Finetuning my Rig

I wrote about it here
https://interceptor121.com/2019/05/12/nauticam-wwl-1the-best-wide-angle-lens-for-underwater-video-on-the-gh5-and-other-micro-four-thirds/

There is a table that compares horizontal and vertical field of view that are a totally different story from advertised diagonal
The improvement of a wet lens over an 8m is small and on a 7mm is none
The fisheye is far away from both doubling the field of view
The wwl-1 only provides a 10% increase over the 8-18
The key benefit of a wet lens is not the field of view but the ability to zoom in and also take off the lens in short versatility that especially for video is important
Once you have gone past and have already a couple of port fisheye is a must in fact the 8mm fisheye and the 60mm macro are probably the true must have for photos
For video instead the wet lens path is preferred


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I have felt the lure of the WWL-1 before, but the UWL-100 I can get is free and free beats 1000€+ very easily, especially for a first experiment. I know that the WWL-1 will be superior, but money is a serious consideration for me.

I have felt the lure of the WWL-1 before, but the UWL-100 I can get is free and free beats 1000€+ very easily, especially for a first experiment. I know that the WWL-1 will be superior, but money is a serious consideration for me.

4 hours ago, Interceptor121 said:

Maybe you haven’t read the post correctly free will give you what you already have as the field of view won’t go up much if it will at all


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

So you are saying the horizontal /vertical field of view are equivalent to about a 7mm/8mm rectilinear lens and you only get 130° field of view along the diagonal due to distortion.  I take it that the FOV column in your table is your estimate of the angular field of view, but I'm not sure what the other values are?   Are the values calculated or measured, you are talking about calculations and verifying them? 

8 hours ago, Interceptor121 said:

Maybe you haven’t read the post correctly free will give you what you already have as the field of view won’t go up much if it will at all


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

But it will give it to me in a much smaller size. That is my main annoyance with the 8-18. I would then add true fisheye later, as a 4.33" dome is much easier to handle while travelling. In the end that would give me a smaller rig with more shooting options. So long as the Image quality that the UWL-100 puts out is acceptable.

So you are saying the horizontal /vertical field of view are equivalent to about a 7mm/8mm rectilinear lens and you only get 130° field of view along the diagonal due to distortion.  I take it that the FOV column in your table is your estimate of the angular field of view, but I'm not sure what the other values are?   Are the values calculated or measured, you are talking about calculations and verifying them? 

The values are calculated using an equisolid equation I then jumped in a pool and tested them against tiles and the correspondence is very high

That however should not come as a surprise that the wet lens only has the 130 degrees along the diagonal.

You can measure yourself the ratio vs diagonal on the image with the tiles

There is also to be said that the 7-14mm depending on the dome used has different performance and that the WWL-1 doesn’t give the 130 degrees with all lenses but only with the 14-42mm that sit very close to the port

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

But it will give it to me in a much smaller size. That is my main annoyance with the 8-18. I would then add true fisheye later, as a 4.33" dome is much easier to handle while travelling. In the end that would give me a smaller rig with more shooting options. So long as the Image quality that the UWL-100 puts out is acceptable.

That is a consideration for sure the 7” is very positive the inon is negative

However unless you have the UWL-H100 with dome the older UWL-100 will loose most of the field of view as you zoom. Try in a sink or bathtub or better in a pool with tiles

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Just wanted to follow up on what I actually did in the end. I bought (used) a flip adapter for the 12-50, which will allow me to add wetlenses easily, including the UWL100 and Saga+10 my parents owned. The Saga works perfectly and nearly doubles maximum magnification. The UWL100 unfortunately vignettes until zoomed in to about 20mm at which point the 12mm without the wetlens provide an equal FoV. As I will be using the flip adapter for macro, there is no money lost here. I will keep using the 8-18 for my rectilinear wideangle needs.

I also got lucky and managed to secure the Panasonic Fisheye + 4.33" Dome for less than 600€ total. Now I will just need to decide before each trip, which lens I need more. For my trip to the red sea in two weeks I've already decided to leave the huge dome at home. For my trip to Bali (Mantas) and Lembeh I am not sure yet. Is it better to shoot Mantas with a Fisheye or with the slightly narrower 8-18mm.

Red Sea is fisheye and a portrait lens generally however the 8-18mm works well for some wreck interiors

Where are you exactly going?

Marsa Alam, land based dives as my GF will do her AOWD. I was already set on the fisheye for the redsea. Question is really for Mantas in Bali.

Just now, hyp said:

Marsa Alam, land based dives as my GF will do her AOWD. I was already set on the fisheye for the redsea. Question is really for Mantas in Bali.

Abu Dabab has nice turtle you can get close the vis is low so fisheye it is

Mantas in Bali WWL-1 better as the 8mm does not zoom. Alternatively 8-18mm is good

WWL1 I don't have and can't afford. 

Just now, hyp said:

WWL1 I don't have and can't afford. 

8-18mm then fisheye will make them look small unless you get super close