If you only had 2 ports for your Nauticam

[Kenr]

Guy why do you say the FE doesn't work with the 4.33 port? have you tried it

 

[shaker]

Hi,

I don't think it's a good idea to use a dome port like the 4,33" for Macro photography:
- You get less magnification then with a dedicated port. Objects are 1,34x lager with flat ports.
- because of the curvature of the dome port, you will have less working distance to your subject.
- It's more difficult to position your strobes with a larger dome.
- You can easily damage your dome if you go very close to the corals.
- A macro port is easier ton handle and more compact then 4,33" dome port.

 

[nudibranco]

Hi,

I don't think it's a good idea to use a dome port like the 4,33" for Macro photography:
- You get less magnification then with a dedicated port. Objects are 1,34x lager with flat ports.
- because of the curvature of the dome port, you will have less working distance to your subject.
- It's more difficult to position your strobes with a larger dome.
- You can easily damage your dome if you go very close to the corals.
- A macro port is easier ton handle and more compact then 4,33" dome port.

Shaker, there is generally nothing wrong in using a macro lens a dome port (!). Actually a dome is a better way than a flat port to channel light rays to an air enclosed lens space reducing various aberrations/distortions especially if the dome is designed specifically for a lens.
In the case of the 4.33" dome (which is specified in the Nauticam chart for a few lenses including the FE 8mm lens) I am not sure what other lenses are optimal but the proof is in complex optical calculations or just plain trying them underwater with different apertures in a very controlled environment.

The 60mm lens would probably fit well with a 30mm extension. Given that the FOV underwater is now what it would be its native FOV it does not mean that I cannot use the lens in a 4.33" dome port. The magnification you get is actually the same as with a flat port but indeed you have to get closer to your subject with respect to a flat port to achieve full magnification. With a 60mm lens it will probably be ok since 60mm should give enough working distance (compared to the 45mm which is the macro lens I have).

The whole point of this discussion was to minimize the number of ports to carry around which is something I am avidly after because of Ryan Air and other restrictive luggage control. The 4.33" is light (acrylic) and would fit a few important other lenses (the 8mm FE and the 9-18mm and 60mm with the extension). For me these 3 would be the most usable quality lenses for what I do so I have been thinking of trying the 4.33" port and extension as a nice port to do what I need.

Currently I have the 4" dome for the 9-18mm, the 45mm port for the 45mm macro, the 12-50mm lens and dedicated port, the 3.5" dome for the 8mm FE. I find myself using 90% of the time either the 8mm and 3.5" and 45mm macro with its port. I have mixed feeling about the 12-50mm do it all compromised setup. I tend to use it only when I am not sure I know what to take pics of underwater (and results are often less sensational!) I am now thinking of maybe sellng the 45mm macro lens and port and 4" dome port and replace it with a 60mm macro lens and 4.33mm port.

 

[ProfF]

The situation:
I presently have an OMD with Nauticam housing with a 60mm and macro flat port and the 4" dome port for my 9-18mm. I went on a minor shopping splurge, so I now also have the 8mm fisheye, 12mm F2, in addition to the 12-50mm kit lens. I would like to limit my travel bag to 2 ports so am considering the following:

Get the 12-50 port w zoom gear, with flip folder and diopter.
I can use this one port for both the 60mm and 12-50mm correct? My main reason for this was occasionally I found myself wanting to shoot some video, (flamboyant cuttle, wunderpus) and I found that to be unwatchable shot w the 60mm. Or should I just keep using my 60mm flat port and buy a GoPro and mount it to my camera. That maybe cheaper than the 12-50 port/gear.

For wide:
4.33" dome. If i read the port chart correctly, I can put the 8mm fisheye and the 12mm F2 behind it. I'll lose some angle of view from the 9-18, but I can use one port for both fisheye and wide.

Or should I just learn to travel w 3 ports...

My recommendation (and what I am aiming for):

4" dome for 9-18, 12-50, and 60
4.33" for the W/A lens

I recently returned from the Maldives traveling with one port and the first three lens (my 8mm is on its way). I used home made zoom gear for 12-50 (similar to the australian one mentioned in this thread) and a home made flip-diopter for the 12-50. I didn't make much use of the flip diopter, as the only macro I got to take was in a night dive where I went down with the 60mm. However, I found this combination effective in red-sea dives where I combined W/A with macro in shore dives in Red Sea or the Mediterranean.

Another alternative is to ditch the 9-18 and go with the macro port for the 12-50/60 (as reported by Alex Mustard in wetpixel, I did not try this) and use the 4.33 for the w/a. The good is that you have native 67mm filter for diopter, the bad news is that the 9-18 is actually a superb lens.

My experience with the 60mm beyond the 4" dome was very positive. I did not feel it limited my access to subjects (the working distance is long enough).

IMHO the 12-50 port/zoom gear is an over-engineered expensive solution, I'd rather spend that money on getting another lens...

Cheers

Nir

 

[Wisnu]

I use the 4" dome for 12-50mm and 60mm macro. Since I have 7-14mm, then I have no choice to use the 6" dome. But if I have to start from zero, I will choose 4" for 60mm, 12-50mm and 9-18mm.