All Activity

Please see the pictures. I can send also a video with the functioning and more pictures. Akkus included (4 original).Located in Vienna, shipping in Europe. Price is 1500 Euro. Including all parts except spare o_rings and packaging.

Sold!

Hi mdo905! A warm welcome to Waterpixels. Great to have you with us. We hope you really enjoy the forum. Best wishes

In Germany ? 🤣 Welcome to Waterpixels

Hi everyone, I started into serious underwater photography in 2019 when I bought my first real camera rig (but had been diving for almost 20 years at that point) and read several underwater photography books. Now, most of my diving is focused on getting photos, but I love lionfish hunting when I have the opportunity. I was on wetpixel.com as mdo905 for a long time, but that forum is obviously now defunct.

I’m in West Hartford, CT

I wrote it live so to speak but I did have to scroll up and down quite a bit to see the prev mssgs super keyboard challenged

Yes I am in South East Connecticut.

Fixed it - I copied and pasted the text, copy using ctrl-C then pasted using Ctrl-Shift-V. Did you paste the text in from somewhere? If so try pasting with ctrl-shift-V.

somehow I screwed up and the text goes beyond the page!

Another data point: I have the book titled Free Diving by Rebikoff translated by Mervin Savill. Published in London 1955, first published in 1952 in French as Exploration Sous-Marine Ch. VII (the last one) is titled Underwater Photography and Filming. He writes a lot about his underwater flash units but not a peep about corrective optics Interesting that Ivanoff lived so long but what did he do from the 1960s onward? Searching his name I came up with a living artist. Another data point; See: https://www.spiedigitallibrary.org/conference-proceedings-of-spie/9192/91920P/Afocal-viewport-optics-for-underwater-imaging/10.1117/12.2061445.short Read the abstract!!! He calls them "the Ivanoff corrector lens" Lens is a bit vague since it can be one piece of glass or a whole unit like a camera lens, but for lack of a better English word lens has to be used (Abstracts often have a word limit (based on a lot of experience)). This is from 2014 so relatively recent. At Chris: the Nikonos opinion is from a current web page so would seem to be not too out of date but maybe limted to the experience of the author(s). I remember when the blue housings were released! It was during the 2 years my family lived in the US (Germany before and Japan after) when I bought the Hasselblad issue (house magazine) on it at a local camera store. This was between Sept 1970 and August 1972. So it is about 2 decades post Ivanoff earliest dates from the patent. BTW the first Hasselblad to use the 38mm lens was called the Supreme Wide Angle or SWA. The SLR was the 1000F. I have seen a SWA in person - it had a more primitive shutter. From the early 1950s. The SWC, the later camera, has to be used in the blue housing that takes the corrector lens. SWC/M and newer, no, because the tripod mounting shoe was moved to allow fitting of Polaroid backs.

Another vote for Helicon. We shoot (on land) several hundred shots for a single stack and it works reasonably well and fast. Bill

Hi smsteizel! Welcome to Waterpixels. Great to have you with us. CT? Connecticut? We hope you really enjoy the forum.

I suppose that makes more sense, I know the 8-15 is still available used but Nauticam seems to be trimming their products a fair bit and I would guess things that work only with discontinued lenses would be high on the list of of things to cut. But that is just guesswork. Back when I was shooting M43 I was strongly considering getting the bits together to use the Canon 8-15, but then I moved to APS-C and a Nikon 8-15.

Hi all. Been diving since 2015 and starting to get into photography. Have had a go pro and taking frame grabs for about 3 years but recently moved over to a TG-5 for better Macro ability. Looking forward to learning and honing my skills.

Excellent thank you.

Wow, amazing!

Hello, Welcome aboard! Regarding the eternal fisheye dilemma among you photographers, you will find tons of content in the forum but I'll give you a small spoiler: teleconverter + Canon 8-15 fisheye zoom. For the details, I'll leave you to the search function. Ciao

Good point, the patent was granted January 10th 1956 without mentioning the name Rebikoff. The reasons for that are highly speculative. However the Rebikoff / Cherney book you brought up called it "System Ivanoff" in 1955 according to you @Tom Kline as a trusted source. With that book being out prior to the patent and my other research that Rebikoff's Poodle ROV (dated approx. 1953–1954) had such or similar optical system mounted in front is an interesting circumstantial evidence of something I am not sure how to interpret. Rebikov and Cherney would have clearly exposed the US Patent US2730014A by Ivanoff et. al. to a prior art risk. This is a serious issue preventing any patent from being granted or after it has been granted preventing the owner from successfully enforcing or licensing it. This is also called risk of invalidating / novelty-destroying prior art or „risk of anticipation/obviousness in view of the prior art" -> meaning you cannot patent what's already out in the public domain. A book mentioning or prototype displayed on a trade show prior to filing is a common mistake by inventors for this. A comparable rule existed in the United States both in the 1960s (under the Patent Act of 1952, §§ 102/103) and already since the earliest patent statutes in the 18th and 19th centuries. As the patent also says "Filed Feb. 19, 1952" your book copy needs to be inspected more closely for the exact publication date and edition index. I would be interesting to learn if this book was actually the first edition or earlier publications are flying around. It might also be a potential reason why the image caption was renamed from Ivanoff to Rebikoff in a later edition. We do not know though, if this was done by Cherny, Rebikoff himself or some clerk at the publishing company. Seems not like that, .. contrary to what you wrote: Alexandre Ivanoff (1917–2003) outlived Dimitri Rebikoff (1921–1997). There are some Patents by Demitri Rebikoff online, his last filing looks like Oct. 31, 1990 for an optical diving mask restoring peripheral vision, citing the Ivanoff patent from 1956. No. Cannot be, as that patent is too recent for having been applied to my lens. As I initially wrote my Ivanoff-Rebikoff broadcast camera corrector front port is from "around the year 2000". I actually did not realise that it is an underwater corrector port for a long time, as IR corrector ports look very similar to obscure flat ports from the outside. You have to inspect them more thoroughly or "weight-lift" them to get the idea that they might be something different.

I have been an amateur underwater photographer for a few years. I have a passion for travel and capturing my trips in the best way possible. So when I also started diving, I soon picked up a camera to capture that aspect as well. Started off with a TG5 and when I got comfortable with that, I got a Hugyfot housing for the Nikon D500 with the Tokina fisheye and 40mm macro. I moved to mirrorless for above water and I am considering making this move for underwater in the future so I don't have to bring two bodies along. However, the Tokina 10-17 is rather unique and the only real alternative to it would be the Nauticam FCP-1. I am still holding off this decision for now due to the high cost involved.

This entire album on my webpage was taken using the OM-1 and the Canon 8-15 with Metabones smart adapter and the 140mm dome: https://www.aus-natural.com/Underwater/Walindi%20Resort%20PNG/index.html If you use Firefox the add-on xiFR, an exif reader will show you the settings including the focal length just by right clicking on or near the image.

Yes I'm curious to see an image taken with the 8-15 on a MFT, unless one has been posted and I've just missed it?

Thanks Tom, the point I'm trying to make is the earlier lenses, be they from the 50's or 60's are likely not as good as the Carl Zeiss version which it seems was designed in the 1970s when computer aided design and new optical glasses were appearing. This would possibly explain the remark the Inavnoff-Rebikoff correctors were not as good as the Nikonos lenses in the books. Regarding doublet lenses perhaps yes if they are cemented doublets - they could have been air spaced doublets perhaps? Air spaced doublets provide an extra degree of freedom in the design due to the air space. If the front element were strong enough to resist flexing due to static pressure, as long as the join was inside the housing it would work as well as any cemented doublet I think? I understand cemented doublets become problematic in larger sizes and they were used as the polish and coatings required on the cemented surfaces were not as demanding as the cement filled defects and also avoided reflection from the two cemented surfaces.

Are you asking about an image taken with it? There would be no reason to use the speedbooster with the 8-15 as you lose zoom range and you would need to zoom in to about 11mm or so on the lens to get a full diagonal fisheye equivalent to an 8mm fisheye. Between 8 and 11 mm you would have a partly cropped circular fisheye image which is really not usable. The smart adapter gives you a full frame fisheeye through to about the same filed as a full frame 28mm rectilinear lens, so a m43 system gives you the 8mm fisheye and the 7-14 reach in one lens. The speed booster is useful though to mate with the tokina 10-17 it will produce frame filling images from about 11 to 17mm. Without the speed booster (using the smart adapter with no glass) it would not give you a full fisheye field at miniumum zoom , the view would be noticably narrower.

Thank you @Davide DB , it was on multiple gorgonias, so I'd suspect the gamete release to be more likely.