Anyone use a Seafrogs housing with an UWA lens?

Planning a trip to Australia to swim with Minke Whales and cage dive with Great White Sharks. So Ultrawide is the name of the game.

Seafrogs sells housings for full frame cameras that show compatibility with the EF 16-35mm in a flat port and a 6" dome port.

Flat port that is supposed to fit the 16-35mm

Dome port that is supposed to fit the 16-35mm

I got on Cragslist and picked up a used Canon R and an EF 16-35mm F4, but I'm getting cold feet about ordering the housing. From what I'm reading, a rectilinear lens that wide should be in a bigger dome port than 6". It's not clear how much engineering and testing Seafrogs puts into these configuration charts.

Configurations shows a lot of lenses fitting in just one size port.

Anybody actually used a 16-35mm lens in a Seafrogs setup?

For the last 10 or so years I've been in the Canon M ecosystem (1.6 crop), so I've been thinking housing an M instead. I've got 3 bodies and most of the lenses, including the 11-22mm. That would be a good fit except that the battery life is really bad on the M50ii and the shutter shock on the M6ii kinda kills the sharpness of the 11-22. The 11-22 is a great lens, but it's really the only practical choice and one that goes a little soft on the m6ii. I dunno, maybe that won't matter much underwater.

Most of the dives will be in shallow water, so strobes aren't part of the foreseeable plan.

What are your expectations out of an UW camera?   And what is your prior experience in the field?

The Seafrog line is a lower cost option, more so than Ikelite.   To keep costs there, the solutions are more generalized, less bespoke to the individual model or lens.  And I know we have users here who have been quite satisfied in general using them.   UW photography is a rapidly diminishing returns game.  You can spend 2x, or even 10x to get 20% more.

Now when it comes to 16-35 type lenses, the 9" domes are a compromise, slightly better than the 8" compromise, and the 6" compromise.   I think most of the people who really complain about this are not buying the Seafrogs in the first place.

My prior system was a M43 GH4, and I used their 6" dome with the 7-14 lens at Gaudalupe with perfectly good success.   I've also used it at Tiger Beach where the sharks tended to be closer, though there I mixed it up with the 8mm FE.    Before Mexico closed off the island last year, there had been a string of incidents with sharks getting into the cage and getting injured, and there was an ever closing up of the openings to prevent.   So the 8 or 9" dome might not be compatible - you should consult with the operator to understand this.

And for the whales, the 8-15 may be the better call, and with that you can manage on a 4-6" dome just fine.  That wasn't listed on your chart- is there another page, or is this a case of SF's offerings being incomplete?

kelpdiver wrote:

What are your expectations out of an UW camera? And what is your prior experience in the field?

The Seafrog line is a lower cost option, more so than Ikelite. To keep costs there, the solutions are more generalized, less bespoke to the individual model or lens. And I know we have users here who have been quite satisfied in general using them. UW photography is a rapidly diminishing returns game. You can spend 2x, or even 10x to get 20% more.

Now when it comes to 16-35 type lenses, the 9" domes are a compromise, slightly better than the 8" compromise, and the 6" compromise. I think most of the people who really complain about this are not buying the Seafrogs in the first place.

My prior system was a M43 GH4, and I used their 6" dome with the 7-14 lens at Gaudalupe with perfectly good success. I've also used it at Tiger Beach where the sharks tended to be closer, though there I mixed it up with the 8mm FE. Before Mexico closed off the island last year, there had been a string of incidents with sharks getting into the cage and getting injured, and there was an ever closing up of the openings to prevent. So the 8 or 9" dome might not be compatible - you should consult with the operator to understand this.

And for the whales, the 8-15 may be the better call, and with that you can manage on a 4-6" dome just fine. That wasn't listed on your chart- is there another page, or is this a case of SF's offerings being incomplete?

The only experience I have with underwater photography has been with action cameras like a GoPro and the fake ones you buy at the pharmacy for $25.   Here's a fish picture from one of the cheap knock off GoPros.

Yeah, wanting to do better than this.  I got a GoPro Hero 10 a year ago, but as a photography rig, I really dislike it.  The shutter lag is awful and I keep switching modes trying to release the shutter.  Maybe it's fine for what it is, but it's not working for me.

My intention is not so much to make underwater photography my new favorite thing.  Getting in the water with some sharks and taking some pictures is an experience I want to have.  The wife and I are going to Australia in a few months.  I know the standard answer to someone getting started is go with a P&S.  But the widest they go is 24mm equivalent focal length.  That might work for reefs, but the headliner creatures will be sharks, whales, seals, and hopefully cuttlefish, which calls for optics in the teens of millimeters.

So the Seafrogs really has the right value statement of something that should hold up for a few weeks of usage for well under $1,000.  It's also specialty equipment that would be hard to unload if my wife declares she is never putting on another wetsuit after this trip.  That's a real possibility.  An Ikelite with ports is looking out of scope, but they do seem to have really good configuration information.

Feel free to laugh if you have to, but I picked up a Seafrogs housing off ebay really cheap.  It's for a 6D Mark ii, a full frame DSLR I do not own and probably won't be buying.  I swam around with it in a pool last fall and it fells manageable for snorkeling at least.

I just tried to fit the EOS R in the 6dii housing, and it seems to fit.  The shutter release lines up, too.  That's the only button that works, but that's the one control you need, right?  The lens sits off center in the flat port, and one corner is darkened at 16mm.  I guess that the lens is going to loose some wideness and image quality in water, though.  So a dome port would be in order even if it does strictly work.

At any rate, I looked into the baggage allowances on my various flights and the M-series APS-C mirrorless is probably as big as I could get away with.  I haven't got room for the full frame housing, much less the appropriate dome port for it.  8" seems to be the biggest they make and I haven't been able to figure out if it's even compatible with the R housings.

wlderdude wrote:

The only experience I have with underwater photography has been with action cameras like a GoPro and the fake ones you buy at the pharmacy for $25. Here's a fish picture from one of the cheap knock off GoPros.

The stills off a Hero 10 Black are actually reasonable decent, with the obvious caveat that you have virtually no controls. (OTOH, you're contemplating using a housing with no controls besides shutter, so kind of the same)

You eventually get the muscle memory to hit the right button, not the change mode button.

My intention is not so much to make underwater photography my new favorite thing. Getting in the water with some sharks and taking some pictures is an experience I want to have. The wife and I are going to Australia in a few months. I know the standard answer to someone getting started is go with a P&S. But the widest they go is 24mm equivalent focal length. That might work for reefs, but the headliner creatures will be sharks, whales, seals, and hopefully cuttlefish, which calls for optics in the teens of millimeters.

My wife used a 1" Canon G7X mkII with Nauticams 3.5" semi dome port quite successfully at Guadalupe.  I'll look for some samples later.  I think there are winning answers in this space, though not for under a grand unless it's a used gear sale.  
The fisheye is usually better for the whales and seals, let you get away with 4" domes.  Sharks are a toss up between the two WA lens types.

Cuttlefish do not require UWA.   A regular zoom lens would be suitable.   I often run into them on night dives when I have the 100mm macro.

So the Seafrogs really has the right value statement of something that should hold up for a few weeks of usage for well under $1,000. It's also specialty equipment that would be hard to unload if my wife declares she is never putting on another wetsuit after this trip. That's a real possibility. An Ikelite with ports is looking out of scope, but they do seem to have really good configuration information.

Feel free to laugh if you have to, but I picked up a Seafrogs housing off ebay really cheap. It's for a 6D Mark ii, a full frame DSLR I do not own and probably won't be buying.

How much is really cheap? $100? You already bought a used Canon R and an EF 16-35mm F4, and now an unmatched housing that you suspect won't fit in your luggage.  You should buy matching bits, often available together, or a housing for which you already have a camera.   But now you're somewhat pot committed to making one of these work, maybe.  Unless you can ignore the sunken cost.

The ideal answer for a one off trip would have been to explore rentals.  Bluewater Photo used to rent the G7X I referenced, and maybe still do.  The SLRs, for a 3 week trip, might be too pricy, but you wouldn't be using compromises, but a proper solution.

I just tried to fit the EOS R in the 6dii housing, and it seems to fit. The shutter release lines up, too. That's the only button that works, but that's the one control you need, right? The lens sits off center in the flat port, and one corner is darkened at 16mm. I guess that the lens is going to loose some wideness and image quality in water, though. So a dome port would be in order even if it does strictly work.

This is not going to beat a gopro.   Off center with no controls during the water session?   I've done variations of this - when I had a zoom lens (14-35) but the zoom lens hadn't arrived yet.   Set the focal length and hope you like it.   Or when the AF switch was accidently off.

I don't recall what level of auto-iso Canon delivered with the R.  They've been really slow on making this work well for people.   But no control over shutter speed, aperature or ISO beyond auto is not great.   The cage diving has wide variation of speed and light levels, and with the whales in open water the angle you shoot at and the depth of the whales is a big variable in the proper exposure, and one the camera is unlikely to understand very well.

At any rate, I looked into the baggage allowances on my various flights and the M-series APS-C mirrorless is probably as big as I could get away with. I haven't got room for the full frame housing, much less the appropriate dome port for it. 8" seems to be the biggest they make and I haven't been able to figure out if it's even compatible with the R housings.

This comes back to the better balance of a 1" compact or just living with the gopro.   Unlike with macro, a new shooter probably can get decent results with wide angle, no flash shooting, but it will still detract from the actual experience.

Bermaglot 07,

Thank you for sharing your pictures of the pool tiles. That split shot with the 8" dome shows some real promise.

Also, thank you for the lead on the vacuum sensor.

Kelpdiver,

Yeah, the 6Dii housing was $50 as an open box, plus shipping and tax. It has a large flat port that would fit most of the Seafrogs housings I'm looking at, which would work for a 100mm macro should I decide to ever do the macro thing. It also has handles with the balls on the tops that attach to the sides, which would be trivial o fashion into a tray for another camera. I've been seeing if I could pick up a 6Dii for it, but the prices are still high for a camera with weak auto focus and unimpressive dynamic range, issues of concern if I plan to use ambient light. I'm sure it's plenty capable with strobes.

I can put the full frame camera and lens back on the market and sell them for about what I have into them. Even if I sell them after my trip, I'll bet I could get 90% back by selling them. So there really isn't much cost I consider to yet be "sunk" beyond this 6Dii housing. That won't be true once I get a camera specific housing.

The cuttlefish spawning event I'm hoping to catch involves the Giant Australian Cuttlefish, which get to be 3 ft long. From what I've read, their mind is on more important matters than worrying about hiding, so you can get quite close.  I ran across this video (no affiliation) the other day that shows how close people are getting. I'm guessing a still-quite-wide angle lens would be the way to go.  The 16-35mm on full frame or 11-22 on a crop body probably has a really good focal length in there somewhere.  I'd just need the proper housing and focus gear if I want to change it mid dive.