Aquatica dome ports

[ckhorne 0]

I've sold my Hugyfot housing to a gentleman in Germany, so I'm about to purchase an Aquatica housing for my 5D mark II.

 

One of my big complaints with the Hugyfot was edge sharpness when using my 10-22mm with their 4"(?) mini-dome, even with every combination of diopter I tried. So... I'd rather not repeat the same mistake again.

 

Aquatica sells three dome ports - 6", 8", and 9". The 9" is out of my budget, which leaves the 6" and 8" domes. I don't want the same sharpness problems I had with my Hugyfot's 4" dome, but I still need to transport the new package around. Specifically, I really want all my UW camera gear to fit in my Pelican 1514, as it did before. If that won't be possible, then so be it, but the requirement is high on my list.

 

So... what are the advantages of one size over the other? I don't do over/under shots (at least not on a regular basis), but are the other advantages of the larger dome? The price difference really isn't an issue at this point. Are there any limitations to the 6" dome that I'll run into?

 

I'm looking at using the Canon 17-40mm and Canon 15mm fisheye lenses.

 

Also, for size reference, what dome port is pictured in this gallery? The 6"?

Edited February 9, 2010 by ckhorne

[james 0]

Hi Chris and welcome back! And congrats on the purchase of your full frame camera! :-)

 

I think you'll find that with either the 10-22 (from the past) or the 17-40L, you'll need the biggest dome you can get to get sharp corners. Check out Stephen Frink's lens and port tests to see what I mean.

 

So you DEFINITELY want the 8" dome. I think the one shown in the gallery is the 6" dome - and if you use this one w/ your 17-40L you will be disappointed w/ the results.

 

If you want to shoot a small dome, they are ideally suited to the 15mm fisheye or the 15mm fisheye + 1.4x teleconverter.

 

Cheers

James

[Scubysnaps 9]

Yes, the one in the gallery is a 6" dome

 

 

...I only own an 8" dome t the moment so cant really comment in how they compare. I recently travelled with the dome and managed fine with it and the shade protected in a 9" dia sweet tin. Some images on my website from the 8" using a 10-17 fisheye

Edited February 10, 2010 by Scubysnaps

[ckhorne 0]

James and Scubysnaps-

 

Thanks for the replies - it looks like the 8" dome is it. I'm not sure all this will stuff into my Pelican case, but I guess I can move strobe arms or something into my checked luggage.

 

Since we're on the topic... Do most people shoot wide angle with something like the 17-40 or with a fisheye? As I said in my original post, I used a 10-22mm on my crop factor camera (16-35 equiv), and felt it was wide, but not REALLY wide. I don't like the fisheye effect on land... will that be less noticeable underwater?

[mborosch 0]

James

 

Where can I find the dome port chart that Stephen Frink, created? I would be real interested in seeing that. I know I had problems with my old sea & sea set up, so when I switched over to the Aquatica system I got the 9.25 Glass dome and I still have edge sharpness issues with the Canon 17-40. I have a plus 2 diaopter that I bought for the Sea & Sea system, which did not really do any good, I'll have to try it with the new Aquatica system.

 

 

Thanks

 

Mark

Edited February 10, 2010 by mborosch

[Viz'art 24]

As James said, go for 8", the 6" will just not going to make you happy, t least with a larger dome. once you stop down, things fall into place easier.

[james 0]

Mark:

 

I think the tests are on Stephen Frink's blog, as well as posted here (do a search):

 

http://stephenfrink.blogspot.com/

 

James