Seacam 1Ds Mark III underwater housing photos

Hello guys. I took some photos of my Seacam 1Ds Mark III underwater housing. It feels just like the Mark II housing. Everything is right under my fingertips -- Harald did a great job in its design. The back is well-designed, and I can easily see the entire LCD.

There is no viewfinder attached in these photos. The black ring is the cover for the viewfinder hole.

Housing has no support for AF-ON, but does have * button support. You have to switch AF-ON and * button in the camera settings. I put the option in my customized menu for easy access.

Seacam housing for Canon 1Ds Mark III digital SLR

Seacam housing for Canon 1Ds Mark III digital SLR

Seacam housing for Canon 1Ds Mark III digital SLR

Seacam housing for Canon 1Ds Mark III digital SLR

Seacam housing for Canon 1Ds Mark III digital SLR

Seacam housing for Canon 1Ds Mark III digital SLR

Seacam housing for Canon 1Ds Mark III digital SLR

Housing shipped with o-ring around hotshoe connector that prevents it from swinging around in transit

Seacam housing for Canon 1Ds Mark III digital SLR

Have to remove the o-ring before it will fit on a camera hotshoe.

I just put it around the round bit, but leave it on so I can re-use it when I travel.

Cool, thanks for posting these Eric. Of course, this isn't going to be good for some peoples' pocketbooks :-)

Cheers

James

Hello guys. I took some photos of my Seacam 1Ds Mark III underwater housing. It feels just like the Mark II housing. Everything is right under my fingertips -- Harald did a great job in its design. The back is well-designed, and I can easily see the entire LCD.

Housing has no support for AF-ON, but does have * button support. You have to switch AF-ON and * button in the camera settings. I put the option in my customized menu for easy access.

Eric,

I wondered who got the first the first six of these housings in U.S.. Do you know who the other five are?

Chris

Chris - Sorry, but I have no idea who else has these housings! I don't even know how many of them are out here in the States. You said there are six?

I just recently had a chance to try out a Seacam MKIII in the pool, as I was asked to do a test run on a camera and housing for one of our commercial shooter clients who had a big job coming up. As Eric suggested with his housing, this one was "plug-and-play", no muss, no fuss. Especially given my familiarity with the MKII cameras and housings it was very easy to get used to. Clearly the camera has a few different controls, but once a shooter knows what the camera does, then the placement of the housing controls makes perfect sense.

The larger LCD screen is a massive improvement. I found the exposure accuracy was better than I was used to with the MKII cameras and it seemed to hit focus accuracy faster and better than the MKII as well. I was shooting shutter speed priority with manual strobe fill for this test, 1DsMKIII with 16-35II lens @ 16mm in the thumbnail attached.

I realize no one can tell from these small images, but the Canon 1DsMKIII is a very impressive camera in terms of ergonomics and file performance. Digging into the RAW images at 100% is a visual treat, and adding a very modest amount of sharpening renders an extraordinarily high resolution file of 60MB/8-bits.

Is it massively different than a 1DsMKII file, other than size? Maybe not. It seems to excel at more subtle improvements, which combined with the lighter body weight, enlarged LCD, and better camera ergonomics makes the 1DsMKIII upgrade very appealing.

Great housing too, of course, but as the North and South American distributor for Seacam (full disclosure) I'll leave that for others to discuss.

BTW ... I have been shooting a lot of competitive swimming lately because we have world class athletes training for the Olympics here in Key Largo. See http://www.seacamusa.com/race-club.pdf Many of these images were taken with the polecam and the new electronic viewfinder and monitor that Seacam introduced at DEMA.

I realize no one can tell from these small images, but the Canon 1DsMKIII is a very impressive camera in terms of ergonomics and file performance. Digging into the RAW images at 100% is a visual treat, and adding a very modest amount of sharpening renders an extraordinarily high resolution file of 60MB/8-bits.

EXIF data (1/320th) seems to suggest faster synch speed than stated spec of 1/250th second. Kind of hard to evaluate in this particular photo with so much open water, but I don't see any indication of lack of synchronization. I am using Sea and Sea YS250 strobe for the swimmer shot. It will be interesting to test this more once my personal camera and housing arrives.

Stephen, Eric and others,

have you guys settled on an extension size and/or a diopter for best corner performance with the EF16-35II behind the Superdome?

Stephen, Eric and others,

 

have you guys settled on an extension size and/or a diopter for best corner performance with the EF16-35II behind the Superdome?

Stephen concluded (although I'm hesitant to speak for him) that the best extension is a 57.5mm, and you can buy an extension ring that size.

I decided I didn't want to carry an additional extension (especially one that long) around, so I've settled on stacking a 30 and 25 to get an effective total of 55mm extension (haven't actually shot with it yet, but have the rings). According to Liz, Stephen thinks that's a better option than 60mm, but he still considers 57.5 the "best" length. He can correct/clarify if I've misstated that.

Also, my impression is that for sharp images with that lens, using a fairly high aperture (f/8 or above) is as important (if not more so) than using the exact "ideal" extension length. IOW, I would expect better results shooting at f/11 with my 55mm extension than shooting at f/2.8 with a 57.5mm extension. Of course, the ideal is to use the "best" extension AND camera settings, but if you're going to fudge with one (as I am), at least put special effort into not fudging the other...

Stephen concluded (although I'm hesitant to speak for him) that the best extension is a 57.5mm, and you can buy an extension ring that size. ...

I did a heap of reading last night, and that seems to be the case after a bit of to and fro. Still have seen no reports/results with a dioptre though.

...

Also, my impression is that for sharp images with that lens, using a fairly high aperture (f/8 or above) is as important (if not more so) than using the exact "ideal" extension length.

..like most WA zooms i guess. In air my original 16-35 needed f11-f16 to get sharp across the frame. I haven't tested my mkII version, I've just been using it at those same apertures, maybe it is OK a little wider, I should test.

Stephen concluded (although I'm hesitant to speak for him) that the best extension is a 57.5mm, and you can buy an extension ring that size.

 

I decided I didn't want to carry an additional extension (especially one that long) around, so I've settled on stacking a 30 and 25 to get an effective total of 55mm extension (haven't actually shot with it yet, but have the rings). According to Liz, Stephen thinks that's a better option than 60mm, but he still considers 57.5 the "best" length. He can correct/clarify if I've misstated that.

 

Also, my impression is that for sharp images with that lens, using a fairly high aperture (f/8 or above) is as important (if not more so) than using the exact "ideal" extension length. IOW, I would expect better results shooting at f/11 with my 55mm extension than shooting at f/2.8 with a 57.5mm extension. Of course, the ideal is to use the "best" extension AND camera settings, but if you're going to fudge with one (as I am), at least put special effort into not fudging the other...

Hey Guys - Sorry for the delay, but I'm in PNG at the moment.

I did decide the 57.5mm port extension is the best (with superdome), and Seacam now offers that as a standard item from any Seacam dealer. Actually, it was splitting the difference between the 55 and 60, and like Bruce said, if you already have a 55, or a couple that add up to that, that should be close enough. The PVL 60 gives so much upward torque from the superdome and that much extension, it is hard to handhold a strobe and use the housing in one hand. Therefore, 55 becomes the far better choice. However, starting from scratch, and not being opposed to carrying a port extension that long, go for the 57.5.

As far as diopter, I gave up on that test because I could never find an 82mm slim enough to not vignette.

BTW ... a working aperture of F-8 and smaller is better, for sure, and if it means working at ISO 200 instead of 100, it is worth it for that lens.

BTW2 - I had a big edit recently that forced me to look at a lot of older images, including 17-40, 16-35 (original), Nikon 12-24, and the new Canon 16-35II. I like the 16-35II better than the others, but the corners will still be a challenge. A manual focus gear is a nice addition for some subjects, so you can more precisely cheat the point of focus and try to cover more of the corners + a central subject.

hey Stephen, that info is much appreciated. Hope PNG is fun, I'm looking forward to being up that way next month.