Don Silcock 14 Posted January 31, 2009 I was in Milne Bay just before Xmas and tried out the wide-angle macro technique Alex has written about. I was using the 10.5 Nikon with a 2x Kenko TC but struggled to light the subject because of the size of the Subal FE2 dome. I eventually got the hang of it and like the effect - the best images with the technique are Tawali_06 and Tawali_18 on the following gallery at my website: http://www.indopacificimages.com/pages/ima...lery/index.html I am going back to PNG next month to spend three weeks at Tufi to work on a book project I am doing with the resort there and I want to do a lot more diving in the fiords than last time I was there. I think the WAM technique could produce some interesting results, but suspect the 10.5 may be too wide, so I will be taking my 15mm Sigma also. I have also been looking at the Sigma 24mm & 28mm lenses as they have a close focus "macro" capability and then there is the 35mm Tokina. Has anybody out there been using the Sigma 24/28 or the Tokina 35mm for this technique and if so what ports did you use and what were the results? Don Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Alex_Mustard 0 Posted January 31, 2009 Hi Don, Equally important to having the right lens is also having the correct port. Subal's 4" domes are ideal. These are what allow you to light right on the dome - otherwise you end up lighting up the sides of fish, but not the faces. You can do the technique with a big dome - but you don't get the same quality of light as the small dome. Alex Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
bruceterrill 0 Posted January 31, 2009 Hi Don, Equally important to having the right lens is also having the correct port. Subal's 4" domes are ideal. These are what allow you to light right on the dome - otherwise you end up lighting up the sides of fish, but not the faces. You can do the technique with a big dome - but you don't get the same quality of light as the small dome. Alex Hi Alex, Any chance that you could post a pic of your rig, set-up and ready to go, for this style of shooting. . . and a preferred strobe position for correct lighting? Everyone's imagination as to your preferred set-up might be a lot different from what is fact. Regards, Bruce... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Alex_Mustard 0 Posted January 31, 2009 I don't have a photo, Bruce. Mainly because my camera is inside it. I'll take one in Lembeh in a week or so. I am also looking forward to trying my ring-flash which fits on the 4" dome, with the set up. Alex Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
BottomTime 4 Posted January 31, 2009 Hi Don, Subal's 4" domes are ideal. Alex Subal makes a 4" dome? What's it called. I was thinking of replacing my 6" SWB port due to a nasty scratch on the inside, but I wasn't aware they make a 4". Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Don Silcock 14 Posted January 31, 2009 Hi Don, Equally important to having the right lens is also having the correct port. Subal's 4" domes are ideal. These are what allow you to light right on the dome - otherwise you end up lighting up the sides of fish, but not the faces. You can do the technique with a big dome - but you don't get the same quality of light as the small dome. Alex Hi Alex, yes I could kick myself for selling my small DP-54B dome a few years ago - it was the first one I ever bought, but I did not think I needed it anymore when I invested in the FE2 dome... I have been looking around on Ebay etc for a replacement but they are hard to find and the price will probably go up after this thread gets read a few times! I also contacted Subal, but they don't make them anymore.... I have one on the earlier & smaller Subal FE domes and will try that if I can't find a DP-54B. Interesting you mention the ring-flash as that was one of the reasons I was thinking of the Sigma 28 or Tokina 35, which should work behind a flat port I think - because it would mean I could try my ring-flash.... but I wanted to understand if you got the same effect with a flat port. Don Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
tdpriest 115 Posted February 1, 2009 I can't speak for a Subal rig, but I've tried a 10.5mm with a Kenko 1.5x teleconverter with Anthis/ Nexus' custom dome for the Nikkor 12-24mm lens. Because only a small segment of the complete sphere is included in the dome it looks, and lights, much more like a conventional macro system. Light reaches to the nose of the Stingray model, which is on the dome. Tim Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
bruceterrill 0 Posted February 1, 2009 I can't speak for a Subal rig, but I've tried a 10.5mm with a Kenko 1.5x teleconverter with Anthis/ Nexus' custom dome for the Nikkor 12-24mm lens. Because only a small segment of the complete sphere is included in the dome it looks, and lights, much more like a conventional macro system. Tim Hi Tim, Is that the ZP1224-5 port that is currently listed on the catalogue? When trying to light your subjects for the really close-in macro style with this port, do you use or remove the port hood? I ask this because I see that some retailers are offering the port for sale without the hood attached... Bruce... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Alex_Mustard 0 Posted February 1, 2009 I also contacted Subal, but they don't make them anymore.... I have one on the earlier & smaller Subal FE domes and will try that if I can't find a DP-54B. Interesting you mention the ring-flash as that was one of the reasons I was thinking of the Sigma 28 or Tokina 35, which should work behind a flat port I think - because it would mean I could try my ring-flash.... but I wanted to understand if you got the same effect with a flat port. Don That was one of my main reasons for not adopting Subal's new port size. Actually they should be quite cheap if you can find one. As nobody wants them - everyone will tell you that big domes are always better than small domes. Thinking about it, the ring flash is not that suitable here. Most of the subjects that suit macro work with the fisheye + TC are non-moving and live on the seabed, because you need to get very very very close. The ring flash - which produces flat light - but only when the subject is parallel to the lens would not be suitable here because it would over expose foreground sand. That said it would work for the ghost pipefish example, above. Alex Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Don Silcock 14 Posted February 2, 2009 That was one of my main reasons for not adopting Subal's new port size. Actually they should be quite cheap if you can find one. As nobody wants them - everyone will tell you that big domes are always better than small domes. Thinking about it, the ring flash is not that suitable here. Most of the subjects that suit macro work with the fisheye + TC are non-moving and live on the seabed, because you need to get very very very close. The ring flash - which produces flat light - but only when the subject is parallel to the lens would not be suitable here because it would over expose foreground sand. That said it would work for the ghost pipefish example, above. Alex Alex, have you tried snouts mounted on your flashes to direct the light specifically at the subject? I seem to recall you writing about doing that quite some time ago, but not related to wide-angle macro. I made a pair up for my Inon 240's out of plastic pipe and tried them with my 70-180 macro set-up in Lembeh last year, but did not really like the effect. However I was thinking they may be effective for this technique as they would allow the light to be directed onto the subject, but minimize the "glare" associated with trying to light something so close to the dome. Also, what are your thoughts about using the 24 or 28 Sigma on a D300 for this technique - would they have to be behind a dome, or is a flat port feasible? Don Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
photovan 0 Posted February 2, 2009 A bit off topic but... In Don's PNG Gallery there is a nice image of a sponge garden at Wahoo Point off Tawali. Just out of interest, here is the same sponge garden, shot in May 2007. Interesting example of how our dive sites change over relatively short time periods. Nikon d200 | 10.5mm nikkor | 2x Inon z240s | 1/60th @ f5.6 | 100ISO Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Alex_Mustard 0 Posted February 2, 2009 Alex, have you tried snouts mounted on your flashes to direct the light specifically at the subject? I seem to recall you writing about doing that quite some time ago, but not related to wide-angle macro. I made a pair up for my Inon 240's out of plastic pipe and tried them with my 70-180 macro set-up in Lembeh last year, but did not really like the effect. However I was thinking they may be effective for this technique as they would allow the light to be directed onto the subject, but minimize the "glare" associated with trying to light something so close to the dome. Also, what are your thoughts about using the 24 or 28 Sigma on a D300 for this technique - would they have to be behind a dome, or is a flat port feasible? Don It is possible that snoots might help with dome flare - I have never experimented with them for that purpose. But generally, no I think that they would be unsuitable here. Most of these shots seem to look best with soft, fill light. Snoots produced more focused directional light. IMO snoots are the photo accessory that everyone wants to try, but once they have few want to try them again! The ones I brought for the group to try on my Cayman Workshops did not see a lot of use. Most people tried them for 5 minutes then took them off! On DX Nikons I really like using the Sigma 17-70mm. I use this with a dioptre behind the same 4" port. I can't use the full zoom range, but find it a very useful setup. These are taken with it: At night. I used to use the Canon 500D as a dioptre with it, but I find I get better corners with a single element dioptre. The 28mm and the 24mm would work behind flat ports (on DX) - but of course you loose much of the coverage - which kind of negates the point of using a wide angle in the first place. 28mm would get a bit naughty on FX without a dome. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
bruceterrill 0 Posted February 2, 2009 It is possible that snoots might help with dome flare - I have never experimented with them for that purpose. But generally, no I think that they would be unsuitable here. Most of these shots seem to look best with soft, fill light. Snoots produced more focused directional light. IMO snoots are the photo accessory that everyone wants to try, but once they have few want to try them again! The ones I brought for the group to try on my Cayman Workshops did not see a lot of use. Most people tried them for 5 minutes then took them off! On DX Nikons I really like using the Sigma 17-70mm. I use this with a dioptre behind the same 4" port. I can't use the full zoom range, but find it a very useful setup. These are taken with it: I used to use the Canon 500D as a dioptre with it, but I find I get better corners with a single element dioptre. The 28mm and the 24mm would work behind flat ports (on DX) - but of course you loose much of the coverage - which kind of negates the point of using a wide angle in the first place. 28mm would get a bit naughty on FX without a dome. Hi Alex, Your little 4" dome port that you are talking about, is the dome high or rather flat/shallow? I can locate dome ports rather easily, but need to know if the one that you use is a high or shallow one... Thanks for taking the time mate. . . Bruce... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
eskasi 1 Posted February 3, 2009 It is possible that snoots might help with dome flare - I have never experimented with them for that purpose. But generally, no I think that they would be unsuitable here. Most of these shots seem to look best with soft, fill light. Snoots produced more focused directional light. IMO snoots are the photo accessory that everyone wants to try, but once they have few want to try them again! The ones I brought for the group to try on my Cayman Workshops did not see a lot of use. Most people tried them for 5 minutes then took them off! On DX Nikons I really like using the Sigma 17-70mm. I use this with a dioptre behind the same 4" port. I can't use the full zoom range, but find it a very useful setup. These are taken with it: At night. I used to use the Canon 500D as a dioptre with it, but I find I get better corners with a single element dioptre. The 28mm and the 24mm would work behind flat ports (on DX) - but of course you loose much of the coverage - which kind of negates the point of using a wide angle in the first place. 28mm would get a bit naughty on FX without a dome. Hi Alex, Just a few quick questions.... what are those two fish in that last picture? I want to tag a similar photo (below) I took in Lembeh last month. It kinda looks like a juvenile crocodile fish but the coloration seems a little off... Is there any news about that awesome Inon fisheye endoscope port/lens? If I am not mistaken, you had a quick look at one of these last year...a prototype... And finally, Happy Birthday! It's your birthday isn't it? Regards, Kay-Burn Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Alex_Mustard 0 Posted February 3, 2009 what are those two fish in that last picture? I want to tag a similar photo (below) I took in Lembeh last month. It kinda looks like a juvenile crocodile fish but the coloration seems a little off... Is there any news about that awesome Inon fisheye endoscope port/lens? If I am not mistaken, you had a quick look at one of these last year...a prototype... And finally, Happy Birthday! It's your birthday isn't it? They are flatheads, but not crocodilefish. They are Onigocia spinosa, I think. Inon had their endoscope at DEMA - but as far as I know it is not commercially available, yet. It would be excellent for even more extreme shots like these - although it has a very strong fisheye distortion. A zoom version would be ideal (while I am dreaming). For some reason Inon didn't seem to think it would be that popular. I haven't met anyone yet who has seen it, who doesn't want to try it. Alex p.s. Yes, birthday tomorrow (already tomorrow in Austral-asia)! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
eskasi 1 Posted February 3, 2009 They are flatheads, but not crocodilefish. They are Onigocia spinosa, I think. Inon had their endoscope at DEMA - but as far as I know it is not commercially available, yet. It would be excellent for even more extreme shots like these - although it has a very strong fisheye distortion. A zoom version would be ideal (while I am dreaming). For some reason Inon didn't seem to think it would be that popular. I haven't met anyone yet who has seen it, who doesn't want to try it. Alex p.s. Yes, birthday tomorrow (already tomorrow in Austral-asia)! Many happy returns Alex! It is indeed an honor to be of your acquaintance! Thanks for the fish ID! Regards, Kay Burn Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
davephdv 0 Posted February 4, 2009 I use the Subal DP54 domeport with my Tokina 35 mm macro. I was glad I kept my old domeport. I had boughten it to use with the old nikon 34-85 macro (film days) A usage similar to what has been suggested above. I really like the 35 mm macro for these kind of closeup wide angle shots and the dome port seems preferable to a flat port. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Don Silcock 14 Posted February 4, 2009 I use the Subal DP54 domeport with my Tokina 35 mm macro. I was glad I kept my old domeport. I had boughten it to use with the old nikon 34-85 macro (film days) A usage similar to what has been suggested above. I really like the 35 mm macro for these kind of closeup wide angle shots and the dome port seems preferable to a flat port. Hi Dave, I checked your site for images taken with the 35mm Tokina and could not find them - so would you mind posting a couple of images or provide a link to where they are on your site please? Don Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Don Silcock 14 Posted February 4, 2009 It is possible that snoots might help with dome flare - I have never experimented with them for that purpose. But generally, no I think that they would be unsuitable here. Most of these shots seem to look best with soft, fill light. Snoots produced more focused directional light. IMO snoots are the photo accessory that everyone wants to try, but once they have few want to try them again! The ones I brought for the group to try on my Cayman Workshops did not see a lot of use. Most people tried them for 5 minutes then took them off! On DX Nikons I really like using the Sigma 17-70mm. I use this with a dioptre behind the same 4" port. I can't use the full zoom range, but find it a very useful setup. These are taken with it: At night. I used to use the Canon 500D as a dioptre with it, but I find I get better corners with a single element dioptre. The 28mm and the 24mm would work behind flat ports (on DX) - but of course you loose much of the coverage - which kind of negates the point of using a wide angle in the first place. 28mm would get a bit naughty on FX without a dome. Alex, superb images - as always....I always feel "pixelly challenged" when I look at your work! Two last questions - do you use a diopter with the 17-70 in both the FE2 and 4" dome and if so which one? Don Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Alex_Mustard 0 Posted February 4, 2009 Two last questions - do you use a diopter with the 17-70 in both the FE2 and 4" dome and if so which one? Don For a while I used the Canon 500D dioptre. I used this when I was in NSW and South Australia, but have recently begun using a cheaper single element dioptre because I believe it is giving me better corner sharpness. Although I am not using either at the moment as I have yet to find a suitable replacement for the 17-70mm on FX nikons. Alex Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lou f 0 Posted February 4, 2009 alex what brand of single element diopters are the ones to go for and are they any lower in profile than the 500D? i am looking at a heliopan as my 500d wont fit behind my dome on my 12-24. ta Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ryan 57 Posted February 4, 2009 (edited) This kind of shooting doesn't really interest me, but small domes for fisheye work do. These can certainly be adapted to this technique via an extension ring that accommodates the teleconverter, and have the added utility of being compatible with the full fov of the lens. We made a proof of concept for a small, light weight, and relatively inexpensive acrylic dome for Nikkor 10.5, 16, and Tokina 10-17 and Subal housings that I really like to use: Unfortunately, the lens I most want to use with it is Sigma's 15mm fisheye on full frame, but the shade of that lens is to large to be compatible and I'm having a lot of trouble convincing myself to cut it off. I also really like Nexus' FP-120, which is glass, and use it on Sea & Sea housings: This too is incompatible with Sigma 15, but works well with Tokina 10-17, Nikon 10.5, and Nikon 16. Edited February 4, 2009 by Ryan Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
dhaas 40 Posted February 4, 2009 Ryan, I'm confused.......How can these "mini-domes" work with a Nikon 10.5mm and 16mm FE plus the Tokina 10-17mm FE but not the Sigma 15mm FE? Is it the physical length when one adds a TC to it? Inquiring minds want to know dhaas Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Alex_Mustard 0 Posted February 4, 2009 Nice Ryan. The mini domes work fine even with 180 degree fisheye. Corners are not as sharp as with a bigger dome - but if stopped down and carefully composed most would be very hard pressed to spot the difference. Just to avoid any confusion the domes I was discussing earlier are not as curved and not fisheye compatible. This photo shows both. On the D700 housing, left, is the shallow curvature dome I used in all the photos above. On my F100 housing, right, is the fisheye mini dome. I hadn't realised that the mini-dome was incompatible with the Sigma 15mm hood. Good info Ryan. Alex Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ralphy 1 Posted February 4, 2009 alex what brand of single element diopters are the ones to go for and are they any lower in profile than the 500D? i am looking at a heliopan as my 500d wont fit behind my dome on my 12-24. ta I'd like to hear this too. R Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
