Chris Ross

Do you actually need to full frame would be my first question, depending on what lenses you want to use it can be significantly more $ and also heavier and bulkier making travel more difficult. Rectilinear wides, depending on which particular model work best in large 230mm domes, some of the new ones are OK in the 180mm domes. In ikelite you have basically an 8"dome and a 6"dome which works with some systems only and some have caveats in use. If you went m43 your lenses are significantly smaller and cheaper and in general work quite well with smaller domes. For me a big attraction is using the Canon 8-15 adapted to get full fisheye through to a 28mm FF equivalent reach. You can do something similar with an 8-15 on an APS-C sensor , but reach is a little less - very versatile setup for wide angle work.

Seems like if you get the boosters with the strobe there is a deal, $100 more gets you the boosters and two four cell battery chargers. I don't have the Pro max, just the lower power pure model, my current usage is the standard 4 cell configuration for local diving - go out for a single long dive locally and use the boosters when I'm on a trip. Cheaper than buying them later on.

Hi and welcome aboard, hope you enjoy the forums!

if they are asking for 300 dpi images they don't actually know what they want, they need to supply you with finished size, 300 dpi by itself is meaningless . 3840 x 1920 image is 32 x 16cm at 300 dpi. if you just type in 300 dpi on your 72 dpi image with resample selected it will make a 16000 x 8000 image which will look pretty average. If you send me the image I'll email it back in a few hours

What didn't they like about it? just the pixel dimensions or other issues. If a little soft you'll only magnify that if upscaling. The other thought is have set black and white points and pumped up the contrast a little, that always helps give the impression of sharpness. Assume you've gone through and picked your best frame and assuming that looks OK, bring it into PS and upscale it to 7680 x 3840 apply a little sharpening then re-size to the pixel dimensions they want. A good pic printed properly should look pretty decent at only 150 dpi. What finished dimensions do they want? Happy to give it a go with the standard PS tools, not sure how big the file will be but a jpg should email OK.

What are the pixel dimension changes, was it 4K footage to start with? Depending on how big the poster is, a good 4K frame should look halfway decent at that resolution.

You could probably forget about macro lenses then, a 24-70 or 24-105 in a small dome sounds about right??, anything shorter focal length the performance is probably compromised in a small dome. The 180mm Nauticam or 170mm Zen is a known quantity in the port charts, the 140mm should work but you may or may not be happy with it at 24mm, which you might want if the fish let you get close. I suspect the scoot to the general vicinity and stow the the DPV might be the productive option?

I think you originally mentioned photographing fish, I would think perhaps that might be the starting point - are they big fish or small fish? what sort of focal length do you need? If they are smaller a short macro lens might work, though Canon doesn't have one for full frame. If they are bigger perhaps a 24-105 behind an 180mm dome or the Zen 170mm dome but that's only marginally smaller than an 8"dome. A macro lens would the most streamlined option of course with a flat port. Would a 60mm equivalent macro work? you could do that with a 100mm macro and MFO3. You could also try a 24-105 behind a 140mm dome. The 24-105 is on the port chart with the 180mm dome, but not the 170mm or 140mm. The 140mm and 230mm domes use the same extension. The lens extends a long way at max zoom so may hit the dome glass in smaller domes. With the 140mm dome the corners might be pretty bad between 24 and 30 to 35mm zoom. If photographing fish my main concern would be that if you need to fluff around to remove the camera from the scooter and then stow the scooter the fish might disappear in the mean time so shooting with camera on scooter might be the best option unless you travel to an area detach and search for targets without the scooter.

Be interesting to see some comparison images especially with the RF 2x.

welcome aboard Drew, good to have you here.

Dave noted above that ABS is a stronger material and also the fact that printer settings can be an issue. You could try contacting forum member gudge who replied above to print you one. He printed mine and it seems pretty sturdy. He's based in Australia so you would be dealing with shipping etc. but should get a good gear out of it.

The field of view can be calculated, assuming it's an equisolid projection, here'a table for the 8-15 on a full frame with data based on a diagonal field of 175° which is what I have seen reported as the filed of the Canon 8-15 lens: Focal length Horizontal vertical diagonal Rectilinear 8-15 equiv 8 Circular 180.0 FE 15 140.7 90.4 175.0 6.5 21 97.2 63.7 118.4 15.8 30 67.0 44.3 80.9 27 The last column is the focal length of a rectilinear lens with the same horizontal field, it shows you should get similar reach to a 16mm rectilinear with the 1.4x attached at full zoom (21mm focal length) The last row is where it gets interesting, if you can adapt a 2x you the equivalent reach of a 27mm lens and effectively a 4x zoom in terms of horizontal field. But so far only an adapted Canon 8-15 with a Sony 2x has shown good quality results. The Kenko 2x image quality doesn't seem the best and fitting a Canon 2x to an RF-EF converter is locked out, I think there was one post on here about that where someone machined a third party RF-EF adapter to use a Canon 2x with the Canon 8-15.

Looking at the specs for the 14-30 vs 14-24 lens the total length with lens extended (for the 14-30) is 114mm vs 125mm for the 14-24, this says that the 14-30 should use approximately 11mm less extension than the 14-24 as a first pass guess, however the port charts show the same extension for both lenses, which seems to be an error. A starting point would likely be the 48462 extension at 39.5mm long which is the next smaller extension at least on their extension length chart: https://www.bluewaterphotostore.com/content/portchart/Aquatica/aquaticaextensionchart.pdf a 48455 plus 48456 (25.5 + 16.5) for a total of 42mm is another possible combo. If you had some other extensions already for other lenses you could try them yourself. If Aquatica are working on it probably best to wait for them as this assumes the same position for the entrance pupil in both lenses. They are probably close but may vary a bit in how far they are from the front of the lens.

For ambient light shots it should be fine, but it doesn't work with flash as it takes multiple very short exposures and combines them, so flash sync won't work and is locked out I believe. The main reason to use it UW is to stay inside flash sync speed, so it would defeat the purpose of using it. The other issue is that the fastest shutter speed is 1/60 for ND2 and it gets slower as you increase ND strength and for some subjects 1/60 might be a little slow. A better solution is probably to use a manual flash trigger which allow you to go up to 1/400 with manual flash without running into sync problems. Combine that with low ISO extension of 100 or 80 and you'll get two stops less exposure in total at ISO80.

Yes, it's unclear exactly what sets this and it varies between the WWL and WACP models as to which lenses they work with. I would guess that port charts for these optics are fairly complete and to get a better optic use the chart to help, but probably involves going to a WACP. I would think that the main limitation with some of these bigger lenses is the flat port size (port ID or the m67 port diameter causing vignetting), or some of the small primes a short enough port to properly accommodate them.