• 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. jd950

    jd950 Solo Diver

    # of Dives: I just don't log dives

    I did not know that about those lenses. I feared the 12-35 might be one of those X lenses but hoped not. I had not paid too much attention to the 12-50 but now I see what you mean. Those buttons are unfortunate. Oh well.

    I understand your points about the ports and agree with you. On the other hand, the 12mm lens has been out for almost a year and I would think a fast 12mm (24mm) rectilinear lens would be an obvious lens for underwater use, and would therefore have thought that it would be on the chart by now, especially since there are reports (including your very nice review) that it does work in ports currently being produced. If, for example, I wanted to buy or use the 12mm, I would not know from Nauticam whether it would be a good choice at all, or whether the 3.5 or the 4.3 is the better port or if perhaps another port is in development. That would seem to be a bad situation both for Nauticam and a user.

    There are also some odd combinations that can be interesting. For example, purely due to some marketing choices, the 14mm Panasonic lens is pretty readily available for around $165.00. Adding the wide-angle converter to it for $130 provides for a pretty inexpensive 11mm f 2.5 lens. If the combination produces good results and works well in a current port, that would be an interesting option. I am pretty sure, though that no one would ever design a port for that combination, and would not expect a housing manufacturer to even test for it. I think we just have to evaluate such things on our own.

    By the way, how sure are you that the 3.5 port is discontinued?

    PHIL RUDIN Scuba Media & Publications

    # of Dives:
    Location: West Palm Beach, Florida
    Regarding the 3.5" port, I am not sure that it has been discontinued just that it is not in stock in most places and seems to be on the back burner. If it were to work well with the 12mm it might come back in stock.

    Regarding the 14mm adapter combo, Nauticam has addressed the use of these adapters with the 4.33 inch dome port for use with the NEX, E-mount 16mm with the the W/A adapter which works out to around a 20mm (in 35mm terms) and the fisheye adapter. Both the 14 & 16 are pancake type lenses and the adapters are about the same size so I would think a lens like the 14mm with W/A adapter would be well suited to the 4.33" port.

    Phil Rudin
    stargost likes this.
  3. Marshmellow

    Marshmellow Contributor

    # of Dives: 50 - 99
    Location: Tucson
    I just purchased the NEX 7 housing and also trying to decide on ports to keep everything as compact as possible. I shoot super-macro and occasional WA for video. The housing came with the 4.33" dome and the camera I purchased includes the 18-55 and the 16mm pancake. I was going to sell the dome to cut costs, but the Sony wide angle/fisheye adaptors are so cheap, all working with the 16mm pancake inside the 4.33" dome, I'll probably just keep it for WA video.

    My concern that relates to this thread, is on macro side. I know the 18-55 will work in both the flat port 72 & 4" wide angle semi-dome, both having 67mm swing mounts. The 4" semi-dome 25105 mount being used for all other macro ports, which I'm assuming will most likely be the same mount for future macro ports when someone EVENTUALLY makes a longer E-mount macro lens. So, I'm thinking of getting the semi-dome 36137 port with the 25105 flip holder. Regarding current super-macro capability with the NEX limited lens choices, I'm planning on using a Subsee +10 and FIT diopter system, possibly even stacking the Subsee on my FIT +5 (if it works) to get as much magnification as I can out of the 18-55 kit until a longer macro comes out. My question has to do with water refraction magnification of the flat port 72 vs using the semi-dome port which has a mild curvature. Will the 4" semi-dome cut down my magnification that much using the diopter combinations? I've also read that dome ports are better for chromatic lens distortion, plus the semi-dome gives me a little more wide angle for a nice general purpose lens. Any advise on the matter would be appreciated. Martin and Jack at Optical Ocean did a great job setting me up with a nice NA-600D system last year before the NEX7 was available, but it's too much to lug around for me. Decisions, decisions.....:)

    PS. Is it possible to use the Inon UWL-H100 28M67 or the UFL-M150 ZM 80 on a APS-C sensor?. It would be great to have wet lens convenience with the 18-55 and eliminate the 4.33 port. I thought maybe it might work in combination with the FIT +5 if need be?
    Last edited: Oct 14, 2012
  4. nudibranco

    nudibranco Instructor, Scuba

    # of Dives: 2,500 - 4,999
    Location: Tavolara marine park - Coda Cavallo - Sardinia -
    Since I do have the 9-18 I would love to know if it would work in a 4.33" or 3.5" dome with or without extensions. The Nauticam chart is still being updated and in the works as expected...(!)

    I heard and seen pics of the 8mm that fits and works well in the 3.5" port. This combination is supercompact and would allow to use a small wide angle port for diagfisheye and some rectilinear lenses like the 12mm or 14mm lenses (with and without addons). It would be interesting if at some point there is a more complete and workable charts with all combinations!!!. What could fit in the 3.5" and 4.33" domes with and without extensions rings and which lenses!!.

    Frankly the 4" semidome with the 9-18mm does not seem so useful (I have had it since september) and it sits like 2cm back from the glass... Now that the 12-50mm is proving to be a good compromise for general shooting and the macro lenses are just great (especially the 60mm one!) the 8mm and the other shorter length domes (even for the 9-18mm) seem more useful and versatile UW for wide angle than the 9-18 in the 4"dome.

Share This Page