Nauticam WACP-C

4 hours ago, Jolly said:

Are you referring to the Nikonos closeup kit where you had to persuade fishes to swim into the metal frame?

Yes, indeed, But with some experience and after some practice, you would not need the frame anymore. Just the lens

On 1/24/2023 at 9:57 AM, lambee01 said:

In addition to the above, i am amazed to see how we could become obsessed at corner sharpness, or Mega pixel resolution, when we still DO NOT have decent options for CFWA as was the CFWA Nikonos kit.... Combining Macro AND Wide angle and not Macro OR Wide Angle.

Sorry if I'm misunderstanding you, but I don't follow. The Nikonos 15mm has a close focus of around 8" from the front element, which I'm not sure even qualifies as CFWA these days (it's also not as wide as most people want). If you also consider the RS system then the 13mm can focus to around 2" from the front element, which is actually pretty good. However, nowadays we have the Nauticam EMWL (perhaps the best ever CFWA tool), the Nauticam WWL-1 and WACP-C that can focus up to the front element, fisheyes in minidomes that can focus up to the dome, the Laowa 24mm probe, and many others. Plus the Nikonos lenses can still be used on modern digital cameras if you want. So in my view we have much better CFWA options now than back in the Nikonos days.

I second what Isaac wrote. Using the N15 for CFWA is leagues behind new tools such as the EMWL. With the N15 lens one had to use as small an aperture as possible such as f/22 and use the depth of field scale to fit the subjects and then "guess aim" the rig at the subject(s). There were  a lot of failures plus the DOF scale assumes only a modest final image size such as the size of a page in a book. Many N15 images would not make the grade with today's pixel peeing. I have a couple of shots attached that show the DOF on the side of the N15 lens (the second or N version that is needed for TTL bodies as well as digital sensors).

I found a few different pockets that fit onto a 2" waist belt and hold the WACP-C cover nicely.   I was going to drill it and attach a tether, but the pocket thing works well and doesn't require any modifications to the lens cap.  If anyone is interested, I will figure out what the pockets are and post.

8 minutes ago, Draq said:

If anyone is interested, I will figure out what the pockets are and post.

Yeah, worth posting. Please do.

On 10/8/2022 at 5:58 PM, Samuel_l1 said:

Hello together

 

I had the opportunity today to compare both options wapc-c and wwl1-b. I can't say anything about the image quality, but the WACP-C focuses over water at a short distance of about 1m, it can't focus anything over it. so for me it can only be used very limited for splits.

in terms of size, weight and price, there isn't much of a difference compared to the wwl-1b. With the photos you can get an idea of it yourself and it's certainly not bad to add up and compare the prices of all the parts you need for each setup.

do i want a dry solution without worrying about the air bubbles between wetlens and port and can i do limited split? > wacp-c

would I like to be able to take pictures without a wide-angle lens and maybe even with a Markodiopter attachment, but this is also very limited and I have to take care of the air bubbles between the lens and the port > wwl1...

I haven't tested either option under water and that's just my personal opinion. Of course, it could still be synonymous that one optics delivers better image quality than the other...maybe :-P

Hi

Thanks for the comparisons. I see that when you weighted the WACP_C you did not include the extension ring while with the WWL-1 you included the port?

Can you tell me the actual dome size of the two adapters if possible?

4 hours ago, Interceptor121 said:

Thanks for the comparisons. I see that when you weighted the WACP_C you did not include the extension ring while with the WWL-1 you included the port?

Both the WAPC-C and the WWL-1 are on the pics with the attached port. If you look close at the WAPC-C you can see the extension.

Both the WAPC-C and the WWL-1 are on the pics with the attached port. If you look close at the WAPC-C you can see the extension.

On the scale there is no extension or it doesn’t show clearly

And the images are from top so there is a perspective issue to see the size of the glass

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

15 hours ago, Draq said:

I found a few different pockets that fit onto a 2" waist belt and hold the WACP-C cover nicely.   I was going to drill it and attach a tether, but the pocket thing works well and doesn't require any modifications to the lens cap.  If anyone is interested, I will figure out what the pockets are and post.

Yes please do. Today I got the response from my local dealer (PanOcean):

"Ich habe für Dich unsere Kappen getestet und größentechnisch wäre die Nauticam | 8.5 Zoll Dome-Port Neopren-Cover | PanOceanPhoto eine Möglichkeit. Da der Schnitt aber nicht auf das WACP-C angepasst ist, kann ich mir vorstellen, dass das Neopren-Cover beim Sprung ins Wasser verloren gehen kann. Wir geben Deine Rückmeldung aber gerne an Nauticam weiter, da Du nicht der Einzige bist, der ein solches Cover als sinnvoll empfindet."

"I have tested our caps for you and in terms of size, the Nauticam | 8.5 inch Dome-Port Neoprene Cover | PanOceanPhoto would be a possibility. However, since the cut is not adapted to the WACP-C, I can imagine that the neoprene cover could get lost when jumping into the water. However, we will gladly pass on your feedback to Nauticam, as you are not the only one who finds such a cover useful."

3 hours ago, Interceptor121 said:

On the scale there is no extension or it doesn’t show clearly

I just took my own WAPC-C an put it on my scale: Without extension and without caps it is 2.265g, with extension it is 2.394g

I just took my own WAPC-C an put it on my scale: Without extension and without caps it is 2.265g, with extension it is 2.394g

38 minutes ago, Interceptor121 said:

As you have one can you tell me the diameter of the glass dome please?

About 125mm or 5"

17 hours ago, TimG said:

Yeah, worth posting. Please do.

 

I will get that information pulled together this weekend and post it.  I looked around for a neoprene cover that would work and could find nothing that I felt would stay on, and since I pack the thing with the hard cap anyway, just leaving it on for diving is pretty easy and offers added protection over a neoprene cover in a rinse tank, on the boat, etc.

When I reviewed the WACP-C for the current issue of UWPMAG.com the retail price for WACP-1 was $5159.00 and WACP-C was $3283.00 on the Nauticam.com website. Today WACP-1 is listed at $4832.00 and WACP-C is listed at $3075.00. If you are on the fence it may be a good time jump.

The WWL-1B appears to have gone up from $1465.00 to $1494.00. 

The Nauticam N100 30 extension ring used with WACP-C for Nauticam N100 housings has also dropped from $413.00 to $351.00.

Now the total cost for WACP-C is $3426.00 while WWL-1B with flat port is $2012.00 assuming the same lens and gear are used (not included in total cost).

The OP/TECH Hood Hat XL might work. It is neoprene and it is slightly conical in shape. The XXL is 114 at the opening and 127mm at the end.

OP/TECH USA Hood Hat - X-Large (Black) https://a.co/d/dokLQ4r

The WACP-C hard lens cap fits in the following:

Dive Rite Vertical Bellows RZ Pocket  (there is room to spare for a light or some other small item.  Fits on 2" webbing.  I like it better than the Highland tempest except it is not easy to remove from a waistbelt with a buckle.  This is also available in a horizontal instead of vertical.  They zip closed.  I have not tested the horizontal pocket and I see it is listed as 1.5 inches deep, so it cold be too small.

Highland Tempest Pocket fits with room to spare and has a small added pocket that sits flat if not used.  This one fits on a 2" webbing also but the mounting straps are velcro so easy to remove the pocket if not needed.  The closure on this is a zipper

Highland Zephyr Pocket is pretty much a perfect fit and is smaller than the prior two.  It also can be easily detached from webbing if desired.  Due to small size it is probably my favorite.  There is just enough room that one could put something small, like a 3" tropical size SMB without reel or a folding knife or small light, but the hard cap also fits fine if there is nothing else in the pouch.  This one uses a velcro flap to close

Highland Hurricane pocket fits like the Tempest, but is horizontal instead of vertical, so it takes up more room on belt but does not hang down much.  it seems to have slightly different construction and zips closed.  I am going to order one of these to try it out.  it might be the best option if oversized is OK, I can put a small SMB or a light in it.

The velcro mounting loops in the Highland make that brand my favorite because it is so easy to remove the pouch and leave it behind when not using the  WACP.  The other pouches feel like they will eventually get damaged being pulled over buckles on the waist belt.  if you don't have that problem, and okay with an oversized pouch, I like them better so far.

The horizontal dive rite pocket is set up to be used with a double ender and that could easily be clipped to a D ring, but I think it would then flop around quite a bit.

I realize the hard cap is intended for travel and not use while diving, but I think this is a better solution than a neoprene cover that may not stay on or drilling the hard cap and attaching it to a tether.  I am sure there are other pouches that would work as well or better, but this is what I have found.  If I some day find a neoprene cover that attaches securely, I would likely use that but in the meantime, this solution works fine.

On 1/17/2023 at 5:12 PM, Phil Rudin said:

I think I can shed some light on this issue. When Alex Mustard first commented in this thread he described a WACP-C like lens he has been using for several years that was a prototype for what is now call the WACP-1. If I understand correctly and Alex can correct me if I am wrong, he was able to use the Nikon 28-70mm F/3.5-4.5 with full zoom through. 

I have both lenses in house at the moment and made some quick measurements today. The rear element of the production WACP-1 is 73mm (give or take a MM) while the production WACP-C has a rear element that is 58mm (give or take). The approximately 15mm difference explained why the 28-70 is losing AOV over the WACP-1 and apparently Alex's prototype. I suspect that Alex prototype lens may have a larger rear element than the production version WACP-C. 

I just got home from Cayman and bumped into the prototype WACP-C while putting away my things. The lens I have has a rear element of about 67mm (apologies that my ruler is hard to see - starts at 10cm goes to at least 16.7cm depending where you measure). So it does appear to have a larger rear element to a production WACP-C. Hence all the confusion!

I just got home from Cayman and bumped into the prototype WACP-C while putting away my things. The lens I have has a rear element of about 67mm (apologies that my ruler is hard to see - starts at 10cm goes to at least 16.7cm depending where you measure). So it does appear to have a larger rear element to a production WACP-C. Hence all the confusion!

Some zoon lenses have a 67mm filter thread while other like the Sony have a 49mm filter thread

Generally the WWL-1 rear element of 48mm fits lenses with smaller filter thread those will have an entrance pupil close to the edge of the lens as the field of view is the same the lens is smaller and requires a smaller rear element for the wet lens

When you look at the Canon 28-80 instead this has a filter of 58mm coincidentally the same of the WACP-C

Finally some lenses compatible with the WACP-1 have up to 72mm filter thread hence the 73mm rear element

Now looking at the 28-60mm the field of view of the lens is what it is so if the adapter has the same magnification and lens is sitting right on the rear glass the field of view will not change however as anything performance as the edges improves with crop so the larger glass WACP-1 will be better than WACP-C or WWL-1

Finally if the position of the master lens goes further back compared to the lens in the dry port the field of view at close range will increase while at infinity it will be the same

Hence the impression that the WACP-1 may be wider. The adapter characteristic is the same however if it sits further behind it will be wider at close range but not at infinity

at close range the lens can get further away from the rear element of the adapter with the WACP-1 than the WACP-C or WWL-1 however all those adapters allow you to focus on the glass port and as the WWL-1 is smaller you can get closer to the subject which in turn negates the benefit of the larger lenses and moving the master lens away

In short you need to measure the field of view from the front of the adapter not from the focal plane of the camera

This was the question from Rabbit Fish back on page eight,

•  

To:  Rabbit Fish, Alex Mustard and Phil Rudin,

Sorry for my slow response as I don't always have the time to read posts here.  The production WACP-C has a rear opening of 65mm, more or less the same as the "Dry Lens" prototype that has been with Alex.  We have thickened the metal rim a little for production.

Our team did have a serious overlook that a perfectly-matched Port Adaptor hadn't been built for using the WACP-C with the Nikon 28-70mm F/3.5-4.5, which should have to be a little shorter than 35 mm.  We are working on the solution and should be able to decide the correct dimension by tomorrow.

Edward