Isaac Szabo

The profile I've developed in PrusaSlicer for my MK3 is not directly applicable to a different slicer/printer. However, the main settings that come to mind are: PETG filament 0.4mm nozzle 0.10mm layer height for ports, solid prints composed entirely of perimeters/walls for hollow items like a float, designs probably need a minimum wall thickness of around 3mm random outside seams and staggered inner seams extrusion multiplier/flow ratio around 20% higher than normal And then there are other tweaks to temperature, speed, linear advance, etc to improve print quality. Bambu's slicer is simpler than Prusa's and may not have all the necessary options (such as staggered inner seams), so using another slicer such as OrcaSlicer may be preferable. No matter what it will likely take a fair amount of experimentation to find a sweet spot between watertightness and acceptable print quality. You also need ways to test if the prints are actually waterproof and capable of withstanding pressure. I print a small test chamber that I can pull a vacuum on and monitor a pressure gauge to see if it holds a vacuum indefinitely or if leaks over time. If my print settings pass a vacuum test and I print a real object such as a port then in addition to a vacuum test I also I test it in a hydrostatic pressure chamber to ensure that the design will withstand the pressure that I need it to. Of course, if post processing prints with resin is working for you and you're happy with that, then there's no reason you need to do anything differently. I can see how that could work well for something like a float, but it's not ideal for something that requires more precision such as a port with an o-ring groove.

Like Dave said, for FDM it’s hard to beat Bambu Lab’s printers right now. They have a range of options, starting with the very capable A1 at only $340 (or $490 with the optional multi color/material unit). That said, if you happen to see a good deal on a used Prusa MK3 or MK3S, that’s the printer that I have developed a waterproof print profile for and could probably share it. The Bambu Lab printers are certainly newer/nicer, but you might have to do quite a bit of experimenting to find good waterproof settings. I have a Bambu Lab A1 too but haven’t developed a waterproof profile for it yet. I’d personally recommend skipping PLA and going straight to PETG for functional parts. PLA has a lower softening temperature (parts may soften/warp in a hot car for example), is not as durable in the elements, and is more brittle. PETG has been just as easy to print for me, and it’s just as cheap, so I see no reason to use PLA. Yes, SLS printers are still well beyond the range of hobbyists as far as I’m aware. However, you can always get your designs printed by print companies that have expensive SLS printers. Lucky you to have access to a CNC! It’s certainly possible. I print fully waterproof ports and other parts that require no post processing. I’ve been using them for 3-4 years. So far I have tested the ports to over 100m/330ft.

First a disclaimer: While I have some knowledge on resin printing, I don't actually have any experience using it yet (though I've been considering buying one). I believe resin prints are inherently watertight, unlike FDM prints, so that's a plus. They're also better at reproducing fine details. However, resin materials are generally weaker and more brittle than FDM materials, and I'm guessing they're more susceptible to degrading under harsh outdoor conditions. Also, resin printing seems to have more annoyances/frustrations due to the mess of the resins (which are health hazards), the washing/curing steps, etc. My experience is that most people choose FDM for functional prints. Resin printers seem to be more popular for things like miniatures where fine details are more important than strength/durability. That said, just as there are numerous types of FDM materials with different properties, there are many different types of resins, some of which are "tough" resins that are designed to have more strength/durability for functional parts. My impression is that they still lag behind the best FDM materials, but that doesn't necessarily mean they're not good enough for our purposes. To sum up, waterproofing is the challenge with FDM, though some people have been able to figure that out. On the other hand, strength/durability is the challenge with resin, and I'm less sure if that can be figured out for underwater parts that need to withstand high pressure, saltwater, sunlight, etc.

Actually, I think this version has a better chance of working. Maybe a moderator can remove the other file? N100 rear cap.stl

I think this should work. It works on my 3D printed N100 ports. I don't have an actual Nauticam port to try it on. Maybe get one printed first, and if it works well order more.

Unfortunately, I don't think there's an ideal mid/short macro for Sony yet. All the options have some limitations. If you have a port for the Sony 90mm, then I'd think the Canon 60mm with adapter should fit in that (that combo is a little smaller than the 90mm). The Canon 60mm has some vignetting on full frame at medium and far distances but not at close distance. I'm not sure that its AF will be an improvement over the 90mm, but it's pretty fast in good light using the central focus points. Another option is adapting the Nikon 60mm. From what I've heard it doesn't work quite as well on the adapter as the Canon, but it is a full frame lens with no vignetting. The Sony 50mm is reported to be slower focusing than the other options. I'm curious how much vignetting the Zeiss 50mm has on full frame, but I haven't been able to find an account of someone trying that.

@Gerald Rambert If you set your camera to f/2.8 and look into the lens front the front, can you tell if the aperture is opening up all the way? Or if you dismount the lens and manually move the rear aperture lever while watching the aperture through the back of the lens, does the aperture appear to open up all the way? Does the aperture lever move freely/easily and spring back closed when you release it? Does it appear bent or damaged?

It's good to be aware of that, but it doesn't help explain exposure differences between different copies set to the same aperture.

Hi @Gerald Rambert. I'm guessing the reason you didn't get any responses on your other thread is probably that no one here has experience using the Seacam converted lens with the Monster adapter. If your Seacam converted lens is performing differently than the other lenses they converted, then that seems like a question best answered by Seacam. I think it's unlikely that someone here will have enough knowledge of the intricacies of their conversion to know what might be causing this discrepancy. One thing I will note is that 1/20 versus 1/8 is 1.3 stops. Also, the 1/8 photo appears to be slightly brighter than the 1/20 photo, so the actual difference may be smaller than 1.3 stops. That said, I'm not doubting your claim that your lens is underexposing. Hopefully it's something that can be fixed.

I often have to hike a little ways to sites and find a shoulder strap like this for carrying the housing very helpful. However, I have had those kinds of hooks break (as has a friend), so I might recommend replacing them with carabiners.

I made some adapters to test Nikonos lenses on Sony mirrorless 3-4 years ago. It's hard for me to recall all the details, but looking back at some of my notes, I think the adapter thickness I settled on was around 14-15mm. Sony flange distance is 18mm, which means my Nikonos flange distance was around 32-33mm, which is very close to your 32.18mm measurement. The X-T3 has 2 filters in front of the sensor which together total around 2mm. Below that is the sensor cover glass of perhaps 1mm (just a guess) and a small gap until the photosites. So I'd guess the total distance from the outermost glass to the photosites is more than 3mm, but it's probably not going to be possible to get the exact number since measuring the cover glass thickness and the gap underneath would require destroying the sensor. Rather than measure from the mounted Nikonos adapter to the outermost sensor filter, I would recommend measuring from the mounted Nikonos adapter to the camera's lens mount. Then add to that the camera's flange distance of 17.7mm and see how far off it is from 32.18mm. I think that should give you a pretty good idea of how much you need to remove from the adapter. It does sound like it will probably be around 1.5-2mm. How are you going to remove thickness from the Nauticam adapter? Can you just do it in steps (perhaps 0.5mm) and test each time until you achieve infinity focus?

On my Nauticam A7II housing the distance is 25.97mm. However, it should be noted that in at least some cases the Nauticam adapter does not provide infinity focus with some of the Nikonos lenses. It could be that the Nauticam adapter is a tad too thick or that some of the Nauticam housings hold the camera a tad too far from the port mount. Either way some users have had to modify their housings to bring the camera a tad closer to the adapter in order to achieve infinity focus. So to ensure success the first time around you might make your adapter slightly thinner (perhaps 0.5mm) than the Nauticam dimensions indicate. Here's a link to a wetpixel thread on the subject.

Interesting comparison. Nice work. One thing to note is that it appears that the APS-C crop mode was turned on for the Canon 60mm shot (I think the default setting is for it to turn on automatically when you mount an APS-C lens). Both the Canon 60mm and Sony 50mm are 1:1 macros and will have the same magnification at minimum focus distance.

Yeah, I'm not sure there's a way to ensure a good fit on the first try without me putting in more work than I have time for right now. But with your local printer it might be a good idea to try for a fit that's 0.1-0.2mm looser than you want to try to account for the slight bulge from my waterproof settings.

You're right that sub-millimeter tolerances are not guaranteed to be maintained across different printers, materials, and settings. As an example, I was recently testing the accuracy of my two printers using a 100mm diameter test print. My main printer had a maximum error of 0.22mm, which I decreased to 0.09mm after some adjustments. However, my newer printer (different brand, different slicer) had a maximum error of 0.51mm, which was larger than I expected. I'll also note that one of the aspects of my waterproof print settings is around 20% overextrusion, which leads to slightly swollen dimensions compared to normal settings.

This is why I don't use neoprene covers. Of course, whatever cover/cap you use, it is important to dry off the glass before the water has a chance to evaporate.

I too feel that the other RS lenses aren't particularly interesting, and I think the 20-35mm would be more complicated to rehouse in a donor lens due to the zoom. I do have interest in trying to convert the Sea&Sea 12mm and the Nikonos 15mm when I have some free time.

Unfortunately there's not. Perhaps I could try converting a Canon donor lens at some point in the future. But it's a significant undertaking, and I don't anticipate having the time in the foreseeable future.

Thanks for testing that, @MarkRD! Hopefully I'll be able to offer an N120 port within a month or two.

Following up on this, I tested the 13mm inner lens behind a 9" dome port and wasn't impressed. I suppose the images could be usable in a pinch, but sharpness wasn't as good as a regular fisheye behind the same dome.

Really interesting info, @MarkRD. Thanks for sharing. I had assumed the Monster screw drive adapter was working reasonably well on Sony cameras since Seacam was advertising it, but your experience makes me wonder. It's too bad that stacking the adapters didn't work for the Nikon Z camera. I'll try to figure out away to test my Sony converted 13mm with a Nikon Z adapter in the near future.

Yes, the parts are waterproof on their own. If you were to use normal print settings the parts wouldn't be waterproof, and you would have to do something like cover them in epoxy to make them waterproof. I used to smooth out the o-ring surfaces with epoxy or by turning them on a lathe, but then I discovered that it wasn't necessary.

I'm not sure I'm completely following you here, but no I haven't noticed that any extra care is needed. The ridges from 0.10mm layers are not very significant.

Yes, there are many variables at play including material type, printer model, nozzle size, and many different print settings. One important aspect of 3D printed o-ring groove walls is a small layer height. I use 0.10mm. Obviously, the walls won't be completely smooth due to the tiny ridges of the layers, but the compressed o-ring will span enough layers to make it watertight. For example, a compressed o-ring with a 1.5mm flat surface will span 15 layers. Using large/soft o-rings helps with this.

My 13mm port has 6mm thick walls. I had planned to pressure test different wall thicknesses to failure and plot the results so I could have actual data on how thick the walls needed to be, but even the thinnest port I tried survived the max pressure of the chamber. So I didn't have a meaningful reason for going with 6mm other than that it seemed like it was much more than adequate. I recently got a stronger pressure chamber and tested the port down to 145psi/100m/330ft with no issues. I use PETG. I've tried a number of other materials (including some more expensive/exotic), but PETG has a number of advantages over the others I tried including good print quality, water resistance, layer adhesion, toughness, price, etc. I'm very busy at the moment fulfilling 13mm conversion orders, but I might be willing to print your design for you if you want since it might be difficult to find someone else who has the waterproof settings dialed in.