Dome port choices for space saving

[MichaelB 2]

Hi! I’m trying to figure out whether my 6.5inch/165mm dome, paired with a 10-24mm DX lens on my Nikon D500, is worth packing alongside my 4 inch/100mm minidome & fisheye lens. Alternatively, I will just bring the fisheye and minidome, and wait to use the rectilinear wide-angle lens until I can splash out on an 8 or 9 inch dome. This will save me a fair amount of luggage space in the meantime as well.

The questions I have are mainly:
- Will IQ/corner sharpness be even nearly acceptable with the 6.5 dome & 10-24mm lens? 
- Will the fisheye & minidome on the DX sensor render *acceptable* corners for classic wide-angle shots at a pinch?

Thanks for the advice! 

[Stoo 46]

Michael, I use the same camera with a Tokina 10-17. At home, where I shoot wrecks exclusively, I use an 8" acrylic dome. When space is an issue and I'm shooting reefs, I use the 4" minidome. As I see it, there are no disadvantages at all the the smaller dome, other than over/unders I suppose. On the other hand, the mini dome allows me to focus right to the surface of the port, so I can shoot essentially what is wide angle macro. The other advantage in this situation is that because of the small size and small hood, it's easier to light tiny subjects since the dome isn't in the way.

Here are two shots from Browning Pass from last month. With the nudi shot, the dome was almost touching the nudibranch, but I could still get some appealing background.

With the shot of the two warbonnets, they were tucked into a little crevice with both an overhang and "underhang". Again, I was able to get the minidome right up to within an inch of the two fish, but still get the wide angle I needed. I will add that because these two fish were tucked well back, most of the lighting is from my little focus light. (It was shot at night). (This shot is cropped a bit, top and bottom).

Anyway, my point is that I would not have been able to get either of these shots using a larger dome.

As for corner sharpness, my dome is an Aquatica and it was specifically designed for the Tokina 10-17, so it's sharp corner to corner. Honestly, the only reason I use the 8" dome at home is because it adds a little buoyancy. I don't use floats at all, so in freshwater, the rig is fairly heavy.

 

 

[TimG 62]

Hey Michael

Like Stoo I use a D500 with a Tokina. I've mulled many times of having a little extra reach with the 10-24 but always concluded that I would be buying yet another lens that I probably would not use that often!

I've also got a 4" and an 8" port. Yep, the 8" is great for over/unders which are very difficult indeed with the 4" unless it's flat calm.

But for "normal" use can I see any difference? Nope. 

You don't mention what the FE lens is. If it's a 10-17 Tokina I certainly would not bother using up valuable luggage space by hauling both FE and the 10-24. If it's a 10.5 FE then, depending on what you are expecting to photograph, I might be tempted to take the 10-24 setup as well. But for me, FEs on a D500 with a mini dome are pretty damn good for the vast majority of WA situations.

[MichaelB 2]

On 11/9/2022 at 5:00 PM, Stoo said:

Michael, I use the same camera with a Tokina 10-17. At home, where I shoot wrecks exclusively, I use an 8" acrylic dome. When space is an issue and I'm shooting reefs, I use the 4" minidome. As I see it, there are no disadvantages at all the the smaller dome, other than over/unders I suppose. On the other hand, the mini dome allows me to focus right to the surface of the port, so I can shoot essentially what is wide angle macro. The other advantage in this situation is that because of the small size and small hood, it's easier to light tiny subjects since the dome isn't in the way.

Here are two shots from Browning Pass from last month. With the nudi shot, the dome was almost touching the nudibranch, but I could still get some appealing background.

With the shot of the two warbonnets, they were tucked into a little crevice with both an overhang and "underhang". Again, I was able to get the minidome right up to within an inch of the two fish, but still get the wide angle I needed. I will add that because these two fish were tucked well back, most of the lighting is from my little focus light. (It was shot at night). (This shot is cropped a bit, top and bottom).

Anyway, my point is that I would not have been able to get either of these shots using a larger dome.

As for corner sharpness, my dome is an Aquatica and it was specifically designed for the Tokina 10-17, so it's sharp corner to corner. Honestly, the only reason I use the 8" dome at home is because it adds a little buoyancy. I don't use floats at all, so in freshwater, the rig is fairly heavy.

 

 

Stoo, thanks for the great info, it’s super helpful. I think I will stick with the minidome! Also, fantastic photos. 

[MichaelB 2]

On 11/9/2022 at 5:41 PM, TimG said:

Hey Michael

Like Stoo I use a D500 with a Tokina. I've mulled many times of having a little extra reach with the 10-24 but always concluded that I would be buying yet another lens that I probably would not use that often!

I've also got a 4" and an 8" port. Yep, the 8" is great for over/unders which are very difficult indeed with the 4" unless it's flat calm.

But for "normal" use can I see any difference? Nope. 

You don't mention what the FE lens is. If it's a 10-17 Tokina I certainly would not bother using up valuable luggage space by hauling both FE and the 10-24. If it's a 10.5 FE then, depending on what you are expecting to photograph, I might be tempted to take the 10-24 setup as well. But for me, FEs on a D500 with a mini dome are pretty damn good for the vast majority of WA situations.

Thanks a lot Tim, very helpful, and it’s reassuring to hear that the minidome + FE will work for most scenarios. It was originally with the Sigma 10mm f/2.8 but I’ve just picked up a Tokina 10-17 for that extra reach. If I feel the burning need for over/unders in the future, I will consider an 8” dome then. 

[TimG 62]

3 hours ago, MichaelB said:

Thanks a lot Tim, very helpful, and it’s reassuring to hear that the minidome + FE will work for most scenarios. It was originally with the Sigma 10mm f/2.8 but I’ve just picked up a Tokina 10-17 for that extra reach. If I feel the burning need for over/unders in the future, I will consider an 8” dome then. 

[Stoo 46]

On 11/9/2022 at 12:41 PM, TimG said:

Hey Michael

Like Stoo I use a D500 with a Tokina. I've mulled many times of having a little extra reach with the 10-24 but always concluded that I would be buying yet another lens that I probably would not use that often!

Interestingly (to me only, probably) when I moved to digital a bunch of years ago, I picked up a gently used D90/Aquatica which included a Nikon 12-24. I decided quickly that it wasn't wide enough for the wrecks I shoot, so I added a 10-17. After not using the 12-24 for a few years, I thought I'd sell it, but before I did, I took it to Belize and decided it was a superior WA lens for sharks, just because of the extra reach you mentioned, but also, it lacked the distortion that came with the 10-17, so after shooting with it on a few days, I decided I'd keep it (besides, you never get what you think a used lens is worth anyway).t

So after deciding that this was new favourite lens, I was messing with my gear one night on the bed, and of course somehow I managed to knock that lens off the bed and watched it drop about 2.5 feet to a solid, mahogany floor. And just like that, my lovely AF 10-24 was AF-less. Getting home, I called Nikon for an estimate and they advised it would $800 minimum, which is about 2/3 the price of a new on in Canada. I opted to keep my eyes open for a used one, and found a pristine, newer version for $500.

So I think both are good lenses, but the 18-24 isn't going to work in a 4" dome!

[Mags 4]

Am I right in thinking the Aquatica mini dome fits directly onto the Subal housing (type 4?). Just want to know for I know I will scratch my current dome sometime ! Thanks

Edited December 9, 2022 by Mags
notify replies needed