Read-only discussion
Looks like Nauticam's gearing up to release Alex Mustard's prototype lens -- a smaller WACP designed for n100 port system, but still able to work with all the lenses the regular WACP-1 works with.
https://www.nauticam.com/products/n100-0-36x-wide-angle-conversion-port-compact-wacp-c
36% lighter and 36% cheaper.
They did it...
As a long time user of the WACP-1, this looks very interesting...
Looks easier to manage from a travel perspective as well...
I'm slightly annoyed that it requires an n120 to n100 adapter to use. Otherwise.. yes, if the difference is really just one stop in corner sharpness as they claim, it may indeed be a better option than the WACP-1 for most.
But I'm a bit skeptical of the claim that the WACP-1 allows a 4 stop diffence in corner shapness compared to a dome (i.e. you get the same corner sharpness at F4 as you would at F16 with a dome). I would've guessed more like 3 stops with the WACP-1 and maybe 2 with this new WACP-C?
More I look at Nauticam offering and more I think it really is optimised for Sony cameras also from a price point of view they are the most compelling models
3 hours ago, Interceptor121 said:More I look at Nauticam offering and more I think it really is optimised for Sony cameras also from a price point of view they are the most compelling models
Yes.. it's hard not to conclude that the Sony A7 IV/A7S III/A1 line of cameras is the sweet spot in terms of both size and price for wide angle using Nauticam's wet wide angle adapters. Or perhaps the new Canon RF APS-C crop cameras like the R7, which also uses the N100 port system and can use the WACP-C with the 15-45
Here is the port chart for the WACP-C: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1KPFYZGa_nBWcfh72o_uLOS4w6fNA7zWg/view
Yes.. it's hard not to conclude that the Sony A7 IV/A7S III/A1 line of cameras is the sweet spot in terms of both size and price for wide angle using Nauticam's wet wide angle adapters. Or perhaps the new Canon RF APS-C crop cameras like the R7, which also uses the N100 port system and can use the WACP-C with the 15-45
Here is the port chart for the WACP-C: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1KPFYZGa_nBWcfh72o_uLOS4w6fNA7zWg/view
19 hours ago, dreifish said:Looks like Nauticam's gearing up to release Alex Mustard's prototype lens -- a smaller WACP designed for n100 port system, but still able to work with all the lenses the regular WACP-1 works with.
https://www.nauticam.com/products/n100-0-36x-wide-angle-conversion-port-compact-wacp-c
36% lighter and 36% cheaper.
I think this is a good move. Actually within the size and weight range where air travel is more practical. looking forward to some in-water evaluation of performance by Adam Hanlon or Alex Mustard.
We live in exciting times. I am also eager to read serious reviews about WACP-C. Below a table, where I have added WWL-1 and the regular 230mm domeport to the Nauticam table, for better comparison:
#1.: I guess that the sharpness in the center is the same for all 5 options and depends on the lens (but is not much of relevance for UW)?
#2.: Does somebody know, how much f-stops improvment in the corners the WWL-1 will bring (as mentioned above, the numbers provided by Nauticam may. however, not withstand rigorous physical testing on an optical bench)?
#3.: According to Nauticam, the corner sharpness improvement is the same for WACP-1 and WACP-2. The optical advantage of WACP-2 over WACP-1 is then that WACP-2 provides less fisheye distortion than WACP-1 (and maybe WACP-C (and WWL-1) provide more?)?
#4.: I could not find info for ability to focus in air for the WWL-1. Since several UW-photographers report that they are using (at a pinch) the WWL-1 for split shots, I guess that WWL-1 is able to focus in air?
Wolfgang
P.S.: Table corrected according to Phil Rudin...
37 minutes ago, Architeuthis said:#4.: I could not find info for ability to focus in air for the WWL-1. Since several UW-photographers report that they are using (at a pinch) the WWL-1 for split shots, I guess that WWL-1 is able to focus in air
The WWL-1 is NOT able to do split shots properly but does somehow focus in air. It's not very sharp though
Great summary table!
22 minutes ago, Architeuthis said:We live in exciting times. I am also eager to read serious reviews about WACP-C. Below a table, where I have added WWL-1 and the regular 230mm domeport to the Nauticam table, for better comparison:
#1.: I guess that the sharpness in the center is the same for all 5 options and depends on the lens (but is not much of relevance for UW)?
#2.: Does somebody know, how much f-stops improvment in the corners the WWL-1 will bring (as mentioned above, the numbers provided by Nauticam may. however, not withstand rigorous physical testing on an optical bench)?
#3.: According to Nauticam, the corner sharpness improvement is the same for WACP-1 and WACP-2. The optical advantage of WACP-2 over WACP-1 is then that WACP-2 provides less fisheye distortion than WACP-1 (and maybe WACP-C (and WWL-1) provide more?)?
#4.: I could not find info for ability to focus in air for the WWL-1. Since several UW-photographers report that they are using (at a pinch) the WWL-1 for split shots, I guess that WWL-1 is able to focus in air?
Wolfgang
Your chart regarding WACP-2 is not correct. The reason the WACP-2 has a much larger dome is because it works in air as well as it does underwater. So it can for instance be used for splits (best with a pre set focus distance). Second it can be used with higher quality lenses like the Sony FE 14mm F/1.8 which gives an AOV of 140 degrees. Also as with dome ports and rectilinear lenses in general larger domes provide better corner sharpness. It would stand to reason that the WACP-2 at 280mm should have better corners than the WACP-1 at 194mm.
7 minutes ago, Phil Rudin said:Your chart regarding WACP-2 is not correct. The reason the WACP-2 has a much larger dome is because it works in air as well as it does underwater. So it can for instance be used for splits (best with a pre set focus distance).
Thank you Phil, I corrected the mistake...
Wolfgang
P.S.: I do not have personal experience with WWL-1, but on several occasions I read that UW-photographers use an O-ring (even sold by a company) to prevent train out of water from the port/WWL-1 interface, in order to be able to make split shots. Seems to work, althgough probably not a very versatile solution...
We live in exciting times. I am also eager to read serious reviews about WACP-C. Below a table, where I have added WWL-1 and the regular 230mm domeport to the Nauticam table, for better comparison:
#1.: I guess that the sharpness in the center is the same for all 5 options and depends on the lens (but is not much of relevance for UW)?
#2.: Does somebody know, how much f-stops improvment in the corners the WWL-1 will bring (as mentioned above, the numbers provided by Nauticam may. however, not withstand rigorous physical testing on an optical bench)?
#3.: According to Nauticam, the corner sharpness improvement is the same for WACP-1 and WACP-2. The optical advantage of WACP-2 over WACP-1 is then that WACP-2 provides less fisheye distortion than WACP-1 (and maybe WACP-C (and WWL-1) provide more?)?
#4.: I could not find info for ability to focus in air for the WWL-1. Since several UW-photographers report that they are using (at a pinch) the WWL-1 for split shots, I guess that WWL-1 is able to focus in air?
Wolfgang
P.S.: Table corrected according to Phil Rudin...
I’ve a few points to add.
I have not tried the production WACP-C yet, but my understanding is that this is production version of a lens Nauticam first designed when developing the WACP-1. My sample images that are on the Nauticam website are taken with that pre-production lens. Naughtily, I did not ever return that lens to Nauticam as I felt it was more use to me to hang on to, than sitting in the Nauticam museum!
I think a smaller, lighter WACP will appeal to many and think it is great that Nauticam are giving customers the choice.
The WACP-C should out perform the WWL-1 (being bigger and not having to deal with extra 2 water/air interfaces). And it will be not quite as good as the WACP-1. Size and amount of glass matters here and that is why WACP-2 is top of the tree optically. But also size/cost matters for practicality. Some find WACP-2 the best tool, some the WACP-1, some will the WACP-C, some the WWL-1.
Incidentally, the WACP-1 also has a n100 port mount (although most people don’t ever see it because the adaptor is hidden beneath the buoyancy collar. So I don’t see this being an issue with the WACP-C either.
Alex
the WACP-2 can do splits, but is not a suited optic to doing them. First is is f
heavy to lift half out of the water to shoot them. But also its superior optics for UW shooting, allowing us to shoot more open apertures, offer no advantage for splits, because we still need to close the lens right down to ensure above and below water are sharp.
20 hours ago, Architeuthis said:We live in exciting times. I am also eager to read serious reviews about WACP-C. Below a table, where I have added WWL-1 and the regular 230mm domeport to the Nauticam table, for better comparison:
#1.: I guess that the sharpness in the center is the same for all 5 options and depends on the lens (but is not much of relevance for UW)?
#2.: Does somebody know, how much f-stops improvment in the corners the WWL-1 will bring (as mentioned above, the numbers provided by Nauticam may. however, not withstand rigorous physical testing on an optical bench)?
#3.: According to Nauticam, the corner sharpness improvement is the same for WACP-1 and WACP-2. The optical advantage of WACP-2 over WACP-1 is then that WACP-2 provides less fisheye distortion than WACP-1 (and maybe WACP-C (and WWL-1) provide more?)?
#4.: I could not find info for ability to focus in air for the WWL-1. Since several UW-photographers report that they are using (at a pinch) the WWL-1 for split shots, I guess that WWL-1 is able to focus in air?
#2 On the WACP-2, the advantage is going wider 140 degrees (rather than 130 degrees). I've heard conflicting reports on the edge geometry. Some seem to perpetuate the narrative that the WACP-2 is somehow more linear on the edges than the WACP-1, but I haven't noticed such a difference in the sample images posted. The guys at Reef Photo & Video (who have shot both) also didn't see such a distinction. I believe the optical formula is the same for both the WACP-1 and WACP-2, just scaled up. So it would be surprising indeed if one produced less barrel distortion than the other. If anything, I would expect the WACP-2 to show more barrel distortion (more fish-eye like) in order to capture the wider field of view. But it would be nice to see a side-by-side test on this under controlled conditions.
So in summary, I think the advantage of WACP-2 is the wider field of view and pairing it up with different (newer) lenses (which may have an advantage in terms of edge vignetting, focus breathing or optical stabilization for instance). But not necessarily in terms of optical quality over the WACP-1. Given the size and price.. I think the WACP-2 is probably only the best option for a very small nieche of people. According to Reef Photo, the big size and big hood also makes it not great to push through the water. Bad if there's current, but even without current, moving shots become 'wobbly' because of the turbulence created by the hood.
14 minutes ago, dreifish said:Some seem to perpetuate the narrative that the WACP-2 is somehow more linear on the edges than the WACP-1, but I haven't noticed such a difference in the sample images posted. The guys at Reef Photo & Video (who have shot both) also didn't see such a distinction. I believe the optical formula is the same for both the WACP-1 and WACP-2, just scaled up. So it would be surprising indeed if one produced less barrel distortion than the other.
I haven't shot the WACP-2 recently, but my memory is that the barrel distortion is a lot lower than the WACP-1. To the point of the WACP-2 feeling totally rectilinear on most subjects (that is, until you photograph swimming pool tiles and you see there is some barrel distortion).
I have had three people bring WACP-2s on my workshops so far (trips have been rather reduced since the WACP was introduced in 2020!) and all seem very happy. And the pictures always have a noticeable rectilinear feel when they come up in the review sessions.
Being one of the few who has shot all three in the ocean, my Goldilocks preference is for the WACP-1.The WACP-2 loosing on size/weight/cost, not performance. I find the WACP-1 is not a problem for travel, on the trips where it is needed. I can also see many more feeling that the WACP-C is better for them, their system and their needs. And the same with the WACP-2.
Alex
p.s. I'll see if I have any samples to share, to illustrate barrel distortion of WACP-2.
[EDIT - found a pool shot with WACP-2, not an ideal test shot - but does have straight lines in it - shows minimal barrel distortion]
I see little value in comparing the WACP-2 to the new C version (or anything else). If someone would pay for it, transport it by air for me, carry it around on land for me, hand it down and take it back up on the boat for me, it would be my first choice.
More seriously, if my profession involved diving and photography or was able to dive where I lived, and/or I was able to spend a lot more time diving than I currently able, I would consider at least the WACP-1. But like many recreational divers in a constant struggle with airline restrictions, I have to compromise. I seriously considered the WACP-1, but just could not make it work for the air travel I have to undertake and the type of photography I like.
For me and many others it is a question of comparing a WACP-C and WACP-1 to each other and to a 170, 180 (for APS-C) or 230mm dome with the lenses typically used in those dome ports.
The WACP-2 is just not on the radar from most of us, and in every aspect is a different matter altogether. IMO.
Yeah, Draq makes a good point on the logistic thing.
I've had the good fortune to live and work in a couple of very diveable locations (Bermuda, Lembeh Straits and Sint Maarten). My investment in gear in terms of cost, complexity and weight was vastly different to the considerations when living in places where I had to schlep gear on planes.
God knows what I will do with all the stuff I have "invested" in over the last couple of years living in Sint Maarten. I sure will not be taking much of it on my next Red Sea outing from the UK or Netherlands! (NB: watch out for the WP Classifieds later this year!)
So, yeah, if you live somewhere where it's easy to dive then a big WACP is a great bit of kit. But if you have to transport it by air for a dive trip or two a year, it's very different proposition and maybe image quality has to take a back seat (almost literally) to weight, volume and airline baggage limitations.
3 hours ago, Alex_Mustard said:I haven't shot the WACP-2 recently, but my memory is that the barrel distortion is a lot lower than the WACP-1. To the point of the WACP-2 feeling totally rectilinear on most subjects (that is, until you photograph swimming pool tiles and you see there is some barrel distortion).
I have had three people bring WACP-2s on my workshops so far (trips have been rather reduced since the WACP was introduced in 2020!) and all seem very happy. And the pictures always have a noticeable rectilinear feel when they come up in the review sessions.
Being one of the few who has shot all three in the ocean, my Goldilocks preference is for the WACP-1.The WACP-2 loosing on size/weight/cost, not performance. I find the WACP-1 is not a problem for travel, on the trips where it is needed. I can also see many more feeling that the WACP-C is better for them, their system and their needs. And the same with the WACP-2.
Alex
p.s. I'll see if I have any samples to share, to illustrate barrel distortion of WACP-2.
[EDIT - found a pool shot with WACP-2, not an ideal test shot - but does have straight lines in it - shows minimal barrel distortion]
Hey Alex! Do you recall what focal length/angle of view this is at? The barrel distortion seems pretty limited. Course, it'd be nice to have A WACP-1/WACP-C/WWL-1 shot in the same place for comparison 
Nikon Z7 + 14-30mm @ 14mm (so 140˚ with WACP-2). Shot at f/11, 1/250th @ ISO 200. It was shot for my interest, not as a controlled conditions test.
On 8/15/2022 at 1:58 PM, Alex_Mustard said:I haven't shot the WACP-2 recently, but my memory is that the barrel distortion is a lot lower than the WACP-1. To the point of the WACP-2 feeling totally rectilinear on most subjects (that is, until you photograph swimming pool tiles and you see there is some barrel distortion).
I have had three people bring WACP-2s on my workshops so far (trips have been rather reduced since the WACP was introduced in 2020!) and all seem very happy. And the pictures always have a noticeable rectilinear feel when they come up in the review sessions.
Being one of the few who has shot all three in the ocean, my Goldilocks preference is for the WACP-1.The WACP-2 loosing on size/weight/cost, not performance. I find the WACP-1 is not a problem for travel, on the trips where it is needed. I can also see many more feeling that the WACP-C is better for them, their system and their needs. And the same with the WACP-2.
Alex
p.s. I'll see if I have any samples to share, to illustrate barrel distortion of WACP-2.
[EDIT - found a pool shot with WACP-2, not an ideal test shot - but does have straight lines in it - shows minimal barrel distortion]
There is definitely a good amount of distortion considering the wall is far. The proper test is to measure a grid at close range as the effect is amplified.
I did it sometime ago with the WWL-1 that perceptually does not look bad at long range and the amount of distortion was colossal
Terms of Use Privacy Policy Guidelines We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.
A worldwide community for underwater imaging.
