount (hence the no). The outer mount is the waterproof part. The lenses came out in the 1990s so have the Nikon tech of that era which means screw-drive AF. The lenses do not have an aperture ring so are somewhat like the more recent lenses. The 10.5mm DX fisheye lense is somewhat similar as it has screw AF and no aperture ring.

From what I have gathered (far from the center of things) there are at least three types of "conversions":

Type 1. The change is made to the inside the lens (electronics) so that it can communicate with a DSLR and thus function. The outer mount is adapted to specific housings with an adapter ring. This is how the Nju folks do it: http://njusystem.com/category/blog/products/

Type 2. The inner lens components are removed from the RS lens leaving a lens unit without its front element that is fitted into a new shell so the lens resembles an ordinary camera lens. As well the electronics are modified. The front RS lens element is installed into a dedicated lens port. This is how Seacam does it. https://wetpixel.com/articles/seacam-reinvents-the-nikonos-rs-13mm

Type 1 and 2 conversions require using a camera that supports screw-drive AF. Not all Nikon cameras do.

A third type is possible...

Type 3. Leave the RS lenses as is and instead build a surrogate of the RS camera body that would control both the focus and aperture. The RS camera body has a complex switch that allows manual focusing via the focusing motor (in the body as all screw-drive AF bodies) so there is no absolute need to interface Nikon AF with that of another company. A hypothetical surrogate could have a switch (and motor) that functions similarly -- push left or right to focus in one direction or the other. The more the switch is pushed in either direction the faster the focus. Aperture control is a simple knob with reciprocal aperture values on it like a shutter speed knob on cameras.

There are RS lens adapters for motion picture camera housings that may function like part or all of type 3 but as I have not seen one in person I do not know for sure how they work. They are not cheap. But they suggest this is feasible.

When you consider the present day value of underwater picures the OP: might want to consider shooting the D850 in DX mode (15MP) and put a Tokina 10-17 and a small dome on it. This would cover fisheye to sharks and mantas. Or switch to a crop sensor camera and use the WWL-C instead, which saves money and weight.

On 11/6/2020 at 8:29 PM, Tom_Kline said:

There are RS lens adapters for motion picture camera housings that may function like part or all of type 3 but as I have not seen one in person I do not know for sure how they work. They are not cheap. But they suggest this is feasible.

Thanks a lot for your detailed answer Tom. I didn't realise even some modern Nikons had autofocus/aperture motors in the bodies.

The last option (manual focus/iris control from the camera housing) is the one I'm after but I'll start a new thread on that. Thanks!

6 hours ago, Tobi-Wan said:

Thanks a lot for your detailed answer Tom. I didn't realise even some modern Nikons had autofocus/aperture motors in the bodies.

The last option (manual focus/iris control from the camera housing) is the one I'm after but I'll start a new thread on that. Thanks!

Other than the new E lenses (only a few lenses and that includes the 8-15mm) and lenses with manual and pre-set apertures, all Nikkors have a spring loaded lever aperture control in the lense - the lens is stopped down with no pressure on the lever. I believe (have not seen them all!!) all Nikon SLR cameras (D and film) have an actuation lever inside the body that mates with this to stop down the lens. The "auto" that is part of the lens description (in the text on the lenses) of older lenses refers to this as the automatic diaphragm was a 1950s innovation that helped propel SLRs to their dominance. Similarly they marked lenses with early coating and multi-coating with a C (when these techs were still new). The newer coating tech has new labels such as N for nano-coating.

Nikon has had good support for legacy products until now. This has meant they have had to support the earlier AF in newer bodies. To cut costs the bottom end of the camera line omits legacy AF support as do the new Zs thus far.

If you really, really want manual focus as well as aperture control, the older manual lenses with helical focusing rings and aperture rings are probably your best bet. You will need a gear for each and a housing and/or lens port to mate with these gears. This may require some customization.