The impact of DSLR APSC Phase Out on Underwater Photography

55 minutes ago, String said:

 

I still cant accept the lag in an EVF for sport/wildlife shooting on land.  As i said, i havent tried an A9 or A7m4 but the others i have tried still to me had distracting and noticeable latency.

You see a lag in something like the Nikon Z6/Z7?

3 minutes ago, TimG said:

You see a lag in something like the Nikon Z6/Z7?

Ive never used those (or seen them in the wild in fact).  Experience the above-mentioned Sony models and the Eos R.

The AF issues with adapted lenses are another issue for me - combine that with EVF lag and above water sport and wildlife is tricky.

29 minutes ago, String said:

Ive never used those (or seen them in the wild in fact).  Experience the above-mentioned Sony models and the Eos R.

The AF issues with adapted lenses are another issue for me - combine that with EVF lag and above water sport and wildlife is tricky.

OK, I've been using a Z6 for about 18 months now and I can't see any lag nor with the adaptor to use the F-mount lenses. It's very good. But I still like my D500 for u/w use! I do find the OVF somehow crisper than the EVF.

There is no lag on Panasonic EVF top range. There is a 120 fps setting but I don’t use it even foe birds


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Actually should clarify i mean for non uw use.  Adapted lenses generally all seem to suffer in terms of AF speed and accuracy the longer the focal length.

On all the ones ive tried (sony and canon systems) at 400m the AF performance is fairly dire compared to native without an adaptor.

I know its not an issue underwater but like i said, for me i ideally need one system to cover both.

I use MFT 50-200mm with teleconverter 1.4x equivalent 560mm it focusses instantaneously
But for birds I use prediction as my reflex are not quick enough


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

10 hours ago, Architeuthis said:

Thank you for showing a real life example...

Is this image cropped, or can one judge how good the corners are (they are very good)?

I am curious whether you dried the 2x teleconverter and what you think about using it (would be the equivalent for use of the 8-15mm fisheye on FF, compared to the 1.4x converter on DX and 1x adapter on MFT sensors)?

 

Wolfgang

Hi Wolfgang,

the picture is not cropped, I just verified in Lightroom.

Here are some test shots in the pool. All with the D500, Aquatica housing, Aquatica 4'' mini dome, Nikon 8-15 fisheye + Kenko (new version) 1.4 TC, ISO=200, 1/160sec:

11mm, f=6.3; 11mm, f=10; 21mm, f=6.3, 21mm, f=6.3

At f=6.3 you see problems in the corners at 11mm and better at 21mm. At f=11 for me acceptable, especially at 21mm already what I call good. Overall, my impression is that this combo performs pretty well. For most trips I don't care to take the 8'' dome, although the corners are clearly better. But in blue water you don't see it anyway. My impression is that the 8+15 + TC performs better than the Tokina 10-17 without TC.

Cheers, Wolfram

Hey Wolfram

Thanks for posting those.

What EXR length are you using?

2 hours ago, TimG said:

Hey Wolfram

Thanks for posting those.

What EXR length are you using?

Its the Aquatica 18462 (39.5 mm) which fits very well, and the zoom gear custom made by Aquatica. They print it, its much lighter and works better than the old aluminum zoom gears.

7 hours ago, Seewolf said:

Its the Aquatica 18462 (39.5 mm) which fits very well, and the zoom gear custom made by Aquatica. They print it, its much lighter and works better than the old aluminum zoom gears.

Many thanks

My thoughts on this may differ from the norm.  I've been shooting FX since the D700 came out, currently using a D850 in a Nauticam housing.  I have only two lens choices: 105vr and 16-35.  I've tried adding some flexibility with the 60mm macro and a 1.4tc on the 105, but the 60mm focal length is too short, and the 1.4tc robbed too much sharpness for my liking.

When I look at an APSC, I see a tradeoff.   That tradeoff is image quality versus lens choices.   Yes, I know that for most of you, the sheet size of the FX rig versus an APSC rig is a big deal, and it is.  But for me, image quality is bigger.   What I see as a clear win for APSC is having more useful lens choices, specifically a normal midrange zoom option.  Fisheye?  I can get the 8-15mm Nikkor, or others.

And while I'm sitting here thinking, I suddenly start thinking about cropping, how much I do it, and the fact that a DX camera simply 'precrops' the image, I'm wondering why one couldn't simply stick the same DX lenses and smaller ports on the D850 and shoot it in DX mode?  19mp DX crop is quite good, and I often crop to DX and well beyond in post processing.

So - not an ideal choice, but it IS still a choice.

23 hours ago, Seewolf said:

Its the Aquatica 18462 (39.5 mm) which fits very well, and the zoom gear custom made by Aquatica. They print it, its much lighter and works better than the old aluminum zoom gears.

Isn't the 18462 the old style port system?  I can't seem to find any info apart from it being referred to as for the bayonet style housing; this reference is not used for the newer extensions such as the 48453 which would seem to be the extension recommended to use with the type 4 port chart for Nikon.

  The extension listed in the aquatica port chart is 16.5mm for the bare lens and the difference between the extensions for using a 1.4x is 12mm (for the 10-17 vs 10-17 plus 1.4x) which would be an extension of 28.5mm.  Is the 4" port you use an old style one as well?

12 hours ago, phxazcraig said:

Fisheye?  I can get the 8-15mm Nikkor, or others.

 

 

That will give you a circular or diagonal fisheye but not a zoom fisheye that is the attractiveness of the APSC format.

A lot of the IQ of full frame and additional resolution goes away when you impose the underwater depth of field requirements. This is certainly through for sharpness, colours and dynamic range remain however DR is not that much of an issue once you pass 12 stops as after you make a jpeg you compress it to 10 stops so somewhere has to give

Likewise the additional color and tonal depth disappears when you create an 8 bit jpeg of your camera

What the full frame gives you is additional latitude to manipulate the process from the raw file down to something you can display and print so the difference will be much more subtle than a complete wow

APSC is an acceptable compromise and the most popular format among semipro shooters and advanced amateurs because the tradeoffs are quite good.

In terms of shooting cropped I am not sure but I would think that would half the resolution but give you some flexibility

Consider that shooting at f/16 with a 48 MP camera already means you are loosing half the resolution to diffraction so cropping will not deteriorate sharpness but may still affect overall tonal and colour depth

11 hours ago, ChrisRoss said:

Isn't the 18462 the old style port system?  I can't seem to find any info apart from it being referred to as for the bayonet style housing; this reference is not used for the newer extensions such as the 48453 which would seem to be the extension recommended to use with the type 4 port chart for Nikon.

  The extension listed in the aquatica port chart is 16.5mm for the bare lens and the difference between the extensions for using a 1.4x is 12mm (for the 10-17 vs 10-17 plus 1.4x) which would be an extension of 28.5mm.  Is the 4" port you use an old style one as well?

The only differences between the old and new extension rings are a locking mechanism that prevents that the port falls off when not under pressure (I use a vacuum system, so this cannot happen anyway) and the numbers start with 18 (old) and 48 (new). The dimensions are exactly the same, no difference between old and new style, parts can be interchanged.

For the Nikon 8-15 without TC I use the 48463 (21.5 mm) and not the 18456 (16.5 mm equivalent to 48456) which I also have. 16.5 mm is a little bit short, I told Aquatica some time ago. I also have the 18453 (28.5 mm) which is clearly to long.

The Kenko 1.4 TC is 19.3 mm flange to flange, no difference between the old and new version (I have both). However, only the new version works with the Nikon 8-15, both work with the Tokina (which I also used). So, the 18462 (or 48462) with 39.5 mm fits exactly. For the Tokina you need shaorter extensions, the Nikon 8-15 is longer.

21 hours ago, Interceptor121 said:

Consider that shooting at f/16 with a 48 MP camera already means you are loosing half the resolution to diffraction so cropping will not deteriorate sharpness but may still affect overall tonal and colour depth

Here's a 36mp shot at F29 that still seems to have plenty of detail.

5 hours ago, phxazcraig said:

Here's a 36mp shot at F29 that still seems to have plenty of detail.

Thats because the picture is a couple of megapixels. In practical terms your camera is resolving around 6 megapixels if you printed it on A3 paper you would notice on social not and on screen only if you go 1:1 pixel (that you dont)

On 4/15/2020 at 1:19 AM, Interceptor121 said:

Thats because the picture is a couple of megapixels. In practical terms your camera is resolving around 6 megapixels if you printed it on A3 paper you would notice on social not and on screen only if you go 1:1 pixel (that you dont)

That picture was not 'a couple of megapixels'.   That picture is almost uncropped and represents about 30-33mp of resolution.  Here is a crop from it:

8 hours ago, phxazcraig said:

That picture was not 'a couple of megapixels'.   That picture is almost uncropped and represents about 30-33mp of resolution.  Here is a crop from it:

 

Wetpixel pictures are compressed. I have a 4K screen if you put it on flickr at full resolution and it is scaled it will still not show anything but it will on 1:1 pixel. It is physics of diffraction it is just the way it is. Kicks in at different f'stop depending on pixel pitch. The limit on a D850 I think is around f/10 then it will no longer resolve the 45.7 megapixels and start dropping. It happens on my camera too it is normal

https://www.digitalcameraworld.com/uk/news/the-nikon-d500-is-being-discontinued-buy-one-while-you-still-can#:~:text=According to Nikon Japan and,as much of a surprise.

Looks like Fuji mirrorless APSC and the now old A6XXX Sony line are all is left in this space?

1 hour ago, Interceptor121 said:

Looks like Fuji mirrorless APSC and the now old A6XXX Sony line are all is left in this space?

Canon still sells the EOS M line although its future is unclear. Nikon has the Z50 and Z fc in Z-mount.