Going from DX - 4/3s - FX - Compact, My Digital De-Evolution

Something I put together about how I have come to the conclusion a Compact camera is all the camera I need for my underwater shooting. Covers costs of the different systems, issues with traveling, how many megapixels do you really need. All based on what am I really doing with my photos??? Plus my experience over 200hrs underwater shooting a compact system.

Sorry to lazy to figure out how to post it with photos here, so here is the link: http://www.aquabluedreams.com/#/page/my-digital-de-evolution

A couple of photos from said system and our last trip to Ambon, Indonesia on the Dewi Nusantara

">http://

">http://

">http://

Wise move, for an online picture sharer. I am also thinking about downgrading from

APS-C down to m4/3 or compact.

I don't think of it as "downgrading" as much as resizing. In part they are just putting bigger sensors in smaller cameras with good glass. Soon, hopefully, squeezing the guts of a 4/3 or FX systems in a smaller body, example the Sony full frame RX. As mentioned for me the big trade offs are the flash recycle and lack of true Fish Eye wet lens. I have to force myself to shoot macro. Sure owning a Ferrari is great but if we are just going from the house to the store a Ford Focus RS will get you there just as fast...

Its funny you mention this. Even thou I've got a real nice m43 system - this past week, I could of killed for a small compact to take with me, as the conditions didn't warrant getting the whole system wet - but a small camera just to take some momento photos would of got some use.

I'm looking at the S120 or similar as a 'every dive' camera.

Hey thanks for sharing this. I read your piece which is fascinating especially the way you broke this down into the pros and cons.

I lug around a chunky FX DSLR system. In terms of bits and pieces, I think I have got it down as "compact" as possible having ditched the nice-to-haves for just the essentials. But it is still heavy and voluminous and there have been several times when I wondered why I was going to so much trouble.

The problem is when you see the quality of the image, the colour saturation etc.... the FX system oozes quality. And I wonder if I would truly be satisfied if I couldn't get that.

I have thought several times about switching to 4/3 but, for the moment at least, hold off.

You've given me more food for thought. Dammit.

Nice write up - it is always valuable to show how the camera is usually the least important component of an underwater system. UW lenses, lighting and even housings are always more important. If I had a penny for all the “I have a D800 and housing, but don’t want to spend the money on a fisheye or decent dome..” emails I get - I could afford a new dome!

 

 

My first system was a Nikon D100 with all the lenses, Aquatica housing, and Sea & Sea YS 250 strobes. Then on to the Nikon D200, D7000, Olympus OMD EM5 & Nauticam housing, Sony A7, Sony RX100 and now the Sony RX100II.

From that list I suspect this won’t be your last system either!

Alex

When I moved from a Nikon D7000 to a Panasonic GH4 it wasn't a downgrade. It was an upgrade in video capability, and Panasonic lenses are at least equivalent to Nikon glass. The only thing I miss is the versatility of the Tokina 10-17 fisheye, but the 8mm is a good substitute. As for stills, they are publishable, as are 4k frame grabs.

The smaller size of the system is another benefit, but not the prime one.

I like the idea of smallness in a compact camera, but hate the shutter lag!!

No doubt the out of camera images from a FX camera are fantastic and give you so much to work with in editing.

Without a doubt the Tokina 10-17mm goes into the Underwater Hall of Fame. I owned two, on had the 1.4 teleconverter on it and never came off.

A well respected person with one of the top housing manufactures told me "National Geographic will take images from a point and shoot as long as it is of something amazing and in focus. Taken with a grain of salt, but that always stuck with me.

Of course Alex is so right, but here starts the slippery slope with DSLRS. When I use to work with people I always told them no use buying a Porsche if you are going to put tricycle tires on it.

Great write up. I am going in the opposite direction right now. I have a Sony RX100m2, and on a recent trip to Indo I really felt some of the limitations (flash recycle times, macro capabilities, among others).

The small size and weight considerations versus a FF DSLR were my main drivers for going with compact, but at this point I think I am willing to live with the larger form factor in order to get the most out of it.

I went underwater from Nikon D90-D7000-D800 and i am very happy with my D800 except the size and especially the weight.
There is a big difference how people will feel about upgrading or downstepping as the major hassle comes afloat when we travel,

when i go diving driving with my car to the location i have no issues with my big D800 rig, but as soon i have to take the plane then the things change rapidly.

I am scared to check one suitcase with 3000$ dive gear or a 10'000$ Rebreather and another suitcase with the 10'000$ camera in a Pelicase and

without a possibility to get a insurance for the gear.

So i carry at least the delicate camera and the lenses in a photo backpack as carry on. This works rather well in the USA as carry-on has no weight limit,

but in Europe his becomes a complete PITA as they limit carry-on to 8-10 kilos and excess kilos are charged at 20-40$ per kilo.

Also i start to become tired of hauling a 18 kilo backpack and a messenger bag with my 5 kilo workstation laptop (like a few days ago) so i start to consider

seriously to step down as well for the above reasons.

But it is very hard to step down from a D800 full frame to a compact camera as there is a abyss - especially topside - in quality and i am used to have a beefy DSLR in my hand,and not getting cramps from holding a compact

I will see now how my LX100 rig works in Sardinia and postpone the decision until i have reliable results of it's quality under good conditions.

Chris

I'm with you, Chris. I love the D800 and my Subal housing. Just superb. But, mercy, what a hassle when travelling especially now I have gone with the larger dome for the Nikkor 16-35. I dread the whole check-in process!

But as you say, it'd be so hard to step down. Picking up eyu's comment a couple of posts back, shutter lag. I rest my case for staying with a DSLR and the D800. Almost.

Would be very interested to hear how you get on with the LX100 stuff. Good luck with it.

Interesting discussion, makes me think back to when I started, hulking around a Bolex housing before moving to a bunch of Nikonos which were with ma for may years and I am finally getting rid of the last lenses. Then it was a Sea and Sea with the PD150 followed by another Gates system and the most interesting thing was I used to grab my daughter

s Sea and Sea compact in preference to the big rigs if she wasn't coming for a dive.

Now it's the 4/3 GH4 with a Nauticam which should be here by the end of the month as this gives the best of both worlds, great stills PLUS 4k video, a broader depth of field when compered to full sized sensor cameras and a great range of glass, 8mm, 7-14mm, 12-40mm Oly Pro and the 60mm macro. Kind of itching to see what the new 7-14 Oly Pro is going to be like in comparison to the Panny.

I see many of the more compact cameras having a bigger and bigger impact so they are constantly bringing out upgrades and newer models with even better capabilities, the twist is going to be hanging onto the same housing, the Nauticam GH3 being able to take the GH4 with a very cheap upgrade being the classic example of the win-win. But camera manufacturers don't think of this as we are such a small marketplace!

But overall... compact... Love it!! And even the lighting is getting smaller!!

I think it is great that the RX100 is even being mentioned in the same breath as a D800. Someone did mention "shutter lag" that does not exist with mirrorless cameras. Probably referring to flash recycle. For dryland shooting I own a Sony A7II and for sports/wildlife went out and bought the Tamron 150-600mm which is working well. But I have always owned a pocket camera for walking around. I have just found it works great underwater.

Martin, the RX100II has focus peaking as I just help a lady to figure it out when I was in Anilao. I'm now happily using the Panasonic LX100 for 4K video shooting, you might want to have Julie look into it. The LX100 spec are great for photos as well.

Moses

Moses you are right, I spaced out and forgot it only works in Manual Focus.

I have been using the RX100 mark II for video for the last few years and just recently got a micro four third. The Sony works wonders for wide angle and to be honest for still images it focuses just fine in auto. I used the RX100 mark II for stills in the Alex mustard trip last year and one thing I would advice is to use Adobe color space for raw as it gives you more to work with. When I compared my wide angle shots with other people on the boat they came out same as four third except lacking a bit of sharpness but far away from d7100 and full frame in terms of dynamic range. I am curious how the GX7 shots will turn out. When I compare video the image is definitely sharper however for still images am not sure there will be much improvement we shall see

One last note if you go to RX100 way make sure you buy the best wet lenses on the market especially for wide angle

I don't think RAW has a color space as such - you assign that when you export to JPG. The color space setting in camera only applies to the JPG profile.

I have never shot anything other than the RX100 with Inon wet lenses, although my 'topside' kit is a Sony A7r and Olympus E-M1. I sometimes dither about housing one of those, but figure I need a) more experience and b) lighting (only natural light so far, no strobes) before gear even comes close to being a limiting factor.

What I really like is the fact I can fit all my camera gear (underwater and non) for an average trip into a very compact bag. I used to own a Canon FF system, and much as I love the glass, I am never going back to DSLR sizes.

I don't think RAW has a color space as such - you assign that when you export to JPG. The color space setting in camera only applies to the JPG profile.

 

I have never shot anything other than the RX100 with Inon wet lenses, although my 'topside' kit is a Sony A7r and Olympus E-M1. I sometimes dither about housing one of those, but figure I need a) more experience and b) lighting (only natural light so far, no strobes) before gear even comes close to being a limiting factor.

 

What I really like is the fact I can fit all my camera gear (underwater and non) for an average trip into a very compact bag. I used to own a Canon FF system, and much as I love the glass, I am never going back to DSLR sizes.

When you import to Lightroom or other you can choose a color space to work with. In the library and thumbnails Lightroom for example uses Adobe RGB and in the develop mode uses prophotoRGb. Even when you shoot raw the camera embeds a JPEG in the thumbnail. Working with Adobe RGB ensures that the thumbnail and histogram on your LCD look the same as your editor. Some other editors like Sony one will respect the choice of the camera when processing and won't allow you to choose. Either way you are better off selecting the option on the camera

In my case I found that the histogram a and colours on the LCD looked different than the import in Lightroom and that annoyed me a fair bit until I found out why later