Panasonic LX-100 Nauticam housing

Thanks nudibranco, I have decided the Subsee+10 would be the way to go since the FIT/i-Das +8 would almost be like a Subsee+5.

So just to generalize: for the LX100 (limit at 75mm), the Subsee +5 would be good for frogfish, Subsee +10 is good for nudibranch, CMC would be good for pygmies.

Wish there is a way to use the Nauticam Multiplier on other lens because SMC + Multiplier is $950, and that's a lot just to get the headshot of pygmy!!! (If SMC can be used on LX100).

SMC is +11 subsee is +10 that doesn't make so much difference and if you stack more the focus point may move inside the lens. Ideally you want a wide piece of glass which is short so you have working distance. The short lens doesn't really cut this camera for macro

You're right, for some reasons I keep thinking SMC is a lot stronger than Subsee+10. Or it could be because a lot of the of the SMC images I saw are SMC+multiplier and the poster doesn't mention the multiplier.

Look what I found!:

http://www.uwphotographyguide.com/nauticam-SMC-SubSee-Diopters

I wonder how difficult it is to stack two Subsee+10, I want my pygmy headshot!!!!

0.72 magnification according to Chris pics with Subsee +10.. Maybe with CMC (doubt it alone but with multiplier) ? or Saga +15 can reach 1:1 equivalent at 35mm?

The SMC is heavier than the camera!

Not sure why Chris did not try without the subsee at 75mm... Just curious.

I did the test without diopter at 75mm so I think that's why Chris didn't repeat it.

I didn't know the SMC is heavier than the camera? I heard that it's bulky, didn't know it's that bad!

Interesting I would have assumed the 75mm setting would give You a bigger size but from your pics it looks like the +7 Bluewater is 5 cm while without is 15cm...

Well, back from diving without my new rig.... (but tomorrow!!!)

Yes, as Moses already made the test i did not especially because sunset comes and ends quick here in Costa Rica.

Chris

Interesting I would have assumed the 75mm setting would give You a bigger size but from your pics it looks like the +7 Bluewater is 5 cm while without is 15cm...

Why? 32 degrees angle of view and 30 cm from the lens is pretty much spot on

Why? 32 degrees angle of view and 30 cm from the lens is pretty much spot on

Not what I am trying to figure out:

1: KC has got 15 cm at 75mm

2: KC has got 5 cm at 75mm with + 7 bluewater

3. Chris has got 5 cm at 75mm with + 10 subsee

4. Chris has got 8.5 cm at 24mm

It does not make sense...Anyway that is why asked the 75mm test from Chris...

May be my +7 was wrong? I took so many pictures it could be hard to track. I will test it again within next 2 weeks. But Christ shouldn't get 8.5cm at 24mm unless he has the Subsee +10 on when he take that 24mm.

Also, Chris shot at 3:2 while I shot at 16:9, so my pictures should show a bit more width than Chris'.

I made some more tries in the pool but the pix are not very useful as i did not used the ruler well so i don't post them.

I wanted to see if the AF macro and AF switch do change some magnification while using the +10 diopter.

I can't feel any difference in magnification between AF macro and AF, there might be a small difference but it seems to me that it makes no useful difference.
I think that his can be controlled/verified only with a "scientific" setup and not with floating in a pool and rocking the camera back and forth.

The changes when not using any diopter and zoomed at 75mm where the magnification difference between AF and AF Macro is clearly visible.

Yes, i shot at 3:2 so they are not directly comparable, but i will redo the test again only with the ruler and in 16:9

Anyway, the first dive was a success even if the dive conditions where bad due a high load of sediments and plancton.

This small (7 inch/17cm) long Scorpionfish was a patient model
75mm + SubSee +10 @ f/13 / 1/60 sec / 800 ISO
this photo is as it came out of the camera, only modification is from RAW to jpg

This is a extreme crop of a seafan
75mm + SubSee +10 @ f/13 1/60sec 320 ISO

Chris,

Since you're taking photo instead of video, try turn on "iZoom", you can zoom up to 150mm, the quality should be quite good.

I just receive my Aquako IV diopter which is stronger then the SMC. It's suffering from vignette issue just like the Subsee+10. I'm working on a solution to make that lens closer to the port, so if it works, I will share it here. Looking at the diopter flip holder, they could have put the circle behind the tab and hinge so the 67mm thread is closer to the front of the port. Don't know why they design the way it is now.

Izoom is only available in JPEG or movie not if you shoot in RAW. I think the flip diopter is an expensive and ineffective option. My idea was to get an inon m67 lens arm to use with the cold shoe and a clamp so that you can position the lens right on the port. You can get an ulcs ball mount probably even nauticam make one and then connect with a clamp to the inon lens arm

Interceptor,

i think that the flip holder is a nice piece, well made but rather expensive and the slight vignetting is a bit disappointing.

I hope that Nauticam change the design of the flip holder as Moses suggested and will send us the new version for free!

Your idea is basically not bad,
but the time to position the diopter perfectly in the center so that he is not vignetting and well centradted will be not to underestimate,
and i personally hate to fiddle around with gear under water and when i am ready the animal is gone ...

Chris

P.S. Below the original picture of the seafan just to show the extreme crop above:

I think once you have a wide piece of glass is not going to be that much trouble and the fact you can touch the port will act as reference. Either way the Lx100 doesn't cut it as still camera for me and looks barely ok for macro video. I think we are at the end of compact we need to wait for the next 4:3 with h265. Also after playing with those 4K files downscaled I really can't see it as life changing

Alright, since the Nauticam CMC-1 is out, it's time to get back on Macro discussion again. It seems like with the Nauticam CMC-1, the LX100 can shoot up to 32mm subject?

http://www.nauticamusa.com/news/2015/2/3/the-cmc-has-arrived

It's also now clear that why the macro flip diopter holder has such a big gap from the rectangle port to the rear of the dilpter holer: CMC-1 has a protruding rear lens element

I just receive my Aquako IV diopter, which is rated to be strong the SMC (see it here http://wetpixel.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=53387&p=349044),so I would assume it's stronger than the CMC-1. The Aquako IV is 52mm thread and with a 52mm to 67mm step up, it's causing vignette just like the Subsee +10, but worse.

There are two possible solutions for the vignette issue with the Subsee+10 and the Aquako IV. I will do a write up this weekend. I sent the diopter flip holder to a machine shop to make modification so the 67mm thread will be sitting right on top of the rectangle flat port, solving the vignette issue. With that said, now it will be a battle of "CMC-1 vs Aquako IV". I will test the Aquako IV at the pool this weekend.

If you have specific things you want me to test, make a list here and I will make a note. These are the thing I plan to test:

1.) LX100 at 75mm with the Aquako IV on modified flipt diopter (if I can get less than 32mm, then it beats the CMC-1).

2.) Working distance using the Aquako IV

3.) Stacking +7 or +5 on the Aquako IV

I am not sure about that table and am wondering how has that been tested. The rx100 mark III and the lx100 have similar focus distances at tele end however there is a big difference in that table. With only 5mm more focal length there is no way there is such a gap as for compact cameras distances are measured from the front of the lens not from the sensor. At 74mm distance it looks very unlikely that the camera will obtain 32mm simply based on the angle of view and comparison with other cameras with similar performance. Maybe those are measurements taken in air and not in water but something doesn't make sense

I'm a bit confused by the table as well especially looking at the LX-7, which has at least 20% more focal length than the LX100. I suspect 32mm is doable since the Subsee+10 is giving about 4.5cm. So may be the CMC-1 is closer to +15, which is stronger than the SMC.

I'm a bit confused by the table as well especially looking at the LX-7, which has at least 20% more focal length than the LX100. I suspect 32mm is doable since the Subsee+10 is giving about 4.5cm. So may be the CMC-1 is closer to +15, which is stronger than the SMC.

For diopters what matters is the optical focal length, not the 35mm equivalent value. With the LX100 having a larger sensor perhaps it has a longer optical focal length than the LX-7, which would make the diopter work more effectively. I am more puzzled by the fact that they increase magnification while at the same time increasing working distance. It is hard to imagine how that would work for a diopter, or any other type of solution that I know of.

Bart

 

For diopters what matters is the optical focal length, not the 35mm equivalent value. With the LX100 having a larger sensor perhaps it has a longer optical focal length than the LX-7, which would make the diopter work more effectively. I am more puzzled by the fact that they increase magnification while at the same time increasing working distance. It is hard to imagine how that would work for a diopter, or any other type of solution that I know of.

 

Bart