Adventurer

It makes sense if Backscatter did not change the WB to 4500K in the first „no diffusor“ shot. 🤑

Honored by your request Chris, I will try to find the time and and gather all the products to make a proper comparison.

why do you keep writing Marilux instead of Marelux ?

Interesting impression. Maybe also factor in that to date you can just compare " aged " Z240s to the newer models. So the will always loose. Strobes are a degenerative product. They deliver substantial less light over time.

Generally I would be very cautious with advertised guide number ratings on underwater strobes. If you ever compare them from website specs, try to stay within the same brand. Try not to compare S&S vs INON vs BS etc. by just advertised specs, this will just give you a rough indication. When I voiced up that the S-220 was rated too conservatively, I referred to D200, Z330, Z240 and S-2000 published guide numbers by INON. As I extensively shot all these products my subjective impression and some measurements with by own flash meter and lux meter ist that the S-220 leans more towards the Z330 and is for sure substantially stronger than S-2000 and D200. I would maybe describe it best as an miniaturerized Z240 with much better beam coverage. I have my Marelux Apollo III 2.0 incoming and the Backscatter HF-1 should also be with me next week. I still have to decide which of the three units will be my goto choice for the coming year. The travel weight and size of two S-220 is unbeatable for the two new candidates. And yes, I am a nerd and I need to test these out for myself 🤣

For all the Krauts in this thread: ..and the rest: It was pointed out by some contributors to this thread that we only use strobes or video lights to restore colours underwater. I would like to remind that this is not the only way to do so and not the only purpose. Artificial light also brings back sharpness to the image in various ways. Artificial light also helps in restoring image detail on the shadows and better balances them with the highlights. Furthermore we have seen images in this thread that brought back colour by removing a certain part of the light spectrum. In fact that is what filters do, no matter if put on your artificial light source or the camera inside an underwater housing. Filters do not add photons, they subtract photons in a certain part of the light spectrum. My personal opinion and experience is that CRI and ColorTemp of artificial light sources are highly over-rated product features which just apply to a very specific application. The original path to dial-in excellent blue background is with exposure. People praising warm strobes can be sorted into the "I shoot mainly on Auto-WB in tropical waters" group. Mark my words: COLOR TEMP ON PRODUCTS IS OVER-RATED WHITE BALANCING IS UNDER-UTILIZED To optimize gear, shooters should pay more attention to the "real" lumen output on video lights (also if lumen output is constant or decreasing over burntime). With strobes look at the "burn time curve" (speed) or the integral under that curve to make a sophisticated buying decision. Like dome radi the latter info is unfortunately hard to get in our unprofessional industry. When you buy studio lights for professional photo shoots companies like broncolor or profoto serve you this info straight from their websites.

A small reminder ( from the thread opening above ) : I am using Canon R6 Mark II in a Marelux housing in the above pictures. I have also worked myself through the Naughtycam portchart as a co-reference to try avoiding false-measurements and practical errors in application of the math. I conclude that in some cases I agree with 121 that the Naughtycam Portchart is also not free from false recommendations. Thanks Phil for your very informative answer and insights. I would like to add that this is a custom made BK7 glas dome for which I have the exact data. Therefore Marelux users: please do not derive any conclusions from my 30mm / 35mm extension. I was more interested in giving this simple do-it-yourself-setup to the public. The water tank and chessboard cost less than 20 EUR, I think. It is a cost effective way to practically verify your own math about the correct extension ring and gives you directions to go a few mm shorter or longer with the port extension. If you don't have a swimming pool and great weather like in Florida living @Phil Rudin at hand, it's worth a go, before hopping into the water. I encourage also Nauticam, Seacam, Isotta and SUBAL users to verify their dome positions. You might be surprised. As pointed out you have to be prudent about the 90deg optical axis chessboard alignment. In my first test (pictures above) the housing was also not perfectly levelled so occasionally you will produce a little bit of snells window. This will tell you to do better on the levelling.

Sorry @ChrisH but I have to ask: where you ever diagnosed protanopia ? If not, I probably need to see the doctor because, I clearly see RED in @Interceptor121 Bohar snapper shot. Am I the only person seeing the red there?

Made my day 🤣 🤣 💙 💙 Very good remark - so many opinions here fighting for dominance. Time to rest my case. Just mentioning that backscatter released also cooling filters with their new hybrid strobe and have a nice demo on YT.

👏 policeman Massimo at work 🦾 It's noteworthy. Good point and true. ✅ However (as always) there are some exceptions to thumb rules. Here is a really odd one: You might have seen pictures with little or no backscatter when the photographer was shooting with the strobes completely outwards. Meaning he casted the light totally to his left and right and nothing on the wide angle subject. In very bad visibility this actually works. It will produce a light cloud left and right from your camera and can be very much compared when pointing your strobe indoors towards the wall or ceiling. The light will bounce and softly hit the subject. Unintended versions of these "light clouds" can be observed with optical slave triggered strobes using no cables in your dive group. Recently this has become rare, but when S-2000 wireless connection kit was new, you had a high chance to get a few "wasted" shots were the effect was observable.

F8 Samyang 14mm positition with my computed 35mm extension looks pretty nice. The chess fields seem same size to me above and below water, what do you think? Unfortunately I have slight vignetting in the corners with that Dome and port-opening. I have to wait until next week, when I get my MARELUX 30mm Extension to see if it performs just as good. The vignette is also there outside of the water and it is purely an extension ring issue. In the second test picture the I feel the letters and chess board underwater look smaller. I am not sure this is my fault not being able to keep the chessboard exactly vertical or not. If it is not my fault, the picture exhibits the lens misalignment backwards which gives me hope for the 30mm ring. This shot is @ F8 How I build a simple garden test ground to verify theoretical lens positions. Another test shot more far away @ F11 exhibiting smaller letters underwater: Illustration on what should be observable.

Looks like there is a timeout for editing the initial thread opener, so sadly I cannot move this to the top: Samyang Rokinon AF 14mm F2.8 F ( for Nikon F Mount ) Samyang Rokinon AF 14mm F2.8 FE ( for Sony E Mount ) If you are unable to get your hands on a used Canon RF Mount Version still operates AutoFocus, you can also buy the EF: Samyang Rokinon AF 14mm F2.8 EF ( for Canon EF Mount ) All Versions of this lens seem to be on Optical Bench Hub.

You are misleading yourself and others with that idea. I claim myself guilty of having silenced discussions in the past by posting a spectacular image to make my point. Be aware: Some very knowledgeable technically good photographers with good advice are miserable at composition, animal behavior anticipation or simply don’t dive enough all year round. We are talking about IQ (image quality) here and what’s technically possible, not art. To get you dialed into the topic, let’s Alex have a say about his picture: This is very recent but there is more from him on YT were he talks about that particular picture and what technique he applied in other interesting YT videos. During the early 2000s many of the pros where using this strobe color plus calibration technique. Alex got the best shot ever, when he was going ALL-IN on this white-balance plus strobe thing. He simply had the balls to do it with a 105mm focal length while everybody else was using it with classic wide angle and fisheye lenses. Please note Christian, that there is vibrant golden color on the Bohar Snapper which makes this shot what it is.

Hi Guys, I’d prefer to run this as a collection thread before we tear this apart with discussion and look at the general pros and cons of this focal length. Please pitch your 14mm lens options ( old and new ) including zoom lenses that include this focal length. As I am not at home (anymore) in the Nikon Z or the SONY E System, I will need your help. Especially older lenses via adapter might be worth mentioning, as this knowledge might be lost and hard to research on the net. We might find exceptions, where an old lens could be a jackpot candidate.

I‘d like to compile with you a list of 14mm rectilinear lenses in this thread. The focal length that is so important for underwater photographers, because it has some one lens fits all arguments. I will edit this list, as the thread evolves. Some shooters claim that 130deg FOV is a magic sweet spot, others say 180deg FOV is a must. However these lenses very often require a full sphere fisheye dome OR an expensive heavy water contact optic to be sharp. If you look at the available dome port sizes of various manufacturers you will find that many are not full sphere. With these acceptable travel sized domes you have a good chance that 114deg FOV (found at 14mm) still can be positioned perfectly behind a dome without getting “tunnel vignetted”. This is all about full frame mirrorless lens choices for the demanding underwater photographer. Canon RF: - Canon EF 14mm II (via EF RF Adapter) the award winning Gaby Baratheu shot 🤩 was done with this lens MFD = 20cm / P-I-MFD= 100.56mm - Canon RF 14-35mm F4 L the goto lens for canon mirrorless MFD = 20cm / P-I-MFD= 91.42mm - Samyang (Rokinon) 14mm F2.8 RF AF I happen to own this AF Version for Canon RF mount and have high expectations, as the entrance pupil does move less that a millimeter when focusing. This makes this lens rare and unique. MFD = 20cm / P-I-MFD= 116.34mm SONY: - Sony SEL14F18GM 14mm F1.8 GM has maximum aperture of F16 which can be a trap in very bright conditions if you do not ND filter it. - Samyang Rokinon AF 14mm F2.8 FE ( for Sony E Mount ) - … NIKON: - (old) Nikon 14mm F2.8 - Nikon 14-30 F4 (Z-Mount) - Nikon 14-24 F2.8 (Z- and F Mount version) SAMYANG Samyang Rokinon AF 14mm F2.8 F ( for Nikon F Mount ) Samyang Rokinon AF 14mm F2.8 FE ( for Sony E Mount ) If you are unable to get your hands on a used Canon RF Mount Version still operates AutoFocus, you can also buy the EF: Samyang Rokinon AF 14mm F2.8 EF ( for Canon EF Mount ) All Versions of this lens seem to be on Optical Bench Hub. PS: This thread was inspired by Massimo, who thoughtfully mentioned… „I see a few misconceptions here a fisheye 15mm lens has less depth of field of a rectilinear 14mm lens the fact fisheye have field of view doesn’t mean they have more depth of field“

I am aware of the fact that my good friend Alex Mustard has publicly voiced his subjective impression about warm strobes on many occasions, which I do not agree to. Be aware that Alex processes most of his images, as frequently shown on YT. His BBC Bohar Snapper shot is (almost) straight from camera, as the competition had very strict processing rules in the past. This is why this particular image lends itself so well into my argument. Again. I encourage everyone to get their head around this one more time and work through this by first principles physics. It‘s the scientific approach. Scientific means not taking things for granted because someone with pristine reputation and excellent images has made a remark. Instead try falsifying / verifying them to yourself again. Stay hungry!

WRONG I respect your personal opinion about not liking dome shaped strobes and lights. But please don‘t let your anger spread false information. Dome shaped fronts do not benefit structural integrity. The particular products you mentioned have the same depth rating and it was not the engineering intention to compensate anything with that. For the optical equation you know better, Massimo. You have written many great articles about dome port theory. When you reverse that and apply it to chasing the light rays from the inside to the outside water column through the dome, you will find that dome glas on lights will spread the light. Same applies to underwater strobes with domes. Eveybody can simply verify this by shining a domed dive light into water. Once dipped it you will notice a more wide light cone.

Exactly! You just confirmed what I recommended earlier in this thread. Leave your CTO gels, diffusers and color conversion filters on the boat. It‘s a waste of energy, light and money. Start massaging your cameras WB instead to archive the effect. Especially INON S220, Z330 Type2 and D200 Type2 have such a great micro peened frontglas that you do not need diffusers.

I expected this to arouse everybody and not receive flowers for my statement as just a minority of shooters has understood the physics behind this. Underwater photographers are less open to this idea and the correct physics approach. It‘s more accepted and understood in the underwater video community were some execute this by putting blue cooling filters on their video lights. I can just encourage everyone to burry the old recommendation that you need warm lights or strobes underwater. Once you embraced the idea that you have an absorption related depth of field for underwater color, you will improve your imaging and minimize travel weight. Actually you are the able to colorize subjects more distant then 1.5 meters from the camera. Alex Mustards „Bohar Snapper“ from the BBC Wildlife Photographer of the Year competition is a good example and also proof that you do not have to sacrifice cool blue water background when using this technique.

Yes, this might be one of those strongly wrongly shared piece of advice which needs to be de-mythed and broken up. Has anyone a good DOF calculator for fisheye lenses at hand? Preferably one that’s free and online.

I‘d like to report positive experience with SEA&SEA YS-D2 and various INON Strobes, such as Z240 and Z330 and D200. A lot of people were praising Z330 in their underwater church but in everyday practice the D200 has done a great job as well. I have long year comparison to big strobes manufactured by SUBTRONIC. With the increased ISO performance of all cameras a few years ago the big guns have become obsolete for many use cases. This is confirmed by my recent S220 experience. This strobe is rated quite conservative by INON when looking at the tech specs. It outperformed the higher Guide numbered D200 and equally spec Backscatter MF2. It is not to be mistaken as a macro strobe, like the similar sized red S-2000 was. If you want to shrink travel size and weight or have to live on a small budget, this is the goto strobe in 2024. About the color temp discussions, I would like to point out the physics aspect involved. If you use gels or filters, or paying attention to the manufacturers golden tube coating you are holding it wrong. If you look at energy traveling in water you want your photons to travel in the colder spectrum. You can fix this with the camera by setting the white balance manually (in the camera, not in LR). If you leave it in auto and buy a warm strobe you are doing it wrong. I‘d like to compare this with Astro photography where the use of Anti-LightPollution filters just costs you some fstops. But many companies make money on the filter myth. In uw photography many companies make money on the warm color temp myth. All that is absorbed by water.

Are you not using fixed focus? If your dome is not too small you can achieve depth of field all the way through. The focus position in my set up moves around 15cm Exactly + great advice 👍 Could you add if you mean 1.) 15cm Virtual-Image/EXIFdata distance 2.) 15cm from dome glas 3.) 15cm from lens front 4.) 15cm from sensor plane *2-4 measured with a ruler in space time 😉

Thanks. Before this derailed it was about to get interesting and I would like to put our joint focus back on the theory values versus my practical measurement part. So for this lens I have 3 different values concerning the MinimumFoccusingDistance (MFD): 1.) 28cm (from data sheet) 2.) 12,8cm (some data sheets with* because only in possible in MF) 3.) 19cm (my hand-on tabletop test) I would like to hear your thoughts on this, as this might reveal a lot of theory versus practical pre-purchase info on various other lenses, too. If I run this through a classical DOF calculator, the values get me almost there at F11 (see attached image). 0.27m minus 0.08m = 0.19m Would go along with what I had on my table. Some rounding issues give us +/- 1cm in the corresponding illustration. But.. 1.) The AF classifies / focuses the resulted front focus as OK. It marks 19cm as the focusing distance. 2.) The AF also does this at F4.5 where the DOF should not be sufficient to get to 19cm effective MFD. Does this mean, we should always practically double check the manufacturers published specs on the lenses MFD ? And will this give us a little more breathing space for lenses in what Massimo described as “the dead zone” in one of his articles about domeport size and positioning ?

well, if you want to put it this way then Nauticam Domes are copies of SEACAM, SUBAL, Sealux etc as they did not bring anything new to the table. You were able to buy exactly the same glas materials and dome diameters from other housing manufacturers at much cheaper pricing before we ended up with just one quasi-monopoly housing maker who of course raised its pricing tremendously after driving the competition out of business. The only thing “added” to the product is the dome glas frame and port bayonet. So the dome of one manufacturer versus the other cannot be defined as “better” or “less good” when translucent material and dome radius size, coating are identical. Stuff is not “sharper” behind a ZEN dome or a Nauticam dome, then behind a MARELUX or SEACAM dome if sized and positioned well. Claims such as “brand xyz has the sharpest domes” leads new underwater photographers into the wrong direction. None of these brands can claim that they added some new magic sauce to the domeport game. ( * with exception to that rarely sold White Balance Dome by Edward Lai and maybe the front-lock Sunshade clicker on small Marelux 140mm Fisheye Dome ) None of the manufacturers that make underwater housings really designs and manufactures dome glas! They buy it from specialized glass makers. Making BK7 glas is an energy intense process. Funny sidenote: many of the Asian manufacturers in China and Japan still import German glas.

Maybe I should clarify that I have had access to the above products and measured them with a caliper to verify the brand statements. Thanks to my diving friends, eBay and dive expos. Marelux, Nauticam and ZEN seem to buy the exact same BK7 Glas spheres for their large 230mm dome and small (almost full sphere) 140mm diameter domes. Marelux and Nauticam 180mm dome are very similar. The large Marelux Dome is more full sphere (fisheye capable) than the ZEN or Nauticam 230mm and the only one which I was not able to personally touch / buy / measure yet. Marelux has improved coatings and their dome and luxury pelicase like packaging for their biggest dome. ZEN titles their 230mm and 170mm diameter fisheye domes, which is just a very bad marketing gag, as both are not full spheres, which you would expect from a product carrying the word “fisheye” in it. The most affordable fisheye dome with Nauticam and MARELUX is their 140mm diameter product. It’s (almost) full sphere. If you get in dialog with them they will tell you it’s not full sphere, but they are a little over-precise here. The roundness goes up to something like 169deg to 178deg before their glas enters the mounting frame. So it’s fine and usable with 180deg circular and diagonal fisheyes. For both r = 65-70mm depending how precise you measure. officially published is r=69mm for these two. It’s worth noting that the measurement error extrapolates with the aromatic, so I had come up with an approximation of just r = 61mm inner measurement in the past.