WACP-C Compared to WWL-1B

7 hours ago, Architeuthis said:

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...

 

The Zen webpage seems to suggest the dimension internally of the port is different but this may be because the shade is removable for circular fisheye

21 hours ago, Interceptor121 said:

Not quite

WACP-C is APSC you don’t buy an R5 to shoot APSC
 

Actually, the WACP-C does work with full frame.  I am unaware of the Canon charts for the WACP-C, so perhaps it is not recommended for that camera and/or its lenses, but the broad statement that the WACP-C is APS-C is incorrect.

Additionally, it is my understanding that the EOS R5 can be shot in APS-C format, so that may need correction as well. 

12 minutes ago, Draq said:

Actually, the WACP-C does work with full frame.  I am unaware of the Canon charts for the WACP-C, so perhaps it is not recommended for that camera and/or its lenses, but the broad statement that the WACP-C is APS-C is incorrect.

Additionally, it is my understanding that the EOS R5 can be shot in APS-C format, so that may need correction as well. 

It was not a broad statement but a reply to this sentence

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.

The WACP-C is not APSC however the support for RF is only for RF-S APSC lenses at present it was not a broad statement it was a reply to the suggestion to use the R5 in ASPC mode to do it

I did not buy a £4300 camera to shoot something I can shoot with a £1,500 camera hence my statement if your objective is to use the lens at all costs there are other ways

I can shoot my A1 in ASPC if I want to but I do not, I did not buy this camera to shoot at half power

17 hours ago, Interceptor121 said:

It was not a broad statement but a reply to this sentence

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.

The WACP-C is not APSC however the support for RF is only for RF-S APSC lenses at present it was not a broad statement it was a reply to the suggestion to use the R5 in ASPC mode to do it

I did not buy a £4300 camera to shoot something I can shoot with a £1,500 camera hence my statement if your objective is to use the lens at all costs there are other ways

I can shoot my A1 in ASPC if I want to but I do not, I did not buy this camera to shoot at half power

Meh.  I buy cameras to use all of the features they offer to capture the image I am seeking to capture and share.  This includes running the R5 in crop mode in certain instances. On other dives it does also allow me to shoot 4k HQ (or 8k, although I don't) and further still on other dives take the big dome and the fancy lenses - all based on the images to capture and my travel/currents/interest for that trip/day.  Shooting a FF camera in crop allows different depth of field, allows wider aperture settings and different compositional flexibility, which is sometimes helpful.  Everything is a tool, including APSC mode.  I wouldn't buy an R5 to ONLY shoot it in crop mode, but it (like other bodies) are incredibly versatile tools that allow us huge artistic freedom, sometimes on different dives and increasingly on the same. And honestly, if I shot a R5 above water - using it in crop primarily underwater wouldn't be a bad thing even though that wouldn't be my initial choice.  There are two FF options that work with the R5 and the WACP-C and I expect more to come as Canon expands its consumer RF lens range so expect WACP-C options to expand as well.

The images from the crop mode on the R5 are superb and are only limited by my creativity. Being unwilling to use a camera in all of its glory due to some notion of it being at "half power" if you shoot it in crop mode, since it was so expensive, is a strange concept to me.

I think it is worthwhile to note that in this thread where we are discussing using a variety of different teleconverters - you can get the same effect with just putting the cameras in 1.6 crop - which reduces the area of the sensor but has no degradation on picture quality (unlike most TC in my experience - I'm glad to read that many have had good luck with the 1.4x in this thread) and allows you do have a immense freedom of creativity underwater from 180 fish FF to the cropped range of the sensor.  I also like to run the 16mm RF that way - 16mm for certain shots and 24mm for others (which is a very pleasing focal length to my eye) by swapping between crop and not - and sure I could take a second body, housing setup, etc to use a cheaper camera body underwater but I just use all of the features that I already have at my finger tips. 

18 hours ago, Interceptor121 said:

The WACP-C is not APSC however the support for RF is only for RF-S APSC lenses at present it was not a broad statement it was a reply to the suggestion to use the R5 in ASPC mode to do it

I did not buy a £4300 camera to shoot something I can shoot with a £1,500 camera hence my statement if your objective is to use the lens at all costs there are other ways

I can shoot my A1 in ASPC if I want to but I do not, I did not buy this camera to shoot at half power

Thank you for correcting your statement.  However, if fsomeone wants to use their full frame camera in cropped mode (half power as you view it),  for whatever practical or artistic reason they may choose, I don't think it would be my business to ridicule or challenge that decision.

In fact, a desire to use something like a WACP-C or to get more flexibility from a lens (such as the 8-15) are reasons someone might wish to use that mode.  I assume you never crop your photos in post?  After all, that would be wasting the pixels you paid so much for, and operating at reduced "power," in the same way as shooting in crop mode...

21 minutes ago, Draq said:

Thank you for correcting your statement.  However, if fsomeone wants to use their full frame camera in cropped mode (half power as you view it),  for whatever practical or artistic reason they may choose, I don't think it would be my business to ridicule or challenge that decision.

In fact, a desire to use something like a WACP-C or to get more flexibility from a lens (such as the 8-15) are reasons someone might wish to use that mode.  I assume you never crop your photos in post?  After all, that would be wasting the pixels you paid so much for, and operating at reduced "power," in the same way as shooting in crop mode...

Cropping in post is totally different from shooting in APSC mode

Cropping in post means you framed the image in a certain way and perhaps you want to change the aspect ratio or remove something or reposition something

Shooting in APSC mode changes the framing and composition entirely you may continue to crop in post you did not resolve the issue that post processing wants to address

So I am afraid I totally disagree with your assertion that those things are comparable as they are not

There is no practical difference in cropping in post or in camera, IQ does not change.  The difference is that in post you can make changes at your desk or to suit some objective like print size, etc.  But cropping is cropping.  However, choosing the crop mode may allow the use of different lenses or wet optics or "modify" the focal length of a lens.  There are times when zooming via fins is not practical.

Of course, you can use APS-C mode and still crop the image in post if you choose.  There are no laws prohibiting creativity.  I don't understand what you mean by " Shooting in APSC mode changes the framing and composition entirely you may continue to crop in post you did not resolve the issue that post processing wants to address resolving an issue."  Certainly using APS-C mode changes framing and composition...so does cropping later.  That is pretty much what cropping an image means-changing composition and framing. 

Perhaps you mean that if you shoot full frame and crop in post,  and then want to change the image back, or otherwise alter it beyond the parameters of what a APS-C image size would allow, you can do so, while if you shoot in crop mode, you cannot later go back to full frame?  If so, that is correct, but I assume one would know that before changing the mode. 

You are welcome to totally disagree and in any case should use your camera as you prefer.

30 minutes ago, Draq said:

There is no practical difference in cropping in post or in camera, IQ does not change.  The difference is that in post you can make changes at your desk or to suit some objective like print size, etc.  But cropping is cropping.  However, choosing the crop mode may allow the use of different lenses or wet optics or "modify" the focal length of a lens.  There are times when zooming via fins is not practical.

Of course, you can use APS-C mode and still crop the image in post if you choose.  There are no laws prohibiting creativity.  I don't understand what you mean by " Shooting in APSC mode changes the framing and composition entirely you may continue to crop in post you did not resolve the issue that post processing wants to address resolving an issue."  Certainly using APS-C mode changes framing and composition...so does cropping later.  That is pretty much what cropping an image means-changing composition and framing. 

Perhaps you mean that if you shoot full frame and crop in post,  and then want to change the image back, or otherwise alter it beyond the parameters of what a APS-C image size would allow, you can do so, while if you shoot in crop mode, you cannot later go back to full frame?  If so, that is correct, but I assume one would know that before changing the mode. 

You are welcome to totally disagree and in any case should use your camera as you prefer.

I totally disagree because cropping 50 megapixel in camera to 25 megapixels is a loss of 50% information for no benefit unless this helps framing they are not the same thing 

Dynamic range drops

SNR drops 

Angle of view is reduced

How are they the same?

4 minutes ago, Interceptor121 said:

I totally disagree because cropping 50 megapixel in camera to 25 megapixels is a loss of 50% information for no benefit unless this helps framing they are not the same thing 

Dynamic range drops

SNR drops 

Angle of view is reduced

How are they the same?

I am not really interested in engaging in one of your never-ending arguments.  I should have just ignored your incorrect post.  My point really was that you were wrong about the wacp-c and should not be derisive of other people's photographic interests or styles.  I allowed myself to get sucked in to your full frame vs crop sensor argument.

But since I opened up this can of worms, if you are shooting at high ISO, in dim light and some other circumstances, there can be small advantages to increased sensor size and increased pixels and slightly greater dynamic range.  If I were choosing a camera for landscape work, I would choose full frame.  But we were talking about resolution, framing and composition, not all the other technical differences.  And we are talking about underwater photography and more specifically the use of water-contact optics.  You are now adding in those additional technical arguments and we are just hijacking this thread.

While you believe using the mode wastes the money you spent for your camera, for many people the ability to achieve some creative or technical goal outweighs those minor differences.  For what we are talking about, it would be nearly impossible to tell whether an image was shot in crop mode or cropped in post.  Certainly, it would be uncommon for a person to buy a full frame camera to use it as an APS-C camera all the time, but to utilize a certain lens or have smaller files or for some other purpose,  your half power, low quality argument is just personal choice on your part.  Which is fine for you.

To help you understand the differences, I rounded up some resources that can explain this issue and we can let the thread go back on topic.

My apologies to all for my part in derailing a thread comparing the WWL to the WACP.

These are Nikon-related because that is what I know at the moment.  I am not very knowledgeable about the Canon lineup.

https://photographylife.com/nikon-dx-vs-fx

https://fstoppers.com/originals/should-i-use-crop-sensor-or-crop-image-full-frame-sensor-490862

https://photographylife.com/dx-or-fx-for-sports-and-wildlife-photography

https://www.photoartfromscience.com/single-post/2019/10/07/Nikon-D500-Un-cropped-versus-D850-Cropped-Shot-Comparison

On 3/20/2023 at 2:22 AM, 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

This is what Zen replied about my Zen 100... I have the port for Tokina 10-17, which is DP100-N120T, for 1-15 I would need a completely different port, a DP100-N120CR.  : - (  I guess I will need to sell my DP100 for Tokina 10-17 and purchase a port for Canon 8-15.  Possible in the future there will be a lens that would utilize the DP100-N120T.  My goodness, is a challenge to decide what to do, what I am able to do with R5... at least I have my 100 and port that is going to work, my 60mm and 10-17 appear will not.  I think your idea of the Nauticam port for 8-15 might be best solution and much more affordable than WACP-1/WACP-C

Thank you for your help!

From Zen

Hi Muriel,

Thank you for reaching out! Yes, the port you have would be the DP-100-N120T. We do build in the exact extension needed into the port body for these two versions of the DP-100 so unfortunately it would not be possible to adapt your existing DP-1000N120T for use with the Canon 8-15mm. Glass dome do tend to retain a lot of there value if they are still in good condition. The Tokina 10-17mm was also one of the most popular wide angle solutions so you can always try to resell that dome. For the Canon 8-15mm, you will want the DP-100-N120CR

3 hours ago, Muriel said:

This is what Zen replied about my Zen 100... I have the port for Tokina 10-17, which is DP100-N120T, for 1-15 I would need a completely different port, a DP100-N120CR.  : - (  I guess I will need to sell my DP100 for Tokina 10-17 and purchase a port for Canon 8-15.  Possible in the future there will be a lens that would utilize the DP100-N120T.  My goodness, is a challenge to decide what to do, what I am able to do with R5... at least I have my 100 and port that is going to work, my 60mm and 10-17 appear will not.  I think your idea of the Nauticam port for 8-15 might be best solution and much more affordable than WACP-1/WACP-C
Thank you for your help!
From Zen
Hi Muriel,

Thank you for reaching out! Yes, the port you have would be the DP-100-N120T. We do build in the exact extension needed into the port body for these two versions of the DP-100 so unfortunately it would not be possible to adapt your existing DP-1000N120T for use with the Canon 8-15mm. Glass dome do tend to retain a lot of there value if they are still in good condition. The Tokina 10-17mm was also one of the most popular wide angle solutions so you can always try to resell that dome. For the Canon 8-15mm, you will want the DP-100-N120CR

In my opinion you can use a 20mm or 10mm extension and still use the port you have @Architeuthis should be able to help


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

The answer Zen gave you is not complete, you could in fact use an 8-15 with your current dome if you add the correct extension, however to use the circular fisheye end you need a removable dome shade, so you could only use it at the 15mm end with the current dome.    The Nauticam port chart indicates that the 8-15 needs 20mm more extension than the Tokina 10-17.

The other issue with the DP-100 is the corners won't be as good as the 140mm dome.  You could use your current dome with the addition of a 20mm extension to try it out and see if you were happy with the corners.  Then decide if you want to change to the Zen 100mm port with removable dome or decide if the the 140mm dome might be a better solution.  Adding the 1.4x is another 20mm extension.  that would minimise the investment needed.

4 minutes ago, ChrisRoss said:

The answer Zen gave you is not complete, you could in fact use an 8-15 with your current dome if you add the correct extension, however to use the circular fisheye end you need a removable dome shade, so you could only use it at the 15mm end with the current dome.    The Nauticam port chart indicates that the 8-15 needs 20mm more extension than the Tokina 10-17.

The other issue with the DP-100 is the corners won't be as good as the 140mm dome.  You could use your current dome with the addition of a 20mm extension to try it out and see if you were happy with the corners.  Then decide if you want to change to the Zen 100mm port with removable dome or decide if the the 140mm dome might be a better solution.  Adding the 1.4x is another 20mm extension.  that would minimise the investment needed.

 

Comparing my different domes I have no conclusions to be made about corners in fact so this may be a myth

The smaller dome will have more depth of field of a larger dome as virtual focus for infinity is closer

I have not been able to conclude anything that indicates that a larger dome produces better corners or in any case I see no difference between 11 and 14 cm so I am not sure how I would see a difference with 10 cm

3 hours ago, Muriel said:

This is what Zen replied about my Zen 100... I have the port for Tokina 10-17, which is DP100-N120T, for 1-15 I would need a completely different port, a DP100-N120CR.  : - (  I guess I will need to sell my DP100 for Tokina 10-17 and purchase a port for Canon 8-15.  Possible in the future there will be a lens that would utilize the DP100-N120T.  My goodness, is a challenge to decide what to do, what I am able to do with R5... at least I have my 100 and port that is going to work, my 60mm and 10-17 appear will not.  I think your idea of the Nauticam port for 8-15 might be best solution and much more affordable than WACP-1/WACP-C

Thank you for your help!

From Zen

Hi Muriel,

Thank you for reaching out! Yes, the port you have would be the DP-100-N120T. We do build in the exact extension needed into the port body for these two versions of the DP-100 so unfortunately it would not be possible to adapt your existing DP-1000N120T for use with the Canon 8-15mm. Glass dome do tend to retain a lot of there value if they are still in good condition. The Tokina 10-17mm was also one of the most popular wide angle solutions so you can always try to resell that dome. For the Canon 8-15mm, you will want the DP-100-N120CR

The built-in extension for the Tokina version is 15mm (compared to the 22mm version for Canon). You would need a 7mm extension, which does not exist. MAYBE you could get good results with the 10mm extension, but there may be already some vignetting (that 10mm extension is complicated to mount, but if you intend to use the dome only for the Canon fisheye, you do not need to mount and dismantle it often)...

Another possibility is to use the Canon with the 1.4x Kenko TC. Then you need a total extension of 7mm+20mm (20mm for the TC), i.e. 27mm. A 25mm extension ring probably may do it, then the deviation to the dedicated version is -2mm. As I use the Canon fisheye with adapters etc. with the D100, the deviation is -2,6mm, so it is even -0,6mm more deviation from the recommendation and the optics is still very good...

If it is somehow possible, I would check these combinations in a pool before purchasing ...

Wolfgang

54 minutes ago, ChrisRoss said:

The answer Zen gave you is not complete, you could in fact use an 8-15 with your current dome if you add the correct extension, however to use the circular fisheye end you need a removable dome shade, so you could only use it at the 15mm end with the current dome.    The Nauticam port chart indicates that the 8-15 needs 20mm more extension than the Tokina 10-17.

The other issue with the DP-100 is the corners won't be as good as the 140mm dome.  You could use your current dome with the addition of a 20mm extension to try it out and see if you were happy with the corners.  Then decide if you want to change to the Zen 100mm port with removable dome or decide if the the 140mm dome might be a better solution.  Adding the 1.4x is another 20mm extension.  that would minimise the investment needed.

 

I just see Chris' response and the recommendation of 20mm extension, according to Nauticam. Actually Zen (7mm) and Nauticam (20mm) differ by 13mm. To me this means that these extensions probably do not need to be accurate to the mm. The 10mm extension seems to be a good solution then and one may even try out the 20mm extension (this one is much easier to handle, especially when the extension on the dome is to be exchanged from dive to dive)...

Wolfgang

P.S.: We had a similar discussion about calculating/testing an extension for the Zuiko 8-25mm WA lens in the past:

View archived post in: New Olympus 8-25mm - any takers?

#1.: Comparison of recommended extensions for the identical lenses revealed that the recommendations between Nauticam and Zen differed between +7mm and -25mm (!)

#2.: Practical testing revealed that a 35mm extension, that is 15mm too short, compared to the theoretically better extension of 50mm, gives equal optical performance in practice (but the rig is more handsome with the shorter extension (this what my wife choose from the very beginning ))...

#3.: Mathematical calculations and sorrow comparison of portcharts give a good starting point for choosing extensions, but in the end, practical testing is required to find the optimum...

I just see Chris' response and the recommendation of 20mm extension, according to Nauticam. Actually Zen (7mm) and Nauticam (20mm) differ by 13mm. To me this means that these extensions probably do not need to be accurate to the mm. The 10mm extension seems to be a good solution then and one may even try out the 20mm extension (this one is much easier to handle, especially when the extension on the dome is to be exchanged from dive to dive)...
 
Wolfgang
P.S.: We had a similar discussion about calculating/testing an extension for the Zuiko 8-25mm WA lens in the past:
#1.: Comparison of recommended extensions for the identical lenses revealed that the recommendations between Nauticam and Zen differed between +7mm and -25mm (!)
#2.: Practical testing revealed that a 35mm extension, that is 15mm too short, compared to the theoretically better extension of 50mm, gives equal optical performance in practice (but the rig is more handsome with the shorter extension (this what my wife choose from the very beginning ))...
#3.: Mathematical calculations and sorrow comparison of portcharts give a good starting point for choosing extensions, but in the end, practical testing is required to find the optimum...

On 3/20/2023 at 9:15 PM, Muriel said:

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.

Muriel,

Given that you've likely deeply researched your destination (northern Sulawesi) you likely already know that Lembeh is virtually all macro (certainly what it's famous for), and that Manado (Bunaken) and Bangka are good for both w/a and macro. The last time we dove Bangka, we shot almost all macro (although having a Dugong swim by when you are set up with a 105 lens was a miss, clearly).

The Nauticam port and the 8-15 will likely serve you very well in Bunaken (beautiful reefs...), and be useful in Bangka as well.

 

5 hours ago, oneyellowtang said:

Muriel,

Given that you've likely deeply researched your destination (northern Sulawesi) you likely already know that Lembeh is virtually all macro (certainly what it's famous for), and that Manado (Bunaken) and Bangka are good for both w/a and macro. The last time we dove Bangka, we shot almost all macro (although having a Dugong swim by when you are set up with a 105 lens was a miss, clearly).

The Nauticam port and the 8-15 will likely serve you very well in Bunaken (beautiful reefs...), and be useful in Bangka as well.

 

Hello, thank you for your input. Indeed, I have been to Manado (Bunaken), Bangka & Lembeh, predominantly used 100mm.  However, did enjoy wide angle on a couple of dives, a different focus on reef is fun.  I have been considering EMWL, however, seems to be significant focus issues which is not good for significantly expensive lenses.