Adventurer

Well you already own the RF14-35 and a 8.5inch dome?!? Search no further! Just combine this excellent underwater lens with your dome (superdome had 9inch). Also the lightweight acrylic dome will be much more rewarding for split shots. Looks like you have everything you need right in front of you. Just get a zoom gear for the 14-35 and try to measure down the the perfect extension Ring with dome data and entrance pupil position on optical bench hub.

True, I second this! The very bad MFD of the 24-50 lens makes it also a pain in the .. underwater. When you are used to be able to focus right up onto the dome this becomes a real downer, as you cannot get really close without plugging diopters into the system. Generally the WWL and WAPC are highly overrated and will not give you better optical performance than your Canon EF 8-15mm fisheye, even when combined with 1.4x or 2.0x teleconverters. You already own the best for super wide. Your dome choice should be taken very carefully so. Closely checking my files from 2 years diving with this rig I now find that my shots with the compact 140 fisheye dome are better that those with a superdome 9inch sized dome. You really need a full sphere for this. It might be worthwhile to get an adapter for your old Seacam Fisheye dome, if you own one. Having said all the above. I shoot Canon RF and instead of Nauticam, I use a Marelux housing with which I am very pleased. I think it‘s the better Nauticam with some improvements in the small details.

I use Backscatter HF-1 with HSS and UWtechnics Board, but manual only. A friend of mine shoots Sony and uses Turtle Smart3 Trigger enabling HSS and TTL on the Backscatter HF-1. So you are not forced to buy the Backscatter Flash Trigger module to get TTL. I wonder if the AOI Trigger will also work with the HF-1 enabling TTL and HSS ? 🤔

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.

Yes, very rectilinear Davide. My optical glas may be a slight variant, though. As @Tom Kline asked for more historical quotations, I have found the following interesting recent writing from 2023, confirming the two-step process this optical system has gone through and what Alexandre Ivanoff's later role played in the 2-step invention. It's in fact the complex chromatic aberration correction lens element, that @Alex_Mustard had get measured and failed to reproduce with normal diopters. Have a read below... source: Photonics Focus Magazine: Article on Page 14 by By William G. Schulz

Maybe @Alex_Mustard can drop in an iphone picture of his glas element that is attached to his 20mm lens inside the housing and the front port element when the housing is dismantled. The two components are not hardwired to each other. The Rebikoff Element or Rebikoff optic is the part that touches the water and also seals the housing. It's not a simple flat port. The part that I named "Ivanoff" Element in the Ivanoff-Rebikoff System is what the joint venture of the two inventor brought new to the table in the early / mid 1960s.

Thank you @Tom Kline for this find. I have just ordered a copy of that old book and am exited. According to my research there are clear indications that Dimitri Rebikoff had already been working on water-contact corrective lenses before the joint “Ivanoff-Rebikoff” optics project. The classic Ivanoff-Rebikoff lens is more of a later, joint highlight—not the beginning of his work in optics. From what I know until now I cannot agree to your assumption that "Ivanoff wrote the patent and Rebikoff was the builder". Dimitri Rebikoff (1921–1997) started working on several underwater innovations in the early 1950s. One of them was Poodle ROV (approx. 1953–1954) Reports on the first civilian ROV, the “Poodle,” describe how Rebikoff placed a camera in a pressure-resistant housing and mounted a “water-corrected” or “water-correcting lens” in front of it in order to film Mediterranean wrecks at a depth of 700 ft. This is an explicit water-contact correction lens – decades before Nikon/Nauticam etc. took up something similar again, and long before he started his joint works with Ivanoff. An optics blog about “Air Lenses” writes that the classic Ivanoff-Rebikoff corrector system was “devised in 1960.” Modern photogrammetric works cite this optics as the Ivanoff-Rebikoff corrector, with references such as “Ivanoff and Cherney 1960, Rebikoff 1968.” This suggests that the first formal description of the optics appeared in scientific literature around 1960. Your later revision of the book (assuming the right book "saying System Ivanoff" is from 1965) would fit along well in this research and explain the photo caption inconsistency you found. It looks to me, that in both versions of the book the two illustrated lenses are not ment to be working on the same camera rig at the same time. They are two different Rebikov optics, without the contribution element that his collaboration with Ivanoff brought to life. The first photo I have found of a similar system that is illustrated on page 31 in your left book (as above written, I assume that is the older one) was used in his underwater scootering camera rig which you can still find in the diving hall of fame online today: source: SCUBA Diving Hall of Fame

Interesting! Could you clarify which of the two has more DOF ? Or better rank all three optical options, with best DOF from 1. 2. 3. top down?

Canon Rumors still insists: Canon RumorsCanon EOS R7 Mark II Coming Soon? - Canon RumorsCanon is preparing to announce the EOS R7 Mark II and new lenses in the coming months. We expect more stellar products in 2026.

You should bring up the Insta360 AcePro2 on your radar. It‘s slightly more capable than the GoPro and the Osmo with the out of the box footage. Personally I use Insta360 AcePro (version1) as a small secondary cam and that one already smokes the other cams around. Due to the larger sensor and leica optics of the insta you already notice slight performance differences in the underwater optics. I have tested AOI, Backscatter and INON underwater action cam optics and found the INON image quality to be slightly superior than the others. There was also a thread here somewhere on the forums seconding my personal impressions about the superiority of the INON action camera optics.

Have you tried frame rates below 10 fps and above single shot mode ? That way you can rule out the general issue coming from camera or trigger. As you can see in the Henley Spiers strobe comparison photos: at 7 fps already the 2nd frame gets pretty dark and the RETRA is struggling at more open apertures.

I just recalled that Henley Spiers has shown the RETRA fast recycle time performance in his review: https://www.divephotoguide.com/underwater-photography-special-features/article/first-impressions-marelux-apollo-iii-2-0-strobe It‘s showing a lot of struggle at 7fps. The Marelux strobe smokes the oneUW and RETRA in this discipline.

10fps are done at easy with Marelux strobes at full power in their ultra-fast MTL mode. But you have to use them in MTL and with fibre optic cable (not Lumilink) to squeeze out the maximum repetitive performance. They are currently leading the fast recycle time without blackout frame technology in underwater strobes. Here on the forum is a pretty dismal measurement of mx strobe strength by dreifish though - something I could not agree to when comparing it 1to1 to my Backscatter HF-1. I can only assume the Apollo tested by Dreifish must have been a monday model or malfunctioning pre-production unit. On any AA eneloop powered strobe you will struggle to get fast recycle times near 8 - 12fps. You need a strobe which utilizes 18650 or 21700 high current discharge cells. Otherwise the capacitors cannot fill back up at the speed you desire.

Not an Ivanoff Optic but a Rebikoff Underwater correction port will also create a somewhat „virtual image“ similar to a dome. Contrary to dome port the corrective effect can already be seen in air, but the image is not improved in air.

Chris we have to stay sorted here, so everybody is on the same page and not mixing things up. There is no such thing as a sole Ivanoff optic working standalone and making your underwater image better. There is just Rebikoff-Ivanoff Optics, where the Ivanoff Element does Step two of the optical correction. Contrary to sole Ivanoff Optics, the Rebikoff corrector port can have a positive effect with increased IQ when used alone, simila but still different to a dome port. The Rebikoff corrector port will look very similar to a flat port when viewed from the outside, mounted on a housing. So for everybody going first time into this, there is: Flat Ports Domeports Rebikoff uw correction Ports Rebikoff-Ivanoff uw correction Ports