ChipBPhoto

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)

Nice job! You definitely made some keepers. Who did you go out with? I still haven't gotten out with them and their season here is almost over.

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!

Just proves once again it’s not the camera, it’s the photog that counts! Great pics!

Hey John - what size are they? 50L? 70L? or smaller?

Hey Jon - great to see you over here! Thank you so much for the super kind words!! You were such a terrific person to work with and a top notch gentleman. It made the entire transaction seamless and pleasant.

Hi all, I know I'm late to the party, but I have experimented with various catalog systems over the years and thought I'd jump in. I travel extensively which makes a NAS a challenging solution. At one point I did have a separate catalog for each event or session on various external drives. This would work well if hired to do a certain job or had a specific reason to segregate it away from the normal catalog, but became overly challenging for normal daily use. What I have found to work best for me is: - Use an external SSD drive Catalog and files are stored there This allows extreme portability and flexibility I can literally connect my drive to any computer with LR and use it - I use a new SSD drive for each calendar year Currently I am using 2TB SSDs Allows a manageable total size - I use a 2nd SSD drive as a manual backup Simply copy/replace all and get some lunch Very old school, but it works for me I also am traveling more and more with just my iPad Pro (m1). The external SSD solution also allows all files from the card to be downloaded to the drive via iPadOS and an external hub/card reader. I also import those I particularly like directly to LR Mobile while on the road to share, review, etc. When I return to my machine, I simply do a normal important for all files I have saved on the drive as normal in LR using my standard naming structure. When traveling I do not erase the original memory cards until I am back home. This keeps the files on both the cards and the external SSD as backups. There are a number of different ways to do the same thing. This happens to be the one that works best for me.

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

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.

@Ido - great cheetah capture! I agree with all regarding the actual photo benefits of upgrading to the Z8 vs. the cost. I’ll throw out a couple other points to consider. As new camera models and housings are released, unfortunately the value and resale opportunities for our current housings are reduced. The older they become, the less we can get in a sale which leads to a higher net upgrade cost. The frequency of use also plays into the equation. If it is used frequently vs. occasionally, the upgrade can be more easily justified. If used infrequently, upgrading is less justifiable. I used one housing for 11 years. It worked great and I did not want to spend the money to upgrade. Like an older car, I just kept using it because it served my needs. When I sold it, I lost 83% compared to the new price, but that was not bad if considered in terms of annual depreciation. I then sold my Sony a7rIV housing when the a7rV came out 2 years later. The rV was not yet widely available and there was still a market for the rIV. I lost 27% in the sale and I found a lightly used a1 housing. I also dive at least twice a month. All combined it made the net upgrade an easy “yes.” The quest for shiny new gear is never ending. With that said, I’ll always pick a trip if it’s a close choice. 😎

Hi Wolfgang, This is completely un-scientific, but here are some images for comparison. You can see FoV, DoF, and brightness differences between them. The camera body is in the same position for both images. Lens: Sony 28-60 at 28mm (manual, f/8, ISO 1250, 1/10) First image: Behind a WACP-C Second image: Lens only I'll let someone else do the actual math. 😀

Yeah, I’ve been told I’m a bad influence. Glad I could help…drain your account. 😂

Agreed that subject or interest could be useful in helping select the best lens/port option. The wet optics allow a wide variety of uses from a single lens, such as the RF 24-50 for your R6. I find CFWA and reefscapes are nicely captured with the WWL (and WACP) series due to their ability to focus so closely to the subject while retaining a wide zoom range. As an example, I’ve been able to fill the frame with a small flamingo tongue thanks to that remarkable close-focus, and then capture a huge school of snapper above the reef line a few minutes later using the wide end. In editing, I find great success in *not* using the lens profiles in LR. (With the Sony 28-60) It allows the slight barrel distortion in wide scenes to have a slight almost fisheye feel to bring out the subject vs. flattening it. Everyone needs to find their own way and what meets their personal needs best. Wet optics are relatively new, and a new way of approaching frequent questions we all face. Regardless of the tools used, the enjoyment of the search and personal happiness with the results are what counts most. Best of luck and have fun in the decision process!

Wow - I am impressed at all the amazing knowledge shared in this single discussion! @Orestis Papadakis all I can say is welcome to the addiction! And what a fun addiction uw photography is! I am both a long-time Canon photog and now also have a Sony for uw work. Your R6ii is an amazing body that will perform extremely well both underwater and above. If I could share a couple points from my days asking the very same questions…. First, I too hated the fisheye look. I do a lot of wreck photography. With that said, a fisheye, even on a wreck with many straight lines, is actually a powerful tool to highlight your subject or even a particular part of the wreck. As @TimG said, it just “works” in the underwater world. On my first Canon I used a fisheye almost exclusively with great success. Now step forward to 2020 when I bought my first full frame uw body…. It was then when I was introduced to a new world of Water Contact Lenses. I had dreams of owning a big 230 dome so I could look like the other talented photogs on the boat and make those same quality images. Nauticam, however, set an entirely new path of bringing a brand new way for our cameras to see much sharper, and at wider apertures. They also wanted to make a non-remarkable lens such as a 24mm or 28mm into a wide angle dream with 130 degree field of view! While not quite a 180 fisheye, 130 degrees was by far better than most out there, AND it would zoom as well. The WACP was born! It was a hit to all that used it. …It was also quite expensive. Shortly after, they introduced the WWL series to be an even smaller, cheaper solution with similar results. Basically, a WACP “lite” that the rest of us could afford. Oh, and they can literally focus on a subject almost touching the dome! After learning all this in 2020, I reluctantly purchased a WWL with my 2020 system and it was literally all I could ever want! I had full zoom in a wide field of view and sharp corners without having go to f/13 or above. This meant I didn’t need to push my strobe power to the max and I could experiment with more shallow depth of field for more unique, professional looking images. f/11 and quite often f/8 will yield acceptably sharp frames, even in the corners. Canon has now introduced the very affordable RF 24-50 which works exceptionally well behind the Nauticam WWL-C. Remember I said I said almost always used a fisheye pre-2020? That was before the WWL. And the discussion of whether you should add a 1.4 teleconverter to the 8-15 now completely goes away. With the WWL you have a wide lens AND a zoom for additional reach, all in the same port. No need to decide before you dive; this one solution will do it all! So does it completely replace my Canon 8-15? Mostly, yes. I still have the 8-15 with a 140 dome for ultra wide, clear water dives. It has, however, become a specialty tool for specific circumstances with the WWL being my primary, or go-to lens. Since you are just starting out, I highly encourage you to do some research into a WWL-C before you get too far down the path with large domes, extensions, etc. The entire lens, port, and WWL-C will most likely be much less cost than a larger dome, all with terrific sharpness. Oh, and did I mention it is substantially smaller than a 230 dome? Huge bonus if you travel or just don’t want to drag around big gear. As a side not, I own the RF 14-35 for landscape work. It is terrific lens, but the RF 24-50 with the WWL will do the same underwater much easier and sharper. Is there a downside to the WWL series? The only one is you cannot do split images (over-unders) with it. For me, that was not an issue as I would rarely do them. Size, cost, and sharpness were my drivers in my decision and the WWL hit them all. Hope this helps without throwing too much confusion in the party. 😁

Agree about the brightness of the Shinobi/Atmos. It is, however, substantially thicker than the Angler once it’s in a housing. Trade offs for everything.

Agreed. Really depends on item and the dollars being discussed. I got $500 for my 11 year Canon T2i body and Nauticam housing. Based on the camera prices on eBay I estimate I sold the $2400 housing in good shape for $400, or an 83% discount. Then again, I had 11 very good years of use. More recently, I sold my Nauticam NA-2020 (Sony a7RIV housing) for $2900 right when the NA-a7RV started shipping, but was not available. That was roughly a 27% discount, but I think that amount is no longer possible. I had 3 years of use. It also looked like new and included the box and accessories. All depends on timing and condition.

Another important tip…post clean, well lit photos. It’s important for the buyer to feel comfortable with both the item and its realistic condition. For “clean” images, be sure to use a blower or even hairdryer on cool to blow off the dust. It is remarkable how much dust shows up on an image, especially when we photograph a darker subject such as housings and extensions. Similarly, spend a few minutes to thoroughly clean the glass when posting a port or lens. Spending a few minutes to clean water spots, remove dust, etc. will help the item sell faster and at a higher price. Good luck!

Great topic thread @TimG - thanks for starting! Biggest suggestion - be realistic in setting the price. Do this in the beginning to capitalize on the new listing curiosity and interest. Unfortunately, the resale market for used uw photo gear is extremely small. As such, the value is not what we want as the seller, but rather is really what the limited buyers are willing to pay. Price it too high and the buyer will simply opt for a new, and most likely more recent model for not much more. As such, if we are really honest, the depreciation is extremely high making the price we get often much lower than we would like or personally believe it is worth. This is especially true when selling an older housing once new camera models are released. In my experience: (Your mileage may vary….) 30% Discount - if it’s a current product that is still useful to many 60%+ Discount - if older product, has been replaced by newer model, or not widely desired Yes, I am too am guilty of pricing too high. Eventually, once I released a few more dollars in my bank account is more valuable than gear I no longer use sitting on my shelf, I priced it more to the market and made the sale. Both buying and selling can be ugly. (Self medicate as needed 😂) Just like how we often have to hold our breath and just click the “buy” button for new gear, we must do the same when we post a For Sale listing. This is especially true if we want the sale to happen in a relatively quick time frame.

Quest for new gear, whether needed or not. Hey, I have to have at least one vice. 😂

Outstanding images Dave!

Congratulations!! It only hurts when you get the credit card bill. 😂 Look forward to hearing what you think.

I must say I do like mine. The WACP-C is considered 1 stop of sharpness below the WACP-1 and 1 stop sharper than the WWL-1. In the “real world”, and after owning both, I can’t tell a huge difference in IQ for the WACP-C over the WWL-1, but I like the overall feel. Not needing to “burp” the lens like the WWL is also a win in my opinion. With that said, I am curious as to the over all, real image zoom range overlap between the FCP and WACP-C. I’m not thrilled about the weight, but you may want to hang on a couple weeks to see results once more FCPs are used in the wild. You may also be able to pick up a nice previously loved WACP-C from someone going FCP. 😉

That’s actually a very interesting idea. Unfortunately I have no connections in the glass industry to explore the cost and min quantity needed for an affordable production run.