Real world test Aquatica or Subal?

Just retured from 28 days on liveaboard- Sorong to Bali Indonesia. Had a Subal and Aquatica housing each set up the same - made 83 dives. The Subal is all mechanical as far as controls. The Aquatica uses a mix. The shutter is electronic. This real world test put Subal so far out front and here are some reasons.

Subal has a super nice tray camera mounts to and it slides in and out with a positive catch. That means changing anything one can slide body in and out with ease

Aquatica has a thumb srew that is a bear to line up and hangs up on housing back when camera is gone.

Lens release is 100 times easier on Subal

The shutter release on aquatic is easy to get out of tune and a huge hassel to adjust. This release triggers the electronic interface for the shutter. Its a real pain when its out of adustment

Subal is all mechanical and a joy

Control funtions. some on aquatica have screw down knobs like the mode button a real pain to change fast

Subal has a push buttons and is a joy.

Port change out is easier on the subal hands down

Simply put the controls on the subal work well and are engineered right from the start

My only beef is that Subals optics have short comings. They dropped the ball on the port glass designs and you need diopters to correct for wide angle work. Even with my big glass dome they suggest a +2 diopter. If they made these right diopters would be unneccasary

On the plus side Aquatica housings are built like a tank and since I own 2 since 1980's I can say this is still true with the newer ones. They are heavy as well.

Subal is the clear choice for me . I have yet to use a sea cam .

If you have a chance check out a Subal. They cost more and are worth it. Mark

My only beef is that Subals optics have short comings. They dropped the ball on the port glass designs and you need diopters to correct for wide angle work. Even with my big glass dome they suggest a +2 diopter. If they made these right diopters would be unneccasary

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Which lens did you use? I recently got the FE2 domeport for the 12-24mm and with the extension ring that Subal recommended, I did not need to use diopter at all, at least from my swimming pool test anyhow. Hopefully I will get to try it in open sea soon.

Opps, just saw that you still use film SLR so I guess the 12-24mm is out. However in the past Subal did recommend diopter with 12-24mm as well but it seems that recently they did revised their recommendations on some lenses and port/extension ring combinations so it probably does not hurt to check out their most recent recommendation.

Interesting, the points you made would not make me switch from Aquatica to a Subal because the price difference is so huge. The D70 Aquatica is all manual, the shutter is manual as well so no problems there. Also not sure what could be easier than a bayonet mounted port? Push and turn... What has SUbal got? I would like to hear more about that

The only thing that i feel Subal has that is a must is the Glass ports, however, you said they are not all that great optically.

Haven't convinced me that the extra money is worth it

But

Just a few pros and cons:

Aquatica are half the price of Subal

Glass ports are nice, but heavy. My glass Seacam port weighs more than the Ikelite 20D housing

As long as the camera mounts to the front of the housing, a tripod screw is fine w/ me. YMMV

The new Aquatica 20D and D70 housings are VERY small compared to the F5 housing which is a monster.

There are no screw down controls on the 20D or D70 housings.

No diopter is needed with the Aquatica 8" acrylic dome when used with digital wideangle zooms.

Cheers

James

I'm a happy Aquatica owner for 20D, before buy my housing I had the opportunity to play with Subal for 10D. My first impressions:

- The Subal finishing are great, the soft lines make the housing feel better than Aquatica.

- The gears and controls with Subal and Aquatica A20 is the same, mechanical, maybe I did feel the same with both housing because I used just for one dive.

- The Subal balance is far better than Aquatica.

- About the ports change, the aquatica bayonet is easy to change.

- I didn't see any diference between the aquatica ports to Subal, maybe my eyes is not so accurate to see...

The big issue with Subal IMHO is the price... For my needs aquatica is the best !!!

I did forget to add that

The Subal balance is far better than Aquatica.

As I bought mine used and as was metioned in other posts used housings are much cheaper.

I did not use a diopter except on 2 dives just to see if there was a dif.

The point I was making on optics is the same with aquatica as well- that is they cut their domes every one a bit different or they used to at least. . In theory the center of the lens point should be in the middle of the dome. This is true to film and may ring true with digital as the camera still uses lenes as well. If the domes are all a bit different this spot is ignored but manufacurers and trhe results are just not as sharp.. My 4 aquatic 8 inch domes all have a different cut when measured exactly. Yes they say no optic corection needed but folks like Chris Newberg disagree as well as nikon technical. I know more than I'm saying as I proivided the specs for Aquatica in the 80's on the extension rings they made at that time. They even made ones just for afew of us as to our own dome diameters. They as a marking desicion then only offered two sizes. If all the domes are made exactly the same and were designed to center the lens point this would not be needed. My point is glass or acrlic the same holds true for each.

As to the size of the subal f5 yes it is a big boy but if I was looking for size alone point and shoots beat all takers. Quality is what I'm after. I was around plenty of subal housing's on this trip and yes dig is a bit smaller -If camera/ housing size is your criteria maybe photos underwater should be avoided until all skills are mastered.The Aquatica is bigger than the Subal. Both are far smaller than my other two Aquatica f3 housing which make any newer housing seem compact and light. With commercial diving as well as plenty of savage diving over the years the size between housings seems like a joke to me. Get the camera you want on other merits than size alone. The diff between the subal d70 housing and my subal f5 underwater is to small to be a consideration in my view. now the viewfinder is a whole other deal. Yet to see a viewfinder to match the sportfinder on any f5. Not a magnifier a viewfinder which is 1 1/4 inches by 1 inch and can be viewed at arms length. That alone is worth some extra size in the housing

I realize there are some engineers on this board- the optics of ports and thier centers for lens is not rocket stuff

As to the port change the subal was just easier felt more positive and the ports are plastic as well as the extesion rings to counter the glass port weight

As to what lens I shot

Macro-105mm 2.8 and 60mm 2.8

W/A-17-35mm 2.8

Backup 18mm 2.8 20mm 2.8

My point on this was I shot 28 dive days 83 dives played with each housing and Subal was the clear leader on all but price. Only my opinion .In my view price is not the only thing to go by.

Hey Mike V- 2 of the divematers ( a couple) on the boat used to work on Yap you may know them Alberto and Olga??? I think they worked where you are working.. I two had a Nik V with a 15mm set to go at all times. I loaned it to a guy who flooded his setup on day 3.. He shot that for the next 11 days. Out of 30 divers total for both trips I saw 1 seacam 2 Ikeilites 12 Subals and 1 aquatica 3 nikonos 1 rms. Saw 1 leaky Ike 1 flooded rs 1 flooded subal

Mark

My only beef is that Subals optics have short comings... If they made these right diopters would be unneccasary.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I'm not the most knowledgeable on dome ports (members like Paul Kay and Jolly know their stuff better than me) but the dioptre required for a domeport is a simple requirement of optical physics.

All domes act as negative lenses underwater (because the water fills the outside of the D shape and forms a negative, concave, lens). And this is why you need a dioptre. The strength of the dioptre required is determined by the diameter of the sphere perscribed by the dome. Not who makes the dome or what it is made of.

You can get away without a dioptre on really wide lenses such as fisheyes, but for wide rectilinears a dioptre will improve performance. Of course all lenses will work behind a dome without a dioptre. But they are IMPROVED with a dioptre.

Alex

Roger that Alex

Wonder why aquatica does not mention this in their manuals like Subal does??

How you liking you're D2x in that Subal??How is the viewfinder on that camera as to size? and do you use the new Subal finder which sticks out the rear a few inchs??

Mark

Ahhh Olga and El Professor! I remember them well, they were the dive shop managers here when i was living in Palau a few years back. Hope they are doing well. She is also a very good underwater model....

Anyhoo, question about WA and diopters, does a +2 or +4 dioptre not affect the max focus distance? Can you still focus on a manta 12 feet away with a 12-24 if you have a +4 on it? I am thinking about it cuz yes that 12-24 has soft corners....or perhaps just a +2.

M

Olga was a real workhorse on the boat.( http://www.kararu.com ) Alberto seemed burnt out. Olga had great skills in finding critters and we saw her modeling skills with Tim Rocks work. They both have signed on this boat for a year. Spent a month aboard this vessel diving with them daly. They had a few yap stories.Waiting for mantas in the channels of Yap with folks fins out of water was one of them

My wide angle was using the 17-35 with film and you could focus to infinity with diopter +2 never used a + 4.

I shot mantas from 1 foot to 30 away. Film is at the lab .

Small world we live in. Mark

How you liking you're D2x in that Subal??How is the viewfinder on that camera as to size? and do you use the new Subal finder which sticks out the rear a few inchs??

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Hi Mark,

I think viewfinders are very personal - so I don't want to comment too much. They depend on how you shoot, compose and focus and also on individual preference and eyesight. I have good eyesight and don't wear glasses and find I am very happy with smaller viewfinders. What is critical to me is to be able to see the whole frame, so I can compose. I trust the camera to AF. Others have different preferences, and couldn't imagine shooting without a magnifier or a 45 degree tilted viewfinder. So no rights and wrongs, just preferences. And my advice is to try any system carefully before buying.

For what it is worth, the D2x viewfinder is considerably smaller than the F5 action finder, but it is also noticeably brighter. I don't use the big Subal viewfinder, yet. I certainly plan to try it next time my dealer has a D2x housing in with one on. But my feeling is I won't get it.

Alex

I always find threads comparing kit interesting because few of us get to try housings from several different manufacturers - Mark's experience is a valuable one. Most of us, like me, mainly get our hands on one brand and tend to dislike others because they are not the same as what we are used to.

James's opinion is always a useful one too. Because he is one of the few people I know who has owned kit from several different manufacturers and has a wider experience than most of us.

Alex

When I was decided between Subal and Seacam, I was impressed by the superdome and the fact that no diopter was necessary for wide zooms. A very experienced photographer and technician told me that just because they don't recommend it in their chart doesn't mean that it won't be useful for certain shooting. I now shoot and love seacam, but I just ordered a +1 diopter to fit over my 17-35. I found that for shooting objects very close to the dome often the corners are inside the minimum focus distance. Hopefully the diopter will enhance my corners in these situations. This probably would not be necessary on a cropped sensor.

What is a RMS housing?

I cannot believe that people pay out lots of cash for expensive computer-designed wide-angle lenses then stick a cheap magnifying glass on the front - for that is what a dioptre is.

The focus point of the virtual image of mini domes always seems to be so close that you need a dioptre to get it in focus with resultant horrible edge-sharpness.

I bought my first housing (after Nik Vs) in 1992 and since discovering the defect have always used large diameter domes since specifically because of this. When I recently bought a Nexus housing I was promised that the dioptre would not affect the image quality at the edges and I fell for the sales pitch. One photo-trip and I was back for an exchange of the mini dome for a full size dome.

I am now using the 12-24 behind a large Subal glass port. True, it focusses slightly further away than the 20mm Nikkor with a film camera but I prefer to crop the image than to ruin edge sharpness.

Some ports are optically better than others. Among acrylic ports that I have the Sea & Sea is by far better at the edges than either Nexus or Aquatica but there may be simple production differences.

So I say get the largest radius port you can so that the virtual image is as far away from the lens as possible.

My point was that for some images, such as the one below, a diopter is essential even with a 9" dome. I hope that my large diameter dome allows me to use a weaker diopter than would be needed with a smaller dome. Certainly I would trade some image acuity for close focus in this image. Also keep in mind that our expensive computer designed lenses still have to shoot though water, which probably degrades quality much more than a +1 diopter.

Also - I don't understand why you'd worry about edge sharpness if you are cropping your corners. Am I misunderstanding you? Do you mean sharpness at the edge of the frame or edges and acuity throughout the frame?

The following image was taken on velvia with the 17-35 behind 9" superrdome. I think the pillars were less than 6" in front of the dome.