Looking at getting a Nikon with a Nauticam. The new z6III (24 mp) costs about the same as the older z7II (45 mp)—roughly half of a z8. Nauticam houses cost pretty much the same. I understand z6III is better for video, which I don’t care too much about. z6IIII (haven’t had it in my hand) seem a tad smaller and lighter. Housing a tad smaller and lighter. Like that a lot. Then 45 mp is more. Not sure how usable it will be UW. But still …

Plenty of people using various forms of Nikon full frame and getting results they like from the z6 through to the Z9. What is more relevant in deciding which way to go IMO is what you plan on shooting and where. I would argue that full frame is not really necessary for most UW shooters, it tends to cost significantly more for the camera, the housing and also quite likely the ports and lenses. The kit is also larger and heavier, which is mainly concern with travel with the restrictions in baggage allowances that plague dive travel these days.

For most UW shooting with strobes you are down near base ISO, using strobes in fairly bright conditions, there are exceptions of course. Lots of MP only really come into play if you are printing large - think A2 size plus. I think the vast majority of UW shots these days end up as 1200-1600 pixel jpegs online somewhere, unless you sell your images. I recall you were thinking about a D500 recently -this is still a fine camera, however if you look at sensor test results it is very similar in performance to the m43 20MP sensor.

Smaller APS-C sensors and m43 also have a bit of an advantage in wide angle work as you can use lenses like the Tokina 10-17 or the 8-15 fisheyes (with or without TC) to achieve fields of view between full fisheye and something like a 28mm rectilinear in terms of field of view, giving unrivalled flexibility when shooting reefs, big animals, pelagics and CFWA. To do the same in full frame you would be looking at the very heavy and expensive fisheye conversion port or for Sony combing the 8-15 with the 2x Sony TC.

If you are interested in light weight and size, the Isotta housings are quite a bit smaller. I know one person using a Z6 and went with Isotta as the rig was at around 1kg lighter than the Nauticam option and more compact. Personally I use the OM-1 in Nauticam and have an adapted Canon 8-15 with the 140mm dome and I'm very pleased that.

On the macro front compare this pic of the Olympus 60mm macro with a Canon 100mm FF macro lens, weights are 185 gr (Oly 60mm) vs 625 gr -it's the pic I could find with a FF100mm class and the olympus lens side by side. Price is $US550 vs $US850 for a Nikon Z 105mm macro:

https://www.dpreview.com/forums/thread/4595033

Having said all that if you can afford it and can live with the weight and size, I'm certain you'd be happy with any of the Nikon FF options.

If you are looking to get a Nikon/Nauticam setup the cost of the camera body is really not the biggest expense you are looking at. The housing costs nearly twice what the camera body does. Strobes are $1000 each or more. So, the difference between a Z6 and Z8 is a pretty small fraction of the purchase. With an investment like this you are usually wise to by the best, most advanced option. Especially if you plan to keep it for years to come. You can buy used bodies and lenses from reputable sites like KEH or B&H Photo. Unfortunately, a used Z8 only saves you about $300 but you can really save big on lenses sometimes.

Hi Kristian

Chris and Dave make some excellent points. Given the total cost/weight of an FF package with all the bits and pieces, the additional cost and weight difference between the Z6III and a Z8 becomes negligible. Both packages are big beasts.

Chris makes the point about what you plan to do with the images. I agree with him whole-heartedly that FF is not necessary underwater unless you are planning to produce very big prints or serious high-end commercial sales. I had a Nikon FF system (D800), really got fed up travelling with huge amounts of bulky gear (and the complaints from my partner whose baggage allowances was also being swallowed up) and switched back to APS-C and the D500.

That was 8 years ago and I'm still using and loving it. There is no way that the old technology is limiting me. I sell loads of images - as Chris writes - as JPEGs. It is much easier for travelling although there is still significant bulk. I don't regret the system downgrade (?) for an instant. And I admit to being a lover of the latest shiny toys. (I've got a Z9 and Z6III for topside)

I do think though that there is one important point the guys havn't mentioned and that is "desire"! Beware of Buyer's Regret. I'd suggest the last thing you want is to spend, say, $12k and after 6 months start to regret that you didn't spend $15k and get the system you really hankered for. Been there, done that. If cost is not the deciding factor, think about what would really give you the most pleasure to own and use. If its an FF system with all the bells and whistles and you understand the downsides, then why not......

Good luck with the choice. Not easy for sure.

Yes. Was looking into getting a second hand D500, since I come from D200 and D300. Already have lenses. But … I am now set on wet optics after some research. So a Nauticam housing. Looked at the little housing for the new DX z50II, but it has no viewfinder which might be a deal breaker for me. So tbh FF in itself not what I was looking for necessarily. But I’m more and more likely going to go that route. Have been looking at size/weight which is a concern and important to me and none of those mirrorless (z6 or 7+nauticam) FF set-ups seem to be bulkier and heavier than what I have been schlepping around for years. Already have strobes, cables … but am stretching my budget … yes.

Edited Tuesday at 07:20 AM1 day by Christian K

1 hour ago, Christian K said:

Yes. Was looking into getting a second hand D500, since I come from D200 and D300. Already have lenses. But … I am now set on wet optics after some research. So a Nauticam housing. Looked at the little housing for the new DX z50II, but it has no viewfinder which might be a deal breaker for me. So tbh FF in itself not what I was looking for necessarily. But I’m more and more likely going to go that route. Have been looking at size/weight which is a concern and important to me and none of those mirrorless (z6 or 7+nauticam) FF set-ups seem to be bulkier and heavier than what I have been schlepping around for years. Already have strobes, cables … but am stretching my budget … yes.

Yeah, can understand your thinking for sure - and those wet optics sounds pretty cool and they point to Nauticam.

If you're likely heading down the Z6/Z7 route, I'd suggest a close look at the Z8. I was diving with a serious u/w photog recently who had switched to one (in a Subal housing but, urgh, with a 230 dome) and he was happy with it. It's the latest technology, as opposed to the Z7II, and has the larger file size than the Z6III (if you're going All In, go All In!). But, yeah, budget stretch.......

1 hour ago, TimG said:

Yeah, can understand your thinking for sure - and those wet optics sounds pretty cool and they point to Nauticam.

If you're likely heading down the Z6/Z7 route, I'd suggest a close look at the Z8. I was diving with a serious u/w photog recently who had switched to one (in a Subal housing but, urgh, with a 230 dome) and he was happy with it. It's the latest technology, as opposed to the Z7II, and has the larger file size than the Z6III (if you're going All In, go All In!). But, yeah, budget stretch.......

Wet optics! Huge domes (and some other things like lack of good rectilinear wide solutions) have discouraged me from FF and had me thinking to continue with DX / APSC. Image quality certainly good enough. But Nikon makes it difficult if you want something a bit more serious. A used D500 would certainly be a good option (and my first idea), but no Nauticam / wet optics afaik. Z6III is stretching it. Z7 II a tiny more. Z8 is another €1500. Nauti z6III or Z7II €600-800 less. So €2000+ less.

Edited Tuesday at 12:54 PM1 day by Christian K
added text

I was in a similar situation like you are. I was using a D300 in a S&S Housing.

And just switched to a D500 and Isotta housing one month ago.

For me not having to buy new lenses and ports and being able to use the Tokina 10-17 was a plus.

19 minutes ago, canislupus said:

I was in a similar situation like you are. I was using a D300 in a S&S Housing.

And just switched to a D500 and Isotta housing one month ago.

For me not having to buy new lenses and ports and being able to use the Tokina 10-17 was a plus.

That was a scenario I speculated in too, but I’m now certain I want to move to wet optics. And buying a brand new alu housing for a D500… as good as it is, it’s still 10 year old digital tech. Perhaps if they’d be able to discount it, I’d consider that route. Paying full price, wet optics is a must for my next rig and camera relatively modern (don’t need latest and greatest).

Edited Tuesday at 11:26 AM1 day by Christian K

Just to make it clear. I bought a Isotta Housing brand new. Isotta still makes housing for D500.

I search for a while the second hand market with no luck

46 minutes ago, Christian K said:

Yes. Was looking into getting a second hand D500, since I come from D200 and D300. Already have lenses. But … I am now set on wet optics after some research. So a Nauticam housing. Looked at the little housing for the new DX z50II, but it has no viewfinder which might be a deal breaker for me. So tbh FF in itself not what I was looking for necessarily. But I’m more and more likely going to go that route. Have been looking at size/weight which is a concern and important to me and none of those mirrorless (z6 or 7+nauticam) FF set-ups seem to be bulkier and heavier than what I have been schlepping around for years. I am stretching my budget … yes.

Keep in mind that using wet optics does not restrict you to Nauticam. Isotta and Marelux have good solutions for using wet optics you can even use Nauticam ports on Isotta, though I think perhaps not the extension rings. They can advise ports to use with the recommended lenses and will either have gears or they can be 3D printed.

Also Out of interest what are you planning on shooting? The WWL or equivalent is a nice solution but there are other options which may have additional flexibility with a lighter more compact package. For example on APS-c You can use the zoom fisheye lenses the Tokina 10-17 and Nikon 8-15 , though the 10-17 only works on Nikon DSLRs and also add a 1.4x to the mix . The fields of view of the fisheyes on APS-C compared to a WWL plus 24-50 on full frame are shown in the table below:

The table shows the horizontal field as well as the diagonal as I feel it is more useful for comparing fields available with these lenses and also the focal length of a rectilinear lens with the same horizontal field. You can see a few of the options give you the max reach of the 24-50/WWL-C combination , but also provide much wider fields than the widest field offered by the WWL. These options are attractive as they work quite well in small 100-140mm domes and are more compact and lighter. Arguably the optics of the Nikon 8-15 are superior to what you can get from the the Nikon 24-50 kit lens.

Uploading Attachment...

31 minutes ago, canislupus said:

Just to make it clear. I bought a Isotta Housing brand new. Isotta still makes housing for D500.

I search for a while the second hand market with no luck

Me too looked for second hand with no luck.

2 minutes ago, Chris Ross said:

Keep in mind that using wet optics does not restrict you to Nauticam. Isotta and Marelux have good solutions for using wet optics you can even use Nauticam ports on Isotta, though I think perhaps not the extension rings. They can advise ports to use with the recommended lenses and will either have gears or they can be 3D printed.

Also Out of interest what are you planning on shooting? The WWL or equivalent is a nice solution but there are other options which may have additional flexibility with a lighter more compact package. For example on APS-c You can use the zoom fisheye lenses the Tokina 10-17 and Nikon 8-15 , though the 10-17 only works on Nikon DSLRs and also add a 1.4x to the mix . The fields of view of the fisheyes on APS-C compared to a WWL plus 24-50 on full frame are shown in the table below:

The table shows the horizontal field as well as the diagonal as I feel it is more useful for comparing fields available with these lenses and also the focal length of a rectilinear lens with the same horizontal field. You can see a few of the options give you the max reach of the 24-50/WWL-C combination , but also provide much wider fields than the widest field offered by the WWL. These options are attractive as they work quite well in small 100-140mm domes and are more compact and lighter. Arguably the optics of the Nikon 8-15 are superior to what you can get from the the Nikon 24-50 kit lens.

Uploading Attachment...

Well familiar with the lenses, have been shooting the Tokina 10-17 for many years (sold) and the Nikon 10.5 as well as Sigma 10-20 (a favorite) on DX. Still own them.

Wide rectilinear 80% and FE 20% would be a rough estimate of what I’m using.

https://www.fotosidan.se/gallery/view.htm?ID=178278

For me FE and WA are very different even if they sometime share FoV. Won’t get a wet FE but will be able to get a FE and a lighter/smaller dome eventually. I very much doubt there are any as swift and sharp rectilinear WA solutions in a dome as the 24-50 kit lins and wet optics, APCs or FF, but I'd be happy to learn otherwise :)

Edited Tuesday at 05:02 PM1 day by Christian K
Tidying up

9 hours ago, Christian K said:

Well familiar with the lenses, have been shooting the Tokina 10-17 for many years (sold) and the Nikon 10.5 as well as Sigma 10-20 (a favorite) on DX. Still own them.

Wide rectilinear 80% and FE 20% would be a rough estimate of what I’m using.

https://www.fotosidan.se/gallery/view.htm?ID=178278

For me FE and WA are very different even if they sometime share FoV. Won’t get a wet FE but will be able to get a FE and a lighter/smaller dome eventually. I very much doubt there are any as swift and sharp rectilinear WA solutions in a dome as the 24-50 kit lins and wet optics, APCs or FF, but I'd be happy to learn otherwise :)

Interesting mix of usage. On the subject of fisheye vs wide angle, fisheye distortion is maximised at the a 180° diagonal fisheye and becomes progressively less as the fisheye zoom lens is zoomed in. The WWL is no different as it introduces barrel distortion that becomes progressively less noticeable as it is zoomed in.

In fact the view and distortion present on the WWL family at max field of view (130° diagonal - 106° horizontal field) is about the same as you would see with a fisheye zoomed into the same field of view. it won't be an exact match of course but the overall impression is quite similar and certainly with a shot with straight lines in you would notice the difference if shot with an equivalent rectilinear lens. IF you look at the diagonal field only that would tell that the WWL is equivalent to 10mm rectilinear, however the horizontal field is probably just a touch wider than a 14mm rectilinear lens.

The advantage of the fisheye zoom is it goes wider and with the right combination zooms in about as far the WWL combo. I personally use the Canon 8-15 adapted onto an OM-1 - for tropical diving it tends to stay on most of the trip unless I'm doing macro. It's like combining a fisheye and a 14-28 equivalent lens into one and is very flexible.

If you search for posts on the new Laowa 10mm lens you will see people complaining that it is difficult to use as the perspective makes nearby objects look relatively huge. The WWL avoids this as the barrel distortion shrinks closeby objects at the edges.

As to whether the 24-50 matches the fisheye zoom, land tests will give you some indication, the 8-15 FE is known for being very sharp and performance behind a dome is generally quite good, even small domes. The WWL minimizes quality loss and is going to better particularly at the edges of the frame compared to a rectilinear behind a dome but it can't improve things beyond what the bare lens does.

If you are still set on the WWL I also had a look at the Isotta port charts, they list the the Z24-50 with a flat port and focus ring - obviously aimed at WWL use. Phil Rudin mentioned that the Marelux probably wouldn't support it as the port would need to be inside the housing - this is down to different positioning of the camera inside the housing relative to the port. You just need to confirm with Isotta that the Nauticam bayonet adapter will fit the flat port. The housing will be at least 1kg lighter and smaller in all dimensions.

4 hours ago, Chris Ross said:

Interesting mix of usage. On the subject of fisheye vs wide angle, fisheye distortion is maximised at the a 180° diagonal fisheye and becomes progressively less as the fisheye zoom lens is zoomed in. The WWL is no different as it introduces barrel distortion that becomes progressively less noticeable as it is zoomed in.

In fact the view and distortion present on the WWL family at max field of view (130° diagonal - 106° horizontal field) is about the same as you would see with a fisheye zoomed into the same field of view. it won't be an exact match of course but the overall impression is quite similar and certainly with a shot with straight lines in you would notice the difference if shot with an equivalent rectilinear lens. IF you look at the diagonal field only that would tell that the WWL is equivalent to 10mm rectilinear, however the horizontal field is probably just a touch wider than a 14mm rectilinear lens.

The advantage of the fisheye zoom is it goes wider and with the right combination zooms in about as far the WWL combo. I personally use the Canon 8-15 adapted onto an OM-1 - for tropical diving it tends to stay on most of the trip unless I'm doing macro. It's like combining a fisheye and a 14-28 equivalent lens into one and is very flexible.

If you search for posts on the new Laowa 10mm lens you will see people complaining that it is difficult to use as the perspective makes nearby objects look relatively huge. The WWL avoids this as the barrel distortion shrinks closeby objects at the edges.

As to whether the 24-50 matches the fisheye zoom, land tests will give you some indication, the 8-15 FE is known for being very sharp and performance behind a dome is generally quite good, even small domes. The WWL minimizes quality loss and is going to better particularly at the edges of the frame compared to a rectilinear behind a dome but it can't improve things beyond what the bare lens does.

If you are still set on the WWL I also had a look at the Isotta port charts, they list the the Z24-50 with a flat port and focus ring - obviously aimed at WWL use. Phil Rudin mentioned that the Marelux probably wouldn't support it as the port would need to be inside the housing - this is down to different positioning of the camera inside the housing relative to the port. You just need to confirm with Isotta that the Nauticam bayonet adapter will fit the flat port. The housing will be at least 1kg lighter and smaller in all dimensions.

I’m with you. Isotta seem nice, have no experience from them tho and there are no dealers in Scandinavia—however, buying a brand new alu housing and gear to make wet optics to work for a 10 year old camera … I don’t know. The Nauti z6III is 2.7 kgs and the camera body 6xx grams (a couple of hundred grams lighter than D500). So 3.3ish kgs together. Is the Isotta D500 a lot lighter? I’m looking for a good second hand housing too, but no luck so far and time is running out for me. I’m consulting a good UW photographer here in Sweden too and he say wet optics hands down. The Z24-50 might not be the a great lens comparatively (tests show its pretty sharp tho), but look at the Nikkor 14-24… fantastic lens. Sheit UW. There are so much happening when we put it behind a dome and uw so it’s not always an easy comparison lens to lens. Appreciate your feedback and the time you put in to answer Chris! Thank you.

Edited 19 hours ago19 hr by Christian K

I was looking at a possible move to the Z6III in Nauticam housing and for wide-angle they recommended the Z24-50 with the WWL-C. AS you rightly say, performance above water often doesn't compare to below.....

The WWL-C and 24-50z lens are a fantastic combo. Honestly the best reason to move from a Nikon DSLR to Mirrorless Z body.

38 minutes ago, Dave_Hicks said:

The WWL-C and 24-50z lens are a fantastic combo. Honestly the best reason to move from a Nikon DSLR to Mirrorless Z body.

That is what I (and my sad wallet) has concluded.

Life is full of exciting opportunities. But not necessarily the wallet. I think Confucius said that.