craig

Indeed. 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. 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. 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 think that pretty much sums it up. 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.

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.

That's good. The equation I provided is easily derived from verifiable sources with the simplification that front and rear depth of field are identical (which is fair for macro). Accepting the equation as correct, the conclusion is unavoidable. Macro DoF is a function of physical aperture and magnification only. I could site writings from experts that back that up but it shouldn't be necessary. The equation is simple. It is true that a large portion of the photographic world believes otherwise but truth is not democratic and photographers generally make poor scientists. Why so many believe with conviction something incorrect is simple to explain; larger formats have traditionally been assumed to offer more resolution to provide large enlargement sizes. It is not the size of the format that influences DoF, it is the demand for differing resolution that does so. Shooting DX and FX cameras at the same f-numbers IS something that is done all the time but it isn't a valid form of comparison in this context. Medium and large format users don't shoot at 35mm f-numbers after all. Once again, shooting both DX and FX at the same f-number means two things: FX will have roughly a stop less DoF and FX will have the possibility of greater resolution. It's the same resolution versus depth of field tradeoff. Digital has thrown a bit of a new wrinkle into the DoF versus resolution compromise. Different cameras offer different, but fixed, resolution capabilities. Two different DX cameras may offer 6MP and 12MP but in order to realize the resolution difference you have to shoot at f-numbers open enough to gain the extra ability. Same is true for FX where resolutions vary from 12MP to 24MP. Even more interesting is that there are 12MP DX and FX bodies, in fact nearly identical ones, and it should be clear the practical achievable resolution and DoF tradeoffs are the same (except at the extreme endpoints). Theory won't confirm the source of the softness in your image, it can only offer an explanation. I never claimed that your example proved a lack of IQ, I simply pointed out that it didn't demonstrate it and requested images that could. I happily accept the possibility that your image was limited by DoF but I don't assume it is proof that the IQ would be good had your image not been limited in that way. I can't argue the use of equations that I believe to be correct. I believe you read more into my comments than I intended. What people want to see with wet diopters is that they are capable of sharp performance across the entire frame. Since your example didn't demonstrate that, I wanted to see more. I was not implying that your sample was proof that the SubSea product isn't capable of good IQ. My 60 micrometer computation is simpler than you think. All I was trying to say is that reducing the resolution of the sample will obscure the ability to critically see DoF. My value of 60 was the smallest value that could be distinguished from the sensor because the additional resolution is discarded through the reduction. Frankly, this was an unnecessary tangent and it was simply a response to your claim of what the DoF of the shot actually "was". What DoF is for any given image is complicated because it is an illusion to begin with.

I don't personally miss the metering mode selector and I have no problem with the MSC control. The 105VR can be used with AF and MF both without changing the MSC switch. The back-focus control is usable as long as you don't use a right hand grip. Most of my problems have been adjusting to the lack of right hand grip and the 45 degree finder which was new to me. Bouyancy is a bit heavy but managable and most of my adjustments are to improve trim. The zoom knob was uncomfortable for me because of my left grip so I'm changing the grips and mount points for the strobe arms. I have no complaints on the housing itself. I love that the Seatool supports many different port systems including the Nexus multiport and that's not as easy as it sounds. I had full, reliable control over the 70-180 through the Nexus port despite how demanding the gear tolerances are in that setup. Seatool did it well. I used both Z240s and S2000s. S2000s are totally adequate for macro and are not too narrow for wide angle but are a full stop less power than the Z240s. In my ultimate Indonesia thread Matt just post a pic of me shooting the Seatool housing with triple S2000s using a domed 18-50 macro. You could get away with S2000s and wide angle, particularly using 3, but you will want more power at times. My intention in the future is to travel with 3 S2000s for macro and something larger for wide. I'm not sure whether it will be Z240s, YS250s, or something else big. I am impressed with the S2000s.

I love that shot of your leg, Matt. Fantastic.

That's what you get for using wikipedia as a source. First off, the circle of confusion is a linear measurement, so the ratio would not be 2, it would be 1.5. More importantly, "my" circle of confusion of 60 microns wasn't mine at all, it was yours. Your width dimension of 400 pixels on a 24mm wide sensor works out to a pixel pitch of 60 microns so that's the smallest possible circle of confusion for your image. A traditional CoC number for a DX camera would be more like 20 microns and I would never endorse a number as high as 33 or 60. Frankly, I don't accept any CoC as standard, I use the two pixel value limit and try to stay under it. But as has been discussed here many times, different formats don't get used at the same f-number. f-numbers are used for exposure, not for fixing depth of field. Again, a novice's mistake. Yes, if you shoot different images at different physical apertures you get different depths of field. When you understand an equation you don't need tables as a crutch. Creating graphics and tables using valid equations but plugging in poor choices for inputs (like bogus CoC numbers), failing to understand bellows effect, shooting different size formats at the same f-number, etc. is what leads people to false conclusions. I have posted an equation for depth of field in this thread. Perhaps you should accept that it is correct and consider what it means or determine why you think it is wrong. Ignoring it doesn't make your case stronger. Yes, you said that but did not prove it. DoF limitations or not, all I said was that there were soft edges so I was right regardless. Things should be as simple as possible but no simpler. That's where you have failed. As a proof of magnification, your image was informative. As proof of good optical performance it was not. The fact that others pointed that out and asked for better examples was not an insult to you but you took it that way anyway. It's not my fault that you refuse to understand. This is a forum to help people learn and this is a thread for people to learn about the SubSea close-up lens. Fortunately, others have posted more informative images.

Of course there is such a concept as "apparent". Yes, your example was 2.1 actual. My mistake. DoF is not related to the size of the printed page, it is related to the viewing angle. Viewing angle is traditionally defined as a combination of printed page, viewing distance, and standardized eyesight. DoF is not related to format, so if you want to claim it is then you shouldn't be giving advice on reading. I read that all the time, but there are lots of uninformed people. I've never heard of a CoC of 33 in relation to 35mm or cropped frame and I can't imagine what critical viewer would be satisfied by it. If you are an expert, why do you need a table to tell you the DoF, and why do you think such a thing actually exists? I simply pointed out, rightly, that the image had soft edges and wasn't even the first to do so. It was you that offered the reply that I not overthink it, then promptly proceeded to underthink it. Careful who you accuse of wasting people's time. You should be careful what you call "teaching".

For macro shooting where rear and front depth of field are similar: DoF = 2 * Fe * CoC / M^2 DoF : depth of field Fe : effective f-number (what Nikon displays) CoC : circle of confusion M : magnification Fe = F * (1 + M) F : actual f-number (what Canon displays) When you downsize an image, you are effectively making the CoC larger. The typical CoC value for a DX sensor camera is 20 microns though it is arbitrary. The smallest reasonable CoC for a DX sensor outputting a 400 pixel wide image is 60 microns. That's why those DOF calculators can be misleading. Just FYI. P.S. There are three common ways to determine CoC: 1) Final print size viewed at a set viewing distance by standard eyesight. 2) Size of one pixel in the camera. 3) Size of two pixels in the camera. Method 1 is traditional and comes from accepted maximum print sizes for various film formats. Method 2 I used for the 400 pixel image and DX sensor. It is also used for Foveon sensors but is unreasonable to use for Bayer sensors. Method 3 is more appropriate for Bayer sensors because it is the threshold for color aliasing. Method 3 is what is used to determine the (in)famous "diffraction limit" of various cameras. Note that methods 2 and 3 result in DOF that varies depending on the resolution of your camera. Saying that a certain setup yields a certain DoF without context is meaningless. P.P.S. Another interesting thing about this equation is that it shows that DoF is only a function of magnification and physical aperture (not f-number). It is not dependent on sensor size, focal length, or subject distance. There's some additional math needed to gain that insight.

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. 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? 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. Your latest ruler shot shows a soft bottom in the image. Your text shot looks good but your DOF shots look like the corners are soft. 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.

Don't underthink this either. It's important to know that the device is capable of sharp results. Your image showed it is capable of 2:1 apparent on a DX camera but it did not show a sharp result edge-to-edge. If could be a DOF issue but we shouldn't accept things that aren't demonstrated. Does that 0.6mm DOF calculation take into account the CoC appropriate to a 400px wide final image you provided? I think not. If you accept a CoC of 60 microns (24mm/400px or 1 pixel) then my calculation shows 1.62mm of DOF at 1.4x actual magnification. That's enough for the ruler to be in focus.

Supports 8GB of memory and has a quad-core 2.53 GHz option too.

Ryan is right, I had it initially up and I didn't remember it's exact function. We did try it both ways though. With preflash enabled (the wrong way) all we got was a weak preflash. When we set the switch the other way, we got a stronger flash that was not controllable through the manual power control. Strange thing is, one of the strobes tested I used to use with the Subal D2x. In my housing I manually removed pins from the bulkhead because they shipped all present. That's why we assumed it was a bulkhead issue. It seems to me, though, that all you need is the trigger to get manual. I guess it's possible we simply screwed up our testing. Doesn't seem right though.

That's better. On my recent trip there were several trying these out and it was clear that diopter orientation was important. Trouble was that they were mislabeled. Since I didn't try one myself I can't comment. The concern was edge softness so that's why it's important to see it working right. It would be nice to see an example with full frame.

Here's a pic of some text on a pamphlet. F/11, 1/320, D300, Sigma 150, Hoya +3 achromat. It's about 1.8:1. Sigma needs a bit more for 2:1. Working distance is 5". I made no special effort to shoot the paper completely flat and it is not. As you can see, there is no particular problem getting sharp corners and f/11 is adequate for DOF.

I still see edge softness and CA. I'd like to see one at f/11 instead of f/25. Much harder to shoot without a tripod or copy stand though.

People have these problems with wet diopters so I wouldn't be so quick to dismiss a flawed example image as user error. I'm curious what the aperture used is. P.S. After seeing the second sample which is also flawed but in a different way, the flaws need more explanation. What are apertures used in these test shots? At a true magnification of less than 1.5:1, DOF shouldn't be so bad as to make a flat image test shot impossible.

It's not necessarily depth of field, but I agree the edges are soft and that's disappointing for a DX sensor camera.

I don't think the term is sarcastic, I think it refers to the size of the port element itself. The thinking clearly is that you can get that small snout closer than a large fisheye port. I've been thinking about this design and it is clearly a small format fisheye lens with a magnifying relay lens behind it. The design gives you very small size and close focus but I suspect it will be like using a small digicam lens with a massive teleconverter. I'd worry about lens brightness and resolution (notice the 3 focusing lights, manual focus ring and 4 strobes?). DOF will be appropriate for the resolution and magnification it offers. I think the same thing could be done with a 35mm Tokina macro (or 50mm for full frame) and adding an Inon UWL100 with dome. I bet that combination is brighter and images better but it is nowhere near as small. Just how do you get inch from a clownfish face and light it? I'm sure the 1" port helps. I'm interested in this but I wonder if it's an addon to a standard Inon port with prime lens (and thus adaptable and system-agnostic) or if it is specific to the Inon port system and Canon body in the housing. At any rate, you'd have to like the look of close focus fisheye, and perhaps softness, to want this.

I use the camera infrequently above water but can only see moire in test images. Below water I haven't seen problems. Losing the IR cut filter was more worrisome but I only suspected false color in one image.

People are just getting home from the trip---I've been home about an hour now (no lost luggage!). I don't think people are quite prepared to post galleries yet. I'm still transferring mine to my main machine. I used the new Inon S-2000 strobes for macro and a combination of S-2000s and Z-240s for wide angle. For the snake shots I used 3 S-2000s in a medium sized triangle on manual. Most macro was shot using optical TTL and the popup flash. It worked really well. I use the 70-180 with the Nexus modular port system and a flat port. Yes, it's a big zoom with the crop but the focal length shortens more than most with close focus. It is a large lens with slow autofocus but handles well underwater and is not too long for DX even though it may seem to be. It responds especially well to wet diopters. Thank you.

My D300 was modified by MaxMax using their UV-Visible+IR option. Other companies offer the service. Basically, the idea is that the AA filter in a DSLR isn't needed or helpful underwater and the UVIR-cut (also called ICF or hot mirror) filter causes an imbalance in color which increases noise and causes uglier sunballs. With the modification, the D300 produces noticably sharper results and, some say, 10-15% more resolution. Because the UVIR-cut filter is removed, you have to consider blocking UV and IR from the strobes. For macro it is easy; I simply install this filter on the lens. For wide angle, I added IR absorbing filters (ROSCO 213 on this trip but also ROSCO 212 and ROSCO Thermashield) on my strobes and diffusers. In reality, I left the strobe filters on even for macro but the strobe filters are probably not required at all. Incidentally, Leica offers cameras that use a lens-mounted UVIR-cut filter and many cameras are offered without AA filters. Making these mods doesn't produce a camera that's weird or hard to use. It does force you to think more and it can effect AE modes and strobe TTL metering. It also makes the standard white balance presets useless so plan on setting your own. I find the macro strobe TTL metering way off above water but once underwater it works normally. I set the camera to underexpose 1 stop on all AE modes though I didn't use any AE on the trip at all. The 70-180 is a discontinued Nikon macro zoom lens. It is hard to find these days but occasionally appears on eBay. It is wonderful. Yeah, that was partly the trip but mostly me. Others have some interesting wide stuff. Mine is mostly sunball test shots.

All macro shots with the exception of two or three were with the 70-180. I used the Sigma 150 for a couple dives to test (once with a 500D, once with a Hoya +3). No internal diopter was used with the 70-180. Quite a few of these used a wet diopter. I had an Inon 330 and 165. I also tried Marumi 77mm diopters and they worked well. The snake shots used a Sigma 18-50 macro with a dome and the wides were the 10-17. Of course, these images were cleaned. I had to do something with my spare time! The camera I used was an astro-modified D300 with the AA filter and hot mirror removed. The sunball shots have nearly even balance between red, green, and blue channels and little of the cyan rings. I added a two stop ND filter to the 10-17 to allow me to shoot sunballs effectively in the f8 - f11 range. Some of my sunballs didn't blow out at all. There is a shot of a green moray included in the gallery that was shot with the 10-17 (the only lens I used without an IR-block filter). It's the only example I saw with potentially unusual color with the side of the eel being quite red. It was visibly red anyway but I thought there might be some infrared effect on that shot. I saw nothing unusual otherwise. My strobes had some IR filtration on them.

Thanks Wait 'til others post their shots... I was only on the last two weeks of a trip that was 4 or even 5 weeks for some of the divers. I did not visit Lembeh on this trip but others did. The snakes were found at Gunung Api island.

Have you seen my lipstick?

I paid for 24 hours of internet so I used it