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looked specifically at that Tokina, but a budget zoom lens with an adapter is probably not a huge upgrade over an outdated but nice prime.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.

Color balance is a different issue from sharpness, and can be corrected easier, and somewhat fixable in post. I only uploaded 2 pictures, so I am not sure what you mean by "Your third pic illustrates the same issue". I'd be very happy if my sharpness were up to my expectations and my color balance was still "just too blue" I use a Zeiss Touit 12mm for wide angle, and the kit lens for macro/medium width. The Zeiss is sharper, but not as sharp as the best a7RV lenses. It is not sharp enough to take full advantage of the a6300's sensor. As far as I know, there is no reasonably cheap upgrade. If my choice is $2000+ to upgrade my lens or $5000 to use a completely different camera with a better lens, I am saving my money.

The website scaled these pictures to 1200x907, so I really have no idea how much detail you have. What I really want to see is someone who is willing and able to post an image larger than 24MP. From a non-technical aspect, these are excellent images.

I am trying to produce great prints at A2 or larger. If settings are perfect, I don't crop and have good conditions, I get an adequate print. With the A7RV, I have more room if my shot isn't perfect, but even perfect shots look better. When I dive, the reef is anything but "flat and lifeless", it is completely immersive and amazing and colorful, even deep enough it is just dominated by blue light. Very few photos come close to capturing that feeling. Most "good" underwater photos are either artsy (weird angles, distortion, interesting shapes and patterns) or "guide book" images (1 animal is 2/3 of the frame with no environment). There is nothing wrong with these, and some of my best photos fall into these categories. Most full reefscape photos look artificial and strange due to the strobes.

https://drive.google.com/file/d/14CNTiwNYjy0a29_8j84BHZ7qyl5LcW44/view?usp=sharing https://drive.google.com/file/d/1sko5rdScZV9iisLQOBFgs1yndnvjW-79/view?usp=sharing Even these, you need to download the image to see details.

Unfortunately, this website downsampled the images, so I can't show any of the technical problems. Well that gives you some idea of what I am trying to do. I am also trying to get nice reefscapes with strobes, as well as large pelagics. Maybe you could email me files ([email protected]) or post links to websites that will host high res images?

Here we have a few without strobes. Most of the noise and image quality issues are from turbid water.

This was taken with strobes, but is a wide full reef shot.

I am increasingly disappointed with my camera (a6300) as it is only 24MP and even then, does not give a sharp image. I am comparing to photos coming off an A7RV with GM glass taken above water. I understand my expectations may not be realistic. I've thought about taking the A7RV underwater, but even if I could afford to, I don't want that much weight and bulk. An A7CR is a nice compromise, but still both too big and too expensive to seriously consider. This got me thinking and looking at other people's images. Most people are posting 1920x1080 or smaller, even people with $10k setups. That is great for Instagram or showing a friend your dive trip, but I like having large prints. I really want to compare what I have to what good photographers are taking. Can anyone post or link any high res underwater photos, preferably with the camera, lens and housing models? If I could make any image work, I'd have a wide rectilinear full reef shot taken without strobes. I've had very poor luck trying to take those. Or a large pelagic. I am not a huge fan of macro and "guide book" type images that isolate animals without an environment, but I will appreciate anything anyone posts.

I currently have a Nauticam a6300 with a N120 dome for a ZEISS Touit 2.8/12 and a Macro port for a 16-50 kit lens. When I bought this 4 years ago, the a6300 became my above-water camera and I sold off the Canon gear I previously used. I recently bought a A7RV for above-water, and it is a HUGE improvement over the a6300. I have a few issues with my current setup, cracks in part of my tray, a broken vacuum pump (that still works), a broken flash on my a6300, etc. Some of these I can live with, and some I'd repair before my next trip. I was also considering upgrading either or both lenses. This got me wondering how much more I'd need to spend to take the A7RV underwater instead. A Nauticam setup at $5k is not realistic, however I could probably buy a whole SeaFrogs setup for what I planned to invest in repairs and upgrades before my next trip. So my question is, would going from the most expensive and best made housing for an old ASPC camera to the cheapest housing for a new and great full frame camera be an upgrade? What do I lose going with the cheaper housing? I am not sold on SeaFrogs either, I've just heard a lot of great things from people who've used them. There are a lot of options priced between SeaFrogs and Nauticam, but I haven't met anyone who used them.

I am a scuba diver and experienced above water photographer looking to get better taking pictures underwater.