11 minutes ago, Adventurer said:

WRONG! Massimo, I think you have fallen into a trap here.

 

1st: The name of the dome „140mm“ does not refer to the dome glas radius nor the dome glas diameter. Marelux and Nauticam simply relate the marketing name to the biggest diameter they could find on the product, which is something like the sunshade tip to sunshade tip distance.

 

The advertised radius of the Nauticam 140mm is only 69mm AFAIK.

Marelux and Nauticam radius are identical AFAIK.

My own measurements on the MARELUX calculate into 60,14mm.

 

2nd: 

Source: great website named Interceptor121.com

 

If try to follow your math, you seem to have simply multiplied the dome diameter by 2 to get to 28cm. Please correct me if I am wrong and show me a different way how you got to the 28cm value referenced above. I may have overlooked something. Thanks. 
 

3rd: https://marinewildlife.co.uk/info/underwater-photography-dome-port-theory-practice/ is a second source confirming triple radius and explains the other dynamics factors involved very well.

 

Nauticam Radius Value should give approx 21cm.

My more conservative measurement 18cm.

I should add that I measure inner glas radius not outer glas radius.

So approx 9 to 10mm looks plausible.

Nope you got it all wrong and my calculations are accurate

It is not just the dome the focus is calculated from the sensor plane 
you are missing a few elements in your approximations

my figures are accurate to the mm within the simplification of a thin dome

thats my website and is also accurate 

Bk7 glass is 5mm or less and definitely not 1cm

Edited May 1, 20241 yr by Interceptor121

7 minutes ago, Interceptor121 said:

Nope you got it all wrong and my calculations are accurate

It is not just the dome the focus is calculated from the sensor plane 
you are missing a few elements

Massimo, please share your math with us.

8 minutes ago, Adventurer said:

Massimo, please share your math with us.

It is the same on the website

Besides double the dome size is roughly a good starting point as infinity is 4x radius from center now

add distance to entrance pupil

With regards to the fstop i use hyper focal distance so that’s correct too

 

I think, we found the misunderstanding.

I left aside the bold marked „front surface of the dome“.

 

So I can live with:

4 times the radius of the dome glas OR

double (true) glas diameter on full sphere hemisphere domes

 

We mean the same but talk differently about it, depending if your viewpoint is from the front glas of the dome or the Centre of the dome hemisphere.

 

The mathematics behind domes shows that for a subject at infinity the virtual image created by the dome will lie in a position which is 3 x the radius of the dome in front of the front surface of the dome.

 

However there is an inherent problem with this virtual image, because not only does it lie in this position close to the dome but it also effectively lies on a sphere concentric with the dome and with a radius of 4 x the radius of the dome.

So when you where writing about the minimum f-stop you where looking into the curvature of the resulting virtual image and running the approximated required depth of field through a DOF calc on a 10mm lens?

 

 

57 minutes ago, Adventurer said:

I think, we found the misunderstanding.

I left aside the bold marked „front surface of the dome“.

 

So I can live with:

4 times the radius of the dome glas OR

double (true) glas diameter on full sphere hemisphere domes

 

We mean the same but talk differently about it, depending if your viewpoint is from the front glas of the dome or the Centre of the dome hemisphere.

 

The mathematics behind domes shows that for a subject at infinity the virtual image created by the dome will lie in a position which is 3 x the radius of the dome in front of the front surface of the dome.

 

However there is an inherent problem with this virtual image, because not only does it lie in this position close to the dome but it also effectively lies on a sphere concentric with the dome and with a radius of 4 x the radius of the dome.

So when you where writing about the minimum f-stop you where looking into the curvature of the resulting virtual image and running the approximated required depth of field through a DOF calc on a 10mm lens?

 

 

3x from the surface = 4x from the centre

You then need to add the distance from the centre of the dome back to the sensor plane

 

I am not sure about the point about concentric if you are talking about field of curvature aberrations those are ignored in any case in calculations as they are as per word aberrations

And yes you need to use the focal lenght of the lens because a dome preserves it

When the infinity point is within the hyperfocal distance it means topside will be sharp

I have used this method since years and it works within the limitation of the concept of hyperfocal distance of course

13 hours ago, Interceptor121 said:

3x from the surface = 4x from the centre

You then need to add the distance from the centre of the dome back to the sensor plane

 

I am not sure about the point about concentric if you are talking about field of curvature aberrations those are ignored in any case in calculations as they are as per word aberrations

And yes you need to use the focal lenght of the lens because a dome preserves it

When the infinity point is within the hyperfocal distance it means topside will be sharp

I have used this method since years and it works within the limitation of the concept of hyperfocal distance of course

I want to further clarify my article on dome talks about focus range

When a lens does not focus on or within the dome the MOD needs to be evaluated and the difference infinity - MOD gives you the range which I presume but have not proved results in better IQ

The laowa 10mm will focus even inside the 140mm port and therefore a larger dome is needed for splits and will improve IQ but to an extent to be determined

Edited May 2, 20241 yr by Interceptor121

Thanks for your profound input Massimo.

 

The enclosed depth of field (DOF) and hyperfocal table from the PhotoPills App might also be taken into consideration for further expectation on IQ and split performance. 

 

The appearance of affordable high quality 10mm lenses for full frame puts domes back in business and on a new level and is likely to outperform Nauticams Water Contact Optics.

We simply never had such a technology available in underwater photography with dome ports until this lens showed up.

 

Before there was a Samyang/Rokinon 10mm f3.5 and the Canon EF11 and RF10 Zoom, but they were more costly, bulky and did not have the amazing low 12cm minimum focusing distance this LAOWA introduced to the game.

Edited May 2, 20241 yr by Adventurer

1 hour ago, Adventurer said:

Thanks for your profound input Massimo.

 

The enclosed depth of field (DOF) and hyperfocal table from the PhotoPills App might also be taken into consideration for further expectation on IQ and split performance. 

 

The appearance of affordable high quality 10mm lenses for full frame puts domes back in business and on a new level and is likely to outperform Nauticams Water Contact Optics.

We simply never had such a technology available in underwater photography with dome ports until this lens showed up.

 

Before there was a Samyang/Rokinon 10mm f3.5 and the Canon EF11 and RF10 Zoom, but they were more costly, bulky and did not have the amazing low 12cm minimum focusing distance this LAOWA introduced to the game.

I would not be that sure because those lenses have edges issues. Normally vignetting as well as drop in sharpness

But for sure having such a short optic does provide the 130 degrees diagonal to make a comparison

Besides I do not see the nauticam optics so sharp at the edges either you need to stop down to f/11 I can get same results with the two rectilinear lenses I have but the fov is much smaller

Unfortunately the Laowa is backordered until July so I won't be able to do my testing until then

Hopefully Phil continues to provides images and we can draw some conclusions but the proof of the pudding is my more structured testing as that is done on the same scene

I am sure all interested are eagerly awaiting the July arrival and subsequent "structured testing" which will be forthcoming.

 

For now you may be interested in my uwpmag.com review of the Laowa 10mm which posted yesterday. I would add that in the review I commented that, 

If you have no tolerance for soft corners in your images this may not be the lens for you.

 

This is by no means the fault of the lens but the result of using such a wide rectilinear lens in a dome port.

 

 

Edited May 2, 20241 yr by Phil Rudin

I have just finished reading your review in UWP. It's a nice summary of your findings within this thread.

I second your comments about tolerance for soft corners... but that's a whole other topic.

 

I have marked up July in my calendar to keep it free to devour 121's 'structured testing' of the Laowa lens when it emerges. As the self-appointed guardian of paramount optical quality, he will have much to teach the rest of us plebs. Long may his corners emulate his centres...

6 hours ago, dentrock said:

I have just finished reading your review in UWP. It's a nice summary of your findings within this thread.

I second your comments about tolerance for soft corners... but that's a whole other topic.

 

I have marked up July in my calendar to keep it free to devour 121's 'structured testing' of the Laowa lens when it emerges. As the self-appointed guardian of paramount optical quality, he will have much to teach the rest of us plebs. Long may his corners emulate his centres...

 

not sure about the value of your comment you seem in a personal journey against me perhaps coupled with a general low standard in image quality not even sure why bother with anything more than 20 megapixels 

the laowa soft corners are not an underwater issue they manifest on land too

https://opticallimits.com/nikon/laowa-af-10mm-f-28-zero-d-review/

the lens doesn’t improve stopping down there are some lenses that behave like that

the images from phil are difficult to judge the quality of the lens they always have subject and edges on very different focal planes except one but seem to show pincushion distortion 

the 180 mm port has a fov of 109’degrees I would have not taken it outside the box 

the hood removal of the 140mm doesn’t make sense to me 

mare Lux housing have the camera more recessed so i dont have a view on the extension used 

On 5/2/2024 at 6:46 PM, Phil Rudin said:

I am sure all interested are eagerly awaiting the July arrival and subsequent "structured testing" which will be forthcoming.

 

For now you may be interested in my uwpmag.com review of the Laowa 10mm which posted yesterday. I would add that in the review I commented that, 

If you have no tolerance for soft corners in your images this may not be the lens for you.

 

This is by no means the fault of the lens but the result of using such a wide rectilinear lens in a dome port.

 

 

Hi Phil

 

You did not post any shots with the 140mm dome port. Is this because it looks really poor?

I think he posted a picture in the thread on experimentally testing the dome port position. Looked good to me, it‘s the one with the nice pool thermometer. 

20 hours ago, Interceptor121 said:

Hi Phil

 

You did not post any shots with the 140mm dome port. Is this because it looks really poor?

I am assuming you are referring to the UWP article and not this thread regarding 140 dome images. First when you submit to a magazine the Editor makes the choice of what images are used not the contributor. Second the image of the mask with bubbles was taken with the 140mm dome but that information was not included in the description. 

 

For me the 140mm dome with 35mm of extension was more than excerptible and the 180mm port was not. As I expressed this is a travel issue for me more than a IQ issue. If I don't have room for the 230mm port I can use the 140 port.

 

I have reattached two of the images taken with the 140 dome system also pictured. 

 

null

Does anyone know if Laowa has said if they will be releasing an autofocus version of the 10mm for Canon R mount? Or will the autofocus only ever be available for Nikon Z and Sony E mirrorless?

12 hours ago, Brandon Cole said:

Does anyone know if Laowa has said if they will be releasing an autofocus version of the 10mm for Canon R mount? Or will the autofocus only ever be available for Nikon Z and Sony E mirrorless?

At present only sigma and tamron have licenses for canon rf apsc and no full frame

 

Thank you

17 hours ago, Brandon Cole said:

Does anyone know if Laowa has said if they will be releasing an autofocus version of the 10mm for Canon R mount? Or will the autofocus only ever be available for Nikon Z and Sony E mirrorless?

Hi Brandon, I hope all is well in the great Northwest, I assume you have quite the light show going on at night up there. I don't know about the license but it ia odd to me that Laowa does in fact make the lens for full frame Canon RF and the L mount just not in auto focus. My AF lens has the 5-blade aperture while the manual lenses come in 5 and 12 blades. Did you get rid of all the Sony stuff?

Thank you Phil. Yes indeed, beautiful pink/green light show off our porch the other night. I know, weird that they make manual focus for Canon R but not autofocus. I was wondering if it's just a timing issue, that they need more time to work out the AF for Canon. But if that were the case I would think they would announce "AF version coming soon!"

RE Sony- Yes, I did sell the camera, housing, a couple lenses, and some bits and bobs. I still have the WWL-1 and flatport, and the FCP. I am going to try the FCP on both Nikon D850 (with ancient 28-70 kit lens) and Canon 5D4 (with ancient 28-70 kit lens). Wouldn't be surprised if I revisit Sonyland sometime in the not too distant future (maybe A1 mk 2 if/when?) but for big 6 week South Africa sardine run coming up soon I want to go with muscle memory of Canon and Nikon.

8 hours ago, Brandon Cole said:

weird that they make manual focus for Canon R but not autofocu

Hey Brandon - The hold up is on Canon’s side.  They have been very reluctant to release the rights to their new RF mount for AF.  Rokinon came out with RF AF lenses and Canon ordered them to discontinue.  They just recently allowed Tamron and Sigma to make RF AF lenses, but only for the APS-C models.  RF FF AF (that’s a lot of acronyms) is still for Canon’s exclusive production at this time.  Anyone’s guess as to when this may change. 

Edited May 13, 20241 yr by ChipBPhoto

Thank you for explaining, ChipBPhoto!

 

We now have this lens for the Sony E mount.

 

We have done some initial testing using our 8 inch acrylic and 9.25 glass megadome, with using some of our existing extension rings, preliminary results look very promising.

 

We are now in the process of making some custom dome ports with the lens nodal point in the exact correct position, these ports will be for our 8 inch acrylic,8 inch glass and 9.25 glass.

 

This lens does have excellent AF

I am not sure what is up on the MF RF mounts. I ordered one from B&H within a week of the rollout(March 1) and have not gotten it yet. I have contacted Laowa but have not been getting any response.  I do not mind manual focus,I may just go to the Irix Cine 11mm if I get no response within a week. Plus it is interesting there have been no reviews on the manual focus versions of the Laowa 10mm.

Edited June 5, 20241 yr by Tobyone

The big news for Laowa is that the 10mm in Sony FE and Nikon Z are its first auto focus lenses after being in business for ten years. According to the web site the lens is in much higher demand than Laowa had ever expected and if you ordered today from the Laowa web site shipping will be expected sometime around August 2024. 

 

I ordered mine direct from Laowa very early on and got it in four days from start of shipping. My guess is that the manual versions are in smaller demand and may be back burnered v the AF models. 

 

Manual also is available in 5-blade and 12-blade making it even more speculated to go manual. 

 

For me it was worth the wait.

Edited June 5, 20241 yr by Phil Rudin

1 hour ago, Aquatica said:

We now have this lens for the Sony E mount.

 

We have done some initial testing using our 8 inch acrylic and 9.25 glass megadome, with using some of our existing extension rings, preliminary results look very promising.

 

We are now in the process of making some custom dome ports with the lens nodal point in the exact correct position, these ports will be for our 8 inch acrylic,8 inch glass and 9.25 glass.

 

This lens does have excellent AF

I would be interested in the physical dimensions of your ports. At first glance the acrylic port is too much of a cut to ensure the field of view is supported. The glass looks a bit better but could you please provide

1. radius of curvature

2. diameter of the dome element (not the whole port just the transparent part)

3. Diameter of the port opening

 

Thank you