Has anyone downsized from Full Frame (35mm size) to micro 4.3? I'm considering this for travel but not sure what I'll miss. Obvious;y resolution changes but the smaller size and increased depth of field is a bonus. I'm currently using a Nikon D800 in a Seacam Housing and thinking about Olympus.

Hi BJS

Not to M4/3 but I “downgraded” from D800 to D500 about 8 years ago and am still using the D500. Haven’t regretted it for a second. I’ve posted many times about the advantages of sub-FF in terms of cost, portability and ergonomics - and no noticeable quality cost unless, maybe, serious commercial use or massive prints involved.

There are a good few M4/3 members who will join in.

I shoot the OM-1 in Nauticam, quite happy with it. I didn't downgrade from full frame UW, though I went from using a Canon 1DIV on land to olympus as well . I still have the 1DIV and Canon lenses including a 500mm f4 and 180mm macro , but I've switched over to using the OM-1 for all of that and the Canon gear only gets used very occasionally as the OM-1 is every bit as good and for land based macro using focus stacking among other features easily surpasses the Canon and other full frame options. There are others here who have gone Full frame to APS-C and never regretted it such my fellow moderator @TimG . My feeling these days is APS-C is a bit of an orphan child with lens range a little limited in some ways. I used to try to shoot everything so that I could print big!! but I've found in reality I almost never do.

Other advantages include you don't need to stop down so much so you can shoot lower ISO as you are at least 1 stop further open compared to FF, this means smaller cheaper flash units will work for you. The lens lineup is very complete with excellent macro, rectilinear wide (14-28, 16-35 equivalent etc.) and fisheye options. The lenses are cheaper than full frame and a lot smaller as are the ports required.

On the full frame question, a lot depends on what you want to use the images for and I can see two main reasons for wanting full frame these days -1. you make your living from the images and clients demand it and 2. You want (and actually do) make large prints - I'm talking A2 size and bigger. The 20 MP sensor in the OM-1 can print A3 natively at 300 dpi and up-ressing to A2 is quite feasible, it's starts to suffer a little beyond that. A third reason might be you can afford it, can put up with size and weight and you want to. Ports and lenses in m43 are quite a bit cheaper as are the housings.

I have the 60mm macro, which is my most used, the 12-40 in a 170mm dome and now use the an adapted Canon 8-15 fisheye in the 140mm dome for wide angle - you can't get this so cheaply in any other system. It combines a full diagonal fisheye with a 14-28 equivalent lens and includes much of the range of a WWL setup in one package. Full frame requires either Sony and the same adapted 8-15 lens with a Sony 2x or using the very expensive Fisheye conversion port. Amazing flexibility and image quality and uniquely micro43 allows you the most flexibility. Only downside is it needs lots of flotation to get near neutral.

Your two main housing options are Nauticam and Isotta. I started with Nauticam and I'm bought into this system, but Isotta for example would allow you to do the Canon 8-15 significantly cheaper. I can pack my setup including housing, ports, camera, lenses and two strobes into a carry on size photo backpack.

Feel free to ask more specific questions about shooting with the OM-1. There's lots of images on my website and most recent ones since about late 2023 are with the OM-1. You can also find my gallery here on Waterpixels.

I'm also considering switching to M4/3 from my aged Sony NEX5 and have been eyeing up the Olympus OMD-EM10 and AOI housing for reasons of cost and weight (especially cf. Nauticam). I'm undecided and lens/port choice though, I guess a fisheye (or wide zoom) and small dome would be lighter than a wet lens?

@Stig Consider one of the bodies supporting PDAF autofocus, OM5 or OM1. I don't know if it is just a different camera generation, but going from an EM-5-II to an OM-1 is a huge improvement in autofocus performance. AOI makes fairly affordable housings for the OM5 and OM1 also. I'm a happy recent adoptee of their OM1 housing. I think @bvanant has the same housing, and he actually knows how to use his 😅.

1 hour ago, Stig said:

I'm also considering switching to M4/3 from my aged Sony NEX5 and have been eyeing up the Olympus OMD-EM10 and AOI housing for reasons of cost and weight (especially cf. Nauticam). I'm undecided and lens/port choice though, I guess a fisheye (or wide zoom) and small dome would be lighter than a wet lens?

Either the Panasonic or Olympus 8mm fisheye is very light and affordable and they work well in a 4"dome.

Agree though the AF in the OM1 and EM5 is way better than the old series like EM-5II - mainly a benefit when using the 60mm macro lens which was relatively sluggish on the EM-5 II. I upgraded to the EM-1 mKII 8 years ago it was way better than the old EM-5 II. If you are concerned about expense a second hand EM-1 MII or III in an aluminium housing would be a great option. The OM-1 and OM-5 are better but not as much of a step up as the EM-5 II to EM-1 II.

9 hours ago, BJS said:

Has anyone downsized from Full Frame (35mm size) to micro 4.3? I'm considering this for travel but not sure what I'll miss. Obvious;y resolution changes but the smaller size and increased depth of field is a bonus. I'm currently using a Nikon D800 in a Seacam Housing and thinking about Olympus.

I used Olympus m4/3 for years then developed Sensor Envy (SE). I moved to Sony full frame with its amazing autofocus, but I have to say that I miss the form factor and great ergonomics of OMS/Olympus every time I shoot the Sony. I think for my needs, which is trying to capture marine life for prints, documentation and social media - that the 1/2 frame-sized OM sensor is quite good. I’ve had no issues making 11x14 prints but haven’t tried going larger, though I’m sure the m4/3 sensor certainly could. And you’ve already figured out everything about full frame is bigger and bulkier. I think m4/3 is great for travel and personal work. If you have a budget and assistants for paid work, then go big. Your clients expect it, though they may have no clue how you really make images.

Edited Sunday at 03:08 PM2 days by humu9679
sentence structure correction.

10 hours ago, Chris Ross said:

My feeling these days is APS-C is a bit of an orphan child with lens range a little limited in some ways. I used to try to shoot everything so that I could print big!! but I've found in reality I almost never

My personal feeling is that FF (especially with Sony, but also the other brands) is the real unwanted orphan child what regards lens choice for UW: No native zoom fisheye (and when (now discontinued) adapted is available, just the choice between circular and 180° diagonal - nothing like the (now discontinued) Tokina 10-17mm for APS-C. Meager selection in true macro lenses. Regarding lens selection for UW photography, MFT is clearly the king...👍

This is opposed by 61 Mpixel, 14-bit raw images (and S/N ratio clearly deserves to be digitized at 14-bit resolution) with 4x the maximum light gathering capability (and according dynamic range)...

I went the opposite route, upgrading from Olympus EM1II to Sony A7R5. Regarding IQ, I do not look back, I certainly will not "downgrade" to MFT in the midrange (maybe some (remote) day when I have become old and weak, no longer being able to carry a FF rig) , but I clearly miss the lens choice for UW (I am eagerly awaiting new lenses for UW to come out)...

Wolfgang

1 hour ago, Architeuthis said:

My personal feeling is that FF (especially with Sony, but also the other brands) is the real unwanted orphan child what regards lens choice for UW: No native zoom fisheye (and when (now discontinued) adapted is available, just the choice between circular and 180° diagonal - nothing like the (now discontinued) Tokina 10-17mm for APS-C. Meager selection in true macro lenses. Regarding lens selection for UW photography, MFT is clearly the king...👍

This is opposed by 61 Mpixel, 14-bit raw images (and S/N ratio clearly deserves to be digitized at 14-bit resolution) with 4x the maximum light gathering capability (and according dynamic range)...

I went the opposite route, upgrading from Olympus EM1II to Sony A7R5. Regarding IQ, I do not look back, I certainly will not "downgrade" to MFT in the midrange (maybe some (remote) day when I have become old and weak, no longer being able to carry a FF rig) , but I clearly miss the lens choice for UW (I am eagerly awaiting new lenses for UW to come out)...

Wolfgang

I am now old and weak, so APS-c and m4/3 sounds great to me!

I shoot video pretty much exclusively and went from dedicated camcorders to the GH5, and the now the GH7 for better autofocus. I am very happy with the M43 format and lens choices for my needs. As it is with an external monitor, it is a plenty big rig to push through the water, and for travel. I can't even imagine doing that with a FF camera set up.

I recently "downgraded" from an A6500 (in a Sea Frogs salted) to a GH4, mainly because it was practically free including the Nauticam housing.

I haven't dove it much but for my uses (mostly social media) it seems a better format with more appropriate lenses, higher sync speed and wider white balance capabilities. I can foresee going to a newer body down the road.

I'm unsure if I'll miss the IBIS and higher native ISO.

8 hours ago, Architeuthis said:

This is opposed by 61 Mpixel, 14-bit raw images (and S/N ratio clearly deserves to be digitized at 14-bit resolution) with 4x the maximum light gathering capability (and according dynamic range)...

IMO dynamic range is nice, but rarely critical UW, If you look at ambient images the histogram is squashed into the middle and needs to be stretched to get a decently contrasty image. The sole exception might be sunballs, but It seems that high sync speed is your biggest requirement there. and the dynamic range progressively goes away as you increase ISO. I don't doubt the images look great, but for me the the m43 sensor is more than adequate for what I do.

If you like to look at sensor data plots you'll see that The Nikon D800 and the A7RV are very very close with mainly slightly more dynamic range at a given ISO. In fact the EM-1 MkII matches the D800 ISO400 dynamic range at ISO200 and it hardly drops at 400. It's a similar story for noise. Where full frame really comes into play is at much higher ISOs which are not that commonly needed UW.

I have seen remarkable shots at high ISO out of the OM-1 though. This shot at ISO6400 I found quite nice, the shadows are blocked but FF and infinite dynamic range won't help the feathers have microstructure that makes them close to the blackest object known, they just don't reflect light.

https://500px.com/photo/1111734237/magnificent-riflebird-or-papua-by-petr-bambousek

I think one needs to look at the whole system and not just parameters of separate components. I am just on my way back from Halhamera exploration liveaboard where I took my new WACP-C on a maiden voyage. I don't see many other options - travel friendly- , that would allow me to do pictures below on one dive. Even though size shouldn't matter it's hard to beat 50-60Mpix full frame sensor paired with good optics.

Sony A1 28-60 WACP-C. The first image for demo of wide angle, second full frame of the third crop. No AI enhancements, just levels. Would you believe you could shoot pygmy horse - and get publishable results - with wide angle lens?

Thanks @RomiK

I was a little bit frustrated with this topic.
I "invest" a lot when I bought my R5, + housing + ports + lenses + strobes.

And now some guys says I can have the same result (or better) with less money, less weight etc...

I'm happy with my setup that's important.

9 hours ago, RomiK said:

I think one needs to look at the whole system and not just parameters of separate components. I am just on my way back from Halhamera exploration liveaboard where I took my new WACP-C on a maiden voyage. I don't see many other options - travel friendly- , that would allow me to do pictures below on one dive. Even though size shouldn't matter it's hard to beat 50-60Mpix full frame sensor paired with good optics.

Sony A1 28-60 WACP-C. The first image for demo of wide angle, second full frame of the third crop. No AI enhancements, just levels. Would you believe you could shoot pygmy horse - and get publishable results - with wide angle lens?

Is that the travel friendly 1.xx kgs wet lens or the 4 kg ”lump”.

9 hours ago, CaolIla said:

I'm happy with my setup that's important.

Does anything else matter?

6 hours ago, Christian K said:

Is that the travel friendly 1.xx kgs wet lens or the 4 kg ”lump”.

Nah... 4kg option is the WACP-1. WACP-C is mere 2.2kg ... compare wet option below...

To BJS, the OP I should add, we are in the same city if you want to see the Equipment in person feel free to contact me.

6 hours ago, RomiK said:

Nah... 4kg option is the WACP-1. WACP-C is mere 2.2kg ... compare wet option below...

Gotcha. Cheers, the 1.xx kgs apparently the 24 mm variant…

I'm lucky to have a Sony A1 and have no plans to change it, but if I did then for underwater only work, I would now seriously consider M43.

I got my A1 for topside wildlife work as, at the time, it was far superior to anything else out there in regards of AF and the 'zebras' feature.

However, once underwater, these become a lot less important. The only significant difference I have found between the Sony and my previous, excellent, Nikon D500 is for super macro once the SMC-1 is attached as with the Nikon I found the focussing struggled and I often had to 'rock' the housing back and forth, whereas with the Sony it works much better.

The other big advantage I find is being able to view an image in the viewfinder when shooting macro as it limits movement especially important on muck dives, and nowadays as long as you get a recent camera I don't think you'll fins using an electric viewfinder too difficult. I certainly don't. There is the odd issue with sunbelts and wide angle but generally I prefer it

If I were to sell all my topside gear I'd be tempted to go M43 due to the weight as all my underwater photography is travel based. I believe M43 to be good enough IQ wise if shot well

Mike

I should say first that I'm a fan of the M43 system and Panasonic, so don't expect me to be unbiased 😇

When we talk about the M43 system, Panasonic's cameras in this lineup are super underrated. Historically, Olympus (now OM System) was always seen as the go-to for photos, and Panasonic for video. But guess what? Panasonic cameras have a shutter button too! 😁Their big weakness used to be the autofocus, but now, for a while, all their new Full-Frame (FF) and M43 cameras have switched to PDAF, and from what I saw, they're nearly on the same league with other brands. A killer AF on land doesn't mean it will be as good underwater.
For the M43 size, the top camera designed specifically for photography is the G9II, even though the GH7 has similar specs.

If we're talking Full-Frame, the best camera for photography is the S1RII, which packs a 44-megapixel sensor.

Now, about size: I actually think Panasonic has somewhat betrayed the true spirit of M43. The whole idea was to have not just smaller lenses, but also tiny camera bodies. Many people saw this as the system's biggest selling point. Yet, a lot of Shilltubers and pro photographers always complained that the camera bodies were hard to hold and not very ergonomic because they were so small. Panasonic, mistakenly I believe, listened to these voices. Now, we have camera bodies that are pretty much the same size as many FF cameras. Except for the GH7, all their new cameras basically share the same body. This might be a way to save money since they've lost some market share. The G9II, for example, has the same body as an S5II.

In reality, what many M43 enthusiasts really dream of is a new camera with a rangefinder-style body, like the old GX9, but with all the latest sensor and AF tech. Get this: even really old and tiny GM cameras are now selling for the same price as new ones! It's totally the new trend. I used to have a GM1 and I seriously regret selling it. It was a real gem, and I loved putting old manual Zeiss and Canon FD lenses on it.

And what about housings for these cameras?

That's the real problem. It seems like after the success of the GH5, housing manufacturers have slowly started to abandon Lumix/Panasonic. Their FF cameras are practically unheard of in the underwater housing world except Nauticam but with a caveat.

Nauticam actually has a housing for the GH7, which is basically just the GH6 housing (they share the same body). But for some inexplicable reason, it's one of the most expensive housing in that range! This has basically doomed the camera from being widely adopted for underwater use. I say inexplicable because the housing isn't even their top-of-the-line model; it's missing the joystick controls that are super important on these cameras.

Other manufacturers simply stopped making housings after the GH5.

For the FF line, Nauticam does list housings for the new Panasonic FF cameras, but I've honestly never seen anyone actually using them. Which is a shame, because since they share the same camera body, you could use multiple cameras with one housing. Panasonic's FF lens lineup is quite complete; they use the L-mount, which Leica and Sigma are also part of. But still, you just don't see them around underwater.


P.S.
We were writing about the problem of long trips and backups in this thread.

A killer feature that Panasonic added for us divers who travel, on the GH6/GH7, G9II, and all their new Full-Frame cameras, is the automatic backup of SD and CFExpress cards to an external SSD via USB-C. You don't need a laptop, tablet, or special hardware. You just connect your SSD to the camera body, press a button, and you get an "automagic" backup.