Nauticam Acrylic dome vs optical glass

[Johno1530]

Hi All, 

 

I am considering buying a dome to use with a 8-15mm canon fisheye and for split level shots, but I'm unsure which one to consider

 

180mm Optical glass

230mm Optical glass

8.5 inch acrylic dome (215mm approx) 

 

The 8.5 inch is attractive due to a considerable price difference versus the 230mm glass dome and is also lighter and I'm guessing it will have an optical difference but just not sure how much?

 

Has anyone tried both or can give an input? 

 

Many thanks in advance

 

John 

[humu9679]

@Johno1530 Here's Nauticam's port recommendations:

 

[fruehaufsteher2]

We had this discussion in the "Cheap" solutions for split shots.

 

Some participants in the discussion feared that even small scratches in the acrylic port would be very visible, but others who use the dome have stated that this would not be the case. Otherwise, in terms of cost and transportability, the acrylic port is certainly the first choice

[Davide DB]

I have had several acrylic domes. IMO the big difference is in backlighting. Pointing the camera towards the sun, I have never liked the image rendering compared to glass.

[Chris Ross]

I would say it depends on what you want to do with it for 90% of your shots with it to some extent.  If you're mainly doing splits you'll benefit from the bigger domes, but if it's occasional splits, you want to travel with it and do CFWA then you might want a different compromise.  The 230mm dome is a big beast and difficult to travel with, the 8.5" a bit more manageable.  Neither are ideal for CFWA due to their size.  If the 230mm/8.5"dome is too big for you maybe adapting a different dome might be a good option, something in the 7-8"range

 

Nauticam recommend the 140mm dome as most optimum as it's the only one in their line up that allows you position the Entrance pupil correctly at the dome centre of curvature.  It's fairly good for CFWA and great for reef scenics, but a little small for doing splits easily.

 

The other domes can't do this as they are not full hemispheres.  Doesn't mean they won't work, just not optimum, the corners maybe not as good and the angle of view changes a little, however many people would be happy with them.

 

You don't want the 180mm as it's quite a small sphere segment and you need to have the lens well forward of the optimum position.

 

Finally if you want to use the 8mm end of the lens you need a removable dome shade. 

[ChipBPhoto]

9 hours ago, Chris Ross said:

I would say it depends on what you want to do with it for 90% of your shots with it to some extent.

I agree with what Chris shared.  I use the 140 dome with the Canon 8-15.  I’m very happy with the performance underwater.  It is also quite easy for travel.  I rarely do splits, but have been successful in calm water.  I’d say invest in what you want to do as the primary goal, and then supplement as needed as you go.  

[Johno1530]

Thanks Chris & Chip, 

 

I would like to try some splits at some point but they aren't my main focus. I more want the fisheye perspective of groups of fish, as I love them photos and think the canon 8-15mm might be a good choice. 

 

I have the WACP-C so I may just stick with that for the time being and see how I get on. 

 

Thanks for the info

 

John 

[ChipBPhoto]

10 hours ago, Johno1530 said:

I have the WACP-C so I may just stick with that for the time being and see how I get on. 

Hey John - I’d say that’s a good plan.  While you won’t be able to get perhaps every ultra-wide image, I think you’ll be pleasantly surprised with its versatility.  Unfortunately, there’s no solution that is the “everything” lens.  I’ve found the WACP-C to be reasonably close for 90% of what I do.

 

Enjoy!

chip

 

[fruehaufsteher2]

4 hours ago, ChipBPhoto said:

Hey John - I’d say that’s a good plan.  

 

The WACP-C is great. Not the greatest for splits, but you can use it.