OMD EM5 and Pana 8mm Fisheye which dome

Hi guys, in a bit of a quandry I was all set to go out and get myself the Nauticam 4.33" dome for the panasonic 8mm fisheye but have been given another option for the Athena dome port F100NA-M1 which is a glass dome. Just wondering which would be better ? The Athena is slighty more expensive but still in budget. Am i better off with a glass dome ? not sure on the size difference between the two either.

Any advice would be appreciated

If it was me - I would go glass.

But both are optically excellent and I don't think you could tell them apart.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Thanks Trickster appreciate the feedback...some decisions to make now :-)

Plastic will scratch. But once in the water they will be non relevant.

- and you can polish them out if needed

Glass is obviously stronger, but once scratched, that's it :-(

Glass has better water dispersion. (I believe) So if you want to do lots of above/below spilt shots, glass would be better.

These are points I've gleaned from wetpixel etc. There are many on here with vastly more experience in these things, why not give a call to ReefPhoto or similar. When I've needed advice, the guys there have been exceptional.

but I've always stuck to glass, to me having plastic lenses just doesn't seem right :-)

F.I.T also do a glass dome for the 8mm on the Mirrorless mount.

Thanks Richard for your help I like the idea of glass and under over shots may be useful for my trip to Raja Ampat in May. So under over shots can't be done with the nauticam dome port ? . How are the dome ports measured ? The Nauticam is 4.33inches and the Athena is 100mm. Is it that the diametre the measurements refer to or the depth of the dome ?

The Nauticam is easier to get here in Oz, local dive store has them. The Athena glass dome I'll have to order from over seas no biggy just have to wait a few extra weeks.

Sorry for all the questions

So under over shots can't be done with the nauticam dome port ? . How are the dome ports measured ? The Nauticam is 4.33inches and the Athena is 100mm. Is it that the diametre the measurements refer to or the depth of the dome ?

It's theoretically easier to do over/under shots with a glass dome than acrylic because water tends to run off the glass more readily. But you can still do them with either material. The larger issue in my mind is that small domes just aren't very good for over/under shots regardless of their material. The meniscus appears thicker in images taken behind smaller domes and it's just harder to get the water/air boundary exactly where you want it unless the surface of the water is extremely calm.

This isn't to say you should pick a larger dome and abandon the smaller dome! Small domes have a lot of advantages (bulk, weight, ability to get in tight areas) that tend to outweigh the disadvantages in most common underwater photographic scenarios.

The size usually refers to the distance across the dome at its widest part, which I guess is the diameter (not to be confused with the diameter of the larger sphere a dome is actually likely to be a portion of).

I do wonder why Nauticam go down the Acrylic route on their domes, its not like their products are 'cheap'...

I am using the 4.33" Nauticam dome with 8mm FE and I really like it.

Glass is more scratch resistant, but then again if you get a scratch acrylic is easier to repair, right?

Glass would be heavier travelling, this could be a disadvantage?

I find over-unders are easily achievable with the acrylic.

I have just started using the 3.5" Nauticam dome for CFWA with the 8mm FE and it works well. I believe the same dome will work with the 12mm f2 which I am considering for topside work.

Nauticam also has a 140mm glass minidome for the mirrorless mount.

Thanks everyone for the feedback, I'm leaning towards the Nauticam dome as it is easily obtainable from the local dive shop. Alex the 140 mm sounds intersting to I might have a look at that as well.

Plastic will scratch. But once in the water they will be non relevant.

- and you can polish them out if needed

 

Glass is obviously stronger, but once scratched, that's it :-(

 

Glass has better water dispersion. (I believe) So if you want to do lots of above/below spilt shots, glass would be better.

 

These are points I've gleaned from wetpixel etc. There are many on here with vastly more experience in these things, why not give a call to ReefPhoto or similar. When I've needed advice, the guys there have been exceptional.

 

but I've always stuck to glass, to me having plastic lenses just doesn't seem right :-)

 

F.I.T also do a glass dome for the 8mm on the Mirrorless mount.

http://www.fun-in.com.tw/oc/index.php?route=product/product&path=58_195&product_id=1433

In case you are still looking, I got a used Zen 100mm glass dome - there is one native to mirorless nauticam housings but there is also a subal type 3 version for which you can get an adapter (I am going this route).

This is the one:

http://www.zenunderwater.com/products.php?prodID=4

The price is not on the cheaper side, but if you fish for used who knows.

Bushy, what did you go for in the end?

I see the choices for the 8mm are :

4.33" Nauticam
3.5" Nauticam
100mm Zen
100mm F.IT.
100mm Athena (F100NA-M1)

I'm still looking myself (for my trip in May)...

I think the issue of glass V. acrylic has been going on since the beginning of U/W photography and you will find pros and cons. to both with more of the "pro or higher end shooters in the glass camp. Any of these ports on the Nauticam housing can make a very small package for fisheye photography. I use the ZEN Underwater 100mm optical glass port which is actually a Subal type III 100m glass port on a Subal to Nauticam Mini adapter. The upside here is that you can also mount other type III ports to the adapter. I also use the ZEN 100mm with my Olympus 12mm F/2 lens. For over/under I like a bigger port but you can get by in very calm water. I did a review for the ZEN port in a back issue of uwpmag.com. This is one of my configurations for shooting the 8mm fisheye.

There are no real differences in image quality for any size as the lens focuses at 10cm and is a fisheye also if you use it for GH4 4K corners are cropped. Material wise the glass domes if coated with anti refractive will respond better to shooting the sunball or dealing with stray light. This probably is more a still picture issue than video. I just did the same considerations and opted for the nauticam 4.33" the reason is that with 1/320 shutter speed for the strobe I think shooting sunballs will be unlikely and for video I don't do it anyway. I also like the fact that fact I need to use less floats. If I had to go for quality I would go zen but practicality wise I prefer acrylic as it can be corrects if scratched and with fisheye you tend to get really close

I have a question for you trickster why are you getting this lens for video? Am getting the fisheye for stills I don't like the distorted perspective especially for wrecks

It will be for photos. I have the lens already (from my EPL3 days) so only need the dome. I had the zen dome for the oly housing.

I'm wondering if the curvature of all the above domes is the same (cut from the same size sphere) ?

If all things being equal I'll get the Zen dome. Happy with all my previous Zen stuff.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Nauticam ports same curvature others can't comment. The 3.5" will vignette in 4:3 aspect ratio with the panasonic. I think the FIT is 4.33" so theoretically the best product but again not much in it

Cost of zen more than double nauticam FIT 1.5x of nauticam but as I said I quite fancy a bit of plastic and the related lightweight

This is one of my configurations for shooting the 8mm fisheye.

Dang, those strobe arms are short. Aren't you bothered with backscatter?

 

Dang, those strobe arms are short. Aren't you bothered with backscatter?

If he is shooting right in front of the port for CFWA that will work well. If instead you shoot 3+ feet away and the water is murky probably a bit on the short side