SubSee Adapters?

[meister 1]

Here's a helpful and mandatory DOF link for anyone not already aware it. Perhaps this is an appropriate thread to mention it, http://www.dofmaster.com/dofjs.html.

 

Here I've clicked in a new Canon 5D with a 100m lens set at f/16 with subject distance of 10 inches into the calculator...

Edited April 17, 2009 by meister

[craig 0]

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.

[Mariozi 1]

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.

 

Man you have strange concepts...

There is no such a thing as "2:1 apparent".

I strongly suggest you read more about the subject, the Reproduction Ratio I reported is defined by:

R = I:O (I= Image Size; O= Object size) That is independent of image format (35mm, APS-C...)

DoF is also not related to the size of the printed/web image.

In fact it is again related only to the format (35mm, APS-C...)

And the magnification in this case is 2.1x.

 

By the way,

CoC value used on my personal DoF table is 33 micrometers, to satisfy most critical viewer.

Using your value of 60 in this case, I get a DoF of almost 1mm, which is very likely what I had on that slanted ruler.

 

I just received my adapter, threw a ruler in the tub and shot it, so I could give the correct info on magnification/reproduction ratio to people who read my e-mails.

I could have spent the time playing with my kid. But I wanted to help people...

I would suggest you to be more careful with your concepts ("DX apparent whatever???"). So not to waste my or other people's time.

 

Above that, as someone pointed out, I can see detail from border to border in the focus plane.

I would assume it is OK then and the loss of focus is the responsible for lack of detail.

As I said, I posted it to help. If you need higher-end tests, you can just sit and wait someone willing to do it just for you, pay someone to do it (I would gladly accept this, because it seems I am teaching you for naught:o)) or go out there, get one and shoot it for yourself.

 

When we shoot underwater we are already loosing a lot of IQ, but we compensate for that showing the world something other people rarely see. Just live with that.

Edited April 17, 2009 by Mariozi

[Mariozi 1]

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!

 

Sorry forgot to add, the ruler as slanted on the bottom of my tub.

I just wanted to check the magnification... it was not parallel to the port.

[craig 0]

Man you have strange concepts...

There is no such a thing as "2:1 apparent".

I strongly suggest you read more about the subject, the Reproduction Ratio I reported is defined by:

R = I:O (I= Image Size; O= Object size) That is independent of image format (35mm, APS-C...)

DoF is also not related to the size of the printed/web image.

In fact it is again related only to the format (35mm, APS-C...)

And the magnification in this case is 2.1x.

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.

 

By the way,

CoC value used on my personal DoF table is 33 micrometers, to satisfy most critical viewer.

Using your value of 60 in this case, I get a DoF of almost 1mm, which is very likely what I had on that slanted ruler.

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 just received my adapter, threw a ruler in the tub and shot it, so I could give the correct info on magnification/reproduction ratio to people who read my e-mails.

I could have spent the time playing with my kid. But I wanted to help people...

I would suggest you to be more careful with your concepts ("DX apparent whatever???"). So not to waste my or other people's time.

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.

 

Above that, as someone pointed out, I can see detail from border to border in the focus plane.

I would assume it is OK then and the loss of focus is the responsible for lack of detail.

As I said, I posted it to help. If you need higher-end tests, you can just sit and wait someone willing to do it just for you, pay someone to do it (I would gladly accept this, because it seems I am teaching you for naught:o)) or go out there, get one and shoot it for yourself.

 

When we shoot underwater we are already loosing a lot of IQ, but we compensate for that showing the world something other people rarely see. Just live with that.

You should be careful what you call "teaching".

[Mariozi 1]

Of course there is such a concept as "apparent".

In your very technically e-mails, it doesn't seem proper for you to apply that concept.

I have showed (being careful not to "teach") you the right concept of Reproduction Ratio on my last post, I don't see any room for the "apparent" one.

 

Yes, your example was 2.1 actual. My mistake

Yes it was. As is the case with the "apparent" concept I also, in your words, "...read that all the time, but there are lots of uninformed people..."

Being extremely truthful, when DX came out I thought that the "apparent" thing existed, but then I got better informed.

It does not fit in any technical concept, it is just a crop.

 

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...

"The DOF is determined by the subject distance (that is, the distance to the plane that is perfectly in focus), the lens focal length, and the lens f-number (relative aperture). Except at close-up distances, DOF is approximately determined by the subject magnification and the lens f-number." by wikipedia (free knowledge to people).

I don't see your factors listed among these. Sorry.

 

"DOF is controlled by the lens aperture diameter, which is usually specified as the f-number, the ratio of lens focal length to aperture diameter." by wikipedia

Since the lens aperture diameter varies with the format, yes DoF IS related to format.

 

I've never heard of a CoC of 33 in relation to 35mm or cropped frame...

"To a first approximation, DOF is inversely proportional to format size." by wikipedia

Since we are talking in "areas" and the APS-C sized sensor is roughly the half of the 35mm, your 60 micrometer CoC should be counted as 30 in the APS-C sensor, for an accurate DoF. The "c" (circle of confusion) on every equation should be precisely read as "the circle of confusion for a given image format." by wikipedia.

 

Just to illustrate:

"For the same f-number, the image made with the 35 mm camera would have four times the DOF of the image made with the 4×5 camera." by wikipedia.

 

...I can't imagine what critical viewer would be satisfied by it.

The very critical out-of-this world people that sometimes get in our way... they exist, believe me.

 

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 am not an expert, just still a "learner" with 10 years to go before I reach your stage, but with good grasp of math and physics.

Whenever you have an equation (as is the case for DoF) you can draw several kinds of tables and graphics, that will help you better understand it.

I remember when I started shooting (on the film era) we had DoF tables for almost every lens.

You should try, it is a nice technique for learning/studying what you have at hand.

 

I simply pointed out, rightly, that the image had soft edges and wasn't even the first to do so.

It was not "rightly" but "wrongly".

What you saw was DoF limitations, in the Focus Plane we had border to border detail.

I think I have said that before...

 

It was you that offered the reply that I not overthink it, then promptly proceeded to underthink it.

Isn't that coherent??? Sorry I completely miss your point here man...

Just explaining (again not "teaching") my opinion is:

you = complicated

me = simple.

 

Careful who you accuse of wasting people's time.

You should be careful what you call "teaching".

Yes I tend to think I am wasting my time (with you at least)... and don't worry 'cause I sure wouldn't want you as a "student".

It is just a pity I could not "ignore" you based on your "Super Mod" status. It would be a lot simpler... but hopefully people will grasp the right (and simpler!!!) concepts reading this.

Edited April 17, 2009 by Mariozi

[craig 0]

"...but then I got better informed."

"...by wikipedia (free knowledge to people)."

"...by wikipedia"

"...by wikipedia"

That's what you get for using wikipedia as a source.

 

Since we are talking in "areas" and the APS-C sized sensor is roughly the half of the 35mm, your 60 micrometer CoC should be counted as 30 in the APS-C sensor, for an accurate DoF. The "c" (circle of confusion) on every equation should be precisely read as "the circle of confusion for a given image format." by wikipedia.

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.

 

Just to illustrate:

"For the same f-number, the image made with the 35 mm camera would have four times the DOF of the image made with the 4×5 camera." by wikipedia.

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.

 

Whenever you have an equation (as is the case for DoF) you can draw several kinds of tables and graphics, that will help you better understand it.

I remember when I started shooting (on the film era) we had DoF tables for almost every lens.

You should try, it is a nice technique for learning/studying what you have at hand.

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.

 

It was not "rightly" but "wrongly".

What you saw was DoF limitations, in the Focus Plane we had border to border detail.

I think I have said that before...

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.

 

Yes I tend to think I am wasting my time (with you at least)... and don't worry 'cause I sure wouldn't want you as a "student".

It is just a pity I could not "ignore" you based on your "Super Mod" status. It would be a lot simpler... but hopefully people will grasp the right (and simpler!!!) concepts reading this.

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.

[eskasi 1]

wow...guys, chill.... I would just like to see results (photos) with someone using the subsee... I am about to buy one.

 

The math does not determine a good photo... although I appreciate the physics involved....

 

It won't take a decent macro shot if you are a lousy photog or have bad buoyancy...

 

Pls don't flame me..... :-O

[Mariozi 1]

That's what you get for using wikipedia as a source.

I used it because I was out of home and away from my library. Do you suggest it is wrong??? Man, you got serious issues, the WORLD is marching the wrong way uh???

I STRONGLY suggest you read more about it, try to start with "Scientific Photography and Applied Imaging" by Sidney F. Ray

The EXACT same concepts are described in this "bible" of optics applied to photography.

 

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.

... what can I say...your concepts are different from every physics books I've ever read, if you want to stay with them... go get'em tiger.

 

But as has been discussed here many times, different formats don't get used at the same f-number.

No??? I have dived with people on D700s and we shoot mostly on the same apertures sometimes... specially at macro/supermacro range when you want DoF and you are limited by your strobe power.

 

f-numbers are used for exposure, not for fixing depth of field. Again, a novice's mistake.

Is there a difference? They are two sides of the same coin, different strokes of the same brush while we paint with light... in my view they balance each other out.

I may be a young novice, but I try never to become an old stubborn? Who knows?

 

Yes, if you shoot different images at different physical apertures you get different depths of field.

Nice to agree at something!!!

 

... 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.

I don't ignore it, in fact it is the same one I use...

 

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.

??? Do you need glasses??? Just LOOK at the picture you will find definition from border to border on the plane of focus!

 

As a proof of magnification, your image was informative.

Thanks.

 

As proof of good optical performance it was not.

It was never meant for that.

 

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.

Great!!!

[Mariozi 1]

It won't take a decent macro shot if you are a lousy photog or have bad buoyancy...

 

What??? I think you can!!!

Hahaha kidding!!!

[Mariozi 1]

Craig,

 

I think I found out what's been the motive of this discussion.

 

We are comparing apples to oranges.

You seem to be talking about "DoF in Print (Tp)"

While I am referring to "Geometric DoF (T)"

 

My point is that those apples and oranges in this case tastes almost the same.

And most importantly, they both serve to confirm that the image is in fact (as it was shown by other images) affected by lack of DoF (in general) and not by lack of IQ as you pointed out.

 

Normal people (not crazy ones like me and Craig) can stop reading here.

 

Craig, please follow my math:

 

As I did calculate:

Geometric DoF is defined by:

T=(2CN(1+m))/m2

T= (2.0,02.11(1+2.1))/4,41

T= 1,365/4,41

T=0,3mm

 

Obs1: What you said about a 20 micrometer CoC for APS-C sized sensors is absolutely right. Thanks for pointing that out.

Obs2: The term micrometer is more accurately accepted

 

As you calculate it:

Tp=(2CpN(Z+M))/Z2

 

M is Print Magnification:

M= ((400px ÷ 72dpi) . 25.4)mm/23.6mm

M= 141,1/23.6

M= 5,97

 

Cp is Circle of Confusion for Print

Cp=C.M

Cp=0,02.5,97

Cp=0,12

 

Z is Total Magnification

Z=m.M

Z=2,1.5,97

Z=12,55

 

So at the first formula:

Tp=(2CpN(Z+M))/Z2

Tp=(2.0,12.11(12,55+5,97))/157,5

Tp=48,89/157,5

Tp=0,31mm

 

Doesn't these two taste the same?

And don't they prove that it was lack of DoF instead of IQ?

And wasn't my math simpler???

 

I sincerely hope it ends the argument, although it was a good one!!!

Thanks!!!

 

For the ones in the cloud:

T=Geometric DoF

Tp=DoF for Print

C=CoC for the Format

Cp=CoC for Print

N=Effective f-number (N from Nikon???)

m= Image magnification (from object to image)

M= Print magnification (from image size to print size)

Z= Total Magnification (from object to print)

[ce4jesus 1]

You two need a room You both made me realize how much I hated math class!

[TomR1 5]

wow...guys, chill.... I would just like to see results (photos) with someone using the subsee... I am about to buy one.

 

The math does not determine a good photo... although I appreciate the physics involved....

 

It won't take a decent macro shot if you are a lousy photog or have bad buoyancy...

 

Pls don't flame me..... :-O

 

Wel the one I posted shows the capability of the lens even if it is not a pleasing shot. I found that you needed to be stationary for an extended time in order to get a focus lock and then the critter turns away from you. That's why I have all these shots from behind <grrr>. Someplace like Little Cayman or Bonaire would god place to start.

[craig 0]

I don't ignore it, in fact it is the same one I use...

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).

 

And most importantly, they both serve to confirm that the image is in fact (as it was shown by other images) affected by lack of DoF (in general) and not by lack of IQ as you pointed out.

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.

 

Doesn't these two taste the same?

And don't they prove that it was lack of DoF instead of IQ?

And wasn't my math simpler???

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.

[Wishbone 0]

Wow, that was great reading!

(Even though sometimes I felt I'm at a math frat party!)

Just to say Thanks!

[Hani Amir 0]

So in summation, subsee adapters are?

[Mariozi 1]

So in summation, subsee adapters are?

 

Certainly the most powerful and more compact in the market.

IQ is at least as good as any other.

 

I was not a fan of wet adapters, preferred to do my super-macro on TCs.

This is the only one I found worthy of a try.

[craig 0]

Certainly the most powerful and more compact in the market.

IQ is at least as good as any other.

 

I was not a fan of wet adapters, preferred to do my super-macro on TCs.

This is the only one I found worthy of a try.

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.

[Mariozi 1]

Ok, here we go again...

 

Your evidence of this is what?

"Woody's diopter can increase magnification up to 25%, where the macromate (+8) & subsee (+10) can increase magnification up to 100% & 125% respectively on a 105mm lens." - The Underwater Photography Guide.

 

SubSea and MacroMate both claim 2:1.

MacroMate claims 2:1 in a very empiric way... I never bought that, specially KNOWING that diopters works differently in different lenses.

SubSee claims 2.2:1 on a 105mm AND has a nice "calculator" in his site, which so far as the tests I have seen and done, it's pretty accurate (down to 0.1mm).

 

SubSea is lighter but not as durable.

Big doubt on the durability side, I found them pretty tough and well engineered.

Do you have one? Did you break one?

I pointed out easily measurable things: SIZE + POWER.

 

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.

Don't know this one, is it a general brand that can be used in most DSLR housings like SubSee, MacroMate & Woodys?

 

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.

Agreed!!!

I was never a big fan of wet adapters anyway, preferring to use TCs and other things. But I am sure the SubSee will add some versatility to my dives.

On the other hand, if I am already doing 1:1 on a 105mm I would not carry something like that down if it would not give me a completely new image...

I other words, I would not use one just to "get a little closer".

Just like you I also don't recommend the more powerful ones on short lens like the 60mm, but even the SubSee is "comfortable" to use on a 105mm.

Again, super-Macro is also something that requires training, to reach a "comfortable" level.

 

PS: If you are going to add an equation to this one, make sure you have it right this time

Edited April 20, 2009 by Mariozi

[craig 0]

Ok, here we go again...

Indeed.

 

"Woody's diopter can increase magnification up to 25%, where the macromate (+8) & subsee (+10) can increase magnification up to 100% & 125% respectively on a 105mm lens." - The Underwater Photography Guide.

...

MacroMate claims 2:1 in a very empiric way... I never bought that, specially KNOWING that diopters works differently in different lenses.

SubSee claims 2.2:1 on a 105mm AND has a nice "calculator" in his site, which so far as the tests I have seen and done, it's pretty accurate (down to 0.1mm).

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.

 

Big doubt on the durability side, I found them pretty tough and well engineered.

Do you have one? Did you break one?

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.

 

I pointed out easily measurable things: SIZE + POWER.

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.

 

Don't know this one, is it a general brand that can be used in most DSLR housings like SubSee, MacroMate & Woodys?

I think that pretty much sums it up.

 

PS: If you are going to add an equation to this one, make sure you have it right this time

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.

[TomR1 5]

Ok, Ok, Ok!

 

1. The subsee is more convient than either a screw-on or slip-on wet solution because it can easily be swung out of the way. This may not seem like much but, in practice, it is huge. You can advance towards the subject and get a 1:1 shot with a 105 (DX format), then stealthly swing the subsee out of the way and continue advancing towards the subject. I was never able to do this with either a screw-on or slip-on solution

 

2. The subsee is ROBUST but you must secure it from loss. I CAN slip off. I have a neoprene ring around the port that I hook the subsee to.

 

3. My experience is that the +10 will give truely awsome shots under the right conditions. Those conditions are probably common to all magnification strategies, specifically a very this focus area.

 

Frankly, I am not certain that the search for better than 1:1 has many applications. Shooting a 12.5MP DX lens when I need about 1/3 of that to get awesome 8.5 x 11 prints and maybe 1/5 of that by 800x600 web shots means a crop factor of 3:1 to 5:1. For those clinging to "buggy whip" rules of yesteryear it may be importent but not me. I expect an occasional GREAT shot when I again see the opportunity so I believe that the subsee should sit on the end of everyone's 105 to be there when needed but.....

[craig 0]

I disagree on the convenience point. Some like the flip design but I don't because it forces me to move my strobes and modeling light (at least temporarily). I don't find flip designs any faster than slip-ons or screw-ons because of my style---they are all slow. Flip designs also add permanent weight to the front of the camera. In the case of the SubSea it's not much but with the MacroMate it is considerable.

 

The SubSea may be robust if nothing falls on it. The one that broke on my last trip was a mystery; no one knows what caused it but the mount had a piece broken off. Furthermore, one of the optical elements (there were several new ones on the boat) got several lens scratches without ever entering the water. The SubSea may be robust enough but it is not in the same league as MacroMate and our rigs do take punishment. As for screw-ons, it depends on implementation. My 67mm adapter is really solid thanks to Ryan. It's possible to bung up a thread but unlikely if you use a proper holder. 67mm diopters are easily the most compact overall and have less stack-up height than SubSea or MacroMate, both of which are quite thick.

 

In the end, what matters is results. Clearly there needs to be some direct, comparative testing. In my experience wet diopters are too much like a religion.

 

While I'm not so enthusiastic about cropping as you, Tom, I agree that magnifications beyond 1:1 with DX are of limited usefulness and 2:1 doesn't hold a lot of interest to me. Full frame shooters need it about 1.5 times more.

[Mariozi 1]

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.

 

You just simply stated the 2:1 from MacroMate, which seems to be accurate for the 100mm range at least.

Although I agree with that it is CLEAR that SubSee has more power.

Are we in a court of law? Anyway, the simple lack of proof of anything stronger than SubSee and the text from the guys at The Underwater Photography Guide (independent) are OK for me, I won't spend my money buying what I don't want.

 

IQ is at least as good as any other."

First of all this is just an achromatic 2 element close up, no rocket science in it.

I am happy to assume the same IQ as any other if not better due to the simpler smaller design of the lenses, just less room for mistakes and imperfections in the lenses.

 

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.

Again... I did not meant to show you IQ, but only power. I guess I said that before...

And you seemed happy with the good souls that took their time to fulfill your desires.

Because of your behavior alone I'm sure won't post any more tests in here.

And will send them directly to who's asking, I think WetPixel looses with it.

And you are not in the best example as a "SuperMod", whatever that means.

 

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.

It is the first report I know of something like that.

I dive from zodiacs and am pretty loose about my equipment its not broken yet.

 

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 have evaluated MacroMate loaned from friends, found it clumsy, personal preference maybe and not as nicely finished.

Have seen Woodys on many dives, also did not like it.

About the same experience as you I believe.

 

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.

Last time you got a 1,62mm DoF when in the end you agreed on 0,31mm.

It looks like you get a 1x mistake for each year you have been here, as it ONLY about 5.22x error.

At least I haven't seen such a gross mistake in 10 years shooting underwater, and if that doesn't suggest prejudice, I don't know what does.

So far I have placed it as just a mistake, but since you brought the "prejudice" context...

 

You babble about science, but so far have failed to prove or mention your sources, only saying "easily verifiable"...

While all the time requires for "evidence" and "proof". I am really tired of this game... where you demand, but don't deliver.

 

This is what you posted:

DoF = 2 * Fe * CoC / M^2

DoF : depth of field

Fe : effective f-number (what Nikon displays)

CoC : circle of confusion

M : magnification

And it is incomplete, looks like it has been incomplete for the last 6 years.

That's why you made such a gross mistake.

 

The right ones should be (in the correct notation):

T = (2 * C * N * ( 1 + m))/m^2

And for the DoF in print that you praise:

Tp = (2 * Cp * N * ((M * Z) + M^2))/Z^2

 

Where:

C: Circle of Confusion

Cp: Circle of Confusion in Print

Defined by C = Cp/M

 

T: Depth of Field

Tp: Depth of Field in Print

N: Aperture (in f-number)

 

m: Magnification

M: Magnification in Print

Z: Total Magnification

Defined by Z = M * m

 

Again from the same book I informed you before, and that you should really read.

Scientific Photography and Applied Imaging

Sidney F. Ray

BSc, MSc, ASIS, FBIPP, FMPA, FRPS

Senior Lecturer

University of Westminster

London

 

Hardly a "Photographer that's a poor scientist" as you said uh?

In your words, you should be more "careful" when you say something like that!

I think that's enough uh?

 

Anyway, I am a bit tired, let's keep it simple, to what we agree then?

 

The question was about SubSee:

- We seem to agree it is the most powerful one, OK?

- We seem to agree that it is small and light, right?

- The usability, it is a user preference, but for the ones that prefer the swivel ones it seems very good, good?

Edited April 21, 2009 by Mariozi

[cor 0]

The SubSea may be robust if nothing falls on it. The one that broke on my last trip was a mystery; no one knows what caused it but the mount had a piece broken off. Furthermore, one of the optical elements (there were several new ones on the boat) got several lens scratches without ever entering the water.

I only know of 3 on our trip. The two that Keri sent us, and one brought by another guest. Mine wasn't scratched or broken, but I vaguely remember a discussion about the second one Keri sent. Did that one get damaged?

 

Keri, the second one I think never got used. So no miscommunication there. I unfortunately used 'mine' the wrong way around, because I went by the hand writing, assuming you had personally fixed the label that was wrong. Thats really a shame, because I like the package. It's light, easy to use (although I do agree with Craig that every single time I had to move my focus light out of the way, but it's really not a big issue), and if only I had used it correctly, I would have known if the image quality was good. I have a few remarks about the package, but I mailed you those, and it seems you're working on them already. I would definitaly give the SubSee another chance.

 

I like to read about all the math, but what we really need is a side by side shootout of the diopters. Many people are interested in this. Maybe we can get this done by a wetpixel member and arrange for that person to receive some equipment.

[Alex_Mustard 0]

I like to read about all the math, but what we really need is a side by side shootout of the diopters. Many people are interested in this. Maybe we can get this done by a wetpixel member and arrange for that person to receive some equipment.

 

I'll happily do this. Plus I have no bias having never tried either a Macromate or Subsee.

 

Alex