Nauticam Fisheye Conversion Port: detailed review

[Nicool]

Hi everyone,
If you love wide-angle photography, you might be interested in my detailed review of the Nauticam FCP-1 (also on DivePhotoGuide):

Nauticam Fisheye Conversion Port (FCP): field review - The Underwater Club

Review index: Prelude Expectations and Impressions Sharpness and depth-of-field Color rendering and chromatic aberration Sunballs and reflections Split-shots Final Thoughts Recap: Pros & Cons This review was first published in DivePhotoGuide, in February 2024. Prelude Reflecting on the various...

theunderwaterclub.com

This is based on a near-final / pre-production unit (Jan2024), which is different from the mid-2023 prototype.

 

[BoltSnap]

Hi everyone,
If you love wide-angle photography, you might be interested in my detailed review of the Nauticam FCP-1 (also on DivePhotoGuide):
Review: Angled Relay Lens For The Nauticam EMWL

This is based on a near-final / pre-production unit (Jan2024), which is different from the mid-2023 prototype.

The link in your post is for the EMWL not the FCP-1 the subject of your thread.

 

[tursiops]

He probably meant this link:

Nauticam Fisheye Conversion Port (FCP): field review - The Underwater Club

Review index: Prelude Expectations and Impressions Sharpness and depth-of-field Color rendering and chromatic aberration Sunballs and reflections Split-shots Final Thoughts Recap: Pros & Cons This review was first published in DivePhotoGuide, in February 2024. Prelude Reflecting on the various...

theunderwaterclub.com

 

[Nicool]

Thanks BoltSnap and tursiops, wrong copy-paste

 

[WS007]

Hi everyone,
If you love wide-angle photography, you might be interested in my detailed review of the Nauticam FCP-1 (also on DivePhotoGuide):

Nauticam Fisheye Conversion Port (FCP): field review - The Underwater Club

Review index: Prelude Expectations and Impressions Sharpness and depth-of-field Color rendering and chromatic aberration Sunballs and reflections Split-shots Final Thoughts Recap: Pros & Cons This review was first published in DivePhotoGuide, in February 2024. Prelude Reflecting on the various...

theunderwaterclub.com

This is based on a near-final / pre-production unit (Jan2024), which is different from the mid-2023 prototype.

Interesting review...


When you say IQ gets acceptable at f/13 and higher values, it is because of the thin DOF, right (in the region that is sharp, there is high resolution of details, even at smaller f-numbers?)?

It means that DOF at same aperture values, set on the lens, is smaller compared to WACP1 or a rectilinear WA lens with pure domeport??


=> The explanation may well be that the aperture value is just a number without dimensions (i.e. f-value= focal length (mm)/diameter of aperture (mm)). The lens+FCP-1 need to be considered as an optical entity. The absolute diameter of the aperture (in e.g. mm) remains the same, when set to a specific number on the lens (e.g. f/13), even when the FCP-1 is used to reduce the focal length of the entire system considerably.

Hence the aperture value of lens+FCP-1 system is substantially smaller than 13 when the aperture on the lens itself is set to f/13. In case that e.g. the focal length is reduced by the FCP-1 from 28mm to 14mm, setting f/13 on the lens would mean an actual f-number of the entire system of f/6.5...

=> How much smaller the focal length gets could be answered by the engineer who developed FCP-1...

Wolfgang

 

[WS007]

Hi everyone,
If you love wide-angle photography, you might be interested in my detailed review of the Nauticam FCP-1 (also on DivePhotoGuide):

Nauticam Fisheye Conversion Port (FCP): field review - The Underwater Club

Review index: Prelude Expectations and Impressions Sharpness and depth-of-field Color rendering and chromatic aberration Sunballs and reflections Split-shots Final Thoughts Recap: Pros & Cons This review was first published in DivePhotoGuide, in February 2024. Prelude Reflecting on the various...

theunderwaterclub.com

This is based on a near-final / pre-production unit (Jan2024), which is different from the mid-2023 prototype.

You say IQ of FCP-1 is lightyears ahead of the Tokina 10-17mm on APS-C. It would be helpful if you could post examples, so that everyone could judge by himself how big this difference is...

Wolfgang

 

[Nicool]

Interesting review...


When you say IQ gets acceptable at f/13 and higher values, it is because of the thin DOF, right (in the region that is sharp, there is high resolution of details, even at smaller f-numbers?)?

It means that DOF at same aperture values, set on the lens, is smaller compared to WACP1 or a rectilinear WA lens with pure domeport??


=> The explanation may well be that the aperture value is just a number without dimensions (i.e. f-value= focal length (mm)/diameter of aperture (mm)). The lens+FCP-1 need to be considered as an optical entity. The absolute diameter of the aperture (in e.g. mm) remains the same, when set to a specific number on the lens (e.g. f/13), even when the FCP-1 is used to reduce the focal length of the entire system considerably.

Hence the aperture value of lens+FCP-1 system is substantially smaller than 13 when the aperture on the lens itself is set to f/13. In case that e.g. the focal length is reduced by the FCP-1 from 28mm to 14mm, setting f/13 on the lens would mean an actual f-number of the entire system of f/6.5...

=> How much smaller the focal length gets could be answered by the engineer who developed FCP-1...

Wolfgang

Hi Wolfgang,
Yes that's what I mean, whatever is sharp is really sharp, but the depth-of-field is shallow if you don't close the aperture enough. See the backlit soft coral example and included 100% crops.
In comparison, I am happy enough shooting the WACP-1 at F/7.1 - F/8, and will go to F/10-F13 only if there's too much ambient light and/or I am working very close.

I think you're right in assuming the FCP-1 transforms the aperture at the same time as transforming the field-of-view, but I am not privy of the engineering details.

You say IQ of FCP-1 is lightyears ahead of the Tokina 10-17mm on APS-C. It would be helpful if you could post examples, so that everyone could judge by himself how big this difference is...

Wolfgang

You caught me being a little sensational in my writing
I found the FCP-1/Z 24-50mm/Z9 combination to provide much better details than the D500/Tokina pair, obviously because of the much higher resolution, but also because of the amount of details visible when zooming at 100%, so the FCP-1 makes good use of the 46 MP sensor.

I realise there's always some subjectivity in assessing image quality / sharpness in the field, and this is why I spent the time including many 100% crops within the review, so that anyone can download them, compare to 100% crops of his/her current setup and decide how much of a gain there is => see the "Interpreting 100% crops section".

 

[WS007]

Hi Wolfgang,
Yes that's what I mean, whatever is sharp is really sharp, but the depth-of-field is shallow if you don't close the aperture enough. See the backlit soft coral example and included 100% crops.
In comparison, I am happy enough shooting the WACP-1 at F/7.1 - F/8, and will go to F/10-F13 only if there's too much ambient light and/or I am working very close.

Thank you for the detailed information, really very informative (I have WACP-C and consider FCP-1, but I am just thinking, undecided yet)...

When you say f/7.1 - f/8 on WACP-1 compares to f/13 on FCP-1 with respect to DOF, how about the other parameters, such as shutter speed and ISO?

Are these the same (WACP-1 @ f7.1 - f/8 vs. FCP-1 f/13) or does the FCP-1 require substantially slower shutter speed and/or higher ISO?

=> The reason I am asking: is FCP-1 more versatile, as it covers 170° fisheye plus WACP with one port and one lens, all other parameters being equal?
Or does the use of two separate ports and lenses, i.e. WACP(-C)/Sony 28-60mm plus 140mm_domeport/Canon8-15mm fisheye provide better low-light abilities (at the cost of being less versatile)?

 

[Interceptor121]

I don't think you got an handle on the depth of field disadvantage there is none
The WACP has a smaller field of view and normally you don't shoot very close when you shoot close it has the same issues
As the lenses do not have the same field of view if you stand on the same point and shoot something on the same focus point the scene on the FCP-1 will be smaller and therefore will have more depth of field.
There would not be any physical possible reason of any sort to make this lens have less depth of field you are simply getting close because it is a fisheye and exactly as it happens with a fisheye even at f/16 you may run out of depth of field if you are super close
Images look ok and sharp enough but not sharper than canon 8-15 with TC either