Jump to content

Recommended Posts

I have a Sony a6400, Fantasea housing, and the 16-50 lens.  With this combination, will I get better resolution, etc. with a dome port or by using the Fantasea UWL-09F?  What are the pros/cons of each?

Thanks

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not all wet lenses are created equal to put one APSC size format I would not consider fantasea 

For what matters I would only consider Nauticam

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Interceptor121 said:

Not all wet lenses are created equal to put one APSC size format I would not consider fantasea 

For what matters I would only consider Nauticam

While the WWL-1 and the MWL are certainly the best wet lenses out there they are also by far the most expensive. Some people are not only looking for the best solution, but for the best affordable solution.

Unfortunately other manufacturers‘ wet lenses are not very well documented and it‘s often hard to find out whether they are compatible. The only solution is to order them, try them out in the bathtub and then send them back. There is no way to try them in the real world, because after a week of holiday it would be difficult to return them and the used market is a difficult one for underwater gear. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, hyp said:

While the WWL-1 and the MWL are certainly the best wet lenses out there they are also by far the most expensive. Some people are not only looking for the best solution, but for the best affordable solution.

Unfortunately other manufacturers‘ wet lenses are not very well documented and it‘s often hard to find out whether they are compatible. The only solution is to order them, try them out in the bathtub and then send them back. There is no way to try them in the real world, because after a week of holiday it would be difficult to return them and the used market is a difficult one for underwater gear. 

 

I have done the tests in the bathtub back in the days. The key issue is

1. Use of antireflactant glass between the lens elements

2. Very wide rear opening

3. being close to the port

https://interceptor121.com/2015/09/14/nauticam-wwl-1-wet-wide-angle-lens-review/

When I tested the Inon UWL-H100 with dome on the LX100 that at that date was the best lens and potentially still is in the rest of the pack the gap with the WWL-1 was considerable

For what concerns the Fantasea this is not different from many other lenses like the Fix UWL-04:

1. Front part is poly-carbonate not glass this is to contain costs, it means this lens will have less contrast and tend to flare. Whilst on a typical acrylic dome you do not have multiple glass elements exposed in a wet lens you do so this will compromise performance

2. The rear opening looks like the inon so it won't help the situation

3. Closeness to the port can only be assured with a good match between port glass and wet lens. This is guaranteed with nauticam products not sure what fantasea does but any gap deteriorates performance

It may be true that people do not have money but then you should not wonder for lack of performance. It is obvious that all the other lenses of the pack are made by the same subcontractor in china and they all have similar flaws.

Right now the best option still seems the Inon UWL-H100 with dome but being all glass is more expensive than the Fantasea or other that have parts in acrylic

There is no way to magically create performance out of weaker design or materials and wet lenses have been historically a compact camera small sensor business not MFT or APSC or full frame

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I use the A6300,  fantasea housing with the kit 16-50mm lens and the UWL-09F wet wide lens.  I have been shooting with it for about 2 years now.

It is great and convenient for obvs reasons - that you can switch between macro and wide angle on the same dive.  I have the QRS system so switching between a macro diopter and the wide angle is super easy.  With fantasea's wet wide angle it changes the minimum focal length and you can pretty much get as close as you like.  Something that touches the lens will be in focus.  The only draw back is the corners aren't super sharp.  You have to shoot at F13 or thereabouts to mitigate it which is fine good light, but not great at depth, unless you like darker backgrounds.  

It can flare a bit in the sun, but you can see this on the LCD screen, so just move or angle the camera around if it bothers you too much.

Short answer... I love it, but... I'm going to buy the 10-18mm lens and dome port soon because I want sharper images without having to stop the aperture down.

Here are examples of images.... anything wide angle in the last two years will be shot with the UWL-09F (and even some of the close up stuff).

https://www.instagram.com/aussie_bubbles/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, aussie_bubbles said:

Short answer... I love it, but... I'm going to buy the 10-18mm lens and dome port soon because I want sharper images without having to stop the aperture down.

You may be disappointed if you try shooting that combination wide open. I use a 10-18mm on an A6300, SeaFrogs housing with 8" dome port, and at f/8 the corners are still pretty soft.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, aussie_bubbles said:

 

Short answer... I love it, but... I'm going to buy the 10-18mm lens and dome port soon because I want sharper images without having to stop the aperture down.

 

The op question was wet lens vs dome

The Fantasea dome is a 6 inches port likely a cut of a smaller dome but still 1" less than what nauticam recommends

 

The 10-18 like any rectilinear lens will blur corners I would suggest to go for a fisheye that is supported by Fantasea actually a Tokina fisheye with a metabone adapter and a smaller dome. This is likely to be much sharper of anything else but it is a fisheye zoom so curved framesInsert other media

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/17/2019 at 10:14 PM, aussie_bubbles said:

Short answer... I love it, but... I'm going to buy the 10-18mm lens and dome port soon because I want sharper images without having to stop the aperture down. 

The Fantasea dome is 6", looks like it's a piece of a larger radius dome, but still a little on the small side.   with APS-C you will probably need f11 for sharp corners with a 15mm equivalent rectilinear wide lens.  Dome size and the required aperture scales with sensor size.  For the same scene the depth of field is greater with a smaller sensor, so I can use f8 with my 7-14 (14-28 equivalent) lens, equivalent depth of field on an APS-C requires f11 and full frame needs f16.  

Big domes makes things easier as the radius of curvature of the virtual image is larger meaning that the image is further away and difference in distance between the corners and centre of the virtual image is less requiring less depth of field to cover.

You might get better results at f8 than your UWL at f13 but to get the best out of the lens in the corners stopping down to f11 or so will certainly be a benefit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/17/2019 at 7:14 AM, aussie_bubbles said:

  You have to shoot at F13 or thereabouts to mitigate it which is fine good light, but not great at depth, unless you like darker backgrounds.  

Thanks for the info.  I have purchased the UWL-09F and made a few dives and used it with the a6400 and kit 16-50 lens.  The corner sharpness was very disappointing compared to my old NEX-5N with a 10Bar semi-dome and kit 18-55 lens.  But I was shooting mostly at F8 and F9.  So what ISO do you typically use when shooting at F13 at depth?

Thanks,

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/27/2019 at 10:29 PM, rwe said:

Thanks for the info.  I have purchased the UWL-09F and made a few dives and used it with the a6400 and kit 16-50 lens.  The corner sharpness was very disappointing compared to my old NEX-5N with a 10Bar semi-dome and kit 18-55 lens.  But I was shooting mostly at F8 and F9.  So what ISO do you typically use when shooting at F13 at depth?

Thanks,

I never shoot F8 or F9 with it.  Minimum is F11, but more often than not I use F13.  The ISO I use depends on depth and ambient light.  Usually 100 - 800 (at most I'd go 1100 but it gets too noisy).  I tend to focus on shallower depths... I seldom find that shooting beyond 20 meters it worth the effort unless there is a bucket list creature.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/27/2019 at 11:29 AM, rwe said:

Thanks for the info.  I have purchased the UWL-09F and made a few dives and used it with the a6400 and kit 16-50 lens.  The corner sharpness was very disappointing compared to my old NEX-5N with a 10Bar semi-dome and kit 18-55 lens.  But I was shooting mostly at F8 and F9.  So what ISO do you typically use when shooting at F13 at depth?

Thanks,

I am sorry for you. I am afraid you will learn that you need to spend more to spend less. Considering the sensor you are looking at f/16 to get some decent performance and will still be poor in my opinion as at that point diffraction will kick in on your kit lens

If the item is new sell it fast and buy a proper solution

Looking at those low rez instagram shots you can see that the edges are super soft anyway the whole shots are taken to minimise the issues and still look decent but overall it does not look the quality of an APSC and lower than an RX100 with a proper wet lens

Edited by Interceptor121

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sponsors

Advertisements



×
×
  • Create New...