Nauticam Fisheye Conversion Port

6 hours ago, Phil Rudin said:

So is the N100 version a direct mount to the housing or is an N100 extension required?

 

Yes, it did have a short custom N100 extension (that I could take off). I didn't measure it, but it is small, smaller than any of the rings I had previously (less than an inch). But I also don't know if the FCP I am testing is a one-off prototype and it actually may be different to the Nauticam USA one. 

I know there was some confusion after I shared info about the WWL-Dry lens - the WACP-C prototype - in relation to the WACP-C. So I think it is best that we avoid setup specifics for now so it doesn't confuse matters in the future. I am using the 28-60mm at the moment, but the production version may favour a different lens. 

What i can say is that I am already totally happy to use this setup as my main lens in the Red Sea. And Nauticam have a way to make it even better - which makes me very excited for the actual FCP. 

On 6/14/2023 at 3:12 PM, Alex_Mustard said:

Sorry for the slow reply. I had to check in with Nauticam to check what they are happy for me to share. I am using an FCP prototype, Nauticam have an idea to improve design for the production version. So this lens is worse-case in terms of performance. And I am already very impressed and very happy to use it as a main lens on my next trip - as in my view it already out performs all other options.

I used the Sony 28-60mm last night. These photos below - taken of the same subject from the same position show (the very large) range of FOV this combo creates. A 28-70mm would provide even more! Top FCP with 28mm, bottom zoomed in to 60mm. My image shows unprocessed files in Lightroom.

 

Good to hear that the results are good so far! I really miss the ability to zoom with a fisheye lens after moving to a full frame setup. The possibility to have it back (and hopefully with better performance than a Tokina combined with an APS-C sensor) is thrilling. One question: does it focus on air like the WACP-1 in order to allow split shots or it's more like the WACP-C that doesn't have this characteristic?

The FCP has had a full week of diving now in the Red Sea.

On the rare occasions it was not on my camera I lent it to six other photographers on my workshop (4 x Sony FF, 1 x Nikon FF SLR, 1 x Canon FF SLR). Everyone loved it from the first minute of the first dive - as it is simply exactly the FOV range they've always wanted. I know at least one has emailed in their order to Backscatter from the boat (irrespective of price and production date!).

Here is a photo of my buddy Nick More diving with the FCP - the lens looks bigger than it is here because it is closer to my lens. I was shooting the WWL to take this one.

Looking forward to my second workshop starting and getting it back in the water tomorrow.

This image shows the zoom range of the FCP with Sony 28-60mm. Nikon Z 24-50mm would offer a bit less, Nikon SLR 28-70mm a bit more. These are two photos of the back of our liveaboard, one taken at 28mm (darkened) and one at 60mm, from the same spot. I've scaled, brightened and overlaid the 60mm shot over the 28mm.

The FCP FOV view range is a very wide and very useful range.

Really exciting!

But to clarify and without detailed specs: The FCP differs from lets say WACP-C mostly in the field of view (much wider) - is that true?

WACP-C with 28-60 has 69°-130° - the FCP should go up to 180°?

On 6/27/2023 at 11:17 AM, fruehaufsteher2 said:

Really exciting!

But to clarify and without detailed specs: The FCP differs from lets say WACP-C mostly in the field of view (much wider) - is that true?

WACP-C with 28-60 has 69°-130° - the FCP should go up to 180°?

I have WACP-C with Sony 28-60 and wondering same.

Or actually can i manage with FCP only, i really dont want to pack both for trips(luggage restrictions)

11 hours ago, Sokrates said:

I have WACP-C with Sony 28-60 and wondering same.

Or actually can i manage with FCP only, i really dont want to pack both for trips(luggage restrictions)

It depends on how important being able to zoom is to you.   I played around trying to fit the WACP figures Nauticam supplies to a fisheye projection and it appears like it might be a combination of a rectilinear and fisheye style projections.  If you assume the FCP has similar characteristics and a maximum field of view of 180° diagonal then you can estimate fields of view and I've done that:

This is an estimate of the field of view range compared to what you get with the WACP.  There is some overlap so you could work out how often you use the WACP zoomed in beyond a 99 deg diagonal, or zoomed in more than 45mm on the lens or so.  These figures are of course educated guesses and might be up to about 10° out, depending on the projection that the FCP uses.

On 6/29/2023 at 3:56 AM, ChrisRoss said:

It depends on how important being able to zoom is to you.   I played around trying to fit the WACP figures Nauticam supplies to a fisheye projection and it appears like it might be a combination of a rectilinear and fisheye style projections.  If you assume the FCP has similar characteristics and a maximum field of view of 180° diagonal then you can estimate fields of view and I've done that:

This is an estimate of the field of view range compared to what you get with the WACP.  There is some overlap so you could work out how often you use the WACP zoomed in beyond a 99 deg diagonal, or zoomed in more than 45mm on the lens or so.  These figures are of course educated guesses and might be up to about 10° out, depending on the projection that the FCP uses.

 

From what I have measured all underwater optics fall short a long way from theoretical models because the focus distance is shorter than infinity where the field of view of the lens on land is measured

I am not sure how nauticam comes to their specifications and if this is a theoretical or measured number by master lens

5 hours ago, Interceptor121 said:

From what I have measured all underwater optics fall short a long way from theoretical models because the focus distance is shorter than infinity where the field of view of the lens on land is measured

I am not sure how nauticam comes to their specifications and if this is a theoretical or measured number by master lens

Perhaps but the reduction in view from a 180° fisheye should be somewhat consistent and useful for at least comparison.  Be interesting to see if their lens is wider than a standard fisheye lens when focusing close.

18 minutes ago, ChrisRoss said:

Perhaps but the reduction in view from a 180° fisheye should be somewhat consistent and useful for at least comparison.  Be interesting to see if their lens is wider than a standard fisheye lens when focusing close.

The horizontal fov of the fisheye is 2.1x wider from that picture Alex posted

Assuming the other lens fov is correct that would give an  horizontal of 140 degreesand diagonal of 174 degrees.

This is just a tad narrower than the theoretical fov of the canon 8-15The equation does not work very well at the extremes and is not exact

However I doubt very much that the fov of the WWL-1 is 130 degrees diagonal 106 horizontal

I see this option attractive for full frame users who do not want to go for a tc and want more zoom however for APSC and MFT there is already a full working solution that will cost overall less

I have been able to lend the lens to more photographers this week, so we’ve now had the FCP on Sony FF MRL, Nikon FF MRL, Nikon FF SLR and Canon FF SLR here in the Red Sea. Unsurprisingly it is very popular. 

The only dives it has missed have been macro focused ones! 

Alex 

Thank you, Alex. Can you please tell us which lens was mounted onto each camera/format behind the FCP?   

??? lens on your Sony A1

??? lens on Nikon FF MRL

??? lens on Nikon FF SLR

??? lens on Canon FF SLR

Best,

Brandon

@Alex_Mustard

Apologies for the obtuse question:
What ports are we looking at (left and right) in the picture you posted?

The one of the left doesn't look like the WACP (is that the FCP)? And the one on the right might be a Nikonos 13mm fitted for the Nauticam housing, but it still looks a bit different. 

I may be way off here, just wanted to make sure...

 

1 hour ago, brandoncole said:

Thank you, Alex. Can you please tell us which lens was mounted onto each camera/format behind the FCP?   

??? lens on your Sony A1

??? lens on Nikon FF MRL

??? lens on Nikon FF SLR

??? lens on Canon FF SLR

Best,

Brandon

On the Sony’s most people used the 28-60mm.

On the Z9s the guys used 24-50mm in the range 28-50mm.

On Nikon SLRs they used 28-70mm.

On Canon SLR the guy used 28-70mm.

The FCP I have is a prototype and the mount/lens comparability might change, although I suspect it won’t. 

1 hour ago, oneyellowtang said:

@Alex_Mustard

Apologies for the obtuse question:
What ports are we looking at (left and right) in the picture you posted?

The one of the left doesn't look like the WACP (is that the FCP)? And the one on the right might be a Nikonos 13mm fitted for the Nauticam housing, but it still looks a bit different. 
 

The port on the left is the FCP attached to a Nikon Z9.

On the right is an UW 13mm mechanical fisheye lens built by Nauticam a few years ago. It works really well, and the manual focus is easy enough.

As I have said before I think there is a market for it particularly for cave, deep wreck and pelagic animal photographers. Where small size, great optics and fixed focus are all attractive features. I’ve been borrowing it for the last couple of months and have shot it in Iceland, Philippines and now, Egypt. You can find images from it under the New Images tab on my website. The ones with no lens EXIF will be shot with this (or Nikonos 15mm - it is obvious which is which).

Thank you very much for your reply, Alex.

So, the same ancient Canon and Nikon kit lenses that were/are suggested for the original WACP, huh? 

Seems like the best of the bunch in terms of range behind the FCP is the Sony 28-60. That's probably sharper than the old Canon and Nikon kit lenses too. I don't know anything about that Nikon Z24-50, but at least it's not 25 years old!

Best,

Brandon

I’m surprised nauticam hasn’t changed the formula to accept a less restrictive/more standard set of lenses that fit the new mirrorless lineup. A 24-70 or something similar would make more sense with the new modern lenses. Do we have any idea on the release date for this new lens?

Any guess on the FCP's splitshot capabilities?

Any guess on the FCP's splitshot capabilities?

On 7/5/2023 at 3:37 PM, Matt Imm said:

I’m surprised nauticam hasn’t changed the formula to accept a less restrictive/more standard set of lenses that fit the new mirrorless lineup. A 24-70 or something similar would make more sense with the new modern lenses. Do we have any idea on the release date for this new lens?

It is really a size problem - as a generalisation the bigger the front element of the camera lens the bigger the water corrected optic has to be. And they get bigger, heavier and more expensive pretty quickly. 

Nauticam made the WACP-2 to work with larger lenses. But very few photographers use it because of its size, weight and cost. Its quality isn’t in doubt. The relatively small size of the FCP also really helps its close focus capability - which is a good thing for UW fisheye shooting. The negative is the need to use relatively small diameter lenses behind it.