Isaac Szabo

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

On 6/21/2024 at 8:17 AM, Alex Tyrrell Dive4Photos said:

Hi has anyone printed a N100 Port Cover Female (Rear Port Cap) and would be willing to share the files so I could get some printed locally?

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.

4 hours ago, Barmaglot said:

Right, but I'm using a local print shop here in Bangkok to print non-waterproof drafts so that I can dial in my design, with the intent to send the final version to @Isaac Szabo to print it using his tested method. I'm somewhat worried that the design that produces an exact fit using the local shop's printer and settings will produce something else when Isaac runs it through his process.

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. 

18 hours ago, Kamaros said:

I'm not sure about what effects (if any) salt may have, but I've personally scratched a 140mm glass dome following a shore dive because some sand or similar particulates got trapped between the neoprene cover and the dome and scraped against the glass when I tried to take the cover off.

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.

3 hours ago, DreiFish said:

Damn.. I guess there's no current option to adopt the RS13 for Canon cameras? It would require a donor lens of some sort I suppose?

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.

On 2/7/2024 at 6:32 AM, Isaac Szabo said:

 

Unfortunately, I wouldn't expect that to work well. If you try shooting the inner lens topside, you will see that the image quality is good in the center but degrades towards the edges. I think the inner lens needs the 13mm front element and to be underwater in order for the edges to sharpen up. That said, I haven't tried it underwater with a regular dome, so it might be worth trying just in case.

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. 

17 hours ago, Robin.snapshots said:

Did you manage to get the settings dialed in to have the parts waterproof on their own? I was under the impression that covering the parts with epoxy was the way to go for proper waterproofing. 

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. 

17 hours ago, Robin.snapshots said:

Do you smooth out the mating surfaces for the O rings in some post-processing, or do you fully rely on the soft O-ring to fill the gaps? 

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. 

16 minutes ago, Chris Ross said:

Right, i see how that would help - do you need extra care placing the o-ring compared to the smooth surface of something like an aluminium port?  Seems like it might drag a little on the grooves?  or does it work out OK in practice? 

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. 

4 hours ago, Chris Ross said:

I have never done any 3D printing but it seems to me that the properties of the material are quite dependent upon the way the individual beads of plastic are laid down - does that vary with material and with the type of printer used?  I've handled quite a few 3D printed items and they never struck me as something that would readily make an smooth surface to get an o-ring to seal upon.  I assume different materials and print setting get around that? 

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.

7 hours ago, Barmaglot said:

Isaac, if you don't mind sharing, how thick did you make your RS 13mm adapter for SeaFrogs A9, and what did you print it from? I figure, with the 90mm port opening diameter, and 70mm lens outer diameter, I can do 5-6mm wall thickness on the bayonet itself and leave enough clearance for a zoom gear, then flare out to ~1cm walls on the outside portion of the cylinder - would that be enough? Although, thinking about it, I need to have an o-ring groove right at the thinnest part, thinning it further, but it will be supported by thicker material around it.

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.

1 hour ago, Chris Ross said:

Designing things for external pressure is more problematic as the stresses are different.  Issac's thin port withstood the pressure however a thin walled cylinder like that is not inherently strong under external pressure forces and may have collapsed if you grabbed the cylinder for example.  Cylinders are not inherently strong under external pressure, only spheres are.  Similar to the trick  where you can stand on an aluminium drink can and it supports your weight until you flick the side walls and it collapses or the titan submersible where it was the cylinder that failed.

Standing on an aluminum can is not similar to a pressure differential. Instead you can put your mouth over the opening of an empty can and suck the air out. The can walls will collapse with little effort.

1 hour ago, Chris Ross said:

I'm sure it can be done but I think one of the issues is probably going to be getting reproducible strength and water tightness from your print and couple that with the need to get smooth o-ring sealing surfaces.

Those are issues when trying to dial in the ideal print settings, but you only have to go through that process once. After you've figured them out you can apply them to all future projects.

1 hour ago, Chris Ross said:

If you want something custom I would think that machining it out of aluminium would be a better proposition.  You can also machine acrylic or polycarbonate, if you could find tubing with the right dimensions to allow you to machine the part you need. 

Of course those are viable options too. They're just more expensive/difficult. I'm guessing you might be able to buy a 3D printer for the cost of having a port machined (unless you can do the machining yourself).

I use 3D printed ports and have done some pressure testing. At one point I was trying to get one to fail so I could better understand their limits, so I made one with intentionally thin walls of only 2.5mm (I normally use more like 5-6mm). Surprisingly, it withstood the limit of my pressure chamber which equated to 225ft/69m. So 3D printed ports/extensions can certainly be a viable option. However, FDM 3D prints are not watertight using standard printing settings, and figuring out the right settings can be difficult. There are other challenges too including lots of CAD work, dimensional tolerances, and as you mention the horizontal overhangs. It can all be figured out, but it will probably require quite a bit of work/experience before one gets really good results.