Nikonos II

[Birna Rørslett]

The first one is indeed taken under quite thick winter ice. I haven't my field notes available now as this was long ago, but likely ice was around 0.5m thick. So getting into water was a a challenge unto itself.  I used three underwater strobes to capture the scene as understandably, on a dark January day, light levels under ice were even lower.

[paul hofseth]

Using a Nikonos for heroic scientific  and aesthetic efforts like dr. Rørsletts is absolutely necesary.

My move to waterproofness was initiated  for far more mundane reasons: During archeological fieldwork the archeologist's (my wife's) Olympus expired after a torrential  rain (while my M3 survived, but made me wish for less potentially  expensive hiking  equipment)..

Solid like a brick (shaped  similarly and not weighing much less), it now rests on a shelf only to be exercised when the weather is really bad.

p.

[Birna Rørslett]

There were some quite exotic third-party offerings in the heydays of the Nikonos. I even purchased a fisheye port for the Nikonos models. Actually, the port itself was just a bonus and so was the Nikonos V (illustrated below), as my interest was in the nice 7.5mm f/5.6 Fisheye-Nikkor that was a part of the entire kit Price wasn't bad either as the market for such exotica was on the wane at the time.

Unfortunately, all images taken with the Fisheye-Nikonos have apparently gone astray during later upheavals of my life, so for now just a picture of the kit has to suffice. The glass dome was made by the US company Seacor (San Diego, CA) and it has an ordinary F-mount bayonet inside. So in principle other Nikkors can be put inside if they fit. Must test -- if the warmer weather arrives and I can find film. Now it's snowing cats and dogs outside.

[Akira]

There were some quite exotic third-party offerings in the heydays of the Nikonos. I even purchased a fisheye port for the Nikonos models. Actually, the port itself was just a bonus and so was the Nikonos V (illustrated below), as my interest was in the nice 7.5mm f/5.6 Fisheye-Nikkor that was a part of the entire kit Price wasn't bad either as the market for such exotica was on the wane at the time.

Unfortunately, all images taken with the Fisheye-Nikonos have apparently gone astray during later upheavals of my life, so for now just a picture of the kit has to suffice. The glass dome was made by the US company Seacor (San Diego, CA) and it has an ordinary F-mount bayonet inside. So in principle other Nikkors can be put inside if they fit. Must test -- if the warmer weather arrives and I can find film. Now it's snowing cats and dogs outside.

Very interesting!  If I remember and understand correctly, UW 15mm Nikkor wad designed with the surrounding water as part of the optics, while all F-mount Nikkors weren't.  I wonder how the additional optical effect of the water affect the image of the Nikkor mounted inside?

[fish_shooter]

Very interesting!  If I remember and understand correctly, UW 15mm Nikkor wad designed with the surrounding water as part of the optics, while all F-mount Nikkors weren't.  I wonder how the additional optical effect of the water affect the image of the Nikkor mounted inside?

Yes, lenses designed to work optically under water are called water contact lenses. Apparently Nikon marked theirs with the UW designation. The ones that were amphibious were marked W. These were the 35 and 80mm lenses. As well there was the LW 28mm lens (see above). The Nikonos RS lenses were marked R-UW. The RS came out shortly after I got my Ph. D. so went for it lock stock and barrel - all the lenses (4 models) and three bodies by the time the RS was ended. Recently the RS lenses have been adapted to digital bodies.

The attached image was taken with the D4S and RS 28mm last summer about 2 km from where I am sitting right now (image location presently under a lot of ice). This is Elodea (see above) which is considered an invasive plant in Alaska. The fish at the left edge of the frame is a Threespine Stickleback (Gasterosteus aculeatus), which is widely distributed in the northern hemisphere. Note that there are a lot of particles in the water. Salmon spawn nearby so the lake is productive.

You are also correct in that lenses behind domes or flat ports have optical issues - a very long subject........

[Birna Rørslett]

My guess is that the size and curvature of the dome port corrected  for the refractive power of the ambient water.

The 28mm f/3.5 UW-Nikkor was designed for underwater use, however many also used it out of water. It was still tolerably sharp, but chromatic errors were quite obvious with the lens in air.

[Birna Rørslett]

What is your impression of the RS lenses? I only have the 28 and 50 Macro and found them quite excellent, but unforeseen circumstances prevented any further forays into the RS ecosystem on my part. The Fisheye and huge zoom 20-35 looked very impressive. I do have kept the RS camera, but not used it for a long time.

[Akira]

Yes, lenses designed to work optically under water are called water contact lenses. Apparently Nikon marked theirs with the UW designation. The ones that were amphibious were marked W. These were the 35 and 80mm lenses. As well there was the LW 28mm lens (see above). The Nikonos RS lenses were marked R-UW. The RS came out shortly after I got my Ph. D. so went for it lock stock and barrel - all the lenses (4 models) and three bodies by the time the RS was ended. Recently the RS lenses have been adapted to digital bodies.

The attached image was taken with the D4S and RS 28mm last summer about 2 km from where I am sitting right now (image location presently under a lot of ice). This is Elodea (see above) which is considered an invasive plant in Alaska. The fish at the left edge of the frame is a Threespine Stickleback (Gasterosteus aculeatus), which is widely distributed in the northern hemisphere. Note that there are a lot of particles in the water. Salmon spawn nearby so the lake is productive.

You are also correct in that lenses behind domes or flat ports have optical issues - a very long subject........

Thank you for the explanation.  The image looks interesting as well.

Again, if I understand correctly, all UW Nikkors 80mm and 35mm have flat flat front glasses, whereas UV 15 mm has a dome-shape one.  The effect of water contact lens should be different.  I remember that the optical design for UW 35mm was borrowed from the S-mount sibling.

[fish_shooter]

What is your impression of the RS lenses? I only have the 28 and 50 Macro and found them quite excellent, but unforeseen circumstances prevented any further forays into the RS ecosystem on my part. The Fisheye and huge zoom 20-35 looked very impressive. I do have kept the RS camera, but not used it for a long time.

They are all excellent but the zoom is quite heavy. I have a converted copy of the 20-35 that has been used in Hawaii. Convenient for some marine mammals, larger fish and fish schools. It does not focus as close as the UW 15mm so not so great for the close focus wide angle (CFWA) underwater technique. Nikon would have been smarter to have come out with a close focusing RS 15mm as well as a 100 or 105mm macro as these two focal lengths were the "go-to" lenses for many if not most serious underwater shooters. Nikon did not so the RS was a failure (and for other reasons too). Once the 13mm lens came out I no longer traveled with the zoom. The AF on the RS lenses is now a lot better!!! The stop down mechanism is not quite the same as the F lenses so one has to stop down more to get the equivalent aperture setting - the difference is not linear. This is explained better here: https://wetpixel.com/articles/insight-the-nikonos-rs-13mm-conversion/P1

The RS lenses do work above water but only focus very close (other than the 50). Attached is a test shot from last summer that has not been deleted. I wanted to make sure the AF was working as well as my remote control (cable release) - I have goofed on both accounts in the past. Shot with the RS20-35 at 20MM. OK for something as large as an adult salmon but nevertheless switched back and forth with the 28mm during my shoots last summer.

The front port of the 50 is flat so was curious if it could work as a waterproof topside lens as soon as it came out (first lens I got with body #1 - was on a waiting list to buy so it was a few months in after the introduction). I did some quick black and white shots outside my cabin in Fairbanks (lived there at the time) that I could develop myself. It was already autumn and snowy. Details of trees in the image corners were soft so I concluded the lens was not really suitable for topside shooting.

[fish_shooter]

The first shot here was taken with the RS28. I am not sure if the zoom would have focused close enough as this was very near to the minimal focus distance of the 20-35. The main advantage of the RS lenses is the relatively flat field compared to using a dome port and topside lens. So the male at the right edge is more less in focus along with the front end of the female at the left. This was shot in a lake where these Sockeye Salmon do what is known as beach spawning (as opposed to spawning at sites under moving water - streams and rivers). So there are a lot of small lake resident fish (salmon and otherwise) swimming about hoping to catch a food item that the female kicked up as she excavated her redd (salmon nest).

The Second shot was taken with the 20-35 at 20. The female is at the left. The others (on the right side) are males competing to spawn with her. Probably mostly Elodea (mixed with Potamageton) in the distance where it is several meters deep. I was at a marginal distance so far as shooting here - more fish detail in the 28mm shot.

[David H. Hartman]

I'm toying with letting my Nikonos V go. I don't think I'll ever use it again. I've injured my back and I don't see myself ever diving again.

Dave

[paul hofseth]

The observation of a planeparallell glass in front of an S type 35/2,5 is corrcect (as decribed at the Nikon hiustory website).. I dismembered a defunct(dead cogwheel mechan4ics) 35UW and put the tiny opticai core on an MFT- modified V-nex. It gives far better pictures than in its waterproof non.functional incarnation.

p.

[Wannabebetter]

I am very sure, I once saw a Nikonos camera re-engineered for digital capture by US Navy Special Warfare or USMC Force RECON. It was very rudimentary, as many mission-specific "hack jobs" often are, however it got the job done. I had fantasizing for years, about cobbling together something of an "all terrain", digital amphibious camera, from a Nikonos V. Barring all that, my recent re-immersion (more like, waterboarding) into the biological sciences finds me musing about such things again.

[Wannabebetter]

WOW!

[MFloyd]

I am very sure, I once saw a Nikonos camera re-engineered for digital capture by US Navy Special Warfare or USMC Force RECON. It was very rudimentary, as many mission-specific "hack jobs" often are, however it got the job done. I had fantasizing for years, about cobbling together something of an "all terrain", digital amphibious camera, from a Nikonos V. Barring all that, my recent re-immersion (more like, waterboarding) into the biological sciences finds me musing about such things again.

Was reengineered by Kodak:



Apparently, Nikon wasn’t involved.