Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

Subal D100 port consensus


  • Please log in to reply
7 replies to this topic

#1 abowie

abowie

    Wolf Eel

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 102 posts
  • Location:Adelaide, SA
  • Interests:Diving in caves

Posted 22 October 2003 - 03:18 PM

Many, many questions....

1. What is the list's consensus about Subal port selection for the D100 12-24 combination? Looks like the FE2 is the go, but has anyone tried the older 6" FEB?

2. I'm still by no means certain that the 12-24 is definitely the way to go for me for WA. I have always found in the past that prime lenses seem to perform better than zooms and I would probably end up using the zoom fixed at one focal length anyway. The Sigma 15mm looks like an option. Is the optical quality there? What I'm looking for from a lens point of view is the equivalent angle of view to the 20mm Nikon I used in my F801 Subal housing. I have never liked fisheye U/W.

3. Finally should I be looking seriously at another housing manufacturer? Subal is easy for me because I live in a city with a Subal dealership whereas other manufacturers (S&S, Seacam etc) are either interstate or overseas propositions. I've been fairly happy with the two previous Subals I've owned.

Andrew Bowie
abowie@internode.on.net
http://www.users.on.net/abowie
Andrew Bowie

Underwater photographers just use more expensive disposable cameras than everyone else..
Nikon D100, F801 in Subal, Canon MV1 in Amphibico. Too many strobes..

#2 davephdv

davephdv

    Doc Eyeballs

  • Senior Moderator
  • 2285 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Goleta CA

Posted 22 October 2003 - 05:53 PM

I use the 9" dome with the 50 mm ext. ring. Works great so far. I found that when I still shot film that the 17 - 35 was as sharp as a prime lens and for UW use much more versatile. So far I would say the same about the 12 - 24. Click on my web page. The latest shark photos were all shot with the 12 - 24.
Dave Burroughs, Nikon D300, D2X, Subal housing, DS160 strobes

Life is a beach and then you dive.

My Website


#3 donauw

donauw

    Wolf Eel

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 131 posts
  • Location:Big Pine Key, FL

Posted 23 October 2003 - 11:33 AM

I agree with Dave. I've been using the 12-24 with the DP-FE2 port, 50 mm extension and +2 diopter and have been very happy with the results. I recently returned from a week in Truk where the lens got extensive use - worked well for both WA and CFWA. (I haven't had time to get pics out, but will).

Furthermore, the greatest advantage of zooms for digital, IMHO, is the ability to "crop" or tighten the shot at the time of shooting - thereby maximizing the use of the 6.1 MB you have. (Remember, a scanned slide would produce a 27 MB file before you crop) Like Dave, my experience with the 17-35 has been that its sharpness was similar to my 20 mm prime (now sold...).

Regards,

#4 Mathis

Mathis

    Triggerfish

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 34 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Richmond, TX

Posted 23 October 2003 - 05:37 PM

I use the FE2 dome and 50mm extension with the 12-24mm lens. It has worked great for me. I also have a Nikon 16mm fisheye lens that I was using prior. The angle of coverage is similar to me (there is a difference, but not much).

I have a +2 diopter also. I tested with and without the diopter in the pool and I decided that I prefer NO diopter. I then did a trip to Cozumel and did not use the diopter at all. I am not sure why the diopter is needed with this set up. I am curious why the diopter is recommended. If the diopter tightens up the angle of coverage (lens is not as wide with diopter) then I am not interested in using it unless I have to. I want my lens to be as wide as it can.

Does anyone have feedback on why I should use the diopter? Does everyone with the 12/24, FE2 dome, and 50mm extension use the diopter? Why?
Mathis Weatherall
www.weatherallphoto.com

#5 Alex_Mustard

Alex_Mustard

    The Doctor

  • Super Mod
  • 8376 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Peterborough

Posted 24 October 2003 - 07:23 AM

To comment on point 3

I like my Subals a great deal - again because I have great local dealer support. I have to say that IMO the silver finish on recent Subals is not as scratch resistant and the blue finish on older Subals. My housing looks like I have lent it to Freddy Krueger for his hols. That said there is no corrosion on any of the scratches.

Alex

Alexander Mustard - www.amustard.com - www.magic-filters.com
Nikon D4 (Subal housing). Nikon D7100 (Subal housing). Olympus EPL-5 (Nauticam housing).


#6 Mathis

Mathis

    Triggerfish

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 34 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Richmond, TX

Posted 24 October 2003 - 09:23 AM

Alex, I see you have the D100, D10, and Subal SB80DX housing. Have you had any trouble with the DTTL not working properly? Something is wrong with my system (seems like a wiring issue). Sometimes it works, sometimes it does not. When I look at the flash unit it will say "DTTL" and if I keep staring at it will change from "DTTL" to "TTL" on its own (it flickers back and forth as it pleases). If I wiggle the cord or strobe around, it does not seem to have any affect. I am in the process of getting it serviced ... apparently Subal is providing some new parts that need to be replaced. Just wondering if you have had any issues like this?
Mathis Weatherall
www.weatherallphoto.com

#7 ehanauer

ehanauer

    Eagle Ray

  • Industry
  • PipPipPip
  • 345 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:San Diego, California
  • Interests:Diving, Chicago Cubs baseball, Mac computers, swimming, Porsches

Posted 24 October 2003 - 10:05 AM

I spoke with Arnold Stepanek (Subal inventor/designer) at DEMA about the use of a diopter with the 12-24 in his housing with 9 inch port. He said the diopter is needed only if you need the same minimum focus distance as the lens enables in air. The tradeoff is barrel distortion. If you are satisfied with a longer minimum focus. no diopter is needed and there is no distortion.

An additional benefit is the ability to do over and unders with no additional glass. the conclusion for me personally: unless I'm doing cfwa, forget the diopter.

Eric
www.ehanauer.com
Eric
www.ehanauer.com

#8 frogfish

frogfish

    Tiger Shark

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 676 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Indonesia

Posted 25 October 2003 - 07:04 PM

Just to weigh in - I've been very happy using the 12-24 with the FE2 port, 50 mm extension ring, and +2 diopter. Much sharper images that I previously got with a 20 mm prime Nikon lens and the SWB port. The FE2 port, 50 mm extension ring and +2 diopter also work very well with the 17-35 mm, if you want to bring fish and similar shy subjects in a bit closer.

I'll be interested in doing some test dives without the diopter, and figuring out exactly how close the focus is.

Robert Delfs
Robert Delfs

Nikon D2X in Subal housing.
Tabula Int'l Ltd.