I'm hoping for some guidance as I am wanting to change into some new technology but am confusing myself and being terribly wishy-washy. I'm trying to be brief but it might drag a bit, sorry! I know that there are multiple great options and it's individual for "best", but getting some real world input may help me clarify my own thinking. I have been using dslr for over a decade, though the past year + I was only using my Oly TG series. That's been great fun, but the limitations and image quality for some types of images were starting to annoy & drain some of the fun for me so I brought the big rig out of the closet last month.

My BGC is currently Canon 7dmkii and Nauticam with Inon 240s. I have a bunch of lenses & domes/ports & dioptres for macro; I also have the Kraken KRL-90S that I think I remember having fun using, but it's been a long while. Ideally, I'd like to be able to use what I currently have with the new system with an eye on updating components as needed, so am fairly confident I'd l like to stay Canon/Nauticam. My shooting style is often wandering around the dive and taking whatever comes, versus setting out with more specific goals. My 17-70 macro lens offers great flexibility for those days; other days I enjoy the Tokina 10-17 and Canon 60 macro. I have an older Canon 100 macro and I think that is one lens I may want to update to the RF version eventually, but for now, will hopefully be able to limp along with it. Going forward, I'd like to explore shooting video & wider scenes as these are things I haven't pursued as much.

A friend let me borrow her Canon R5, but sadly I wasn't able to get it underwater as conditions were yucko. I may have another chance soon, though. I was able to see which of my lenses worked with it, so that was nice and all but the 60 played nicely. It was my first time using mirrorless and I liked it. At first I was ready to make the jump to FF, but now I'm back to not being sure if that matters so much to me; I don't think I have a strong preference either way, though when I used the R5 on land, I did miss my "extra" reach! Seems FF is more expensive, too.

I have considered everything in Canon's range, but keep flip flopping. I think the Final Four are R50 (backscatter suggested this set up and it was very tempting; love the form factor), R7, R6mkii and R5mkii. I don't think any would let me down for image quality, but I get a bit lost trying to pinpoint how much benefit I would get from moving up the chain. And, it sounds like there are new models coming later this year so maybe I should keep waiting; I don't have to have it right now, though I kinda would like it before our summer diving starts in Nov/Dec! What I want is probably what everyone else wants: excellent autofocus for both stills and video; great video - I am starting to explore this and would hate to get a body now that is too limiting (and I think I read that was an R50 issue) because changing bodies when housings are involved is just painful imho. I'm a happy cropper - I do try to get the image I want, of course, but sometimes I like/need to crop. While the R5mkii is undoubtedly an awesome machine, I do feel that choosing something else would do me just as well and any difference in costs would be put to good use on trips, lighting, lenses that would benefit me more.

Whew, is that too much info? Have I given enough info to help me narrow my choices? I hope so...i seem to be able to talk myself into anything but then fall down the rabbit hole and don't end up making a decision. I'd love to hear your thoughts. Adding a photo so this post at least has something fun to look at!

You are right there are multiple options these days, though the camera makers are gravitating towards full frame and that could be quite expensive as the housings cost quite a bit more in some cases and you tend towards more expensive wide angle solutions. Unfortunately their smaller format options are relatively limited. I would start with asking the following questions:

What are your main targets - macro - wide a mix of both? video? Flexibility during a dive?

what do you do with your images - post online? commercial sales? giant prints?

What do you see might be improved over where you are now?

The R5-II will cost about $2k (AUD) more to house than an R7. But Nauticam have gone to the N100 ports which are more limited and can need the very pricey N100-N120 adapters depending on which port you go for. Marelux also does an R7 housing and is slightly cheaper. Isotta housings are a bit cheaper still but they don't seem to do an R7. Isotta use an N120 port and any Nauticam port you have that has a bolt on lug ring can be converted to Isotta by changing out that lug ring.

The Canon 7D MkII is a pretty old camera now, so I would expect that the m43 sensors would easily beat it out in image quality, I shoot the OM-1 in Nauticam, Isotta is also available, this housing is about $1200 cheaper than the R7 housing in Nauticam. The ports are also quite a bit cheaper as are the lenses. I recently upgraded to an adapted Canon 8-15 fisheye with 140mm dome. This is an excellent wide angle setup, it goes from 180° diagonal fisheye to a 28mm full frame equivalent rectilinear field and focuses right to the dome. To have that flexibility in full frame you need the very heavy/expensive Fisheye conversion port, though in Sony you can do something similar with a Sony 2x and metabones MkV adapter. the OM-1 would also be a great solution depending of course on your uses for the images, though a lot of people shoot it professionally.

On the topic of buying a new rig, I expect that you might find it significantly cheaper to buy from the Australian distributors, Nauticam in the US has gotten quite expensive (tariffs). For example the R7 from Scubapix is $5200, while at Backscatter it is $4100 USD converting to AUD that's ~$6600, then add 10% GST plus shipping plus fees you will be looking at near to $8K landed.

1 hour ago, Chris Ross said:

What are your main targets - macro - wide a mix of both? video? Flexibility during a dive?

what do you do with your images - post online? commercial sales? giant prints?

What do you see might be improved over where you are now?

Thanks for your reply and the info on various housings/ports. Gives me more to read!

So you reckon head to FF?

1 - I quite like everything, I'm not a specialist

2 - I would to make sure that my camera can handle all of these including quality video for projects.

3 - I think pretty much everything is better on the new bodies! The 7dmkii doesn't suck by any means, but new autofocus, video capabilities, image quality, screen are all worth updating, imho.

I do not know how fast you will have to change, but Canon R6 II is a very good camera ( I know it from a friend, underwater and above water) and there is a new version of this camera in the startup line of Canon, announced with more megapixel. That could be a good choice, including good video features announced.

11 hours ago, Kristin said:

I think the Final Four are R50 (backscatter suggested this set up and it was very tempting; love the form factor), R7, R6mkii and R5mkii.

Personnally I moved more than 2 years ago from the Canon APS-C dSLR range (7D then 70D) housed inside a Nauticam housing to a RF Canon R7. The leap to FF didn't sound so attracting as I was looking for a more compact/lighter housing and a more affordable option as well, the Nauticam R7 just came out below the 3000EUR to confirm and speed up my initial choice.

As I'm doing a Iot of (super)macro also purchased the RF100 as a replacement to my old EF100, with the hindsight I think the RF100 is probaby the best macro lens I have used.

I also partially switched from 10-17Tok/Zen 4" dome to a RFS18-45 with the WWL1B wetlens combo, this gives me a zoom range from almost fisheye like coral reef scapes/fish schools to bigger animals I wouldn't shoot even at 17mm. I found the image quality in the corners is so much improved with the WWL1B.

I really enjoyed the better AF, the image quality (esp.the dynamics compared) and the ease of shooting and reviewing photos with the EVF although the EVF of the R7 is not up to the R5 or R6..

I would now probably wait for a R7-2 with an improved and more defined EVF, for all other aspects I think the R7 is a great camera, I am not sure the R50 rivals in terms of AF and image quality (dynamics and definition).

In every way I think the RF100 is a fantastic lens to invest if you're keen on macro,

Edited June 22Jun 22 by Luko

HI, @Kristin ,

First, terrific frame you shared! Clearly you have skills. As a long time Canon user I can share some of my experiences based on what you shared.

Your 7DII is a terrific camera! I know why you used it so long. It was marketed as an affordable sports camera with great quality. The R7 would be a similarly targeted model with a higher resolution. A big enhancement is the focus accuracy and speed. The "Canon colors" we all love remain the same. It also remains APS-C so basically everything you have, even EF-S lenses, should work by simply adding the Canon RF-EF adapter. There is absolutely no lag in focus speed or accuracy with this adapter as it is designed by Canon for their proprietary communications. Definitely a cost savings! Lastly, as it remains an APS-C, it has a noticeably smaller housing which equates to a smaller housing cost. The R50 is nice and very affordable. David Hass has produced some terrific images with it! The R7 does provide a greater degree of functionality, if you want that. (Side note - the RFS 18-150 lens is a nice do-all travel lens for land)

I've been using Nauticam for my last several rigs, and yes, their prices have ballooned, to say the least! And that was before any tariff talk. But they are extremely solid!! I've actually had a deck hand "throw" my Nauticam rig to me from the boat into the water. Fortunately, there was no seal issue after it hit the water. It has to do with their main port locking system and overall durable built. (And yes, we did have a very firm one-way conversation when I got back on the boat!)

Your current ports/domes are N120 and the R7 housing is an N100. Never fear, the N100-N120 adapter is the same length as the needed RF-EF adapter. Again, a potential cost savings. The famed Tokina 10-17 works well with the R7 as does the EF-S 60. (no longer made so don't give it up unless you're sure you won't use it again) The new RF 100 is definitely an upgrade over the EF 100, when you're ready. You would just need to add a flash trigger and you are set. While there will be a sizable investment, this could be the easiest, most cost effective, and familiar upgrade path.

The R6II is a great body, but does lack in resolution. (although fantastic for astro photography due to low res, low noise.) I only say this as you mention you are not afraid to crop. The R5II is their latest do-everything-really-well camera. I have an R5 and love it! I'm not sure the R5II offers much over the R5 underwater, other than better heat dissipation if you want to a good amount of 4K-8K video work.

In FF, the new Canon 24-50 works well and pairs nicely with the Nauticam WWL-C if you ever want to explore their wet optic options. (Dave Hicks has great experience with this setup). Similarly, the RFS 18-45 works well on the APS-C models and also works with the water contact options. Both options provide ~130 degree FOV on the wide end down to ~70 degree FOV when zoomed. This is not as wide as a true 180 degree fisheye, but I primarily use these for their versatility while remaining acceptably sharp throughout.

If you move to FF, the Canon EF 8-15 is the fisheye high-water mark. (also uses the RF-EF adapter) The quality is beyond sharp. If you use the Zen 100 dome with the Tokina 10-17, unfortunately there is a different model designed to work with the Canon lens. I would suggest the Nauticam 140 or Zen 230 for the 8-15. (140 is great for travel while the 230 allow easier split shots). Keep in mind the 8-15 is basically either a circular fisheye (kinda cool for a few pics) OR 15 fisheye. Unlike the Tokina, there is no real zoom ability in between unless you add a 1.4x Teleconverter.

One super important fact to keep in mind if you upgrade from an APS-C to any high res FF camera is Focus! The high res image details are incredible! Noticeably, if focus is even slightly off, that miss will be magnified. When I made the leap from APS-C to high res FF it was like I was learning all over again. It was all because APS-C, especially an older, lower res APS-C is quite forgiving. I share this so you can be prepared on your first dive with whichever new system you get.

Lastly, there is no "Best" or "One Right" system for all. You will hear many try to let there personal biases push you to their beliefs. Do your research and find the best fit for you, your budget, and your comfort level. I have used every brand of system (except Nikon) and sensor (m43, APS-C, FF) commonly out there. I found what I like, just as others found what they like. Make sure you get what best fits you. Feel free to reach out with any questions.

Enjoy, and let us know what you end up getting!

chip

Edited June 22Jun 22 by ChipBPhoto

17 hours ago, Kristin said:

Thanks for your reply and the info on various housings/ports. Gives me more to read!

So you reckon head to FF?

1 - I quite like everything, I'm not a specialist

2 - I would to make sure that my camera can handle all of these including quality video for projects.

3 - I think pretty much everything is better on the new bodies! The 7dmkii doesn't suck by any means, but new autofocus, video capabilities, image quality, screen are all worth updating, imho.

Well, no, the argument is that FF is not really needed, it costs more and the way most people use their images they would struggle to pick the differences. Video likewise a smaller sensor that uses the full sensor without cropping is perfectly fine for every thing, unless you are working on the next blue planet. Sure if you can afford it go right ahead but recognize the extra costs and also the larger heavier equipment. Whatever you do make sure your system has the full range of lenses you might want to use available.

On new bodies being better my view is that the 7D to the final DSLR iteration was a reasonable stepup, after that it's really incremental, what has been expanding is readout speed and computational photography- some great stuff coming through but a lot is not that applicable for UW.

12 hours ago, Luko said:

Thanks so much, that's super helpful information that's keyed in on what I need and want. really appreciate it!

12 hours ago, ChipBPhoto said:

Thanks for the nice words about my photo :)

This is amazingly helpful, thank you for taking the time to provide so much clear & helpful information! I hadn't every heard your point about the difference in nailing focus on the uber FFs vs the crops, very interesting and actually explains something I couldn't understand when I was playing with my friend's R5.

I am still undecided, but I feel like the input I'm getting here is excellent.

Some links that might be of interest,

A test of the Canon 24-50 with WWL-C, optical quality maybe not the best: https://waterpixels.net/forums/topic/1438-testing-nauticam-n120-port-extension-for-140mm-and-180mm-domes-with-wide-angle-lenses/#findComment-8505

This is the N100-N120 port adapter on the local distributor's page, quite pricey: https://www.scubapix.com/ports-gears/extension-rings-adaptors/n100-port-adaptors/37305-n100-to-n120-35-5mm-port-adaptor-ii-for-na-a7iv/

To add to the notes on the fisheye options, the Canon 8-15 and Tokina 10-17 works well in either a 100mm Zen dome or the 140mm dome particularly on smaller sensors. The Canon is particularly sharp but only works from 10mm to 15mm on APS-C - at 8-10mm you are sort of half way between circular and full frame fisheye but you can lock that out mechanically on the lens. They also both work well with 1.4x converters and Nauticam has zoom gears for that combination on both lenses. On the topic of the dome for the Tokina 10-17, Zen has a dome specifically for this combination, it is however just a 100mm dome with built in extension and you easily add an extension ring to the standard N120 100mm dome.

The fisheye zooms on the smaller formats are an excellent option IMO, you can go from a classic 180° diagonal fisheye through to the coverage you get with a WACP/WWL , just missing a little on the long end, so it can swap from reef scenics, to big animals to CFWA to wide angle macro on the same rig. Also IMO the Canon 8-15 does even better when adapted to m43 and goes even closer to covering the range of the WWL as well.

One thing to note is that the N100-N120 adapter has a zoom control knob and you will be using this with EF adapted lenses rather than the housing control knob.

I would suggest pricing up some options in a spreadsheet including all the things you would need - ports extension rings, zoom gears etc, they can add up.

FYI here's a table I'd prepared previously with fields of view of various fisheye zoom combination:

Uploading Attachment...

The horizontal field of view is better for comparisons than the diagonal as fisheyes stretch more in the corners. The final column is the equivalent rectilinear lens focal length. By way of comparison the WWL/WACP does 130 - 60° diagonal field of view. If you want to see some images shot with the 8-15 and an OM-1 this page on my website is 100% shot with the 8-15:

https://www.aus-natural.com/Underwater/Walindi%20Resort%20PNG/index.html

@Chris Ross thanks again! how irritating that I'd need a nearly $900 adaptor for the stupid ports. That's a big enough annoyance to put a tick in the win column for a different choice!

As I already own the Tokina 10-17 and 1.4 tc I'd put off adding the 8-15, but it's good info for the future!

1 minute ago, Kristin said:

@Chris Ross thanks again! how irritating that I'd need a nearly $900 adaptor for the stupid ports. That's a big enough annoyance to put a tick in the win column for a different choice!

As I already own the Tokina 10-17 and 1.4 tc I'd put off adding the 8-15, but it's good info for the future!

I know it's crazy expensive and annoying, but I'd still encourage you include it in an analysis to work out the best value of any rig you set up, you are still cheaper than your full frame option in Nauticam and FF doesn't readily allow you to use something like the Tokina 10-17.

A quick back of the envelope calc shows camera/housing/adapter to be $1500 less than and R6II plus housing and $5K less than an R5II with housing all in Nauticam and that's before considering you would need to buy new lenses, maybe extensions etc to get a fisheye solution in FF. It's too bad Isotta doesn't do an R7 housing. All new prices pulled from the web in Australia.

For info the way the Nauticam setup works is that you use the R100 Canon port chart which advises that you use the N100-N120 adapter then refer to the Canon EF N120 port chart where you use the same ports/extension rings and zoom gear that used with your previous housing and lenses. So if you went that way it you would only need the Housing/camera/N100-N120 adapter plus a flash trigger and you could kick off using your existing lenses. It's hard to see anything else competing as anything else needs new lenses and possibly ports. You could get an OM-1 for similar money including buying the macro port and lens but you'd still need an expensive N85-N120 adapter and a couple more bits and pieces to get a complete setup.

So if you plan to use your existing EF macro and Tokina 10-17 I think It's probably no contest for the r7 solution and biting the bullet on the expensive adapter, compared to anything else you might do.

You are missing a video lens, and while fisheyes and video aren't a common combo and I have seen many times people say something around a 16mm rectilinear is good for video and the Tokina zoomed between a 16-22mm equivalent would probably be fine for wide angle video as the fisheye distortion is equivalent to what you get with a WWL which many people use for video quite happily. The barrel distortion decreases quite dramatically as you zoom in.

@Chris Ross thanks for providing such in-depth information!

I have other lenses languishing in a closet including the Canon 10-22 and the Canon 24 that a friend really likes for uw video. Lenses for video is probably something I have to have a look at and fully expect to have to splash some more cash in that direction and for a better video light set up if I expand to more wide angle stuff. So many toys!

Would you mind if I drop you a PM about something?

59 minutes ago, Kristin said:

@Chris Ross thanks for providing such in-depth information!

I have other lenses languishing in a closet including the Canon 10-22 and the Canon 24 that a friend really likes for uw video. Lenses for video is probably something I have to have a look at and fully expect to have to splash some more cash in that direction and for a better video light set up if I expand to more wide angle stuff. So many toys!

Would you mind if I drop you a PM about something?

sure no problem

I think the main expense then would be domes to house them as they will need a bigger dome than the 10-17 - but maybe you already have that.

12 hours ago, Chris Ross said:

sure no problem

I think the main expense then would be domes to house them as they will need a bigger dome than the 10-17 - but maybe you already have that.

I use the same glass subal dome with adaptor that I use with the 17-70. Works great with the 7dmkii, not sure about FF so I'm keeping new dome on the list of expenses for now!

5 minutes ago, Kristin said:

I use the same glass subal dome with adaptor that I use with the 17-70. Works great with the 7dmkii, not sure about FF so I'm keeping new dome on the list of expenses for now!

It'll certainly work on an APS-C unit. Feel free to drop a PM.

Even though I'm a bit late to the party, I wanted to share my two cents on video 😇

As others have said, there's no "perfect" camera system out there today. Hybrid cameras are incredibly high quality across the board, so it really comes down to personal preference and what you'll be using it for.

I'm a pretty practical person. If you've already got a bunch of Canon lenses and you're comfortable with their system, I'd honestly stick with Canon. Then, take the money you save and spend it on travel and diving trips! 😁

Full-Frame vs. APSC: My Take

Now, about the full-frame (FF) vs. APSC thing, I'm pretty opinionated and a bit cynical.

Sure, the shift from DSLRs to mirrorless cameras brought huge tech changes. But the speed at which companies release new models isn't always because we, the consumers, actually need them – quite the opposite!

Companies are always trying to boost sales and profits, and launching new products is a key way to do that. Through marketing and ads, they make you feel like your perfectly good camera is suddenly "old" or not as good as the latest version.

Right now, the whole market is obsessed with full-frame. This trend really took off because of home videomakers who used cameras like the Canon 5D Mark II to get that "cinematic look" in their backyards. For them, the entire cinema look concept meant crazy background blur and chasing the perfect bokeh at all costs. Companies saw this and jumped on it headfirst.

But, even if the market says otherwise, for underwater video, a cropped sensor actually has some big advantages.

Underwater, unless you're going for a specific creative effect, you generally want a good depth of field. And that's much easier to get with APSC or Micro Four Thirds cameras.

For macro shots, both video and photo, APSC/M43 formats also give you an edge when it comes to magnification compared to full-frame.

The common belief that full-frame sensors are automatically brighter and have less noise than cropped sensors is a tough one to kill. Theoretically, it's true, but in practice, it makes no difference. Technology has come so far that for our kind of use, it has zero impact. For video, almost all modern sensors now have a dual gain circuit, meaning two native ISOs. Canon calls this DGO, and every manufacturer has their own version – it's technology originally developed by Arri.

Plus, APSC lenses are generally smaller too.

Canon's colors, especially, are really popular for underwater shooting, and Canon cameras usually do a great job with white balance even at depth. The one big drawback with some Canon cameras is how you do the custom white balance – it forces you to take a photo first, then set the white balance from that shot. I'm not sure which models still have that quirk though.

Back to Reality

If you're sticking with Canon and you're not in a huge rush, I'd personally wait for the new Canon R7 Mark II. Of course, if you always wait for the next big thing, you'll never buy anything because there's always something new coming. But the R7 Mark II has been rumored for over a year now, with hundreds of whispers. It's hard to say exactly what features it'll have, but everyone agrees that Canon will release a true APSC flagship, bringing all their latest innovations to that format. It'll basically be like what the 7D was for DSLRs.

Even now, the R7 is an excellent camera, and some people use it specifically for macro. Its video sectionhas some limitation.

https://www.canonrumors.com/tag/eos-r7-mark-ii/

Before You Buy

Anyway, before you choose, try to borrow some cameras from friends and get a feel for them. You don't even have to go in the water; your backyard is perfectly fine.

Or, for mainstream cameras, you can often rent them for a weekend from various camera rental services at pretty reasonable prices. If you're coming from a DSLR, this is a great way to understand what these new hybrid mirrorless cameras can do and get a real idea without getting sucked in by all the "shilltubers" .

P.S.

I almost forgot: as I mentioned, personally verify that certain features actually work in video mode.

Ciaoooo

I agree 100% with Davide DB's assessment. All the things he mentions in today's modern mirrorless models from many manufacturers mean superior image quality whether in stills or video are achievable with APS-C.

What Davide refers to as cynical I call practical thinking.

I always was a budget shopper as in: "What do I really NEED to make images (or videos) that I'll actually edit, print, share in whatever format?"

I read several photography web sites daily to keep up on tech details but don't get sucked down the rabbit hole of spending more $$$$. Previous APS-C cameras even waning dSLR models produced great images.

New mirrorless models (I'm a Canon shooter) have much improved DPAF AF and other features. Those were improvements why I bought a Canon R50 plus even lower priced R100 I use underwater.

I do think if you're going into a mirrorless R7 II when it comes out would be a good move. The cheap Canon EF-RF adapter means you could use your existing EF lenses seamlessly.

I will say the RF lens versions are usually lighter, smaller and in many cases cheaper delivering great pictures. One underlooked macro is the RF85mm F2 versus the longer focal length RF100 especially on an APS-C sensor (Canon is a 1.6X crop factor.)

While the 85mm F2 won't do 1:1 I'd ask potential macro shooters how much 1:1 or even more magnification shots do you REALLY take?

Even your 60mm 1:1 APS-C designed macro lens with the EF-RF adapter would produce great macros to get started in a mirrorless camera set up.

A lot to parse but think you'd be more than satisfied for years choosing a Canon APS-C mirrorless model.

David Haas

PS - Search under my name for photos taken with my Canon R50 in the Nauticam fixed port NA-R50 housing plus recently a Canon R100 in the Ikelite DLM housing.

Edited June 27Jun 27 by dhaas
text editing

I’ve banged on about this many times….. so here goes again.

FF, topside? Why not? There’s no real reason I can think of NOT to get an FF camera.

However, underwater? It’s a different story. As Chris, Davide and David have all set out in different ways, non-FF systems can have real advantages. And I agree with Davide that we are seduced by camera manufacturers that if you’re not using FF, you’ve got less of a system.

It boils down to what you plan to do with the images. Serious commercial sales? Massive prints? Then maybe FF. But for screen size images (including sales) and prints up to A2, sub-FF can work perfectly and you can’t tell the difference. The plus points: less expensive, less bulky, easier for travelling, usually easier to house the wide-angle lenses, easier DOF with macro…..

Yep, back in the early-2010s I was seduced by the FF marketing and housed a D800. When it was time to move on I switched in 2017 back to the APSC D500 and haven’t regretted it for a second. Never had a moment’s Buyer’s Regret. Talking to Z8 users, I’m sticking with a D500 until Nikon comes up with a high-end mirrorless APSC.

There. Said it. I feel better 🙃

Let's be clear: I'm not fighting against full-frame. My reasoning is purely about video, underwater video, not photography.

If you're making professional videos, you don't need to print in A2 or A1 sizes. You need to deliver your work in standard resolutions, which today are 4K or 6K. 8K is still mostly for cropping in editing. Video resolution is tiny compared to photography.

• 4K: Around 8.3 Megapixels (UHD) or 8.8 Megapixels (DCI).

• 6K: Around 19-20 Megapixels (depending on the specific resolution).

• 8K: Around 33.2 Megapixels.

These are ridiculous resolutions respect to average current photography needs.

In fact, the opposite of photography happens. A video-oriented camera will have a sensor that's as close as possible to the final video resolution. My GH5 has a 20 MP sensor, which is a compromise between video and photos. The GH5S, which is specifically for video, only has a 10 MP sensor. The glorious Sony A7S III only has a 12 MP sensor!

But today, almost all cameras are hybrids, meaning they also take photos. If you don't want to crop and lose the original format, manufacturers are forced to do real-time downscaling, which brings its own problems: computing power, overheating, and rolling shutter.

Going back to our debate on full frame...

The term "full-frame" comes from analog photography, For a long time, this format was the professional standard in photography, offering better image quality than smaller formats. With the start of the digital era, full-frame sensors were initially expensive to make, leading to the use of smaller sensors like APS-C or Micro Four Thirds, even in professional cameras.

The "trend" of full-frame in video grew from digital photography technology meeting the increasing demands of video production, especially the desire for an affordable "cinematic look." The real turning point was the Canon 5D Mark II. In 2008, it showed that high-quality video could be made with relatively inexpensive equipment. This started a revolution, leading other manufacturers, especially Sony, to develop full-frame cameras with increasingly advanced video features. These cameras then became a common choice for many productions, from independent to semi-professional.

It's important to differentiate between the history of traditional cinema and recent trends in digital video. The history of cinema was not made with "full-frame" in the sense of a 36x24mm sensor. The main formats were:

• Super 16mm (S16): A smaller format that was used for many famous films, valued for its versatility and unique look.

• Super 35mm (S35): This was the main format for most of cinema's history. The image area of 35mm film in cinema cameras was closer in size to an APS-C sensor or slightly larger, but much smaller than a full-frame sensor. Most of cinema's magic, from Hollywood to European films, was created using this format.

Therefore, the "cinematic look" linked to full-frame in modern digital video is not the same as the historical cinematic look. The full-frame "trend" was fueled by marketing that promoted the idea that a larger sensor was always better. It offered real benefits in low-light performance and dynamic range, but more importantly, it made it easy to achieve a "strong bokeh". For many amateur videomakers, this became a sign of a "professional" and cinematic look, differentiating their work from amateur videos.

Finally, it's worth noting that many RED cameras used in high-end productions like "blue chip" wildlife documentaries still use Super 35mm sensors. This is often preferred to maintain a greater depth of field when filming distant subjects. Lions and gazelles are far far away 😀

This shows that "bigger is not always better" for every specific use case in professional filmmaking.

Wow! Thank you all so much for the massive amount of information you are sharing! Amazing group of people here.

I'm still a little confused on the AF aspect of video with these new cameras. I thought that people would be singing its praises, but it seems that isn't the case and MF is often preferred.

@dhaas I was very tempted by the R50/R100 options. Still am some days! I think the video rules them out, overall. I'm loving looking through your images and posts.

I feel a bit of deja vu here as I seem to be in the same place as I was a decade ago when moving from Canon 20D to the 7Dmkii. I was a bit too late to jump on the original and had to wait a bit for the next version. But it has served me very well for 10 years, so hopefully I get at least half that out of the new one. Sight unseen, it seems like the R7mkii is going to be a good choice for me. here's hoping!

I may have a chance to use an R5 soon, but likely without strobes as I don't have the right cables, I don't think. Still be worthwhile and I'm looking forward to it even though I'm pretty sure FF isn't in my future.

Thank again for everyone who has chimed in!!

15 minutes ago, Kristin said:

Wow! Thank you all so much for the massive amount of information you are sharing! Amazing group of people here.

I'm still a little confused on the AF aspect of video with these new cameras. I thought that people would be singing its praises, but it seems that isn't the case and MF is often preferred.

No worries on the info. The video AF it seems is a little neglected and nowhere near as good as stills AF. I suspect it's because with stills it can use the AF pixels, take the data needed for AF and subject tracking and refresh the sensor and take the shot, while video it has to work with the the data stream coming from the sensor. primarily MF is used in video to stop it hunting if the AF points moves off subject.

Kristin,

Between the lower end Canon R100 and R50 the R50 has Digic X processor and full sensor width 4K (downsampled from 6K.) It's pretty impressive in a low cost package and you can search out land reviews of the video features on YouTube.

So I wouldn't rule out a R50 especially with the wonderful Nauticam NA-R50 housing for either stills or video.

High end video shooters may need a bit more variables to control but still most of what video shooters require is built in. Plus what are you doing with your videos? I've shared many good looking 1080P clips online.

Last thing is for the lower price of the R50 you can buy 2 bodies / 18-45mm IS STM lens that works in the Nauticam NA-R50 housing and have $$$$ left over for a WWL-C or WWL-B or whatever wide wet lens.

Just one guy's thoughts :)

DH

Wet lenses was a game changer for me as a Nikon DX shooter since 20 years. Was very reluctant towards FF because of all reasons already mentioned, but mainly for the lack of good rectilinear WA options. They all needed big ass domes and very expensive high end glass was disappointing once put behind that big ass dome and brought UW. APS-C was much better in that aspect.

So I was about to swap brand when a fellow shooter and distributor of housings convinced me to go FF with wet lenses. Made it possible to continue shooting Nikon too. Not that is was all that important, but old habits die hard I guess.

10 hours ago, Chris Ross said:

No worries on the info. The video AF it seems is a little neglected and nowhere near as good as stills AF. I suspect it's because with stills it can use the AF pixels, take the data needed for AF and subject tracking and refresh the sensor and take the shot, while video it has to work with the the data stream coming from the sensor. primarily MF is used in video to stop it hunting if the AF points moves off subject.

Absolutely true. Unfortunately, for most "shilltubers," video autofocus (AF) demonstrations boil down to someone just moving back and forth, or in and out of the camera's frame on a tripod.

This is one of the rare videos where a camera's AF is explained in detail for both photos and videos. And, as I mentioned, even for a very advanced camera like the A6700 (I read that its AF is the same as the A7R5), the AF sections are different.