Considering Downsizing and looking for advice on RX100

[Hoag]

Depends on how wide you need to go. A Fantasea BigEye weighs only 200g and is pretty small, but it's basically a wet dome - no real optics inside - and all it does is restore the in-air FoV of your 16mm (24mm equivalent) - basically the long end of your 10-18mm in a dome. If you need a wider FoV, matching or exceeding the wide end of your 10-18mm, then you need a real lens - Nauticam WWL-1 is considered to be the best (and it's the only one that I know of that has a glass front element), and Fantasea/AOI UWL-09F gets good reviews too. Weefine WFL01 (marketed Kraken KRL01 in North America) is another option, but all of these are quite heavy - they're not huge like a dome, but they have a lot of heavy glass inside, so your back will feel it when it's in your carry-on, and woe betide you if you hit an airline that enforces carryon weight limits.
The most IQ per unit of mass/volume that you can get is probably the UW-Nikkor 15mm f/2.8 via NEX-to-Nikonos adapter, but you'd be giving up zoom and autofocus. I've shot a manual fisheye underwater (7Artisans 7.5mm f/2.8), and it's not too difficult, but there is no denying that it adds to your workload quite a bit.

Thank you. Do you have any experience with or know anything about the UWL-H100? I have heard good things about the Kraken, but it is almost the same size as my Nauticam Dome, so there is little to be gained by going to it. I have heard nothing but praise for the Nauticam WWL-1, but at a little over $1700CAD, it is a very big investment.

Still looking at options, and I have the advantage that I don't currently have a trip planned so I have time to research. Perhaps the Fantasea UWL-9F might be the best compromise of cost. size, and IQ.

It reminds my of the dilemma You have 3 criteria: cost, size and Image Quality. Pick and 2 and sacrifice the 3rd.

 

[Hoag]

I think the most significant difference might be for macro (f11 max with a wet diopter has me wanting more) and depending on which generation of RX100, overheating with extended video recording in 4K. I’ve been using a RX100IV for the last 2 years/260 dives and my biggest want is better macro. The very narrow field of view at f11 offers a very limited focus range which can be quite challenging for some of the smaller critters Wide angle is fine..........but could also be better. But then again, I’m lusting after full frame already.

Thank you. I shoot almost exclusively stills, so video is only a very minor concern for me, so I don't think overheating should be an issue. My big concern, is that right now, for wide angle, I have a 7 inch dome, and that is what I am trying to down size. I do have a (67mm) diopter, so I should be able to use that for macro whether I move to a new system or keep my existing one.

 

[Barmaglot]

Thank you. Do you have any experience with or know anything about the UWL-H100? I have heard good things about the Kraken, but it is almost the same size as my Nauticam Dome, so there is little to be gained by going to it. I have heard nothing but praise for the Nauticam WWL-1, but at a little over $1700CAD, it is a very big investment.

No personal experience, but this might be helpful: The Ultimate Wet Lens Sample Post | Mozaik UW
Among others, there are sample images from UWL-09F, WWL-1 and UWL-H100 mounted on A6300/A6500 with 16-50mm PZ. Corners look pretty good on all three.

 

[Hoag]

No personal experience, but this might be helpful: The Ultimate Wet Lens Sample Post | Mozaik UW
Among others, there are sample images from UWL-09F, WWL-1 and UWL-H100 mounted on A6300/A6500 with 16-50mm PZ. Corners look pretty good on all three.

Thanks. I actually had seen that, but my original post was considering downsizing my whole system, as the conversation evoled into Wet Wide lenses, I was looking for info in addition to this (first had usage where and when possible).

Mozaik is a great shop and where I will probably order from. They have an outlet in Canada so I can not only get my prices in Canadian Dollars, but I don't have to pay duty. On top of that, it is a family run business that still places a huge value on customer service and satisfaction.

_________________________________________________________________

Since my goal is to downsize, this video gives a pretty good idea of the size of the UWL-9F on a housing for a Sony A6XXX housing. I think that this might be my best option.

 

[Hoag]

I just thought of another option. I had been thinking all along of either switching to a "compact camera" such as an RX100VA, or getting rid of my 10-18mm lens and 7' dome port, but I had never considered getting rid of my port for the 16-50 PZ kit lens. Granted, the savings in size will not be as much as simply getting rid of my dome port, but it my be viable in comparison to replacing my dome port with a Wet Wide Angle lens. The Sony/Zeiss 16-70 is very favourably reviewed, and it uses the same dome port as my 10-18mm (Nauticam part # 36129). That way, for about the same amount of money, I can get a better lens for everyday use than my kit lens, add the appropriate zoom ring, and I can totally eliminate one port from my kit.

 

[Barmaglot]

But then you're totally giving up macro; the 16-70Z has a maximum magnification of just x0.23 - do you only ever shoot wide-angle? I mean, it could be a valid choice depending on your typical diving destinations, but I just came back from three weeks in the Philippines, and out of 42 dives in my album, I had my 90mm macro lens mounted on thirty of them, 16-50mm on five, 10-18mm on six, and 7.5mm fisheye on one. Giving up macro completely in the name of downsizing seems just... harsh.

 

[Hoag]

But then you're totally giving up macro; the 16-70Z has a maximum magnification of just x0.23 - do you only ever shoot wide-angle? I mean, it could be a valid choice depending on your typical diving destinations, but I just came back from three weeks in the Philippines, and out of 42 dives in my album, I had my 90mm macro lens mounted on thirty of them, 16-50mm on five, 10-18mm on six, and 7.5mm fisheye on one. Giving up macro completely in the name of downsizing seems just... harsh.

I don't shoot a lot of Macro (I have 60 year old eyes and to be blunt, I simply don't see the really little stuff) but depending on where I go, I could make due with the 70mm end on the 16-70mm or if I am going to a place with a lot of macro, I could bring along my 16-50PZ & its port with a diopter. It the past, my "Macro" shots have been Christmas Tree Worms, Feather Dusters & Flamingo Tongues with the odd Juvenile Spotted Drum or Arrow Crab in the mix.

 

[outofofficebrb]

@Hoag I have been using a UWL-H100 with dome this whole time too

 

[Hoag]

@Hoag I have been using a UWL-H100 with dome this whole time too

How do you like it? Have you ever tried it without the dome and if so, what were the results like?

 

[AlMitch]

I have the original RX 100 and have also always had the UWL-H100 with dome and I am pretty happy with it....my problem is that I only have 1 strobe so that is way more of a problem.

_DSC5330 by Angmo Al, on Flickr

I have looked at upgrading to a mirrorless but I really like to have two kidneys, prefer not to have to sell one. ALSO the size of the systems really is a factor...
But the macro working distance is a big issue for me! I love the tiny things and often have two wet lenses screwed together so I really struggle with the knife edge focus plane.
That is why the new RX 100VII is so interesting, it has a far bigger zoom and I hope this will enable me a tad more distance to the subject and a bit more focus depth.

Beautiful beast by Angmo Al, on Flickr

The new RX100VII suposedly has much of the A9 autofocus wizardry so it really does look like an amazing, all be it expensive point and shoot!