Nauticam WWL with full frame Canon

Borrowed from elsewhere, but this shows why "native" e (or M or Z) mount lenses leverage the optical advantages of the mount system (and why using adaptors means that you lose the optical advantages of mirrorless designs....)

Using SLR lenses means that, at best, you will get the same optical performance as you would on an SLR. 

"Shorter flange distance allows lenses to be placed closer to the sensor, which in itself allows lens manufacturers to start building simpler, smaller, lighter and less expensive short focus lenses instead of the retrofocus types. In addition, the throat diameter combined with flange distance determines the maximum possible angle of incidence of the marginal rays from the lens, which is important in designing lenses – generally, the larger the angle of incidence, the easier it is to make high-performance lenses"

This is true, but when speaking of adapted lenses for which there is no mirrorless alternative it doesn’t really make a difference. It really just means that in theory a smaller lens with the same functionality or better is possible. But right now it really is just that. A possibility. If you are happy with the lens on a DSLR you might as well use it on mirrorless. It‘s going to be a long long time until we get a native fisheye, let alone a fisheye zoom for FF mirrorless.

Warning : Off topic!

11 hours ago, hyp said:

If you are happy with the lens on a DSLR you might as well use it on mirrorless. It‘s going to be a long long time until we get a native fisheye, let alone a fisheye zoom for FF mirrorless.

Or...you could stick with the SLR until there are native options available...

Yep. If you're happy with SLRs I would suggest exactly that. Personally I prefer the EVF and I also prefer the slightly more compact size, as a camera for me always is for above and below water. Definitely no point in going after the latest and greatest just for the sake of it.

The reason why the Sony 28mm full frame works with the WWL-1 is because the lens is very small and has 40mm filter thread which means the WWL-1 is ok with it

When you look at APSC there are some lens that might work but full frame is not an option as all lenses are over 62mm so too big once you factor a zoom

17 hours ago, Interceptor121 said:

The reason why the Sony 28mm full frame works with the WWL-1 is because the lens is very small and has 40mm filter thread which means the WWL-1 is ok with it

When you look at APSC there are some lens that might work but full frame is not an option as all lenses are over 62mm so too big once you factor a zoom

 

The limiting factor I think is actually the entrance pupil which is basically the focal length over the aperture.  However it is not only that as if it was the 28mm f3.5 zooms would work.  The entrance pupil for the 28mm f2 is 14mm across.  The entrance pupil criteria makes sense, the WWL is bending and compressing the incoming light bundle and it needs to fit through the entrance pupil.  It probably also relates to how far the entrance pupil is from the WWL. 

The limiting factor I think is actually the entrance pupil which is basically the focal length over the aperture.  However it is not only that as if it was the 28mm f3.5 zooms would work.  The entrance pupil for the 28mm f2 is 14mm across.  The entrance pupil criteria makes sense, the WWL is bending and compressing the incoming light bundle and it needs to fit through the entrance pupil.  It probably also relates to how far the entrance pupil is from the WWL. 

The WWL-1 works with lenses that have typically a 40-46mm filter thread you can safely use this as a proxy

In addition it works better with lenses that are wider when extended

The full frame and APSC zoom are all wider when retracted and have filter threads larger than 58mm you already know this is not going to work

You can try a short port with no zoom but that defeats the objective

On full frame is not possible to have alternative to the WACP on APSC fisheye zoom with teleconverter cover the same field of view but probably an APSC user would never consider WACP anyway

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Thanks all to replied - we've gone a little off topic but that's traditional  forum conversations! 

What is clear now is that the WWL-1 is a total non-starter - so my next question would be to those who have used  the  WACP1. 

I know  its hard to but in words, but how much better are the files using the WACP as opposed to a more traditional port setup. I think there must be people on here who have shot both D500 with the 8-15 (and kenko converter) as well as a WACP on a D850. Are the differences really that noticeable?

As regards some of the other comments regarding the latest AF capability of the Sony A9 / A7iv bodies, from my limited topside use they are blowing away DSLRs for fast moving wildlife, and I've been very impressed with my R5 so far, albeit with lockdown its not had a tough test with birds  in flight from me yet

Mike

8 hours ago, pooley said:

I know  its hard to but in words, but how much better are the files using the WACP as opposed to a more traditional port setup. I think there must be people on here who have shot both D500 with the 8-15 (and kenko converter) as well as a WACP on a D850. Are the differences really that noticeable?

Mike

I would suggest they are rather different beasts, you get a little bit of zoom capability with the 8-15 ( from 10/11mm - 15mm), there is a little overlap but most of the WACP range is narrower than the fisheye.  Your best choice I would suggest depends on what you want to use it for, here's the fields of view:

The figure to take most note of is the horizontal field,  you mostly don't place things across the diagonal of the sensor and the fisheye stretches most in the corners.  This is the reason focal lengths of fisheye and rectilinear are not directly comparable.  The fisheye lens at 10mm is equivalent to a 3.7mm rectilinear horizontally or only a 0.75mm lens diagonally.  The WACP is much closer to a rectilinear lens with a bit of barrel distortion.

Mike

"Better" is a pretty hard thing to define. What do you want to do with the images? Images shot with the D500 and Tokina 10-17 or Nikkor 8-15 are very good indeed and its really hard to tell the difference. Unless you are blowing them up, perhaps, beyond A3 they are certainly good enough for publishing, easily good enough for web use.

Sure, you might be able to get a slightly better image quality with a D850 and another lens setup (WACP maybe) , but at what cost and with what end in mind? And can you actually see the difference in every day use?

I do think it important that a user is happy with the equipment being used - and there's nothing worse than wishing you had put the extra ££££s into the "better" system. But there comes a point where we all end up chasing diminishing returns and become the victims of marketing campaigns ("more pixels makes for better images").  But just what are you going to do with even better?!

A good article about the WACP-1:

https://wetpixel.com/articles/review-nauticam-wide-angle-corrector-port

12 hours ago, pooley said:

I know  its hard to but in words, but how much better are the files using the WACP as opposed to a more traditional port setup. I think there must be people on here who have shot both D500 with the 8-15 (and kenko converter) as well as a WACP on a D850. Are the differences really that noticeable?

I have shot both (quite a lot) and the answer is yes and no, as you are comparing apples and oranges.

The question should perhaps be are the files from the D500 with 10-24mm f/3.5-4.5 and a large dome (230mm) noticeably  different to those produced with the D850 with 28-70mm f/3.5-4.5 with WACP-1? If so, the answer is yes. 

The D850/WACP combination will produce significantly superior image files, allows for the use of apertures of less than f/11, while still retaining corner sharpness, and has a really useable focal range. If you are looking for superior image files, there is probably no better combination (except perhaps with the WACP-2). 

But WACP-1 is "almost" rectilinear, and if you are seeking a more forced perspective/ barrel distorted look, the 8-15 is a great option. I would say that the image quality of the 8-15mm with a reasonable sized dome on D500 is almost as good as that of the D850 (with a bigger dome). This is not true in resolution terms of course, but underwater more resolution is not always a good thing!

To get more performance with fisheye on Nikons, the current (best) solution is to look at converted Nikonos RS 13mm lenses. These will outperform conventional dome/lens combinations, although most will admit that in bright conditions, the differences are marginal. 

I have the latest Kenko 1.4 HD TC and am not really happy with its results for general fisheye shooting. It is great for WAM of course....

Adam

On 2/26/2021 at 2:58 AM, adamhanlon said:

Warning : Off topic!

Or...you could stick with the SLR until there are native options available...

Why does it matter if there is a native fisheye available? If there is a fisheye option that gives just as good performance as you'd expect from a native option (i.e. equal IQ and AF performance), what does it matter that it doesn't say "Sony" on it?

On 2/27/2021 at 3:00 AM, Interceptor121 said:

 

On full frame is not possible to have alternative to the WACP on APSC fisheye zoom with teleconverter cover the same field of view but probably an APSC user would never consider WACP anyway

 

I don't think I understand what you're saying here. Are you being specific to Canon? You said "on full frame it is not possible to have alternative to the WACP". But, any Sony FF (i.e. a7 or a9 series) can use the Sony 28-60 lens with the WWL-1 fully and effectively, yes?

47 minutes ago, stuartv said:

 

Why does it matter if there is a native fisheye available? If there is a fisheye option that gives just as good performance as you'd expect from a native option (i.e. equal IQ and AF performance), what does it matter that it doesn't say "Sony" on it?

 

 

I don't think I understand what you're saying here. Are you being specific to Canon? You said "on full frame it is not possible to have alternative to the WACP". But, any Sony FF (i.e. a7 or a9 series) can use the Sony 28-60 lens with the WWL-1 fully and effectively, yes?

 

It is in the port chart so I would say yes all lenses that are tiny in size and have a nodal point quite recessed can work

When I said full frame I meant cameras with N120 port which Sony is not part of as they have N100

The WWL-1 however is not a fisheye and is just an alternative to WACP for those who want something like that

Just to be clear WWL-1 came first and was designed for full frame (Sony 28mm F/2) even though it works very well with sub full frame cameras. Second WWL-1 can be fitted onto Nauticam flat ports in N85, N100 and N120.

WACP was also designed for full frame and it can be purchased with N100 and N120 mounts the obvious difference is that WWWL-1 is a wet lens and WACP is a dry lens mounting directly to the housings port mount or port mount adapter.

Both water contact lenses work with the new Sony FE 28-60 zoom and retain the full range of zoom. 

WWL-1 also works with Sony 28mm F/2 (130 degrees) while WACP works with the 28-60 and the older Sony FE 28-70mm which also zooms through the full range.

Last the Sony FE 28-70mm works with the Nikon A line using the Teckart adapter and the WACP. This is the only lens that works with the Nikon Z line and allows for the full zoom through from 130 to 59 degrees.

WWL-1 and WACP are close to rectilinear and would not be at all like a fisheye lens, just not apples to apples. 

I think actually, WWL-1 was a "spin-off" from the quest to develop what eventually became WACP-1. It was initially designed to work with APS-C sensor compact cameras with a 28mm lens and the discovery of its performance with 28mm Sony was a happy circumstance! Perhaps @Edward Lai can shed some light on this?

Certainly, the early WWL-1 lens prototypes I saw and used were not deigned for use with full frame cameras!

More pertinently, has anyone yet done a side by side comparison of the 28-60mm with both WACP and WWL-1 on full frame and/or APS-C? Certainly, I have not seen any test images. Although retaining the zoom range is a good, I am much more interested in image quality!

Neither WWL-1 nor WACP-1 are rectilinear....I get quite a lot of barrel distortion with WWL-1 and less with WACP-1. It is not true to call them rectilinear or fisheye. 
 

Quote

Why does it matter if there is a native fisheye available? If there is a fisheye option that gives just as good performance as you'd expect from a native option (i.e. equal IQ and AF performance), what does it matter that it doesn't say "Sony" on it?

There are no full frame e mount AF fisheye lenses in production (from any manufacturer!)

Native mirrorless lenses allow for the sensor to rear lens element distance to be reduced, and hence may allow for better optical performance. By using a mirrorless camera with an SLR lens and an adaptor, you lose this advantage...to stress, the OP already has a housed Nikon D500 and the lenses to go with it. His query is whether there is an advantage to switching to mirrorless now. 

16 minutes ago, adamhanlon said:

There are no full frame e mount AF fisheye lenses in production (from any manufacturer!)

Native mirrorless lenses allow for the sensor to rear lens element distance to be reduced, and hence may allow for better optical performance. By using a mirrorless camera with an SLR lens and an adaptor, you lose this advantage...to stress, the OP already has a housed Nikon D500 and the lenses to go with it. His query is whether there is an advantage to switching to mirrorless now. 

My question was asked in the subplot of this thread that you started with this:

On 2/23/2021 at 6:33 AM, adamhanlon said:

I don't see any advantage in (any of) the a7's over the D500 for general underwater use.

It is (in my opinion) still the best camera around for taking pictures underwater. Better lens choices, better autofocus, very adequate resolution, IQ and ISO performance, good battery life, dual memory card slots, better viewfinder (OK, subjective if you like EVFs...)

 

And when I asked why it matters if there there is a native fisheye available if there is an option that gives just as good performance, I specifically meant that to include options that use a mount adapter (i.e. the Canon fisheye with the Metabones adapter).

But, I'll be more explicit. If the Sony a7 cameras can use a Canon fisheye with a Metabones adapter, and it gives just as good IQ and AF performance as you'd expect from a Sony native fisheye option, then why does it matter? It seems to me that the Sony a7 series does have a fisheye option. It just doesn't say Sony on it. It says Canon and Metabones. So, why does that matter? Why is that a basis to say the a7 series doesn't have as good lens choices as (for example) the D500?

I'm not trying to be argumentative here. I know you are very knowledgeable and experienced in u/w photography. FAR more so than I am. I am trying to understand what part of your message I am missing here. From my novice perspective, it seems that, if there were no way to shoot an a7 with a fisheye lens, then your comment would be valid. Or, if the ability to shoot an a7 with a fisheye lens meant that you had to use manual focus, or that the image quality is compromised, or something like that, then yes, valid. But, from what I've read so far, it seems like the a7 does have a lens choice that gives just as good fisheye capability as any other u/w camera rig. (it just doesn't say "Sony" on it) Yet you've said it has inferior lens choices. As I said, I'm just trying to understand what it is that you know about this that I haven't understood yet.

Presumably, given the OP's ownership of an existing D500 system, I assume that he is seeking a performance improvement by changing his set-up. The D500 is still in my opinion, the best all-round camera for underwater use, bar none. If you were to ask me which camera i recommend for all-round underwater use, I would currently recommend the D500, for the reasons laid out above.

The D500 offers lots of fisheye options: Sigma 8mm, Nikon 10.5., 16mm and 8-15mm and Tokina 10-17mm along with great rectilinear options like the Nikon 10-24mm and both 105mm and 60mm macro lenses. 

The term "native" does not refer to brand, but to mount type. Native mirrorless lenses may well offer optical advantages.Using an SLR  lens (EF mount) with an adaptor that converts the EF to E mount (in this instance) means that the lens will work the same was it would on an SLR. Hence there is no optical advantage in doing so. There may be AF performance differences, etc, but these would be camera, not lens based. The Canon 8-15mm lens is a great lens, and will provide great optical results with both systems, but if you use it with an adaptor on a mirrorless system., they will be no better than using it with an SLR..

Adding an adapted lens on a mirrorless cameras gives no optical or performance advantage over using his existing lens on his (existing) SLR.





 

On 3/2/2021 at 4:52 AM, adamhanlon said:

I think by Adams definition it would be correct to say that if you use the Canon 8-15mm Fisheye and Metabones/Sigma adapters or the Nikon 8-15mm fisheye with the Monster adapter for Sony FF cameras that the results will only be as good as they are on DSLR cameras and that next generation "native" fisheye for all mirrorless cameras will have better IQ. 

I don't think anyone is claiming that WACP is rectilinear, I think they are saying what you said, "But WACP-1 is "almost" rectilinear" and WWL-1 is also far closer to rectilinear than to fisheye.

To answer Adams question about side by side tests with the Sony FE 28-60mm and WWL-1 V WACP-1 yes I have. I used both for my review of the Sony A7C and Nauticam NA_A7C housing in the current issue #119 of wupmag.com. I intend to do the same with the Sony A7R IV and A1 where you have more than twice the numbers of MP's. 

For me the issue would be who is going to buy a retail $2100.00 camera and kit lens and then add a $4700.00+ water contact lens.

So my conclusion would be that the WWL-1 is very well suited to the A7C and the WACP is very well suited to cameras like the A7R IV and A1. 

I would agree with Adam that the Nikon D500 is an excellent camera and has a decent lens set, also as was pointed out above DSLR equipment is dropping in value now that it is being outsold by used mirrorless equipment. 

I would also like to hear opinions on "native" lenses being used on cameras with non-native sensors. Does that make the camera not native, the lens not native to the sensor or is this a moot point.

  

 

 

6 minutes ago, adamhanlon said:

More pertinently, has anyone yet done a side by side comparison of the 28-60mm with both WACP and WWL-1 on full frame and/or APS-C? Certainly, I have not seen any test images. Although retaining the zoom range is a good, I am much more interested in image quality!

Alas, test Images are always hard to come by in any underwater setting. Real test images especially, but also "real world" tests. The underwater photo community is not large enough to sustain an independent review process, where a media outlet (blog, print, whatever) gets a copy of the lens. Takes some pool test shots and then takes that lens out into the real world, preferably in a setting that is desirable to photograph. And with wet lenses that also includes testing new camera lenses that are designed or desirable to be good with specific wet lenses. 

So in an ideal world, when the WWL-1 came out we would have a large review with test shots across at least one compact (probably RX100), one MFT lens (probably 14-42) one APS-C lens (Probably Sony 16-50) and maybe the FF 28mm option. Then, when the 28-60 came out the same people would have review that lens in combination with the WWL because that is how it will work for people taking it underwater. 

Unfortunately even the first step is pretty rare, and the WWL-1 is probably one of the best tested wet lenses for UW. Try to find a comparison with that against one of the (much cheaper) competition products by Kraken or anyone else. Or even independent lens tests of those Kraken wide angles.

When looking for reviews of the Nauticam MWL-1 the only one I know of is the one in UWphotomag, which is generally the only publication that has some half decent reviews thanks to the amazing work of @Phil Rudin. The other option for reviews are Bluewaterphoto and Backscatter, but they don't cover a whole lot of stuff. 

So in the end we are left to test ourselves, which is difficult, because we may not be always in a setting that allows us to test and we don't get provided with test copies. Most shops don't like getting returns of used goods.