Stop me before I buy again...

[JohnD]

So, even though I am happy with my D500, in most respects, I am getting an itchy trigger finger.  Someone either needs to egg me on or talk me off the ledge.

 

I am tempted to move to a Sony mirrorless and there are a couple reasons.  First, although trying to reduce equipment size is usually a fruitless endeavor unless one is willing to go to something like an M43, I would like to reduce housing size, principally for packing and air travel reasons.  Additionally, however, i keep finding myself at dive places with small rinse tanks and on small dive boats with very limited camera space.  I have always managed, but frankly, as this is a hobby and not a job, I sometimes get tired of the struggle.

 

Secondly, I am attracted to the idea of being able to review images underwater without needing to use the LCD panel, which I increasingly find hard to do well due to a recent eye injury.

 

The A7Cii is appealing to me from a size standpoint, and actually, I might consider the A6700, as I am fine with crop sensor and appreciate the benefits.  But I really don't want to deal with the 1/160 flash sync speed.

 

So I am considering the A7RV, which I would use with the Canon 8-15 in a 140 dome, since CFWA is my main interest, a macro lens (unsure which at this point) and perhaps a 28-60 or similar with something like the WWL.  Large domes or larege wet optics are not on my shopping list.  I have a WACP-C and that is about the largest "port" I am willing to deal with and then only because I can pair it with a pretty small lens.  I already have a 180 that almost never leaves the cabinet.  A Nauticam 45 degree viewfinder would also be part of the ensemble.

 

A lot of money for maybe a small size and weight reduction, I suppose., but being able to evaluate a shot in the viewfinder would be nice.

 

I am also considering the canon R7, but somehow it isn't quite moving me.  At least at the moment.

 

So what input from the hive mind?

 

 

 

 

[John E]

Not stopping you !

 

These photos show how Sony full frame is not necessarily much bigger than M43....

[ChipBPhoto]

Do it…do it…spend the money!  (I’ve been told I’m a bad influence on others’ bank accounts)  As a fellow hive member, I have personally lived everything you are saying.  I too am obsessed with size and weight.  Frankly, I’m not interested in having the biggest rig on the boat.  Quite the opposite, in fact!  With that said, I wound up with a Sony a7rIV in 2020, then briefly an a7rV, and now a1 with all the pretty attachments.  Something clearly went very, very wrong with the plan. 😂

 

A couple thoughts….

 

In the real world, I am a Canon photog.  I have an R5 and love it!  I’ve also used the Canon R7.  It’s a terrific little camera.  So why did I end up with the Sony?  Three reasons - 1) the Sony body is smaller than the Canon R5, which means the housing is physically smaller, 2) the Nauticam water contact lenses did not have a good Canon lens solution at the time, and 3) I wanted a FF.

Through my experience, if you are going to a new Sony FF, the a7rV is fantastic!  The only reason I went to the a1 was I got a good deal on it and I like the 1/400 flash sync option.  The a7rV and a1 have substantially better focus, menus, and WB abilities than previous models.  
 

If you already have a WACP-C, I’d vote to keep it.  I started with the WWL-1B in 2020 and then last year got a WACP-C.  The WWL is easier to pack as it is the port and separate optic.  The image quality is pretty close to the same.  The downside is the requirement to “burp” the lens to eliminate any water bubbles between the port and WWL from your entry can be a pain.  For that reason I’m most likely keeping my WACP-C.

 

Aside from the occasional desire to photo a large wreck up close, I basically leave the WACP-C as my go-to solution.  It is perfect for CFWA to fish portraits.  I am also shocked at how close it can focus.  I love the versatility!

 

I also considered the a6600 (now a6700) before I bought the a7rIV for size, price, and keeping the Tokina 10-17 fisheye.  It is a fantastic lens for APS-C systems!  Super small, affordable, and sharp for that type of a system.  This would also be a good go-to for the a6700.

 

The a7Cii looks very interesting, but as it’s a FF camera there is not a lot of size reduction due to the size of the FF lenses and ports.  In this case, I’d stick with the a7rV idea.

 

After all that rambling, the a7rV with the WACP-C would be a great FF rig.

If you are considering a newer APS-C rig, I have a buddy who may be interested in selling his a6600 system.  Drop me a DM if you are interested.

BTW - I always take my own “bucket” on the boat to separate mine from the others.  When I travel, this has been a good solution as it is foldable and can double as a rinse bin afterwards. 

https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B09F733B2M/ref=ppx_yo_dt_b_asin_image_o09_s00?ie=UTF8&psc=1

It’ll be interesting to see which way you end up….

 

Edited January 22 by ChipBPhoto

[Pooley]

I went the  D500 -> Sony A1 path. 

 

I have the  90mm  with SMC, 28-60 with  the WWL-1B and EMWL. I also have the  newer 45 degree viewfinder. 

 

I love the kit  I have and for the first time in living memory have no  intention to upgrade as  I think I've got as  much IQ as I can ever see me needing. 

 

Key point though - photographers love the detail I can now produce

 

Non - photographers only look at the photo rather  than asking why there is noise in the shadows in the background 

 

Over to  you as to what's important....

 

Mike

[JayceeB]

I had the A7C.  The camera and housing were very compact, but it required a fair amount of buoyancy to get neutral.  In the end, I’m not sure big arm floats and a small housing really saved much in the space department. Personally, when I travel, it is the weight that is more challenging to manage than size.

 

Also, the viewfinder on the A7C is small.  I’d recommend seriously considering that when comparing to your D500.  When I decided to move on from the A7C, a quality viewfinder was high on my list of upgrade requirements.  

 

As for image display in the viewfinder, I’m not sure I could live without that now, as you can review your shot and adjust for another without taking your eye off the subject.

 

 

[Buddha]

I agree with the above posts. I started with a APS-C and now mainly shoot FF. My Sony/Nauticam is a lot smaller than my Canon 5DMk4/Nauticam and only a little larger than my Canon M50ii/Nauticam. I think with new lenses not really being released that are good for underwater the Nauticam lens route seems to be the best way to go. The Sony 28-60mm is a small and cheap lens but behind the WACP-1 it's amazing and extremely versatile. And Nauticam seems to be doing a lot of development around this lens. 

 

[Barmaglot]

Unless you have unlimited money and limited time in which to spend it, I don't really see the value proposition in going from a D500 to a Sony, at least underwater. The difference in size is pretty minimal, and the D500 is still one of the best underwater cameras ever made, having class-leading autofocus and a library of lenses well-suited to underwater photography. The money it would cost to switch to an A1 or an A7RV rig could fund a liveaboard trip... or three. 

[Architeuthis]

I previously had Olympus EM1II and now have Sony A7R5. I fully agree that there is not much difference in size and weigth for WA: with EM1II I was using mostly the Canon 8-15mm with Nauticam 140 domeport and occasionally the Zen DP170 with Zuiko 12-40mm or 8-25mm. Now I am using Canon 8-15mm with the 140mm domeport and occasionally the Zen DP170 with Sony 20-70mm and sometimes the Tamron 17-28mm (recently I acquired a WACP-C for WA) - pretty similar riggs in size and weight. A big difference is when making macro photos: The rig with EM1II with 60mm or 45mm macro lens (diopters are only required for special cases, e.g. clownfish eggs) is much, much smaller than A7R5 with Sony 90mm (SMC-1 quite often required, I take it with me on every dive). The macro FF rig is the biggest I ever had...

 

=> I do not know the release scedule of Nikon, but sooner or later they will release a mirrorless model that is on par witht the D500, presumably same technology as Z8, but DX. For a Nikon user it may well be worth waiting for such a model (what I hear and read the Sony APS-C cameras are not really outstanding)...

 

 

Wolfgang

[Andrey Narchuk]

In my experience, fisheye 8-15 on Sony is not an ideal solution. Pay attention to the available ports for the N100 mount. The N100-120 adapter is not always convenient, as it provides additional distance. For example, because of it, I was not able to fully use several very short lenses (for example Tamron 20mm).
Therefore, if you like to use fisheye in a small dome, then it is better to look towards other manufacturers.
 

p/s The final difference in size between the Sony kit and the Nikon kit is not very big. Although Nautikam on Olympus with a small dome port looks very compact.

[dentrock]

No weight loss as proposed by the OP, assuming he stays with Nauticam. As soon as you jump up from N85 Sony, housing weight jumps up by 1 kg.... except for A7C / CII / CR housings.

 

I struggled with same problem and opted for A7CR (waiting on housing), rather than A6700. Reason is I figured I could still use some APS-C lenses, while being open to 1 or 2 new FF lenses, such as (perhaps) new Laowa 10mm. Viewfinder is improved over A7C. Also sick of narrow N85 ports.

 

But generally disappointed with porky nature of most FF lenses, cf. svelte APS-C lenses. Having said that, FF 28-60 although slow is compact and sharp as on land although doesn't focus close enough for serious U/W without porky water contact optics.

 

Still, could be OK for mid-water fish pics thru flat port at 60 end...

 

Incidentally, I seriously considered moving to Isotta, so I emailed them asking if they were going to make A7CR housing, back in December. I would have waited for such a housing, since I might have been able to service it myself from all reports (unlike Nauticam).

 

They never replied, which has cost them literally thousands of dollars of my money. Not going to deal with a company like that.

[JohnD]

Thank you for the input.  I am still undecided.  I have seen rumors of a Nikon Z90 (a mirrorless D500) perhaps coming out.  If it materializes, I doubt it would meet my size and weight dreams, but a crop sensor Nikon would allow me to use some of my current favorite lenses and ports and save me from some of the cost and research time associated with moving from a N120 mount Nikon to a N85 or N100 Sony.  And I actually view full frame more as a negative than a positive, so there is that.

 

But also still seriously considering the Sony, probably the A7CII or the A7RV and mostly because it seems to have the best tech and smallest size.  I feel a bit conflicted because I read where the Canon 8-15 does really well on the Sony and then another person says they are disappointed with its performance.  No matter how great all the new tech in the Sony may be, the system is only as good as its weakest link.  I suppose the rumored Sigma 15mm FE could change that.

 

I would be interested to hear if anyone tries or has tried the Nikon 8-15 on the Sonys, using a Monster adapter.  It would be nice not to have to buy another 8-15, if I could figure out the right extension to use.

[TimG]

Just re-reading this thread and was struck by Barmaglot's comment on 22 January: 

 

On 1/22/2024 at 7:58 AM, Barmaglot said:

Unless you have unlimited money and limited time in which to spend it, I don't really see the value proposition in going from a D500 to a Sony, at least underwater

 

I moved back from a full-frame D800 to the D500. In terms of image quality, can you really improve significantly on what the D500 can produce? What realistically does it lack? Yeah, maybe there have been improvements to AF but, really, does it make that much difference? And it terms of size of system, all the various, impressive, studies I have seen people pull together, the relative difference when you add on all the bits, bobs and dooh-dahds is minimal. 

 

Yeah, if money is no object and you fancy a new system, go for it! But in terms of the images you will create,, are you really going to do better than you can can with the D500?

 

Like Chip, I love helping people spend their money on this stuff: it's a guilt-free pleasure. But on this occasion.... hmmmm... spend it on a trip to take images. Two or three trips possibly!

[Barmaglot]

1 hour ago, JohnD said:

Thank you for the input.  I am still undecided.  I have seen rumors of a Nikon Z90 (a mirrorless D500) perhaps coming out.  If it materializes, I doubt it would meet my size and weight dreams, but a crop sensor Nikon would allow me to use some of my current favorite lenses and ports and save me from some of the cost and research time associated with moving from a N120 mount Nikon to a N85 or N100 Sony.  And I actually view full frame more as a negative than a positive, so there is that.

I'm not super familiar with the Nikon system, but an immediate potential problem with this plan would be a suitable fisheye - there is no Z-mount equivalent to Tokina 10-17mm thus far, and the F-mount version of that lens is AF-D and cannot focus on FTZ adapter. You'd have to use a Canon EF mount version on an EF-Z adapter...

[fruehaufsteher2]

As a Sony-fanboy I'd say: Buy. But actually the additional benefit under water will be limited. But if you use your cam also above the Sony environment provides huge additional benefits.

 

But in any way I doubt whether you can use any of your old gear besides the flash.

 

The A7C is not the recommended solution. A7IV or A 7 RV do much better without adding significant volume.

[RVBldr]

3 hours ago, fruehaufsteher2 said:

The A7C is not the recommended solution. A7IV or A 7 RV do much better without adding significant volume.

I'd agree with the 7AC, but the 7AC II/ 7AC R are generally the same sensor/AF as the IV/ RV models, but a slightly smaller case. And unfortunately, they won't fit in the older A7C housing. The biggest difference may be the strobe sync speed as I don't think the A7C II/ R inherited the 1/250 speed of the A7s. 

Edited February 13 by RVBldr

[Chris Ross]

Just because the cameras are physically smaller doesn't always translate to a smaller lighter housing.  If your main concern is travel size and weight you won't get significantly smaller than the D500 housing in Nauticam apart from a few cameras like the A7C.   What does go up in size and weight are the lenses if you go to full frame.   The decisions are complicated by the fact that port sizes have been changed in Nauticam APS-C so carrying ports across is more problematic and any future APS-C Nikon Z model  is quite likely to be an N100 port. The decision is further complicated if you want to keep using the Tokina 10-17, which as you know can't currently be adapted to Nikon Z.  You could go to SONY but you would be buying almost everything for the new system with no carryover - depending on lens choice.

 

However there are probably other ways to reduce size and weight, for example the Isotta housings are more compact than the Nauticam equivalent.  I know a local diver who chose the Isotta Z6 over the Nauticam due to size.  They were coming from a D850 in a Seacam which was huge and the size/weight savings with Nauticam were not enough while the Isotta was very compact indeed. 

 

Isotta use N120 ports for all their housings apart from SONY APS-C and m43.  This means you can carry your Nauticam N120 ports across provided they have removable lug rings, but they have to make a housing for a camera you choose

 

I would suggest a watch and wait strategy.  Wait and see if the promised Nikon F to Z adapter from monster works well with Nikon screw mount lenses.  Wait and see if the promised Nikon APS-C camera comes out and who makes housings for it.

 

Or you could bite the bullet and switch to m43.  Housings are the same size but lenses and ports are a lot smaller and there is a full range of lenses available, including the adapted Canon 8-15 which goes between full frame fisheye and the equivalent of 28mm full frame focusing right on the dome, or the Canon mount Tokina 10-17 with the speedbooster.  If you look at the sensor databases the image quality is very close to the Nikon D500 sensor.

[JohnD]

I am not too concerned about the Tokina.  I have the Nikkor 8-15 which i believe will work will work with the FTZ adapter.  

 

In reality, I suspect you guys are right.  I would like an electronic viewfinder, primarily to get away from trying to assess a shot in the LCD on the back of the camera, and I would like something a bit smaller, but we all know that does not usually work out well.  Tiny difference for a lot of money.  I realize that neither a small size reduction nor the viewfinder will improve my photos, or get photos I am missing.  But I thought it might make the process more enjoyable. 

 

What really started me on this was the idea of an A7CII or an A6700 for the smaller size and electronic viewfinders, but after some research I see a lot of issues and expense that dampened my enthusiasm.  If that Z90 materializes, I suspect the housing size won't be any smaller than I have so that means only an electronic viewfinder and the cost of the viewfinder, housing and other bits and pieces would make that a huge price for some convenience.

 

It's that same thing that many of us go through.  I want a camera the size of a TG6 that functions like a Sony A1. 

 

I am going to wait and see if there is anything in the next several months that really grabs me.   Probably.

 

Edit:  I did the M43 thing for several years.  Perhaps things have improved, but I was never completely happy with that system, (except when packing and traveling) although my son "adopted" my stuff and seems to like it.

Edited February 14 by JohnD

[Chris Ross]

15 minutes ago, JohnD said:

Edit:  I did the M43 thing for several years.  Perhaps things have improved, but I was never completely happy with that system, (except when packing and traveling) although my son "adopted" my stuff and seems to like it.

Specifically it's the top line models after the EM-1 MkII that have enough of a step up in image quality to go close to what the D500 can do.  The earlier ones like the EM-5 MkII were OK, but AF and 16MP sensor weren't up to it.  Significant improvement with the EM-1 MKII/MkIII and now the OM-1.

[Giancarlo M.]

Il 22/1/2024 alle 00:19, JohnD ha detto:

Sto anche considerando il canon R7, ma in qualche modo non mi sta commuovendo. Almeno al momento.

 

Maybe the R7 might be just right for you, what are your hesitations?

[Barmaglot]

For what it's worth, I'm sitting here playing with my new a6700, and it's absolutely uncanny how it finds and tracks eyes anywhere in the frame. Granted, my comparison point is a6300, which is a far cry from D500, but still. Can't wait for the housing to arrive...

[fruehaufsteher2]

If you really like to reduce size and weight and at the same time have a reliable solution with quite good image quality I‘d recommend the RX100VA. 

 

In fact there‘s no magic and FF performs better. But with respect to size and weight the small form factor of the RX100 and the Isotta housing is GREAT. 

 

Not so much for Macro and battery life is really limited but really great value for money. 

[Sarthur1]

On 2/14/2024 at 12:52 PM, Barmaglot said:

For what it's worth, I'm sitting here playing with my new a6700, and it's absolutely uncanny how it finds and tracks eyes anywhere in the frame. Granted, my comparison point is a6300, which is a far cry from D500, but still. Can't wait for the housing to arrive...

I'm currently still debating myself if I should do thus move also (a6300 -> a6700) or just move to a7r4 / a7r5

[JohnD]

On 2/14/2024 at 3:15 AM, Giancarlo M. said:

 

Maybe the R7 might be just right for you, what are your hesitations?

Hard to say why, but I have a hard time getting very enthused.   From what little I have read, the EVF could be better, and I have heard some complaints of inconsistent focus.  I have some concerns about Canon's refusal to allow third party lenses, but it is still a consideration.

 

 

[Barmaglot]

3 hours ago, Sarthur1 said:

I'm currently still debating myself if I should do thus move also (a6300 -> a6700) or just move to a7r4 / a7r5

I'd say it's a matter of are you prepared to pay for the extra pixels? A7RV has over double the resolution on the sensor, the EVF, and the screen, plus a slightly faster shutter; those are the material differences - but it also costs twice as much (body + housing, assuming Nauticam). I'm happy enough with my a6300's 24MP - I just wanted the new autofocus for macro and blackwater, so I went with a6700 and saved the price difference for more diving.

[Chris Ross]

9 minutes ago, Barmaglot said:

I'd say it's a matter of are you prepared to pay for the extra pixels? A7RV has over double the resolution on the sensor, the EVF, and the screen, plus a slightly faster shutter; those are the material differences - but it also costs twice as much (body + housing, assuming Nauticam). I'm happy enough with my a6300's 24MP - I just wanted the new autofocus for macro and blackwater, so I went with a6700 and saved the price difference for more diving.

Not to mention changing everything to the N100 port system and possibly some new lenses.

I often wonder just how much extra real resolution you get from high MP count cameras, shooting through too much water and sometimes multiple water/glass/air interfaces removes some detail and because of this the often quoted ability to crop may not give you as much gain as you might think.  I argue that for 95% of users 20-30MP is perfectly adequate, sure if you have the funds, why not, but realistically you won't see much change in images that are just posted online or even printed up to A3 size or so.  On a quality 27" plus monitor the images might look better but consider a standard res 2560 x 1440 screen is 3.7 MP and a 4K screen is 8 MP or so, you need to zoom on the monitor to see some of these differences.