Wetpixel Live: Downsizing UW Imaging Systems

51 minutes ago, Phil Rudin said:

E I would prefer a so called full frame camera in the 4:3 format because it is better to me than 3:2 but that is a discussion for another day.

 

+1. I do a fair amount of cropping of my FF images to the 4:3 aspect ratio  (I use standard ratios for cropping to make it easier to print to standard sizes - earlier in the digital game I free-formed the crop). A fair number also end up as 16:9!!

A wider than 24mm FF format would be nice. I suspect we are stuck with the legacy effect as 24mm was about as wide as was possible to fit between the sprocket holes of 35mm film. Note that Nikon and others tried alternative formats with their 35mm cameras but most everyone ended up with a format that was 36mm long as the area (24x36) had an edge over formats that were 24x(<36) (this was way back).

Even if what you are saying is true and I don't agree that it is I still end up with a 6000 X 4000 max res file at 14 bit while you end up with a 5184 X 3888 max with 12 bit depth on M43. If you go to the A7R IV it extends to 9504 X 6336 max res at 14 bit. I can use the A7r IV in APS-C mode and get a 26MP file that for sure has better IQ than M43 and is better than most APS-C cameras.
I was both a 43 user and a M43 user for years so I understand the differences. I still own an E-3 and a EM-1 II cameras with a verity of lenses but with the exception of the 300mm F/4 for its size I no longer find any upside over FF. I would prefer a so called full frame camera in the 4:3 format because it is better to me than 3:2 but that is a discussion for another day.
I have also used the M43 kit lens, 14-42 with WWL-1 and I have used A7R IV and A7C with WWL-1 the quality on FF is excellent. I like the WACP-1 but with the Sony 28-60 zoom you have choices on any Sony FF camera regardless of the number of MPs.  

Hay Tom

The 4:3 ratio is the big upside for medium format cameras being used for publication where the 4:3 fits most page sizes better that 3:2 reducing the amount of crop from the original image. I would agree with Alex that at 40+ mp this may be a mote point for publication but I still prefer seeing the 4:3 ratio in the viewfinder of my old medium format film cameras. 

You will also want to add the Sony A-1 to your list of high end cameras that are still small v the Canon 1D x III and Nikon D6 sports cameras. If 5c is a problem you can check youtube for the review of the A-1 being used in -19c in Antartica.

Another size comparison, D800 and Z50. For me the attraction was being able to use the WWL-C rather than a dome and extensions. Having used a 12-24 on a D7000 with a big dome (and the 16-35 on a D800) I would much rather deal with a little barrel distortion (usually imperceptible)  than all the grief big domes and extensions bring to the party. The Z50 set up with the WWL-C weighs about 3.5kg less than the D800, 16-35, 230mm glass and extension. The Z50 uses the same sensor as the D500, but has a pop-up flash for optical triggering.

Just a word of warning... The on-board flash of the Z50 appears to work only when the fully charged light comes on. So on continuous high it comes to a halt very quickly, even set on manual 1/32 power. And then you have to wait. With a flash plugged into the hotshoe, it will shoot at continuous high. The D800 also has this issue, but has quicker recycling time. So maybe a hotshoe flash circuit board has some merit!

I have done several cooperations with photonstophotos that does measurements of DR and noise

The mirrorless cameras APSC from canon and nikon have performance usually worse than MFT even in terms of low light

I think this is due to severe cost cutting in internal electronics dsp and asic

So your example is a perfect one fitting exactly into this picture

There seem no intention to produce pro level APSC mirrorless from the two main brands

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Did anyone considered the Nikon D5600?

 It has a good sensor, It can except excellent lenses and the housing from Ikelite is small and light. 

Does somebody have this setup ? 

Unfortunately the D5XXXX series will not work with screw drive lenses, so you cannot use the Tokina 10-17mm with it...

Adam

56 minutes ago, adamhanlon said:

Unfortunately the D5XXXX series will not work with screw drive lenses, so you cannot use the Tokina 10-17mm with it...

Adam

I have the Nikon 8-15 fisheye. I use it today for my D850. It is the same F mount I believe. 

Yes, the 8-15mm has a focus motor and will work on a D5600. The Tokina 10-17mm does not. It will mount on the D5600, but will not autofocus. 

The D7XXX series will work with screw drive lenses as will D500 and all the current full frame SLR models.
 

And now for the "big question: I have the D850 - But I want a compact and light setup for underwater photography.

Do you recommend the D5600 + Nikon 8-15 as my first underwater setup ?

No, If you already have the 8-15mm and the D850, I would house them...

There is about 1.5kg weight saving, which is significant, but the D5600 will limit your creative potential, particularly with respect to IQ, AF and ISO performance.

Thanks!

I might have an opposite question: I have a compact setup with rx100iv and I wonder if I’ll have a substantial improvement if I move to m43 setup without compromising size and weight.


Inviato dal mio iPad utilizzando Tapatalk

2 hours ago, caolino said:

I might have an opposite question: I have a compact setup with rx100iv and I wonder if I’ll have a substantial improvement if I move to m43 setup without compromising size and weight.

Depends on what parameters you look at - between the Rx100 and an EM-1 mkii you have about a one stop improvement in noise and minor dynamic range improvements. 

The main difference is having true macro capability if you fit a macro lens/port or a true fisheye.  The housings are going to be bigger as they typically use the little accessory flash as a strobe trigger.   The AF is probably better with an EM-1 mkII but maybe equivalent with an EPL model.  If you use the 12-40 lens in a dome it will give you a nice improvement over the bare lens in a flat port with very nice quality throughout the zoom range and the ability to fill the frame with a creature 60mm across.

My impression is that something like an EM-1 Mkii would be a nice improvement - like a mini DSLR in many respects, but getting one of the very compact EPL-10 setups, the improvements would be relatively modest, though it would give you the flexibility to use the 60mm macro or the 8mm fisheye. 

Depends on what parameters you look at - between the Rx100 and an EM-1 mkii you have about a one stop improvement in noise and minor dynamic range improvements. 
The main difference is having true macro capability if you fit a macro lens/port or a true fisheye.  The housings are going to be bigger as they typically use the little accessory flash as a strobe trigger.   The AF is probably better with an EM-1 mkII but maybe equivalent with an EPL model.  If you use the 12-40 lens in a dome it will give you a nice improvement over the bare lens in a flat port with very nice quality throughout the zoom range and the ability to fill the frame with a creature 60mm across.
My impression is that something like an EM-1 Mkii would be a nice improvement - like a mini DSLR in many respects, but getting one of the very compact EPL-10 setups, the improvements would be relatively modest, though it would give you the flexibility to use the 60mm macro or the 8mm fisheye. 

1 hour ago, caolino said:

What about the 11-50 with the macro mode, can this be a flexible but quality option?

Assuming you mean 12-50; AFAIK engaging the macro mode is only supported in Nauticam housings and requires a special (and very expensive) gear that take something like 15 minutes to assemble on the lens. For all that, the quality, according to reports that I've seen, is not spectacular, although I don't have any personal experience with it, so take this information with an appropriate amount of salt.

I own the 12-50 with port and gear. It’s a pretty cool piece of engineering but it’s not exceptional in terms of image quality. The macro mode is quite nice but for real macro you still need a wet lens. Wideangle is what you would expect for a 24mm equivalent lens behind a flat port. Compatibility with wet wide lenses is not that great. 

The electrical zoom is quite annoying and consumes a lot of power. 

There is also an option to put it behind a dome that has a flip adapter for wet macro lenses. You lose the macro mode, but this may actually be a better option. I’ve not had a chance to try this though. 
 

4 hours ago, caolino said:

Thanks Chris, I was exactly jingling between these 2 setup.
What about the 11-50 with the macro mode, can this be a flexible but quality option?

the 12-50 optical quality is a bit average and at the wide end the flat port causes poor corners.  With the macro button you get about 1:3 and without it significantly less.  The 12-40 is very nice at the wide end behind a 170mm dome.  you can zoom into 40mm and get 1:3 filling the frame with a 60mm subject on the horizontal axis which is better than the 12-50 can do without the expensive macro port option.  This is with the 12-40 @ 40mm, the nudi is about 70mm long and it's cropped a little:

https://www.aus-natural.com/Underwater/Nudibranches/slides/Ceratosoma amonenum 5.html

AT the wide end I like the results in temperate waters like I get around home for schooling fish etc:

https://www.aus-natural.com/Underwater/Bony Fish/slides/Old Wives 18.html

https://www.aus-natural.com/Underwater/Bony Fish/slides/EasternBlueGroper13.html 

groper is about 800mm long

https://www.aus-natural.com/Underwater/Other Marine Life/slides/Giant Cuttlefish 20.html

Giant cuttlefish is about 500-600mm long at 12mm.  To me the 12-40 is more flexible and much nicer optics than the 12-50.  All those shots will be at f8.

Thanks for the clarifications and the pictures look great and in line with my expectations of flexibility compared to the current setup.
I have a very compact setup with a fantasea housing with flat port and I was looking for similar setup. It seems the closest can be the AOI with em5 mkII and a semi dome for the 12-40. It maybe there are other less bulky options.


Inviato dal mio iPad utilizzando Tapatalk