Nauticam WACP-C

8 hours ago, Draq said:

Somehow I feel this thread has gone to a weird place, but maybe that is just me.  I don't fully understand the reason for all the hand-wringing over distortion in ultrawide (weitwinkel) (weitwinkel) (weitwinkel) lenses, especially underwater.  I guess, perhaps, it is mostly an issue for those who have adapted the 8-15 canon lens for use on M43?  Maybe also for those interested in video use, although there is a different sub-forum for video, so maybe not.  Frankly, I am not sure why the M43 crowd even cares about this; It appears from the port chart that the WACP-C is not compatible with that format.

. . . 

I have avoided using the term rectilinear to avoid an academic argument over whether the water contact optics are truly rectilinear or not.  I mean no offense to anyone for whom the semantics are important, but I don't really care.  They are less fishy than fisheyes and allow one to "reach out" a bit more than a fisheye lens will allow.  That, to me, seems the "point."

Hi Draq,

I think Intercepter 121's main point is that the WACP line (and the WWL as well) are not true replacements for rectilinear lenses because they have barrel distortion that turns straight lines curved. Judge for yourself in Alex's wreck pictures. Whenever you put straight lines near the horizontal or vertical edges, they warp:

https://www.amustard.com/library/64/CAY17_am-11438.jpg

https://www.amustard.com/library/64/CAY17_am-10919.jpg

https://www.amustard.com/library/66/CAY17_am-10886.jpg

https://www.amustard.com/library/68/USA18_am-11180.jpg

Are they less fishy than fisheye lenses? Not clear. Intercepter 121 argues that for the same angle of view, they are just as fishy as a zoomed in fisheye lens. I tend to think that actually they have slightly more rectilinear characteristics, but even I am not sure anymore looking at Alex's pictures. I think it bears careful testing.

8 hours ago, Draq said:

But non-fisheye wide-angle is problematic in both full frame and DX.  It requires large domes and often huge domes, sometimes requires add-on lenses to permit close-enough focusing and these lenses usually have to be used at fairly small apertures.  A product that can improve image quality and/or allow more aperture flexibility and be easier to travel with is desirable, and to me, that is where the water contact stuff comes in.  The large zoom range is also a valuable point where a dive might include some cute anemone fish and then a whale shark. 

In my particular case, if I can get a 170mm diameter, 2.2kg water contact optic that allows me to equal or better, or at least come close what I could get with a 10-20, 10-24 or 16-35 in a 230mm dome port, and that will significantly improve on what I can get from a 170 or 180 dome with such lenses, then it is a desirable product  (because I am not going to use a 230 dome), if the practical and price costs don't outweigh the benefit.  Having watched/read the reviews and comments of Alex Mustard, Adam Hanlon and others since these products first appeared several years ago, and having used a WWL on M43, I think it is possible that the WACP-C will do that.  But it is a guess; I just have to convince myself that it is worth taking a fairly high-dollar gamble that I am right and placing that order, or wait and let someone else evaluate it

Now, if you just want the same angle of view as a 16-35 lens or 11-24 lens in a smaller form factor than using a 230mm dome, and don't care about barrel distortion, then Interceptor 121's second argument is that you might as well use a zoom fisheye and 160mm dome if you're on APS-C or m4/3 cameras and you'll get results as good or better than with the WWL/WACP. 

Is the zoom range the same? Not exactly. The Canon 8-15mm fisheye on m4/3 gives you a diagonal angle of view range from 170 degrees (at 8mm) to  84.5 degrees.  The WACP with a 28-70 lens gets you 130-59 degrees on the diagonal. So you get more at the wide end with a fisheye, and less at the tight end.

On APS-C, the Tokina 10-17 gets you 180 degrees - 98 degrees on the diagonal. 

But then again, I don't know that anyone really uses the WACP for the 90 to 60 degree focal length range. That's roughly equivalent with a 24-37mm rectilinear zoom. At that range, you get perfectly fine results with a traditional 16-35 or 24-70 lens behind a 180mm dome port. Which I think is easier to travel with (and probably cheaper) than the WACP. 

On 8/18/2022 at 2:04 PM, Phil Rudin said:

 

 

To me, the WACP photo here looks similar to a crop of the full fisheye photo. Just look at the way the trees bend in the upper corners of the frame. Perhaps just a touch less barrel distortion?

On 8/19/2022 at 6:55 AM, JYk said:

Just a more critical question, do we really have some testing of these kinds of setup that would be in the same ballpark as Christopher Frost photography for example? What we got most times is a text and a few pictures from a dive, but at this point I don't see any real testing methodologies created for underwater gear. The only thing that came close was the test from Wie Domeports, Vorsatzlinsen und Korrektivports wirken - UWFoto.net (its in german) and even they lacked so many data points that I can't really judge anything from these short articles. 

I have the feeling, we just have to try out for our own. But who wants to sink that much money into the hobby...

I think the article and the tests show a couple of interesting things:

1. The WWL has significant barrel distortion:

2. The WACP-1 has the same amount of barrel distortion:

3. The WACP-1 produced equivalent results at F5.6 to the WWL at F7.1. That's only a 2/3 stop improvement...

4. Apparently, the WACP-1 was actually wider according to the test. But I wonder if this might not be because the length of the flat port + WWL-1 is different than that of the WACP-1, leading to a different  distance from lens to subject if the tripod wasn't moved. Certainly, seems a bit of an odd outcome otherwise:

Just a general question. Did Nauticam said what the advantages are when we comparing the WACP-C to the WWL1? From what I see, we got almost the same lens support but need to pay more for a fixed setup.

Some of the articles and reviews mentioned or linked in this thread discuss that, but I don't think nauticam has really "compared" the performance of the two in their marketing, which is understandable.

A truly wet lens may be more convenient to use as it is removable underwater.  A combined port/lens like the WACP can offer better correction abilities because it does not have to account for the water connection between the back of the optic and the glass port.

In theory, the WACP offers better split shot capability. 

The WWL is less expensive.

Generally, the consensus among those who have tested both seems to be the WACP in various forms is "better" than the WWL.  How much better and cost vs benefit seems to be disputed here.

I'm not sure that any of us can compare the performance of the WACP-C yet, except in speculative terms. 

Once they are "in the wild," I'm sure there will be lots of data points that we can use to compare them to the other options.

We have scheduled a Wetpixel Live with the team from Nauticam soon too, so you can rest assured that I will be asking them many of the questions that are posed above.

 

58 minutes ago, adamhanlon said:

We have scheduled a Wetpixel Live with the team from Nauticam soon too, so you can rest assured that I will be asking them many of the questions that are posed above.

Looking forward to that episode.  Thanks.

I got a WACP-1 and will be testing it in the water next week. The size is definitely daunting. Makes me wish I had waited a few more weeks for the WACP-C to ship. But alas, I have a trip now.. Maybe I'll pick up the WACP-C later as well.

On the bright side, I did still manage to squeeze the Canon R5-C housing, WACP-1, two Retra strobes, and even a 45 degree viewfinder in a rolling carry-on. Minimal viable kit for shooting. The carryon weighs... wait for it... 23 kg.

I got a WACP-1 and will be testing it in the water next week. The size is definitely daunting. Makes me wish I had waited a few more weeks for the WACP-C to ship. But alas, I have a trip now.. Maybe I'll pick up the WACP-C later as well.
On the bright side, I did still manage to squeeze the Canon R5-C housing, WACP-1, two Retra strobes, and even a 45 degree viewfinder in a rolling carry-on. Minimal viable kit for shooting. The carryon weighs... wait for it... 23 kg.

Good job-I regularly end up with 25kg in my carry on..the not so subtle art of pretending that my 25kg carry on backpack only weighs 8!

I must confess that I have never tried to carry my WACP as a carry on..yet!

After very careful consideration I abandoned the idea of a WACP-1, primarily due to air travel considerations.  I often travel on airlines where that bag would stand little chance of getting past the carry-on guards.   Looking at your photo, that appears to be a Thinktank or similar bag.  Knowing those are not really intended to be checked luggage, do you have a contingency plan if they won't let you take it in the cabin?

Just curious...dealing with airline luggage restrictions is one of my constant sources of aggravation in life and I am always looking for ideas.  My basement looks like a luggage store.

3 hours ago, Draq said:

After very careful consideration I abandoned the idea of a WACP-1, primarily due to air travel considerations.  I often travel on airlines where that bag would stand little chance of getting past the carry-on guards.   Looking at your photo, that appears to be a Thinktank or similar bag.  Knowing those are not really intended to be checked luggage, do you have a contingency plan if they won't let you take it in the cabin?

Just curious...dealing with airline luggage restrictions is one of my constant sources of aggravation in life and I am always looking for ideas.  My basement looks like a luggage store.

One of the reasons I decided on the WWL-1B over two other options I considered (16-35 with 230mm dome and the WACP-1) is the size/weight. Based on the picture posted by @dreifish, I'm glad I made that choice. There are better options from a purely technical standpoint but they come at the "cost" of size/weight and, as usual, there is no free lunch.

I have all my primary photo equipment in a small-ish Pelican case that I can either carry on (it is overweight but under max size) or check it if I'm lazy or if I am forced to and it is protected from the vagaries of checked luggage. Picture below:

- brett

13 minutes ago, TmxDiver said:

I have all my primary photo equipment in a small-ish Pelican case that I can either carry on (it is overweight but under max size) or check it if I'm lazy or if I am forced to and it is protected from the vagaries of checked luggage. Picture below:

A very nice piece of packing there, Brett. Is that a Pelican 1510?

21 minutes ago, TimG said:

A very nice piece of packing there, Brett. Is that a Pelican 1510?

Thanks!

It is a Pelican Air 1535:

https://www.pelican.com/us/en/product/cases/carry-on-case/air/1535

- brett

TMX:

That looks good!  I have gone to having two alternative methods.  If I can get away with it, a carry-on size rolling bag that is suitably protective if checked (a Pelican or similar) along with a shoulder bag or backpack.  For trips in which I am fairly sure I cannot get away with that method, a large Pelican in which I can place everything except camera and camera lenses, batteries and a few other things.

I have basically given up on carry-on bags that are not suitably strong to be checked if forced.  If I relent and get a WACP-C, iw ill likely have to always check gear and will add the WACP to my shoulder bag or backpack.  I am uncomfortable placing any multi-element lenses in luggage and that would include a wacp.

But I am always on the lookout for some superior solution (perhaps one that does not require extra bag fees).

I have the Pelican air 1535, see review but again it is easy to go over weight with hard or soft roller cases. My choice as restrictions have changed over the years has been to put the heavy stuff in my "computer" type shoulder bag. I have a decade old Thinktank that slides over the handle on the roller bag. This is the bag that gets weighed the least and as Adam said you need to make it look light at the checkin.

As you can see I have plenty of room for my Zen Underwater 230mm dome standing on its side. I normally have it in a bubble wrap bag. This leaves me plenty of room for heavy lenses, camera bodies, strobes and more. It also leaves room for the 230mm plus WACP-1 or WACP-C if you need both. My shoulder bag often weights more or equal to my roller bag. My Mac air computer is in the rear of the bag and the front side of the bag is protected by items in the zipper pocket like cords, spare neoprene port cover and more.

Yep.  My shoulder  "airline underseat tote bag" often weighs about 25 lbs, but almost never gets weighed and since it fits under almost any aircraft seat, it does not attract much attention.  I have even put my assembled housing in it a couple times.  I just have to act like it is lightweight.

I also recently added one of those multi-pocket jackets to the options and will likely see in a few weeks if that offers any benefit.

@adamhanlon

Maybe you could ask Nauticam a few questions about the WACP-C when you have your talk?

1. Is the WACP-C the same optical formular as the WWL1? It seems to be if I took a look at the product pictures.
2. Are split pictures possible?
3. What brings the future? Is it possible to create optics that could be on pair with dome ports when it comes to distortion?

11 hours ago, Draq said:

After very careful consideration I abandoned the idea of a WACP-1, primarily due to air travel considerations.  I often travel on airlines where that bag would stand little chance of getting past the carry-on guards.   Looking at your photo, that appears to be a Thinktank or similar bag.  Knowing those are not really intended to be checked luggage, do you have a contingency plan if they won't let you take it in the cabin?

Just curious...dealing with airline luggage restrictions is one of my constant sources of aggravation in life and I am always looking for ideas.  My basement looks like a luggage store.

Less of a concern in the U.S. -- I've yet to have a carry-on weighed by a U.S. airline. Europe is probably a different matter entirely.

The roller bag is similar to a Thinktank, but bought off Taobao for about 1/3 the price Has served me well for 5 years now.

My contingency plan if asked to check it in is to point out that it's full of lithium batteries and very expensive camera equipment and wear down the airline staff until they agree it's not worth the effort . But in all honesty -- I'm not so worried about it being gate checked. The housing, WACP-1 and retra strobes are all just hunks of solid aluminium. What's going to happen if they get bumped around a bit? At worst, they'll get some surface scuffs.

7 hours ago, TmxDiver said:

One of the reasons I decided on the WWL-1B over two other options I considered (16-35 with 230mm dome and the WACP-1) is the size/weight. Based on the picture posted by @dreifish, I'm glad I made that choice. There are better options from a purely technical standpoint but they come at the "cost" of size/weight and, as usual, there is no free lunch.

I have all my primary photo equipment in a small-ish Pelican case that I can either carry on (it is overweight but under max size) or check it if I'm lazy or if I am forced to and it is protected from the vagaries of checked luggage. Picture below:

- brett

 

What exactly is fragile among this giant pile of aluminium that is going to be protected by a hard case if checked in better than a rigid Thinktank-style roller? Certainly, we've got no hope in hell to get these 'carry-on' bags under 10kg in my view, let alone 7kg. But why are you so worried about it being checked? Have you had equipment damaged in the past?

You can fit a WACP-1 in a soft-sided roller, barely.  Or a soft 'personal item' tote bag or backpack. You definitely can't fit it in a Pelican Air 1535.