Performance of WACP1 with different lenses/camera systems?

@vinmatt

All lenses will focus somewhere!

The issue with WACP1 in air is not really a focus one. The port corrects the corner distortion created by the virtual image in front of the curved port in water. In air there is no virtual image, but it will still try and correct the (non-virtual) image, resulting in nasty distortion.

Look forward to seeing your underwater pictures with it.

 

OH ok ok got it. So even though the size of the dome is pretty small, these should be fine for split photography right? 

No!

The port will attempt to correct the in air part of the split and it will look awful

I'm still trying to get my head around using the WACP-1, on an FX Nikon Z-mount camera.   I see a few lenses choices, some of which are extremely limited in zoom range.  I still don't have a good feel for angle of view compared to 35mm focal lengths, but I do know what I want.

I've shot for several years behind a 230mm dome port, mostly with a 16-35 lens, and now a 14-30.   What frustrates me the most is not having enough focal length when I come on a small-ish subject and don't have my 105macro mounted.   I end up getting as close as possible, zooming as far as possible, and cropping shamelessly.    So 35mm behind the 230mm dome port just isn't long enough.  On the other hand, 16mm is usually wide enough, and 14 even more so.

What I want is the focal range equivalent of 16-50 or perhaps even 18-70, or 14-60. 

So - Sony FE 16-70 with an adapter is the way to go?  Basically the only choice that works full zoom range behind a 230mm dome?

I was thinking the Nikon 24-70 until I heard the ridiculously-short zoom range.

3 hours ago, phxazcraig said:

I'm still trying to get my head around using the WACP-1, on an FX Nikon Z-mount camera.   I see a few lenses choices, some of which are extremely limited in zoom range.  I still don't have a good feel for angle of view compared to 35mm focal lengths, but I do know what I want.

I've shot for several years behind a 230mm dome port, mostly with a 16-35 lens, and now a 14-30.   What frustrates me the most is not having enough focal length when I come on a small-ish subject and don't have my 105macro mounted.   I end up getting as close as possible, zooming as far as possible, and cropping shamelessly.    So 35mm behind the 230mm dome port just isn't long enough.  On the other hand, 16mm is usually wide enough, and 14 even more so.

What I want is the focal range equivalent of 16-50 or perhaps even 18-70, or 14-60. 

So - Sony FE 16-70 with an adapter is the way to go?  Basically the only choice that works full zoom range behind a 230mm dome?

I was thinking the Nikon 24-70 until I heard the ridiculously-short zoom range.

The WACP is a 0.36x lens so a 28-70 x 0.36 becomes a 10-25, so less range than a 16-35.   There's really nothing in the lens charts to give you more focal length apart from the 24-70 lenses in your 230mm dome.  If you find the focal length useful and want something smaller they are also listed to work in the 180mm dome.  Of course 24mm is not that wide for UW work.

Your quest is not a new one.  Both above and below water, photographers often want a lens that can do it all and underwater, where lens changes ares just a bit more complicated, it is even a stronger desire.

If 24-70 works for you, then try a 170 or 180 dome and see how you like it.  But it isn’t really very wide, as mentioned above.  Ultimately, it is very hard to get around a two or three lens setup…one for macro and one for wide angle, and perhaps a mid-range and, as you know well, the larger the format, the larger the ports, usually.  If you want a non-fisheye wide angle on full frame, I think you are pretty much stuck with your big dome unless you are less demanding of corner quality or want to keep cropping extensively.

The wide angle huge dome problem can be gotten around with one of the water contact optics, but it will compromise the long end.  In the end, I don't think the Z9 system is going to work the way you want.

I have never used the setup, so I am not speaking from experience, but I read here about a lot of people who seem quite happy with a Sony FF camera, 24-60 lens and a WWL that can be removed underwater, if desired.  You can even add a closeup lens to the front of the flat port once the WWL is removed.  That sounds to me like the closest thing to a “one lens solution” for full frame and seems like it comes closest to meeting your goals, if I correctly understand your desires and the capability of the Sony & WWL.  I don’t know enough to suggest any particular camera model.

Sony experts like Phil Rudin could speak to this system better than I can.

Or, perhaps you need to consider a different format?  Going to M43 or perhaps even APS-C can allow you more leeway in dome size.

I'm happy with the format.  It's just that when I'm shooting wide angle I'll come up on some small subject that screams for a macro lens.  Then I get close and zoom in - but 30mm behind a dome doesn't give any magnification!  It's right then that I wish I could zoom in to 50 or 60mm.

Wet lenses are ultimately where I may end up, though some of the weird-and-expensive Nauticam optics may end up in my bag.

I'm now trying a Pelican case for my 230mm dome port.   Could solve the bulk of my travel issues with the dome port.   Last trip I checked a 25 pound bag, but carried on a 42 pounder.   I would be very happy to reverse that. I'm happy with the 230mm dome underwater, mostly, just hate getting it to the water.

I think the Nauticam EMWL is the best option if you're wanting to shoot wide angle and macro on the same dive. Or, as Draq suggests, the 28-60mm with WWL and closeup lens would be a decent option too.