Amphibico or Gates for FX7/V1

I have more or less decided on the Amphibico housing so we will be able to compare notes Ron! It doesn't look like either will be ready for my mid June Red Sea liveaboard, but I will just have to arrange another trip fairly soon!!! My wife and I have signed up for the Photoshoot Week at Tasik Ria, in Manado, at the end of November but just maybe.......

The decision is not easy as both housings have good features. I am a little concerned about not having a viewfinder, and the Amphibico does not have quite so many functions available. However with the 94 degree port giving full zoom through, and having seen Wagsy's shots with this port with and without a dioptre it has made the decision for me. I will go for the HiRes monitor option.

Price wise they work out much the same if you add the HiRes monitor to the Gates, but that is only using the Gates Standard Dome Port. I appreciate it can be used with a w/a converter, but we know the Amphibico port works. With the Gates I would have to change to the Flat Port for macro. I really would like the flexibity the 94 degree offers. I know how frustrated my wife becomes when she sees a rare macro subject when she has her camera set-up for w/a. She also has lots of Napoleon fish eyes because she has her 60mm on the camera!

I don't think I can justify the Fathom port (probably in excess of £3000/#US 6000) for my amateur filming, and I am sure that I will have more than enough controls to tweak with the Endeavour.

I just hope its the right decision,as we are talking big bucks.

Roger

Hi Roger,

With your 'Amateur' filmimg I wouldn't have gone for the V1 / FX7 with the Endeavour as its a semi-pro /pro rig...So no excuses on the money when it comes to the fathom...Just dig a little deeper you know you want to

I've now seen the 94 degree in action on a Z / Phen set up and it was very impressive especially doing face to cam presenting and close up swim past shots. But the rigs still to bulky and expensive for an amateur set-up in my opinion.. But that lens on the endeavour should be cool..

Although it looks as though you've actually made your own mind up I'd have tried out both and even tried for a second hand / re-con fathom..If you could find one..

Or just rented a housing / lenses for trips..Save some money for the HDCAM EX...

Dive safe

DeanB

Hey Roger.

The Gates and Amphibico have their strengths and weaknesses. I'm predicting we will both be happy with our choices.

Being a happy owner of a TRV900 Gates housing and shooting a lot more macro than W/A, the choice was easy for me. The flat port plus the flip diopter should work very well for the type of shooting I do.

Amphibico's 94 degree zoom through lens is very impressive and I can see it tipping the scales for you.

I will go with Gate's standard dome lens for W/A. It will give me 60 degrees and if my Raynox W/A adapter fits, I should get an additional 30% plus zoom through. The Fathoms lens is just too large and costly for me right now.

I am strongly considering getting the HD monitor too. Many times I lose shots because I can't frame the subject with the viewfinder unless I trash the reef. A top mounted monitor should solve that problem plus it will help with focusing.

My next trip is in August, so a mid June ship date should work out good.

It will be fun comparing the housings and footage. You will probably kick my butt with the W/A and hopefully I get some great macro to make you jealous.

Although it looks as though you've actually made your own mind up I'd have tried out both and even tried for a second hand / re-con fathom..If you could find one..

I appreciate your thoughts Dean, although an amateur, I'm still setting myself some high standards

Gates are having to create a new SWP with Fathom, so sadly there will not be any second hand ones around the current SWP44 doesn't work with this housing, I believe due to the different chip size. It will probably be very expensive as they will only sell small numbers, unless they can fit it on other housings in the future.

Roger

It will be fun comparing the housings and footage. You will probably kick my butt with the W/A and hopefully I get some great macro to make you jealous.

I agree Ron,

I suppose I still have the option of the Amphibico Flat port for those "macro only" dives. I haven't used much w/a on trips to Lembeh in the past.

Bring on the housings

Roger

The decision is not easy as both housings have good features. I am a little concerned about not having a viewfinder, and the Amphibico does not have quite so many functions available. However with the 94 degree port giving full zoom through, and having seen Wagsy's shots with this port with and without a dioptre it has made the decision for me. I will go for the HiRes monitor option.

Roger, if you are really thinking about the 94° port, you may want to first check with Amphibico on the precise specs. The old port was measured at 94° diagonally for the Z/FX1 with a 32.Xmm (35 mm equivalent) lens. The FX7 has a 37.X mm at wide. So your FOV may not be 94°. It's best to verify.

With the Phenom and FX1..

You can actually get closer with a +4 marco on the flip arm using the 94 degree port than with the Macro Dome Port on.... but you are very dangerously close to the port (1inch) One slip and it's all over.

This is about as close as you can get with the 94 degree port on and a +2 macro on the flip arm.

You will get no closer if you use the Macro Dome Port with the +2 on.

You will probably get the same results using the Endeavour with the 94 degree on.

Come on then Wags, how many replacement ports have you gone through?

With the Phenom and FX1..

You can actually get closer with a +4 marco on the flip arm using the 94 degree port than with the Macro Dome Port on.... but you are very dangerously close to the port (1inch) One slip and it's all over.

 

This is about as close as you can get with the 94 degree port on and a +2 macro on the flip arm.

You will get no closer if you use the Macro Dome Port with the +2 on.

You will probably get the same results using the Endeavour with the 94 degree on.

Actually the focal distance will be different as the FX7/V1 have a 20X zoom or 700+mm. Will be interesting to see how the macro port holds up as well.

I thought a flat port was for macro and a dome for wide angle ?

Ron, it's Wags being out of date in his Amphibico nomenclature.

There's the Amphibico 94° WA lens(formerly the 94° lens port) and the standard dome port (err still the dome port). What Wags is alluding to is the flexibility of the Amphibico WA lens, which allows full zoom and thus compensates a bit for the wider FOV.

However, the standard dome port merely compensates for the magnification effects of water, leaving you with the standard focal length of the camera lens. The 'macro' function in the dome port just allows the subject to appear closer as it would without a WA lens on.

Flat ports bring in refraction (the water magnification), radial distortion (look at the edges in the first pic in Wags' post) and chromatic aberration. Dome ports minimize all of those effects, but most times you lose full zoom because of the virtual image. It'll be interesting to see how the dome port performs with the 20X zoom.

Come on then Wags, how many replacement ports have you gone through?

I have gone through 2....

stupid jumping rocks...

Come on then Wags, how many replacement ports have you gone through?

I'm still on the same one.

With the Macro Dome Port on you can stack the diopters. I would suggest you do this with 67mm ones as they are larger and less chance of getting the tunneling effect. (not sure off the new barrel thread size on those cameras)

Here is the result with some 58mm ones stacked to +7 in air.

Yes the only real way to find out is to get one underwater and try it.

So come on guys, who is going to be the first

Wags now you've confused even me. You are using 58mm diopters on your FX1? You do know that there are larger diopters, even single element ones that'll fit the arm. Mark (Camdiver) uses the 72mm Century Optics (dual element, achromatic) with minimal radial distortion. Of course radial distortion increases as you zoom in.

FX7/V1 has 6762mm fittings.

Sorry Drew

OKAY with the 72 mm diopters you can screw them onto the end of the camera with the FX1/Z1. They would be even better to use than the 67mm ones if you are stacking as you said Drew.

The 67mm ones you can push them in the end of the camera barrel.(Z1/FX1) or you can take the glass out of the ring and put it onto the flip arm. Looks like you will be able to screw them into the end of the FX7/V1 if it's a 67mm thread.

With the 58mm ones you can screw them into the end of the camera barrel with a special adapter for the FX1/Z1.

Does that make sense:)

The thread size on my FX7E is 62mm NOT 67mm

Roger

Roger,

The main question was which way to go, either Amphibico's electronic housing or Gate's mechanical. While I no longer use Gates, I have had about 6 different Gates housings since '88. There is no question in my mind that you will not find a sturdier, more reliable and durable housing. They are made in San Diego and have excellent service. The Amphibico is made up in Canada somewhere and I have heard some real horror stories about their service dept. Never the less, as a recent convert to electronic housings, without years of experience using them, my initial impression is that they are much easier and more convienent to use.

Especially, with HDV, the optics are of great importance. The Fathom lens are excellent and I've heard no one ever say otherwise. I personally do not like using a flat port and diopters and really prefer the super macro lens instead. I do believe that the flat ports are some kind of plastic and can't offer the optics of a real lens.

Is there a way for you to try either of the housings before you purchase? As you said, either way is a lot of money. Better go to a friend, buy him a beer and use his housing for a dive first.

My 2 cents

Steve B)

Is there a way for you to try either of the housings before you purchase? As you said, either way is a lot of money. Better go to a friend, buy him a beer and use his housing for a dive first.

My 2 cents

Steve B)

Thanks for your input Steve. I appreciate your comments. Unfortunately getting to compare the housings before I buy could prove difficult. Most of my diving photographer colleagues are still camera fanatics, and I don't dive in the UK prefering warm water I might be able to hire for a weeks holiday. I have only used electronic housings.

A point made earlier was that the FX7 and housing were aimed at the semi/pro market. My still photographer friends are mostly amateur, but they can afford and use state of the art cameras and housings and can easily produce "professional" shots. For us videographers this is much harder. The pro stuff is much more expensive and usually beyond the amateur pocket. However, I am determined to get as close as I can to best performance - unfortunately I will have to stop short of the Fathom. If I put this on to a Gates housing plus the HiRes monitor I would be looking at something in excess of £8000 (approx $16000) and that is without lights Very hard to justify even for a dedicated amateur who cannot offset any VAT etc.

Roger

......However, the standard dome port merely compensates for the magnification effects of water, leaving you with the standard focal length of the camera lens. The 'macro' function in the dome port just allows the subject to appear closer as it would without a WA lens on.

Flat ports bring in refraction (the water magnification), radial distortion (look at the edges in the first pic in Wags' post) and chromatic aberration. Dome ports minimize all of those effects, but most times you lose full zoom because of the virtual image. It'll be interesting to see how the dome port performs with the 20X zoom.

Amphibico does offer a flat port for the Endeavor. The brochure and price list they gave me at the BTS show listed 3 port options. 94 degree, dome and flat.

I will be getting the Gates dome and flat port since I shoot a lot of macro and want to use the diopter and zoom to it's full potential.

Ron isn't the Gates already shipping? What's taking you so long?