Fisheye FIX for the S90

[Nemrod]

OK, shot a few more pics after getting my laps in. They were doing a lifeguard class today and I had to stay out of their way so I could not do some of the things I wanted to but of course, I wanted to stay out of the kids way so they could get their guard certifications, I am a WSI and I remember the day well, what a workout that day was.

This series is with the Inon 165AD, single D2000, Av with ISO varying between 100 and 800:

N

 

[Nemrod]

These are taken with the Inon 100WAL T2 with dome, the first one at ASA800:

Inon 165AD at 3+ feet:

Inon 100WAL plus dome at about <5 feet:

So it looks like the 165AD gets me about a foot closer for about the same FOV, a little more wrap in the corners and it does focus better than the 100WAL with dome. The 100WAL seems to make the camera require a little more contrast for a good focus.

As you can see, now that I am beginning to get a bit more serious, notice all of a sudden I am in focus, I believe these shots should put to rest the idea that the S90 cannot focus through an Inon WAL or UCL lens.

N

 

[Nemrod]

How much deeper is the Canon port than it needs to be, to accommodate the S90 lens when fully extended in telephoto? How thick is the port?

Nemrod: you were going to post the answer to the above question for the FIX S90 housing. If you did, I apologize for missing the post, but would appreciate the data.

Well, I cannot find my caliper but this is about what I get from what I have been told. The Canon port is about 3mm deeper than needed. The FIX is about 2mm. So they are both very close.

Measuring my Inon AD mount on my DC-12 the distance from edge to port is 19mm. On the FIX using my AD adapter it is 16mm, using the 10Bar adapter it is 17mm.

When the S90 is zoomed to 35mm in the FIX housing the distance from port to lens is about 6mm. This is a total of port thickness (about 3mm) and 16mm plus 6mm equals 25mm.

Now, using my Canon 570 which does not have to zoom and with the Inon AD adapter it is port (3mm) plus 19mm mount depth plus 3mm to lens barrel face is 25mm.

So, the measurements (total) between a Canon A570 and DC-12 housing with Inon AD mount is the same as the FIX and S90 with my DIY AD mount and zoomed to 35mm and the FIX and S90 is 1.0mm greater with the 10Bar adapter mount than the Canon A570/DC-12.

Since the numbers are very similar with the Canon DC-35 housing and DC-12 I would expect if Inon were to provide the correct adapter then I guess the AD lenses would work. However, from the few net photos I have seen, their soon to be released mount looks like a 28AD, not an AD mount.

You can over science this stuff, while every mm counts, one this way or that is not a killer, now two and three and four, yeah because it starts to add up.

My calculated FOV with my 165AD, diagonal, seems to be averaging about 155 degrees. The 100WAL with dome however seems to be working at or near it's full 130 degrees, I calculate 126 degrees DFOV. This is very similar again to what I get using these exact lenses with my A570 Ikelite and Canon housings.

N

 

[VictorZ]

Not exactly my issue. I have the ULCS digital tray as well. I flipped it over so the lip is turned away from the camera. The issue I had was that the door to the housing would scrape against the tray when it was opened.

Problem solved. I took a piece of overhead projector transparency and made a spacer. A single thickness was almost enough. Two pieces of plastic was enough for the housing to sit off the tray that the door no longer scrapes.
View attachment 70357
View attachment 70358
View attachment 70359
View attachment 70360
View attachment 70361
View attachment 70362

dhuskins,

Thank you for the photos. Is "Big Blue 1x5AF LED" your focus light? How do you like it?

Thanks

 

[VictorZ]

Nemrod,

As I understand you still zoom to 35mm with 67mm/10bar combination? Do you have a link to the 10bar adapter? I could not find it on the optical ocean.

Also James Williams put this report on his site:

Canon S90 Fix Underwater Housing review|Underwater Photography Guide

about his experience with FIX 28AD and UFL/UCL 165AD

 

[Nemrod]

Nemrod,

As I understand you still zoom to 35mm with 67mm/10bar combination? Do you have a link to the 10bar adapter? I could not find it on the optical ocean.

Also James Williams put this report on his site:

Canon S90 Fix Underwater Housing review|Underwater Photography Guide

about his experience with FIX 28AD and UFL/UCL 165AD

The underwater photos there (the link) were from Compudude using a different mounting method than what I use for the 165AD lens. He is using the FIX 28AD kit. I am using the 67mm kit. I did the "dry" review .

Yes, I zoom to 35mm, actually I can get similar vignetting as in Compu sample photo at one notch of zoom and a good deal more FOV (and similar vignetting to the Compu pic). I prefer to just zoom to 35mm and this eliminates 98 to 100% of vignetting and gives a pleasing FOV in the range of 150 degrees best I can measure.

I am currently of a mind that the 100-28AD and dome may be the widest practical choice for this camera and housing. However it will likely need one notch of zoom also to eliminate native vignetting to the 100-28AD when equipped with the dome so if that is the case, it is a wash with the 165AD.

Until I see the WAL100-28AD with dome, WAL100 with dome and CORRECTLY placed 165AD go head to head with the Fisheye UWL-04, I am going to say, the Inon 100WAL and dome is as wide, prove it otherwise! That is my challenge to any taker.

I would email Jack or hit him up on his site, he has them (10Bar adapter) in stock or did, he is your man, and he has the fastest shipping going.

N

 

[CompuDude]

The underwater photos there (the link) were from Compudude using a different mounting method that what I use for the 165AD lens. He is using the FIX 28AD kit. I am using the 67mm kit. I did the "dry" review .

Correct. Scott borrowed my camera (S90 in Fix housing with 28AD mount and attached Inon UFL-165AD, manual mode with 1x Inon D2000 strobe) for a few shots on a dive the weekend before last to take a few test shots and write that review.

If I think about and find the time, I'll post some un-cropped shots at various zoom levels. I tried to do so on that dive, but conditions were not good... lots of surge, marginal vis, and not much ambient light, all meant I never found a spot that gave satisfactory results where I could really stick the camera solidly in one spot and shoot a proper series that gave illustrative results.

I'll be back out this weekend, and will try again, assuming I can borrow my friend's UFL-165AD again.

 

[Nemrod]

Y'all, I know sometimes I am a bit forceful . Do not buy anything based strictly on what I say and blame me later if you are not happy. I try to show photos and examples that illustrate actual results and use logical explanations and stick to facts but I am just a little guy stuck high and dry for the moment and have no special all seeing knowledge. I am not immune to opinion and bias. N

 

[Nemrod]

Another little thing, I go around and around, does she love me, she loves me not, is the 100WAL with dome better than the 165AD or vv. I don't know. The 165AD gives a few more degrees of field and focus right to the dome and is small and light. The 100WAL/dome is much less prone to flare and vignetting and regardless of what I said last week, this week, I am liking it better, next week, hazard a guess.

I did not get to go to my planned Coz trip in Feb. but I have a trip that will go off (if the vintage people do not ban me for saying vintage junk sucks) in a few more weeks and I plan to shoot both lenses in actual use--again.

Either are a good choice.

N

 

[dogdrjohn]

I tell you one other thing, the 105AD lens, I had one and I sold it on eBay some time ago. I was never really happy with it after I got my Inon 100WAL and then I put the dome on it and wish I still had the 105AD. But, I never got the results from it I did with the 100WAL or the 165AD but I hardly think my opinion is conclusive on that.

Nemrod

I am curious about your statement on the 105AD. You say you like the other two lenses better, but then say you wish you still had the 105AD. Is that because it is smaller and lighter and still does an OK job as a "narrow wide angle" lens?

thanks
John