S90 + Ikelite housing : First Impressions

[CompuDude]

On Tuesday I tested everything we had on hand. This was a quick test in a utility sink, so no images to post, but it lets me eliminate the garbage.

The clear winner was the FIX UWL-04
M52/67. The lens is threaded M52, but threads on the housing with the supplied M67 adapter.

FIX UWL-04 Fisheye Wet Mount Conversion Lens - 67mm/52mm [fix.uwl.04.m52/677] - $399.00 : Reef Photo & Video!, The Underwater Photo Pros

This lens vignetted slightly at 28mm, but one bump of the zoom lever eliminates it, and you are left with what I'd guess to be 120-130 degrees diagonal field of view.

<...snip...>

Inon UWL-100 Type 2 and Ikelite W-20 / Epoque DCL-20 both have no vignetting at the 35mm zoom setting in water. Based on experience with similar setups in the past I'd expect some corner softness, though.

Inon UWL-100 28 AD had some vignetting at 28mm, but no vignetting at 35mm. I'm interested in doing some comparisons at some point between this lens and the UWL-100 when I have a grid chart setup in the pool.

How is the FOV between the Inon UWL-100 28 AD and the FIX lens you called as the clear winner? And how do they connect, to which housings? These seem like the top contenders to me, not the Inon UWL-100 Type 2, based on your description. (Especially once you add the Inon Dome Lens Unit for UWL-100, at which point I'd think it should technically have a wider FOV than 120-130 degrees)

 

[Nemrod]

On Tuesday I tested everything we had on hand. This was a quick test in a utility sink, so no images to post, but it lets me eliminate the garbage.

The clear winner was the FIX UWL-04
M52/67. The lens is threaded M52, but threads on the housing with the supplied M67 adapter.

FIX UWL-04 Fisheye Wet Mount Conversion Lens - 67mm/52mm [fix.uwl.04.m52/677] - $399.00 : Reef Photo & Video!, The Underwater Photo Pros

This lens vignetted slightly at 28mm, but one bump of the zoom lever eliminates it, and you are left with what I'd guess to be 120-130 degrees diagonal field of view.

Inon UWL-105 AD is completely unusable due to strong vignetting at 35mm.

Inon UFL-165 AD vignettes at 35mm w/ the shortest adapter possible. This is what I'd call unusable, but I'm sure some people will be happy zooming out to 50mm to be able to use this lens.

Inon UWL-100 Type 2 and Ikelite W-20 / Epoque DCL-20 both have no vignetting at the 35mm zoom setting in water. Based on experience with similar setups in the past I'd expect some corner softness, though.

Inon UWL-100 28 AD had some vignetting at 28mm, but no vignetting at 35mm. I'm interested in doing some comparisons at some point between this lens and the UWL-100 when I have a grid chart setup in the pool.

I assume this is the Ikelite housing you tested? But then I see you mentioned "52mm" so is this the FIX? I am confused? Sounds to me like some of the lenses are mounted to far out for whatever reason to work correctly, that is a shame.

If this is the Ikelite (that you tested) it sounds like it might be required to remove the port and shorten it. For some reason, at least on my 570 housing, there was nearly 6mm between the lens and the port when fully extended. I am not going into how I did it but I shortened my port nearly 5mm to eliminate the vignetting. I was hoping this would not be required as it is a PITA considering the housing is rather expensive. Oh well, I guess this leaves me looking at the FIX G11 with the super wide dry port or a digi SLR or quite likely nothing .

N

 

[Ryan]

How is the FOV between the Inon UWL-100 28 AD and the FIX lens you called as the clear winner?

Fix UWL-04 is significantly wider.

And how do they connect, to which housings?

All were tested with the Ikelite housing. If threaded they were just screwed on. If AD, using an M67-AD adapter I have that places the rear element of the closeup lens against the front port of the housing.

These seem like the top contenders to me, not the Inon UWL-100 Type 2, based on your description. (Especially once you add the Inon Dome Lens Unit for UWL-100, at which point I'd think it should technically have a wider FOV than 120-130 degrees)

Technically, they shouldn't. If you go by Mfr. claimed specifications, which require perfect placement, and you assume that refractive mag is 4/3, you'd get a field of view range of:

FIX UWL-04, 113 degrees (at 35mm equ.)
Zen 105, 105.7 (at 28mm equ.)
Inon UWL-100 T2 + Dome, 96.1 (at 35)
Inon UFL-165 AD, 95.3 (at 50)
Inon UFL-100 28 AD + Dome, 90.4 (at 35)
Inon UWL-100 Type 2, 79.7 (at 35)
Inon UWL-100 28 AD, 74.1 (at 35)

I wouldn't trust these numbers, as there are too many variables at play, but it should give you a comparative idea.

I assume this is the Ikelite housing you tested? But then I see you mentioned "52mm" so is this the FIX?

Yes, due to this being an ikelite focused thread, I tested ikelite.

If this is the Ikelite (that you tested) it sounds like it might be required to remove the port and shorten it. For some reason, at least on my 570 housing, there was nearly 6mm between the lens and the port when fully extended. I am not going into how I did it but I shortened my port nearly 5mm to eliminate the vignetting. I was hoping this would not be required as it is a PITA considering the housing is rather expensive. Oh well, I guess this leaves me looking at the FIX G11 with the super wide dry port or a digi SLR or quite likely nothing

It is possible that the lens port is longer than it has to be, but I haven't looked into that.

I wouldn't draw conclusions about lens performance in other housings from the results of this test, especially if more accurate port design allows closer lens placement.

 

[Nemrod]

Technically, they shouldn't. If you go by Mfr. claimed specifications, which require perfect placement, and you assume that refractive mag is 4/3, you'd get a field of view range of:

FIX UWL-04, 113 degrees (at 35mm equ.)
Zen 105, 105.7 (at 28mm equ.)
Inon UWL-100 T2 + Dome, 96.1 (at 35)
Inon UFL-165 AD, 95.3 (at 50)
Inon UFL-100 28 AD + Dome, 90.4 (at 35)
Inon UWL-100 Type 2, 79.7 (at 35)
Inon UWL-100 28 AD, 74.1 (at 35)

I wouldn't trust these numbers, as there are too many variables at play, but it should give you a comparative idea.

Seriously, thank you for your insight and willingness to provide real information, that is above and beyond for a holiday weekend.

The numbers above, I have also done pool tests with some of them. Essentially they are right except for the dome conversion lens numbers. I don't think the 4:3 ratio applies to dome lenses including the Inon 100WAL plus dome converter or the FIX with dome or the Inon 10028AD with dome or SLR dome lenses etc.

My measured diagonal FOV with a 100WAL plus dome is 125 to 130 degrees. This was with the lens threaded on an Ikelite 67mm port (such as is on the Ikelite S90 housing). What I have also found is that if the port is too long, either due to the unnecessary (extra) length (typical "generic" Ikelite fit) or due to a long travel zoom lens such as many 5X and 6X cameras have (not the case with the S90) then the lenses go very soft in the corners and then finally begin to vignette rather severely.

My measured FOV diagonal with the Inon 165AD FE is right at 160 degrees for what it is worth, also a dome corrected lens.

If the S90 Ikelite port is too long but could be removed and made shorter, then it should work, but, shoulda, coulda, woulda---

N

 

[CompuDude]

Inon's claimed FOV for the UW-100 28 AD plus the Dome is just over 150 degrees.

"To attach on to wide conversion lens, widen view angle underwater. UWL-100 28AD to max. 150.8°"

See: INON Superwide Lens?Line Up

That's higher than the 130 degrees you cited for the FIX lens, which is why I asked. But that's at 28mm, not 35mm, so perhaps that's the reason for the difference in numbers? It's designed for working with 28mm lenses with no vignetting, but perhaps that requires more idyllic lens placement than we're getting with the S90 in the Ike housing? (Interestingly, I see the FIX specs cite 160 degree FOV, which is more than the 130 you observed, but they make no mention of 28mm vs. 35mm lenses)

If the FIX lens is as good as it gets, I can probably live with that... 130 is nothing to sneeze at. If I can do better with the Inon, however, that's the way I'd want to go. I have nothing against FIX in the slightest, I've just had good results with Inon in the past, as have my friends, so that's what I know more. Plus I really really like the AD mount more than threaded mounts, especially for the macro lenses, which I tend to pop on and off many times throughout a dive.

Ryan, where did you get the "M67-AD adapter" you have? Do you offer any for sale? I know Nemrod is super handy with the DIY stuff, but if it's not absurdly expensive, I tend to prefer manufactured solutions.

Looks like I'm SOL in the short term no matter what, since I'm being given the Canon housing for my S90, and I can't afford to buy the Ikelite one instead at the moment. I wonder which lens tube will end up being shorter, and what adapter options will be for the Canon housing?

Ryan, if you talk to Inon at all (I know you're an authorized Inon dealer), could you ask them if they plan to make an AD mount for the Canon housing?

 

[Maddog59]

Not wanting to be negative on this subject, but when are you guys going to realize that the s90 camera maybe a great camera for topside use but, it is never going to make it underwater. So far I have read complaints about the usabilty of the controls whilst in a housing(buttons to close together, back ring not accessable, etc), numerous problems with the lenses available for W/A and housing availabilty from various manufactures (so far only two are available and they are modified generic cases).
In theory the camera would work well underwater as it has all the requirements (fast lens, good pixel count, and shorter lens movement) to be used U/water but has it occured to anyone that the other manufactures are staying away from it because it is fraught with to many problems for a short run camera housing.

 

[CompuDude]

Not wanting to be negative on this subject, but when are you guys going to realize that the s90 camera maybe a great camera for topside use but, it is never going to make it underwater. So far I have read complaints about the usabilty of the controls whilst in a housing(buttons to close together, back ring not accessable, etc), numerous problems with the lenses available for W/A and housing availabilty from various manufactures (so far only two are available and they are modified generic cases).
In theory the camera would work well underwater as it has all the requirements (fast lens, good pixel count, and shorter lens movement) to be used U/water but has it occured to anyone that the other manufactures are staying away from it because it is fraught with to many problems for a short run camera housing.

Camera is far too new to make any sort of blanket statements like that.

It's an upgrade of my current camera in every way. And looking at the buttons, the layout and controls are no worse than my current camera, which I've had a blast with, so once the add-on lens issues are ironed out (an issue with every new camera), everything should be ready to rock.

I see you have a G10, per your sig... The G10-G11 cameras are hardly immune from issues with add-on lens options. And the housings cost double to triple (or more!) than what the housings for the S90 cost, at the moment. And the size increase is pretty massive as well. And yet you're not complaining about that, instead you're coming in and denigrating a camera you've never used?

As for housing options... the G-series is unique on the market (on the P&S side at least) in that there is more than just the OEM and Ikelite options available for it. Fix is working on a housing for the S90, which will give us three options... two more than for many cameras, and one more than the majority. If Patima decides to make an S90 housing, we'll be tied!

 

[Nemrod]

Not wanting to be negative on this subject, but when are you guys going to realize that the s90 camera maybe a great camera for topside use but, it is never going to make it underwater. So far I have read complaints about the usabilty of the controls whilst in a housing(buttons to close together, back ring not accessable, etc), numerous problems with the lenses available for W/A and housing availabilty from various manufactures (so far only two are available and they are modified generic cases).
In theory the camera would work well underwater as it has all the requirements (fast lens, good pixel count, and shorter lens movement) to be used U/water but has it occured to anyone that the other manufactures are staying away from it because it is fraught with to many problems for a short run camera housing.

The buttons are no closer together than on many cameras including my 570 which I have no difficulty using underwater, in fact, I think it is perfect and would not see any reason the S90 cannot work as well. Additionally, Ikelite, Canon, FIX and there is one rumored from Patima as well so all of the major players have or will have soon a housing for the S90. As to wet lenses, as Ryan so succinctly said, it is too early yet to make too many conclusions in that regard. Even at that, they work better than with the G10/G11 which is not at all for the most part, lol. So between the two I would say the S90 has more potential and the Ikelite housing is probably going to be just fine.

If I were to buy one (an Ikelite), I would probably shorten the port and add a knob for the wheel. There is no reason it cannot be done, there appears to be plenty of room. A simple knob with a rubber washer should work. I even have a derelict Ikelite housing around somewhere to rob parts from complete with a very nice knob and gland, I think it was a for a Kodak Instamatic, lol, good grief.

N

 

[Maddog59]

Camera is far too new to make any sort of blanket statements like that.

It's an upgrade of my current camera in every way. And looking at the buttons, the layout and controls are no worse than my current camera, which I've had a blast with, so once the add-on lens issues are ironed out (an issue with every new camera), everything should be ready to rock.

I see you have a G10, per your sig... The G10-G11 cameras are hardly immune from issues with add-on lens options. And the housings cost double to triple (or more!) than what the housings for the S90 cost, at the moment. And the size increase is pretty massive as well. And yet you're not complaining about that, instead you're coming in and denigrating a camera you've never used?

As for housing options... the G-series is unique on the market (on the P&S side at least) in that there is more than just the OEM and Ikelite options available for it. Fix is working on a housing for the S90, which will give us three options... two more than for many cameras, and one more than the majority. If Patima decides to make an S90 housing, we'll be tied!

My standing to make this judgment comes from over 25 years of building housings for both the recreational and professional market. To date I have built over 500 housings and have been working in the film industry designing and manufacturing lighting and image capture components for various companies all over the world.

As for other manufacturers commitments to build housings for this camera I'll believe it when I see it, with only Fix "maybe" commiting to build housings (they at least have a drawing of the exterior of one). And as I was talking to the CEO of Patima last week I can tell you they have no intentions at this time to build a housing for what they see as a transitional P&S camera!

I also was not denegrating the camera, I was only saying that I don't believe that it is that suitable for underwater use!

 

[Maddog59]

The buttons are no closer together than on many cameras including my 570 which I have no difficulty using underwater, in fact, I think it is perfect and would not see any reason the S90 cannot work as well. Additionally, Ikelite, Canon, FIX and there is one rumored from Patima as well so all of the major players have or will have soon a housing for the S90. As to wet lenses, as Ryan so succinctly said, it is too early yet to make too many conclusions in that regard. Even at that, they work better than with the G10/G11 which is not at all for the most part, lol. So between the two I would say the S90 has more potential and the Ikelite housing is probably going to be just fine.

If I were to buy one (an Ikelite), I would probably shorten the port and add a knob for the wheel. There is no reason it cannot be done, there appears to be plenty of room. A simple knob with a rubber washer should work. I even have a derelict Ikelite housing around somewhere to rob parts from complete with a very nice knob and gland, I think it was a for a Kodak Instamatic, lol, good grief.

N

Hi Nemrod!
I seem to have stirred up a hornets nest here! I was only making my obsevations from threads I have read on this site ( some of them from yourself) and a couple of conversations I had at DEMA.

There may well be a work around for most of the problems associated the two housings available but they seem to be clumsy and time consuming for the average diver. The fix you suggest for shortening the port of the ike housing may be a simple fix for someone who is obviously mechanically minded, but that is not the average diver/photographer's cup of tea! They just want to be able to slap the camera in the housing and shoot!


As for your comment about W/A adapters for the G10 see this link for a solution!
http://reefphoto.com/index.php?main_page=product_info&products_id=4379