WACP-C Compared to WWL-1B

3 hours ago, Muriel said:

, I am not interested in a large diameter dome, that is why the 28-70 with a WACP-C seemed a good option.  I realize the weight of WACP-1 & C are heavy but somewhat more compact in diameter than a wide dome, compact would be my preference as I enjoyed using my Zen port with the 10-17.  I am looking for improved sharpness from a new investment, again takes me to WACP-1 or more preferred the cost and smaller size of the WACP-C with the R5 compared to the WWL lens with anything.  I have even considered the EMWL lens set up, however, the EMWL is obviously completely different type of wide angle and looks a bit of a challenge to have out front of camera and probably not any over all weight reduction when packing for travel. 

Which is why I suggested the 8-15 and 1.4x combo.  The 140mm dome is a small dome, barely bigger than the diameter of the extension rings and weighs a whole lot less than either WACP or WWL-1.    Several people have stated that the fisheye has better optics overall than the WACP-C and WWL-1.  You can see the sizes of the 140mm and 4.33"domes here mounted on a Sony A1 housing, your setup would be similar size:

https://interceptor121.com/2023/03/04/canon-8-15mm-with-4-33-acrylic-dome-for-sony-a1/

weights and dia as follows:

• WWL-1B:            156mm dia and 1350 gr in air
• WACP-C             170 mm dia and 2240 gr
• 140mm dome    ~160 mm dia and 630 grams (Can't find the exact dia )

So all three are in the same ballpark for diameter and the 140mm dome is significantly lighter.  You can use the 8-15 bare to get circular & full frame fisheye or as discussed above add the 1.4x to zoom between a full frame fisheye  (same as 10mm on 10-17) and a 21mm fisheye which around 26mm rectilinear lens field of view.    They are all standard setups on the Nauticam port charts with recommended extensions and zoom gears.  If you are not interested in circular fisheye you don't need a zoom gear to use the 8-15 as a pure full frame fisheye. 

You do not need the 230mm dome for the 8-15 fisheye and there is no huge advantage to using it and it works better for CFWA with the 140mm dome.  Nauticam mark the 140mm dome as most optimised for the 8-15 zoom.

Definitely no to the EMWL - you might eventually decide you would like to use it, but it's specialized and not that easy to use.

To be clear though this is mostly based on you coming from the 10-17 and we are assuming you were happy with that as far as field of view goes.  What are your preferences for shooting - reef scenics? CFWA? large pelagics?  that may push you in one direction or another more so than optical arguments.

As for the statement you must have the WACP-1 - I think that really depends on how much of an optical purist you are in combination with being a glutton for punishment that hauling the 3.9kg WACP-1 around involves.  That's something only you can decide and it's another trade off of Optical quality vs $$$$ and weight and size. 

I would think that the 8-15 with 1.4x is probably not quite a sharp as the WACP-1 but perfectly acceptable and significantly easier to travel with and haul around. 

On the weight front a Sony A1 is a little lighter housing than the R5 but using it with the WWL vs the R5 with 8-15 you would end up around the same weight.

Thank you for the added link, I had not seen the Canon comparison, Thank you.  As for the replacement of my 10-17 for APC, I do not need direct replacement.  I used the Zen compact glass port for travel-ability, I am not interested in a large diameter dome, that is why the 28-70 with a WACP-C seemed a good option.  I realize the weight of WACP-1 & C are heavy but somewhat more compact in diameter than a wide dome, compact would be my preference as I enjoyed using my Zen port with the 10-17.  I am looking for improved sharpness from a new investment, again takes me to WACP-1 or more preferred the cost and smaller size of the WACP-C with the R5 compared to the WWL lens with anything.  I have even considered the EMWL lens set up, however, the EMWL is obviously completely different type of wide angle and looks a bit of a challenge to have out front of camera and probably not any over all weight reduction when packing for travel.  As time table to purchase is closing, I have cold feet.  This past week received a report by somebody very reputable, they were disappointed in performance of WACP-C and the only way to go was WACP-1 on Canon or a WWL-1 (must be on Sony) as WWL-1B is not an option for Canon as I quickly learned with the help of this forum after my post.  Everything a compromise, you have correctly stated.  Shaving off 50-100+ mm in overall size and a couple pounds of weight by rethinking about an R7 or Sony a1, maybe just stick with the R5 and continue to manage the size and weight.  I guess too much stuff to pack & haul is the burden of the addiction to UW Photography.  If I was really serious about trimming my kit down, would/should have gone to Micro 4/3rd's kit.  Once we invest in a housing that matches camera body, at least in my case, is a many year investment.  Making a $14,000+ cost, a bit of a serious purchase.  I thank you very much for your input, has been helpful in trying to move forward with purchase of housing and port(s).

5 hours ago, Interceptor121 said:

The canon 8-15mm also works with the zen 100 which is heavier than the acrylic 4.33 but a little bit smaller
The wwl-1 on my a1 has similar weight to the canon 8-15 a bit more actually and heavier than the acrylic
The zen will be in the same ballpark
So wwl-1 and canon 8-15 options on my a1 are on the same ballpark
WACP C or 1 will be heavier dry. The WACP-C only few hundred grams in fact but at the end you will still need a fisheye.
As I recall the RF system housings are also heavier than Sony and generally you are looking at WACP-1
Only the Sony system is a bit more compact but still pretty negative in water and the housings cost less too
It was the reason for me to get an A1 the camera costs more but there is more choice of underwater ports
 

Thank you, and I am finding now the a1 may have been the better choice, given my intended use is underwater.

1 hour ago, Muriel said:

Thank you, and I am finding now the a1 may have been the better choice, given my intended use is underwater.

This may be of interest at the bottom there are link to pool tests of all the rigs

I always spend time in a pool before going to open water with new equipment to avoid suprises

https://interceptor121.com/2023/02/04/moving-to-full-frame-without-increasing-bulk/

3 hours ago, Muriel said:

Thank you, and I am finding now the a1 may have been the better choice, given my intended use is underwater.

I think  you will find that as you shoot the R5 underwater, that you won't regret the decision.  A few ways to think about it:

1) The WWL-C will work with the RF 24mm and give you a 24mm lens behind a flat port or 130 degree view behind the WWL-c.

2) The difference in cost between the A1 and the R5 is the difference in cost between the WACP-1 and WACP-C.  They are not that different in size and if anything the N120 mount on the WACP-1 will make it more likely to work on any camera system you get in the future.

3) The R5 is ALSO a great 1.6 crop camera. So you can always just plop on an RF-S lens and shoot it as such, making the R7 a less compelling rig (there are still some arguments for it - but you already own the R5).  You can custom button between the two modes and if you do shoot it as a crop the 15-30 + WACP-c is a good choice. I'd love it if someone had this rig and could see if it works at 30mm in FF mode giving 130 degree view.

4) The R5 works natively with the Canon 8-15 for the ultimate compact CFWA rig when combined with a 140mm dome. Well, natively with the EF-RF adaptor.   

5) I wouldn't be surprised if the new 24-50 Canon, which has a small front element, might work with the WACP-c from 28-50.  It seems to extend a bit - so maybe not. 

The R5 is a joy to shoot.  I'm sure the Sony A1 is too.  But I would not regret your decision and I don't think you will as soon as you start looking at the images you can capture with it.

Muriel, 

If you would care to see reviews of the WWL-1, WWL-1B and WACP-C actually being used in the field with the Sony system and several lenses you can go to UWPMAG.Com and read my reviews. Click on back issues at the top of the page and put my name Phil Rudin into the search engine. That will list over 110 reviews I have done and you can find the relevant issues to download, these are free PDF downloads. I have also used the WACP-1 which I own and WACP-2. With these wet lenses the bottom line is that the more you spend the better the image quality will be. Each however has it downsides in addition to cost.    

@Phil Rudin

This (in no way) is meant to be a criticism, but I did want to point out that this is a similar suggestion you gave me (when researching a similar topic).

Using the UWPMag search engine is not hard, getting back "over 110 reviews" and then having to download back issues was a bit of a PITA, to then go through and find the relevant articles.

I understand that's the medium that your reviews are published in, one small thing you could do would be to provide your own index of reviews & subjects to share when you suggest this course of action - or specifically call out the back issue you think is most relevant to the question.

It might make your content more valuable for those looking for your insights...

I am sorry if this is a PITA for you but keep in mind that these are copyrighted articles and while I could just post my PDF's to Wetpixel that would violet the copyright unless I got permission from UWP in each case. Further unlike some in the forums who post a link, in most cases it is to a personal blog or website, I don't have either nor do I intend to. 

If you want to shorten the process you could try entering the item of interest into the search engine, like WACP-C and search. You will still need to download the issue and then find the article to read but the list will be smaller. I know that this may take several minutes your valuable time but consider it took me years and thousands of hours to establish relationships with manufactures for equipment loans, hundreds of hours underwater and much more to assemble this body of work. Since UWP pays me for my work it stands to reason that I and the magazine would want you to read my content in UWP and not in some other publication. While a few of my reviews have been posted on the front page of Wetpixel and other magazines it was at the request of a WP advertiser and with the consent of UWP.

I think  you will find that as you shoot the R5 underwater, that you won't regret the decision.  A few ways to think about it:
1) The WWL-C will work with the RF 24mm and give you a 24mm lens behind a flat port or 130 degree view behind the WWL-c.
2) The difference in cost between the A1 and the R5 is the difference in cost between the WACP-1 and WACP-C.  They are not that different in size and if anything the N120 mount on the WACP-1 will make it more likely to work on any camera system you get in the future.
3) The R5 is ALSO a great 1.6 crop camera. So you can always just plop on an RF-S lens and shoot it as such, making the R7 a less compelling rig (there are still some arguments for it - but you already own the R5).  You can custom button between the two modes and if you do shoot it as a crop the 15-30 + WACP-c is a good choice. I'd love it if someone had this rig and could see if it works at 30mm in FF mode giving 130 degree view.
4) The R5 works natively with the Canon 8-15 for the ultimate compact CFWA rig when combined with a 140mm dome. Well, natively with the EF-RF adaptor.   
5) I wouldn't be surprised if the new 24-50 Canon, which has a small front element, might work with the WACP-c from 28-50.  It seems to extend a bit - so maybe not. 
The R5 is a joy to shoot.  I'm sure the Sony A1 is too.  But I would not regret your decision and I don't think you will as soon as you start looking at the images you can capture with it.
 

1 hour ago, Interceptor121 said:

Not quite
For the RF mount full frame there are no zoom options other than WACP-1
WACP-C is APSC you don’t buy an R5 to shoot APSC
Once you add up camera and housing and water contact optics the R5 system costs more than the A1
In addition RF lenses are only canon and are very expensive while the Emount system has many cost effective lenses
The port chart for canon rf mount has less options than panasonic l-mount…


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

WACP-C is on the EF port chart and the WACP-C port chart with the 28-70/28-80 lenses so that is a full frame application.  It doesn't appear directly on the RF port chart but the last entry is for the RF-EF adapter which then refers to the EF port chart.   So you have the full EF lens lineup available to choose from.  The EF Macro lenses are may or may not perform well on the adapter, but all of the wide angle lenses will work fine.

9 hours ago, ColdDarkDiver said:

5) I wouldn't be surprised if the new 24-50 Canon, which has a small front element, might work with the WACP-c from 28-50.  It seems to extend a bit - so maybe not. 

I also expect the new Canon RF 24-50mm f/4.5-6.3 IS STM Lens to work with the WACP-C based on the smaller diameter. It may even work with the WWL-1 with an appropriate port. Let's see. I have one on pre-order to test.

I currently shoot the old Canon EF 28-70 F3.5-F4.5 on a Canon R5C with the WACP-1. Optical quality is good, but I noticed that putting the RF 14-35 (at 28-35mm) behind the WACP-1 actually yields superior results. The optical quality of your lens matters.. more so than the WACP-1/2/C/WWL-1 perhaps. 

Of course, even if the new RF 24-50 works with the WACP-C or WWL-1, the old Canon EF 28-70 may still offer better results optically. The new lens is a kit lens after all...

9 hours ago, ColdDarkDiver said:

1) The WWL-C will work with the RF 24mm and give you a 24mm lens behind a flat port or 130 degree view behind the WWL-c.

I'm curious how good the optical quality is on this combo. Might be a good compact (and low cost) solution for 130 degree field of view.

11 hours ago, ColdDarkDiver said:

I think  you will find that as you shoot the R5 underwater, that you won't regret the decision.  A few ways to think about it:

1) The WWL-C will work with the RF 24mm and give you a 24mm lens behind a flat port or 130 degree view behind the WWL-c.

2) The difference in cost between the A1 and the R5 is the difference in cost between the WACP-1 and WACP-C.  They are not that different in size and if anything the N120 mount on the WACP-1 will make it more likely to work on any camera system you get in the future.

3) The R5 is ALSO a great 1.6 crop camera. So you can always just plop on an RF-S lens and shoot it as such, making the R7 a less compelling rig (there are still some arguments for it - but you already own the R5).  You can custom button between the two modes and if you do shoot it as a crop the 15-30 + WACP-c is a good choice. I'd love it if someone had this rig and could see if it works at 30mm in FF mode giving 130 degree view.

4) The R5 works natively with the Canon 8-15 for the ultimate compact CFWA rig when combined with a 140mm dome. Well, natively with the EF-RF adaptor.   

5) I wouldn't be surprised if the new 24-50 Canon, which has a small front element, might work with the WACP-c from 28-50.  It seems to extend a bit - so maybe not. 

The R5 is a joy to shoot.  I'm sure the Sony A1 is too.  But I would not regret your decision and I don't think you will as soon as you start looking at the images you can capture with it.

 

Appreciate this information, is helpful, Thank You.

13 hours ago, Interceptor121 said:

This may be of interest at the bottom there are link to pool tests of all the rigs

I always spend time in a pool before going to open water with new equipment to avoid suprises

https://interceptor121.com/2023/02/04/moving-to-full-frame-without-increasing-bulk/

Thank You, more helpful information.

20 hours ago, Interceptor121 said:

The canon 8-15mm also works with the zen 100 which is heavier than the acrylic 4.33 but a little bit smaller
The wwl-1 on my a1 has similar weight to the canon 8-15 a bit more actually and heavier than the acrylic
The zen will be in the same ballpark
So wwl-1 and canon 8-15 options on my a1 are on the same ballpark
WACP C or 1 will be heavier dry. The WACP-C only few hundred grams in fact but at the end you will still need a fisheye.
As I recall the RF system housings are also heavier than Sony and generally you are looking at WACP-1
Only the Sony system is a bit more compact but still pretty negative in water and the housings cost less too
It was the reason for me to get an A1 the camera costs more but there is more choice of underwater ports


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

You are full of very useful information, thank you.  The 8-15 works with the zen 100? I did not realize!  Maybe at this point, I should purchase the 8-15 use my Zen 100 on my upcoming trip, deal with additional $'s in port(s) in future.  My trip is to North Sewelsi - Manado/Bangka/Lembeh, I have been previously, wide angle was not frequently used, 60 & 100 & SMC were predominately used.  More interesting would be EMWL, CUWA images are very appealing to me.  I have inquired if Backscatter Shop has EMWL available to rent.  Would be nice to try previous to buy.  Again, I appreciate the time and effort you have put in to your replies.

You are full of very useful information, thank you.  The 8-15 works with the zen 100? I did not realize!  Maybe at this point, I should purchase the 8-15 use my Zen 100 on my upcoming trip, deal with additional $'s in port(s) in future.  My trip is to North Sewelsi - Manado/Bangka/Lembeh, I have been previously, wide angle was not frequently used, 60 & 100 & SMC were predominately used.  More interesting would be EMWL, CUWA images are very appealing to me.  I have inquired if Backscatter Shop has EMWL available to rent.  Would be nice to try previous to buy.  Again, I appreciate the time and effort you have put in to your replies.

If you're looking for compact and lightweight, your best bet is probably 8-15mm + 1.4x teleconverter in a compact dome. Nauticam recommends 140mm glass dome, but people here have reported successfully using it in a 4.33" acrylic fisheye dome, which is half the weight and cost of the glass one. Without the teleconverter, the 8-15mm gives you a circular fisheye at 8mm, and a 180-degree diagonal fisheye at 15mm; with a teleconverter I believe you get the 180-degree look (similar to Tokina 10-17@10mm) at 11mm, and going to 15mm lets you narrow it down a bit, putting you in the same ballpark as the 10-17mm as far as AoV goes. Oddly, I've seen little to no discussion of using a 2x teleconverter rather than the 1.4x one.

Zoom gears can be adjusted. Has any tried how bad the IQ impact ist?

6 minutes ago, hyp said:

Zoom gears can be adjusted. Has any tried how bad the IQ impact ist?

When you look at the Kenko 2x you see that is another 2cm deep which is larger than the size of the gear inside the N100 to N120 adapter you would need the gear to go over the teleconverter however there is the release button for the lens in the way so that would be an interesting custom project

With regards to IQ I have lots of experience with teleconverters from DSLR to MFT to full frame mirrorless.

Generally 1.4x much better than cropping 2x you may as well crop the 1.4x in addition the lens is f/8 and starts to be difficult to focus in dark conditions

Adapted lenses focus with aperture open but of course with teleconverters you loose 1 or 2 stops

Based on the above I have not bothered exploring this option.

Consider that at full zoom 21mm the 8-15mm with TC is 100 degrees wide on the horizontal axis the same as an 18mm rectilinear lens which is actually wider on the vertical axis

In addition those type of fisheye optics have a really wide aspect ratio 2.85 to 2.39 to 1 which means when you start zooming the vertical field of view is really much smaller you are looking at 60-70 degrees which is in reach to a 20mm rectilinear lens that may actually be a better option depending on what you are looking for

You also start running out of depth of field so you will be shooting f/16 to f/22 for certain shots on full frame

if you look at my pool tests with the TC 1.4 you see the shot of the crocodile where the camera ran out of depth of field front and back despite the croc was not small as I did not close down the aperture enough

6 hours ago, Interceptor121 said:

 

When you look at the Kenko 2x you see that is another 2cm deep which is larger than the size of the gear inside the N100 to N120 adapter you would need the gear to go over the teleconverter however there is the release button for the lens in the way so that would be an interesting custom project

With regards to IQ I have lots of experience with teleconverters from DSLR to MFT to full frame mirrorless.

Generally 1.4x much better than cropping 2x you may as well crop the 1.4x in addition the lens is f/8 and starts to be difficult to focus in dark conditions

Adapted lenses focus with aperture open but of course with teleconverters you loose 1 or 2 stops

Based on the above I have not bothered exploring this option.

Consider that at full zoom 21mm the 8-15mm with TC is 100 degrees wide on the horizontal axis the same as an 18mm rectilinear lens which is actually wider on the vertical axis

In addition those type of fisheye optics have a really wide aspect ratio 2.85 to 2.39 to 1 which means when you start zooming the vertical field of view is really much smaller you are looking at 60-70 degrees which is in reach to a 20mm rectilinear lens that may actually be a better option depending on what you are looking for

You also start running out of depth of field so you will be shooting f/16 to f/22 for certain shots on full frame

if you look at my pool tests with the TC 1.4 you see the shot of the crocodile where the camera ran out of depth of field front and back despite the croc was not small as I did not close down the aperture enough

 

I just want to second Massimo's observations about the Kenko 1.4x TC with Canon 8-15mm: I used the 1.4x TC several times UW (Nauticam 140 port) on a small sensor MFT camera (Olympus EM1-II) and could not find that sharpness suffered. I also acquired then the 2x TC, but used it, so far, only once over the water, since IQ was completely degraded (soft image, loss of resolution).

I am just now in the stage of upgrading to a FF system and will try again how the 1.4x and 2x TCs perform (from the focal length range, 2x would be the optimum for FF), but I am pessimistic with regard of the 2x TC...

Regarding Canon R5, Muriel has one of the highest quality cameras for UW photography and a lot of us are envious. No reason not to be very happy to have such a camera...

=> l also would go with the Canon 8-15 (for FF, maybe also with 1.4x TC) for the first trip. This is a great lens on a great rig...

Regarding DP100, there exists a version with built in extension for the Canon 8-15mm, but I use the N120 version and add Nauticam extensions (they come in 5mm increments and I have several) to the best approximation. I do not think IQ would become better with the specific built-in extension...

Wolfgang

P.S.: the built in extension for Canon 8-15mm (DP100) is 22mm. A 20mm should suffice with the N120 version...