Stop me before I buy again...

[Onokai]

On 2/23/2024 at 7:14 AM, Proteus said:

I too am not a fan of the size and weight of the larger housings, but can add my story to some of the others.

 

A few years back a had a D850 in a Nauticam housing.  As said above, I hated the size and weight (but was extraordinarily pleased with the photos / usability).  To "fix" the issue, I moved to an A7RIII hoping to reduce size.  It was smaller, but when I added strobes and a dome port life was much the same.  Yes, it was smaller, but not in a really important way.

 

So now I'm wishing for an integrated solution the size of a GoPro.  It would include a 13mm rectilinear lens (water convertible to fisheye and macro), Retra strobes with combined 10K video lamps, and Sony A1 performance.

 

Somehow I think I'm going to be disappointed ....  😥

 

Gary

I'm shooting the D850 and like you am really pleased with the photos-and its really all about that the photos. I'm a bit different as I use the autofocus function  in the 850 (plus or minus to control light) which most here would never think of using  as they are dug in manuel shooters as I was for 35 years. That said I used to shoot a D300 and use all my FX lens and started to swicth out to the cheaper lighter DX lens which after decades of real glass heavy lens seems odd to deal with as they seem like toys.That rig was super small and light. The issue with cropped sensor with non DX lens is it gets you further away from subjects which as we all know puts more water between us and subject the classic no no in underwater photo. As I'm older now and the D850 rig is huge and heavy the day will come when that to much. By then I hope they will have a auto foucs rig the size of a go pro and stopes that match.

[Sarthur1]

I'm still caught in that debate on FF vs APS-C.

Currently I have Sony a6300 (Fantasea housing) and I want to upgrade it but I don't know to ehich camera... a6700 / A7rIV / A7IV.

Housing will be either used nauticam / issota or a new marelux system.

 

The 6700 is the easy choise as it is cheaper and more compact option

The a7riv is the more high end and more expensive option

I believe the a7iv is somewhere in between.

 

My wallet say to go with the a7riv but my heart wants the a7riv.

 

I'm doing mostly macro (sony 90mm macro) and I want to do fish eye wide lens (tokina 10-17 / canon 8-15).

 

Sometime I print a photo or too, mostly on a3 size.

 

Which camera should I choose?

[Chris Ross]

An APS-C should do fine printing A3.  An A3 print at 300 dpi is just over 17 MP while you have 26 MP so you are over sampling by 50%.  You'll have more depth of field out an APS_C at same framing as you'll be further back with lower magnification than full frame.   Probably a bit optimistic to expect to find a used a6700 housing, so far only a couple of vendors have announced housings for that camera.

[ChipBPhoto]

1 hour ago, Sarthur1 said:

Which camera should I choose?

 

Hi @Sarthur1 - You're asking the eternal question.  Bottom line, it's personal to you based on your own needs, priorities, and of course finances.  

 

I have owned and used both the both Sony a7rIV and a7rV.  If you are considering the a7rIV, I strongly encourage you to step up to the a7rV.  It is literally a giant improvement in functionality, white balance, and focus technology.  Yes, the rV is a step up in cost, but keep in mind most of us purchase a system to use for several years.  Making the right investment today will payoff, especially between these two cameras.

 

Regarding APS-C vs FF, I have owned and used both formats with success.  Again, it depends on your personal needs and priorities.  The a6700 is a fine camera for its class.  It does offer noticeable upgrades over the previous a6600 in focus.  The pluses are it will be a smaller overall system and a lower price tag than FF.  A 26MP file is a very respectable size for printing, especially for the size you mentioned.  The APS-C files are also much more forgiving for pin-point focus accuracy than a highly detailed 61MP file from the a7rIV or a7rV.  The Tokina 10-17 with the Zen 100 dome makes for a highly effective, small, and affordable optic solution.  Keep in mind the Sony 90 macro on an APS-C will have the effective equivalent of a 135mm due to the 1.5x crop factor of the APS-C vs FF.  This means you will be tighter on the subject at the same distance and slight movements can become more challenging to control. 

 

If you chose FF but the budget is simply not there for an a7rV, this may give you some comparisons between the a7rIV and a7IV.  Other than the obvious file size, there were some minor improvements in the a7IV as it came out after the rIV.  

https://mirrorlesscomparison.com/sony-vs-sony/a7-iv-vs-a7r-iv/

 

No one can tell which to buy; it is very personal to your unique considerations.  It is going to be challenging to find used products for which you are considering, but again this is a rare purchase which will pay off over years.  Hopefully this gives you some insight in what I have experienced.  Others will have their experiences to share as well.  Best of luck!

 

Edited February 27 by ChipBPhoto

[TimG]

Tough choice!

 

I think it's important you go where your heart takes you otherwise you end up hankering for something that you didn't get. And that's disappointing and detracts from the pleasure.

 

That said.... macro isn't an issue on FF or APS-C. But as you have probably read ad nauseam, wide-angle is a different animal and housing FF lenses is more expensive, bigger and heavier.

 

lThere is no FF equivalent to the Tokina 10-17mm. The  8-15 is the nearest thing but if the Canon version is the same as the Nikon (which I have), it's not a zoom in practical use on an FF body: it's two lenses - a 15mm FE and a circular 8mm FE. Almost counter intuitively, the 8-15 is great on an APS-C body and does give zoom range! As you may have read though, it's doubtful that with the huge difference in price its worth buying the 8-15 for APS-C. (Alex Mustard did a review of this with Adam Hanlon a couple of years ago).

 

If you mainly look at your pics online and do the occasional print up to A3, I'd argue that APS-C is the way to go: price, convenience, transportability....

 

...... but then there is the heart issue. Will you always regret not getting an FF body? If it's any help, I went through the same dilemma when I sold my Nikon D300. I wanted FF and got the Nikon D800 with all the bells and whistles involved in housing FF WA lenses. I can't say I regretted it but my partner gave me endless stick about the amount of gear I was now transporting - and that was indeed a pain. After a few years I went back to APS-C with a Nikon D500. No regrets at all. And I use the Tokina 10-17 and the Nikon 8-15mm.

 

 

[Barmaglot]

1 hour ago, Sarthur1 said:

Currently I have Sony a6300 (Fantasea housing) and I want to upgrade it but I don't know to ehich camera... a6700 / A7rIV / A7IV.

Housing will be either used nauticam / issota or a new marelux system.

 

The 6700 is the easy choise as it is cheaper and more compact option

The a7riv is the more high end and more expensive option

I believe the a7iv is somewhere in between.

I'm also shooting an a6300 (in a SeaFrogs housing, so not far removed from your Fantasea), and I've just moved to an a6700 for better AF.

 

Between these three, unless you're really hurting for resolution, a6700 is an easy choice, as it has Sony's latest AF (shared with A7RV/A7CII/A7CR). A7IV and A7RIV have the previous generation AF - since you're mostly shooting macro, AF is important. A7RIV has a significant resolution advantage, so there's that, but A7IV doesn't have that many more pixels over a6700 (33MP vs 26MP), although it will give you some extra detail in your shots by the virtue of being FF. An FF camera would also give you a wider field of view over an APS-C one, but lose DoF at the same framing, so that's something to keep in mind. Speaking of DoF, among these three cameras only a6700 has focus bracketing, so given a static subject and a tripod, you could do focus stacking.

 

Now an A7RV or an A7CR have the a6700 beat in just about every respect, but given what they cost - 6400₪ for an a6700 vs over 15,000₪ for an A7RV - I would expect them to.

 

Note that a6700 has only three housing options at present - Nauticam, Ikelite and SeaFrogs. Nauticam costs $2513, Ikelite is $1195 but doesn't have a fiber optic bulkhead - electric sync only! - and doesn't let you access the front dial, while SeaFrogs costs about $450 and lets you access all the dials, but not the photo/movie/S&Q switch and doesn't have an 'AF-ON' thumb lever, only a regular button. Someone here on the forum mentioned that Isotta support replied to them that they don't plan to release an a6700 housing - I guess their a6600 housing didn't sell all that well. I wouldn't expect one from Marelux either; the only non-FF housing in their portfolio is an OM-1 one, and that one doesn't seem to be actually available.

 

I'm going on a liveaboard in a week, and hopefully the a6700 housing will arrive before then - if it does, I will share my experience with it when I come back.

 

Note that if your primary interest is macro, you might want to consider an OM-1 setup. Used OM-1 bodies seem to be available on ebay remarkably cheap - $1200-1300, down from their $2500 list price. The AOI housing is $999 including a vacuum system and flash trigger. What really sets it apart though, is the wealth of lens options - you have 30mm, 45mm, 60mm and 90mm, the latter of which can do 2:1 supermacro without add-on lenses, and given the smaller sensor size, a full-frame camera would have to do 4:1 magnification to match the same framing. The AOI port for the 90mm even lets you access the focus limiter switch. The 90mm lens is expensive, to be sure, but you can offset some of its cost by selling the Sony 90mm, which should not be difficult.

Edited February 27 by Barmaglot

[Chris Ross]

34 minutes ago, Barmaglot said:

 

Note that a6700 has only three housing options at present - Nauticam, Ikelite and SeaFrogs. Nauticam costs $2513, Ikelite is $1195 but doesn't have a fiber optic bulkhead - electric sync only! - and doesn't let you access the front dial, while SeaFrogs costs about $450 and lets you access all the dials, but not the photo/movie/S&Q switch and doesn't have an 'AF-ON' thumb lever, only a regular button. Someone here on the forum mentioned that Isotta support replied to them that they don't plan to release an a6700 housing - I guess their a6600 housing didn't sell all that well. I wouldn't expect one from Marelux either; the only non-FF housing in their portfolio is an OM-1 one, and that one doesn't seem to be actually available.

 

 

Apparently Marelux have announced a housing timing not known though:

https://www.bluewaterphotostore.com/marelux-sony-a6700-underwater-housing/

 

 

[JohnD]

On 2/21/2024 at 11:24 PM, RomiK said:

 So how about - just to taste that world 🙂 - before spending considerable money just to end up with something marginally smaller than what you currently have - so how about getting TG6-7, single handle and single strobe, perhaps add fish eye conversion if that CFWA is your thing and go explore? Maybe you gonna like it 🙂 

 

https://www.uwphotographyguide.com/olympus-tg6-wide-angle-fcon-t02-fisheye-lens

Thanks for the suggestion, but that would be too big a step “backwards” for me.  I actually have a TG6 and Oly housing, and I use it on boats, beach, etc.  But, the camera’s limitations would make underwater photography less enjoyable for me.

Over the years I have moved from compact cameras to micro four thirds to APS-C and have appreciated the improved dynamic range and more flexible cropping options of the slightly larger format and improved performance of the more sophisticated cameras.  Like everyone, I would like a smaller and lighter system, but am not willing to give up the benefits I found with the DSLR.  Although I would like to reduce size and weight a little, I don’t yet want to sacrifice the features I enjoy.  Of course, that means any size reduction would be limited.  But I can dream…. 

I am just not willing to give up a 45-degree viewfinder, reduced shutter lag, interchangeable lenses and the tech advances that incorporated into more expensive (and larger) cameras.  Since I will use a bracket, arms, buoyancy and two strobes, even a TG6 becomes much larger but without adding the things that I enjoy about the larger cameras.  We all want a camera that that is light and small to travel with but offers the features and benefits of a D850 or A1 or whatever.  

If I had to buy something new tomorrow, I would likely decide between an A6700 and a Canon R7.  Although I found myself looking at the full frame options, I would really rather stay with a cropped sensor.  I also use my Nikons for wildlife and nature photos and have a variety of long and landscape lenses that would work fine with an FTZ adapter, so it would probably be wise to stick with Nikon.  Although probably unlikely, I am hoping some interesting APS-C Nikon might appear, preferably in a size to compete with the A6700 and R7.

 The problem will likely be that the manufacturers tend to view the APS-C as "lower level" cameras that should be released at lower price points and therefore do not always use the latest and best tech in them.  But I can live with that if need be.

[Barmaglot]

10 minutes ago, JohnD said:

 The problem will likely be that the manufacturers tend to view the APS-C as "lower level" cameras that should be released at lower price points and therefore do not always use the latest and best tech in them.  But I can live with that if need be.

Have you considered Fujifilm? They're kind of unique in that their top-end is medium-format rather than full-frame, so they're not afraid of their APS-C lineup cannibalizing full-frame sales, and put their best tech into APS-C (X-H2, X-H2S, X-T5).

[ChipBPhoto]

1 hour ago, JohnD said:

If I had to buy something new tomorrow, I would likely decide between an A6700 and a Canon R7. 

Both would be a good choice.  Canon colors are the reining champ, while Sony tends to have more lens options.  The a6700 seems to potentially have a bit better focus.  Fortunately both have the option of either the legendary Tokina 10-17 fisheye or a WWL solution.  (The Tokina with a Zen 100 dome is awesome!) I just wish Nauticam had used the N100 port system rather than the N85 for the NA-a6700.  (I understand why they didn’t)  

 

Edited February 27 by ChipBPhoto

[Sarthur1]

Thank you guys!

So it looks like I'll be sticking to the sony a6700 with sony 90mm and tokina 10-17 in a nauticam housing (new housing & used ports).

 

[ChipBPhoto]

2 hours ago, Sarthur1 said:

Thank you guys!

So it looks like I'll be sticking to the sony a6700 with sony 90mm and tokina 10-17 in a nauticam housing (new housing & used ports).

 

Terrific choice!  Have a great time with your new rig!

[greeneggs]

Is the Sony 90 on APS-C too long for Southern California diving?  I'm concerned about lower visibility dives.

[Barmaglot]

1 hour ago, greeneggs said:

Is the Sony 90 on APS-C too long for Southern California diving?  I'm concerned about lower visibility dives.

I've never been to to California, much less dived there, but I've used the 90mm on a6300 in conditions where I could barely see my outstretched hands.

 

 

You can see that there's so much stuff in the water that it is getting in the way even at macro distances - this sea moth was maybe an inch long. Still, this was an extreme case, and at when shooting macro, visibility doesn't matter so much.

[TimG]

39 minutes ago, Barmaglot said:

but I've used the 90mm on a6300 in conditions where I could barely see my outstretched hands.

 

I had the same thought. Macro lenses are ideal in conditions of poor visibility. You are usually shooting something only inches from the port so viz is, generally, not an issue.  This arrowcrab was shot in awful conditions using a 105mm lens

[Chris Ross]

1 hour ago, TimG said:

 

I had the same thought. Macro lenses are ideal in conditions of poor visibility. You are usually shooting something only inches from the port so viz is, generally, not an issue.  This arrowcrab was shot in awful conditions using a 105mm lens

Yes but you are restricted to subjects in the 1"(25mm) size range, as soon as you want to shoot say a 4-6"(100-150mm) subject you need to back way off.  California is similar in some ways to Sydney, I've dived both, though i Was lucky to get 15m + vis when I was in CA.  But in Sydney a long macro lens really does push you towards small subjects.  MY 60mm Olympus macro is marginal in Sydney dues to the size range of subjects I get there (120mm full frame equivalent vs 135mm equivalent for the Sony 90mm on APS-C)

I guess my point is you can adapt to the conditions but on your home dive sites it'd be nice to be able to shoot a range of subjects without having to wait for a once or twice a year day to shoot bigger subjects.

[Barmaglot]

7 minutes ago, Chris Ross said:

Yes but you are restricted to subjects in the 1"(25mm) size range, as soon as you want to shoot say a 4-6"(100-150mm) subject you need to back way off. 

I've found that Retra's reflectors help a lot in marginal visibility conditions. For example, this was shot in marginal (not terrible, but not great, probably <10m if memory serves me right) conditions from about 2-3 meters away using the 90mm (f/5.6, 1/160s, ISO 100):

 

 

The reflectors form two very sharply defined beams which you can converge on the subject and avoid the backscatter between lens and target, and shallow depth of field prevents the particles from showing up.

[JohnD]

On 2/27/2024 at 9:01 AM, Barmaglot said:

Have you considered Fujifilm? They're kind of unique in that their top-end is medium-format rather than full-frame, so they're not afraid of their APS-C lineup cannibalizing full-frame sales, and put their best tech into APS-C (X-H2, X-H2S, X-T5).

I had not.  I just looked at the XT-5 (online) and it looks interesting, but the system does not look very desirable for CFWA, with no fisheye lens available.  Maybe there is an adapter I don't know about.

[Barmaglot]

2 hours ago, JohnD said:

I had not.  I just looked at the XT-5 (online) and it looks interesting, but the system does not look very desirable for CFWA, with no fisheye lens available.  Maybe there is an adapter I don't know about.

There are multiple EF to X mount adapters (the Fringer one seems to get the best reviews), so Tokina 10-17mm should be possible. 15-45mm zoom works with WWL-C, and 18-55mm f/2.8-4 works with WACP, albeit in a limited zoom range. 

[reubencahn]

Hello, I've been re-reading this and a few other threads for a month or so trying to decide whether it's time to purchase a new system. Hoping the knowledgeable posters here will weigh in. 

 

I'm shooting a D7200 in a Subal housing.  Primarily a wide-angle shooter.  80% of my shots are with the Tokina 10-17 and Zen 100 dome.  I love the small dome and the lens' flexibility.  Macro, I shoot mostly the 105 but sometimes the 60.  

 

I've looked at the usual suspects, Sony A6700 and Canon R7, Sony A7RV and Nikon Z8.  I'm drawn to the A7RV most.  What I think I like most about it are the relatively compact size of the camera, the relatively small size and light weight of the Sony 90mm and 28-60 kit lens, and maybe most of all, the incredible viewfinder.  My eyes aren't what they used to be, and the huge, bright viewfinder is a big plus.  What I dislike about the camera, aside from the ridiculous cost, are the switch to full frame with larger heavier lenses and huge file sizes and the lack of a native fisheye. 

 

Still, the A7RV, suffers fewer of the drawbacks of the other cameras I looked at.  On the A6700, I was discouraged by the viewfinder and the synch speed.  The R7, I like almost everything except the viewfinder.  The Z8 had a great viewfinder and felt familiar but seems big and heavy for travel.  I know in theory I could use my 105 and 60(?) with an adapter, but the 105 with an adapter added seems ridiculously cumbersome.  

 

If I had  a D500, I wouldn't be thinking of upgrading, but the D7200 low light performance and the autofocus are more limiting.  I've thought about searching for a used D500 set up, but it's hard to justify spending $5000 on a setup that's in some ways obsolete.  

 

So, should I plunge in or wait?  Will Nikon actually release a mirrorless equivalent of the D500?  Will Canon release an updated R7 that's a perfect compromise?  

[TimG]

Hey Reuben

 

I'm a D500 user and, yep, I would not want to switch out of that for a full-frame system particularly for the wide-angle element for all the reasons you outline.

 

I think in your position I'd be tempted to look for a D500 housing and camera. I'd be surprised if those cost $5000. It'd be worth posting a Like To Buy advert here and see what lines up.

 

 

 

 

[Chris Ross]

1 hour ago, reubencahn said:

Hello, I've been re-reading this and a few other threads for a month or so trying to decide whether it's time to purchase a new system. Hoping the knowledgeable posters here will weigh in. 

 

I'm shooting a D7200 in a Subal housing.  Primarily a wide-angle shooter.  80% of my shots are with the Tokina 10-17 and Zen 100 dome.  I love the small dome and the lens' flexibility.  Macro, I shoot mostly the 105 but sometimes the 60.  

 

I've looked at the usual suspects, Sony A6700 and Canon R7, Sony A7RV and Nikon Z8.  I'm drawn to the A7RV most.  What I think I like most about it are the relatively compact size of the camera, the relatively small size and light weight of the Sony 90mm and 28-60 kit lens, and maybe most of all, the incredible viewfinder.  My eyes aren't what they used to be, and the huge, bright viewfinder is a big plus.  What I dislike about the camera, aside from the ridiculous cost, are the switch to full frame with larger heavier lenses and huge file sizes and the lack of a native fisheye. 

 

Still, the A7RV, suffers fewer of the drawbacks of the other cameras I looked at.  On the A6700, I was discouraged by the viewfinder and the synch speed.  The R7, I like almost everything except the viewfinder.  The Z8 had a great viewfinder and felt familiar but seems big and heavy for travel.  I know in theory I could use my 105 and 60(?) with an adapter, but the 105 with an adapter added seems ridiculously cumbersome.  

 

If I had  a D500, I wouldn't be thinking of upgrading, but the D7200 low light performance and the autofocus are more limiting.  I've thought about searching for a used D500 set up, but it's hard to justify spending $5000 on a setup that's in some ways obsolete.  

 

So, should I plunge in or wait?  Will Nikon actually release a mirrorless equivalent of the D500?  Will Canon release an updated R7 that's a perfect compromise?  

It's very hard to beat or match the Tokina 10-17, unfortunately the only way to truly match it on full frame is with the very expensive and heavy FCP.  The WWL goes close but it's not a full fisheye with the effect that brings.  You can adapt a Canon mount 10-17 to an R7 or Sony A6700.    Nothing else goes close to this with the small dome size in full frame or APS-C.

 

If you like small you could look at the OM-1 it's very close to the D500 in sensor performance, the lenses are tiny in comparison to full frame, the 60mm macro and the olympus fisheye are both excellent lenses,  If you want flexibility you could use the Adapted Canon 8-15 which gives you the equivalent field of view of a full 180° fisheye through to a 28mm full frame equivalent rectilinear lens in one setup and it can be used behind a 4"dome.

[reubencahn]

2 hours ago, TimG said:

Hey Reuben

 

I'm a D500 user and, yep, I would not want to switch out of that for a full-frame system particularly for the wide-angle element for all the reasons you outline.

 

I think in your position I'd be tempted to look for a D500 housing and camera. I'd be surprised if those cost $5000. It'd be worth posting a Like To Buy advert here and see what lines up.

 

 

 

 

Thanks.  I'll give that a try and see what comes up.

 

35 minutes ago, Chris Ross said:

It's very hard to beat or match the Tokina 10-17, unfortunately the only way to truly match it on full frame is with the very expensive and heavy FCP.  The WWL goes close but it's not a full fisheye with the effect that brings.  You can adapt a Canon mount 10-17 to an R7 or Sony A6700.    Nothing else goes close to this with the small dome size in full frame or APS-C.

 

If you like small you could look at the OM-1 it's very close to the D500 in sensor performance, the lenses are tiny in comparison to full frame, the 60mm macro and the olympus fisheye are both excellent lenses,  If you want flexibility you could use the Adapted Canon 8-15 which gives you the equivalent field of view of a full 180° fisheye through to a 28mm full frame equivalent rectilinear lens in one setup and it can be used behind a 4"dome.

My wife shoots an EMI MKII, so I took a look at the OM1, but the viewfinder put me off.  Maybe I should look again.

[Chris Ross]

11 minutes ago, reubencahn said:

Thanks.  I'll give that a try and see what comes up.

 

My wife shoots an EMI MKII, so I took a look at the OM1, but the viewfinder put me off.  Maybe I should look again.

Sounds like you would really benefit from an accessory viewfinder on your housing, the new Nauticam viewfinders are designed for the bigger viewfinders on new mirrorless cameras and make a bigger difference UW than a newer viewfinders makes on land.

[humu9679]

@reubencahn The early DSLRs almost required use of a accessory viewfinder, but have you considered shooting without one? The live view features of most current mirrorless cameras are pretty good. Does your wife shoot using the viewfinder or the monitor?