Most streamlined A1 WA setups

Hey all. Looking for suggestions or creative solutions for the most streamlined WA rigs for the a1. I haven’t bought the housing yet— it’ll likely be Nauticam or Aquatica. 

I have a cave trip in July that I last dove with my D500 Aquatica rig. I slapped the Tokina 10-17mm on it and just used a 4” mini dome with video lights. Now that I sold that setup, I’d like to put together something simple again for the a1. 
 

Has anyone here used the Sony FE 20mm F1.8 G? Or a similar prime? I think it would be wide enough for what I’m doing. Is there another lens I should consider that won’t add crazy bulk? I’ll probably eventually put together some monstrosity with focus/extension rings and a large port but I’d prefer to be more streamlined for this trip. If it’s not possible, oh well haha. 
 

Appreciate any advice. 

-Arianna

2 minutes ago, Arianna Skipper said:

Hey all. Looking for suggestions or creative solutions for the most streamlined WA rigs for the a1. I haven’t bought the housing yet— it’ll likely be Nauticam or Aquatica. 

I have a cave trip in July that I last dove with my D500 Aquatica rig. I slapped the Tokina 10-17mm on it and just used a 4” mini dome with video lights. Now that I sold that setup, I’d like to put together something simple again for the a1. 
 

Has anyone here used the Sony FE 20mm F1.8 G? Or a similar prime? I think it would be wide enough for what I’m doing. Is there another lens I should consider that won’t add crazy bulk? I’ll probably eventually put together some monstrosity with focus/extension rings and a large port but I’d prefer to be more streamlined for this trip. If it’s not possible, oh well haha. 
 

Appreciate any advice. 

-Arianna

Rectilinear

https://interceptor121.com/2023/03/25/wide-angle-rectilinear-lenses-for-underwater-myths-vs-reality/

Curved

https://interceptor121.com/2023/03/11/nauticam-wwl-1-on-sony-full-frame-what-to-expect/

The most streamlined rig is going to be something with a 4" dome, which basically means a fisheye lens, anything rectilinear will have horrible corners in such a small dome.  If you are using Nauticam you can use the 35.5mm N100-N120 adapter and then add any lens/zoom gear from the Canon EF port chart.  So you could use the Canon 8-15 with the Zen 100mm glass dome.  You would need the N100-N120 35.5mm adapter,  and the Zen DP100 N120CR dome and optionally the Nauticam zoom gear.  I say optionally because on full frame unless you want to take circular fisheye shots you can only really use the lens at 15mm for a full frame fisheye.

The next size up would be a fisheye in the Nauticam 140mm dome, which will have better corners - either Canon 8-15 or Sigma 15mm.  The sigma won't fit in the 100mm dome due to the lens hood which is fixed.

Next size up would be a WWL with 28-60, the WWL-1B is 156mm dia compared to the 100mm dome.  

Realistically the difference in streamlining between these option is probably minimal as the cross sectional area of the housing is near the same as that of the WWL or 140mm dome.

The most streamlined rig is going to be something with a 4" dome, which basically means a fisheye lens, anything rectilinear will have horrible corners in such a small dome.  If you are using Nauticam you can use the 35.5mm N100-N120 adapter and then add any lens/zoom gear from the Canon EF port chart.  So you could use the Canon 8-15 with the Zen 100mm glass dome.  You would need the N100-N120 35.5mm adapter,  and the Zen DP100 N120CR dome and optionally the Nauticam zoom gear.  I say optionally because on full frame unless you want to take circular fisheye shots you can only really use the lens at 15mm for a full frame fisheye.
The next size up would be a fisheye in the Nauticam 140mm dome, which will have better corners - either Canon 8-15 or Sigma 15mm.  The sigma won't fit in the 100mm dome due to the lens hood which is fixed.
Next size up would be a WWL with 28-60, the WWL-1B is 156mm dia compared to the 100mm dome.  
Realistically the difference in streamlining between these option is probably minimal as the cross sectional area of the housing is near the same as that of the WWL or 140mm dome.

1 hour ago, Interceptor121 said:

It isn’t really. It does help to have the camera and have tried the various options
For starter the op is not looking for a cfwa set up, but more importantly from a bulk point of view on the nauticam system the fact that you use an adapter kills most of the streamlining
The fisheye options protrude from the housing and have the larger N120 ports.
With the N120 system and 65mm of adapter and extension ring there is no real benefit having a dome smaller in diameter than the N120 ring itself
In addition the zen is glass and small and this makes it really negative.
I settled on the 4.33” acrylic as it is a bit lighter and doesn’t loose too much lift and matches precisely the N120 ring.
The op however is looking at moderate field of view for which fisheye is not a solution
For rectilinear field of view the most compact set up is the Nikkor 15mm

https://interceptor121.com/2023/02/19/nikkor-uw15-on-sony-mirrorless-for-photography-worth-it/

Not many people can deal with a manual lens and this set up has no lift you can’t balance without large float arms which themselves introduce bulk or you need to be happy with a very negative rig. In overhang environment I don’t think this is a particular good idea.
The wwl-1 instead is pretty compact the dome size is 4.33” and you can still balance it.
The rectilinear lenses with 180mm dome are in fact the only one you can easily make neutrally buoyant
Considering that lots of the bulk are the float and the arms as the A1 nauticam housing is very negative, this ends up being a solution very easy to handle in water except against current
And performs also exceptionally well with the tamron 17-28 beating the wwl wacp-c also in the edges 1 or 2 stops


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I wouldn't really regard the difference between a 4" dome, the WWL and a 140mm dome as really making all that much difference in the effort required to push them through the water, hydro-dynamically much of the damage is done with a lens shade - it's not stream lined.  Once you have a lens shade fitted the difference between a 100mm dome and a 140mm dome is pretty small - in fact anything that sits within the cross sectional area of the housing itself will be quite similar.  It's when you move towards a 170-180mm dome that things start to require more effort to move through the water a 100-120 adapter makes miniscule difference to compared to a straight 120 extension. 

I've used a Zen 100mm dome on my rig and a 170mm dome, I struggle to pick between them, the Olympus housing is not all that different in cross section to an A1 housing and the situation is similar.

The OP is talking about emulating a  D500 with 10-17 with 100mm dome on the A1 housing and a Zen 100mm dome on the A1 housing will do that as closely as you can in full frame. The fact that you need to use a 100-120mm adapter will make miniscule difference to the streamlining compared to the straight  N120 extension/100mm dome and it's as small as you can practically get.  The Acrylic dome is certainly an an option you could consider, but it won't do much other than lighten the rig a little. 

Weight in water between an Aquatica D500 plus 4" dome  and a Sony A1 with the Zen dome will be in the same ball park as the Aquatica dome is also glass.  This solution is also available in the Aquatica system, but they suggest a 6" dome.  Video lights are what is going to make it really negative.  If you want to get close to neutral there's no escaping the need for housing that has a larger displaced volume or adding floats which add to drag.

26 minutes ago, ChrisRoss said:

I wouldn't really regard the difference between a 4" dome, the WWL and a 140mm dome as really making all that much difference in the effort required to push them through the water, hydro-dynamically much of the damage is done with a lens shade - it's not stream lined.  Once you have a lens shade fitted the difference between a 100mm dome and a 140mm dome is pretty small - in fact anything that sits within the cross sectional area of the housing itself will be quite similar.  It's when you move towards a 170-180mm dome that things start to require more effort to move through the water a 100-120 adapter makes miniscule difference to compared to a straight 120 extension. 

I've used a Zen 100mm dome on my rig and a 170mm dome, I struggle to pick between them, the Olympus housing is not all that different in cross section to an A1 housing and the situation is similar.

The OP is talking about emulating a  D500 with 10-17 with 100mm dome on the A1 housing and a Zen 100mm dome on the A1 housing will do that as closely as you can in full frame. The fact that you need to use a 100-120mm adapter will make miniscule difference to the streamlining compared to the straight  N120 extension/100mm dome and it's as small as you can practically get.  The Acrylic dome is certainly an an option you could consider, but it won't do much other than lighten the rig a little. 

Weight in water between an Aquatica D500 plus 4" dome  and a Sony A1 with the Zen dome will be in the same ball park as the Aquatica dome is also glass.  This solution is also available in the Aquatica system, but they suggest a 6" dome.  Video lights are what is going to make it really negative.  If you want to get close to neutral there's no escaping the need for housing that has a larger displaced volume or adding floats which add to drag.

I am using those setups 

The Olympus housings are way smaller you can hide the camera behind a dome 

Not so the A1 those are SLR format with clam shell design you are in another category altogether

There is nothing that will bring the op back to a Tokina on a APSC where the ports does not make a difference to the size of the housing this is a different game

There are pictures of all the rigs on my blog you can have a look at them and see for yourself this is not theory it is practice

I maintain weights and buoyancy in fresh and salt water on a spreadsheet and I weight them so this is not random pub talk

this is the acrylic set up

you can see that the housing is pretty big but the N120 ring is matching it. Even if you have another 1cm less for the DP100 (the nauticam is 11cm) the size of the N120 ring is the same and in fact it is better to have it flush

This set up however is a prime. There is no Tokina 10-17 but you can put a TC on the 8-15 it extends the entire port 20mm

While the 180mm port offers some resistance you have way less floats on the arms which means the current won't push your strobes away changing position

The 180 port needs 700 grams less of float to be neutral and those are bulky and offer resistance in water

1 minute ago, Interceptor121 said:

I am using those setups 

The Olympus housings are way smaller you can hide the camera behind a dome 

Not so the A1 those are SLR format with clam shell design you are in another category altogether

There is nothing that will bring the op back to a Tokina on a APSC where the ports does not make a difference to the size of the housing this is a different game

There are pictures of all the rigs on my blog you can have a look at them and see for yourself this is not theory it is practice

I maintain weights and buoyancy in fresh and salt water on a spreadsheet and I weight them so this is not random pub talk

this is the acrylic set up

you can see that the housing is pretty big but the N120 ring is matching it. Even if you have another 1cm less for the DP100 (the nauticam is 11cm) the size of the N120 ring is the same and in fact it is better to have it flush

This set up however is a prime. There is no Tokina 10-17 but you can put a TC on the 8-15 it extends the entire port 20mm

 

Random pub talk - really? 

the main point I am making is if you have a larger housing changing the size of the dome makes less difference to drag as the cross sectional area doesn't change -  up until the dome gets bigger than the housing cross section.   Likewise the adapter necking in does not make much difference either.  I'm sure you could measure the difference in a lab but for practical purposes the difference will so small as to not matter and you should use other criteria to make your decision, such as utility for use in the cavern as well as other applications or weight in air or buoyancy - something other than drag.

On the topic of the Olympus EM-1 MkII housing it's a little smaller but I'm not claiming equality with the A-1 housing, I'm talking about differences between the 100mm and 170mm dome on my housing.  If I can't notice a difference between those two domes someone else with an A1 housing is unlikely to notice a difference between the same domes on that housing either.  The key point is comparing differences - it's common thing to do in engineering comparisons.

I would regard the 100mm dome, 4.33" dome, WWL and 140mm dome as more or less comparable for drag, but probably not for weight and travel ease, the fact that they have more extension won't matter much for drag pushing the housing forward ahead of you and as you point out there's no escaping having some sort of extension.  at least on the Nauticam port charts.  Weights will change of course but we don't know how much of a criteria that is to the OP we are only guessing and placing our biases on the criteria.

The closest you will get to 100mm dome plus 10-17 is still going to be the 100mm dome plus adapter - from an external housing standpoint.  Inside you only get equivalent to the 10mm focal length and as you point out you can add a 1.4x to roughly emulate the the focal range of the 10-17 lens - it will 15-21mm in full frame terms, while the Tokina lens gets out to 25mm full frame equivalent.  From there you can go to progressively larger domes - the 4.33", 140mm and WWL roughly in that order.

The DSLR housing are the biggest ones

When you put a 4’33 almost flush on the housing the drag comes from the housing

The Sony A1 housing is N100 and is a bit smaller than some DSLR

The N120 port system is more or less the same size of the front of the housing so a smaller dome that protrudes a long way outside the hosing is no longer the same situation of the DSLR above the port and housing are on the same ball park reducing 1cm the port size accomplishes no streamlining anymore

The sony A1 housing is also very negative as consequence of being smaller especially in terms of depth so you need much more floatation this ends up being a problem

For practical purpose there is no difference between a fisheye dome and the wwl-1 very similar buoyancy and weight they take the same floats

The 180mm wide angle port is more positive reducing the amount of floatation required so the strobe arms are more streamlined

As net effect there is not much difference in terms of handling the bigger dome handles very well

This is all practical not theoretical advice

The olympus housings are much smaller and with a native acrylic fisheye much more compact

In terms of streamlining the A1 (which I am an expert at that’s how I designed the system over 6 months before buying it) there are two key points

1. Avoid any form of WACP the topside weight makes your arm feel tired

2. If possible avoid rectilinear if you must choose a lens that works well with the 180 port so you can skip the 230

The lightest of my rigs is 5.72 kg the heaviest is the 180mm at 6.52 kg however the 8-15 with tc is 6.4 kg and more negative

There are no native fisheye and zoom fisheye which makes it achieving a small system overall very tricky

Really if small size is a priority the olympus system with native lenses and port is the only one that you can call compact

Fyi the wwl-1 is a 4.33 port

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Not commercially available currently, but this was a wonderfully streamlined WA setup with A1. Here waiting in the rain before a dive in Silfra, Iceland.

Nauticam's 13mm UW-corrected fisheye. Manual focus lens.

15 hours ago, Alex_Mustard said:

Nauticam's 13mm UW-corrected fisheye. Manual focus lens.

Is this one of these older Nikonos lenses, adapted for Nauticam housing or is it a prototype for a new development by Nauticam?

Wolfgang

It is a modern lens design by Nauticam, with an E-mount at the back. But it has focus and aperture controls like a Nikonos lens.

It is something that they could make commercially, but don't currently.

Alex

Just now, Alex_Mustard said:

It is a modern lens design by Nauticam, with an E-mount at the back. But it has focus and aperture controls like a Nikonos lens.

It is something that they could make commercially, but don't currently.

Alex

What are the dimensions? Does not look much smaller than a 140mm dome and extensions?

8 hours ago, Alex_Mustard said:

It is a modern lens design by Nauticam, with an E-mount at the back. But it has focus and aperture controls like a Nikonos lens.

It is something that they could make commercially, but don't currently.

Alex

UW-corrected - what does it mean in real world terms (the 8-15 fisheyes seem to be already high quality)?

Tack sharp in the center and also in the corners, even at aperture wide open (what f-number?)?

Wolfgang

16 hours ago, Architeuthis said:

UW-corrected - what does it mean in real world terms (the 8-15 fisheyes seem to be already high quality)?

Tack sharp in the center and also in the corners, even at aperture wide open (what f-number?)?

 

Wolfgang

 

@Interceptor121- the front element looks about 100mm. Looks a very similar size to my Zen 100 dome. The Nauticam 140mm is quite a bit larger. I didn’t have space on my messy desk for the 180 or 230mm domes for comparison! 

I wouldn’t use this lens as my go to fisheye for normal shooting. But I would do if I specialised in certain subjects like cetaceans - it would be great for freediving with them, cave photography (where MF and open aperture performance would be highly valuable) and deep wreck photography - similar reasons to caves. I think it would be great if Nauticam put the lens into production for these people, but I also understand that the business case for them might be difficult. 

The lens performs very similarly to the Nikonos RS-13mm UW fisheye just without the AF. We had two Nikonos 13mm on my Iceland workshop and the results were very comparable. Plus I have a lot of experience with the Nikonos RS-13, there are nearly 1000 photos with the Nikonos 13mm fisheye on my website:

https://www.amustard.com/library/page/search/"13.0"/4/

Since fisheyes already work well behind domes, the image quality advantages of a water corrected fisheye don’t make them a must have. This lens will offer better sharpness away from the centre of the frame, and a more contrast + colour (something lots of people comment on when using any water corrected lens). The main attraction is non-blurry corners of the frame with open apertures. This is not really a benefit for normal WA photography, where there is plenty of light to keep the lens stopped down, but this is an advantage in situations where you have low light (caves, deep wrecks etc) or want to shoot fast shutter speeds to freeze available light action (dolphins, bait balls etc). They also have a small footprint size, which is travel friendly, good for pushing through the water when pursuing pelagic subjects and good for close focus lighting. But they also make the housing more negative. But everyone I know with a Nikonos 13mm, loves it and wouldn’t go back to a dome.

I am very happy to access to this lens and will take it on my next few trips and try a range of subjects with it, to see what it is like to shoot.

Alex

58 minutes ago, Alex_Mustard said:

@Interceptor121- the front element looks about 100mm. Looks a very similar size to my Zen 100 dome. The Nauticam 140mm is quite a bit larger. I didn’t have space on my messy desk for the 180 or 230mm domes for comparison! 

I wouldn’t use this lens as my go to fisheye for normal shooting. But I would do if I specialised in certain subjects like cetaceans - it would be great for freediving with them, cave photography (where MF and open aperture performance would be highly valuable) and deep wreck photography - similar reasons to caves. I think it would be great if Nauticam put the lens into production for these people, but I also understand that the business case for them might be difficult. 

The lens performs very similarly to the Nikonos RS-13mm UW fisheye just without the AF. We had two Nikonos 13mm on my Iceland workshop and the results were very comparable. Plus I have a lot of experience with the Nikonos RS-13, there are nearly 1000 photos with the Nikonos 13mm fisheye on my website:

https://www.amustard.com/library/page/search/"13.0"/4/

Since fisheyes already work well behind domes, the image quality advantages of a water corrected fisheye don’t make them a must have. This lens will offer better sharpness away from the centre of the frame, and a more contrast + colour (something lots of people comment on when using any water corrected lens). The main attraction is non-blurry corners of the frame with open apertures. This is not really a benefit for normal WA photography, where there is plenty of light to keep the lens stopped down, but this is an advantage in situations where you have low light (caves, deep wrecks etc) or want to shoot fast shutter speeds to freeze available light action (dolphins, bait balls etc). They also have a small footprint size, which is travel friendly, good for pushing through the water when pursuing pelagic subjects and good for close focus lighting. But they also make the housing more negative. But everyone I know with a Nikonos 13mm, loves it and wouldn’t go back to a dome.

I am very happy to access to this lens and will take it on my next few trips and try a range of subjects with it, to see what it is like to shoot.

Alex

I think in terms of size this looks very similar to the acrylic port

I doubt size will be a primary reason to prefer this set up

However a 13mm lens will have more depth of field of a 15mm lens and therefore this Nauticam prototype lends itself better to wider apertures.

I have seen example of cave shots at f/4 with the canon at 15mm with subjects in the distance this can be ok especially if the edges are the dark corners of a cave

Considering the general reticence to manual focus of still shooters I can see Nauticam point of view of not bringing this lens to live production.

No, it is quite a bit smaller than the 4.3” acrylic.

2 hours ago, Alex_Mustard said:

No, it is quite a bit smaller than the 4.3” acrylic.

The 4.33" acrylic is in total including the mpunt 12 cm diameter, the dome itself is 11cm

Compared to the zen the base mount is the same as it is N120 system, the zen is itself 11cm so the difference is near nothing

This is the set up to me looks shorter and smaller than this Nauticam lens. The mount of the Nauticam is N100 which is small but the port seems very long and the dome is bigger than 100 mm from your photo when you look at the shade

I have the 4.3” Nauticam port here next to the 13mm Nauticam lens. The fisheye lens port is about 2cm smaller in diameter and maybe sticks out about 0.5cm less.  

17 minutes ago, Alex_Mustard said:

I have the 4.3” Nauticam port here next to the 13mm Nauticam lens. The fisheye lens port is about 2cm smaller in diameter and maybe sticks out about 0.5cm less.  

So that would mean is 100 cm throughout. Your image perspective gave the impression it grows with size but perhaps is the result of a phone photo!