I have tried the 10-17 with a D800 at 17mm. I have a Subal D800 housing and discovered to my chagrin that the only way to use my old type 3 dome port was with a port extension. Without one the port doesn't fit on the housing. So I can't use a prime fisheye unless I buy a new port. ...
Just send an e-mail to Subal because it's possible to change the back of the dome or buy a Subal adapter type3-type4. Everithyng have a solution :-)
The problem of too many lens/domes/strobes on the market will be a challenge to test everything. I've done my tests with my Subal gear and my lens in order to exclude /include some bad/good combinations and to have a good feel of distances/magnifications that each combo can deliver. I've used the test chart I've mentioned above.
I don't mind to where some thoughts and some personal conclusions if there are some more people that have done the same thing, so we can start some sort of database.
But of coarse that it will be just a starting point, because I believe that each photographer should do his own test with is own gear.
Yes, I see your point of view. For years I also had used the weighted tripod version (legs filled with granulated lead) and no doubt it was stable but cumbersome to haul around, especially out of the water. It was a cheap supermarket tripod, and not very good.
After that I've bought a Gitzo one, and it stills work fine, after many, many years of underwater and on land use. It's not cheap but defenitively cheaper then a dedicated uw tripod and much more versatile, although not so 100% water-resistant, of coarse. And with this one just made a hole on top of each leg to let the water came in for added stability. Some times I've used a 2 or 3 Kg weight suspended under the central column (if there is some space between it and the bottom) or a 2 Kg neckless that I just put around the top part of the tripod legs (it's the same thing that free divers use around the neck in swimming pools to trim the body position), but not any more because I've found that I really don't need the added weight.
Above water the tripod weights around 4 Kg (with the head), underwater a little less, so it's stable. I tend to use it with the legs very spread apart for added stability if the surge is strong.
I have used several times without any weight added and with the camera rig with the floats on, without any problem. So when I find the opportunely to try it without any floats in the camera I expect that it becomes even more stable.
My only doubt is the use of the camera rig by hand (in regular photo situations) with floats clipped to it, floating over around, that I suspect that I'll not like that much...
I'm also reconfiguring my tripod weight but I'm following a different route:
If the camera is neutral and the tripod is not that much heavy, we have a stability issue in surge and the first though would be to carry more weight, but that may not be the best thing to do especially in more deep dives. And in shallow water with surge we can't remove weight from us or we'll be too buoyant.
How about if we change the weight of the camera IN THE WATER? Usually we add some floats to the camera arms to make it almost neutral which is a bad thing when we need to put it in a tripod. So if we can remove those floats from the camera then maybe the camera alone (with no floats) and the tripod alone (with no weights, but with the legs flooded with water - if needed, make a small hole in the top part of each leg) will have all the weight they need.
To achieve that, maybe we can use the floats atached to a clip so we can remove and replace it when need. If we can't clip it to the BCD (due to the added bouncy that it will give), we can clip it to a rock with a simple piece of least band from a car tire.
Another solution will be a variable weight system where we can put more air inside or remove it all together (like a small lift bag), but that will be more work with any depth change that occurs during the dive. The rigid floats don't have that variation.