Fantasea polycarbonate housing vs aluminum

[PHIL RUDIN]

Interceptor is absolutely correct regarding my mistake on the math with the Fantasea BigEye II, behind the flat port the AOV at 24 mm is about 63 degrees and with the BigEye the 24 mm AOV of 84 degrees is restored. I however disagree with Interceptor regarding the usefulness of the 24 mm equivalent lens for wide shots. I find this AOV to be quite useful and the Sony focuses quite close to the subject, in fact it is a closer focus than with the 70mm end of the lens in practice.

Regarding this statement by Interceptor "The RX100 Mark III lens is too short to do any good close up and too wide to work with wet lenses so really limiting" I still believe he is wrong. The Sony RX100 III and Fantasea housing have been tested by Inon and the system works very well with the Inon UWL-H100 28m 67 II lens and the Inon Dome lens unit II for that lens. With the lens you get a 100 degree AOV and with the Dome over the lens you get a 144 degree AOV. This requires a step-up ring to attach the 67 mm threaded lens to the housing, an under $10.00 item. For best results the sony lens needs to be zoomed to a 28 mm equivalent. If you zoom all the way to 24 mm the lens will vignette. The housing also works with direct mount Dyron wide angle lens and the 67 mm lens with the steppe ring. For macro you will again need the 67mm step-up ring for most close-up lenses. The best choice for a macro lens will be the Nauticam CMC-1 closeup lens just introduced this week. It takes you from an image width of 80 mm at min. focus distance of 40 mm to an image width of 35 mm at a min. focus distance of 56 mm. This is a 2.3X magnification and a 1.4X increase in working distance. While this still may not satisfy the hard core super macro buff it is still a useful magnification of around 1:1 or life size in 35 mm terms. Most of the other popular compacts will have about 5 to 100 mm min. width advantage over Sony and a disadvantage on the wide end of the lens.

Both images were taken with the 24 mm equivalent AOV, I ready like 84 degree AOV for people shots and over/under's. The sony at 24 mm because of its ability for very close focus also does quite well as a closeup lens giving greater DOF than some of the narrower close focusing macro lenses.

The bottom line is with proper subject selection and technique the Sony RX100 II can be a quite useful U/W camera.

 

[Interceptor121]

Phil is my hero for 4:3 but I have been shooting compacts only for a long time so I have my views. A step up ring will always put the lens further away from the port this together with the fact you have to zoom deteriorates the image quality so I would not bother with the dome. Also the step up ring may come off with the lens when you try to take it out. An housing with a native m67 thread can instead use an adapter to bayonet which is easier to use and doesn't ruin it. So I would be looking at the recsea housing if cash is low and get the inon uwl-h100 28ld mount with the nauticam m67-LD adapter. If you don't have money just now focus on a good tray and strobe the rx100 takes nice portrait and the strobe will survive your camera and many more so spend the money now on the best you can get and to that effect my preference is inon z240

 

[BluewaterPhoto]

Butterball, I have used the Fantasea RX-100 III housing, and I think you will be happy with it. I hot-linked to a brief review we did of the housing with some underwater photos.

A strobe and the right wet-lenses will make a huge difference in your photos, more so than anything else.

At $799, the Aquapazza RX-100 III housing is also worth considering for a well-priced high-quality aluminum housing.

Hope this helps,
Scott Gietler

Howdy,

I am a novice in search of a housing for a compact point and shoot. I plan to use the housing 12 to 14 days out of a year, I will also invest in a YS-01 strobe, tray/arm, and a compact dedicated video light.
My budget is < $3k for the entire set up. The camera is around $800. Therefore, I am wondering if I should opt for an aluminum housing that cost twice as much as a Fantasea or save the money towards strobe and video light. Also, I may use the housing for an occasional kayak trip.

From my research, the Fantasea housing is somewhat bulkier but lighter in weight and has a positive buoyancy, double o ring seal, built in moisture alarm. The aluminum hosing is twice the weight (2 lbs), slightly lower profile, and allows a 14 degree tilt for my lcd camera display (not sure if this feature even matters).

I appreciate if the someone can chime in regarding my purchase plan.

Regards,

 

[PatW]

Butterball,

if if you can, I would suggest that you visit a retailer who specializes in underwater photography. Being able to hold and handle the equipment and compare it makes a huge difference.

Here re in FLORIDA, we have Reef Photo and Video in Ft Lauderdale. Backscatter is in NY and CA. Bluewater is in CA. I have dealt with the two first ones and can recommend them. Bluewater has a great website with very good information as do the first two. I suspect that they would do a great job too.

Pat

 

[slingshot]

Can you use the UWL-04 lens with the fantasea via a 67mm adapter, provided you zoom in to 28mm? Is it safe to presume the threads on the fantasea are metal?

 

[slingshot]

I guess I'll answer my own question, in part, for the benefit of anyone else drifting through the thread. The Fantasea threads are plastic. The UWL-04 apparently isn't recommended, but I haven't found anyone who can confirm from experience that it won't work.

 

[slingshot]

Oops, on closer inspection, the threads are metal, there is a metal ring screwed into the housing, I'm presuming it is aluminum.