10D in Ike Housing - Goodwyn Island

Photo from a quick dive off Goodwyn Island to test the 10D housing. Was meant to be diving without the camera as it was the first dive with a new housing, but the viz was great so I loaded up the camera and went for it!

Well, the Ikelite's a step up from the Ewa-Marine.

I'm shooting with the 17-40L here at 17mm. It seems to be a good wide angle choice, but I don't like the corner performance one bit. I plan to do some diopter testing. Anyone think this might help? Or do I need a Seacam dome for the front?

Other thoughts - I need more strobes. One Ds-50 is very inadequate for wide angle scenics. Plus I need more lenses, new arms and the e-TTL conversion. Hey, this is getting expensive... :shock:

Anyway, FWIW, here's a shot of my backyard.

Too much grass to mow

Karl

Ok, here's some more lawn for you Karl.

I know what this said

You are biting your tongue :wink:

~Matt Segal

???Now I'm confused :? :? :?

Why is tongue biting required? :?

Rob, I don't know what he's referring to. :?:

In my deleted post I had mentioned a similar comment in another thread regarding the same lens. I then posted a link to that thread in case you hadn't seen it. I next deleted my post when I noted you had entered that other post. Here's a link to the thread I was referring to: http://wetpixel.com/PNphpBB2-viewtopic-t-7...029.phtml[/url] Yours is about the eighth post in this thread.

The link won't work, so here's a copy and paste of your post: "The Sigma won't fit in Ike housings I think - too fat. The 10-22 would be tempting on a 20D. I'm shooting with the 17-40L on the 10D, it's a great lens on crop sensor cameras but I haven't got sharpness out of it yet that I feel is acceptable whilst underwater - it's a bit of pot luck with the Ikelite domes I think in terms of how well they match.

Consider the 15mm fisheye. There's not a lot of tempting primes unfortunately in the Canon lineup for underwater use."

Matt, you're a very naughty boy. You'd better be better or Santa...:roll:

Yep, you can see in my photos the corner performance is pretty poor, IMHO. And this is with a great lens, which outperforms the 24/2.8 and 20/2.8 in lens tests I've previously performed (topside, haven't tested either of these underwater). Sharpness in the centre is good in the originals.

As for the photos themselves, the only critique I've got so far is from my wife (whilst I was posting this last night) who says the first one is 'overexposed' and the second one is 'monochromatic and boring'.

The underwater woes seemingly never end. Too bad port problems are preventing such a fine lens topside from performing as well underwater... :?

The way I saw it was...Don's original post mentioned "here's someone else that seems to be having the same problem," regarding the loss of sharpness and whatnot...and then he realized that "someone else" was you

So...to quickly and quietly make sure no one noticed this egregious error...Don deleted his post... :shock:

To his dismay, I was too quick, and saw it before it went away 8)

~Matt Segal

Don: are you sure it's a port problem and not a lens problem? It's hard to tell from that shot, but perhaps the lower left is just out of the DOF. What was the F-stop Whitey?

I have heard that Canon wideangle zooms are not sharp in the corners, but I wouldn't expect this from a cropped sensor camera. Imagine what that would look like on full frame...

Cheers

James

Hi Whitey,

I've experienced a similar problem with the same port 5503.50, but using an 18-35 Nikkor - which seems to be a fabulous lens topside. I am using it on a F80 film camera, but it just doesn't seem to work well behind a port. I think there are just some lenses that don't play well with dome ports. :?

You could try playing around with different diopters (as you guessed). I haven't tried that with my combo though. I sold the lens in favour of getting a 12-24 (and using the range that works on film) until I get a D200 (when they invent it). 8)

Beside some items like close focus capability, etc. - I don't know how certain lenses can be "bad dome port performers in general"?

regards,

Julian

Jolly, you are right. I didn't mean to imply that some lenses are bad behind domes. I did mean to say that some combinations of domes/lenses don't play well together. Thankyou for the clarification.

just wasn't sure :-)

regards,

Julian

We've discussed the lens/dome port issue before in a couple of other threads. I don't think Ikelite tests all the port/lens combinations for optical performance, I think they just test what fits. So my zoom's entrance pupil may be sitting in the wrong place for this port (FWIW, the front element is very close to the dome, to the point that a diopter doesn't fit). BTW, does the entrance pupil move as you zoom?

I don't know if I'm asking too much of my dome port, I don't have experience with more expensive/larger domed systems. But as an ex-EWA Marine shooter, you wouldn't think my standards of optical pefromance would be too high!

James, not sure what F stop but don't think it was wide open. This seems to be fairly consistent amongst my underwater 17mm shots, fish in centre sharp, fish on periphery blurry.

I haven't really shot much with this housing yet, just a couple of short test runs. I've just decided that four days off for Christmas is too good an opportunity to miss. There's two full tanks of fi02 .21 in the truck, I'm off to Ningaloo Reef to find some sea turtles at 0700 tomorrow morning. Happy Christmas all, and wish me good viz!

P.S. The EWA-Marine is coming out of retirement. I'm going to load it with the EOS 50E and 28-105 and shoot some Velvia just for fun (I won't be upset if that lens gets immersed in NaCl). My newly bought 1Ds is still in transit, so unfortunately I can't do the 1Ds/EWA-Marine thing this trip.

You were off to find those Ningaloo Tiger Sharks? Note comment from wife re. res. and m/chrome. Must say, harsh but fair. I've realised that my wife's comments can be the most direct, yet make me sit back (I must admit) and go...yeah. :wink:

Ah, Jacques, the little Frenchman... Bonjour!

It was Indopacific marine turtles I was hunting, and the hunt was successful (apart from some 'technical issues' with my strobe). Note that unlike one of my dive buddies, I haven't ever collected and eaten sea turtle eggs. There are plenty of tiger sharks around here, but they would be hunting me rather than vice versa.

I'll post some shots very soon, but I've been a bit busy shooting brick walls of late to do the underwater photography thing. :wink:

At 6"2 I am perhaps not considered 'little'. Oui? Sea turtle eggs are quite rubbery, not so as much as brick walls which are perhaps even less edible. A strange subject to shoot beneath the seas but perhaps a lens test? When not diving I also shoot turtles in zoos. I believe they are safer there and less predated by sharks. Possibly not natural but would appreciate pics of yours to assess shades of 'blue' under natural light. Would also appreciate any pics of turtle/human close to surface or not far below to assess evidence of any shadow.

I guess Rob's association was Jacques - "the little Frenchman" - Enzo's competitor - from the movie "The Big Blue" (Luc Besson) - wasn't it?

Julian

Oui. Except my car is not even as good as Enzo's after its paint job and I have been known to talk a lot more than Jacques!