Micro 4/3 vs. DLSR

do you think that the micro four third cameras that are coming out now will be a better choice/option compared to a dlsr in underwater photography?

do you think that the micro four third cameras that are coming out now will be a better choice/option compared to a dlsr in underwater photography?

Depends what you mean be a better choice? If you are looking for something that is smaller, portable and can produce real nice results, it is a good option. If you are shooting for National Geographic, maybe not so much (BTW that is not meant to demean the 4/3rds, they are VERY nice.)

It comes down to what are you looking for in the camera you buy and what you will do with it. Having seen the Olympus and Sony offerings, plus the housings, I am seriously considering those as a back-up rig or even a primary rig for some trips when I do not want to haul things, and I would guess that for 75-80% of the things UW it would work fine for me. There have been examples posted from some of the 4/3rds and you should poke around WP to see if you can find them. (I will also look for some for you.)

Depends what you mean be a better choice? If you are looking for something that is smaller, portable and can produce real nice results, it is a good option. If you are shooting for National Geographic, maybe not so much (BTW that is not meant to demean the 4/3rds, they are VERY nice.)

 

It comes down to what are you looking for in the camera you buy and what you will do with it. Having seen the Olympus and Sony offerings, plus the housings, I am seriously considering those as a back-up rig or even a primary rig for some trips when I do not want to haul things, and I would guess that for 75-80% of the things UW it would work fine for me. There have been examples posted from some of the 4/3rds and you should poke around WP to see if you can find them. (I will also look for some for you.)

well the reason i'm asking is because the other day i've been looking at different underwater housings and i've noticed that most of the high end housings only houses high end dlsr's. so it made me think that the era of micro 4/3's might just be the saving grace for those who are looking for not so expensive set ups but with great quality results

well the reason i'm asking is because the other day i've been looking at different underwater housings and i've noticed that most of the high end housings only houses high end dlsr's. so it made me think that the era of micro 4/3's might just be the saving grace for those who are looking for not so expensive set ups but with great quality results

You should give a good look at the 4/3rds offerings. Aquatica and Nauticam (both good housings) have offerings for the Sony, and the housings run about $1,300. For metal housings of the quality of those companies (I own Aquatica and heard good things about Nauticams) that is not bad. You will need to add some things, ports, etc. Olympus has a the Olympus PEN E-PL1/Olympus PT-EP01 housing - each list for $599 or so, so pretty good set-up for around $1,200 or so. (Remember you will need strobes at some point ) That Olympus Housing is REALLY portable in terms of weight and the Olympus PEN E-PL1 was also pretty good. I had a chance to play with them recently (though not in the water.) You can also find housings for lower end dSLRs (such as the Canon T2i), but they will be more expensive. There are also some nice point & shoots that can give good results.

Not sure how much you shoot on land, what your land rig is, or what you are used to normally shooting and future plans. And of course great quality is in the eye of the beholder But there are many people here who have shot with P&S and the rest that have amazing results, they have learned their equipment and how to get the shots. I moved to dSLR due to slow cycle times on RAW more than anything and shutter lag also. But shutter lag has gotten better in the non-dSLRs and once you get used to shooting with the lag, there are workarounds.

This Recent Thread has a discussion on the Olympus and Sony. And also Phil has done some reviews as he mentioned there.

Sony NEX-5 is not a m4/3 camera. The sensor is APS-C sized, i.e. the same size as in many DSLR's, example being the Nikon D300s.

Big sensor, small camera.

Cheers,

Cp

You should give a good look at the 4/3rds offerings. Aquatica and Nauticam (both good housings) have offerings for the Sony, and the housings run about $1,300. For metal housings of the quality of those companies (I own Aquatica and heard good things about Nauticams) that is not bad. You will need to add some things, ports, etc. Olympus has a the Olympus PEN E-PL1/Olympus PT-EP01 housing - each list for $599 or so, so pretty good set-up for around $1,200 or so. (Remember you will need strobes at some point ) That Olympus Housing is REALLY portable in terms of weight and the Olympus PEN E-PL1 was also pretty good. I had a chance to play with them recently (though not in the water.) You can also find housings for lower end dSLRs (such as the Canon T2i), but they will be more expensive. There are also some nice point & shoots that can give good results.

 

Not sure how much you shoot on land, what your land rig is, or what you are used to normally shooting and future plans. And of course great quality is in the eye of the beholder But there are many people here who have shot with P&S and the rest that have amazing results, they have learned their equipment and how to get the shots. I moved to dSLR due to slow cycle times on RAW more than anything and shutter lag also. But shutter lag has gotten better in the non-dSLRs and once you get used to shooting with the lag, there are workarounds.

 

This Recent Thread has a discussion on the Olympus and Sony. And also Phil has done some reviews as he mentioned there.

well "AS FOR NOW" i'm completely satisfied with my G11 and Ikelite housing and strobes though what you've mentioned above sure does make one wonder of how it'll all turn out in let's say a couple more years, probably by that time i'd be wanting more than what I have right now, just like what my local underwater photography supplier would say, "be forwarned... it gets addicting"

Sony NEX-5 is not a m4/3 camera. The sensor is APS-C sized, i.e. the same size as in many DSLR's, example being the Nikon D300s.

 

Big sensor, small camera.

 

Cheers,

Cp

which means this is better than a m4/3 camera?

Ikelite housings rock. Their service and support are legendary.

And they offer housings for just about all the cheaper canon and nikon DSLRs, and also for many of the Sony and Olympus offerings.

To me, as a hobbiest uw photog, who dives a few weeks a year, it makes far more sense to get better camera and lenses, and a less expensive housing.

It also depends on how much you want to use the camera system above water, versus below.

For underwater, if you start with a true DSLR, you will be locked into using the viewfinder for framing. This is mostly good. The problem is, almost all the DSLRs have horrible slow implementations for contrast detection autofocus, so you cannot effectively use live view mode underwater.

The new Sony SLT-A55 and A33 are nice implementations for very useable live view autofocus. Ikelite is getting ready to announce housings, we hope.

well "AS FOR NOW" i'm completely satisfied with my G11 and Ikelite housing and strobes though what you've mentioned above sure does make one wonder of how it'll all turn out in let's say a couple more years, probably by that time i'd be wanting more than what I have right now, just like what my local underwater photography supplier would say, "be forwarned... it gets addicting"

 

which means this is better than a m4/3 camera?

Yes, larger sensor is better.

Cheers,

Cp

Hello Jason,

To be clear here your Canon G-11 has a 1/1.7" sensor the sensors in both the Olympus 4/3 and M4/3 cameras is over five times larger than the G-11 and the APS-C sensor found in the Sony NEX-5 and cameras like the Nikon D-300s and D-7000 have a sensor with more than eight times the size of the G-11. As Cp has said when it comes to sensor size image quality improves with much larger sensors. By comparison the 35 mm sensor size is about 3.8 times larger than the 4/3 and m4/3 sensors.

Since Olympus and Panasonic were the first EVIL cameras (Electronic viewfinder interchangable lens) and both are m4/3 the m4/3 thing kind of caught on until over a year later when Sony introduced the NEX-cameras with the APS sensor size. EVIL seems a better way to refer to these cameras going forward.

Phil Rduin

Hello Jason,

 

To be clear here your Canon G-11 has a 1/1.7" sensor the sensors in both the Olympus 4/3 and M4/3 cameras is over five times larger than the G-11 and the APS-C sensor found in the Sony NEX-5 and cameras like the Nikon D-300s and D-7000 have a sensor with more than eight times the size of the G-11. As Cp has said when it comes to sensor size image quality improves with much larger sensors. By comparison the 35 mm sensor size is about 3.8 times larger than the 4/3 and m4/3 sensors.

 

Since Olympus and Panasonic were the first EVIL cameras (Electronic viewfinder interchangable lens) and both are m4/3 the m4/3 thing kind of caught on until over a year later when Sony introduced the NEX-cameras with the APS sensor size. EVIL seems a better way to refer to these cameras going forward.

 

Phil Rduin

Thanks Phil there is one question that's been bothering me, i've seen the comparison of the GF1 and NEX by DigitalRev and they said that and i've seen it that the NEX tends to have a softer tone compared to the GF1, where in my point of view, the sharpness of the photos created by the GF1 is better than the NEX. So is it safe to say that the NEX was really created to produce results that way?

Thanks Phil there is one question that's been bothering me, i've seen the comparison of the GF1 and NEX by DigitalRev and they said that and i've seen it that the NEX tends to have a softer tone compared to the GF1, where in my point of view, the sharpness of the photos created by the GF1 is better than the NEX. So is it safe to say that the NEX was really created to produce results that way?

In camera sharpening is highly variable, and not all that useful. Better to sharpen after all other adjustments.

Now often what we think is sharpness is really an artifact of the human eye, in response to greater contrast. Contrast is important to get right, and depends on good quality lenses, and sensor and processing.