Wondering about Zen 100mm dome

Please register or login

Welcome to ScubaBoard, the world's largest scuba diving community. Registration is not required to read the forums, but we encourage you to join. Joining has its benefits and enables you to participate in the discussions.

Benefits of registering include

  • Ability to post and comment on topics and discussions.
  • A Free photo gallery to share your dive photos with the world.
  • You can make this box go away

Joining is quick and easy. Log in or Register now!

jd950

Contributor
Messages
1,301
Reaction score
282
# of dives
I just don't log dives
I am wondering if somewhat the recently introduced Zen 100mm dome for Nauticam mirrorless housings offers any benefits (besides the always-popular glass vs acrylic debate) over the 3.5" or 4.33" Nauticam ports for the 8mm Lumix fisheye.

Anyone have any experience with this?
 
I have used both glass and acrylic domes. It is easy to scratch an acrylic dome, but it is also easy to buff out the scratch. If you don't want to fool with it, go glass.
 
Thanks, I appreciate your input but I was actually wondering about the usage of this particular dome in contrast to the 3.5 and 4.33 ports. I understand the acrylic vs. glass issues and have both. I could, for example, envision potentially better edge sharpness due to the shape of perhaps better color saturation due to the coated glass, and perhaps there are other noticeable differences or maybe none at all. I was wondering if anyone had experience with this particular dome and the Nauticam ports.
 
I have used the 4.33 inch dome with several different cameras and lenses and I own the 100mm Zen port for the E-M1 system. The port is a Subal type III port mounted on a Subal type III port adapter, which means that you can remove the 100mm port and use a Subal/ZEN type III port of 170/200/230mm as well. The glass port offers better image quality as well, but that is not be the compelling difference for me. It is a combination of the above and it also works well with the 12mm F/2.
 
I don't think anyone has answered your question yet jd950. I'll repeat it as I am also interested in how does the Zen 100 port compare with the Nauticam 4.33 and 3.5 ports when used with the Panasonic 8mm fisheye?
 
This is one of the longest running threads on Wetpixel regarding the E-M5 and contains all kinds of information. If you start reading on this page you will get some insight into how the two Nauticam ports work.

The glass v. acrylic debate is about as old as the chicken or the egg being first. I have attached one thread on this subject but a google search will get you dozens.

The answer is that the Panasonic 8mm lens has somewhat (this being in the eye of the beholder as we all see things differently) better image quality at all distances with the ZEN glass port. Not all glass or acrylic ports are equal, ZEN has an excellent reputation and is a best seller among knowledgeable underwater photographers. Most buyers end up making a choice based on cost so which port may be best for you is difficult to say. I may see a difference in image quality with ZEN that you don't and again having used these port extensively with the 8mm and several other lenses it is clear to me that the ZEN coated optical glass port/ports (i use the 170mm as well) have the best overall image quality if you are willing to pay the additional cost.

Olympus OM-D E-M5 - Page 15 - Mirrorless Cameras/Housings - Wetpixel :: Underwater Photography Forums



glass or acrylic dome port? - Digital SLRs/Housings - Wetpixel :: Underwater Photography Forums
 
Thanks Phil;

I guess that is the best answer available on this. I have read those threads you linked to. Although the Subal port and adapter has been available for a while, as I understand it, that same dome in the mirrorless mount is fairly recent. There have been discussions about pros and cons of using the 3.5 vs 4.33 Nauticam ports but I had not seen any where the Zen dome was also compared. I am assuming the 100mm Zen is not simply a glass version of either of the Nauticam ports.

I had actually wanted to avoid getting into the glass vs. acrylic issue, although I probably did not word that well.

Sadly, I have essentially no access to housings and ports where I live and I have to travel to dive, and even my pool access is limited locally, so it is almost impossible for me to handle housings and ports before buying them and hard to test ports and lenses underwater except on dive trips, so I rely heavily on what other people say in making buying decisions.
 
Does anyone have pictures taken with the 3.5" vs the 100mm vs the 4.33"? A side-by-side test to see the differences would be idea, but even anything comperable would be great.

I feel like I want the 100mm, but the image quality improvements might not be worth the price difference.

Also, what other lenses can each of these ports be used with on m4/3s?
 
P4271113.jpg950, The Zen 100mm port for Nauticam has been around for several years as a Subal type III port and a Subal type III to Nauticam Mini (mirrorless) port adaptor. The problem is that it appears that a lot of buyers didn't get the concept. So Zen just rereleased the port as the Zen 100 port for Nauticam Mini, combining the Subal III port and adapter as one part at the original dome port price.

The difference between the Zen 100 port and the Nauticam 4.33 and 3.5 ports is that the Zen port is a fisheye specific port, which will also work with lenses like the Olympus 12mm F/2, 17mm F1.8 and some of the pancake lenses. The Nauticam ports are more of a one size fits all type port for both fisheye and rectilinear lenses for Olympus, Panasonic, Sony NEX, Canon and Nikon mirrorless.

The Zen port has several upsides, you can read about these in my in depth review in the current issue of UwP = Your free Underwater Photography Magazine | Home page This is a FREE downloadable PDF magazine dedicated to underwater photography and yes it includes images. Bottom line I have used all of these ports and the Zen port while the most costly is also the best image quality wise with the Panasonic 8mm fisheye.

The ability to get very close with this lens is evident as the lens will focus all the way to the glass port.
 
Thanks Phil. I've read a lot of your posts and reviews, and appreciate your expertise when it comes to mirrorless setups. I will read the 100mm review you did again. A few follow up questions:

1. If I buy the 100mm in the Subal type III mount + adaptor, I could also use it with my Nauticam d800 setup (with the Sigma 15) with the right adaptor?
2. I believe you did a comparison a while back on Wetpixel between the minimum focus distance/magnification of the nauticam 3.5" and 4.33" with the Panasonic 8mm. The 3.5 did appear to provide meaningfully more magnification for CFWA. Would you say the 100mm falls somewhere between the 4.33" and the 3.5" in terms of maximum magnification for CFWA?
3. I'm bad at scratching up domes and this would be the first glass dome I own -- and scratches can't be fixed on glass, unlike acrylic. Do you find that even with careful use glass domes do eventually get scratched up to the point where they need replacement?
 
https://www.shearwater.com/products/teric/

Back
Top Bottom