bvbellomo

We only have 1 corner, from shokwaav, and I don't even know how much is out of focus from being in front of the focal plane vs being in a corner. I'd consider this acceptable for almost any picture. He did use a WWL though.

The 14mm GM doesn't resolve to the complete 61MP on land, although it is closer than the Zeiss gets to 24MP. Going from an effective 15MP image to an effective 50MP image is a huge upgrade for A2 prints. A better lens/port combo is something I've considered. I haven't looked specifically at that Tokina, but a budget zoom lens with an adapter is probably not a huge upgrade over an outdated but nice prime. It is also a fisheye, which most people prefer but I do not. That was one thing I was hoping for on this thread - if people post images I could see how well lenses perform without buying them and taking them to a pool or quarry. I haven't even tried the 14mm GM on the a6300 yet, but after my last trip, I did some research and it seems to be the 'go to' wide lens for higher end Sony underwater setups. Assuming I upgrade to full frame at some point, it makes more financial sense to do it sooner, rather than invest more in my current setup. I wanted full frame since before I bought the a6300. Everyone on the Internet advised me against full frame. I have no idea how much harder your setup is to use than mine, or why it would be, but you are getting nice results. If your depth-of-field is less than mine, it isn't by much. There are other 'nice-to-have' features going to the A7RV or even A7Cr. I could zoom electronically, and the menus and ergonomics are nicer. Even with the housing, muscle memory for 1 camera is much easier. My underwater setup gets larger and heavier, but if I take equipment for both above and below water, my total setup might be lighter and smaller.

Thank you for posting this. This is what I was looking for. This is much better depth-of-field than I expected at F9 on full frame. Can you post a crop of the left hand side, and further up, so I can see it better? Do you have more images like this?

There is no contradiction. Let's put some fictional numbers on things. Let's assign the Zeiss lens a sharpness of 3, the a6300 sensor a sharpness of 4, the 14mm GM a sharpness of 7 and the a7RV sensor a sharpness of 10. Right now, I am using the Zeiss on the a6300, so I am at 3 since I am limited by the lens and can't take full advantage of the sensor. If I upgrade lenses, either using the 14mm GM or buying something new, it can only get me to a 4 because I will hit the limit of my sensor. If I upgrade housings, it takes me to a 7. I've gone through the math. For many lenses, the lens is physically too far forward, which can be solved by adding an extension. In this case, the lens is actually too far back. If there is a way to move the dome closer to the camera body, it is going to be very expensive. I can calculate the exact mathematical ideal for the where the dome should be, but I cannot calculate how much of an improvement there will be in the image. Based on what I know about the lens above water, I don't think I'd see a huge improvement if I could fix this.

This Zeiss on the A7RV would not be sharper than using it on the a6300. The limit is the lens, not the sensor. That isn't relevant to any decision to upgrade, as I would be using a different lens, such as the 14mm GM, on the A7RV. I planned to test the 14mm GM on the a6300 in a pool. I'd be at 21mm equivalent, which is narrower than I want for a full reef shot. It is minimal gain to reach the limit of the sensor. If I need money for a port extension or similar from Nauticam, it is an expensive upgrade. At f/20, I am probably seeing diffraction, but the image is probably not out of focus as I have a larger depth of field. The reason I posted it is I feel this is the limit of the system at F/20 if you ignore the blown out highlights. I planned to post a similar image at F8 for comparison, which is a little sharper, or other apertures. With the direction this thread went, I don't see the point.

I thought it was clear from the context of my post, but I was looking for images larger than 6000x4000.

Apparently this forum won't let me edit, so I apologize for double-posting my reply both above and below the post I replied to.

I asked for examples of other people’s work with higher resolution cameras. I only provided my own images as examples of what I want people to upload. I am not opposed to starting a different thread to discuss post processing raw files, but there are a lot of similar threads already. There are no threads with high resolution images. If I ever take another picture underwater, outside of a test environment like a swimming pool, it will cost me a lot of money. Scuba diving is expensive even without photography. I am using a Nauticam N120 180mm Optical-glass wide-angle dome port. I have 2 Inon 330 strobes. I may use 1, 2 or no strobes. If it is possible with to get a lot more out of a 6300, I was hoping someone who did it would post an image. I asked for examples of other people’s work with higher resolution cameras. I only provided my own images as examples of what I want people to upload. I am not opposed to starting a different thread to discuss post processing raw files, but there are a lot of similar threads already. There are no threads with high resolution images. If I ever take another picture underwater, outside of a test environment like a swimming pool, it will cost me a lot of money. Scuba diving is expensive even without photography. I am using a Nauticam N120 180mm Optical-glass wide-angle dome port. I have 2 Inon 330 strobes. I may use 1, 2 or no strobes. If it is possible with to get a lot more out of a 6300, I was hoping someone who did it would post an image. I appreciate you posting a link to the image, but I don't have permission. I did request it.

I've done a lot of above water with both cameras. If I pixel peep, the A7RV + 14mm GM is considerably sharper than the a6300 + Zeiss, which is really impressive as it has almost 3 times as many pixels. The dramatic difference is why I've thought about taking the A7RV underwater. I am not convinced that depth of field at F8 (or any other stop) underwater in a dome is the same as F8 out of water. This is probably easy enough to measure in a pool and I should do that. It still isn't a great comparison if I am using strobes, I can walk around in twilight with my underwater strobes on my camera, but any pictures taken that way are going to look strange. Underwater is really a whole different world as far as photography. The a6300 prints above water are good, but noticeably less sharp than the A7RV prints. I think if I have perfect settings and don't crop my underwater a6300 prints can come close to my above water a6300 prints, but there is much less room for error. Full reefscape photos without cropping are a big challenge (besides getting the composition, no friends, bubbles, fins, etc can be in frame, camera has to be perfectly level). What size are the prints you do?

To start, I disagree. I think anyone can appreciate the technical abilities of a camera by looking at other people's photos, even if they themselves don't have much technical expertise. I am trying to be nice, I am not convinced from your photos that you are either a great a photographer or all that knowledgeable. Regardless, the equipment you are using means you can't provide anything on this thread in the direction I wanted it to go. You are saying I don't know what I don't know, but you are the one trying to pass yourself off as an expert, not me. I haven't claimed any ability or expertise.

The reason I wish I lowered ISO in that shot mainly is that it is overexposed. In your photo (Canada), your camera captured all the details, and it is very easy in post processing to blow them out and create your 2nd image. In my image, my camera did not capture all the details, and using post processing to put them back is much harder. I could have done a better job of post processing, but wanted to upload a minimally processed image. I am not trying to win a photo contest or print a picture, I am trying to show the technical ability of the camera. Moving to F22 is going to capture less detail, even though the exposure would be better. A faster shutter speed is not going to work using my strobes. So without turning down my strobes, the best way to fix the exposure is lowering the ISO. As I said, turning down the strobes and opening the lens would have been even better, but that is more effort and this was just a quickly snapped picture of a cool coral as I swam by, not something I put much time or thought into. What I said about sensor-size issues were specifically in reference to Chris's suggestion of using the Zeiss lens on the A7RV for comparison. I am well aware a larger sensor is going to cost me depth of field, and if that trade off is going to be worth it is something I really can't judge without seeing images. Whether or not I take a class, I will get better the more pictures I take, but the limits of my setup will stay the same. The learning curve is steep, and I don't get to take underwater pictures often. If the camera can't take a picture I am happy with printed to A2, it doesn't matter if the best photographer in the world is holding it. In that case, I either need to lower my expectations to Instagram photos or buy something else, and it helps to know that sooner, even if I am not going to immediately buy something.

Yes, I am a bit annoyed every time I ask a question on the Internet, a bunch seemingly well-meaning people jump in and offer advice without actually answering the question. If you posted an image relevant to what I asked, I'd be more inclined to believe your advice.

Here is another example. This is not really a reefscape, and I took it at F20/ISO200 despite not needing the depth of field and it is slightly overexposed. It would be better if I used ISO100 and even better if I lowered the power of my strobes and opened up to F16 or F11 or F8. It is still one of my sharper images. Had I used optimal settings, I'd be equally limited by my sensor and my lens. I am reasonably happy with this level of sharpness, but the A7RV would be in another league. I've attached it cropped to 1200x900 instead of doing any resizing. This is a good example of what I was hoping someone would post.

The logical place to start is by looking at what other people are getting out of their gear. I wasn't asking for a critique of an old image of mine, especially the post-processing and I don't care about colors. I want to know whether other people are getting better detail, in a technical sense, from APS-C cameras. And I want to know how much more detail they are getting with higher end gear. If no one else is getting any more detail, then it is a lost cause for me to try. Of course, there are other aspects I can improve, including color, composition and post processing, but there are other threads on that. Underwater, a reefscape with that Ziess requires F8 to have enough depth of field in focus. Then I need around 1/100th to keep moving fish from blurring. Without strobes, the lack of light pushes my ISO high. With strobes, I can hit 1/160th and don't have limited light, but still have the limit of F8, so I can lower my ISO at the expense of darkening the background and limiting how far I can see. Above water, this lens takes much better pictures as I have more light and usually shoot F4. If I stop down to F8, throw on the housing and use my strobes in the dark, I am going to get similar picture quality above water as below. I am not sure what the point of trying this lens on the A7RV would be, as an APS-C lens on a full frame camera is going to give a weird FOV with the corners missing and the a6300 is more than enough to resolve the image detail I get from the lens with underwater shooting conditions. **edited to fractions of a second instead of fps, but I am sure people reading knew what I meant.

That shark is a great photo, but as much the result of being in the right place at the right time as any skill or equipment. I am not looking to win competitions or impress judges. I'd appreciate a higher resolution version of the shark or your other pictures if you have it - you don't even need to post a whole image - just crop 1200 pixels out of the center and post.