Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Chris Kippax

5” precision dome on FF with 8-15mm & 1.4TC

Recommended Posts

Hi All

I hope you are well and getting some diving in!

I Had a test out in the pool with the Canon 8-15mm and kenko 1.4 TC on a full frame camera. I was a bit concerned the image quality would be rubbish.

For my level of photography the image quality seems ok and I am looking forward to getting it in the ocean. 

I have some Nudibranch shots in mind at my local site , so hopefully I can bring those ideas to fruition. 

Finding any info on this exact setup is not easy, if anyone else has some pertinent info to share please do.

I hope to update this thread with some shots when the water clarity allows. 

FE9DBCA4-3861-4BDC-BC4F-027B887D5B18.jpeg

29FCC165-25D5-407B-8191-E90100234F65.jpeg

Edited by Chris Kippax
Update
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/21/2020 at 6:30 AM, Chris Kippax said:

Hi All

I hope you are well and getting some diving in!

I Had a test out in the pool with the Canon 8-15mm and kenko 1.4 TC on a full frame camera. I was a bit concerned the image quality would be rubbish.

For my level of photography the image quality seems ok and I am looking forward to getting it in the ocean. 

I have some Nudibranch shots in mind at my local site , so hopefully I can bring those ideas to fruition. 

Finding any info on this exact setup is not easy, if anyone else has some pertinent info to share please do.

I hope to update this thread with some shots when the water clarity allows. 

 

 

Interesting report. For FF sensor the 2x TC would be the optimum for best angles of view (a real competition for the expensive, big and heavy WACPs). Did you try out the 2x TC?

I get very good optical results with Kenko 1.4x TC, Canon 8-15mm and Nauticam 140 (also Zen DP170) with small MFT sensor (EM1II and EM5II). IQ is, more or less, as good as without the TC, but AF becomes quite slow and is not so reliable any more. In addition, without TC the 8-15mm provides already the optimum AOVs for the small sensor...

Just to test the potential for FF (I am planning to upgrade), I purchased the Kenko 2x TC and tested it out over the water (with MFT; of course the 2x TC does not make sense with the small sensor): the result was discouraging: very soft images, even in the center...

 

Wolfgang

Edited by Architeuthis

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is very soft with chromatic aberrations on the edges. I had the same experience with Tokina and 1.4x really pretty bad

Share this post


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

It is very soft with chromatic aberrations on the edges. I had the same experience with Tokina and 1.4x really pretty bad

Tokina 10-17 with 1.4x is clearly worse compared to 1x (best IQ gives Tokina with 0.71x speedbooster). With Canon 8-15 I could not see a difference between 1x and 1.4x. This is my impression from MFT sensor (EM1II), that is smaller and should be more stringend for optical IQ compared to FF, since optical errors get "blown up" with MFT, when the final image is enlarged to a certain physical size...

I also think that Chris's images are soft, but this may well be a result of a wrong dome/extension combination: 180° diagonal fisheye on the small MFT sensor are tack sharp with Canon 8-15 - on the larger sensor they are supposed to become even sharper...

Rating IQ quality of images is difficult here, because of the 1 MB limit for upload. I suggest to post images in DPReviews for IQ judgement, since they allow up to 10 images in full size to upload per posting...

 

Wolfgang

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for the feedback, its good to hear the opinions of other members. 

Check out the images at original size in this DPR thread.

I used the port configuration specified at underwater camera stuff who makes the dome but I am no expert by any means.

http://uwcamerastuff.com/precision_5_dome.htm

I will keep going and see if I can get some decent results.

 

 

 

Edited by Chris Kippax
typo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Tokina 10-17 with 1.4x is clearly worse compared to 1x (best IQ gives Tokina with 0.71x speedbooster). With Canon 8-15 I could not see a difference between 1x and 1.4x. This is my impression from MFT sensor (EM1II), that is smaller and should be more stringend for optical IQ compared to FF, since optical errors get "blown up" with MFT, when the final image is enlarged to a certain physical size...
I also think that Chris's images are soft, but this may well be a result of a wrong dome/extension combination: 180° diagonal fisheye on the small MFT sensor are tack sharp with Canon 8-15 - on the larger sensor they are supposed to become even sharper...
Rating IQ quality of images is difficult here, because of the 1 MB limit for upload. I suggest to post images in DPReviews for IQ judgement, since they allow up to 10 images in full size to upload per posting...
 
Wolfgang

Am commenting on a the images we see here and on dpreview they are soft and have CA this could be to do with the TC not being canon not just the dome
Full frame will use the entire optic while MFT is a crop so edge aberrations go away
TC doesn’t change the focussing distance of the lens
I would start checking the situation on land and then work out underwater
The other issue is that you need to stop down the lens even more due to the TC

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Chris Kippax said:

Ah, now I see, you hide the images in the "Portrait and People Photography" subforum (I have a regular look in the "Underwater Photography" subforum, so I did not see your post)... :lol:

The full resoluton images are much better (again I complain that it is not possible to upload images at full resolution here; great forum for discussion but not for image comparison). In the center your images are crisp and tack sharp, at the edge they are difficult to rate, because there is not much except water and the child's extremities are certainly out of focus. But as Massimo says, with the small MFT sensor, we are using only the sweet central 25% area of the image circle, compared to FF, so the performance in the edges may vary...

Wolfgang

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Architeuthis said:

Ah, now I see, you hide the images in the "Portrait and People Photography" subforum (I have a regular look in the "Underwater Photography" subforum, so I did not see your post)... :lol:

The full resoluton images are much better (again I complain that it is not possible to upload images at full resolution here; great forum for discussion but not for image comparison). In the center your images are crisp and tack sharp, at the edge they are difficult to rate, because there is not much except water and the child's extremities are certainly out of focus. But as Massimo says, with the small MFT sensor, we are using only the sweet central 25% area of the image circle, compared to FF, so the performance in the edges may vary...

Wolfgang

Yes I tend to spend more time in the wildlife & people sub forum as they get a bit more traffic than the underwater photography sub forum

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Chris Kippax said:

Yes I tend to spend more time in the wildlife & people sub forum as they get a bit more traffic than the underwater photography sub forum

 

That is true. I started submitting underwater images to judged photography competition.

Photos with people do better, also landscape shots do well

Pictures with fish portrait score very low and macro near zero

So generally wide angle better if there are people in get more attention from non divers

Share this post


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

That is true. I started submitting underwater images to judged photography competition.

Photos with people do better, also landscape shots do well

Pictures with fish portrait score very low and macro near zero

So generally wide angle better if there are people in get more attention from non divers

So true! Especially for photo sales!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It should have more or less the same extension as a Nauticam 140mm dome they are both 180° domes  so the centre of curvature is about in line with the flat base of the dome so they should have about the same amount of extension.  The link you provided showed that you need 5510.24 extension - but ikelite don't provide the length of that.  Nauticam specifies a 50mm extension.   Your ikelite extension should be close to that length.

Looks pretty decent in the centre to me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks Chris appreciate your input,

Bill appears to have put a considerable effort into matching the dome port lengths. I concur about the 180 degree dome similarity but the unknown would be where the camera is situated in the housing? I presume some are further forward/back depending on manufacturer?

I am away from my gear but from memory the port length was quite a bit more than 50mm

I am not too concerned about corner sharpness as I only intend to use it for CFWA and would always try and frame most things against a dark or blue BG.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is not just the sharpness is the chromatic aberrations you can see green circle around edges. When you then combine them with blurred corners you can have some really weird effect
I wonder if the problem occurs even before you are behind the dome port


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Fair call Massimo, I will give it a test sans TC when I get a chance.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My experience with TCs on high resolution full frame has not been positive. I even bought the latest Kenko HD version, but I still found that the images were soft. I liked the results on cropped sensor cameras, but the D850 really showed their flaws.


Similarly, I would not chose to use a 5" dome with a full frame camera, even with a fisheye. I think the CA that @Interceptor121 notes is probably due to dome size, rather than lens combination. My minimum size is 7" with full frame.

Aperture plays a role here too. If you can always shoot with a small aperture (f/15 or so) you can get away with some things that you can't at f/11!

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, adamhanlon said:

My experience with TCs on high resolution full frame has not been positive. I even bought the latest Kenko HD version, but I still found that the images were soft. I liked the results on cropped sensor cameras, but the D850 really showed their flaws.


Similarly, I would not chose to use a 5" dome with a full frame camera, even with a fisheye. I think the CA that @Interceptor121 notes is probably due to dome size, rather than lens combination. My minimum size is 7" with full frame.

Aperture plays a role here too. If you can always shoot with a small aperture (f/15 or so) you can get away with some things that you can't at f/11!

 

Hence I suggested to check performance on land first then underwater. The TC will have issues of its own at times and needs stopping down already on land then of course you need to understand what it does in the dome subject to the residual field of view

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sign in to follow this  

Sponsors

Advertisements



×
×
  • Create New...