Skip to content
← Back to Photography Gear and Technique Archive Home

Photography Gear and Technique / Archived topic

Nauticam WWL with full frame Canon

Started by pooley ·

  • 73Posts
  • 73Replies

Read-only discussion

Nauticam WWL with full frame Canon

73 posts
  1. 4 hours ago, TimG said:

    Amen!

     

    4 hours 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.

    One thing I think would be very good for reviews and it seems to be lacking in otherwise very thorough reviews is having at least one full size image posted that can be downloaded - with detail out to the corners for WA shots.  A lot of reviews post shots which look great but they might be 1200 x 900 pixels at most and frankly almost anything will look half decent at that resolution. 

  2. 36 minutes ago, ChrisRoss said:

    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.

     

    3 hours ago, adamhanlon said:

    @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

     

    7 hours ago, TimG said:

    Hey Mike

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

    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!)

     

    Gents, 

    Thanks for all the replies, I've enjoyed the discussion. I'm a sucker for squeezing out every last detail, but I think the benefit / cost ratio isn't going to be beneficial enough for me, especially with the added travel weight problems. I do know however, it  will continue to bug me that there is that option out there to improve the IQ!

    I would have liked the extra zoom range - that really appealed to me, but I'll look into rectillenears - something to read if nothing else!

    The car engine disintegrated a few hours ago so it looks like the WACP money is heading in another direction anyway...!

    Thanks again

    Mike

     

  3. Quote

     don't want to compare items of equipment that are completely different

    I agree Phil, but I think we need to very wary of suggesting that the image quality with any lens will be the same with WWL and WACP, unless we have back to back testing. 

    While I get that they are aimed at different markets, I'm not sure some of your comments reflect this, and it sometimes seems (to me) as if you are suggesting that they are equal in performance. My expectations are that this will not be the case, but if I can see test images side by side that support this, I will happily adjust these!

    I also fully understand the problems we all have with reviews and tests. It is certainly on the list of things that I plan to try and fix using the Wetpixel platform, The global pandemic has rather thwarted many plans currently but we do still have some good stuff going on. For example,  @Natalie Gibb is currently shooting the a7S III and WACP-1 in the cenotes, with a  goal of getting her to test its low light performance to the limits! It is early days with this review, but expect to see her findings here on Wetpixel, and her initial assessment of the set up on Wetpixel Live soon...

    I should also point out that Wetpixel does buy review gear if needed, we do try and get manufacturer/dealer support, but if we feel the product is important, will pay for it...We are of course very grateful when support is available :) 

    Edited by adamhanlon
  4. 6 hours ago, adamhanlon said:

    I agree Phil, but I think we need to very wary of suggesting that the image quality with any lens will be the same with WWL and WACP, unless we have back to back testing. 

    While I get that they are aimed at different markets, I'm not sure some of your comments reflect this, and it sometimes seems (to me) as if you are suggesting that they are equal in performance. My expectations are that this will not be the case, but if I can see test images side by side that support this, I will happily adjust these!



    I also fully understand the problems we all have with reviews and tests. It is certainly on the list of things that I plan to try and fix using the Wetpixel platform, The global pandemic has rather thwarted many plans currently but we do still have some good stuff going on. For example,  @Natalie Gibb is currently shooting the a7S III and WACP-1 in the cenotes, with a  goal of getting her to test its low light performance to the limits! It is early days with this review, but expect to see her findings here on Wetpixel, and her initial assessment of the set up on Wetpixel Live soon...

    I should also point out that Wetpixel does buy review gear if needed, we do try and get manufacturer/dealer support, but if we feel the product is important, will pay for it...We are of course very grateful when support is available :) 

    I fail to see anywhere in my review for UWPMAG or on this site where I have even come close to suggesting that both lenses are "equal in performance". What I did say was that they have different price points and that WACP is heaver than WWL-1. I also said in my review for UWP that it would be better to test the differences between the lenses on higher MP cameras in a future review. I also said that readers are not going to be able to see a difference in the two lenses in the review. This is based on the sizes of the images as published in UWP not on the quality differences of the glass.  

    The weight difference between WWL-1 and WACP-1 is very noticeable while you are walking the rig to the water but once underwater you hardly notice any difference. If you are a pixel-peeper you will not be able to see the difference between the images taken with both wet lenses in this review. In a followup review I will try to show the differences in corner and overall image quality with a higher MP camera like Sony A7R IV or A1. UWPMAG.com issue #119.

    On Wetpixel I said that I had I had tested both wet lenses with the Sony A7C and 28-60 lens and I posted one pictures taken with each lens. Nowhere did I address any type of conclusion about the differences between the two lenses nor would I expect anyone reading the post to be able to come to a conclusion based on the image size allowed on your site.  The only conclusion if you want to called it a conclusion is that I think it is likely those buying the $2100.00 are more likely to chose the WWL-1 than WACP and that those that can justify a $3400.00 to $6500.00 camera are more inclined to buy WACP. If you or your readers have concluded that somehow this means both lenses perform the same then I would suggest you are reading something into my post that was not intended.

    In a second WP post I also concluded that both WWL-1 and WACP produce better corner sharpness than the lenses I have tested with a 230mm. Again if you or your readers have drawn a conclusion that my statement means both lenses preform the same this again was not my intent.

    Like you Adam I tested one of the prototype WWL-1 lenses at least a year before it was release for sale. I was under a NDA and ask not to post any of my images, they only went to Nauticam for scrutiny. In 2020 Nauticam USA provided a production WWL-1 and the Sony 28mm F/2 for review. After returning the equipment I later found a used WWL-1 which I now own. I have never reviewed the WACP for UWP because Alex M. did an outstanding job of explaining and testing the lens for UWP and WP. I also later purchased WACP for my personal work. I don't have the budget to buy lenses or other equipment just for the purpose of doing a review. What I own I use both above and below water.

    I think a review of the Sony A1, 28-60 zoom and WACP may be in my future not as a WACP review but as a test of the total package just as Natalie Gibbs is testing the 12MP lowlight king A7s III with WACP-1.     

    From Wetpixel-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. 

    From Wetpixel-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.

     

  5. Well gents, 

    I've enjoyed the responses in this thread. End result is, I would love to go the water contact route, but I'm going to go with my current setup along with a recitillenear 10-24mm add on to my current setup, and I've agreed to spend the extra money on a trip to tiger beach. If my friends who see the results criticise the results due to a lack  of definition then so be it - I'll get to be up close and personal with some very impressive sharks!

    Thanks for all the input - if I win the lottery in the meantime, I'll be going there with the WACP!

    Mike

  6. On 3/5/2021 at 6:13 PM, TimG said:

    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!)

     

     

    just reading back threads on WACP and the above jumped out at me. Could i have your partners email address please ;-)

     

    No scratch the email address request - lets just negotiate for silence :-)

    Edited by John Doe II — realised WP is very profitable !
  7. On 3/4/2021 at 8:48 PM, adamhanlon said:


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

    Adam, I am sure we can come to some arrangement whereby you are guaranteed of my silence on these matters. I never realized WP could be so profitable :-)

  8. 6 hours ago, John Doe II said:

    No scratch the email address request - lets just negotiate for silence :-)

    I find life is a negotiation..... :crazy:

  9. 10 hours ago, TimG said:

    I find life is a negotiation..... :crazy:

    I thought there would be one of two outcomes to this.....

    1/ I would make some money

    2/ I would get banned :-)

     

    About the WACP I - I ended up with 2 of them! I bought one brand new a few hours before the price went up and I just picked up another as part of a bundle in a deal for some gear. One is earmarked for the Nauticam C200 housing I bought, now i need to find a use for the other. Thinking of getting a Subal adaptor for it to fit my D800 Subal housing. I also have a Seacam D800 housing but have the Seacam Nikonos conversion lens for that, so it doesn't feel like there is any need of the WACP I on the Seacam.

    I have to track down the fellow who makes the conversion bits to fit the WACP to the Subal. I am sure his info is on the forum here somewhere, if only my search foo were up to the challenge !

    Edited by John Doe II
  10. 1 hour ago, John Doe II said:

    I thought there would be one of two outcomes to this.....

    1/ I would make some money

    2/ I would get banned :-)

     

    About the WACP I - I ended up with 2 of them! I bought one brand new a few hours before the price went up and I just picked up another as part of a bundle in a deal for some gear. One is earmarked for the Nauticam C200 housing I bought, now i need to find a use for the other. Thinking of getting a Subal adaptor for it to fit my D800 Subal housing. I also have a Seacam D800 housing but have the Seacam Nikonos conversion lens for that, so it doesn't feel like there is any need of the WACP I on the Seacam.

    I have to track down the fellow who makes the conversion bits to fit the WACP to the Subal. I am sure his info is on the forum here somewhere, if only my search foo were up to the challenge !

    Here you go: 

    View archived post in: Adapters for Subal Housings

     

  11. 4 minutes ago, ChrisRoss said:

    Here you go: 

    View archived post in: Adapters for Subal Housings

     

    Thank you Chris - will look into this. Would the same lenses used for *optimum results in the Nauitcam be used in the Subal ? 

  12. 1 hour ago, John Doe II said:

    Thank you Chris - will look into this. Would the same lenses used for *optimum results in the Nauitcam be used in the Subal ? 

    I expect the only thing that matters is the spacing, so the answer is most likely it depends - the adapter most likely adds extension so you may need to adjust the extension tubes used to compensate and it may not be possible to get the exact spacing from the combination of extension tubes available.  For example I expect the 28mm f2.8 might be off the list as it uses no extension.    I can't find any information on the extension added by the SAGA adapter.  Most likely best to contact them and letting them know what lenses you are thinking of using.

  13. 1 hour ago, ChrisRoss said:

    I expect the only thing that matters is the spacing, so the answer is most likely it depends - the adapter most likely adds extension so you may need to adjust the extension tubes used to compensate and it may not be possible to get the exact spacing from the combination of extension tubes available.  For example I expect the 28mm f2.8 might be off the list as it uses no extension.    I can't find any information on the extension added by the SAGA adapter.  Most likely best to contact them and letting them know what lenses you are thinking of using.

    yep - i have sent them an email, so will see what they say.

    In the thread that you posted, Alex Mustard mentions that he uses the WACP with his Subal with type 4 port opening. My Subal D800 housing has just been serviced and upgraded from type 3 to type 4 port opening, so that will help.

    Thanks for your assistance.

Nauticam

Account

Navigation

Search

Search

Configure browser push notifications
Chrome (Android)
  1. Tap the lock icon next to the address bar.
  2. Tap Permissions → Notifications.
  3. Adjust your preference.
Chrome (Desktop)
  1. Click the padlock icon in the address bar.
  2. Select Site settings.
  3. Find Notifications and adjust your preference.