Totally agree with Chris on his point over most users and the 20-30 MP.
 

We’re being sucked into manufacturers’ marketing hype and 35mm film hangover, for the vast majority of us, on using an FF underwater. Big, painful for traveling, expensive and not generally necessary.
 

I really liked my D800 (FF) based system but for traveling an utter pain. Now on a DX-based system (D500), I’ve got smaller, so generally cheaper, lenses and ports, less weight and bulk - and I cannot see a difference in image quality on a 27” screen or in prints as far as A3. 

10 hours ago, JohnD said:

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.

 

I use the Canon R7, I find it simply fantastic even though I only use it for Macro and Blackwater. AF is very high performance and I have not found any problems.
I use the following lenses EF-S 35 macro, EF-S 60 macro and EF 100 Macro L series.
The 32 mb raw file is very nice and has an interesting Syncro strobe, 1/320 with electronic first curtain shutter and 1/250 with mechanical, but it can go to 1/400 - 1/320 if you mount a manual triggher or set the UWT triggher to 0.

 

I agree on the pixel count and format.  I still think that except perhaps for really large prints, APS-C continues to have more benefits than limitations.  I am going to stick with the D500 for now, and watch the mirrorless developments.  Rumors of an R7 II (or whatever) and a D500 equivalent mirrorless are interesting and if this is true, could keep the format alive and could me to "upgrade" later in the year or next year.  APS-C is a good format choice for underwater and for wildlife, which appeals to me, and also sports.  Increasingly, I am pulling back from a FF Sony idea.  I love the tech, but don't really want a 61MP FF frame sensor camera.  If I had to buy right now, I guess it would be the R7 or A6700, but I am holding off for a while.

 

Although my NA D500 is not a small housing, I enjoy being able to use a 100mm dome on it with the 8-15 and have the zoom range instead of just 8mm or a circle, and I can easily add the 1.4 TC which gives a different perspective.  The Tokina 10-17 does pretty much the same thing, of course.

 

I suspect the rumored new Sigma fisheye won't be ideal, or perhaps even viable, but it would be great to see a good, underwater-suitable fisheye that does not need an adapter for the camera world.

 

 

 

Hey John - no harm at all in holding off.  If you like what you have, keep enjoying it!  I used my Canon T2i for 11 years and made many great images with it.  I too also really enjoyed the smaller APS-C size.  Besides, that just means more money for trips!  There will always be something new when you’re ready.  

6 hours ago, JohnD said:

I agree on the pixel count and format.  I still think that except perhaps for really large prints, APS-C continues to have more benefits than limitations.  I am going to stick with the D500 for now, and watch the mirrorless developments.  Rumors of an R7 II (or whatever) and a D500 equivalent mirrorless are interesting and if this is true, could keep the format alive and could me to "upgrade" later in the year or next year.  APS-C is a good format choice for underwater and for wildlife, which appeals to me, and also sports.  Increasingly, I am pulling back from a FF Sony idea.  I love the tech, but don't really want a 61MP FF frame sensor camera.  If I had to buy right now, I guess it would be the R7 or A6700, but I am holding off for a while.

 

Although my NA D500 is not a small housing, I enjoy being able to use a 100mm dome on it with the 8-15 and have the zoom range instead of just 8mm or a circle, and I can easily add the 1.4 TC which gives a different perspective.  The Tokina 10-17 does pretty much the same thing, of course.

 

I suspect the rumored new Sigma fisheye won't be ideal, or perhaps even viable, but it would be great to see a good, underwater-suitable fisheye that does not need an adapter for the camera world.

 

 

 

Good choice I think, but it's always fun to speculate and dream of an upgrade!

A side effect of bigger pixel count is the amount storage processing and memory needed to view and edit the files. This increases at least linearly, and depending on the processing could be substantially above linear.

 

Its not just the cost of cameras, lenses and housing. Bigger memory cards, bigger disk, more RAM, bigger processor ... It all adds up.

1 hour ago, John Liddiard said:

A side effect of bigger pixel count is the amount storage processing and memory needed to view and edit the files. This increases at least linearly, and depending on the processing could be substantially above linear.

 

Its not just the cost of cameras, lenses and housing. Bigger memory cards, bigger disk, more RAM, bigger processor ... It all adds up.

The newer Nikon Z cameras like the Z9 and Z8 have a new RAW format option called HE*. This option was not in the D850 DSLR. It includes a slight amount of lossy compression in the original RAW capture. However on analysis from many reviewers, and presumably Nikon itself, there is a negligable loss of image qaulity in the resulting files. The RAW NEF files are reduced in size from around 49MB to 35MB or about 30-40%.

 

HE* RAW format is actually the default on the Z8, which should be a statement on how much confidence Nikon has in this choice. I think they adopted this format to increase capacity of the buffer for these high-speed cameras.  I decided to leave it as default for most of my shooting. I have not noticed any reduction of quality from the D850 images.

 

Mini review:

To put a different spin on this, I recently moved from A6400 to A7CR. I chose the latter primarily so I could continue using a couple of crop lenses which have no FF equiv, and still get 26 megas. At the same time I can take advantage of any compact FF lenses that come along. Currently really enjoying a Zeiss 40 CF. Also the Nauticam housing is approx 1 kg lighter than any other Nauticam FF housing. And I could not find anywhere if you can zoom PZ lenses from the A6700 body, whereas I already knew you can with A7CR and other Sony FF cams.

 

In my view the A7CR is thus a true hybrid camera (i.e. hybrid crop and FF)! Having said all that, the improvement in AF is not marked vs the A6400, which either demonstrates just how good the A6400 is, OR that Sony has still a way to go to improve animal eye focus (and tracking even). AF improvement from A6500 to A6400 was much more noticeable.

 

After 10 dives or so, I have reluctantly turned off animal eye, mainly because if it does find an eye (approx 30% hit rate), the focus square becomes so small I have trouble seeing it. And even tho you can set it to pretty much avoid false positives, I just can't be certain what it has found, esp if I am in a hurry. In any case normal AFC tracking medium or small spot is so good, animal eye is not really required.

 

On synch speed, a couple of interesting findings: 1) although rated as 1/160, I get 1/200 with no cutoff with FF lenses. 2) using crop lenses I get 1/250 (but not 1/320 which is next step). None of this bothers me as I grew up with Nikonos 1/60 max and learnt to deal with it !

PS: 2 other reasons for me going with Nauticam FF A7CR vs A6700: get away from wretched N85 port system at only 200g weight penalty; and proper screw on optic fibre connections vs cheap push in ones.

 

I was going to go Isotta so I could do my own maintenance, so I emailed them asking if they were going to produce a housing for A7CR. No reply, so I stuck with Nauticam, even though I'll never be able to dismantle (and more important, correctly reassemble) the controls!

1 hour ago, dentrock said:

Having said all that, the improvement in AF is not marked vs the A6400, which either demonstrates just how good the A6400 is, OR that Sony has still a way to go to improve animal eye focus (and tracking even). AF improvement from A6500 to A6400 was much more noticeable.

I'm guessing it more of the former than the latter. I just went from a6300 to a6700, and although I haven't taken it underwater yet, on land the new autofocus feels like magic. Kinda kicking myself for not upgrading to an a6400 earlier; even though I could've used it in the same housing, I figured the improvement in AF can't be that great to be worth an upgrade in and of itself.

On 1/22/2024 at 12:19 AM, JohnD said:

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.

 

 I see you'd like to get a taste the 'free world' 🙂 . I too am tired when I see what's coming out of iPhones underwater 🙂 For now on video side but just a matter of time someone figures out simple flash and synchro 🙂 

 

The truth is that no matter how small ILC you choose when you add handles, even a small dome and flashes the overall size and weight won't make drastic difference re: the quote above.

 

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

Hello everyone,

 

If it's OK, I'll join in on the topic.

4 years ago I upgraded my former Sony A7rII underwater setup to the Sony A7III. Both times in the Nauticam housing.

 

Basically I'm happy with my current Sony A7III setup, but on the other hand I would often like to benefit from better autofocus. I use a Sony A7IV for above water, and the difference in autofocus is extremely noticeable. The comparison with the Sony FE 90mm Macro is extreme.

 

For this reason, I'm thinking about switching my underwater setup to a Sony A7CII. This has the same sensor as my Sony A7IV, and at the same time the autofocus of the larger Sony A7rV.

What do you think? Does the change make sense or would you wait another generation?

 

A Sony A7CII setup would probably be slightly smaller and also a little lighter. Instead of the Sony 16-35 F4 I'm currently using, I would prefer a solution with a Sony 28-60mm and WWL-1, as this would often be a bit more flexible in freshwater, especially for me in Lake Constance.

 

When it comes to housing, the selection for the Sony A7CII series is currently very limited. Nauticam and Ikelite are only in the running after me and from the other manufacturers such as Marelux (I asked and am waiting for an answer) or Isotta (which would be absolutely exciting in my opinion, but others have already asked and received no feedback ), there is currently no case on the market.

 

I'm looking forward to your feedback and opinions.

 

Best greetings from Switzerland,

Tino

15 minutes ago, Tino Dietsche said:

A Sony A7CII setup would probably be slightly smaller and also a little lighter. Instead of the Sony 16-35 F4 I'm currently using, I would prefer a solution with a Sony 28-60mm and WWL-1, as this would often be a bit more flexible in freshwater, especially for me in Lake Constance.

Hi Tino - welcome to the “should I buy something new” party. 😂

 

Regardless of the body/housing choice, I am a huge fan of the water contact lenses such as the WWL.  I was originally extremely reluctant to accept something so relatively small could perform so well.  In short, it really does!  As a bonus, the 28-60 lens is small and inexpensive!  It’s just a great overall solution that is also easy for travel.  
 

The only downside I have found is splits are not an option with the WWL.  That may or may not be a concern. It was not for me.
 

Just remember to “burp” (remove and replace) the WWL after you enter the water to make sure there are no hidden bubbles that could throw off your auto focus.  
 

Regarding housings, Nauticam certainly has a price tag associated with it, but you already know their quality. 
 

As far as the new body, you’re really going to appreciate both the new menu system and substantially better white balance.  There are huge improvements in both.  UW video with Sony is now much easier, should you decide to do a bit down the road.

 

Enjoy, and let us know what which way you end up

 

This conversation is not making future buying choices any easier! I've been using the A7C for last year and a half, and the new FCP, although really freakin' expensive, is enticing. But the A7C R is also enticing, and also entails the new housing. Decisions, decisions. Or maybe wait till the A7C III or R II. Who knows, it's always something.

10 hours ago, Tino Dietsche said:

For this reason, I'm thinking about switching my underwater setup to a Sony A7CII. This has the same sensor as my Sony A7IV, and at the same time the autofocus of the larger Sony A7rV.

@jjmochi shared an interesting experience with A7CR here - it's not specifically A7CII, but it's supposed to be the same camera except for the sensor. Something weird might be going on there. You may want to test before you buy.

Depends how it's set up. Unless your jimochi can confirm that both cams were on the same settings (can be complex to set up initially), I wouldn't take much notice. When I went shopping (in an actual shop) I took my 90 with me and spent ages fiddling with the menus on the cams, as the shop assistant wasn't familiar with Tracking set up.

My wife has an A7RV and its AF is same as my A7CR. But A7RV has much better EVF and is a better cam all round, but as I said above, housing is +1kg (and larger) if you go Nauticam, and body +250g or so. So that's why I went for A7CR. Each to their own, but if AF is really important to you (as it is to me), then get to know its quirks before you buy. I had 4 years practice with my A6400.

A7RV is more expensive, although price diff between the two cams not so much at Boxing Day sales.

No Boxing Day sales at Nauticam!!! (I think they charge by weight, so A7RV housing is more expensive too...)

Yeah, after I posted that I had a thought that maybe the A7CR had its aperture drive in AF set to 'silent' - this would certainly affect AF speed, especially in low light conditions.

Thank you very much for your feedbacks!

 

I think from my point of view the Sony A7CII is the camera that makes the most sense for me personally.

It has the same 33 megapixel sensor as the A7IV that I use above water. At the same time, it has the autofocus including AI from the Sony A7rV.
Of course there are also drawbacks compared to the A7IV, such as only one card slot, worse and smaller viewfinder, but I can absolutely live with that. What I find less cool is the fact that the A7C series no longer has a Sony Multi USB port and therefore can no longer be triggered via external cable releases. Since I photograph thunderstorms and lightning, especially in summer, this is painful. But if I buy the A7CII, it will be used for filming or time-lapse and the A7IV will be triggered via the special flash trigger.
If I look at the A7CII again for underwater use, in contrast to the current Sony A7III system I benefit from a little less weight and am also a little smaller in size/volume

The A7IV is already too old again and it makes no sense to invest in a corresponding housing. The same applies to the A7C, which would be relatively cheap, but offers hardly any improvements compared to my current A7III, which I use underwater .
The A7rV is certainly a top camera, but I don't need the 61 megapixels and I'm not willing to spend the extra money.

 

I think I'll get the port for the 28-60mm in the coming weeks, unless other housing manufacturers suddenly come up with exciting alternatives to Nauticam. Ikelite is certainly exciting in terms of price, but for cold water and weekly dives an aluminum housing is more suitable for me.

 

So then, I'm looking forward to more conversations  around the “should I buy something new” party. 😂

 

Greetings from Switzerland,
Tino

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

1 hour ago, Proteus said:

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.

I think you missed “and the whole thing will be on sale as a package for $199 including life time updates, repairs and free travel to any dive destination”. 

Hi Tino,

 

in my opinion the A7IV is equally or better than A7VR with regards to AF

https://mirrorlesscomparison.com/best/mirrorless-cameras-for-birds-in-flight/

 

I own the A7 IV but sometimes miss some additional MP. Otherwise the only step forward would be the A1

8 hours ago, fruehaufsteher2 said:

in my opinion the A7IV is equally or better than A7VR with regards to AF

https://mirrorlesscomparison.com/best/mirrorless-cameras-for-birds-in-flight/

 

I own the A7 IV but sometimes miss some additional MP. Otherwise the only step forward would be the A1

 

The Sony A7IV is a great camera, that's definitely the case. The step from the A7III series to the 4 series was already huge.

 

Based on the many tests and reports that I have looked at all over the web, the difference between the autofocus of the A7IV and the A7rV is certainly not extremely huge, but it is in favor of the A7rV because it has the AI processing unit in it. This is still missing from the A7IV.

 

For me, the 33 megapixels that the A7CII and the A7IV have are actually exactly right. There are certainly situations in which a few more megapixels would certainly be cool. But the A1 is clearly way too expensive! 😥

 

In this case, do you also use the A7IV for underwater?

 

Greetings from the Swiss-Lake Constance side to Germany,

Tino

No treason to change yet for me-the housing are not that smaller or that much lighter and I'm super happy with my lens that are yet to be made for mirrorless.

On 2/24/2024 at 3:23 AM, Tino Dietsche said:

 

The Sony A7IV is a great camera, that's definitely the case. The step from the A7III series to the 4 series was already huge.

{…}

In this case, do you also use the A7IV for underwater?

 

Hi Tino,

Can’t edit the other post:

In fact I was using the A6400 and the reason for buying the A7 IV was using it underwater. But it turned out that for birds and all the other stuff I take pictures of the A7 IV is incredible great but still feels really small. So the A6400 is rarely used.

 

The only reason left for using the A6400 is when maximum reach is needed (moon, bird far away) then I combine the 200-600 with the A6400. Good image quality but AF is much worse than A7 IV. 

 

For underwater use at the beginning I wanted to combine the new 16-35/4 PZ with a dome. But the members formerly known as wetpixel, especially Chris Ross mentioned that this might be not the recommended solution. So I went for the WACP-C and the 28-60 (kitlens but surprisingly good) and can‘t be more happy - as long as the FCP was not available. 

 

Just heading home from Grand Bahama…