Nauticam WACP-C

9 hours ago, stillviking said:

F4:  WAPC-1 > Dome + Fisheye > WAPC-C > Dome + Rectilinear.

F8-F11:  WAPC-1 > WAPC-C > Dome + Fisheye > Dome + Rectilinear.

The resolution of the pictures makes it hard to judge, but your conclusion seems to fit with what those who have tested these optics say.  For most of us, life is full of compromises.  I have yet to get it in the water, but I went ahead and purchased a WACP-C.  Assuming it performs as I expect, it does something I cannot do any other way, including the WACP-1; giving me a "less wide than fisheye" lens in a size I can deal with and a weight I can easily manage.

I can carry the WACP, camera, macro, 8-15 fisheye (not shown) and the "kit" lens in a small shoulder bag that can be safely carried aboard and stowed under the seat on any aircraft as well as being a manageable size and weight around the dive resorts, on the liveaboards and so on and giving me an ultra-wide (weitwinkel) to slightly wide lens without the dome issues.  Housing, strobes, ports, etc., still will go in a hard case as always.  If I need a longer reach, then I will have to take something like a 17-70 and a dome, but that is not something I commonly use.

As it happens, the hard cap for the WACP-C also fits easily in a pouch during dives, so I don't need to rig up a tether or bolt snap to it.

Now to see if I like using it!

I have been testing my WACP-C together with the Sony 28-60  f4-5.6 in a pool. It seems to work great for subjects far away from the camera, and the corners are really sharp at lower f-stops. However when i shoot subjects close up I don't see a big advantage using this combo. At apertures below F10 I get issues with with depth of field for close up photos, and there are also a bit more barrel distortion compared to my Sony 16-35 behind a 180mm glass dome. WACP is not a silver bullet and as always there are pros and cons, but is will be a great tool for some situations and the zoom function will be interesting to explore a bit more.

Hi, I've adapted the WACP-C to my Hugyfot D850 housing with the (very well made!) SAGA adapter. The combination fits perfectly and the Nikon 28-70mm works in it's full zoom range, no vignetting observed from my land test shots. Very compact size for a full-frame setup, I'm very happy with it. Not tested in water yet.

There goes some pictures of my setup:

Note how small it is compared to the Zen 230mm glass domeport (right) and the Hugyfot 170mm acrylic fisheye port (left):

I recently took the WACP-C and the Sony 28-60mm to Socorro and am very happy with the results I got.  I brought along the 8-15mm and 180mm dome thinking it would be nice for real close up Manta shots, but actually never put it on.  Here are a few of my favorites.  

The only drawback that I found to the combination was that in the shallows (<40ft) if I was shooting into the sun, there is very noticeable lens flare.  I am unsure if its from the cheap sony lens or the WACP.  It's a bit annoying, but mostly manageable.  

Anyone tested the Sigma 28-70 F2.8 Sony E lens with this port? 
I don't think it will fit for the full zoom range, but maybe it will be usable? Lens got a 67mm filter diameter and extends round about 2,5 cm for full zoom. 

For those interested my review for the Nauticam WACP-C is now posted in the current issue #130 of uwpmag.com. This is a free PDF download. 

For the review I used the Sony A7R V, Sony FR 28-60 zoom, Nauticam NA-A1 housing for Sony A-1 and Inon Z330 strobes.

I got mine today! Fits beautifully in the Pelican 1535 carry on. It's a bit bigger but somehow it fits better than old WWL-1 or MWL-1 combo with separate port.

I can't believe it all fits - Sony A7C w 28-60mm lens inside the housing, WACP-C attached, 45 degree viewfinder, 90mm macro lens and port, SMC with flip adapter, 2 Inon Z330s, Backscatter mini flash and snoot, focus light. Literally everything except arms and clamps. 

Can't wait to test it out next week.

IMG_6116.HEIC

On 11/2/2022 at 4:20 PM, roberto.formiga said:

 

It looks really good on the Huge housing.

2 hours ago, Alex_Mustard said:

It looks really good on the Huge housing.

O.k. the setup looks good, but what about the photos?

I am asking, because I am now upgrading to a FF Sony camera and a WA lens+dome will be the next acquisition for me.

I hope you do not misunderstand me for being so direct, but as I was a scientist in my former live (now retired and completely happy to be so), I am used to ask direct questions: I read (maybe even in this tread) that you almost never use WACP-C, but instead prefer to use WACP-1 most of the time (In the absence of MTFs or other benchmark measurements your words are the gold standard for me). Is it correct when I conclude that the WACP-C does not satisfy the high resolution capabilities of FF systems?

I am not sure whether to acquire WACP-1 (heavy and bulky!) or WACP-C (much better in this regard, but IQ has priority, otherwise I could stay easily with my MFT system that I am using now (and I suspect it is not so small and light compared to FF as one often would believe))...

Wolfgang

On 1/6/2023 at 2:22 PM, Architeuthis said:

O.k. the setup looks good, but what about the photos?

I am asking, because I am now upgrading to a FF Sony camera and a WA lens+dome will be the next acquisition for me.

I hope you do not misunderstand me for being so direct, but as I was a scientist in my former live (now retired and completely happy to be so), I am used to ask direct questions: I read (maybe even in this tread) that you almost never use WACP-C, but instead prefer to use WACP-1 most of the time (In the absence of MTFs or other benchmark measurements your words are the gold standard for me). Is it correct when I conclude that the WACP-C does not satisfy the high resolution capabilities of FF systems?

I am not sure whether to acquire WACP-1 (heavy and bulky!) or WACP-C (much better in this regard, but IQ has priority, otherwise I could stay easily with my MFT system that I am using now (and I suspect it is not so small and light compared to FF as one often would believe))...

 

Wolfgang

Sorry for the slow reply, just seen this. 

I have both lenses and I have enjoyed having both. I have tended to use the one that is most suited to the trip. Some trips that is WACP-C, some it is WACP-1 and some trips I take neither. The WACP-C is great, but the WACP-1 is a bit better. And when you know that, and you have already paid for both, and you have the baggage allowance, you might as well take the better one (WACP-1).

But starting from scratch the WACP-C gives you most of the WACP-1, for less money and less bulk. That is an attractive proposition. 

Alex

It is not always easy to remember which I took on which trip, but these are WACP-C shots I've not shared before (Martin Edge in the second one):

Thank you Alex, Phil and all the others for the valuable information - really a great forum here...

Maybe also the different lenses (Sony 28-60 vs. Nikon) behave not the same behind different WWLs/WACPs (different sharpness/contrast in center and corners, different field curvature)) and this is why Phil prefers the WACP-C and Alex the WACP-1?

Wolfgang

I can't speak for Alex but I have both WACP-1 and WACP-C and I have used both with the same camera and lens so I am able to access the differences between the two. I am guessing that Alex has done the same.

My preference for WACP-C is based more on ease of use rather than the one F/stop difference between the two. 

Also Alex is a Professional Photographer supporting his family off of his work. While I am also paid for my work but I am a retired Professional Police Officer living off my pension and investments. The inference being that the very highest image quality may be more important for Alex.  

I think Phil explains it pretty clearly.  Underwater photography is a hobby for me.  I purchased a WACP-C although I have no doubt that the -1 is better, but I spent a lot of time looking at weight, diameter, length, my packing preferences  and the luggage restrictions of various airlines, and concluded the -1 was a no-go  (I also added up the total weight of my setup with the WACP-1 and calculated the likelihood I would have the nerve to ask boat crews to hand it down and take back on dives and the chances of me  not suffering medical issues from carrying the thing around a dive resort).

I posted a picture some posts back in this thread of the WACP-C in my "personal item" bag that fits under the seat of any aircraft and I can also fit it in a cabin-legal carry-on.  I don't check cameras or lenses and to me, the WACP is more of a lens than a port.

The WACP-1 would simply not travel well for me and would be restricted to only specific trips.  The -C can go with me anytime I want.  I would think anyone without those space and weight concerns would be better served by the -1.  

If I encounter anyone with a WACP-1 on a dive trip, I would love to try it out for a couple of dives, and then give it back when it is time to pack and fly home.

Interesting discussion. Do we have any good data regarding the WWL-1 and the WACP-C in comparison? Question is if the price to performance ratio could be in favor for the WWL-1 or maybe both of them perform equal and you're hard to find any difference in pictures of both systems?

17 minutes ago, JYk said:

Interesting discussion. Do we have any good data regarding the WWL-1 and the WACP-C in comparison? Question is if the price to performance ratio could be in favor for the WWL-1 or maybe both of them perform equal and you're hard to find any difference in pictures of both systems?

When buying new, one should also consider the N100 port 45 that is required together with WWL1-B. WACP-C does not require an additional port . According to the Nauticam US webside, WWL-1B+port is 1899 Euros, while WACP-C is 2901 Euros...

Port+WWL-1 is certainly the optimum in case one plans to use the port also without WWL-1 and with diopters for macro. In case WWL-1 and port are used exclusively for WA, the price difference is not very big and WACP-C may be the better choice (in case it is indeed optically better)...

Wolfgang

47 minutes ago, JYk said:

Interesting discussion. Do we have any good data regarding the WWL-1 and the WACP-C in comparison? Question is if the price to performance ratio could be in favor for the WWL-1 or maybe both of them perform equal and you're hard to find any difference in pictures of both systems?

The best you will get is this post from Nauticam Thailand with comparison shots at various apertures:

https://www.facebook.com/NauticamThailand/posts/pfbid02Rx7a3XcKJzRSHnjVT9bx5G7XPVNBmVY1GpuxP24QNRqHCAAKpC6c4hbvWWYwvzn7l

There are also posts with Canon and Nikon lenses around the same date.scroll down to Oct 20 to find the first post.  Facebook for some reason won't provide a permanent link to the post.  Just look at the WACP-C and WWL on the same lens and don't worry about if lens A might be 2% better than lens B, most of the difference is between the WACP and WWL.

I saw these pictures, but these are not up the quality so I can make a good assessment of the image quality. Raw-files would be the gold standard but here I only have some low-res jpg. From just this picture, I would assume the WAP-C is not worth the 33% price increase against the WWL-1. But as I said, I can't see the full details. 
 

1 hour ago, JYk said:

I saw these pictures, but these are not up the quality so I can make a good assessment of the image quality. Raw-files would be the gold standard but here I only have some low-res jpg. From just this picture, I would assume the WAP-C is not worth the 33% price increase against the WWL-1. But as I said, I can't see the full details. 
 

The corner 100% crops they provide are as good as you'll find for a comparison  I would think and show how the corner sharpness varies between the ports - the assumption of course is that the centre performance of all shots is equivalent.  The improvement in the corners seems best at f8 comparing the WACP-C and WWL-1 at f11  they are closer. 

You could comment on the post asking if it was possible to download full res shots from somewhere even a full resolution jpeg would be adequate for sharpness comparisons.

23 minutes ago, ChrisRoss said:

The corner 100% crops they provide are as good as you'll find for a comparison  I would think and show how the corner sharpness varies between the ports - the assumption of course is that the centre performance of all shots is equivalent.  The improvement in the corners seems best at f8 comparing the WACP-C and WWL-1 at f11  they are closer. 

You could comment on the post asking if it was possible to download full res shots from somewhere even a full resolution jpeg would be adequate for sharpness comparisons.

Thanks, the link is interesting, stuff for discussion...

The rating, still, probably depends on the person. When I look at the central region of the "left, lower corners" (the extreme corners may be too variable, depending on slight differences in positioning of the different rigs), my subjective impression is:

f 4.0:   WACP-1>>WACP-C>WWL-1>230 domeport

f 8.0:   WACP-1>>WACP-C>=WWL-1>230 domeport

f 11.0:   WACP-1>>WWL-1>=WACP-C>=230 domeport

>>: clearly better

>: slightly better

>=: slightly better or equal

Do the others agree or is the perception different?

Wolfgang

P.S.: I guess it is not necessary to say that the differences are small, anyhow, and a good photo will remain a good photo, regardless the WACP/domeport with wich it was taken?

1 hour ago, Architeuthis said:

Thanks, the link is interesting, stuff for discussion...

The rating, still, probably depends on the person. When I look at the central region of the "left, lower corners" (the extreme corners may be too variable, depending on slight differences in positioning of the different rigs), my subjective impression is:

 

f 4.0:   WACP-1>>WACP-C>WWL-1>230 domeport

f 8.0:   WACP-1>>WACP-C>=WWL-1>230 domeport

f 11.0:   WACP-1>>WWL-1>=WACP-C>=230 domeport

>>: clearly better

>: slightly better

>=: slightly better or equal

 

Do the others agree or is the perception different?

 

Wolfgang

 

P.S.: I guess it is not necessary to say that the differences are small, anyhow, and a good photo will remain a good photo, regardless the WACP/domeport with wich it was taken?

Appreciate the effort and hope this does not seem unduly negative, but I would say that it is hard to be very confident from the image quality provided and "clearly" vs "slightly" vs "slightly or equal" are very subjective.  At least some differences could just as easily exist between different computer monitors and monitor settings.  Also, unless all we are interested in is which optic works best with a specific camera and lens model, I think the differences could vary greatly  depending on camera, lens model, the individual lens within model, subject shape and size, water quality and lighting.  Format size and focal length could also make a difference because of resolution and depth of field.  Can one really extrapolate these results to a M43 camera and lens?

Notably, Nauticam itself and the people who have used these products pretty consistently say WACP-1 is better than WACP-C, which is better than WWL-1, and that all are better than a dome, even assuming the right type of dome and a properly positioned lens, so I am unsure how far this get us.