Aquatica dome ports - does size matter?

For those of you using Aquatica's various dome ports, what are the pros and cons of one vs. the other? Is the 9.5" Megadome (glass) worth the extra cost over the smaller acrylic domes? Pros and cons?

I have generally subscribed to the theory that size matters (and bigger is better!) when it comes to dome ports, but I'd love the thoughts of those who own and/or have used more than one of these ports.

In my "limited" experience the Aquatica 8" is an excellent port, especially for fisheyes.

Size is useful for splits and for corners on rectilinear lenses. But small domes (sub 6") have a role for certain shots, particularly for very close focus - there is no way to get a quality of light on the subject with a big dome.

Alex

p.s. I am considering a new dome - but will post separately so as not to drag this off topic and so you can get some info direct from Aquatica users.

Bruce,

I think the great Lazaruuuuuu (Laz Ruda of Jim Abernethy's Scuba Adventures) just got one of the small domes Alex is referring to for his Subal rig.

He recently used it with his Tokina 10-17mm and says it's killer

Check with him.....

Dave

I use the 6" dome with the Tokina 10-17 and the Sigma 17-70 with no ill effects that I can tell. I really like the small compact setup.

TomC

I know this is an Aquatica question but I did tests on 3 nexus domes and feel my finding are relevant.

The 230mm dome was by far the best results for corner sharpness.

Then came the 160mm dome then the 170mm dome.

I thought what's going on? I thought bigger was better?

But then I realised, the 160mm is a sectioned dome, that is, it doesn't use the entire half circle like the hemispherical 170mm dome. It has less curvature despite measuring smaller.

So you need more information when comparing specs.

HTH

Mary

I have tried all 3 Aquatica domes.

My favorite for wide angle shots is the 9.25 as it gives the best edge sharpness.

The 6" dome works great with the 10-17 tokina at f 8 and higher, below f8 it is a bit fuzzy. It packs great! I have not tried it with the 11-16 or other wide angle rectilinear lenses.

The 8" is the old standard dome and works fine.

Bruce,

The 9.25 gives better edge sharpness, but its heavier and more expensive. I wound say that if you are working with a DX camera with the Nikon 10.5, Tokina 10-17, Sigma 17-70, Nikon 16, the 8 inch dome is more than enough.

If you plan to use a full frame hi resolution camera and in the future use something like a Nikon 14-24 or Canon’s equivalent, the 9.25 is a better option.

Best regards,

Marcelo Krause

www.marcelokrause.com

Hi Bruce,

In short - I use all three and like them all.

I've used the 8 inch for at least 12 or more years with the 20mm, 16mm and the 10-17 Tokina and like it a lot for all around and splits, but sometimes it looks a little bit soft on the corners with the Tokina in my opinion. I've taken some very valuable very unique photos this year with the 6 inch and 16mm + 1.5 kenko tele (on a D700) and the results were excellent, so no worries there either. But my new favorite is the megadome for WA. True, it's a bear but I think it's worth the dinero and the weight. When I go to Indonesia in a few weeks to shoot primarily wide angle, I'm hand carrying it and taking the 6 inch as a back up.

Very best wishes,

Michael Patrick O'Neill

www.mpostock.com

I use the megadome. I used both on our trip to the Socorros, but the difference in results was surprising. The 8" dome has been sold.

The down side is that it doesn't fit in the carry-on.

As my wife was overheard to say to a lady who was expounding the theory that it's not the size but what you do with it that matters: You've obviously not had a big one!