All Activity

The Nikon is certainly a bit cheaper, but not enough to rule out the Sony - especially with the $400 cashback and a few other bonuses. Dimensions - the Nikon is 134 x 100.5 x 72mm, the Sony is 130.3 x 96.4 x 72.3 - so sizewise they are much of a muchness. I agree that the A7V isn't a great comparison to the Z5ii - unfortunately it was best that I could find as Sony's current range doesn't seem to have any natural order or ascendancy - it just seems like a whole bunch of cameras that were designed were each designed by a separate committee - that never communicated with each other... but if you can know of a Sony model that is a better comparison I would be keen to know! The battery life is I think going to be important to me if I get right into the focus stacking - using the CIPA standard the Z5ii will run for 330/380 images, however the Sony will run for 630/750 images - which could be important as my favourite local shore dive is a 600 metre swim out to it - and I'm getting too old to swim out all that way, run just 5 or 6 focus stacks before running out of battery...

The OP wants to photograph a range of fish sizes on the one dive, but doesn't mention if he is time limited (surveys?), or if the aim is solely fish photography. There is a world of difference between having to get any shot of say, a juvenile wrasse for later ID, then quickly moving on to continue a survey; vs a dive where you can chase your damsels and wrasses as much as you like. Several of the options suggested could work for the latter case; but if time limited, flip-flops and other water contact options won't cut it, so a macro lens is the best option. The OP didn't mention his typical dive conditions. In good viz, a 100mm macro should do the job on FF, but will not be much good in low viz; say 2-7m, so a 50-60mm macro makes more sense for FF there. Assuming as an ichthyologist he dives all over, then he will need both lenses; or at least the 100mm + the MFO-3, if he doesn't mind the extra length. The 100 may also prove a bit of an issue to physically track those damsels and wrasses. Physical tracking is certainly easier with more FOV, especially if you are time limited. And I get what others say about not cropping; but the fact remains that you can get good images allowing scale and fin counts even heavily cropping 60+ mpx sensors, including of 20mm gobies. We would all like not to crop, but it's not illegal! Not sure which housing system he is leaning towards, but if he favours Sony APS-C, I would steer clear of Nauticam, as the N85 port system is a curse. On the other hand, if size is a big consideration, then Sony A7CR is worth a look, as it is hardly bigger than the A6700, and he can still shoot APS-C if he wishes. More to the point, the Nauticam housings for these are similar size and weight; but you get the big advantage of the N100 port system with the A7CR housing, plus better fibre optic connections; something that the influencers never mention... When I owned both Nauticam rigs for Sony A7CR and A7RV, I measured the weight difference at 1.1 kgs (housing + body), with corresponding size difference. If size is not an option, then Canon and Nikon may offer macro options that perform better than Sony, though I haven't seen much of a size / weight difference between FF and APS-C rigs with those brands, so FF will make sense. As a working fish nerd myself, I don't find the quoted Sony 1/160 synch speed limiting, and it is in any case 1/200 in practice.

102MP must be nice for some people, but the extra storage capacity and processing power... nah. I think 24.5MP (Nikon) or 33MP (Sony) will be enough.

It’s going to depend on how close you can get to your 1cm goby. A 100mm macro lens will do it, however it will only take up 1/3 of a full frame sensor horizontally. Then the 0.8m fish will have a lot if water between you and the subject, challenging strobe power and increasing chance of backscatter and reducing resolution. The MFO-3 will help , but has a limitation that its max focus distance is about 1.5m away. Different lenses will have different fields at this distance. I shoot with the OM-1 and 60mm macro, a fish about 700mm long fills the frame at max focus for the 60mm macro/MFO3 combination. I posted a thread on using this combo a while ago now: The trumpetfish in the photo from this post is about 500-600mm long and the frame is slightly cropped, so it looks like it will scrape in for your 0.8m fish requirement. The Olympus is certainly a smaller lighter option in Nauticam compared to full frame housings. It has 1/250 sync speed and can get 1/400 using the Nauticam manual trigger. You asked about gobies, this is a whip coral goby from Lembeh, OM-1 with 60mm macro, it's probably about 70% of the frame so some cropping, certainly could have gotten closer to this one. Certainly it's a decent option, some cropping is possible if photo is sharply focused to start with It will be lighter than most full frame options, though the Sony A7C will be a smaller housing I think - by a little bit. I get in and out over the rocks with some swell most of the time at my local dive site in Sydney and it's relatively easy to handle.

The argument that Fred may be shocked by the size/weight of a FF macro setup with double flip is very valid - so better have a close look at the different setups in real life and get the hands on them before making a decision... (I should ad that during my life as a scientist, I was a biophysicist/molecular biologist and fish documentation was never my target; I am, however, sure I would choose A7R6/100mm macro setup (and Sony 16-35 GMII with Seacam PPO for fish >35cm). Even now, with 70 years of age and beeing a hobbyist UW photographer, I am strong enought to lug around my FF setup without wailing 🤣)... When setup size is compared, my personal experience is the opposite to what you are writing (MFT (Oly EM1II) vs. FF (Sony A7R5); I cannot tell about APS-C from my own experience, so others should comment): #1.: I can say that the big difference in size and weigth is in the macro setup (both Nauticam housings: EM1II/Zuiko 60mm is perfectly small, smart and light, whereas A7R5/Sony 100mm is the biggest/most monstrous setup I ever handled (- but with best IQ ever)) #2.: For moderate WA (fishportrait): size/weigth difference between EM1II/Zuiko 12-40mm pro/Zen DP170 and A7R5/Sony20-70mm G/Zen DP170 is small. Both deliver excellent IQ. #3.: More WA (not requested by Fred): similar with EM1II/Canon 8-15mm/Nauticam 140mm dome vs. Sony A7R5/Canon 8-15mm/2xTC/Nauticam 140mm dome. I see no essential difference, but fisheye is not the lens of choice for scientific documentation. Better take rectilinear WA: EM1II/Pana 7-14mm/Zen DP170 vs. A7R5/Tamron 17-28mm/Zen DP170 - pretty similar in size and weight (I would, however take A7R5/Sony 16-35mm GM2/Seacam PPO for that purpose (rectilinear best IQ with low aperture number))... Fred's complaints (with G5 and a single D200 strobe) are better AF, bigger sensor (why?) and more resolution. Maybe he wants one small setup to do it all, similar to the G5 compact setup... Then Sony A7CR/Sony 28-60mm/CMC-1(WWL-1) may be the setup that meets his requirements best, with similar photography experience comparable to the compact camera? There is, however, no free lunch and fish from 10mm to 70cm will always be a (pretty flawed) compromise with a single lens setup. To have both categories at best IQ (and long enough working distance, what is certainly important for scientific documentation) requires ILCE with different lenses/ports... Of course two capable TTL flashes are the most important upgrade, even when continuing with compact camera...

With a little creativity and time to spare, you can try it right away. I have shared laundry areas in my building with large sinks, perfect for washing gear and... playing around. 😁😁😁 A plastic sheet with writing on it (I used a soap package), a small tripod, a clip and a piece of wetnotes where I wrote the distance, For my taste, at 7 cm it was not really in focus. From 15 cm up, it was acceptable. Everything was dirty because at that time i was working in a river...

It's just a bit difficult to change a tele-converter during the dive when the 80 cm fish shows up... Scientific work should not be limited by equipment, I agree, but coming from a G5 with CMC2 the larger kits may be challenging to handle at first. I suppose that for macro / flat port setups all of the sensor options (MFT to FF) will end up not all that different in size. Probably it's when you use a dome port that the bulk for a FF system increases significantly? Let's not forget that the D200 strobe might be begging for an upgrade, too. Something that recycles really fast.

or something like a Red camera: RED Digital CinemaRED Digital Cinema | Professional CamerasRED is the leading manufacturer of professional digital cinema cameras. Explore RED's modular camera system and groundbreaking image quality.

I got it recently, and I did not notice this problem, but also I did not use it a lot Could it be a problem with trapped air ? Do you burp the lens when you get in the water? Btw, I'll try in the bathtub one of the next evening and let you know

For small and shy critters the capability of the Sony 100mm GM f/2.8 to work with TC's (1,4x and 2x) is another benefit: magnification as well as working distance is increased proportinally when TCs are used - with TCs at a species-appropriate working distance even cropping may not be required... Only the very best for scientific documentation (and the setup fits the budget too)! (I must admit that in my former life I have been a scientist, hence comes this inclination)...😆

The z5ii must be quite a bit cheaper (and a little smaller?) than the Sony. And I wouldn’t pitch those two at each other. The Nikon z5ii is foremost a still photography tool. The Sony is a hybrid, more similar to z6iii in the Nikon line-up. If video is something you might want to do, they make more sense inmo. If stills is what you want to work with, you might be spending on features that has no value to you.

Whether the cropping is a benefit depends on how shy the fish are. You can count the scales the better the closer you are when the photo is taken. Fish from 1 cm to 80 cm seems to be a classic dilemma (and I have nothing to add to the suggestions). But it will always be better if you don't need to crop because you were close enough to fill the frame.

Just a small comment, as I'm also looking around to upgrade for a more ergonomic kit (read: newbie wants to move from a Seafrogs housing to Nauticam world - ha! should have paid more attention to all the feedback I got here :D ) I also thought that newer models are likely just around the corner (a Sony A6900 for 2027...?), but not only they aren't here yet, housings will also take a while to come around (I read 6-18 months after a new body is released). That adds quite a long time window to any model that isn't here yet. I'm leaning for the A6700, mostly because I find very marginal the gains of FF for what I do and the increase in bulkiness is substantial. That said, cropping from a A7R VI most be such a pleasant experience ! :)

** Retra Maxis

That’s a wonderful niche project. If your budget prioritizes image quality, how about the the Fuji GF series? https://www.nauticam.com/products/na-gfx100ii-housing-for-fujifilm-gfx100ii-camera

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

Aloha and welcome @Airintheocean

From the setups you are considering, I would go for A7R VI + 100mm macro + MFO-3 (+ possibly MFO-1 on double flip): MFO-1 will not bring much, but with SMC-3 (2,4x magnification) instead, a 10mm fish will fill approx. 68% of the width of the photo (i.e. approx. 36mm). With the bare 100mm lens (1,4x) a 10mm fish will fill approx 39% of the photos width... Concerning FF vs. crop sensor, you can crop the photos made with the 67 Mpixel sensor also in postprocessing to the dimensions of APS-C or MFT without any loss of IQ (in case you do not mind the big setup)... In case size matters, I would go for MFT with Zuiko 60mm +/- MFO-3 (CMC-1 is required only when very small objects are going to be photographed)...

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.

Ugh N100 ports for Sony - that's a bit of a turn off - I've no idea why they can't build housings for Sony that take N120 ports directly. Will see waht the hotshoe and flash trigger situation is like for the A7V - hopefully they have resolved the hotshoe problem by now! The Sony does seem to have a couple of advantages - Sony make their E-mount available to far more 3rd party lens manufacturers than Nikon (or Canon), and the battery life on the Sony is a lot better - which wouldn't be important for a lot of people but might be important if I get into doing a lot of focus stack macro.

I don't know if you read the ongoing endless debate FF Vs Crop, anyway I will try to stay away from it, but I do not know for how long 😁 Let us say that regardless of the camera and its format, the current mainstream solution is to have a macro lens in the 90/100mm range and a double flip MFO-1 and MFO-3. This solution works with both FF and M43. Just my 2c.

List of our DIY projects in the first post updated! I hope I did not miss anything. I see that several requests did not get a reply. I would advise our members to post requests as new threads in this forum so they get more visibility. Ciao

Noise & dynamic range: Maybe one should stop discussing sensor sizes and instead refer to pixel sizes? After all, you can buy full-frame cameras from 24 Mpx all the way up to 61 Mpx. The larger a pixel is, the more light it can collect and as far as I understand this translates to higher dynamic range and better signal/noise ratios. Considering that the full-frame sensor has a 3.8-fold larger surface than a M43 sensor, the pixel size of a 20 Mpx M43 sensor should correspond to a hypothetical 77 Mpx full-frame sensor. If those two sensors were built exactly alike, then their signal/noise and dynamic range should be the same (per pixel). I know there are other things to consider, but let's keep it simple. In that comparison, the 61 Mpx FF camera is thus not soooo different from a 20 Mpx MFT. Sure, you can add up neighboring pixels from the 61 Mpx shot and thereby down-sample to 20 Mpx. This will improve singal/noise, but then you lose the argument that the 61 Mpx allows for much more cropping. (Interesting to follow where this thread has gone from the original post. Special thanks for the history and archeology info, VERY much looking forward to more posts on this and especially to the eventual opening of the museum! Also the practical info is wise - you can pay a lot of extra luggage for the price of a new kit, I agree.)