Panasonic LX-100 Nauticam housing

Thomas Lam from Nauticam deserves a lot of credit for taking the time to actually measure these (and basically every other lens on the market). The measurements were actually done twice by Thomas, and verified by Alan Dewey at Reef Photo.

The CMC magnification table listed in the press release is actual measured data, in water.

Working distance is measured from the front of the housing port, or front of accessory lens. It is the actual space between the underwater system and subject.

All of the systems listed achieved their best "native" magnification at their widest focal length, and very close to the subject.

All of the systems listed achieved the magnifications listed with CMC are at full telephoto. It is possible, but not likely that some of these could actually have slightly better magnification if you pulled the zoom back a couple of clicks. In the interest of consistency we didn't try to establish these situations. We wanted repeatable results.

CMC isn't just a simple diopter, so I'm going to try to resist those comparisons. The actual end magnification with today's top compacts (RX100m3, G7X, and LX100) was in line with simple housed +15 diopter macro lenses. There were noticeable image quality differences, though.

Thanks Ryan for the clarification. Perhaps the table could be a bit technical for some of us who're not that good in technical analysis, and strictly want to know "How small of a subject we can shoot".

Regardless, I personally am very interested at the CMC-1 because the SMC has good reputation of great optic sharpness and ease of working distance. Not knowing that the CMC-1 would be release this early, I went ahead and got the Aquako IV, which has bigger magnification as its big selling point. Too bad there isn't a whole lot info available online about the Aquako. I know Eunjae Im uses the Aquako IV diopter in this video:

It looks promising so hopefully I can get great result after testing at the pool. May be I need the CMC-1, or may be not....... Does it sound too much if I carry 4 diopters into the water and dive?

Am not questioning the whole table but being this an optical system I wonder why it would behave differently just for one camera? Either way it will be an interesting challenge to try and focus at that level of magnification if you take video. I have had a +10+6 stacked on lembeh on a tripod but generally a +6 is my favourite for video especially with the tele mode of the gx7 in fact may even go for a +6. I find working distance to be the most important factor for video. For stills just make it look the biggest is fine.

Looks like my NA-LX100 will be here Monday. I'm thinking the CMC-1 lens is the way to go, since it protrudes back toward the port lens and is custom made for that housing.

The question is, do I get another lens for frogfish etc, or is the CMC-1 all I need. Theoretically I could use the CMC-1 and zoom out from max zoom a bit, but I don't know yet how far I can zoom out without undesired artifacts. My dive trip is coming up soon so I don't really have time to wait and see.

Would an Inon UCL-165 be a good complimentary lens for the CMC-1?

I will be shooting video mostly, but will probably get more into still pictures as time goes on. Am thinking of rigging up a gorilla-pod to the NA-LX100 tray for shooting video with the CMC in the muck. Other than rigging up ULCS arms, has anyone else found a good way to 'tripod' that tray?

Tks...

For frogfish unless very small ucl165 too strong. I was on a trip last year and realised I missed a good portrait diopter so got myself an ucl330. For video the CMC is far too strong and when shooting nobody will see fringing in the edges of the frame. So ucl165 and ucl 330 is the way to go unless you shoot Pygmy seahorses all day

For frog fish, a +8 would be good, may be even the +10? The CMC-1 would be the way to go for tiny subject.

As promised, I have been working of work around and modification to use diopter than has less than 67mm thread. I'm showing the "Workaround" first, then will do the "Modification" later.

The diopter I use is the Aquako IV, which is stronger than the SMC and is rated to be 2.5x. The Aquako IV is a 52mm diopter, and come with a 67mm "Step up" ring.

The base of the diopter:

Step up ring can be separated from the diopter:

This is how it looks when use the diopter as it:

The big gap between the flat port to the rear of the flip diopter holder cause you to see the back of the diopter, like this (the test shot is done in air, not in water):

(Have to split the explanation in two because I posted too many pictures)

To work around or improve the problem, we have to get "67mm to 52mm step DOWN ring" and "67mm spacer". You can just buy a cheap 67mm UV filter and break the glass, and that will become a 67mm spacer:

For those who never use a Step Down ring, it should look like this:

To put together the diopter, we would screw the diopter onto the step down ring, with the 67mm thread facing outward, then the 67mm spacer goes on the 67mm thread on the step down ring:

With this work around, you have to mount the diopter with the flip frame opened, and screw the lens from "inside":

Once the diopter is screwed in, its base is lower then the flip frame:

When the flip diopter is closed, the gap between the flat port and the base of the diopter will be a lot smaller:

This is the result you get (test shot is shot in air, not in water):

When shooting video, because of the further crop factor, this is the result:

Thought:

1.) The Aquako is believe to have been made for dslr, with longer focal length, so it's not really suitable for the LX100 even though it's slightly more powerful and cheaper (US$250) than the CMC-1.

2.) This workaround should work with other diopters, especially the Subsee +10 judging from Chris' picture, the vignette on the Subsee +10 is not as bad compare to the Aquako before this work around.

3.) Screwing in the diopter from inside of the frame could be slower and harder especially underwater, hence I worked on a modification to the flip diopter and will be explain next.

4.) The 67mm to 52mm step down ring and the 67mm spacer only cost me $22.

Am always very careful when it comes to close up lenses espresses with a magnification formula. What you really need is the focal length of the lens on its own. 2.5x is +10 diopters so it seems this lens has the same power of the subsee. Take into account that if the camera lens is further away from the back of the glass the diopter lower decreases so a 2.5x lens becomes easily a 6 diopter. Look at the lens of your lx100 when is fully zoomed, is it very close to the glass port? If yes and the close up lens touches the port you will be close to your 2.5x. For what concerns required magnification with a +6 like the inon ucl165 if your lens is at the port and the diopter touches the port your capture area will be around 5.6 cm which for me is ok for a medium frogfish

The 2.5x is what the company disclose, there is no indication of what +X it is. I disagree that the Aquako is the same as the Subsee +10. If you look at the chart (http://wetpixel.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=53387&do=findComment&comment=349044), it's stronger than Subsee +10 and the SMC. Furthermore, Chris' test using Subsee+10 yield result of about 5 cm subject width, while the Aquako is 3 cm (don't know what happen once it's under water, so I will have to test it.).

Regardless, the Aquako is barely suitable on the LX100 especially for video (for still, it's just easy crop to get rid of the vignette). Like I said, it could be designed for dslr with longer focal length (I probably should test it on the LX7 too), so I may just save it for the day when I upgrade to GH5 or something with dedicated macro lens, and not needing the SMC when I do the upgrade. For now the CMC-1 seems is the best for higher magnification. The work around may works for people who already using Subsee +10 like Chris.

I think you need to see the lens own focal length to compare

MA=d/4 so a 10 diopter has MA=2.5

However depending on the port you may not achieve this and sometimes you achieve less. Hence is better to check the lens own focal length as comparison basis the subsee and Inon UCL-100 are identical in that respect

From what I know the SMC is stronger possibly +11 or+12 so this aquako may be even stronger but that table is not the way to determine the performance of the lens on its own but the combination lens plus camera plus close up lens

I have a few formulas to calculate the width at minimum distance for the LX100 I get 38.5mm so I think the flip diopter is deteriorating performance quite a bit hence I suggested using one of this

http://www.inon.jp/_src/sc9542/LensArm.jpg

With the GX7 and flat port lens PZ14-42 I get 31mm width at 42mm with the UCL100 in 35mm this is 87.4mm in 3:2 which is marginally more than the LX100 75mm so you should get nearly 36mm with a +10 so it is clear it is the flip diopter increased distance to create a problem

Let's keep the discussion relevant to LX100, after all, the thread is about LX100. At the end of the day I think people just care about what diopter would yield what result on the LX100. I'm not sure what calculator you used, but I trust Chris's photo, which yield 5 cm. Some times theory may not match up with reality, we need photos to proof. I would encourage other LX100 users who have Subsee +10 and other diopter to contribute here so readers can know what diopter give what result.

Minimum i could reach in the pool is slightly less then 2 inches or 5 centimeters with AF in macro mode.

AF in Macro mode or in AF mode is a question of millimeters more or less in width.

In any case, the SubSee +10 is giving a very nice quality with no distortions or CA

I uploaded a short macro video using the SubSee +10 (downsampeled from 4K to HD) here: http://www.sardiniadivers.it/WetPixel Images/AnemoneModified.mp4

As soon i have some spare time will redo the test building a tripod to be able to measure also the focus distance between the housing and the ruler.

Chris

Am not suggesting Chris is doing anything wrong but the design of the flip diopter can be making matters worse hence I suggested the m67 arm

Well, i went again to verify the pictures i took using the Nauticam Flip Adapter and the SubSee +10 Diopter and mounted the housing on two 4 pound weights to keep her put.

carefully sliding the weighted housing back and forth using manual focus i got a slighly better result than last time (4.5 centimetes and not 5.0 centimeters)

As i was already in the pool i tested also the flat, short 67mm threaded port + a old INON UWL - 100 wide angle wet lens wit 67mm tread.

Once again, i can't see any magnification difference in AF, AF macro or manual focus mode using the SubSee +10 diopter

LX100 generic port f/16 1/60 sec ISO 800
75mm no diopter

LX100 generic port f/16 1/60 sec ISO 2000
75mm SubSee +10 AF macro

LX100 generic port f/16 1/60 sec ISO 3200
75mm SubSee +10 AF macro mode
In this picture i hold the SubSee directly on the glass to avoid the space between the flip holder and the port, not a big difference

LX100 flat 67mm threaded port f/16 1/60 sec ISO 3200
24mm

width of Image: +/- 4 meters
shooting distance: +/- 4.10 meters

LX100 flat 67mm threaded port f/16 1/60 sec ISO 3200
30mm (minimum zoom to avoid vignetting)

width of Image: unknown

shooting distance: +/- 4.10 meters

LX100 flat 67mm threaded port f/16 1/60 sec ISO 3200
30mm (minimum zoom to avoid vignetteing)

width of Image: 8.7 centimeters
shooting distance: +/- 3 centimeters

I took also a CFWA photo, but as it was almost dark and the UWL-100 almost hit the ruler the picture looks so bad that it offend the eye and i censored it.

In any case, with a shooting distance of approx 3 centimeters the photo is 8.7 centimeters wide

I think that i could get even more near, but the lens is dropping shadow on the ruler so i may need to redo the test with a back illuminated ruler

Chris

So basically my results for image width at minimum shooting distance are:

140 mm / 5.51 inch 75mm no diopter

47 mm / 1.85 inch 75mm + SubSee+10 on Nauticam Flip Adapter

45 mm / 1.77 inch 75mm + SubSee+10 on contact with port glass

I haven't test the 67mm flat port, so at 24mm, you can see the port?

Your test seems to match up with mine, I just hand hold my camera so it could be off by a few mm.

Here are the modification I made to my Flip Diopter Holder:

1.) Unscrew the screw on the tab of the 67mm round holder:

2.) Unscrew the screw on the hinge and the frame.

3.) So these are the parts you deal with.

4.) Notice that the 67mm holder has channel, this will help secure the holder once we mount it at the bottom.

5.) The only thing that need special attention is to drill the existing hole and make it go through the tab and the hinge. I found a Machine Shop that would do it for me, and "tab" to create more thread to go through the hole while not affect the existing thread where the short screw goes in. You also need to get a longer M4 Flat Head stainless screws.

6.) Make sure the longer screw is longer than the tab and hinge.

7.) Now put together the 67mm holder with the flip frame, but this time the holder is at the bottom, where the flat port would be.

8.) The extra screw length is covered by stainless nuts, and also make it more secure.

9.) Once the whole thing is put together, the nuts are facing out, and the holder is at the bottom/inside.

10.) The Flat port itself has a bit frame, so the 67mm holder will press against it instead of the clear window. But the flip diopter still can be latched close.

11.) With this modification, you don't need to use my suggested "workaround" of using Step Down ring and spacer, then screw the 52mm diopter from inside of the flip diopter.

Thought & Warning:

1.) Unless you have confident in drilling the holes through and make thread into the holes, let the professional do it!

2.) It only cost me $20 to get the holes drill and threaded, the long M4 screws and nuts cost me less than $3, so total $23 for this mod.

3.) This mode will void your flip diopter warranty, so do it at your own risk, I'm not responsible to any damage you do to your Flip Diopter Holder.

4.) I believe having the frame close to the flat port, you get a few mm smaller width, I have to review my test pictures to confirm.

5.) You can always put the 67mm holder back to the front as it was before, so this mod is reversible if you want to use the CMC-1, which has protrude back.

Hi Moses,

i was thinking to do the similar/same thing you did to bring the diopter nearer to the port glass but work kept my McDiver creativity leashed...

Great write up and well documented modding of "our" housing!!!

My test today in the pool revealed that the gain in image magnification is small, as you wrote a about 2 mm less wide image and no vignetting.

This makes it for me arguable to make this modification, a additional or stronger diopter would be my solution for those tiny tiny Nudi's here in Costa Rica.

But it is very difficult to photograph them with a macro lens as the surge makes focusing a real tricky task ...

But in a few months i am back in Sardinia and there is no surge ... :-)

But some pictures i made here show the power of this camera and the SubSee +10

Both fishes have a size of about 5 centimeters
Both photos are cropped out of a wider photo