Sebastian 0 Posted June 16, 2009 Sebastian,My statement wasn't directed at you but I just found it interesting that a housing manufacturer like Subal would give a customer test shots only if asked. Here on WP and everywhere else, it's been the dealers and sometimes clients who've been publicly testing the ports for potential customers. I would think they should have it on their website for every potential customer to see. I'm just a little disappointed with manufacturers that way. Hi Drew, when I thought about buying a housing for my Nikon D700 a few month ago I did a lot of research on the net. After a few hours of surfing I visited Seacam's website for the first time. Surprisingly their hottest housing for Nikon users seemed to be one for the Nikon D200. My first thought was: this business has been shut down, they stoped making housings after finishing the housing for the Nikon D200 and now the only thing that's left is their website. O.K. , after doing a few more mouse clicks I found out that Seacam U.S.A. is more up to date and Seacam is still alive, but this is still interesting. Sebastian Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kaarlin 8 Posted June 18, 2009 unfortunatly I do not have a testchard as you have Ryan... I tried the Sea&sea fisheye dome with two extensionrings (40 + 22). At 30cm away from the subject the pictures are ok for me at aperture 5.6 or 8. The strange thing was when I shot 60cm away from the subject the cornerunsharpness increased. It was terrible. I thougt the further away the better it would be. Ryan, did you try this combination on your testchard? What was your opinion about this? Has anyone an explanation why the cornersharpness increases when I go further away from my subject? Karin Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
John Bantin 101 Posted June 19, 2009 (edited) The problem with lens performance behind a dome is that it's quite easy to see if it works acceptably well but not so easy to see if it works perfectly. To this end I have five different manufacturer's housings and ports that I have collected over the years, which until recently were all used with 35mm film and the same 20mm Nikon lens. All were acceptably sharp. In that combination however, I can categorically state that the unlikely winner for edge to edge sharpness was the Sea & Sea with its large acrylic port. Since I went digital, I have bought housings and dome ports from three different manufacturers and used them with Nikon 12-24, 10.5. 16 (FX) and 10-17 Tokina. Two were glass and one is acrylic. Again all are acceptably sharp but the winner by far is the Sea & Sea optical glass port in conjunction with the cheapo Tokina. In fact I have just returned from Bali with the D700/16 and am off to BVI and have decided to take my D200/10-17 combination instead. I guess that small manufacturers don't have the resources to really get things perfect and a degree of luck comes into play. I see a lot of contributor's material that comes into the office that is very soft at the edges and blame that on the use of compact domes. Small businesses sometimes take risks that larger businesses would not. Some years ago I queried the fact that the dome port of my Subal rotated too easily after one flood and one near flood. I checked my spare O-rings and found that I had a set of slightly differently sizes but nobody seemed to be able to say which were correct. I took them to DEMA where I showed them to Rolf of Subal and was shocked to be told that the British distributor supplied his own (blue) O-rings and that they were not of the correct gauge! Edited June 19, 2009 by John Bantin Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
loftus 42 Posted June 22, 2009 (edited) I know this is an extremely sharp lens, but it is not without it's distortion issues at the wide end. Even topside these are noticeable, and particularly if the camera is tilted at all. On our Oceanics Whitetip trip I had the chance to compare images taken with the Tokina 10-17 and 1.4 TC to the 14-24 on a D3x and also the new Nikon 10-24 on a D200, and I preferred the the distortion of the Tokina at the 17 end (still wider than 14mm rectilinear) to the distortion of the 14-24 and 10-24 at their wide ends. These lenses tended to make the sharks look thinner and more stretched, and this can be quite exaggerated if the camera is tilted in relation to the subject. whereas the Tokina made the sharks look like they had a little more girth. I know opinions may vary but I preferred the look of the Tokina. At the moment I've settled on the Tokina and my 17-35 as my WA choices underwater. It may be that a rectilinear can be too wide to give pleasing perspective underwater particularly with subjects very close. You can see some distortion in my topside pics I posted earlier today. (Look at the ballons near the edge of the images) http://wetpixel.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=30961 Edited June 22, 2009 by loftus Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
dougorama 0 Posted July 3, 2009 Who sells Athena gear in USA? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Phil Rudin 461 Posted July 3, 2009 I get all of mine from Reef, http://reefphotovideo.com/ I use the 220 mm dome with the Olympus 7 to 14 zoom and Athena extension. Phil http://www.sfups.org/Galleries/PhilRudin/index.html Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
