BigEye Lens Vs. Wide Angle Lens

[Nemrod]

It's CONNICK Nemrod, at least use my name right when you go off on me. :mooner:

I NEVER said the BigEye WAS a WAL. It does exactly what it says it does: corrects the FOV so that you get about what you can shoot above water uw. For $99 it's a big improvement and the corners seem to be pretty sharp. I don't know what other info you could of wanted...

I did correct you that the WAL-01/02 IS a WAL It does have about a 100 FOV. BUT my experience is that both it and the Inon 105AD are that they suffer from chromatic aberration and soft corners because they are not a dome.

The Inon 165 is a GREAT lens.

There, that's all she wrote folks. Gees.

YMMV.

I will stock the 67mm version as well as the M46 and G10 versions, maybe the Fuji one.

Jack

Sorry about the name spelling but I was not "going off" on you, I clearly stated that perhaps you could help explain --in other words---deferring to your expertise on the subject, that you took offense is your problem, not mine.

No where did I quote you until now nor respond to anything you said, I simply asked for your expert opinion to explain how they work for the OP. No worries, I have now answered my own question and I fully understand how they work and what they do and how they compare to other solutions.

N

 

[dhaas]

Nemrod,

Of course a INON 165 degree shot will have a wider FOV (frame of view) in it. That wasn't what was being asked.

What was being asked was if the new Fantasea products can help the flat port narrowing of lens angle cameras "see" wider. And it will do this. Restoring the Canon G10 (or whatever other housing their product will work) FOV underwater.

You seem to not want to call 28mm equivalent Wide Angle. I disagree.....If it isn't then why did Nikon call their revered film Nikonos 28mm lens a Wide angle? It was even corrected for UW use!

You being an engineer and spewing specs doesn't mean you're right either. You still have to calculate (or cipher in my non-engineering mind) how FAR away you shoot your photo before it even will be apparent.

Peruse any UW photo web site and you will many, many shots taken with super wide angle lenses from too far away. So having 100, 105 or 165 degree FOV didn't mean a hoot to the UW photographer because they weren't close enough

I appreciate engineering for what it is, a means to an end. I'm more interested in the end result than how it works. And maybe that's just me.....

Again, no harm no foul

dhaas

 

[Nemrod]

Nemrod,

What was being asked was if the new Fantasea products can help the flat port narrowing of lens angle cameras "see" wider. And it will do this. Restoring the Canon G10 (or whatever other housing their product will work) FOV underwater.

dhaas

Dave, it is just you, NO, that is not what was asked and you are confusing threads with the G10 and Bigeye thread which I did not participate in.

Here is the question asked by the OP, quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Was wondering if some one could tell me what the difference between the
BigEye Lens M46 Vs. FWAL-01 Wide Angle Lens, and if the BigEye Lens will give me a wide angle effect?"

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

He asked for a comparison between a more traditional wet lens and the new Big Eye and if it would produce a "wide angle effect" and I answered. No, it will not produce a true wide angle effect but it will give a useful result. I do not have the wet mount FWAL-01 but it is very similar to the Inon 105AD and 100WAL which I do have and which you agree is similar and therefore my comparison and information is valid, they produce an underwater FOV of about 90 to 100 degrees diagonal, considerably greater than the FOV of the bubble lens at 65 degrees (with a native 28mm lens).

Quote dHass below:

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Peruse any UW photo web site and you will many, many shots taken with super wide angle lenses from too far away. So having 100, 105 or 165 degree FOV didn't mean a hoot to the UW photographer because they weren't close enough "
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Concerning the above statement, if you go to any photo website you can also see just as many that needed a wide angle lens and many photos that could not have been done without. No, 28 mm is not a wide angle lens underwater, it presents an equivalent to a 35mm perspective underwater, give or take, which is a normal perspective lens, on land normal being 35 to 65 mm lenses. Underwater 28mm is hardly (barely) wide angle but still a useful focal length definitely and it is good to see these "bubble" dome correctors available to finally allow people to get the full performance and corrected perspective for their housed land cameras with 28 to 35 mm equivalent lenses.

The Nikonos 28mm was corrected for underwater without a dome and yes they called it wide angle but they also had a 20mm and a fisheye because Nikon knew that a 28mm lens underwater was not wide enough for many subjects, it is a good fish portrait or head and shoulder lens. The Big Eye "bubble lens" will produce a corrected 28 mm FOV underwater of about 65 degrees diagonal.

David, you keep repeating this, "no harm, no foul" and putting a little smiley face on it, let's review, go back and read your attack on me in post number 6 and thereafter. I am afraid there has been some harm. We used to be friends, not sure can use that term any longer in regards to you. Life is like a box of chocolates, you never know what you are going to get and that is all I have to say on that.

James

 

[JackConnick]

No offense taken Nemrod. You might want to phrase your questions as less of a rant, buddy.

Maybe semantics is all, but I agree with Dave 28 or 35mm is certainly a "wide angle effect" What is true W/A I'll leave up to the beholder.

Jack

 

[Puffer Fish]

Wow, who knew that question would bring out such emotion?

I just tried Nemrod's picture (hold the camera at arm's length) and take the picture at 28mm..other than the field of view being flat, there would seem to be about a 10% difference from his image (I have long arms, so would suggest each person do their own test).

If I understand everyone.. the key points are:

1. The bigeye restores the lens back to it's original FOV (28mm equivalent, in the case of the G10)

2. This is a wide angle, but "wide" is somewhat of a grey area. It is not a really wide angle.

3. Really wide angle "fisheye" lens are wider, but with the wide angle comes some other issues.

4. The "best" wide angle for taking the best pictures may not always be from a superwide angle, and that many people would be well served to use a standard wide angle.

I hope I covered the main points.

 

[EPE]

Hi all

I really enjoy all the post and "such emotion" generated. I agree with James aka Nemrod (it's a good practice to use the real name to sign a post) about "life is like a box of chocolatesa" but for all folks, it's a good idea to mantain the calm, we always have to remember that everything start from a question from somebody.

In my case I had a doubt about buying or not the WD-4 dome from Ikelite to the housing of a SX200, but finally I'm clear: I don't hace a clue (joke

). Really, all the discussion just end with a very useful list of key points, at least to me (thanks for that Puffer), because I only want to use the real WA capacity of the camera (eq. 28mm) it's clear that I only have to buy the dome and nothing else.

Thanks to everybody: you helped me without knowing it. Try to enjoy this wonderfull place instead of going into great discussions: remember that everything under water looks larger, even people..

Enrique