camera and housing - dilemma

Hi - I have discussed this with some folks already, but was keen to see what others thought. Especially those who have used these cameras.

I currently use a Canon 5D in a Subal housing, however, my 5D is broken & I am selling the Subal housing.

I have recently upgraded my surface camera to the Canon 1DMKIV - still waiting for it to arrive. I've been told a Subal housing to be released in a month or so. I also use the Canon 1DsMK3 camera.

I am debating whether it is better to go with the 1DMKIV or the 5DMK2 as an underwater camera. The video option option on the 5DMK2 appears to be excellent and it is full frame - further, the housing is lighter and more mobile than the 1D option. I prefer a full frame for underwater use.

But, the 1DMKIV video is apparently better, although only 1.3 crop. I assume the new Subal housing will also be able to fit the 1DSMK3 body allowing full frame although no full frame video.

I also have been "told" that the image quality of the MKIV is also better than the 5DMK2.

I'm hoping you can see my dilemma!

A heavier housing for a the robust 1DMK4 at 1.3 crop & 1DSMK3 for full frame ability VERSES the smaller and lighter housing for the 5DMK2 with full frame ability and video, but not as robust as the 1D series cameras.

I'm open to suggestions and ideas. Thank you......Iain

That's a tough situation to be in lol

I use the 5DMKII UW and have been pleased,

the only shortcoming being me.

I'm also considering the 1DMKIV due to the

ability to pair focusing points not to mention

so many additional points over the 5DII.

Good luck in your decision.

Thanks Cary. I also was thinking about the focus points too.

Seems we are never 100% happy no matter our decisions Iain

the 1d has better high ISO performance, and the crop factor works out pretty well with the 100 macro. but if you want wide angle you're probably better off with the 5D. this is not an easy decision, but it seems to me that the 1D is a lot more money for not a lot of incremental performance - unless you partictulary need those increments

I have housings for both cameras. If you shoot a lot of macro you may want the better AF of the bigger camera - but it's a catch 22 since you'll want the smaller camera and housing to shoot macro :-)

I guess if you can handle the larger size of the 1D setup, you'll be a bit more "future proof" since you can shoot your MkIII and MkIV bodies, and when the 1DsMkIV comes out it should fit too.

Cheers

James

I have housings for both cameras. If you shoot a lot of macro you may want the better AF of the bigger camera - but it's a catch 22 since you'll want the smaller camera and housing to shoot macro :-)

 

I guess if you can handle the larger size of the 1D setup, you'll be a bit more "future proof" since you can shoot your MkIII and MkIV bodies, and when the 1DsMkIV comes out it should fit too.

 

Cheers

James

The biggest differentiator for me is the superior auto-focus of the 1DMKIV. I use a 1DsMKIII and MKIV in one Seacam housing, and a 5DMKII in another. I'm off to Indonesia in a few weeks and expect the 5DII housing to stay home. With the MKIII/MKIV I have redundant bodies, high res full frame; and the various advantages of MKIV for video and 10 frames per second and superior AF.

Having said all that, the smaller/lighter 5DII housing is a joy to use. Still, I'd give the nod to the MKIII/MKIV combo.

Thanks for the points of view - all are very helpful.....

I must admit moving to a LARGER and HEAVIER housing after using my CD5 and 5D is a bit worrying - especially in relation to luggage requirements when flying & with image composition with macro (shooting at or below eye level on the sand).

When using the 5DMK2 full frame body with a Canon 17-40 or 16-13 lens, I have heard that there is quite a bit of image softening around the edge of the image - especially if using the 8 inch dome.

Has anyone had this hassle? Obviously using the 12 inch dome would rectify this hassle, but the size and weight then is an issue.

Thanks.....Iain

When using the 5DMK2 full frame body with a 16-35 lens, I have heard that there is quite a bit of image softening around the edge of the image - especially if using the 8 inch dome.

 

Has anyone had this hassle?

Enough of an issue that I quit using that lens UW and only using the 15FE for WA.

Enough of an issue that I quit using that lens UW and only using the 15FE for WA.

Really! I had heard that the 8 inch full frame and 17mm (17-40) was not a good makeup.

Would using the 12 inch dome help here?

Really! I had heard that the 8 inch full frame and 17mm (17-40) was not a good makeup.

 

Would using the 12 inch dome help here?

8" is what I have and am not happy with as far as the 16-35 goes. I've

heard rumor that they are designing a larger dome (not their existing

larger dome) because of complaints with that combo. The 8" works great

with my 15FE though.

Thanks Cary - appreciate your input and help.

Seems going WA is a nightmare!

1.3 crop MKIV will not provide enough WA although the soft corner edges will be solved somewhat with the 17-40.

With FF sensor (5DMK2) your having the corner edge issues with the 17-40. OK you can switch out to a 12 inch dome - but the size and weight -eeeek. Especially when flying O/S.

Other than the 15mm FE, are there any other recommendations for a WA lens to use with FF sensor?? Iain