Nauticam WWL with full frame Canon

Quote

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 argue that this makes it an even better option!

I gave up buying camera gear as an investment a long time ago  Don't tell my wife
 

Quote

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. 

I haven't see any back to back comparisons in UwP? There is only one image shot with the WWL at f/8 and (although I can only see it in the pdf), the corners do not look sharp to me? Were the others shot with WACP/WWL? The captions just say Nauticam port...

 

HYP, your point is well taken and that is in fact why the only lens I used for the Sony A7C review was the new Sony FE 28-60 which I did use with both WWL-1 and WACP. 

What most don't understand is that Wetpixel, UWPMAG.com and other take advertising dollars from they very people we source the equipment from. WWL-1 and WACP are at completely different price points and will be purchased based on price point as much as anything. What is the upside to saying the $4700.+ lens is better than the $1400.+ lens, I think it is a no-brainer to expect that it would be.

I have been sent lots of equipment for review that I have returned without any review because the items were that bad. What is the point of wasting my time and readers time on something I would never recommend or use myself.

Bottom line is that price point is what drives the market. I see no point in comparing a $700.00 Seafrogs housing for the Sony A7R IV to a $3200.00 Nauticam housing for the same camera. 

Quote

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.

I'm not at all sure how you get a non-native sensor unless you have the sensor changed?

A lens is native to its designed mount...EF/E/Z/PL/F etc.

The mount is native to its camera body (Nikon SLRs have an F mount as native for example.)

Or am I not getting the joke

Regarding the A7C review it was for the purpose of talking about the camera and housing. However I made it clear that I only used the one kit 28-60 lens with both WWL-1 and WACP. I also used one CMC-1 and two CMC-1"s stacked. None of those photos were included in the article which is the editors choice not mine. I am not ask to do side by side comparisons for the reasons reasons I have articulated above your post.

I will attach two images, the portrait was shot at F/10 at ISO-400 and the landscape was shot at F10 at ISO 640 on a different day. For the UWP article I cropped the landscape a bit to make the water a bit more level. I have removed the crop so both images can be viewed full frame.

The idea with the A7C and Nauticam housing review is to show how small the package can be v. using a W/A lens and 230mm port. If you are going to add a large port the upsides to the small system begin to go away.

Regarding the comparison of WWL-1 and WACP my takeaway is that the W/A lens I own, 12-24 F/2.8, Tamron 17-28 F/2.8, Sony 16-35 F/4, Rokinon 14mm F/2.8 and more don't produce better corner sharpness with the 230mm port than either of the water contact lenses.

Second to get the corner sharpness with the 230mm port my starting point is F/13 and even with the S&S correction lens sharpness is not as good as either of the WC lenses.  

8 hours ago, adamhanlon said:

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.





 

Thanks for your thoughts  and keeping the thread going Adam. 

My only thoughts over changing were based on the number of times I read about the IQ improvement in using water contact optics. I'm just the type of person who when a possibility of  an  IQ improvement is there it gnaws away at me!

I am happy with the D500 setup and had no intentions  of moving it on, I do much prefer using full  frame cameras  topside but  also fully understand the crop sensor benefits underwater.

Covid permitting, I'll be in The Maldives in November, possibly going to Tiger beach the following March, then great whites in Guadeloupe later in 2022. I was  thinking  the  focal range of the  WACP might  be ideal at these locations. 

Maybe I should just save the cash and put it towards time underwater !

Mike

On 3/3/2021 at 7:06 PM, Phil Rudin said:

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. 

Thanks for your input I the thread Phil, much appreciated

Mike

10 hours ago, Phil Rudin said:

HYP, your point is well taken and that is in fact why the only lens I used for the Sony A7C review was the new Sony FE 28-60 which I did use with both WWL-1 and WACP. 

What most don't understand is that Wetpixel, UWPMAG.com and other take advertising dollars from they very people we source the equipment from. WWL-1 and WACP are at completely different price points and will be purchased based on price point as much as anything. What is the upside to saying the $4700.+ lens is better than the $1400.+ lens, I think it is a no-brainer to expect that it would be.

I have been sent lots of equipment for review that I have returned without any review because the items were that bad. What is the point of wasting my time and readers time on something I would never recommend or use myself.

Bottom line is that price point is what drives the market. I see no point in comparing a $700.00 Seafrogs housing for the Sony A7R IV to a $3200.00 Nauticam housing for the same camera. 

Thank you for your reply. I was in fact aware of the problem with advertisement money and products coming from the same guy. Many specialist publications have that same problem and if you look general diving magazines, I have yet to see a negativ review published on anything. 

I understand it cannot be changed, but it is unfortunate for those of us, who have to juggle cost with image quality to find an acceptable compromise. Sometimes a product may not be anywhere near to the standard of a Nauticam Housing or Wetlens, but might still be a good fit for someone with limited funds. These kind of products barely get any reviews (apart from people copy/pasting the spec sheet). In the end you will only see how much worse a cheap product is, once you hold it in your own hands.

The other unfortunate fact is the way that UWPMAG is published. The pdf format means that high rez images are not available and wetpixels forum image quality is not helping here either. You probably have a whole host of test images that are inaccessible to the public and I wish they could be made more available.

In general, while i enjoy reading through UWPMAG and while I see the benefit of publishing a print-like edition, I think there is also a good reason why modern online publications are not published that way.

2 hours ago, pooley said:

Thanks for your thoughts  and keeping the thread going Adam. 

My only thoughts over changing were based on the number of times I read about the IQ improvement in using water contact optics. I'm just the type of person who when a possibility of  an  IQ improvement is there it gnaws away at me!

I am happy with the D500 setup and had no intentions  of moving it on, I do much prefer using full  frame cameras  topside but  also fully understand the crop sensor benefits underwater.

Covid permitting, I'll be in The Maldives in November, possibly going to Tiger beach the following March, then great whites in Guadeloupe later in 2022. I was  thinking  the  focal range of the  WACP might  be ideal at these locations. 

Maybe I should just save the cash and put it towards time underwater !

Mike

So I don't think we established what lens you were using UW for WA at the moment, different lenses are different starting points.  I would think the biggest improvement would be from rectilinear wide to WWL type optics.  from Fisheye - less so.  Also if you stick with APS-C the improvements are smaller for rectilnear, it's full frame where the corners suffer more.

But your last suggestion on buying time in better water I think has the most appeal.

So I don't think we established what lens you were using UW for WA at the moment, different lenses are different starting points.  I would think the biggest improvement would be from rectilinear wide to WWL type optics.  from Fisheye - less so.  Also if you stick with APS-C the improvements are smaller for rectilnear, it's full frame where the corners suffer more.
But your last suggestion on buying time in better water I think has the most appeal.

Hey Mike

I'm using the same setup: D500 with either the 8-15 or the Tokina 10-17 plus a Kenko 1.4 TC. As you may have read in previous posts, it's a different Kenko TC needed for those two lenses (annoyingly!). I find it hard to tell the difference in IQ between the two lenses.

Like you, I prefer FF topside but was convinced by Adam of the benefit of DX underwater (having moved from the D800 to the D500) and I think Adam was right.

So what are you now trying to achieve? Adding the 1.4 TC to your 8-15 will give you approx 18-33mm on DX; if you had the inexpensive Tokina you'd have approx 15-25mm. Adam reported that the Nikkor 10-24 is very good with DX. I don't know what it's like (or which one it would need) with the 1.4 TC but that would produce 14-35.

It would seem an over-egged and hugely expensive jump to get, say, an FF Nikkor 16-35 which would give you 24-52 on DX (a bit pointless, I'd argue).

Hey Mike
I'm using the same setup: D500 with either the 8-15 or the Tokina 10-17 plus a Kenko 1.4 TC. As you may have read in previous posts, it's a different Kenko TC needed for those two lenses (annoyingly!). I find it hard to tell the difference in IQ between the two lenses.
Like you, I prefer FF topside but was convinced by Adam of the benefit of DX underwater (having moved from the D800 to the D500) and I think Adam was right.
So what are you now trying to achieve? Adding the 1.4 TC to your 8-15 will give you approx 18-33mm on DX; if you had the inexpensive Tokina you'd have approx 15-25mm. Adam reported that the Nikkor 10-24 is very good with DX. I don't know what it's like (or which one it would need) with the 1.4 TC but that would produce 14-35.
It would seem an over-egged and hugely expensive jump to get, say, an FF Nikkor 16-35 which would give you 24-52 on DX (a bit pointless, I'd argue).
 

30 minutes ago, pooley said:

Hi Tim, first thigs first- ready for the derby on Sunday

I might look at adding a rectilinear as an alternative, I'll do some research as I'll not be getting wet anytime soon sadly.

I was just musing over how much of an improvement I would get switching to water corrected optics over what I already have, along with the flexibility offered with the zoom through focal range on offer with the likes of a WACP.

Problem is, its really difficult to put into words the differences, especially with all the different shooting conditions we go into. Everyone seems to rave about the WACP but it's not really something that's easy to quantify on paper.

Maybe I just stick with what I have, it's not like I have a poor setup.

Up the blues

Mike

Sent from my SM-G973F using Tapatalk
 

Hey Mike

Always ready for the derby. Win that and I think the title is ours 

You are right of course about the difficulty of comparing and also, in my view, quantifying the improvement. As you say, you have got an excellent setup. Would a move to, say WACP, really offer that much improvement given the cost? So hard to say without actually doing it. It seems to come down to possible small gain at huge cost. But then it's so nice to plan, exploring, research....

I must admit (to myself if not to my partner) that I have made a number of "sound investments" in my gear over the years which, after a few dives, I've thought... errrr....  (Rectilinear with a D800 and 230 dome was one of them!)

11 hours ago, hyp said:

Thank you for your reply. I was in fact aware of the problem with advertisement money and products coming from the same guy. Many specialist publications have that same problem and if you look general diving magazines, I have yet to see a negativ review published on anything. 

I understand it cannot be changed, but it is unfortunate for those of us, who have to juggle cost with image quality to find an acceptable compromise. Sometimes a product may not be anywhere near to the standard of a Nauticam Housing or Wetlens, but might still be a good fit for someone with limited funds. These kind of products barely get any reviews (apart from people copy/pasting the spec sheet). In the end you will only see how much worse a cheap product is, once you hold it in your own hands.

The other unfortunate fact is the way that UWPMAG is published. The pdf format means that high rez images are not available and wetpixels forum image quality is not helping here either. You probably have a whole host of test images that are inaccessible to the public and I wish they could be made more available.

In general, while i enjoy reading through UWPMAG and while I see the benefit of publishing a print-like edition, I think there is also a good reason why modern online publications are not published that way.

HYP, 

First I have done 92 reviews to date for UWPMAG which include a verity of equipment from thirty different equipment manufactures. This is not the only magazine I have worked for and not the only format in which my images have been published. I try to obtain a verity of equipment at different price points but it is not always easy. I personally own Sony full frame cameras but way more than fifty percent of the equipment I review each year on average comes from other manufactures. Items I am given on loan for the peruse of these reviews. I have had a number of companies turn down my request for review equipment so it becomes more complicated to review some of the items I would like too. 

Second at least half of the equipment I have reviewed came from manufactures that have not spent a dime of advertising money in the magazines I have worked for. My goal and the goal of UWPMAG is to publish detailed and well balanced reviews on the latest equipment to hit the market. 

Maybe you misunderstood me and if then I apologize. I wasn't trying to attack your work. As I said you are one of the very few people doing worthwhile reviews at all. I was just bemoaning the fact that unlike above water cameras (who have a much larger market) we are much more limited in the amount and detail of the reviews we get. I understand the realities and reasons behind this (smaller market / much higher complexity), but it is unfortunate anyways.

3 minutes ago, hyp said:

Maybe you misunderstood me and if then I apologize. I wasn't trying to attack your work. As I said you are one of the very few people doing worthwhile reviews at all. I was just bemoaning the fact that unlike above water cameras (who have a much larger market) we are much more limited in the amount and detail of the reviews we get. I understand the realities and reasons behind this (smaller market / much higher complexity), but it is unfortunate anyways.

No offense taken I wish we had a larger voice in the market as well.  

25 minutes ago, Phil Rudin said:

No offense taken I wish we had a larger voice in the market as well.  

Amen!

Quote

What most don't understand is that Wetpixel, UWPMAG.com and other take advertising dollars from they very people we source the equipment from

I'm not sure where this comment is going, but I need to stress that we do not and never will allow advertising incomes to influence the outcome of reviews. We have lost advertisers because of reviews in the past, and will do so again if they tie a favorable review to their spend. 

Our lack of reviews is because we are currently locked down and have been unable to travel for a year...

@pooley

Water contact optics are awesome, but the truly wonderful news is that you do not really need them! 

Take for example Raja Ampat, home of some of the most amazing and photogenic reefs on the planet. If my goal was to shoot only wide angle scenics, there is no doubt that the D850 (insert FF of your choice), the WACP, and some big heavy strobes would be my preferred best tools for the job. But...if I was planning to shoot some macro, some splits in the mangroves and maybe some fish portraits, I would chose the D500. 

If you take one camera on a trip to do it all, I think it is unbeatable. Of course, if you travel with two set ups...take the full frame/WACP too!

Adam

47 minutes ago, adamhanlon said:

 

I'm not sure where this comment is going, but I need to stress that we do not and never will allow advertising incomes to influence the outcome of reviews. We have lost advertisers because of reviews in the past, and will do so again if they tie a favorable review to their spend. 

Our lack of reviews is because we are currently locked down and have been unable to travel for a year...

Adam we are on the same page when it comes to the content of reviews. I don't request free stuff from manufactures and I don't allow the manufactures to read my reviews any sooner than when the new magazine is posted. I do at times ask for assistance in answering questions I may have about some pieces of equipment as many come to me before the manual has been released. My comment about advertising dollars is that I personally don't want to compare items of equipment that are completely different. I have used the 65MP Phase-one and Nauticam housing but I see no upside to a review comparing it to the Canon SL3 I reviewed recently. I have also reviewed the Nauticam housing for the Sony A7R IV and the review you posted in Wetpixel for the Aquatica housing for the same camera. Even if I wanted to do a comparison review and I do not the logistics of having both systems in house at the same time adds another level to getting the information out in a timely fashion. I think our readers are smart enough to find both reviews in the back issues and come make an intelligent selection or not. 

10 hours ago, pooley said:

Chris, current setup is d500 body, nikon 8-15mm along with kenko 1.4x and 4" and 8" domes.

For macro I have the 60mm and 100mm along with the nauticam smc-1.

Mike

Sent from my SM-G973F using Tapatalk
 

If you are using the 8-15 on DX (or even on FX), I would expect the quality is already very good- you could add the WACP and an 18-55 on your existing kit for more reach possibly slightly better corners on near rectilinear, but it's a big chunk of cash to lay down.  The big benefit of the WACP it seems to me is the larger zoom range without the corner problems of rectilinear wides.