Issues with Fantasea Bigeye Lens for G10

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!

Sharon's most recent post was made in response to an email I sent Fantasea a few days ago. I took the lens to Catalina for a day trip and tried to dive with it again in San Diego's Wreck Alley. This is a video I took where you can see the fogged up corners at the bottom: YouTube - bigeye problem

My lens was stored in a "cool and dry" place (in my well-padded camera bag), and when I got on the boat, I "submerged it in cold water" 15 minutes before the dive. Water temperature down The Yukon was 57 degrees. It wasn't sunny that day either; it was overcast and the lens wasn't exposed to heat.

I just want someone to admit that there is a possibility that MY lens is defective. Awesome that Jack's works perfectly, but MINE DOES NOT and would like for Fantasea to take a look at it. I had to dive with that thing underneath my arm in Catalina because it was utterly useless. Also, be careful tightening the bungee cords. One of the cheap plastic hooks got bent when I tightened my bungees to make sure it sits still on the housing. Almost lost it when it came off.
 
UWShutterBug; 7" + 5"+strobe adapter (about 2")

fuggler; as both Sharon and I clearly stated; if you have moisture inside the lens, yes return it to Fantasea for service, per the link I posted. Your video is inconclusive, some of that is flare. I would also try loosening the lens shade and swiveling it around a bit or even adding to it with some black plastic when in the sun like that. They looked into additional lens coatings and it won't do anything more.

I think if you ask they will upgrade the mount as soon as they are available. I'm going to see if I can get kits for my customers, but I have no information now.

Jack
 
Fuggler is clearly shooting into direct sunlight in this video, this does not appear to be a fogging issue but one of lens flare.

None the less, Fuggler is welcome to make a Customer Service Claim through our website and we will do our best to check out Fuggler's claim in record time.

Howard
Fantasea Line
 
Fuggler is clearly shooting into direct sunlight in this video, this does not appear to be a fogging issue but one of lens flare.

None the less, Fuggler is welcome to make a Customer Service Claim through our website and we will do our best to check out Fuggler's claim in record time.

Howard
Fantasea Line

sigh

Yes, I see the flare dots from shooting up into direct sunlight, but that's not what I was referring to. I thought we already agreed that the corners looking like that (as they did in other people's sample pictures on this thread) is a result of fogging. I'm asking Sharon how to go about sending this back for the development team to check out.
 
Fuggler, the fog is sun flare as well, IMHO. Did you look at the lens uw? It's very easy to see or not if there is fog. If you look at my shots you can see how light flare looks like fog. It's just on a plastic that isn't as sharply defined.
The corners are showing as that's where the flower petal shade isn't.
Jack
 
Fuggler, the fog is sun flare as well, IMHO. Did you look at the lens uw? It's very easy to see or not if there is fog. If you look at my shots you can see how light flare looks like fog. It's just on a plastic that isn't as sharply defined.
The corners are showing as that's where the flower petal shade isn't.
Jack

Jack, first off, thanks for taking the time to take those images.

A couple of quick comments...

Your sample, which is a bit hard to tell from the small images, appears to be much sharper (more on that issue later) and much, much sharper in the corners.. and the lens flair looks nothing like that shown with G10's.

Some of this could be from differences in how much of the lens each camera is using, as the Fuji has a slightly smaller aperture when wide open (smaller diameter).

But I believe the confusion is from two overlapping issues:

1. Lens flare will happen in the corners.

2. Any fogging of the lens, makes lens flare hugely more obvious.

The result is that what our experts think is just lens flair, is actually lens flair from the fogging...

Let me see if I can show the issue.. please take some time and compare these images with Jack's....

After entering the water...I adjusted my strobes.. they stayed in the same position during the whole dive... I initially got images like this:

soapfishtest3.JPG


Keep in mind my strobes are farther out and pointed out farther than Jack's...

And this (notice in the upper left hand side, just above the fish, there is more "flair".

soapfishtest5.JPG


Vis, by the way, was around 25 ft.

Then this:

Soapfishtest2.JPG


At that point I look at the lens, and it appears that there is a very light haze on the inside of the lens... and keep in mind that I had just gone thru about an 8 degree thermalcline.

So, to see just how bad it really was.. I took this image.

soapfishtest6.JPG


Remember, I have not moved my strobes...

Non-strobe pictures.. regardless of which direction I point the camera, show the "lens flair".. into the sun... away from the sun... pointed down.. all have it (I think I know why).

So I decide to wait (how stupid of a suggestion is that one..) and see.. and go to cutting out as much normal light as possible..., and you get this:

Soapfishtest1.JPG


Notice that the middle 1/3 is now pretty clear....but both sides (matching the fogged appearance above).. are just blurry... really blurry. Notice that Jack's pictures do not look like this.

So what is really happening here? Well, fogging or any film on the inside of the lens makes the lens flare issue several times bigger.

My strobe position never caused any lens flare.... but even just back scatter could make enough light to cause it to show up.

Here is another image from that dive:

soapfishtest4.JPG


Get close enough and that back scatter was not the issue, and you get blurry...they are both the same thing.

Ambient lighting, in hazy water is a killer in this regard.. as particles are reflecting light in every direction.. under those conditions...no position or method will work.

Right now, off Destin, the surface water is around 84, the air was around 90 and the bottom is 77...if there is moisture in the air space.. it will condense on the lens.. and it will do it at the sides first (thinner)...a month or so from now it will be twice that temperature gradient.

However, looking at the above video, and my lens after weeks in a cool, dry environment... there appears to be a light film on the inside... which is somewhat mottled.. just like the appearance in the video. That film gets easier to see when the lens is cooled, but it is there all the time.

To answer a couple of other "expert" points...

1. Moisture inside the air space = fogging... and telling someone on a dive to just wait 10 minutes is perhaps the stupidest suggestion I have ever heard (I timed my cold water test, and it took almost 2 hours to clear). If this is the company's "expert", it is no surprise it does not work.

2. How could I possible get the outside of the lens dry, while the inside was still fogged...wow...that one was really, really hard..I wanted the lens to cool down quickly... so I used cool water....and then....walked outside in the cool air... but as it was not going away, after a while, I just brought it in and used some warm air blowing on it until the outside was room temperature, but the inside was still cool to take the pictures...which I did not need to do, as over an hour later, it was still easy to see.

I believe they made a fair number of bad lens...and are convinced that anyone that has an issue is an idiot...could not possibly understand how to delicately use their beautiful and perfect product. I don't have a clue what that patchy haze is over the inside lens, but am willing to bet, from the images I have seen, that there are others with the same condition.

Note: To see the haze, you have to have a strong, single light source.. and look at an angle thru the lens, you also have to make sure that both surfaces on the outside are absolutely clean.

And for the record, I was trained in photography by Minor White, all my Physics classes were for physics majors and am an engineer....
 
Puffer, they make the lenses in a controlled production environment, but hey they don't make them one at a time and things happen. I'll let Sharon get back to you, which she will, but to my un-trained eye it looks like the lens is misaligned. And it may be so on the mount. Have you double checked that your camera is squarely mounted inside the housing? ie the lens into the port? If it's tilted, it might explain some of this...I know a long shot, just an idea.

If you see moisture inside the lens, it is bad and needs to be dealt with by them.

However, there are soft corners from these lenses, just as there are from more expensive Inon lenses. It has to do with the curvature of the dome into the corners, don't ask me the physics, but the same thing happens on small domes with rectilinear lenses on DSLR systems. A smaller aperture can help, and I do believe the Fuji F200 has a better sensor and lens than the Canon, my opinion only.

The lens I used was grabbed off the shelf, made in the same lot as yours. In no way was it prepared or special.

Anyway, as Howard and others have stated, return the lens for warranty service/replacement.

There is no conspiracy, there is no "fair number" of bad units. You are an early adopter, as far as I know the issues are not widespread other than the few posters who've mostly had issues from flare.

Jack
 
Inon lenses do have corner distortion and typical fisheye distortion but not as bad as what we are seeing in these pictures posted by Mr. Puffer.

Typical result with Inon 100WAL with dome:
IMG_1384_edited-1.jpg


But you cannot put the Inon lenses on a G10 so if wishes were dollars or however it goes, seems like these lenses are better than nothing.

N
 
Jack, nothing that is obvious.. I did tighten the attachment lines to make sure it sat square on the lens and checked it (after seeing some of the images)..also checked for air bubbles.

I don't have an issue with soft edges, rather expect that, but in the above case 2/3's of the image is blurry..which was not what any sample image I have seen looked like.

Puffer, they make the lenses in a controlled production environment, but hey they don't make them one at a time and things happen. I'll let Sharon get back to you, which she will, but to my un-trained eye it looks like the lens is misaligned. And it may be so on the mount. Have you double checked that your camera is squarely mounted inside the housing? ie the lens into the port? If it's tilted, it might explain some of this...I know a long shot, just an idea.

If you see moisture inside the lens, it is bad and needs to be dealt with by them.

However, there are soft corners from these lenses, just as there are from more expensive Inon lenses. It has to do with the curvature of the dome into the corners, don't ask me the physics, but the same thing happens on small domes with rectilinear lenses on DSLR systems. A smaller aperture can help, and I do believe the Fuji F200 has a better sensor and lens than the Canon, my opinion only.

The lens I used was grabbed off the shelf, made in the same lot as yours. In no way was it prepared or special.

Anyway, as Howard and others have stated, return the lens for warranty service/replacement.

There is no conspiracy, there is no "fair number" of bad units. You are an early adopter, as far as I know the issues are not widespread other than the few posters who've mostly had issues from flare.

Jack
 
https://www.shearwater.com/products/peregrine/

Back
Top Bottom