SubSee Adapters?

[Cal 5]

Hey guys

 

I've been doing a bit of searching on these Subsee adapters.

 

http://www.uwphotographyguide.com/reviews-diopters-subsee

 

Has anyone used one? if so, can they give some feed back please?

 

Cheers

 

Cal

[elbuzo 8]

Hey guys

 

I've been doing a bit of searching on these Subsee adapters.

 

http://www.uwphotographyguide.com/reviews-diopters-subsee

 

Has anyone used one? if so, can they give some feed back please?

 

Cheers

 

Cal

 

 

They look very compact and light . I'm using a macromate but a friend of mine just ordered one Subsee, so i will be able to tell you next week .

 

Regards

[scubamarli 5]

I have heard great things so far from a friend that has been using one. I would love to hear about performance in darker conditions. I am concerned about having to use manual focus, which frankly I hate.

I will probably be ordering one for Lembeh. It probably isn't suitable for use with less than a 90mm due to focusing distance to subject issues.

 

Cheers,

Marli

Edited April 15, 2009 by scubamarli

[meister 1]

Do a search and you'll find a couple of threads I'm aware of, one here on Wetpixel and another on Digitaldiver.net.

[Alex_Mustard 0]

I want to try one of those - I have heard that they are good, but always like to prove things to myself.

 

That's a nice site, BTW.

 

Alex

[Mariozi 1]

They are very nice!!!

I got one, will try it out on the sea later this month.

It is VERY well finished and very compact.

I heard ReefNet Inc. changed the design a little bit to accommodate a wider range of lenses.

 

On my Nikkor 105mm/2.8D it gives 2.1:1 both on land or uw (tested in the tub )

 

This is all n my SuperMacro pages

[AllisonFinch 7]

Hmmmm looks like a lot of focus loss top and bottom.

 

I heard an explanation of narrow depth of field, but that is a flat surface!

Edited April 15, 2009 by AllisonFinch

[craig 0]

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

[SlipperyDick 2]

@AllisonFinch - The left and right edges of Mariozi's photo are in focus, meaning the ruler must have been slightly angled, putting the top and bottom out of the plane of focus. If taken straight-on, the entire field of view would've been in focus.

 

@Craig - There actually shouldn't be any edge softening at all with this achromat, especially at maximum magnification. BTW - GREAT shots from the indo trip! Looks like it was very productive!!

 

@Mariozi - Still looking forward to seeing some of your results...stay in touch!

 

@Alex - Rand, Todd, and Jamie will probably all have SubSees with them in Hardy come September, so I'm sure you can do some arm twisting to get to play with one

 

 

Kudos to Scott Gietler for putting together his new site. There's a ton of great info there.

[yahsemtough 0]

Ahh nevermind Keri just answered the question... typing the same time as I did.

 

Share with Alex. I suppose one of the Nikon shooters could lend him. I will gladly share.

 

Cheers

 

Todd

[sgietler 1]

Keri, Alex - thanks for the nice feedback on the site.

 

I just did a couple more tests on a card on my table, which was flatter than the ruler I used in the pool tests.

 

Even with a perfectly flat surface, It wasn't easy getting the entire frame in focus at 2:1 magnification, either due to the small depth of field or my own jitteriness. It was difficult to hold my rig perfectly parallel, and at the correct distance.

 

Here's one of my better attempts, at F25

 

Edited April 15, 2009 by sgietler

[craig 0]

@Craig - There actually shouldn't be any edge softening at all with this achromat, especially at maximum magnification.

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.

[sgietler 1]

Craig, You made some good points.

 

I just redid my test a little more carefully, try to make sure there was no "user error", at the same aperture, F25, at a magnification of 2:1. I shot a different subject, resting my housing on a table so it could be perfectly still.

 

[craig 0]

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.

[craig 0]

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.

[sgietler 1]

Keri suggested I will get better results out of the water by flipping the diopter. The results look a little better with the diopter flipped.

 

 

I shot at F11, and your right, I had no problem getting adequate DOF.

 

[craig 0]

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.

[TomR1 5]

I have one of these. I had it on my Nikon Af-105-VR for 3 diving days in Tulamben and 10 diving days in Wakatobi.

 

The device was very difficult for me to use and will take considerable practice for me. If you get it right it will take an awesome shot. However, on a wall where it is uncool to grab hold I found getting a focus lock very difficult. Then too, one needs a VERY small subject to want to magnify a 105 past 1:1.

 

I found that using a light was critical for focus and that proper positioning of the strobes so the camera could see the preflash equally importent. I used autofocus. I also experimented with release priority and focus priority for the shutter release. In my pool at home release priority was fine but in the ocean I needed focus priority because the depth of field was so shallow that shots I thought were in focus were not. (My eyes are not good enough to make a decision using the camera's viewer.) Jeff Mullins told me he gets 1 of 10 in focus using an E-330/50mm.

 

I did get some shots but nothing worth posting much less framing.

 

This nudi was shot at F/32 1/160.

 

I'll try to find some more.

 

TomR1

[Mariozi 1]

Hmmmm looks like a lot of focus loss top and bottom.

 

Don't overthink it, I don't even remember the aperture used, I had to check it.

It was at f/11... that would have given me 0.6mm of DoF

I just shot that to check the reproduction ratio...

[craig 0]

Don't overthink it, I don't even remember the aperture used, I had to check it.

It was at f/11... that would have given me 0.6mm of DoF

I just shot that to check the reproduction ratio...

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.

[SlipperyDick 2]

@TomR1 - Keep on trying Tom! It can take some getting used to, but once you've got it dialed in, it can really be useful. It's normal to have to bracket focus when doing super macro photography. Any bit of surge, exhalation, or hand shake can ruin your shot! These problems are amplified with teleconverters, due to the larger distances involved.

 

 

@Craig - The SubSees were actually originally designed for hand-held use, so were labeled for use with the human eye. When used with a camera lens underwater, it needs to be used in the opposite direction (has to do with being within the focal length of the SubSee). Unfortunately, we'd already bulk ordered our labels years ago, so couldn't justify making the "correction" until stock ran out, which just recently occurred.

 

As for the units you saw in Indonesia...what a disaster that was! I labeled one by hand (incorrectly), and the other was correctly labeled, but a miscommunication between Cor and I led to it also being used backwards. I hate Murphy's law (i.e. my carelessness)!

 

There are a few other things I want to comment on that you mentioned:

 

-The magnification ratio that the SubSee offers when used with a 100/105mm lens is between 2:1 and 2.2:1. This is the actual magnification, not including any "DX crop factor". As I'm sure you know, the size of the sensor has nothing to do with actual magnification ratio. Here is a shot with my D300 + 105mm + SubSee:

 

REPRODUCTION RATIO

23.6mm sensor being filled by a 10.5mm section of ruler = 2.25:1 magnification. (D300 + 105mm + SubSee; 1/320, F11, ISO200)

 

 

-Regarding the example shot you posted...you are comparing apples to oranges. First, at 1.8:1, you've got about 30% more DOF than at 2.2:1, so of course you'll have an easier time getting a flat surface in focus. Second, you're comparing the performance of a +3 diopter achromat to a +10, which is unfair, since peripheral distortion becomes increasingly difficult to correct as radius of curvature decreases (i.e. more curved/shorter focal length/higher power/etc.), without using aspherics or other expensive optical systems. Third, Scott's shot was through an additional 3 optical interfaces (the housing port, and two sealed windows on the SubSee), so comparing an "air diopter" shot to it isn't fair either. And lastly, it seems to me that your shot isn't in focus in the center. I'm actually curious to see how your Hoya performs when the center point is in focus, on a perfectly flat subject.

 

Please don't think I'm being argumentative.... I'm just defending my baby

 

________________________________________

 

 

In any case, I took a few 'air shots' with the SubSee mounted on my D300/105mm....here is one straight-on-ish showing that there is almost no edge distortion:

 

STRAIGHT-ON SHOT

I taped a piece of paper with text to a table, took a series of shots by hand, then picked the best shot. (D300 + 105mm + SubSee; 1/320, F11, ISO200)

 

And here are some shots with the SubSee at maximum magnification on my 105mm lens (2.25:1), showing the plane of focus extending from edge to edge:

 

DEPTH OF FIELD

Shots taken at 2.25:1 magnification, corresponding to a field of view of 10.5mm

All shots taken with a Nikon D300 + 105mm lens + SubSee, 1/320, ISO200

 

 

F11

 

 

F22

 

 

F57

 

 

Keri

Edited April 17, 2009 by SlipperyDick

[meister 1]

It would be nice to see an example with full frame.

 

I've completed one dive trip after recently purchasing a Subsee. Unfortunately, I only did one dive with a macro lens mounted. Here's one (full frame) picture from that dive using the Subsee.

 

Canon 5D, 100mm, 1/200, f/32, ISO 200. click here

Edited April 17, 2009 by meister

[TomR1 5]

Keri-

 

So you are saying the red end should be towards the camera?

 

Tom

[james 0]

Sir Mix-A-Lot - now that brings back memories. I like big butts and I can not lie!

 

Cheers

James

[craig 0]

-Regarding the example shot you posted...you are comparing apples to oranges. First, at 1.8:1, you've got about 30% more DOF than at 2.2:1, so of course you'll have an easier time getting a flat surface in focus. Second, you're comparing the performance of a +3 diopter achromat to a +10, which is unfair, since peripheral distortion becomes increasingly difficult to correct as radius of curvature decreases (i.e. more curved/shorter focal length/higher power/etc.), without using aspherics or other expensive optical systems. Third, Scott's shot was through an additional 3 optical interfaces (the housing port, and two sealed windows on the SubSee), so comparing an "air diopter" shot to it isn't fair either. And lastly, it seems to me that your shot isn't in focus in the center. I'm actually curious to see how your Hoya performs when the center point is in focus, on a perfectly flat subject.

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.