Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

Underwater Tests of 60 and 105mm Working Distance


  • Please log in to reply
6 replies to this topic

#1 james

james

    The Engineer

  • Super Mod
  • 9969 posts
  • Location:Houston TX

Posted 09 June 2005 - 10:42 AM

I was surfing around today and found this interesting test done by Borut Furlan. It shows results for the 60 and 105 and what happens when you put them underwater behind a flat port.

Does the working distance increase underwater, decrease, or stay the same?

Does the air/water interface really result in higher magnification?

Ever wondered about using 1.4x teleconverters? What apertures are best?

Read this to find out:

http://www.borutfurl...ture_intro.html

Cheers
James
Canon 1DsMkIII - Seacam Housing
Dual Ikelite Strobes
Photo site - www.reefpix.org

#2 Alex_Mustard

Alex_Mustard

    The Doctor

  • Super Mod
  • 8375 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Peterborough

Posted 09 June 2005 - 10:46 AM

"This experiment also provides an exact answer to the question whether underwater the objects appear 1.33 times bigger or 1.33 times closer. The answer is that objects are the same size underwater, they only appear 1.33 times closer."

Should save you wading through it!

Alex

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


#3 james

james

    The Engineer

  • Super Mod
  • 9969 posts
  • Location:Houston TX

Posted 09 June 2005 - 10:49 AM

You spoiler you! I had to wade through the whole thing, and they should too...:-)
Canon 1DsMkIII - Seacam Housing
Dual Ikelite Strobes
Photo site - www.reefpix.org

#4 Paul Kay

Paul Kay

    Giant Squid

  • Industry
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1724 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:North Wales, UK

Posted 09 June 2005 - 11:09 AM

Interesting stuff - one point that may be worth raising is that different digital cameras need calculations with different circle of confusion dimensions (sensors vary). There has been a lot of discussion about this on various web fora.

Secondly, from my own experience I am now tending to find that the 1DS I use optimises at around f/11 rather than f/16 and I do notice this - on film the differences appeared to be more subtle.

Any comments?
Paul Kay, Canon EOS5D/5DII, SEACAM/S45, 15, 24L, 60/2.8 (+Ext12II) & 100/2.8 Macros - UK/Ireland Seacam Sales underseacameras & marinewildlife & paulkayphotography & welshmarinefish

#5 Viz'art

Viz'art

    Orca

  • Industry
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1495 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Montreal, Qc, Canada

Posted 09 June 2005 - 12:08 PM

Good reading and yes Alex you rat, I wont be going to the movie or discussing a book with you anytime soon, why d'you had to give the plot away :D It did comfirm my impression BTW, as if Chris AKA CeeDave did'nt do that already :D

And I agree with Paul, I actualy ad to back off a diaphragm since going digital to get the best of my system.

Cheers
Jean Bruneau / Aquatica Technical Advisor

www.vizart.ca

www.aquatica.ca

Aquatica Pro Digital housings for D-300s, AF 10-20mm, AF 10-17mm, AF 14MM, AF 17-35mm, af 17-70mm, AF 20MM, AF 60MM, AF 105MM, 2x Ikelite Ds 160, and TLC arms exclusively

#6 Alex_Mustard

Alex_Mustard

    The Doctor

  • Super Mod
  • 8375 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Peterborough

Posted 09 June 2005 - 02:02 PM

Sorry guys!
And did you know that Anakin Skywalker becomes Darth Vader? Whoops!

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


#7 randapex

randapex

    Tiger Shark

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 683 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Lynnwood, Washington USA

Posted 09 June 2005 - 02:35 PM

Looks like I'll be shooting sandollars on my next cold water dive. :D
Rand McMeins
Nikon D2X. Subal ND2. 2 Inon Z220S

Greenwaterimages