I am a Nikon shooter from way back in Nikonos days. have gone through many Nikon DSLRs and housed D200 and D300 with aquatica housings and Ike 125's then 160s. Had a long hiatus as my veterinary practice grew too fast. Now I find myself wanting back in the water at 72 but still capable with my favorite DSLR ever the D850. I could make the jump to mirrorless but the D850 is so much more capable than anything I've used I say why not make my underwater last run with my favorite camera? Just need a used housing , I have all the rest. Or does it make sense to jump to mirrorless for the focus improvement. new housing and new camera. but also new lenses. would appreciate some opinions and wisdom. Thanks. Wally

Honestly from what I've read the D850 can do still images with all but the newest mirrorless.

Plus I'm betting you can find a housing for a decent price if you keep your eyes open.

Many people are still using adapted lenses from that era.

The quality and focus abilities of the D850 are at least 90% as good as anything else on the market. Certainly the lenses are as well, often its the same lenses. There are clearly advantages to mirrorless models, which is why i upgraded to the Z8. However, i kept my D850 and housing as a backup. You would be very happy with that system and can get years of use out of it.

Is there anything you can’t do with your D850 that you think you might be able to do with, say, a Nikon Z? I doubt that focussing or underwater image quality will be significantly better with mirrorless.

I’ve been a long-time D500 user (and like you D100, 200, 300 and 800) and hankered about going mirrorless. But the only real advantage I could think of was in-viewfinder review. A very nice feature, especially for macro, but at huge cost: new body, new housing.

As Dave suggests, you can probably pick up a used D850 housing in great condition for an excellent price. Two have been advertised recently on our Marketplace.

2 hours ago, tiger said:

I am a Nikon shooter from way back in Nikonos days. have gone through many Nikon DSLRs and housed D200 and D300 with aquatica housings and Ike 125's then 160s. Had a long hiatus as my veterinary practice grew too fast. Now I find myself wanting back in the water at 72 but still capable with my favorite DSLR ever the D850. I could make the jump to mirrorless but the D850 is so much more capable than anything I've used I say why not make my underwater last run with my favorite camera? Just need a used housing , I have all the rest. Or does it make sense to jump to mirrorless for the focus improvement. new housing and new camera. but also new lenses. would appreciate some opinions and wisdom. Thanks. Wally

I'm not 72 yet but I feel every kg these days, while it's certainly tempting to want to take your favourite camera UW, there's lighter options that are every bit as good these days. Not saying don't do it but check out the size and weight of a housed D850 and how you would travel with it before leaping in.

D850 is when IQ peaked and it had already surpassed what’s usable, unless you shoot for lab tests, inmo.

As @TimG I’m also a Nikon shooter DSLR since old. Downsizing was the big advantage for me when I went mirrorless. The electronic viewfinders on new mirrorless can be very good (not all) as well as the AF. So if you’re not bothered by size and weight (travel?) or buying 2:nd hand, there should be super deals on eg Nauticam or Subal 850 housings.

Edited August 23Aug 23 by Christian K

Hi,

I also have been a Nikon DSLR user for many years. After starting underwater photography with an Olympus C7070, I moved on to a D300 in a Hugy housing. Next came a D800E in a Seacam housing, and I arrived at the D850 in a Nauticam housing. I was lucky enough to buy a used NA-D850 setup—including the camera body and a 45° viewfinder—for 3,000 euros in 2023. That same year, I also managed to find a new, genuine Nauticam-to-Seacam adapter in Western Australia, allowing me to continue using my Seacam ports. I remain very satisfied with the system and see no compelling reason to switch to mirrorless.

I struggle to follow the arguments regarding the weight and size differences between DSLR and mirrorless cameras. Given my age, I would certainly appreciate lighter gear, but I don't quite see the advantage here. I once compared the dimensions of Nauticam housings for Nikon cameras via the German importer:

Nikon Z7: 360x200x160mm, 3kg

Nikon Z8: 356x204x163mm, 3.4kg;

Nikon D850: 360x195x135mm, 3.1kg.

Camera weights: D850 1kg, Z7 0.6kg, Z8 0.9kg.

I honestly don't understand where the significant difference lies that would justify a switch regarding weight and dimension. Perhaps I am misunderstanding something. Mirrorless cameras certainly offer innovations and various advantages. However, switching systems in underwater photography costs a hell of money. Everyone has to decide for themselves how much it is worth to them and to what extent it will actually result in better photos.

The situation regarding weight and dimensions is, of course, different with Micro Four Thirds (M43) systems. But in my opinion, comparing M43 to full-frame is like comparing apples and oranges. Otherwise, we wouldn't need the different formats—or pay the corresponding prices for them.

Ultimately, everyone has to decide what works best for them and how much money left on the account.

5 hours ago, Muellema said:

Hi,

I also have been a Nikon DSLR user for many years. After starting underwater photography with an Olympus C7070, I moved on to a D300 in a Hugy housing. Next came a D800E in a Seacam housing, and I arrived at the D850 in a Nauticam housing. I was lucky enough to buy a used NA-D850 setup—including the camera body and a 45° viewfinder—for 3,000 euros in 2023. That same year, I also managed to find a new, genuine Nauticam-to-Seacam adapter in Western Australia, allowing me to continue using my Seacam ports. I remain very satisfied with the system and see no compelling reason to switch to mirrorless.

I struggle to follow the arguments regarding the weight and size differences between DSLR and mirrorless cameras. Given my age, I would certainly appreciate lighter gear, but I don't quite see the advantage here. I once compared the dimensions of Nauticam housings for Nikon cameras via the German importer:

Nikon Z7: 360x200x160mm, 3kg

Nikon Z8: 356x204x163mm, 3.4kg;

Nikon D850: 360x195x135mm, 3.1kg.

Camera weights: D850 1kg, Z7 0.6kg, Z8 0.9kg.

I honestly don't understand where the significant difference lies that would justify a switch regarding weight and dimension. Perhaps I am misunderstanding something. Mirrorless cameras certainly offer innovations and various advantages. However, switching systems in underwater photography costs a hell of money. Everyone has to decide for themselves how much it is worth to them and to what extent it will actually result in better photos.

The situation regarding weight and dimensions is, of course, different with Micro Four Thirds (M43) systems. But in my opinion, comparing M43 to full-frame is like comparing apples and oranges. Otherwise, we wouldn't need the different formats—or pay the corresponding prices for them.

Ultimately, everyone has to decide what works best for them and how much money left on the account.

You’d have to move down from the super heavyweight class to middle weight 🙂 Unfortunately DX does not have any great options atm in the z-series for UW inmo. The new z5ii is however inmo a very interesting FF alternative unless you think you must have 45 mp instead of 25. With the new Nauticam design that thing is seriously small. I’d be surprised if it doesn’t challenge the M4/3 Olympus in a Nauticam for weight and petiteness.

Edited August 23Aug 23 by Christian K

I'm just finalising my purchase plans for getting back into underwater photography after a 30-odd year break - my last underwater camera was a housed Nikon F4. I'm choosing to go mirrorless due to the ability to fit a large 5 or 7 inch monitor to the camera rig which will make underwater shooting easier for me. It will be a FF mirrorless, probably a Nikon Z5ii in a Nauticam housing, but potentially it could be a Sony FF in a Nauticam housing.

Edited August 23Aug 23 by CCRphoto

My personal experience:
Oly 5050 (Oly housing) -> D90 (Nauticam) -> D800 (Nauticam) -> D850 (Nauticam)

I waited and waited for Nikon to come out with a DSLR replacement for the D850 - until they didn't - at which point I went D850 with all my legacy glass and Nauticam gear.
I'm getting to the point where I may pick up another D850 body to keep shooting DSLR.

For ME: I'm changing my packing regimen and getting as much super heavy stuff off my person when I travel as I get closer to 60yo. Paying for a 3rd checked bag, if it's not already included, is a lot less expensive than changing to a mirrorless system.

I was (and remain) very happy with my D850 system. The nudge that pushed me to get a Z8 system was a $10,000 insurance payout for a canceled liveaboard trip due to a broken leg. That and the absolute racket the D850 made shooting rapid-fire on the Kenya Safari trip that ended up breaking my leg. Silent shooting is another big benefit of mirrorless, even if it doesn't matter UW its a big deal for wildlife and events. If I couldn't dive for 3 months at least I could spend the found money on a new camera system! A silver lining in every cloud.

15 hours ago, Muellema said:

Hi,

I also have been a Nikon DSLR user for many years. After starting underwater photography with an Olympus C7070, I moved on to a D300 in a Hugy housing. Next came a D800E in a Seacam housing, and I arrived at the D850 in a Nauticam housing. I was lucky enough to buy a used NA-D850 setup—including the camera body and a 45° viewfinder—for 3,000 euros in 2023. That same year, I also managed to find a new, genuine Nauticam-to-Seacam adapter in Western Australia, allowing me to continue using my Seacam ports. I remain very satisfied with the system and see no compelling reason to switch to mirrorless.

I struggle to follow the arguments regarding the weight and size differences between DSLR and mirrorless cameras. Given my age, I would certainly appreciate lighter gear, but I don't quite see the advantage here. I once compared the dimensions of Nauticam housings for Nikon cameras via the German importer:

Nikon Z7: 360x200x160mm, 3kg

Nikon Z8: 356x204x163mm, 3.4kg;

Nikon D850: 360x195x135mm, 3.1kg.

Camera weights: D850 1kg, Z7 0.6kg, Z8 0.9kg.

I honestly don't understand where the significant difference lies that would justify a switch regarding weight and dimension. Perhaps I am misunderstanding something. Mirrorless cameras certainly offer innovations and various advantages. However, switching systems in underwater photography costs a hell of money. Everyone has to decide for themselves how much it is worth to them and to what extent it will actually result in better photos.

The situation regarding weight and dimensions is, of course, different with Micro Four Thirds (M43) systems. But in my opinion, comparing M43 to full-frame is like comparing apples and oranges. Otherwise, we wouldn't need the different formats—or pay the corresponding prices for them.

Ultimately, everyone has to decide what works best for them and how much money left on the account.

If you stay within the Nauticam eco-system, this is mostly true however there are some examples I can quote:

First a Sydney diver using a D850 wanted to downsize, they went I think with a Z5 camera. The Nauticam housing was the same size and weight as the Seacam for the D850, however the Isotta housing gave significant size and weight savings as it is much more compact in the way it is laid out.

Second as recently discussed on here the Nauticam Z5II/Z6III housing is significantly smaller and also cheaper than the other Z series housings.

The first Nauticam Nikon(and Canon )mirrorless housings were a lot larger partly as the set the camera back further in the housing by the thickness of Z-F converter so the F mount lenses and their zoom/focus gears would work with the same extensions as they did with the F mount cameras/housings. The new style housings accomplish this by using a Z-F adapter with it's own zoom gear so that the F mount lens zoom gears will work and you don't need to buy new ones.

You still have the large ports and extension rings etc and the big lenses but the housing can be made smaller.

10 hours ago, Dave_Hicks said:

I was (and remain) very happy with my D850 system. The nudge that pushed me to get a Z8 system was a $10,000 insurance payout for a canceled liveaboard trip due to a broken leg. That and the absolute racket the D850 made shooting rapid-fire on the Kenya Safari trip that ended up breaking my leg. Silent shooting is another big benefit of mirrorless, even if it doesn't matter UW its a big deal for wildlife and events. If I couldn't dive for 3 months at least I could spend the found money on a new camera system! A silver lining in every cloud.

Slightly off-topic but - does your Nauticam Z8 housing have room for a powerbank to give your system longer battery life? I know that some Nauticam housings do (or did) but I don't know which ones.

42 minutes ago, CCRphoto said:

Slightly off-topic but - does your Nauticam Z8 housing have room for a powerbank to give your system longer battery life? I know that some Nauticam housings do (or did) but I don't know which ones.

Battery life has not been a problem with the Z8. I've done 3 dives and 500-600 photos and not dropped below 25-50% power many times. I don't know if it has room for an external battery, but I expect you could add a USB bulkhead for charging in the housing.

53 minutes ago, Dave_Hicks said:

Battery life has not been a problem with the Z8. I've done 3 dives and 500-600 photos and not dropped below 25-50% power many times. I don't know if it has room for an external battery, but I expect you could add a USB bulkhead for charging in the housing.

I'm going to experiment with Focus Shifting/stacking for macro which can mean shooting 150+ images in a burst so I will see if the Z5ii has the same battery as the Z8.

8 minutes ago, CCRphoto said:

I'm going to experiment with Focus Shifting/stacking for macro which can mean shooting 150+ images in a burst so I will see if the Z5ii has the same battery as the Z8.

Burst shooting does not seem to be a problem. I've shoot a few thousand images while shooting birds at 12 fps and not had an issue.

1 hour ago, Dave_Hicks said:

Burst shooting does not seem to be a problem. I've shoot a few thousand images while shooting birds at 12 fps and not had an issue.

Cheers once again, and the Z5ii does indeed have the same battery as the Z8.

4 hours ago, CCRphoto said:

I'm going to experiment with Focus Shifting/stacking for macro which can mean shooting 150+ images in a burst so I will see if the Z5ii has the same battery as the Z8.

If you are proposing to do this UW - good luck!, I do a lot of focus stacking macro on land and anything but the stillest condition will make it near impossible, then your strobes need to keep up and there will be limitations on how fast you can shoot. You need to solidly mount your camera then rack it in and out to get the near point in focus then guess how many frames you need and give it a try and then check that the last the frame gets the most distant part you want in focus. Then you do all that and get home and find that you missed on getting the closest bit in focus as it was another part of the object that was actually closest and you go back and try again. I use an external monitor and magnify the image 2x on it to check the focus point for the start of the stack and again the check I got full coverage. Underwater - no thanks I'm not that much of a glutton for punishment.

5 hours ago, Chris Ross said:

If you are proposing to do this UW - good luck!, I do a lot of focus stacking macro on land and anything but the stillest condition will make it near impossible, then your strobes need to keep up and there will be limitations on how fast you can shoot. You need to solidly mount your camera then rack it in and out to get the near point in focus then guess how many frames you need and give it a try and then check that the last the frame gets the most distant part you want in focus. Then you do all that and get home and find that you missed on getting the closest bit in focus as it was another part of the object that was actually closest and you go back and try again. I use an external monitor and magnify the image 2x on it to check the focus point for the start of the stack and again the check I got full coverage. Underwater - no thanks I'm not that much of a glutton for punishment.

I'm a glutton for punishment😀

I'm planning to get Retra Maxi strobes, so then it will be a case of testing them to see what frame rate they can keep up to at the strobe power settings needed for macro and then set that in the focus stacking menu when setting up a stack.

Will be trial and error, but hopefully the results will be worth it - if not then nothing really lost. Everyone else is snooting so it will be good to produce some different macro images if I can.

You can’t go wrong with the Retras. 👍🏼👍🏼

40 minutes ago, TimG said:

You can’t go wrong with the Retras. 👍🏼👍🏼

** Retra Maxis

On 8/24/2026 at 11:27 PM, CCRphoto said:

I'm a glutton for punishment😀

I'm planning to get Retra Maxi strobes, so then it will be a case of testing them to see what frame rate they can keep up to at the strobe power settings needed for macro and then set that in the focus stacking menu when setting up a stack.

Will be trial and error, but hopefully the results will be worth it - if not then nothing really lost. Everyone else is snooting so it will be good to produce some different macro images if I can.

don't say I didn't warn you. I have enough issues on land. What sort of tripod do you propose to use? The stacking software is good, but it has a steep poorly documented learning curve.

2 hours ago, Chris Ross said:

don't say I didn't warn you. I have enough issues on land. What sort of tripod do you propose to use? The stacking software is good, but it has a steep poorly documented learning curve.

Consider me suitably warned!😀

I'm still researching tripods at the moment - not racing into a decision.

I'm planning on using Helicon Focus for the software - is that one that you have used before?

17 hours ago, CCRphoto said:

Consider me suitably warned!😀

I'm still researching tripods at the moment - not racing into a decision.

I'm planning on using Helicon Focus for the software - is that one that you have used before?

Yes, Helicon, it does a good job but has its limitations. First it's only as good as the frames you feed, second you need to work out how to re-touch , any crossing parts of the subjects at different distances will generate haloes, sometimes fixable in Helicon, sometimes requires cloning in photoshop.

22 minutes ago, Chris Ross said:

Yes, Helicon, it does a good job but has its limitations. First it's only as good as the frames you feed, second you need to work out how to re-touch , any crossing parts of the subjects at different distances will generate haloes, sometimes fixable in Helicon, sometimes requires cloning in photoshop.

Interesting! Have you found any software that is better than Helicon?