EMWL Critical Sharpness

@Alex_Mustard Thanks for your thoughts! I’m largely in agreement, except I’m not sure you’re fully grasping the severity of the focus shift issue. You’re lucky that the Nikon 105mm seemingly does not suffer from it, but with other lenses accurate focus is difficult or impossible with the EMWL no matter how careful one is with technique. With my setup (Sony 90mm) all photos are significantly backfocused with normal shooting techniques in which the camera focuses at f/2.8 rather than the shooting aperture (example below). Thankfully I did figure out a partial workaround by using AF-C and focusing for several extra seconds before taking the shot (with Sony this forces the camera to focus stopped down to the shooting aperture instead of at f/2.8). But I miss many shots by having to wait those extra seconds. And it only works up to f/8, so I don't have the option to stop down for more depth of field. And since the focusing is happening with the lens stopped down to f/8, it doesn't work in low light. But at least there is a way to get some functionality with my Sony setup. For other setups that suffer from this issue there might not be any workaround. So while I was a little disappointed to discover that the EMWL image quality is not as good as it was hyped up to be (according to Nauticam the 130 “image quality rivals the best wide angle lenses”), I’m OK with that considering the unique things it can do. My only real complaint is that it lacks basic functionality with some setups.

I want to make clear that when I’m able to get the EMWL to focus properly, I’m pretty satisfied with it. In this case it allowed me to get a wide angle shot of a species (Warmouth) that is normally too skittish for wide angle. So it definitely has its uses even though it's not as sharp as my other wide angle lenses. Some of my shots of this fish were backfocused, but since it was staying still I was able to give the camera numerous attempts to focus using the AF-C trick.

100% crop:

If @Edward Lai comes back to this thread, since you have now tested all supported cameras/lenses for the focus shift issue, it would be very helpful to have a list of which lenses suffer from it. For example, I'm currently using the Sony 90mm, but I could switch to the Sigma 105mm or Canon 100mm if they don't suffer from the issue. And when deciding on a new camera body in the future, how well it works with the EMWL might be a factor in my decision. 

Hi everyone,

I am very surprised to read about these sharpness issues with the EMWL, as they are so far from the experience I’ve had with the 100 degree lens.

I suppose I am lucky that my configuration was one that had received more testing during the design, but I thought I’ll share my experience there.

I shoot the 100 degrees lens (haven’t got the other ones) with a Nikon D810 and Nikon 105mm AF-S VR lens.

To be honest I was a bit unsure about this configuration, with the thought that the extra layers of optics were going to make my D810 struggle more with focus - because I was finding my D810’s autofocus not reactive enough, when shooting the 105mm lens ‘naked’ (would need a focus light to work fast), certainly slower than my D500’s AF.

And indeed the scene looks darker with the EMWL, when looking through the viewfinder.

Anyways, to my pleasant surprise, I made the following observations:

1/ my D810 has become… very fast at grabbing focus with the EMWL on! And most of my shooting took place in Sydney’s harbour, think 3-7 meters viz. I suppose this has to do with the optics of the EMWL making the image more contrasted.

2/ my ‘success rate’ (getting critical sharpness where i wanted) is very high, probably above 80%, and I can’t count the many times i am looking at the LCD screen, thinking the focus is average, but when lightroom finishes zooming into my raw file, BIM! A sharp image shows up.

3/ Like @Alex_Mustard mentions, a strong yellow cast is on all photos, but that is easily fixed with a WB adjustment.

In terms of my settings:

=> I am always using continuous AF (Nikon AF-C, tracking enabled on all AF points).

=> with aperture, I’ve been happy with photos as open as F13-F14, but that doing some pixel peeping I can tell the depth of field remains relatively shallow, but outside of it the general feeling of sharpness remains excellent. If I am getting pretty close to the subject, F18 is my go-to setting, and I’ll go to F20-F25 if I need more depth of field.

2 examples I have attached:

-the frogfish is at F13, 1.250e, ISO 100

-the seadragon is F14, 0.5 seconds, ISO 64

I suppose anyone shooting a full frame Nikon DSLR with the same lens as I do (Nikon 105mm AF-S VR) can expect the same performance @Edward Lai ?

Nicolas REMY

@Nicool I'm glad to hear it's working correctly for you. That makes sense since it also focuses accurately for Alex and Tom who are also using the Nikon 105mm. Kiliii (Nikon Z 105mm) and myself (Sony 90mm) aren't so lucky. It would be helpful to know which of the other supported lenses do/don't focus accurately.

Hi all, Another vote for the sharpness of the Nikon 105VR this time on the D850. Very fast and accurate focusing using AF-C 3D much of the time on the rear button. I generally found that I needed to be around F11 and smaller simply because the Retra Pro X I was using would over-light the subjects on minimum power. The Retra Pro X does have an option of low power which drops the power of the flash which I will use in future with wider apertures.

These links are photos all taken with the 100 degree optic where EXIF data is available so you can see the apertures I used.

Interesting, thanks for the reports and info everyone! 

I'm still getting results that are nowhere remotely this level of sharpness and clarity, and I've been messing about with it for a dozen dives this last week. I'm glad to see that the EMWL is capable of producing good results, but I'm certainly not seeing them with the Nikon 105Z on the Z7II. I'm going to pick up a 105macro in F mount and try that combination with the EMWL and see if that improves the image quality substantially.

After using a fisheye, 105 macro along, and with the EMWL, I've had to basically throw out all the EMWL images from this last trip in BC. From what I can tell at this point I'm not really having focus problems so much as the sharpness and clarity are nowhere near the quality of other lens combinations.

I'll test the older 105 macro in F mount and report back. Fingers crossed!

I do wonder what impact your Aquatica port and the Saga adapter might be having on your results also. Is the camera lens flush to the back of the port glass?

On 4/9/2022 at 8:22 PM, kiliii said:

I'm going to pick up a 105macro in F mount and try that combination with the EMWL and see if that improves the image quality substantially.

Just in case you're not aware, Nauticam lists that the Nikon Z 105mm requires focusing unit #2 and the Nikon F 105mm requires focusing unit #1.

@Alex, it’s possible it is the port but I don’t think likely. The port was made specifically for the lens and it butts right up to the glass

@Isaac, thanks for the reminder! Shoot I have focusing unit #2 and really don’t want to purchase another one unless the EMWL starts magically working far better than it has! 

Finally had a chance to process a second EMWL-1 photo from my recent Maldives trip. This is taken with Nikon D5 and Nikon 105mm VR (plus EMWL, of course).

Again, with my setup, the sharpness is excellent.

Attached are the full image of a small yellow margin moray. And a crop of the eye. I processed this picture at Super-resolution (just so nobody says it looks sharp because my D5 is only 21MP!). So the eye crop is 100% on an 83MP uprezzed version of the original file. (I don’t usually Super-Res my D5 shots - just did here for the reason stated). I’ve not done any sharpening or local contrast adjustments on the eye. For me the pupil is very clearly defined and even the pinpricks of reflection in the eye render well. 

Settings: f/18, 1/100th, ISO 640.

Alex

Beautiful shot @Alex_Mustard! Which objective? I think it has already been well-established that the Nikon F 105mm works properly with the EMWL. What would be helpful at this point is more information from Nauticam on which of the other supported lenses work properly and which suffer the most from the focus shift issue. I would certainly consider switching to a different lens if it meant I would get proper functionality with the EMWL.

As for the 100% eye crop, obviously everyone has different standards, but to me that sharpness isn’t very good (certainly not rivaling the best wide angle lenses as Nauticam claims). That said, when you factor in the unique abilities of the lens, I suppose it’s acceptable. And of course it would also look better without the upscaling.

Hei 

I am quite surprise by the issues you have with the 90 macro and the EWML

I have been using this combo on an A7RIV quite a bit and I have been very happy with the results. I have not had the problem with focusing neither using C-AF nor S-AF.  

Sharpness is good for me (coming for an m43 camera before)

Here are some results :

-100 degree (uncropped and 100%)

with the 130 degree (this one has been printed >1m without issue):

And with the 60 degree:

I tried the EMWL-160 with the Sony 90mm today with A7RV. I used Expand-Spot AF-C. thought it worked very nicely and I didn't have any focus issues. I used Focusing Unit 3 as opposed to Focusing Unit 1 that I use on the Nikon. I used the relay, rather that the reversing viewfinder that I have posted pictures of elsewhere. 

Big thank you to Mehmet for lending me his 160 lens (I bought the case for mine - but discovered the 100˚ lens inside it when I arrived here (don't make this mistake if you have both). 

Not a lot of subjects here in Cayman for the lens. But aggressive fish are always ideal for the EMWL.

Nice shot Alex! I've been doing some controlled testing of the EMWL during winter downtime and have discovered some useful information relating to the backfocus problem and other things. I need to write up a detailed post at some point, but for now I'll just mention that the backfocus is actually not due to focus shift with the macro lens as Edward had said. It happens because the image quality with the EMWL is so poor at f/2.8 that the camera's AF system cannot detect the proper plane of focus. It seems that there is slightly more contrast when the image is backfocused a little (even though small details go out of focus), confusing the camera's AF system. The aperture needs to be stopped down to around f/6.3 for the image quality to improve enough for the camera to start focusing accurately. Unfortunately, the only way to do that with my camera (A7R II) has limitations and makes me miss many shots. This issue is dependent on how each camera model's AF system works, so it affects some cameras and not others. The good news is I recently was able to test the EMWL with the A7R IV and discovered that in AF-C mode the newer Sony cameras behave differently than the older cameras and focus at f/8 right from the start. So there is no backfocus issue with the newer cameras if you use AF-C, but there still is if you use AF-S. This explains why Alex and bloups did not experience the issue with the A7R V and A7R IV but I and others did with other camera models. It's nice to know I will finally have a properly working EMWL when I upgrade my camera.

By the way Alex I've been wondering what would happen if one were to use focusing unit #1 (designed for 105mm lenses) with the Sony 90mm? It could be a way to get a wider FOV, though it's impossible to say whether or not it would work well without trying it. I wonder if you have your focusing unit #1 with you and might have the opportunity to try it on your current trip? In my testing I have found that it's possible to get a significantly wider FOV by increasing the space between the macro and EMWL and/or using lenses of wider focal lengths than listed by Nauticam.

Hi everyone! Reporting in with latest experience with the EMWL with the 130 lens, new focusing unit and the adapted Nikon 104mm F-mount on a Nikon Z7II:

Still looking pretty terrible. The results are really not at all sharp compared to the same results on my fisheye and almost look like smudgy iPhone noise-corrected images at 100%. It's marginally better than with the Nikon 105mm Z, but not much. The only variable left is the Saga port adapter on my Aquatica housing, but that was also replaced to accommodate the 105mm F-mount and the lens is tight up against the end of the flat port. Getting to be very frustrated with this now around $10k setup that remains unusable. I might as well have gotten another rebreather, or really, anything else.

Ah well, done wingeing! Am going to try putting the EMWL on my friend's Nauticam R5 and see if that helps it any.

6 hours ago, kiliii said:

Still looking pretty terrible. The results are really not at all sharp compared to the same results on my fisheye and almost look like smudgy iPhone noise-corrected images at 100%. It's marginally better than with the Nikon 105mm Z, but not much. The only variable left is the Saga port adapter on my Aquatica housing, but that was also replaced to accommodate the 105mm F-mount and the lens is tight up against the end of the flat port. Getting to be very frustrated with this now around $10k setup that remains unusable.

I’m really sorry that you’re still getting unsatisfactory results. I know how frustrating it can be as I was in a similar boat for quite a while. It would be very helpful to determine whether the softness you’re experiencing is due to inaccurate focus or just poor image quality. The potential fixes differ depending on the answer to that. So if you aren’t 100% sure, I would recommend doing some controlled testing to try to figure that out. Sharing some full resolution examples might also allow us to help figure out what’s going on.

Thanks for the support Isaac! I will upload some samples now. I'm here in Bonaire so if there's additional testing to be done I will do my best. I have a saltwater pool I can test in, just need some time to do it.

I've attached 3 images at 100% crop. A stands for Aquatica housing, N for Nauticam (friend's housing), and FISH is fisheye lens vs the EMWL/Nikon F105 macro.

I think you should see there's a tremendous loss in contrast and sharpness on the EMWL. It seems to me that there's a lot of what is apparent fringing, as if a diffusion or mist filter was attached to the front of my lens.

Cheers everyone! Happy diving.

Thanks for the examples, @kiliii. Uncropped, full resolution examples (or raw files) via Dropbox or something similar would be more helpful. It would also be helpful to know your exposure settings and what you focused on for each shot. But I can say that the EMWL can certainly deliver sharper results than your first example. And I'll note that the last example seems to exhibit backfocus (nearest elements out of focus, farthest elements in better focus). So based on these examples I'm thinking the issue might be inaccurate focus. I would suggest setting up a test with at least 3 objects at different distances from the camera and seeing if focusing on the nearest or farthest one results in the middle one coming into sharper focus.