A question, what do you find is the maximum ok aperture for the 12mm 2.0 and the 8mm fisheye with that 4.33" dome?
The 12-50mm is versatile, but i almost never use this lens even though i have the macro port & gear for it. Shooting at 12mm through a flat port produces images with very soft corners and massive chromatic aberration. Macro is OK with the 12-50mm, but working distance is very short, in the end i just use the 60mm for shooting macro and the 12mm f/2 or 8mm fisheye behind the 4.33" dome. The 12-50mm will not fit behind the 4.33" dome. The 12-50mm apparently does fit behind the 4" semi-dome port but i haven't tried this -- it should give much better results at 12mm than shooting through a flat port, but of course you won't be able to switch to macro mode.
With all lenses we have to stop them down much more than on land to gain good image quality. Dome ports produce virtual images where the edges are closer to the sensor than the centre -- so stopping down is necessary to improve depth of field to reduce corner softness. For flat ports and wide angle lenses the chromatic & spherical aberrations are so bad that even stopping down significantly doesn't help enough. Macro isn't so affected, but we stop down in most cases just to get some reasonable depth of field.
These look like seriously fun cameras, but the question is if they are going to be a hit underwater. It will be interesting to see if any third party is going to provide any UWA or fishe eye that would be useable under water.
Interesting, but IMHO it would have needed the same rating as the Nikonos to matter really, i.e. 60m. Then there's some margin for sports diving depth and a clear delclaration of the dive-proofness from Nikon.
But who knows, maybe it's around the corner.
Then we just need a 15mm equiv fish eye with dome or water adapted optics...