Which camera to get???

Work it backwards. What use do you put the photos to: Print or web? What size? Do you crop a lot during editing? That should give an idea of minimum sensor pixels you actually need.

Any pixel count more than that is money you are spending on a sensor that you could be spending on a lens, or money you are spending on excess baggage that you could be spending on beer.

On 9/12/2019 at 1:46 AM, MarctheShark said:

For a few years I have been looking for a new camera to improve my underwater photography with a more professional setup. I want a camera that can take crisp, professional images with good dynamic range, fast auto-focus, focus peaking, is compact for travel and can be expanded or customized with lenses to be able to photograph the smallest critters on the reef

to share my love of the ocean with others. I focus more on photography over video, and prefer macro over wide angle with my passion being super macro. For these reasons I have zeroed in on mirrorless cameras for their compact size and high quality capabilities.

For some time one camera that stood out for quality and value was the Sony a6400 mirrorless, however the colour science of Sony cameras has a bad rep and I would like to minimize the editing required for RAW images.

. I've looked at the Nikon Z6 which seems like a great option but really expensive (I would only be willing to spend so much if I can be absolutely sure that it is great value).

One other mirrorless option that I have stumbled on is the Canon EOS M50 which has good reviews online and a great price point but no reviews in respect of underwater photography. The M50 is also a crop sensor so I wouldn't be able to use the native lenses if I choose to upgrade to full frame down the line, but the additional crop would help me get closer to those tiny critters?

Ideally I would like a camera that can grow with me as a photographer; I would not want to discover limitations down the line and feel like I have to upgrade again. Can you shed some light on the subject and help me make a decision?

Any advice would be much appreciated.

You have some mutually-exclusive wants in there.   Basically around the 'compact for travel' part.   That would tend to rule out an FX camera if you plan on crisp, professional wide angle images.   For macro, not that much difference.   But if you want wide angle with crisp edges that are not fisheye, you're into the 230mm dome territory, and that is the opposite of 'compact for travel', I can guarantee.

As for Mirrorless, I have no experience with them beyond Canon point-n-shoots and a Sony RX100 II.   I would lean toward mirrorless only if I prioritized video at this time.  And that is for one reason only - autofocus during video.   I'm shooting a D850 now, and I can tell you that video autofocus on moving subjects is basically hopeless.   On the other hand, autofocus for stills is the best I've ever seen, and it makes getting an accurate shot as easy as it is to put a focus spot on it.  (Which sometimes isn't easy, but if you do it, the camera delivers every time).   I would say that in the Nikon world this means either a D500 (DX format) or a D850 (FX format), or possibly a D4 or D5, though those are pretty expensive options.   I'd look very closely at the Z6 and Z7 if into video, but you'll also then need video-oriented lenses, meaning ones that are quiet during autofocus operations.

You make a point that you "would like to minimize the editing required for RAW images".   This is a mistaken attitude, in my opinion.  It really says to me "I don't know how to post-process underwater images very well, and I'd like the camera to do that for me".    For this to work, you have to really know what you are doing while in the water, not only nailing the exposure, but also nailing the white balance.  I don't know of any camera that does a good job of getting white balance right throughout a dive at different depths, with or without flash.   I think you should look instead for a camera that is very forgiving and allows you great flexibility in post.   For me, that means a camera with tremendous dynamic range (the more the better) and lots of resolution (for cropping).   That also means shooting at base ISO (which is most easily done for macro with strobes).   This tends to rule out a lot of older and cheaper cameras.   A Nikon D500, D850, Z6 or Z7 all have pretty good dynamic range, as do some Sony's with the same basic sensor.   A problem I have had with Sonys, and which is echoed over and over and over is that the user interface - especially the menu system - are cluttered and tedious to work with.   Bad enough to stand out as a point against them.

Craig

On 10/11/2019 at 6:10 PM, phxazcraig said:

   But if you want wide angle with crisp edges that are not fisheye, you're into the 230mm dome territory, and that is the opposite of 'compact for travel', I can guarantee.

Craig

 

 

Wise words, Craig. Wise words

Some years ago I moved from the 8" Subal DP-FE dome to the 230mm. One inch bigger? No big deal, I thought. 

Ha! I had one of the biggest shocks of my life when I unpacked the box (crate?) when the 230 arrived. I've seen smaller fish tanks. A 230 dome could define the opposite of Compact for Travel.

On 10/13/2019 at 2:19 AM, TimG said:

Wise words, Craig. Wise words

Some years ago I moved from the 8" Subal DP-FE dome to the 230mm. One inch bigger? No big deal, I thought. 

Ha! I had one of the biggest shocks of my life when I unpacked the box (crate?) when the 230 arrived. I've seen smaller fish tanks. A 230 dome could define the opposite of Compact for Travel.

Me perhaps even more.  I had never seen a 230mm dome port (or hardly any others either) before one showed up in my home as part of my first DSLR rig,   And I got this:

I do sympathise.
Crazy though it may sound, trying to travel with a 230 dome port put me off using a rectilinear lens. I switched to an FE - the Sigma 15mm initially and now the Nikkor 8-15. That plus a much shorter EXR and a 180 dome is so much easier for traveling- and hauling around for shore dives.