Hi everyone,

I'm sure this gets throw out a lot (and I'm spending some time going through previous threads): I'm researching on what to get as my first dedicated underwater setup and am quite lost :)

I have a TG-6 that I used last summer while snorkelling and did not like its soft images. I compared to an old Canon S110 I had in a drawer and the Canon is better... I guess it is to be expected, considering the small sensor.

So, I started looking in to options as a camera for my first underwater dedicated setup. An old Nikon J5 in a drawer seemed like an option until the lack of housings quickly made it moot. I then thought of a second hand Sony RX100 IV or V, as the cost is not prohibitive and there are enough housing options.

But... then .... yeah... exactly, it's getting BIGGER :) ... I quickly realised that the Salted Line housing for the Sony Alpha 6xxx range is actually cheaper than for the RX100. And, a second hand A6400 comes around for a similar price of the RX100 V (plus the lenses, of course, but that part I do like, swapping lenses for different goals). I've been shooting topside film and then APS-C cameras from Nikon, and I would like to get similar sharpness from my photos underwater.

This made me orient to researching for the Sony E mount lenses options, housings, etc. But later, talking to a photography enthusiast friend who made the move to full frame ~10 years ago, he sold me on the idea of going full frame. The Sony A7C seemed like a perfect fit, similar in size to the A6400, but then came the bad news: housings are more expensive (Salted Line does not have a A7C housing, only Seafrogs - and from what I understand Salted Line is a Seafrogs subsidiary that produces its housings with higher quality, right ?), and I also started to realise that regarding strobes I might not be able to get away with smaller ones, like a couple Ikelite Eckos, or Inon S220s ... ?

I even spent some time checking out MFT cameras (there are good deals for Olympus Pen E-PL10 + housing), but I feel it will always be a step down in image sharpness vs the APS-C (and of course full frame) options, plus the Sony autofocus seems to be a game changer.

As you see, I'm quite lost.

1) Will a A6400 be significantly bulkier than a Olympus Pen ? I know it's bigger, but I would like to know from people who use these rigs how much "annoying" they really are. I'm ok with the extra size/weight unless we're talking about "cinema camera" loads here... I'm ok with a little bigger rig if I'll be considerably more satisfied with my images.

2) Am I going crazy considering the Sony A7C ? Assuming it's similarly sized to a A6400, I see the problems mostly with its cost (although not much more in second hand), the lenses (a little bigger, but I think I would go for similar lenses with the A6400, thinking of a future upgrade), but I'm not sure about strobes ? I would also use the A7C topside, to replace my current ageing Nikon D3300.

3) has someone here used Salted Line housings (for the Axxx range?) and is happy with them ?

My purpose is not to break the bank and go for second hand material (camera body, lenses, ports), I like the idea of cheaper housings as long as flooding is not an issue (I'm not - yet - prepared to pay a premium for usability and quality of feel, as long as it works, I'm happy with it), and I would like to avoid spending 1K per strobe. I also don't know how (un)reasonable all this sounds. Plus, I would like to do both wide angle AND small things. Uffff...

I'm leaning towards the A6400 based setup (also thanks to previous input elsewhere from another member here, Barmaglot), but I can be nudged either way. And there are the lights too...

Thanks !

1. I shoot Sony APS-C. I upgraded from a Canon S95, and now I have an A6100 in a Nauticam A6400 housing. Compared to my dad's Olympus MFT Nauticam setup, it's a wash on weight and size. They're very similar once you add handles/trays/arms/etc.

2. Full frame wasn't worth it for me, as the lenses are more expensive and heavier.

3. I personally did not like the Salted Line housing at all. Some people love them, but for me it had Finicky camera placement, very floaty and bulky, control squeeze at depth, and just seemed extremely cheap and not trustworthy. Hence I went with Nauticam.

For strobes, consider picking up some YS-D3's from divervision for $499 a piece.

@tailwind_marseille

First - you are headed down a path many (many) of us have followed. Virtually all of your thinking to this point is well thought-out.

Just a couple of things to consider:
- you mentioned you were snorkeling with a TG-6... that may be part of the issue to consider. Getting crisp images when snorkeling is often even harder to do than while scuba diving. Much of the time you could be bobbing around on the surface, that motion impacts your images. In addition, most snorkelers shoot down, whereas most divers are shooting either even with a subject, or slightly up at a subject, which helps tremendously with ambient light (and perspective). Don't underestimate this, many of the best free-diving images taken are shot from this perspective.

The TG-6 is a very reasonable u/w camera, especially shooting macro (small subjects), but the camera is subject to movement (leading to softer images). There are a number of reasons to advance beyond a TG-6, however understanding your use case(s) is important in understanding what kind of u/w camera system is going to work for you.

- The other thing which you seem to already be considering is adding strobes. These will help you "freeze" your subject in the image to help get the sharpest image possible. That will come down to the interaction between the focusing ability of your camera & lens choices, shutter speed, and your strobe(s) ability to add light on the subject.

If your primary use is going to be snorkeling, then I would be looking at a system that has both fast autofocus and the ability to adjust aperture & shutter speed easily - as you'll want to control the ambient light in every shot. If you are going to be using the rig mostly for scuba diving, then fast autofocus is a nice to have (critical in a few situations), but depending on the subject, you may be able to get away with slightly slower focus speed (as @Alex_Mustard mentions in the latest Underwater Photography Show podcast, some lenses, like the Sony 50mm macro lens, can provide great images, but are very slooooow to focus).

To your specific question on camera - both my kids started shooting underwater with Olympus housed systems - it was a great learning platform. One has now moved up to Sony FF system, the other to a Nikon FF system, however both did well in u/w photography competitions shooting with that Oly (that then got handed down to a cousin who also learned using that system). It was excellent for macro (some could argue comparable to a FF Sony A7III with the 90mm lens), but was never a great w/a solution.

Others here have had great success with the A6400 camera, so that could be a solid choice. If you are still considering the A7C this is a quick read (Sony A7C II Underwater Camera Review - GEAR TESTS | EVENT COVERAGE 2025 | BONAIRE - The Digital Shootout - A renowned annual event for underwater photography and videography enthusiasts.).

Just opinions.

The TG is a most unimpressive thing.

I would not purchase an expensive camera and put it in a cheap plastic housing (Sea Frogs).

I doubt anyone but pros really needs a FF camera. But we want what we want and can figure out a way to justify it.

I also doubt you will see much difference in images with a MFT vs a APS-C. Either of which are huge sensors compared to a TG.

Your image softness with the TG could be the result of many factors including the inability to control shutter speeds.

By the time a housing is outfitted with a wet lens, a dome port or macro port, dual strobes and supporting arms, tray, focus light and floats then the size difference between MFT/APS-C/FF begins to disappear. Yes, FF is definitely bigger and heavier and more $. But there are some fairly small FF cameras out there.

Here is my tiny little Canon S90 in the equally minuscule FIX housing with twin strobes and floats and a tray.

Edited 18 hours ago18 hr by Nemrod

My take is that the OM-1 type system will give you everything you need. As for sharpness, I do all the printing for the Southern California UPS groups for the the Long Beach Scuba show. Everything from cell phones, to TG to RX100 to micro 4/3 to Z9 to Canon R5. All prints are 16x20 inches and the micro 4/3 systems are clearly good enough to sit on the wall next to a print from an R5 and no one says, wow that Olympus photo is a piece of garbage. The lens systems for the micro 4/3 are great for underwater and the AOI housing so far (more than 700 dives has been bulletproof. There are now a ton of strobes that speak Oly RC mode if TTL is your thing and the system is small enough to make travel easy.

Bill

I've had a Sea Frogs, never again.

To my mind where FF excels is wide angle, although most can use the 10-17 Tokina which is well liked.

MFT is probably the most versatile, has lots of quality housings and anything from the EM1 Mk2 or newer will have outstanding autofocus.

The used market is your friend.

On the issue of sensor size, my strong advice would be to be careful before you go down the FF route. It’s a very expensive, big and bulky route and wide-angle is still not straightforward.

For most users, M43 or APS-C are much more flexible and less expensive formats and, as Bill points out, produce great results. I ?downgraded from FF to APS-C and have never regretted it.

Couple of points: if you still decide to go FF A7C route, despite the other options suggested above:

1. Try to go for the A7CII (or A7CR). These have a much more useable EVF magnification than the original A7C (although the EVF is the same physical size). Plus the latest AF.

2. You can use compact and relatively cheap APS-C lenses in crop mode, such as the Zeiss 50 macro or Sony 10-20, which would tick a lot of boxes. Or the kit lens with water contact options.

   Later, if you wish, you can go down the rabbit hole of FF lenses... or not!

Take a look at the big picture, first think about what you want to shoot, is it macro, reefscenes, big animals, fish portraits? A little bit of everything?? Then look at what lenses you need to achieve that . Only then think about which body you can match up with the lenses.

Regarding full frame, yes it's great, lower noise, more MP and all that. However the cost to take thing underwater scales with sensor size at least in aluminium housings, the housings cost significantly more, you need bigger ports, the lenses are a lot bigger. and with an expensive full frame camera it doesn't make sense to me get a cheap housing and a system where the ports and extensions needed are not optimised and so the you throw away part of the resolution you paid $$ for. The other consideration with full frame is traveling with it - it bigger, heavier and incrementally harder to take with you when flying to a destination. some of the resolution is also taken up due to the optics of the air water interface and the water between you and the subject blurring things.

Next think hard about what you will do with your images. If they are just for you and 99% of the time you look at the image on a laptop or even a reasonable size monitor screen I think you will be challenged to see the difference in the overall image.

Underwater things are different, the ultimate resolution is less and you need to get your camera down there, things like reach are different - you use wide angle lenses not to capture a big scene, it is to get closer to your subject. Wide angle optics presnt a particular challenge underwater. Fisheye lenses are extremely useful and the distorted perspective is nit really noticed on most shot, they get you closer to your subject and the optical characteristics are a much better match for the optics of dome ports. Ergonomics is important as well to get the most out of your limited time UW.

So having said all of that, IMO m43 has the best selection of lenses suited to UW photography. There are 5 different macro lenses between 30 and 90mm focal length, some really nice wide angle options, two different fisheyes and several options to use with wet wide lens type optics, like the WWL. You can also adapt the excellent Canon 8-15 to give full zoom through from a 180° diagonal fisheye to a 28mm equivalent rectilinear wide in terms of reach and focuses right up to the dome port for CFWA.

This entire gallery was shot with the adapted 8-15 and the OM-1:

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