SubSee Adapters?

[cor 0]

Very cool! So there you have it. Keri, want to send Alex a SubSee? Now to get a Macromate, an Epoque and maybe a Woody? Anyone in the UK that can loan Alex any of these? Would save a lot of postage.

[Alex_Mustard 0]

I'll be diving later this week... Can't dive today as flying to Germany tomorrow!

 

For me, though, it is not just a case of direct comparing solutions as each is a slightly different tool for slightly different images. Reviewing them is about identifying what types of images each is best suited to.

 

Alex

[Mariozi 1]

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

I think you can find one closer, but if you don't I can loan you my SubSee, it for the Sea&Sea compact macro ports though.

[SlipperyDick 2]

@TomR1 - We just did some tests, and apparently there were some quality control issues regarding the SubSee label orientation. This means that you'll have to just try the SubSee both ways to determine which way gives the best results. This should be blatantly obvious, since autofocus will be nearly impossible if oriented incorrectly. It SHOULD be oriented with the red stripe toward the subject. Sorry very much for the misunderstanding! Oh, and thanks for standing up for the SubSee....Craig is just being the devil's advocate

 

@James - BONUS POINTS for you, James! haha good eye!

 

@Eskasi - Check out the bottom of this post for some example shots I took with the SubSee last summer.

 

@Craig - There are lots of quotes from you that I'd like to respond to. OK, here goes....

 

"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."

 

I think the issues I brought up about your image are actually quite relevant. Your image really didn't contribute anything useful to the thread... but if you posted an image taken with another +10 achromat on a similar primary lens, showing good corner performance, then I wouldn't have taken issue with it.

 

 

"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?"

 

That's indeed an interesting discussion. Start up the thread, and I'll be there!

 

 

"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."

 

That's a great expectation... but the fact remains...without using aspherical surfaces or additional elements in a lens system (which both increase cost), dual-element achromats (i.e. Macromate and SubSee) have certain optical limits as to how much edge distortion can be corrected.

 

 

"Your latest ruler shot shows a soft bottom in the image. "

 

The bottom is soft because the ruler is angled, so it's out of the focal plane, just like Mariozi's.

 

 

"Your text shot looks good but your DOF shots look like the corners are soft."

 

Hmmmmm.... OK, now I'm in a metaphorical 'circle of confusion'.....it looks to me like the entire bottom/top edges are "soft", not just the corners... again because they are out of the plane of focus. Those shots also clearly show crisp focus from edge to edge in the focal plane.

 

 

"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."

 

I don't have any FF bodies, so don't have any test shots. Chances are that the image will vignette though, since it wasn't designed for photographic use.

 

 

"So you see, MacroMate claims 2:1 using a 100mm macro lens much as SubSea does. "

 

The SubSee (not SubSea ) is a +10 diopter achromat. The Macromate that I have is approximately a +8 diopter achromat (between 125-135mm focal length from my tests). Not sure if their new lenses are different strengths though, which is entirely possible. Actually, I'm technically not even really sure if it's even a dual element system.

 

 

"I could snap a SubSea in two with just my hands."

 

OK, Craig...or should I call you "Arnold Shwarzenneger" ...It was plenty to point out that a piece of an adapter broke...so I'm not sure that this comment was really necessary or appropriate... And for the record, if it was one of the SubSees/Adapters that I sent to be tested, they were units with manufacturing defects, so that could have caused problems. Out of the hundreds sold, we've never had a complaint of any component breaking.

 

 

"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."

 

The Macromate and SubSee are the only two worth comparing since they are the most similar power and same lens design, although the SubSee is more powerful, so is more prone to edge distortion (which is almost unnoticeable anyway....), making even THAT comparison unfair. The Inon is a dual-plano convex system, so has more chromatic aberration issues (inherent to this type of lens system, from what our optical engineers tell us). The Woody's and Seacam are both single element lenses open to the water, so lose 66% of their power and offer no chromatic aberration correction. I don't know much about the Epoque, other than it is around a +7 diopter lens.

 

"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."

 

Well, if you neglect a lens, of course it will get scratched. Contrary to what you're implying, the Macromate isn't immune to neglectful treatment either. In fact, the SubSee even comes with a lanyard and lens caps, which the macromate does not. But don't get me wrong... the macromate is a great tool...but it isn't as inexpensive, light, and versatile (i.e. interchangeable lenses) as the SubSee.

 

And I don't know what sort of "punishment" you're putting your rig through that would require a macro adapter to be "bomb proof".....but I've done close to 500 dives with my original SubSee and original port adapter, and it is still in perfect working condition (just has some scratches).

 

Being a moderator on here, people likely value what you post more highly than others... so maybe you could be a little more careful with some of the claims you've decided to make ("...break it in two...", "...not in the same league as...", etc.), especially since you don't own one, have probably never used one, and are likely basing all of your statements on a few minutes of handling one on your recent trip. Thanks, Craig! Maybe I'm just being overly sensitive though, in which case, I apologize for the defensive stance I've taken throughout this post.

 

 

"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."

 

The new SubSees have M67 threads on both ends (male and female), so maybe I can convince you to try one afterall!

 

Seriously though, the new SubSee is 100% different than the "old" one. To name a few improvements: it has a much larger diameter, M67 threads on both ends, optical glass windows instead of acrylic, multi-layer broadband anti-reflection coatings, and 2 strengths (+5 and +10)...but even the current version is capable of really amazing stuff.

 

"In the end, what matters is results"

 

Here are some results from the SubSee (with Nikon D300 + 105mm lens):

 

1

1/200, F16, ISO200

 

2

1/250, F32, ISO200

 

3

1/200, F22, ISO200

 

4

1/200, f32, ISO1000 (oops)

 

5

1/125, F25, ISO200

 

6

1/200, F51, ISO200

 

 

 

 

 

@Cor - The only units I have left are a couple of dinged up ones that I bring to dive shows, and the couple that I sent to you/Matt/Eric. The problem is that in the next few weeks we'll be receiving the new SubSee units which have been improved in just about every way.... so any testing that is done with the current one will have to be redone to give an accurate representation of what it can do. In any case, I will gladly send Alex a new one when it arrives. In the meantime, maybe Matt can send Alex one of the units that I sent out to you?

 

@Alex - What port are you using?

 

 

 

 

Keri

[craig 0]

Craig is just being the devil's advocate

That's right. I have no compaints with SubSee.

 

I think the issues I brought up about your image are actually quite relevant. Your image really didn't contribute anything useful to the thread... but if you posted an image taken with another +10 achromat on a similar primary lens, showing good corner performance, then I wouldn't have taken issue with it.

Sorry my image didn't contribute anything for you. You and I agree that the Hoya +3 isn't an interesting comparison so why pursue it further?

 

That's a great expectation... but the fact remains...without using aspherical surfaces or additional elements in a lens system (which both increase cost), dual-element achromats (i.e. Macromate and SubSee) have certain optical limits as to how much edge distortion can be corrected.

I agree, and people (should) want to see that. How much difference should we expect between diopters when the power varies from +3 to +10 or perhaps even wider?

 

"Your text shot looks good but your DOF shots look like the corners are soft."

 

Hmmmmm.... OK, now I'm in a metaphorical 'circle of confusion'.....it looks to me like the entire bottom/top edges are "soft", not just the corners... again because they are out of the plane of focus. Those shots also clearly show crisp focus from edge to edge in the focal plane.

Perhaps, but it appears to me that the corner softness is different from left to right and is different from the center top and bottom. I don't care to argue it, but you could see how that might be relevant to a full frame shooter.

 

The SubSee (not SubSea ) is a +10 diopter achromat.

My apologies on the spelling.

 

The Macromate and SubSee are the only two worth comparing since they are the most similar power and same lens design...

I disagree, though your information is informative. The whole point of such an exercise is to determine what works best for your style of shooting, and the claim specifically was that IQ was at least as good as the competition. Since all the diopters mentioned are competition, the choice of comparison was not actually mine.

 

Contrary to what you're implying, the Macromate isn't immune to neglectful treatment either.

...

And I don't know what sort of "punishment" you're putting your rig through that would require a macro adapter to be "bomb proof".....but I've done close to 500 dives with my original SubSee and original port adapter, and it is still in perfect working condition (just has some scratches).

I didn't say the MacroMate was immune, just that it is quite rugged, and I never said I required bombproof, just that my solution is so. I would claim it is silly to say that the SubSee is as tough as a MacroMate or some 67mm solutions such as mine. That is not the same as saying that the SubSee isn't tough enough. That would require a qualitative judgement that I'm not making.

 

"I could snap a SubSea in two with just my hands."

 

OK, Craig...or should I call you "Arnold Shwarzenneger" ...It was plenty to point out that a piece of an adapter broke...so I'm not sure that this comment was really necessary or appropriate... And for the record, if it was one of the SubSees/Adapters that I sent to be tested, they were units with manufacturing defects, so that could have caused problems. Out of the hundreds sold, we've never had a complaint of any component breaking.

...

Being a moderator on here, people likely value what you post more highly than others... so maybe you could be a little more careful with some of the claims you've decided to make ("...break it in two...", "...not in the same league as...", etc.), especially since you don't own one, have probably never used one, and are likely basing all of your statements on a few minutes of handling one on your recent trip. Thanks, Craig! Maybe I'm just being overly sensitive though, in which case, I apologize for the defensive stance I've taken throughout this post.

My comment may not have been necessary to you but it was aimed at those with "big doubts". It was not meant to disparage the SubSee product.

 

Let me state this otherwise. I believe the SubSee is strong enough but I have not used it. I believe other products may be even more immune to damage in the face of abuse but I don't think that should be the basis for anyone's decision.

 

The new SubSees have M67 threads on both ends (male and female), so maybe I can convince you to try one afterall!

 

Seriously though, the new SubSee is 100% different than the "old" one. To name a few improvements: it has a much larger diameter, M67 threads on both ends, optical glass windows instead of acrylic, multi-layer broadband anti-reflection coatings, and 2 strengths (+5 and +10)...but even the current version is capable of really amazing stuff.

I consider all that excellent news. As I've said here earlier, my personal preference is for a press-on, thread-on, or bayonet type attachment. I don't personally want the swing type because of how I position my strobes and light. I like seeing the larger diameter and weaker power option for longer focal lengths. The new +5 thread-on may be my personal best choice.

 

I would be happy to try both these new diopters. In response to this thread and discussions on the trip, I've been gearing up for some wet diopter pool testing already. I must obtain a 105mm macro lens since that is truly what people will want to see. I am also obtaining an underwater repro stand for precise focusing and I'll need a proper Nexus port. Perhaps I can include SubSee products in the test. I already have Inon, Marumi, and MacroMate diopters to test and I'd like to get an Epoque in addition to yours. I'd be happy to take input on how to conduct the tests. I want to to show focusing range and power and I want to show sharpness at some comparable magnifications. I have a suitable underwater macro test chart.

 

Thank you for all the excellent examples and the fairness of your replies.

[TomR1 5]

Craig-

 

I have used both a screw on (1 up and 2 up) and a slip on wet diopter I and I will bet big money that you'll find the swing arm approach better if you use it. You can position the swing are to swing any way you want-right, left, up, down or any place you want. However, at F/32, if you position your strobes as close to the subject at the subsee is you will blow out the image. (I have had to drop 2 stops in RAW to compensate) I tend to position my strobes parallel to below the subject about 4" away from the port and don't have interference.

 

Look, if you are like me you first get a shot at maximum magnification (say 8") with a DX 105 lens, then move slowly to get the GREAT super magnified shot. With the subsee I simply flip it into place with my shutter finger without losing the critter in my viewfinder. I can kinda do the same thing with my slip-on (not a screw on) but it caused more commotion and is lots slower.

 

Your comment about lower magnification and higher depth of field seems accurate on the surface of the comment but I find that the DOF is razor sharp in any event and that I get more DOF with the subsee at F/32 than I do with a lower magnifier at f/24 or so.

 

When you get a focus lock at F/32 and the camera can see the preflash you will get a nice exposure. If you catch the critter in the right position it will be a great shot.

 

I certainly did NOT get the right position in this shot but it should be sufficient to check out edge issues (F/32 1/160)

[craig 0]

Tom,

 

If I used a 105mm, shot at f/32, didn't mind using a more powerful modeling light, and used larger strobes for macro then I might agree. I use longer focal lengths and a weaker diopter so that I don't need to switch in the diopter during the process of shooting. I like my modeling light where it is (that's what's in the way) and I don't have trouble blowing out macro subjects. I install or remove my diopter before moving in for a shot. That's a less realistic proposition for a 105 and a +10. With that combination a swinging arm may well be the best solution.

[Phil Rudin 461]

Hi Kari,

 

Looking forward to trying out the new +10 lens. I use a threaded 67 mm Athena port and an Athena ring flash which is also threaded 67 mm, will the new style diopter fit between the two without any additional adaptors? I also see that you are using a ring flash, is it in front of the diopter or be hind it? If I attach the Inon M-67 in to the front of the ring flash (flash is threaded 67 mm) with the Olympus 50 mm at very closest focus the lens creates a shadow in center of the light ring. Have you had this problem with your system.

 

Thanks,

 

Phil Rudin

 

http://www.sfups.org/Galleries/PhilRudin/index.html

[SlipperyDick 2]

Sorry my image didn't contribute anything for you. You and I agree that the Hoya +3 isn't an interesting comparison so why pursue it further?

 

Done.

 

 

I agree, and people (should) want to see that. How much difference should we expect between diopters when the power varies from +3 to +10 or perhaps even wider?

 

If we're talking about cemented achromatic doublets (as opposed to air-spaced achromatic doublets, triplets, aspherical lenses, etc., which are all a different story), then the +10 will likely have significantly more peripheral distortion. The quality difference will be most apparent at the widest end of the macro lens being used (100mm, 105mm, 150mm, etc.), since at closest focus, a very small portion of the achromat is being used, so the field effectively 'flattens'.

 

In terms of quantifying the difference in peripheral distortion... I've never needed to do such a thing, so haven't taken the time to look this up in my optics books. When I find some time, I'll look into this more though.....that would be good to know!

 

An interesting phenomenon that I noticed through some tests I just did..... stacking two +5 achromats (which is an equivalent +10) gives much nicer edges than a single +10 achromat. Makes me want to abandon the +10 version altogether, and just make slimmer +5s that can be efficiently stacked.... although this would increase cost, and weight.... hmmm....

 

 

Perhaps, but it appears to me that the corner softness is different from left to right and is different from the center top and bottom. I don't care to argue it, but you could see how that might be relevant to a full frame shooter.

 

Understood. I'm going to head over to a camera store today hopefully, and mess around with some full framers with the larger SubSee lenses that we've got here. You've piqued my interest in this matter.

 

 

I disagree, though your information is informative. The whole point of such an exercise is to determine what works best for your style of shooting, and the claim specifically was that IQ was at least as good as the competition. Since all the diopters mentioned are competition, the choice of comparison was not actually mine.

 

I know what you mean, and to a degree I agree with you. BUT, I still feel like it's a bit of a stretch to call the other wet diopters our competition (other than maybe the Macromate).... while they are all "super macro tools", they each have different strengths, so are suitable for different situations. In the same way, I wouldn't say a Canon 100mm (max reproduction 1:1) and Canon 50mm (max reproduction 1:2) are competitors, even though they are both "macro lenses". But now I'm just splitting hairs, and being a bit of a devil's advocate myself.

 

 

I didn't say the MacroMate was immune, just that it is quite rugged, and I never said I required bombproof, just that my solution is so. I would claim it is silly to say that the SubSee is as tough as a MacroMate or some 67mm solutions such as mine. That is not the same as saying that the SubSee isn't tough enough. That would require a qualitative judgement that I'm not making.

 

Sorry, just my defensive side coming out again.

 

From what I've heard, the Macromate is CNC machined from a block of Polyoxymethylene (POM, aka Delrin), while the SubSee Adapter is made from Acrylonitrile butadiene styrene (ABS plastic). Just for the heck of it, here are material properties of the two materials:

 

.....................................................ABS.............Delrin

Tensile Stength (psi).......................7000............10000

Flexural Strength (psi).....................11000..........14000

Tensile Modulus of Elasticity (psi).....320000........450000

Water Absorption @ saturation (%)...0.70.............0.90

Density (lbs/in^3)...........................0.037...........0.051

 

So the materials themselves are actually quite similar. But the Macromate uses much more material, so feels tougher, but as a result is much heavier. We could have easily made ours more solid by making components thicker, but felt it really wasn't necessary for the amount of abuse we expect they'll be taking.

 

 

I consider all that excellent news. As I've said here earlier, my personal preference is for a press-on, thread-on, or bayonet type attachment. I don't personally want the swing type because of how I position my strobes and light. I like seeing the larger diameter and weaker power option for longer focal lengths. The new +5 thread-on may be my personal best choice.

 

The +5 SubSee will be a welcome addition to the line up, since lots of people are overwhelmed by the power of the +10 version. And for shooters like you that use a 150mm lens, the +5 should still get you close to 2:1.

 

But, as Tom mentioned, the hinged SubSee Adapters can be oriented in whichever way you'd like, so it doesn't necessarily have to flip in the direction of your focus light. I agree though, that depending on the composition I'm going for, sometimes I'll need to reposition my strobes to swing the adapter in place...but this takes just a couple of seconds, so isn't really an issue for me.

 

 

I would be happy to try both these new diopters. In response to this thread and discussions on the trip, I've been gearing up for some wet diopter pool testing already. I must obtain a 105mm macro lens since that is truly what people will want to see. I am also obtaining an underwater repro stand for precise focusing and I'll need a proper Nexus port. Perhaps I can include SubSee products in the test. I already have Inon, Marumi, and MacroMate diopters to test and I'd like to get an Epoque in addition to yours. I'd be happy to take input on how to conduct the tests. I want to to show focusing range and power and I want to show sharpness at some comparable magnifications. I have a suitable underwater macro test chart.

 

Send me your email address and we can discuss this possibility further.

 

Thank you for all the excellent examples and the fairness of your replies.

 

My pleasure, Craig! "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you"

 

 

 

Looking forward to trying out the new +10 lens. I use a threaded 67 mm Athena port and an Athena ring flash which is also threaded 67 mm, will the new style diopter fit between the two without any additional adaptors? I also see that you are using a ring flash, is it in front of the diopter or be hind it? If I attach the Inon M-67 in to the front of the ring flash (flash is threaded 67 mm) with the Olympus 50 mm at very closest focus the lens creates a shadow in center of the light ring. Have you had this problem with your system.

 

Hmmm.... I'm not sure about the new SubSee fitting BETWEEN the port and ringflash --- that seems a little unlikely, but I'm not sure what the geometry is like --- but it will certainly fit in the ringflash's thread. I don't actually use a ringflash myself. What you're seeing in the images that I posted are the circular flashtubes from my Ikelite DS125 strobes... I can see why you would think that though.

 

I have a hinged SubSee Adapter designed for the Athena ringflash already actually, and I can easily design in a front-mounted diffuser to help get light on the subject. Let me know if this interests you, and I'll do what I can to help you out!

 

 

Keri

[rodriguezfelix 0]

Anyone have seen Dan Schwartz lately?

Edited April 23, 2009 by rodriguezfelix

[Viz'art 24]

Anyone have seen Dan Schwartz lately?

 

 

LOL, I luv ya man, you crack me up!

[bmyates 3]

Whew! I just spent a half hour reading the last half of this thread, and it reminds me of a homeowners association meeting! (Apologies for the reference for those who've never had the "pleasure" of attending one.)

 

I look forward to an official Alex Mustard comparison. Like most of Keri's posts I've read in the past (and here), it should prove very informative.

 

Then again, some of Keri's results make it hard to argue that the SubSee isn't a great tool for certain circumstances. The proof is in the pudding and all that. I'm REALLY anxious to try my new SubSee out on my trip to Rangiroa in a few weeks...I'll post results afterwards.......I have no doubt that the mathematical shrapnel in this thread will still be flying when I get back.

[TomR1 5]

I have no problem with the tenor of this thread. I appreciate craig comments and the interplay between Craig and Kerri.

I now know that:

1-Kerri is coming out with a new design

2-Craig feels that shooting a 150 a weaker diopter is advisable and I know his process which is different from mine.

And I'm sure I'll learn a lots more. Thanks to everybody.

 

FYI, Jeff Mullens shoots a subsee on an e-330/ 50mm

[Autopsea 7]

I'm REALLY anxious to try my new SubSee out on my trip to Rangiroa in a few weeks...I'll post results afterwards.......I have no doubt that the mathematical shrapnel in this thread will still be flying when I get back.

 

I would advice wideangle in Rangiroa. Tiputa is big stuff with a lot of current (= impossible to stop for macro) and Avaturu is wonderfull big and close silvertip sharks....

 

but, of course, if you can dive a lot and have all your time to try more divesite, just do : )

[Scuba_SI 39]

Down the Side of the motu in Rangi is ok for macro, but i really wouldnt bother as autopsea says. You might be just too late to see the Grey Reefs mating, but fingers crossed you see it in the pass, it's awesome.

 

If you head out to Fakarava, there is a nice nudibranch site next the the channel marker closest to the dock near the main village. I used to dive it every fortnight and found some quite cool stuff.

 

 

I've seen the SubSee in action with Kris and Keri and whilst wasnt convinced to start with it won me over when i started to see the images.

[bmyates 3]

I appreciate the comments on Rangiroa, guys, and I do plan to shoot super wide angle (14mm, 15FE and/or 16-35mm II) almost all the time I'm there. However, depending on how close the sharks seem to be, I may use my Sigma 50 or 70 macro (1:1) lenses on a few dives.

 

Both of those lenses are (IMHO) nice fish portrait lenses on full frame cameras, and if a drift dive ends up someplace with less current at the end of a dive, or if I'm just tinkering around the resort beach/reef, I might be able to use one of those lenses for small stuff...and flip down the SubSee. I know from experience that you can't have the BEST of both (wide angle and macro) worlds on one dive with any one lens. But occasionally, I don't mind settling for somewhere in the middle.

[craig 0]

You want to use a SubSee with a 50mm or 70mm macro on full frame?

[bmyates 3]

You want to use a SubSee with a 50mm or 70mm macro on full frame?

 

I wondered if anyone would raise an eyebrow at that!

 

I'm not sure if it will work or not; I'll need to do some experimenting! If it works at all, I'm sure the image would be "cropped" (perhaps severely on the 50mm) by the SubSee, but I'll be using a 5DII with 22mp, so even if only the center 50% of the image is usable, I could conceivably get a decent shot of a small subject. As I said, it will be far from ideal macro OR wide angle, but I might play with it nonetheless! We'll see...

[SlipperyDick 2]

Ouch! (to the Dan Shwartz comment)

 

I may use my Sigma 50 or 70 macro (1:1) lenses on a few dives....on full frame cameras...

 

I'm not sure if it will work or not; I'll need to do some experimenting! If it works at all, I'm sure the image would be "cropped" (perhaps severely on the 50mm) by the SubSee, but I'll be using a 5DII with 22mp, so even if only the center 50% of the image is usable, I could conceivably get a decent shot of a small subject. As I said, it will be far from ideal macro OR wide angle, but I might play with it nonetheless! We'll see...

 

50mm or 70mm lens on a FF sensor with the +10 SubSee? *waving a red flag* Don't get your hopes up, because you'll probably be disappointed. Not only will it vignette (with the 'old' version you have), but your closest focus distance will likely be inside the SubSee unit. The 70mm would certainly be a better choice between the two (in terms of macro shooting).

 

The new SubSees will work much better for these types of lenses, because of their larger diameter, and optional lower strength.

[bmyates 3]

Ouch! (to the Dan Shwartz comment)

 

 

 

50mm or 70mm lens on a FF sensor with the +10 SubSee? *waving a red flag* Don't get your hopes up, because you'll probably be disappointed. Not only will it vignette (with the 'old' version you have), but your closest focus distance will likely be inside the SubSee unit. The 70mm would certainly be a better choice between the two (in terms of macro shooting).

 

The new SubSees will work much better for these types of lenses, because of their larger diameter, and optional lower strength.

 

Dang! I wish I'd known there was a new, improved one a'comin' - just bought THIS one! Oh well! If you (Keri) say it won't work, then I guess I'll just leave the Subsee home this trip, and wait for a trip where it's worth totin' the 100mm...

[SlipperyDick 2]

Dang! I wish I'd known there was a new, improved one a'comin' - just bought THIS one! Oh well! If you (Keri) say it won't work, then I guess I'll just leave the Subsee home this trip, and wait for a trip where it's worth totin' the 100mm...

 

Don't get me wrong, the current SubSee is still a very powerful, high quality optical tool. The method you mentioned will likely work, but of course, it's not the best option for getting supermacro images. And even when the new SubSees are released in a few months, we're still probably not going to be recommending their use with lenses shorter than around 100mm.

 

It certainly wouldn't hurt to try it out on your Rangiroa trip! I'm actually interested to see what your particular setup is capable of with it.

[ornate_wrasse 0]

FYI, Jeff Mullens shoots a subsee on an e-330/ 50mm

 

It was when I was diving with Jeff last fall in Tulamben that I first heard about the subsee. He recommended that I contact Keri about getting one.

 

 

when the new SubSees are released in a few months, we're still probably not going to be recommending their use with lenses shorter than around 100mm.

 

Since I own the 105mm VR lens, it sounds like the new SubSee will complement my lens collection very well.

 

I would like to order one from you. Please advise how I can do that. It will be perfect to take with me when I dive with Alex Mustard in January 2010 in Grand Cayman at his workshop. By then, Alex will have tested it thoroughly and I can benefit from his knowledge of how to use it

 

Ellen

[sgietler 1]

It will be perfect to take with me when I dive with Alex Mustard in January 2010 in Grand Cayman at his workshop.

 

Ellen

 

9 months away, wow. I have to wait 4 more days to use mine again, (the last time was 4 weeks ago), and it's killing me!

 

Scott

[TomR1 5]

My guess is that Little Cayman will be the perfect place to get used to a subsee. You need calm water. On the af-105-vr I use c (continuous autofocus), spot metering and both focus and shutter priority shutter release. Focus release priority is really frustrating because you can't understand why the d@mn camera won't take the shot that looks good in the viewfinder BUT once you see the shot on your laptop you'll understand-The shot wasn't really in focus.

 

My process with the Af-105-vr was to take a shot without the subsee at 1:1, then move in. Comparing shots at 1:1 cropped 50% with full frame subsee shots at 2:1 may surprise you. The depth of field (or lack of it) makes the shot completely different.

 

Alex uses the E-330 which has working underwater liveview. He still reports only 1 of 10 shots in focus.

[reubencahn 2]

Does anyone have a Subsee they're willing to part with. II'm in desperate need of one for my wife to use as a magnifier on our upcoming PNG trip. 'm happy to pay full price. That way you can replace yours with the new improved version as soon as they're available.