Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

SubSee Adapters?


  • Please log in to reply
91 replies to this topic

#41 Hani Amir

Hani Amir

    Wolf Eel

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 187 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Maldives

Posted 19 April 2009 - 08:16 PM

So in summation, subsee adapters are? ;)

#42 Mariozi

Mariozi

    Sting Ray

  • Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 205 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Dubai UAE

Posted 19 April 2009 - 10:40 PM

So in summation, subsee adapters are? ;)


Certainly the most powerful and more compact in the market.
IQ is at least as good as any other.

I was not a fan of wet adapters, preferred to do my super-macro on TCs.
This is the only one I found worthy of a try.
Marcelo Mariozi - UWPhoto.ae
EUPS - Emirates Underwater Photographic Society Member
Nikon D300 on Sea&Sea MDX-D300 w/ YS-110 (2x) & Nikon F80s on Sea&Sea NX-80 w/ YS-90 + YS-120 & Nikonos V
Nikkors 10.5mm/2.8, 10-24mm/3.5-4.5, 16mm/2.8, 14-24mm/2.8, 50mm/1.4, 60mm/2.8, 105mm/2.8, 70-200mm/2.8; Sigmas 4.5mm/2.8 8mm/4, Kenko PRO300 3x TC.

#43 craig

craig

    Full Moon Rising

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2826 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Austin, TX

Posted 20 April 2009 - 05:39 AM

Certainly the most powerful and more compact in the market.
IQ is at least as good as any other.

I was not a fan of wet adapters, preferred to do my super-macro on TCs.
This is the only one I found worthy of a try.

Your evidence of this is what?

SubSea and MacroMate both claim 2:1. SubSea is lighter but not as durable. 67mm solutions are more compact than SubSea or MacroMate. An Epoque 67mm close-up lens is pretty powerful but I don't know if it does 2:1 with a 100 mm. You have to ask yourself if you really want that much power and a short lens. There is nothing better than the right lens for the job.
I love it when a plan comes together.
- Col. John "Hannibal" Smith

------
Nikon, Seatool, Nexus, Inon
My Galleries

#44 Mariozi

Mariozi

    Sting Ray

  • Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 205 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Dubai UAE

Posted 20 April 2009 - 10:23 AM

Ok, here we go again...

Your evidence of this is what?

"Woody's diopter can increase magnification up to 25%, where the macromate (+8) & subsee (+10) can increase magnification up to 100% & 125% respectively on a 105mm lens." - The Underwater Photography Guide.

SubSea and MacroMate both claim 2:1.

MacroMate claims 2:1 in a very empiric way... I never bought that, specially KNOWING that diopters works differently in different lenses.
SubSee claims 2.2:1 on a 105mm AND has a nice "calculator" in his site, which so far as the tests I have seen and done, it's pretty accurate (down to 0.1mm).

SubSea is lighter but not as durable.

Big doubt on the durability side, I found them pretty tough and well engineered.
Do you have one? Did you break one?
I pointed out easily measurable things: SIZE + POWER.

67mm solutions are more compact than SubSea or MacroMate. An Epoque 67mm close-up lens is pretty powerful but I don't know if it does 2:1 with a 100 mm.

Don't know this one, is it a general brand that can be used in most DSLR housings like SubSee, MacroMate & Woodys?

You have to ask yourself if you really want that much power and a short lens. There is nothing better than the right lens for the job.

Agreed!!!
I was never a big fan of wet adapters anyway, preferring to use TCs and other things. But I am sure the SubSee will add some versatility to my dives.
On the other hand, if I am already doing 1:1 on a 105mm I would not carry something like that down if it would not give me a completely new image...
I other words, I would not use one just to "get a little closer".
Just like you I also don't recommend the more powerful ones on short lens like the 60mm, but even the SubSee is "comfortable" to use on a 105mm.
Again, super-Macro is also something that requires training, to reach a "comfortable" level.

PS: If you are going to add an equation to this one, make sure you have it right this time ;)

Edited by Mariozi, 20 April 2009 - 10:33 AM.

Marcelo Mariozi - UWPhoto.ae
EUPS - Emirates Underwater Photographic Society Member
Nikon D300 on Sea&Sea MDX-D300 w/ YS-110 (2x) & Nikon F80s on Sea&Sea NX-80 w/ YS-90 + YS-120 & Nikonos V
Nikkors 10.5mm/2.8, 10-24mm/3.5-4.5, 16mm/2.8, 14-24mm/2.8, 50mm/1.4, 60mm/2.8, 105mm/2.8, 70-200mm/2.8; Sigmas 4.5mm/2.8 8mm/4, Kenko PRO300 3x TC.

#45 craig

craig

    Full Moon Rising

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2826 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Austin, TX

Posted 20 April 2009 - 01:51 PM

Ok, here we go again...

Indeed.

"Woody's diopter can increase magnification up to 25%, where the macromate (+8) & subsee (+10) can increase magnification up to 100% & 125% respectively on a 105mm lens." - The Underwater Photography Guide.
...
MacroMate claims 2:1 in a very empiric way... I never bought that, specially KNOWING that diopters works differently in different lenses.
SubSee claims 2.2:1 on a 105mm AND has a nice "calculator" in his site, which so far as the tests I have seen and done, it's pretty accurate (down to 0.1mm).

From the BackScatter website:
"Simply slip the MacroMate on your Canon 100mm or Nikon 105mm lens to explore the world of extreme macro. Flip the lens up to return to normal shooting. The MacroMate will give you a 2:1 ratio on an underwater SLR camera housing."

"Get incredibly sharp 2:1 (twice life-size) macro images with the underwater removable MacroMate lens for underwater SLR housings. The MacroMate doubles your 100mm or 105mm image size by allowing you to get closer to the subject."

So you see, MacroMate claims 2:1 using a 100mm macro lens much as SubSea does. I'm not here to defend MacroMate, though, I'm here to refute the claims you made without evidence. Please support the claim you made previously, namely:

"Certainly the most powerful and more compact in the market.
IQ is at least as good as any other."

I know for a fact that your "compact" claim is false, but what I really want to see is your comparative data that proves SubSea has such good IQ. So far you can't even produce an in-focus shot.

Big doubt on the durability side, I found them pretty tough and well engineered.
Do you have one? Did you break one?

Nope but one broke on the trip I was just on. Frankly, the MacroMate is essentially bombproof and the SubSea is far from it. I could snap a SubSea in two with just my hands. Your "big doubts" just tell me how prejudiced you are.

I pointed out easily measurable things: SIZE + POWER.

OK, we've seen your proof of power, now how about the rest? Your statements suggest that you've evaluated the competition but I suspect you've done no such thing. Have you tested the MacroMate? Inon? Epoque? Woody's? Seacam? If not, I'd suggest you limit your comments to what you have.

Don't know this one, is it a general brand that can be used in most DSLR housings like SubSee, MacroMate & Woodys?

I think that pretty much sums it up.

PS: If you are going to add an equation to this one, make sure you have it right this time ;)

My equation was right last time just as it was 6 years ago when I first posted it on Wetpixel. As your understanding improves you'll realize it.
I love it when a plan comes together.
- Col. John "Hannibal" Smith

------
Nikon, Seatool, Nexus, Inon
My Galleries

#46 TomR1

TomR1

    Tiger Shark

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 587 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Los Angeles

Posted 20 April 2009 - 03:27 PM

Ok, Ok, Ok!

1. The subsee is more convient than either a screw-on or slip-on wet solution because it can easily be swung out of the way. This may not seem like much but, in practice, it is huge. You can advance towards the subject and get a 1:1 shot with a 105 (DX format), then stealthly swing the subsee out of the way and continue advancing towards the subject. I was never able to do this with either a screw-on or slip-on solution

2. The subsee is ROBUST but you must secure it from loss. I CAN slip off. I have a neoprene ring around the port that I hook the subsee to.

3. My experience is that the +10 will give truely awsome shots under the right conditions. Those conditions are probably common to all magnification strategies, specifically a very this focus area.

Frankly, I am not certain that the search for better than 1:1 has many applications. Shooting a 12.5MP DX lens when I need about 1/3 of that to get awesome 8.5 x 11 prints and maybe 1/5 of that by 800x600 web shots means a crop factor of 3:1 to 5:1. For those clinging to "buggy whip" rules of yesteryear it may be importent but not me. I expect an occasional GREAT shot when I again see the opportunity so I believe that the subsee should sit on the end of everyone's 105 to be there when needed but.....

#47 craig

craig

    Full Moon Rising

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2826 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Austin, TX

Posted 20 April 2009 - 03:53 PM

I disagree on the convenience point. Some like the flip design but I don't because it forces me to move my strobes and modeling light (at least temporarily). I don't find flip designs any faster than slip-ons or screw-ons because of my style---they are all slow. Flip designs also add permanent weight to the front of the camera. In the case of the SubSea it's not much but with the MacroMate it is considerable.

The SubSea may be robust if nothing falls on it. The one that broke on my last trip was a mystery; no one knows what caused it but the mount had a piece broken off. Furthermore, one of the optical elements (there were several new ones on the boat) got several lens scratches without ever entering the water. The SubSea may be robust enough but it is not in the same league as MacroMate and our rigs do take punishment. As for screw-ons, it depends on implementation. My 67mm adapter is really solid thanks to Ryan. It's possible to bung up a thread but unlikely if you use a proper holder. 67mm diopters are easily the most compact overall and have less stack-up height than SubSea or MacroMate, both of which are quite thick.

In the end, what matters is results. Clearly there needs to be some direct, comparative testing. In my experience wet diopters are too much like a religion.

While I'm not so enthusiastic about cropping as you, Tom, I agree that magnifications beyond 1:1 with DX are of limited usefulness and 2:1 doesn't hold a lot of interest to me. Full frame shooters need it about 1.5 times more. ;)
I love it when a plan comes together.
- Col. John "Hannibal" Smith

------
Nikon, Seatool, Nexus, Inon
My Galleries

#48 Mariozi

Mariozi

    Sting Ray

  • Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 205 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Dubai UAE

Posted 20 April 2009 - 10:46 PM

From the BackScatter website:
"Simply slip the MacroMate on your Canon 100mm or Nikon 105mm lens to explore the world of extreme macro. Flip the lens up to return to normal shooting. The MacroMate will give you a 2:1 ratio on an underwater SLR camera housing."
"Get incredibly sharp 2:1 (twice life-size) macro images with the underwater removable MacroMate lens for underwater SLR housings. The MacroMate doubles your 100mm or 105mm image size by allowing you to get closer to the subject."
So you see, MacroMate claims 2:1 using a 100mm macro lens much as SubSea does. I'm not here to defend MacroMate, though, I'm here to refute the claims you made without evidence.
Please support the claim you made previously, namely:
"Certainly the most powerful and more compact in the market.


You just simply stated the 2:1 from MacroMate, which seems to be accurate for the 100mm range at least.
Although I agree with that it is CLEAR that SubSee has more power.
Are we in a court of law? Anyway, the simple lack of proof of anything stronger than SubSee and the text from the guys at The Underwater Photography Guide (independent) are OK for me, I won't spend my money buying what I don't want.

IQ is at least as good as any other."

First of all this is just an achromatic 2 element close up, no rocket science in it.
I am happy to assume the same IQ as any other if not better due to the simpler smaller design of the lenses, just less room for mistakes and imperfections in the lenses.

I know for a fact that your "compact" claim is false, but what I really want to see is your comparative data that proves SubSea has such good IQ.

Again... I did not meant to show you IQ, but only power. I guess I said that before...
And you seemed happy with the good souls that took their time to fulfill your desires.
Because of your behavior alone I'm sure won't post any more tests in here.
And will send them directly to who's asking, I think WetPixel looses with it.
And you are not in the best example as a "SuperMod", whatever that means.

Nope but one broke on the trip I was just on. Frankly, the MacroMate is essentially bombproof and the SubSea is far from it. I could snap a SubSea in two with just my hands. Your "big doubts" just tell me how prejudiced you are.

It is the first report I know of something like that.
I dive from zodiacs and am pretty loose about my equipment its not broken yet.

OK, we've seen your proof of power, now how about the rest? Your statements suggest that you've evaluated the competition but I suspect you've done no such thing. Have you tested the MacroMate? Inon? Epoque? Woody's? Seacam? If not, I'd suggest you limit your comments to what you have.

I have evaluated MacroMate loaned from friends, found it clumsy, personal preference maybe and not as nicely finished.
Have seen Woodys on many dives, also did not like it.
About the same experience as you I believe.

My equation was right last time just as it was 6 years ago when I first posted it on Wetpixel. As your understanding improves you'll realize it.

Last time you got a 1,62mm DoF when in the end you agreed on 0,31mm.
It looks like you get a 1x mistake for each year you have been here, as it ONLY about 5.22x error.
At least I haven't seen such a gross mistake in 10 years shooting underwater, and if that doesn't suggest prejudice, I don't know what does.
So far I have placed it as just a mistake, but since you brought the "prejudice" context...

You babble about science, but so far have failed to prove or mention your sources, only saying "easily verifiable"...
While all the time requires for "evidence" and "proof". I am really tired of this game... where you demand, but don't deliver.

This is what you posted:
DoF = 2 * Fe * CoC / M^2
DoF : depth of field
Fe : effective f-number (what Nikon displays)
CoC : circle of confusion
M : magnification

And it is incomplete, looks like it has been incomplete for the last 6 years.
That's why you made such a gross mistake.

The right ones should be (in the correct notation):
T = (2 * C * N * ( 1 + m))/m^2
And for the DoF in print that you praise:
Tp = (2 * Cp * N * ((M * Z) + M^2))/Z^2

Where:
C: Circle of Confusion
Cp: Circle of Confusion in Print
Defined by C = Cp/M

T: Depth of Field
Tp: Depth of Field in Print
N: Aperture (in f-number)

m: Magnification
M: Magnification in Print
Z: Total Magnification
Defined by Z = M * m

Again from the same book I informed you before, and that you should really read.
Scientific Photography and Applied Imaging
Sidney F. Ray

BSc, MSc, ASIS, FBIPP, FMPA, FRPS
Senior Lecturer
University of Westminster
London

Hardly a "Photographer that's a poor scientist" as you said uh?
In your words, you should be more "careful" when you say something like that!
I think that's enough uh?

Anyway, I am a bit tired, let's keep it simple, to what we agree then?

The question was about SubSee:
- We seem to agree it is the most powerful one, OK?
- We seem to agree that it is small and light, right?
- The usability, it is a user preference, but for the ones that prefer the swivel ones it seems very good, good?

Edited by Mariozi, 20 April 2009 - 11:37 PM.

Marcelo Mariozi - UWPhoto.ae
EUPS - Emirates Underwater Photographic Society Member
Nikon D300 on Sea&Sea MDX-D300 w/ YS-110 (2x) & Nikon F80s on Sea&Sea NX-80 w/ YS-90 + YS-120 & Nikonos V
Nikkors 10.5mm/2.8, 10-24mm/3.5-4.5, 16mm/2.8, 14-24mm/2.8, 50mm/1.4, 60mm/2.8, 105mm/2.8, 70-200mm/2.8; Sigmas 4.5mm/2.8 8mm/4, Kenko PRO300 3x TC.

#49 cor

cor

    The Hacker

  • Admin
  • 1994 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Amsterdam, Netherlands

Posted 21 April 2009 - 12:09 AM

The SubSea may be robust if nothing falls on it. The one that broke on my last trip was a mystery; no one knows what caused it but the mount had a piece broken off. Furthermore, one of the optical elements (there were several new ones on the boat) got several lens scratches without ever entering the water.

I only know of 3 on our trip. The two that Keri sent us, and one brought by another guest. Mine wasn't scratched or broken, but I vaguely remember a discussion about the second one Keri sent. Did that one get damaged?

Keri, the second one I think never got used. So no miscommunication there. I unfortunately used 'mine' the wrong way around, because I went by the hand writing, assuming you had personally fixed the label that was wrong. Thats really a shame, because I like the package. It's light, easy to use (although I do agree with Craig that every single time I had to move my focus light out of the way, but it's really not a big issue), and if only I had used it correctly, I would have known if the image quality was good. I have a few remarks about the package, but I mailed you those, and it seems you're working on them already. I would definitaly give the SubSee another chance.

I like to read about all the math, but what we really need is a side by side shootout of the diopters. Many people are interested in this. Maybe we can get this done by a wetpixel member and arrange for that person to receive some equipment.
Cor Bosman - Nikon D2X Subal ND2 - Nikon D7000 Subal ND7000
website | tripreports/journal | facebook | wetpixel map | twitter


#50 Alex_Mustard

Alex_Mustard

    The Doctor

  • Super Mod
  • 8605 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Peterborough

Posted 21 April 2009 - 12:16 AM

I like to read about all the math, but what we really need is a side by side shootout of the diopters. Many people are interested in this. Maybe we can get this done by a wetpixel member and arrange for that person to receive some equipment.


I'll happily do this. Plus I have no bias having never tried either a Macromate or Subsee.

Alex

Alexander Mustard - www.amustard.com - www.magic-filters.com
Nikon D5 (Subal housing). Nikon D850 (Subal housing). Olympus EM10-Mk3 (Nauticam housing).


#51 cor

cor

    The Hacker

  • Admin
  • 1994 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Amsterdam, Netherlands

Posted 21 April 2009 - 12:26 AM

Very cool! So there you have it. Keri, want to send Alex a SubSee? Now to get a Macromate, an Epoque and maybe a Woody? Anyone in the UK that can loan Alex any of these? Would save a lot of postage.
Cor Bosman - Nikon D2X Subal ND2 - Nikon D7000 Subal ND7000
website | tripreports/journal | facebook | wetpixel map | twitter


#52 Alex_Mustard

Alex_Mustard

    The Doctor

  • Super Mod
  • 8605 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Peterborough

Posted 21 April 2009 - 12:32 AM

I'll be diving later this week... Can't dive today as flying to Germany tomorrow!

For me, though, it is not just a case of direct comparing solutions as each is a slightly different tool for slightly different images. Reviewing them is about identifying what types of images each is best suited to.

Alex

Alexander Mustard - www.amustard.com - www.magic-filters.com
Nikon D5 (Subal housing). Nikon D850 (Subal housing). Olympus EM10-Mk3 (Nauticam housing).


#53 Mariozi

Mariozi

    Sting Ray

  • Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 205 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Dubai UAE

Posted 21 April 2009 - 01:32 AM

I'll happily do this. Plus I have no bias having never tried either a Macromate or Subsee.

I think you can find one closer, but if you don't I can loan you my SubSee, it for the Sea&Sea compact macro ports though.
Marcelo Mariozi - UWPhoto.ae
EUPS - Emirates Underwater Photographic Society Member
Nikon D300 on Sea&Sea MDX-D300 w/ YS-110 (2x) & Nikon F80s on Sea&Sea NX-80 w/ YS-90 + YS-120 & Nikonos V
Nikkors 10.5mm/2.8, 10-24mm/3.5-4.5, 16mm/2.8, 14-24mm/2.8, 50mm/1.4, 60mm/2.8, 105mm/2.8, 70-200mm/2.8; Sigmas 4.5mm/2.8 8mm/4, Kenko PRO300 3x TC.

#54 SlipperyDick

SlipperyDick

    Wolf Eel

  • Industry
  • PipPip
  • 137 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Mississauga, Ontario, Canada
  • Interests:Scuba/Free Diving, Mechanical Engineering, Skateboarding, Snowboarding, Exercising, Partying, Sleeping...

Posted 21 April 2009 - 08:41 AM

@TomR1 - We just did some tests, and apparently there were some quality control issues regarding the SubSee label orientation. This means that you'll have to just try the SubSee both ways to determine which way gives the best results. This should be blatantly obvious, since autofocus will be nearly impossible if oriented incorrectly. It SHOULD be oriented with the red stripe toward the subject. Sorry very much for the misunderstanding! Oh, and thanks for standing up for the SubSee....Craig is just being the devil's advocate :P

@James - BONUS POINTS for you, James! haha good eye! :D

@Eskasi - Check out the bottom of this post for some example shots I took with the SubSee last summer.

@Craig - There are lots of quotes from you that I'd like to respond to. OK, here goes....

"My purpose was to show that it was reasonable to expect good results from a diopter even in the corners---something that had not been demonstrated to that point. It was not to offer a compelling alternative. The apples to oranges issues weren't especially relevant; the flawed example images were. I'm not sure how interesting the Hoya diopter is itself as I doubt very many people consider it a viable choice."

I think the issues I brought up about your image are actually quite relevant. Your image really didn't contribute anything useful to the thread... but if you posted an image taken with another +10 achromat on a similar primary lens, showing good corner performance, then I wouldn't have taken issue with it.


"Yes, a +3 versus a +10 isn't a fair comparison either in terms of absolute magnification or sharpness. I think that's a REALLY interesting discussion. Why use a +10 diopter and accept compromised results when you could use less power perhaps in combination with a teleconverter or a longer lens? How close does one really want to focus on a supermacro subject? Isn't it about the best way to achieve the shot you desire?"

That's indeed an interesting discussion. Start up the thread, and I'll be there!


"My shot was not in focus in the center because my paper had a bubble. Part of that softness is also due to crappy lighting. As I said, it was a quick and dirty shot that, though not perfect, demonstrated the point I wanted to make. I want people to expect good sharpness across the full frame and I don't want people to accept flawed images as examples of good performance."

That's a great expectation... but the fact remains...without using aspherical surfaces or additional elements in a lens system (which both increase cost), dual-element achromats (i.e. Macromate and SubSee) have certain optical limits as to how much edge distortion can be corrected.


"Your latest ruler shot shows a soft bottom in the image. "

The bottom is soft because the ruler is angled, so it's out of the focal plane, just like Mariozi's.


"Your text shot looks good but your DOF shots look like the corners are soft."

Hmmmmm.... OK, now I'm in a metaphorical 'circle of confusion'.....it looks to me like the entire bottom/top edges are "soft", not just the corners... again because they are out of the plane of focus. Those shots also clearly show crisp focus from edge to edge in the focal plane.


"Are there any examples of full frame test shots? I'd like to see the edge performance beyond the DX crop. Full frame shooters have, arguably, even greater need for wet diopters. I believe, personally, in the search for the best wet diopters available. They are incredibly useful but it's easy for the performance to disappoint."

I don't have any FF bodies, so don't have any test shots. Chances are that the image will vignette though, since it wasn't designed for photographic use.


"So you see, MacroMate claims 2:1 using a 100mm macro lens much as SubSea does. "

The SubSee (not SubSea :)) is a +10 diopter achromat. The Macromate that I have is approximately a +8 diopter achromat (between 125-135mm focal length from my tests). Not sure if their new lenses are different strengths though, which is entirely possible. Actually, I'm technically not even really sure if it's even a dual element system.


"I could snap a SubSea in two with just my hands."

OK, Craig...or should I call you "Arnold Shwarzenneger" :D ...It was plenty to point out that a piece of an adapter broke...so I'm not sure that this comment was really necessary or appropriate... And for the record, if it was one of the SubSees/Adapters that I sent to be tested, they were units with manufacturing defects, so that could have caused problems. Out of the hundreds sold, we've never had a complaint of any component breaking.


"OK, we've seen your proof of power, now how about the rest? Your statements suggest that you've evaluated the competition but I suspect you've done no such thing. Have you tested the MacroMate? Inon? Epoque? Woody's? Seacam? If not, I'd suggest you limit your comments to what you have."

The Macromate and SubSee are the only two worth comparing since they are the most similar power and same lens design, although the SubSee is more powerful, so is more prone to edge distortion (which is almost unnoticeable anyway....), making even THAT comparison unfair. The Inon is a dual-plano convex system, so has more chromatic aberration issues (inherent to this type of lens system, from what our optical engineers tell us). The Woody's and Seacam are both single element lenses open to the water, so lose 66% of their power and offer no chromatic aberration correction. I don't know much about the Epoque, other than it is around a +7 diopter lens.


"The SubSea may be robust if nothing falls on it. The one that broke on my last trip was a mystery; no one knows what caused it but the mount had a piece broken off. Furthermore, one of the optical elements (there were several new ones on the boat) got several lens scratches without ever entering the water. The SubSea may be robust enough but it is not in the same league as MacroMate and our rigs do take punishment."


Well, if you neglect a lens, of course it will get scratched. Contrary to what you're implying, the Macromate isn't immune to neglectful treatment either. In fact, the SubSee even comes with a lanyard and lens caps, which the macromate does not. But don't get me wrong... the macromate is a great tool...but it isn't as inexpensive, light, and versatile (i.e. interchangeable lenses) as the SubSee.

And I don't know what sort of "punishment" you're putting your rig through that would require a macro adapter to be "bomb proof".....but I've done close to 500 dives with my original SubSee and original port adapter, and it is still in perfect working condition (just has some scratches).

Being a moderator on here, people likely value what you post more highly than others... so maybe you could be a little more careful with some of the claims you've decided to make ("...break it in two...", "...not in the same league as...", etc.), especially since you don't own one, have probably never used one, and are likely basing all of your statements on a few minutes of handling one on your recent trip. Thanks, Craig! Maybe I'm just being overly sensitive though, in which case, I apologize for the defensive stance I've taken throughout this post.


"As for screw-ons, it depends on implementation. My 67mm adapter is really solid thanks to Ryan. It's possible to bung up a thread but unlikely if you use a proper holder. 67mm diopters are easily the most compact overall and have less stack-up height than SubSea or MacroMate, both of which are quite thick."


The new SubSees have M67 threads on both ends (male and female), so maybe I can convince you to try one afterall! :(

Seriously though, the new SubSee is 100% different than the "old" one. To name a few improvements: it has a much larger diameter, M67 threads on both ends, optical glass windows instead of acrylic, multi-layer broadband anti-reflection coatings, and 2 strengths (+5 and +10)...but even the current version is capable of really amazing stuff.

"In the end, what matters is results"

Here are some results from the SubSee (with Nikon D300 + 105mm lens):


1
1/200, F16, ISO200
8.JPG

2
1/250, F32, ISO200
PNG_3666.jpg

3
1/200, F22, ISO200
PNG_3873.JPG

4
1/200, f32, ISO1000 (oops)
PNG_9677.JPG

5
1/125, F25, ISO200
SVG_4684.jpg

6
1/200, F51, ISO200
SVG_7988.jpg






@Cor - The only units I have left are a couple of dinged up ones that I bring to dive shows, and the couple that I sent to you/Matt/Eric. The problem is that in the next few weeks we'll be receiving the new SubSee units which have been improved in just about every way.... so any testing that is done with the current one will have to be redone to give an accurate representation of what it can do. In any case, I will gladly send Alex a new one when it arrives. In the meantime, maybe Matt can send Alex one of the units that I sent out to you?

@Alex - What port are you using?




Keri
Keri Wilk
ReefNet Inc.
www.reefnet.ca

#55 craig

craig

    Full Moon Rising

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2826 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Austin, TX

Posted 21 April 2009 - 07:19 PM

Craig is just being the devil's advocate :P

That's right. I have no compaints with SubSee.

I think the issues I brought up about your image are actually quite relevant. Your image really didn't contribute anything useful to the thread... but if you posted an image taken with another +10 achromat on a similar primary lens, showing good corner performance, then I wouldn't have taken issue with it.

Sorry my image didn't contribute anything for you. You and I agree that the Hoya +3 isn't an interesting comparison so why pursue it further?

That's a great expectation... but the fact remains...without using aspherical surfaces or additional elements in a lens system (which both increase cost), dual-element achromats (i.e. Macromate and SubSee) have certain optical limits as to how much edge distortion can be corrected.

I agree, and people (should) want to see that. How much difference should we expect between diopters when the power varies from +3 to +10 or perhaps even wider?

"Your text shot looks good but your DOF shots look like the corners are soft."

Hmmmmm.... OK, now I'm in a metaphorical 'circle of confusion'.....it looks to me like the entire bottom/top edges are "soft", not just the corners... again because they are out of the plane of focus. Those shots also clearly show crisp focus from edge to edge in the focal plane.

Perhaps, but it appears to me that the corner softness is different from left to right and is different from the center top and bottom. I don't care to argue it, but you could see how that might be relevant to a full frame shooter.

The SubSee (not SubSea :D) is a +10 diopter achromat.

My apologies on the spelling.

The Macromate and SubSee are the only two worth comparing since they are the most similar power and same lens design...

I disagree, though your information is informative. The whole point of such an exercise is to determine what works best for your style of shooting, and the claim specifically was that IQ was at least as good as the competition. Since all the diopters mentioned are competition, the choice of comparison was not actually mine.

Contrary to what you're implying, the Macromate isn't immune to neglectful treatment either.
...
And I don't know what sort of "punishment" you're putting your rig through that would require a macro adapter to be "bomb proof".....but I've done close to 500 dives with my original SubSee and original port adapter, and it is still in perfect working condition (just has some scratches).

I didn't say the MacroMate was immune, just that it is quite rugged, and I never said I required bombproof, just that my solution is so. I would claim it is silly to say that the SubSee is as tough as a MacroMate or some 67mm solutions such as mine. That is not the same as saying that the SubSee isn't tough enough. That would require a qualitative judgement that I'm not making.

"I could snap a SubSea in two with just my hands."

OK, Craig...or should I call you "Arnold Shwarzenneger" :D ...It was plenty to point out that a piece of an adapter broke...so I'm not sure that this comment was really necessary or appropriate... And for the record, if it was one of the SubSees/Adapters that I sent to be tested, they were units with manufacturing defects, so that could have caused problems. Out of the hundreds sold, we've never had a complaint of any component breaking.
...
Being a moderator on here, people likely value what you post more highly than others... so maybe you could be a little more careful with some of the claims you've decided to make ("...break it in two...", "...not in the same league as...", etc.), especially since you don't own one, have probably never used one, and are likely basing all of your statements on a few minutes of handling one on your recent trip. Thanks, Craig! Maybe I'm just being overly sensitive though, in which case, I apologize for the defensive stance I've taken throughout this post.

My comment may not have been necessary to you but it was aimed at those with "big doubts". It was not meant to disparage the SubSee product.

Let me state this otherwise. I believe the SubSee is strong enough but I have not used it. I believe other products may be even more immune to damage in the face of abuse but I don't think that should be the basis for anyone's decision.

The new SubSees have M67 threads on both ends (male and female), so maybe I can convince you to try one afterall! :(

Seriously though, the new SubSee is 100% different than the "old" one. To name a few improvements: it has a much larger diameter, M67 threads on both ends, optical glass windows instead of acrylic, multi-layer broadband anti-reflection coatings, and 2 strengths (+5 and +10)...but even the current version is capable of really amazing stuff.

I consider all that excellent news. As I've said here earlier, my personal preference is for a press-on, thread-on, or bayonet type attachment. I don't personally want the swing type because of how I position my strobes and light. I like seeing the larger diameter and weaker power option for longer focal lengths. The new +5 thread-on may be my personal best choice.

I would be happy to try both these new diopters. In response to this thread and discussions on the trip, I've been gearing up for some wet diopter pool testing already. I must obtain a 105mm macro lens since that is truly what people will want to see. I am also obtaining an underwater repro stand for precise focusing and I'll need a proper Nexus port. Perhaps I can include SubSee products in the test. I already have Inon, Marumi, and MacroMate diopters to test and I'd like to get an Epoque in addition to yours. I'd be happy to take input on how to conduct the tests. I want to to show focusing range and power and I want to show sharpness at some comparable magnifications. I have a suitable underwater macro test chart.

Thank you for all the excellent examples and the fairness of your replies. :)
I love it when a plan comes together.
- Col. John "Hannibal" Smith

------
Nikon, Seatool, Nexus, Inon
My Galleries

#56 TomR1

TomR1

    Tiger Shark

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 587 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Los Angeles

Posted 21 April 2009 - 08:50 PM

Craig-

I have used both a screw on (1 up and 2 up) and a slip on wet diopter I and I will bet big money that you'll find the swing arm approach better if you use it. You can position the swing are to swing any way you want-right, left, up, down or any place you want. However, at F/32, if you position your strobes as close to the subject at the subsee is you will blow out the image. (I have had to drop 2 stops in RAW to compensate) I tend to position my strobes parallel to below the subject about 4" away from the port and don't have interference.

Look, if you are like me you first get a shot at maximum magnification (say 8") with a DX 105 lens, then move slowly to get the GREAT super magnified shot. With the subsee I simply flip it into place with my shutter finger without losing the critter in my viewfinder. I can kinda do the same thing with my slip-on (not a screw on) but it caused more commotion and is lots slower.

Your comment about lower magnification and higher depth of field seems accurate on the surface of the comment but I find that the DOF is razor sharp in any event and that I get more DOF with the subsee at F/32 than I do with a lower magnifier at f/24 or so.

When you get a focus lock at F/32 and the camera can see the preflash you will get a nice exposure. If you catch the critter in the right position it will be a great shot.

I certainly did NOT get the right position in this shot but it should be sufficient to check out edge issues (F/32 1/160)

Attached Images

  • _DQO1934_XX.jpg


#57 craig

craig

    Full Moon Rising

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2826 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Austin, TX

Posted 22 April 2009 - 06:09 AM

Tom,

If I used a 105mm, shot at f/32, didn't mind using a more powerful modeling light, and used larger strobes for macro then I might agree. I use longer focal lengths and a weaker diopter so that I don't need to switch in the diopter during the process of shooting. I like my modeling light where it is (that's what's in the way) and I don't have trouble blowing out macro subjects. I install or remove my diopter before moving in for a shot. That's a less realistic proposition for a 105 and a +10. With that combination a swinging arm may well be the best solution.
I love it when a plan comes together.
- Col. John "Hannibal" Smith

------
Nikon, Seatool, Nexus, Inon
My Galleries

#58 Phil Rudin

Phil Rudin

    Orca

  • Industry
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1305 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:WEST PALM BEACH, FLORIDA

Posted 22 April 2009 - 08:01 AM

Hi Kari,

Looking forward to trying out the new +10 lens. I use a threaded 67 mm Athena port and an Athena ring flash which is also threaded 67 mm, will the new style diopter fit between the two without any additional adaptors? I also see that you are using a ring flash, is it in front of the diopter or be hind it? If I attach the Inon M-67 in to the front of the ring flash (flash is threaded 67 mm) with the Olympus 50 mm at very closest focus the lens creates a shadow in center of the light ring. Have you had this problem with your system.

Thanks,

Phil Rudin

http://www.sfups.org...udin/index.html

#59 SlipperyDick

SlipperyDick

    Wolf Eel

  • Industry
  • PipPip
  • 137 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Mississauga, Ontario, Canada
  • Interests:Scuba/Free Diving, Mechanical Engineering, Skateboarding, Snowboarding, Exercising, Partying, Sleeping...

Posted 23 April 2009 - 11:54 AM

Sorry my image didn't contribute anything for you. You and I agree that the Hoya +3 isn't an interesting comparison so why pursue it further?


Done.


I agree, and people (should) want to see that. How much difference should we expect between diopters when the power varies from +3 to +10 or perhaps even wider?


If we're talking about cemented achromatic doublets (as opposed to air-spaced achromatic doublets, triplets, aspherical lenses, etc., which are all a different story), then the +10 will likely have significantly more peripheral distortion. The quality difference will be most apparent at the widest end of the macro lens being used (100mm, 105mm, 150mm, etc.), since at closest focus, a very small portion of the achromat is being used, so the field effectively 'flattens'.

In terms of quantifying the difference in peripheral distortion... I've never needed to do such a thing, so haven't taken the time to look this up in my optics books. When I find some time, I'll look into this more though.....that would be good to know!

An interesting phenomenon that I noticed through some tests I just did..... stacking two +5 achromats (which is an equivalent +10) gives much nicer edges than a single +10 achromat. Makes me want to abandon the +10 version altogether, and just make slimmer +5s that can be efficiently stacked.... although this would increase cost, and weight.... hmmm....


Perhaps, but it appears to me that the corner softness is different from left to right and is different from the center top and bottom. I don't care to argue it, but you could see how that might be relevant to a full frame shooter.


Understood. I'm going to head over to a camera store today hopefully, and mess around with some full framers with the larger SubSee lenses that we've got here. You've piqued my interest in this matter.


I disagree, though your information is informative. The whole point of such an exercise is to determine what works best for your style of shooting, and the claim specifically was that IQ was at least as good as the competition. Since all the diopters mentioned are competition, the choice of comparison was not actually mine.


I know what you mean, and to a degree I agree with you. BUT, I still feel like it's a bit of a stretch to call the other wet diopters our competition (other than maybe the Macromate).... while they are all "super macro tools", they each have different strengths, so are suitable for different situations. In the same way, I wouldn't say a Canon 100mm (max reproduction 1:1) and Canon 50mm (max reproduction 1:2) are competitors, even though they are both "macro lenses". But now I'm just splitting hairs, and being a bit of a devil's advocate myself. :(


I didn't say the MacroMate was immune, just that it is quite rugged, and I never said I required bombproof, just that my solution is so. I would claim it is silly to say that the SubSee is as tough as a MacroMate or some 67mm solutions such as mine. That is not the same as saying that the SubSee isn't tough enough. That would require a qualitative judgement that I'm not making.


Sorry, just my defensive side coming out again.

From what I've heard, the Macromate is CNC machined from a block of Polyoxymethylene (POM, aka Delrin), while the SubSee Adapter is made from Acrylonitrile butadiene styrene (ABS plastic). Just for the heck of it, here are material properties of the two materials:

.....................................................ABS.............Delrin
Tensile Stength (psi).......................7000............10000
Flexural Strength (psi).....................11000..........14000
Tensile Modulus of Elasticity (psi).....320000........450000
Water Absorption @ saturation (%)...0.70.............0.90
Density (lbs/in^3)...........................0.037...........0.051

So the materials themselves are actually quite similar. But the Macromate uses much more material, so feels tougher, but as a result is much heavier. We could have easily made ours more solid by making components thicker, but felt it really wasn't necessary for the amount of abuse we expect they'll be taking.


I consider all that excellent news. As I've said here earlier, my personal preference is for a press-on, thread-on, or bayonet type attachment. I don't personally want the swing type because of how I position my strobes and light. I like seeing the larger diameter and weaker power option for longer focal lengths. The new +5 thread-on may be my personal best choice.


The +5 SubSee will be a welcome addition to the line up, since lots of people are overwhelmed by the power of the +10 version. And for shooters like you that use a 150mm lens, the +5 should still get you close to 2:1.

But, as Tom mentioned, the hinged SubSee Adapters can be oriented in whichever way you'd like, so it doesn't necessarily have to flip in the direction of your focus light. I agree though, that depending on the composition I'm going for, sometimes I'll need to reposition my strobes to swing the adapter in place...but this takes just a couple of seconds, so isn't really an issue for me.


I would be happy to try both these new diopters. In response to this thread and discussions on the trip, I've been gearing up for some wet diopter pool testing already. I must obtain a 105mm macro lens since that is truly what people will want to see. I am also obtaining an underwater repro stand for precise focusing and I'll need a proper Nexus port. Perhaps I can include SubSee products in the test. I already have Inon, Marumi, and MacroMate diopters to test and I'd like to get an Epoque in addition to yours. I'd be happy to take input on how to conduct the tests. I want to to show focusing range and power and I want to show sharpness at some comparable magnifications. I have a suitable underwater macro test chart.


Send me your email address and we can discuss this possibility further.

Thank you for all the excellent examples and the fairness of your replies. :D


My pleasure, Craig! "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you" :P



Looking forward to trying out the new +10 lens. I use a threaded 67 mm Athena port and an Athena ring flash which is also threaded 67 mm, will the new style diopter fit between the two without any additional adaptors? I also see that you are using a ring flash, is it in front of the diopter or be hind it? If I attach the Inon M-67 in to the front of the ring flash (flash is threaded 67 mm) with the Olympus 50 mm at very closest focus the lens creates a shadow in center of the light ring. Have you had this problem with your system.


Hmmm.... I'm not sure about the new SubSee fitting BETWEEN the port and ringflash --- that seems a little unlikely, but I'm not sure what the geometry is like --- but it will certainly fit in the ringflash's thread. I don't actually use a ringflash myself. What you're seeing in the images that I posted are the circular flashtubes from my Ikelite DS125 strobes... I can see why you would think that though.

I have a hinged SubSee Adapter designed for the Athena ringflash already actually, and I can easily design in a front-mounted diffuser to help get light on the subject. Let me know if this interests you, and I'll do what I can to help you out!


Keri
Keri Wilk
ReefNet Inc.
www.reefnet.ca

#60 rodriguezfelix

rodriguezfelix

    Eagle Ray

  • Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 377 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Caracas, Venezuela
  • Interests:UWP, Surf, Travel

Posted 23 April 2009 - 12:17 PM

Anyone have seen Dan Schwartz lately?

Edited by rodriguezfelix, 23 April 2009 - 12:58 PM.