• Welcome to ScubaBoard


  1. 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. Login or Register now by clicking on the button

nauticam housing and optimum (reduced) number of ports

Discussion in 'Panasonic Planet' started by stargost, Apr 8, 2012.

  1. Long-John-Silver

    Long-John-Silver Nassau Grouper

    108
    21
    18
    Yesss, thanks!

    Actually I'm really confused by different statements on seeral threads :(

    Here and above in this thread seems that the magic 4.33" dome would accomodate also the oly 9-18 while later Jack says no. It needs the 4" dome. Is it true?

    I think Nauticam should update their port page
     
    Last edited: Apr 27, 2012
  2. jd950

    jd950 Solo Diver

    # of Dives: 500 - 999
    Location:
    1,263
    266
    83
    Yes, I think I made a mistake when I referred to the 12mm working in the 4". I think it works in the 4.33.

    I agree they need to update their port chart. From their chart it does not even appear they accommodate the 12mm. I can't imagine it is the most effective advertising to publish a chart that omits lenses that can be accommodated.

    My suggestion to anyone with questions is to send an email to Nauticam USA sales. In my limited experience, they have been very responsive to questions. Get the information from the source.

    As far as minimizing ports, it would seem to me that if one purchased the 4.33" and the 4" ports then they are covered for anything they would want to use underwater except for macro, for which one would either want a flat port for the 45mm micro lens or for the 14-42, perhaps with a diopter.

    To me, two ports to cover a fisheye, a 12mm, a 9-18 and a 14-42 is pretty minimalist. On the other hand, if one really plans to take something like $2400.00 worth of lenses on a dive trip, worrying about whether they will all fit in one port or two ports doesn't seem like it is worth the anxiety. They don't add much weight or take up much space. it's not like we are talking about an 8" glass port.

    FWIW, I can't quite figure out what the 12mm would give me underwater that I could not accomplish with the 9-18 and 8mm.
     
  3. Long-John-Silver

    Long-John-Silver Nassau Grouper

    108
    21
    18
    I'll write them.

    I have the 4.33" dome and the lumix 8mm. I can borrow the Oly 9-18 and I'm curious if it fits inside the 4.33" and what result I get (of course without being able to zooming).
     
  4. kkfok

    kkfok Barracuda

    # of Dives: 200 - 499
    Location: Adelaide
    266
    32
    28
    I am thinking to use my 14mm with newly released Wide converter DMW-GWC1, not sure if it can be used with 4.33" dome port or not.
    [h=4][/h]
     
  5. Long-John-Silver

    Long-John-Silver Nassau Grouper

    108
    21
    18
    I use the NA-GH2 only for video so i don't know anything about photo...

    The 12mm is F2 while the 9-18mm is F4.5. It's never a good idea shooting at the widest aperture. My 8mm is unusable at F3.5. The same apply to the 9-18mm and all the lenses out there. So with the 12mm I can safely use F4.5 while with the 9-18mm I can't. Of course the nice spot on the 12mm lens is at F8.

    Just my 2c.
     
  6. jd950

    jd950 Solo Diver

    # of Dives: 500 - 999
    Location:
    1,263
    266
    83
    Valid points. Since strobes are pretty much always used for photos, it is not much of a problem to "stop-down" a lens to whatever aperture one needs, and often I want the increased depth of field of a small aperture anyway so usually, the speed of a lens is not of tremendous importance in that application. FWIW, and from what I have read, the 12mm is pretty good wide open and quite good even at 2.8.
     
  7. Long-John-Silver

    Long-John-Silver Nassau Grouper

    108
    21
    18
    It's not a question of lens only. It's both the lens and the dome, no matter of the lens/dome you have.
    Try to shoot wide open underwater and you'll see.

    here an example:

    [video=youtube;JSS7LBMuWCg]http://www.youtube.com/watch?list=PLC8C3973F222CBC8C&feature=player_detai lpage&v=JSS7LBMuWCg#t=182s[/video]

    Not shot on m43 but with a 5DMKII and a Tokina FE. Look at the angles: completely blurred.

    Here an example of a video of mine (a sickening first shoot with my setup). I left the Lumix 8mm wide open and of course...

    https://vimeo.com/39181036
     
  8. Long-John-Silver

    Long-John-Silver Nassau Grouper

    108
    21
    18
  9. jd950

    jd950 Solo Diver

    # of Dives: 500 - 999
    Location:
    1,263
    266
    83
    The folks at Nauticam USA tell me they are working on an updated chart.

    Assuming a lens will fit in a port, there is no reason you can't try it, as far as I know. You may have issues with sharpness, especially in corners, or with the lens focusing on the port glass itself, or with distortions, reflections, vignetting, etc. So long as it fits, try it out and post your results for others to consider.
     
  10. Long-John-Silver

    Long-John-Silver Nassau Grouper

    108
    21
    18
    Just tried in the pool the Lumix 20mm inside the Nauticam 4.3" dome made for the fisheye 8mm.

    It works!

    You realize the virtual image focus panning in/out of the water.

    [video=vimeo;41951647]https://vimeo.com/41951647[/video]
     

Share This Page