Nikon D500 vs Z6 (or 7) for UW photography?

After reading all of your great suggestions and doing some research off of them, I'm close to decided on the D500 + Tokina 10-17 FE as a start. I'm still looking at which housing but Bluewater is having a sale on the Aquatica housing for this camera (about $450.00 off) so that housing has now come in to the competition (along with Subal & Nauticam). We'll see what they all look like once ports and accessories are added.

There were a few questions above related to MFT cameras. I have been an Olympus MFT fan for a lot of years and the rig I'm replacing is based on an OM-D E-M5. This was a very fun and usable setup for me for several years of pictures. I'm fond enough of it that it has been hard to put it up for sale but it is time. :-)  I also had an OM-D E-M1 mark II that I just sold. I didn't have an underwater housing for that one but it took great pictures on land for its smaller sensor (and fast shooting). I went through a personal camera audit and found that my go-to cameras now tend to be my Nikons (D810 and D500). I did consider the E-M1 as my possible new underwater camera but I just think the Nikons - even the cropped sensor D500 - just offer more (its sensor, though also cropped, is bigger than the E-M1/MFT). Again, this is not a criticism of Olympus (I love Olympus and will miss them now that they've abandoned camera manufacture). Their MFTs have been great, hardy little cameras. I'm just going in a different direction now that I think will serve me well as a next step.

@jordango You will not be disappointed with the D500 underwater. It is now my favorite camera to shoot with u/w in almost every situation. Even the weight (compared to an Oly-based system) is not really an issue (esp. when I compare it to my housed D850).

On the Aquatica choice - you can't go wrong. I shot with an Aquatica both for film and early digital, and loved their housings. The only reason I switched to Nauticam was because Aquatica was a tiny bit slow moving to optical connections for strobes - and I was tired of the occasional damage to my electronic strobe connections if I didn't seat them properly.  Clearly not an issue now.

I will also say that Aquatica service was world class (vs Nauticam), being located in Canada was a significant advantage for those of us in the US, and they were just nice as well. No complaints w/Nauticam, just not "legendary" like Aquatica.

Another follow up question for those of you that have - or have used - the Tokina 10-17mm FE lens: Is your lens the version with or without the built-in hood? Does either fit in a housing port fine or would it be best to go with one or the other (no hood, for instance)? Pros/cons, if any?

Thanks!

Jordango:

As I mentioned, I have only used nauticam housings so I don't really have useful knowledge about others, but I would suggest you spend some time looking into not just the housing, but also what ports that are available and their cost, what extension rings, vacuum valves, etc, you might want and so on.  Those things become a part of the "experience" and remain useful even if you upgrade cameras and thus housings, and can "tie" you to a housing brand.  I am happy with nauticam but even if I wanted to switch,  I would also have to consider the cost of new ports and extension rings, and so on, perhaps doubling the cost of a new housing. 

Also perhaps check into non-OEM ports for the housing yoou are interested in, such as from Zen and Athena, in case you want something that isn't available from the manufacturer.  Sometimes they offer sizes or features the housing manufacturer does not

Also, some brands have better support in one country or continent than others.  If you have a problem or need service, it is extra time and cost if you need to send the housing to another continent.

Hopefully this may help in your decision-making.

2 hours ago, jordango said:

Another follow up question for those of you that have - or have used - the Tokina 10-17mm FE lens: Is your lens the version with or without the built-in hood? Does either fit in a housing port fine or would it be best to go with one or the other (no hood, for instance)? Pros/cons, if any?

Thanks!

Hey

Weirdly I've had both. I had the version with the petal bullt-in hood for my D300 and now have the petal-less version with my D500. There's who difference in lens quality or build - other than the missing bit in the petal-less version.

I don't recall the built-in one vignetting at all or a problem fitting in either a 100mm or 8" dome. Ditto the petal-less one.

Either works fine. If I had to chose, I'd probably go petal-less just that the hood makes no appreciable difference and not having it means you are probably never going to come up against vignetting issues.

One thing I would say though - actually two things - about the Tokina 10-17, it's brilliant underwater with a DX camera. But I thought it was horrible topside. Weird contrasts and colouration. And it is a bit fragile. I think lots of WP users have found bits of the lens body falls off. It doesn't effect the lens in use in a housing but this is not a robust, roughly-toughty lens.

Hey
Weirdly I've had both. I had the version with the petal bullt-in hood for my D300 and now have the petal-less version with my D500. There's who difference in lens quality or build - other than the missing bit in the petal-less version.
I don't recall the built-in one vignetting at all or a problem fitting in either a 100mm or 8" dome. Ditto the petal-less one.
Either works fine. If I had to chose, I'd probably go petal-less just that the hood makes no appreciable difference and not having it means you are probably never going to come up against vignetting issues.
One thing I would say though - actually two things - about the Tokina 10-17, it's brilliant underwater with a DX camera. But I thought it was horrible topside. Weird contrasts and colouration. And it is a bit fragile. I think lots of WP users have found bits of the lens body falls off. It doesn't effect the lens in use in a housing but this is not a robust, roughly-toughty lens.
 

I have used one Seacam (D200) and two Nauticam housings, (D7000 and D800). My next housing will likely be Nauticam which seem excellent in every respect. I have never had a housing serviced. I am considering a Nikon Z50 with the 16-50 DX and the WWL-1 for wide rectilinear. The Nauticam housing is about half a kilo lighter than the SLR housings. As mentioned, the Tokina 10-17 won't work with an FTZ adapter so I think for fisheye I will need the 8-15mm on FTZ. With possibly the Athena 170 dome with which I can shoot over/under almost.  I no longer shoot macro and need lighter gear because I am falling apart. This should be roughly 2.5kg lighter than my current gear. This approach may suit you. There is plenty of expertise on this thread to correct any errors of thinking on my part. Feedback welcome!

On 8/27/2020 at 7:30 PM, TimG said:

And it is a bit fragile. I think lots of WP users have found bits of the lens body falls off. It doesn't effect the lens in use in a housing but this is not a robust, roughly-toughty lens.

 

I have not had anything fall off my 10-17 so far, but I know I have read this about them somewhere before.  So, out of curiosity, which bits are likely to fall off?

The most common issue with the 10-17mm is that the lens is actually made up of  2 halves that are led together by a strip of (very robust) tape under the zoom rubber.

Some zoom gears require the removal of this rubber ring, which exposed the tape and it then tends to fail...when it happens, they can normally be gently put back together and re-taped. If your zoom gear requires you to remove the rubber from this lens, a few wraps of electric tape when you remove the rubber ring will generally solve the issue and prevent the lens from coming apart.

18 hours ago, adamhanlon said:

The most common issue with the 10-17mm is that the lens is actually made up of  2 halves that are led together by a strip of (very robust) tape under the zoom rubber.

Some zoom gears require the removal of this rubber ring, which exposed the tape and it then tends to fail...when it happens, they can normally be gently put back together and re-taped. If your zoom gear requires you to remove the rubber from this lens, a few wraps of electric tape when you remove the rubber ring will generally solve the issue and prevent the lens from coming apart.

Adam:

I see.  Yes, I had to remove the rubber ring but have not had any problem with the tape failing (yet).  The rubber ring stays off since the lens is only used underwater.  Based on your comments, I put a strip of gaffer tape over the existing tape.  It fit quite well and should keep things together.  Thank you for explaining.

My only problem was the rubber ring of the zoom.
It came of, without splitting the lens.
A german underwater fotographer fixed it for me.
Regards,
Wolfgang

1 hour ago, trimix125 said:

My only problem was the rubber ring of the zoom.
It came of, without splitting the lens.
A german underwater fotographer fixed it for me.
Regards,
Wolfgang

I had the same thing on my earlier Tokina. I managed just to sort of jam it back together and leave the zoom ring on it. I never used anyway for topside shots.

Hi, I did a complete review of the Z7 here. I came from D850 / D500. Now I have the Z7 / Z6 (for video) / D500 combo.