Great discussion, I think its worth mentioning that many people shoot both stills and video with the same rig and the WACP1 is much more suitable for that because it has less distortion than a fisheye lens.
Hi Alex - I'm curious whether you have compared images taken with the FCP vs WACP-1 using the Sony 28-70mm with the lens set to achieve the same FOV for each of the two ports? Let's say targeting 130, 100, and 80 degrees FOV. I assume there is a steady reduction in barrel distortion as the FCP FOV is narrowed (a greater reduction than seen in the WACP-1) and am curious how images then compare over the FOV range. Apologies if you've already discussed this and I missed it. Cheers.
Exactly! This! I'm shooting with the 28-60. I too would really like to see image comparisons (especially corners) between the WACP and FCP when both are shot from the same distance at the same FOV. Also, where is the implication (from something Alex said in the video, at 6:27) coming from that the FCP isn't as useful in low light? In the same scene, at the same distance, using the same FOV, would you not use the same aperture setting with the FCP as with the WACP? Please explain what low light performance the WACP delivers that the FCP can't (for the same FOV).
Hi Matt and Alex, do you have any tips on selling used underwater photography gear? I've been thinking about picking up a FCP and this video has convinced me that I might be able to help fund the purchase by selling off my WACP-C with no regrets. I also think this topic would be of general interest (and maybe worth a UWPS episode?) as more and more of us start thinking about retiring our DSLR rigs in favour of mirrorless.
Alex - I believe like myself, you are also shooting with the Sony camera body - with the FCP-1 the favorable Sony lens is the 28-60mm, is that what you are shooting with? Given the compatible lens for the FCP-1 - is there another brand lens (Nikon, Cannon) you would rather use with an adaptor, or you've seen others use with favorable results with a Sony body?
The only other Sony lens I have tried with the FCP is the 28mm prime. I do feel that the FCP performs slightly better with the Nikon 24-50mm than it does with the Sony 28-60mm, but it is marginal. Certainly not motivation to use an adapted lens. One main attraction of using the FCP is being able to shoot native Sony lenses.
Thanks as always Alex. Wondering if there is any benefit / applicability to using the FCP on a D850...and what lens(s) might be good choices for that. TIA
Lots of people have tried it on my workshops over the last year (with the prototype FCP). Everyone always used the 28-70mm AF-D lens, the same one as for the WACP. But it needs a different port extension. I've not tried the production version of the FCP with an SLR, so I can't comment on the image quality. But I have no reason to doubt it works. We tried the prototype with both Canon and Nikon SLRs.
I am sure it would work on M43 - but would be a big lump of glass on a relatively small housing. Using the Canon 8-15mm on an adaptor is well worth investigating for M43.
Hi Matt and Alex, thanks for this interesting video. Would you consider to compare the image quality of the FCP-1 paired with a standard zoom (i.e. Nikon Z 24-50) with what you get with Nikon (or Canon ) 8-15 Fisheye lenses coupled with an 1.4X TC (i.e. Kenko pro). I would be also curious to know you opinion: is it better to use the TC or the DX in camera crop...is the lens coupled with the TC capable to resolve 40+ MP resolution? thanks Francesco
As I said in the video - because I was in Raja Ampat I didn't do detailed tests on image quality. I just got on with shooting great images with the lens. But my feeling is that the FCP is at the very least matching, and I felt out performing the image quality of a fisheye and dome. I have always been disappointed with the 8-15mm on teleconverter - even though I got the expensive gear to be able to use it. It just seems a wasteful use of the great sensors on FF mirrorless cameras. Fine at 20MP, wasteful at 45MP. Some people love the fisheye + TC solution, or don't care because they are focused only on Instagram, but I always see its limitations as soon as you look away from the central area of the frame. So I would say in image quality terms WACP1>FCP>fisheye with dome>fisheye+TC with dome, would be my solution. All work, all can get great shots, just with differing levels of image quality. And if I am going half way round the world to get a shot - and it will take the same effort to get it with any of those setups, I would always want the best setup on my camera. It is extra image quality without extra talent!
Great discussion, I think its worth mentioning that many people shoot both stills and video with the same rig and the WACP1 is much more suitable for that because it has less distortion than a fisheye lens.
Yes, excellent point. I failing of my one-eyed view of underwater imaging!
Thanks guys!
Amazing Content as always!!! Thank you!
Hi Alex - I'm curious whether you have compared images taken with the FCP vs WACP-1 using the Sony 28-70mm with the lens set to achieve the same FOV for each of the two ports? Let's say targeting 130, 100, and 80 degrees FOV. I assume there is a steady reduction in barrel distortion as the FCP FOV is narrowed (a greater reduction than seen in the WACP-1) and am curious how images then compare over the FOV range. Apologies if you've already discussed this and I missed it. Cheers.
Exactly! This! I'm shooting with the 28-60. I too would really like to see image comparisons (especially corners) between the WACP and FCP when both are shot from the same distance at the same FOV.
Also, where is the implication (from something Alex said in the video, at 6:27) coming from that the FCP isn't as useful in low light? In the same scene, at the same distance, using the same FOV, would you not use the same aperture setting with the FCP as with the WACP? Please explain what low light performance the WACP delivers that the FCP can't (for the same FOV).
Hi Matt and Alex, do you have any tips on selling used underwater photography gear? I've been thinking about picking up a FCP and this video has convinced me that I might be able to help fund the purchase by selling off my WACP-C with no regrets. I also think this topic would be of general interest (and maybe worth a UWPS episode?) as more and more of us start thinking about retiring our DSLR rigs in favour of mirrorless.
@Kamaros If you decide to sell your WACP-C, please let me know as I’m in the market for one!
Alex - I believe like myself, you are also shooting with the Sony camera body - with the FCP-1 the favorable Sony lens is the 28-60mm, is that what you are shooting with? Given the compatible lens for the FCP-1 - is there another brand lens (Nikon, Cannon) you would rather use with an adaptor, or you've seen others use with favorable results with a Sony body?
The only other Sony lens I have tried with the FCP is the 28mm prime. I do feel that the FCP performs slightly better with the Nikon 24-50mm than it does with the Sony 28-60mm, but it is marginal. Certainly not motivation to use an adapted lens. One main attraction of using the FCP is being able to shoot native Sony lenses.
Thanks as always Alex. Wondering if there is any benefit / applicability to using the FCP on a D850...and what lens(s) might be good choices for that. TIA
Lots of people have tried it on my workshops over the last year (with the prototype FCP). Everyone always used the 28-70mm AF-D lens, the same one as for the WACP. But it needs a different port extension. I've not tried the production version of the FCP with an SLR, so I can't comment on the image quality. But I have no reason to doubt it works. We tried the prototype with both Canon and Nikon SLRs.
I’m super curious if the FCP works for both reef scenery and CFWA on m4/3 and if so with what lens? If it does, I’d convert my setup tomorrow!
I am sure it would work on M43 - but would be a big lump of glass on a relatively small housing. Using the Canon 8-15mm on an adaptor is well worth investigating for M43.
Nice talk, thanks but with some footages that shows us your points, will be so much greter & better 🙏🤪
Hi Matt and Alex, thanks for this interesting video. Would you consider to compare the image quality of the FCP-1 paired with a standard zoom (i.e. Nikon Z 24-50) with what you get with Nikon (or Canon ) 8-15 Fisheye lenses coupled with an 1.4X TC (i.e. Kenko pro). I would be also curious to know you opinion: is it better to use the TC or the DX in camera crop...is the lens coupled with the TC capable to resolve 40+ MP resolution? thanks Francesco
As I said in the video - because I was in Raja Ampat I didn't do detailed tests on image quality. I just got on with shooting great images with the lens. But my feeling is that the FCP is at the very least matching, and I felt out performing the image quality of a fisheye and dome. I have always been disappointed with the 8-15mm on teleconverter - even though I got the expensive gear to be able to use it. It just seems a wasteful use of the great sensors on FF mirrorless cameras. Fine at 20MP, wasteful at 45MP. Some people love the fisheye + TC solution, or don't care because they are focused only on Instagram, but I always see its limitations as soon as you look away from the central area of the frame.
So I would say in image quality terms WACP1>FCP>fisheye with dome>fisheye+TC with dome, would be my solution. All work, all can get great shots, just with differing levels of image quality. And if I am going half way round the world to get a shot - and it will take the same effort to get it with any of those setups, I would always want the best setup on my camera. It is extra image quality without extra talent!
@@Alex_Mustard thanks a lot for the very clear reply