Questions about upgrading from an LX10, potentially to the A6400. And a random Inon wide angle lens question.

15 hours ago, TimG said:

Loads of great advice from Chris.

If you thinking seriously of macro, as Chris suggests, there is load of good second hand stuff around and it may well be worth going down a slightly more classic DSLR route for the moment for macro. An add-on viewfinder (Chris mentions the 45-degree ones) is brilliant for macro and moves any alignment, where-is-it issues.

There have indeed been lots of comments about the Nikon Z series and that, maybe for the moment, it's focussing system isn't that great for u/w use. I don't think the Z(x)ii has been around long enough for anyone to have a real view.

As for video/stills, yeah, to me it's a bit like wanting that do-everything-on-every-dive setup: sounds great in theory but if you looking for high quality results, you need the right gear for the right tasks ("horses for courses") AND, as important, you need to be thinking in the right mind set. You can't be thinking video and shoot stills; You can't have the right gear for stills which will then shoot decent video. I just don't think it works.

You've tried out video and perhaps decided that stills is your thing. Fair enough. I'd suggest then that maybe not go slightly backwards and try and find something that does good stills but will bang out reasonable video. Go for one or the other! I'm sure your understanding of what works and what doesn't will go leaps and bounds if you stick with one thing: stills or videos. Chalk and cheese.

Tim,

Thanks for the guidance on the Z(x)iis, viewfinder, and the second-hand equipment. You’re absolutely right—there has to be a super compelling reason for me to switch to video if I’ve gone down intending to do stills.  For one thing, it’s way too hard for me to have video lights and strobes on the same dive. (I do use one of my Sola 3800s as a focus light, tho, so I guess it could happen in theory.) But I’m definitely not good enough yet to do that with any fluidity.

My problem is that I think the best thing about sharing video is being able to show animal behavior you just can’t show as well with stills. Sometimes I come back from trips thinking, “Why am I doing all this still work if I myself get such a thrill from rewatching my own videos?” Video editing though—ugh. However, your idea of going for something that can produce amazing stills but still bang out reasonable video is the right compromise. One thing that bugs me to death is sub-par white balance on video, though. So if I can get reasonable video with better than average white balance, I’d be a happy woman!

19 minutes ago, LoriAnnKru said:

This is a great reality check for me, Marcell. To some extent, I’ve got to think if it’s good enough for Michele Hall, it really *should* be good enough for me...

and it's also good enough for Howard to propmote the big movies. Actually that convinced me that my next upgrade will be a A6400 (from A6000).

7 hours ago, Barmaglot said:

For what it's worth, I shoot an A6300 with 10-18mm and 90mm and like it. The 90mm gives me reasonable standoff distance for larger subjects (several inches), and with a diopter (I use Weefine +13) it gives good supermacro - I can fill a reasonable portion of the frame with a leaf sheep slug, for example.

Hi Barmaglot, and thanks! Do you have an Instagram account or other place I can check out your photos? That would be really helpful for me to get an idea of the camera’s full capabilities. 

6 minutes ago, LoriAnnKru said:

Argh, I had not seen that video, and now, of course, I’ve decided I “need” another $1k worth of equipment. I’ve been updating my husband every night about where my research is landing. It’s a REALLY good thing he has a sense of humor.

I think because I have the focus light directly on top of the housing, I tend to peek around the left of the housing to see what I’m doing. 

I’ll keep an eye on the second-hand rigs. Would I be correct in thinking Panasonic won’t have the same sharp focus of Sony or Nikon?

You can easily add the viewfinder later - it can represent another degree of difficulty with aiming for macro. 

The Panasonic is capable of perfectly sharp images , just the AF might be a little slower compared to Olympus and any of the DSLR's.  Some of the latest Sony's are reported to be quite fast at AF, though reports are the 90mm is a little slow and the 50mm lenses a little slower.  Reports are though that the very latest models are quite snappy in AF.  You'll likely only notice that in macro as you approach 1:1. 

There are other ways to get sharp images with macro - so if you get close with AF you can use focus peaking to show what's in focus and rock back and forth and snap when you are in the right spot.  Some cameras implement focus peaking better than others. 

Some of this also depends on what you mean by macro.  On sites I dive there's lot's to shoot in the 10-50mm range and any surge adds a whole order of magnitude more difficulty as both you and the subject are subject to the surge, but some critters lag in moving with the surge.  SO the net result is I only ever use the 60mm bare and mostly around 1/2 life size where the AF is much snappier.  Be much more demanding on the AF if you are shooting sub 5mm critters with a close up wet lens.

5 minutes ago, LoriAnnKru said:

Tim,

Thanks for the guidance on the Z(x)iis, viewfinder, and the second-hand equipment. You’re absolutely right—there has to be a super compelling reason for me to switch to video if I’ve gone down intending to do stills.  For one thing, it’s way too hard for me to have video lights and strobes on the same dive. (I do use one of my Sola 3800s as a focus light, tho, so I guess it could happen in theory.) But I’m definitely not good enough yet to do that with any fluidity.

My problem is that I think the best thing about sharing video is being able to show animal behavior you just can’t show as well with stills. Sometimes I come back from trips thinking, “Why am I doing all this still work if I myself get such a thrill from rewatching my own videos?” Video editing though—ugh. However, your idea of going for something that can produce amazing stills but still bang out reasonable video is the right compromise. One thing that bugs me to death is sub-par white balance on video, though. So if I can get reasonable video with better than average white balance, I’d be a happy woman!

I think there is a good point there, producing little video clips that convey the message is something most cameras can do well enough.  Looking at the button pushes required to do a custom white balance is recommended.  Download the instructions for any candidates and look this up - if the manual makes no sense  find a you tube video that demonstrates how to do it  You should be able to get decent colour with custom white balance down to about 10m in tropical water on many cameras.  Sony as I said seems to be an exception.   It seems to me this is how you would do video when on a stills dive. 

Also confirm you can switch to video without jumping through flaming hoops.  My EM-1 MkII for example has three custom modes on the mode dial.  You can set one to manual flash settings, another to TTL flash settings and a third to natural light video settings for example.   Being able to do stuff like this without diving into menus is vital IMO. 

On the subject of video for editing you could consider the free version of DaVinci resolve.  I played with it and did some color grading and seemed to work well enough.

There's lost of pointers above and things to consider, I know it's rather geeky, but put together a spreadsheet with all the systems you want to compare add up the costs , then score all the features you want - 5 points for a true one -touch white balance, 0 points for a 13 button push for example. 

5 minutes ago, ChrisRoss said:

My go-to dive location tends to be Cozumel at this point. The critters are sub 5mm, and there tends to be current. Sometimes surge. I’ve fallen in with a group of friends who like to do 2-hour dives searching the sea grass, and I’ve found that’s kind of fun. It seems in the grass, especially, I’m running into surge. So I’ve sometimes got little critters holding onto grass as if they’re riding a rodeo. It made for some “fun” times trying to get them in focus on the LX-10 with CMC1. 

So given that, you’re saying I need to be more demanding about the AF, is that correct? Does this then suggest I should forget about the CMCxs altogether and depend only on a good 60-90-or 105? 

My photos are on Insta at loriannkru_dive. Maybe those will give you a better idea where I’m at and a better idea about where I should be headed next. 

Great idea on checking what hoops to jump thru for each camera for WB. 

And no worries, I’m absolutely that kind of geek, and I like your points system idea. (My packing list is so organized that it’s truly a sign of a damaged mind. I’m also a fish ID nerd.)
 

1 hour ago, LoriAnnKru said:

Hi Barmaglot, and thanks! Do you have an Instagram account or other place I can check out your photos? That would be really helpful for me to get an idea of the camera’s full capabilities. 

https://www.instagram.com/bmekler/

Regarding white balance - it is my understanding that the 9900K limitation was removed in recent generations of Sony cameras such as RX100VA and up, A6100/6400/6600 and A7III and newer, but I don't own one of those, and I shoot exclusively stills in RAW, so I can't offer a first hand experience.

1 hour ago, LoriAnnKru said:

Great idea on checking what hoops to jump thru for each camera for WB. 

And no worries, I’m absolutely that kind of geek, and I like your points system idea. (My packing list is so organized that it’s truly a sign of a damaged mind. I’m also a fish ID nerd.)

 

 

I'm inclined to think if tiny things in seagrass are your preferred macro subject maybe a D500 with a 105mm lens which seems to have the reputation for the fastest AF might be worth considering.  Not sure how it does with video Tim might chime in as he uses a d500.

Also, for sub-5mm critters, you will absolutely need a strong diopter on top of a macro lens. At 1:1, a 5mm critter will fill the 6x4.5mm sensor of a TG-6, but it will still look quite small on a 24x18mm sensor  of an APS-C camera, much less 36x24mm FF. In order to shoot such tiny things with larger cameras, you need to go into 2-4x magnification supermacro territory. If I remember correctly, the +13 diopter on top of my 90mm lens gets me a frame approximately 1cm wide.

3 hours ago, ChrisRoss said:

I'm inclined to think if tiny things in seagrass are your preferred macro subject maybe a D500 with a 105mm lens which seems to have the reputation for the fastest AF might be worth considering.  Not sure how it does with video Tim might chime in as he uses a d500.

 

Sorry, I can't offer any thoughts on that - I've had 5 DSLRs, including the D500, over the last 20 years and have never used the video on them. 

But for sure the D500/105mm combination for small critters is brilliant.

5 hours ago, LoriAnnKru said:

Tim,

Thanks for the guidance on the Z(x)iis, viewfinder, and the second-hand equipment. You’re absolutely right—there has to be a super compelling reason for me to switch to video if I’ve gone down intending to do stills.  For one thing, it’s way too hard for me to have video lights and strobes on the same dive. (I do use one of my Sola 3800s as a focus light, tho, so I guess it could happen in theory.) But I’m definitely not good enough yet to do that with any fluidity.

My problem is that I think the best thing about sharing video is being able to show animal behavior you just can’t show as well with stills. Sometimes I come back from trips thinking, “Why am I doing all this still work if I myself get such a thrill from rewatching my own videos?” Video editing though—ugh. However, your idea of going for something that can produce amazing stills but still bang out reasonable video is the right compromise. One thing that bugs me to death is sub-par white balance on video, though. So if I can get reasonable video with better than average white balance, I’d be a happy woman!

I'm with you on the "edit" thing for video, LoriAnn. I spend enough of my life in front of a screen. 

I realise it may well not produce the quality you want, but you could just stick a GoPro on a still camera setup. Quick and dirty(ish) video then on demand and not huge amounts of additional gear or costs. And if something you capture is really special, you can always then go to the time and trouble of serious editing and colour balancing.

3 hours ago, Barmaglot said:

Also, for sub-5mm critters, you will absolutely need a strong diopter on top of a macro lens. At 1:1, a 5mm critter will fill the 6x4.5mm sensor of a TG-6, but it will still look quite small on a 24x18mm sensor  of an APS-C camera, much less 36x24mm FF. In order to shoot such tiny things with larger cameras, you need to go into 2-4x magnification supermacro territory. If I remember correctly, the +13 diopter on top of my 90mm lens gets me a frame approximately 1cm wide.

agree, but the OP was shooting these critters with an LX-10 (1"sensor)  and CMC-1 which is maybe achieving -0.5 -0.7x magnification with that- with some current and surge.  So going to 1:1 is going to be the first challenge to overcome.   Magnification is really the challenge - depth of field drops rapidly with magnification and that is what will catch you out with a moving subject, at 1:1 the depth of field is only a mm or two and any slight sway will throw it outside the plane of sharp focus.  You have to crawl before you can walk. 

6 hours ago, gobiodon said:

and it's also good enough for Howard to propmote the big movies. Actually that convinced me that my next upgrade will be a A6400 (from A6000).

Just as an aside, Might want to look into an A6100 in an A6400 nauticam housing. The A6100 has a lot of AF improvements and features from the A6600, and it looks to be identical in dimensions. I shoot an A6100, and will be ordering an a6400 nauticam housing soon to try it.

2 hours ago, ChrisRoss said:

Magnification is really the challenge - depth of field drops rapidly with magnification and that is what will catch you out with a moving subject, at 1:1 the depth of field is only a mm or two and any slight sway will throw it outside the plane of sharp focus. 

No argument there - if I see a tiny subject (i.e. one that requires the diopter) on a swaying leaf, I generally don't even bother trying. Although I recently got superchargers and reflectors for my Retra Pros, so maybe I can now try to shoot a burst and hope for one or two shots to coincide with the subject passing through the focus plane.