Does a full frame makes (even) more sense UW

What I mean is: water filters light in a different way compared to air. Does the bigger sensor makes a dramatic change UW more than it does outside of water?

7 minutes ago, Mr Wir said:

What I mean is: water filters light in a different way compared to air. Does the bigger sensor makes a dramatic change UW more than it does outside of water?

No. Water have an effect in skewing the expected balance of colour that a traditional bayer sensor is built to manage

A typical RGGB schema expects double green than red and blue so you have issues of clipping the blue channel in water (in blue water in green water not so much as a paradox)

Considering that most shots are using artificial lighting larger sensor means you need more strobe power to even things out so it generally impacts portability because is not just about a big camera but also about much bigger strobes

Other things where a full frame camera can have an advantage are more latitude in your raw files and being more forgiving if you get your exposure wrong however this is exactly the same as when you shoot on land there is no significant difference

I do a lot of land shooting post covid and do regular print club competitions (land or unrestricted) and format is not what wins the day

It is however true that most professional and respected underwater photographers shoot full frame DSLR but this is just a habit in my opinion and many competitions are won with Nikon D500 and other cropped DSLR

If there is one thing to be said about underwater photography is that the level of mirrorless adoption compared to land shooting is lower when you look at full frame or APSC and this is also because Nikon especially has been lagging but is catching up.

The air-water interface also impacts resolution, only now it that being solved with newly developed (expensive) water contact optics, that takes away some of the extra resolution from shooting full frame.  Also full frame really benefits low light shooting a lot more so than other cases and a lot of UW shooting is done at low ISO, often less than ISO400 and the differences between formats are less pronounced. 

One vote for not full frame underwater - rather APS-C.

I can see the argument if your life/career/income depends on the images. But if it is not that super-critical, I'd suggest APS-C makes more sense. For wide-angle images APS-C is much easier, cheaper and more manageable. You can use smaller domes, smaller EXRs, less correction lenses and less weight to move around - with the travel implications of that.

I've used both going from D300 (DX) to D800 (FX) and now D500 (DX). I can't imagine for the vast majority of purposes that you can tell the difference. But the difference in what I have to carry to travel is significant. Farewell 230 dome port, 90mm EXR...... 

And I sell lots of pics all the time.

Sure, full frame sounds great but for underwater use, it's really hard to beat APS-C.

10 minutes ago, TimG said:

One vote for not full frame underwater - rather APS-C.

I can see the argument if your life/career/income depends on the images. But if it is not that super-critical, I'd suggest APS-C makes more sense. For wide-angle images APS-C is much easier, cheaper and more manageable. You can use smaller domes, smaller EXRs, less correction lenses and less weight to move around - with the travel implications of that.

I've used both going from D300 (DX) to D800 (FX) and now D500 (DX). I can't imagine for the vast majority of purposes that you can tell the difference. But the difference in what I have to carry to travel is significant. Farewell 230 dome port, 90mm EXR...... 

And I sell lots of pics all the time.

Sure, full frame sounds great but for underwater use, it's really hard to beat APS-C.

 

Thanks Tim, this was super helpful. I don't know why but I thought that full frame made a big difference UW. That was of course a prejudice without any practical basis but now I know what to look for. 

I always liked aps-c and I will stick with it considering what you said.

3 hours ago, Interceptor121 said:

No. Water have an effect in skewing the expected balance of colour that a traditional bayer sensor is built to manage

A typical RGGB schema expects double green than red and blue so you have issues of clipping the blue channel in water (in blue water in green water not so much as a paradox)

Considering that most shots are using artificial lighting larger sensor means you need more strobe power to even things out so it generally impacts portability because is not just about a big camera but also about much bigger strobes

Other things where a full frame camera can have an advantage are more latitude in your raw files and being more forgiving if you get your exposure wrong however this is exactly the same as when you shoot on land there is no significant difference

I do a lot of land shooting post covid and do regular print club competitions (land or unrestricted) and format is not what wins the day

It is however true that most professional and respected underwater photographers shoot full frame DSLR but this is just a habit in my opinion and many competitions are won with Nikon D500 and other cropped DSLR

If there is one thing to be said about underwater photography is that the level of mirrorless adoption compared to land shooting is lower when you look at full frame or APSC and this is also because Nikon especially has been lagging but is catching up.

Thanks, this helps!

53 minutes ago, TimG said:

One vote for not full frame underwater - rather APS-C.

I can see the argument if your life/career/income depends on the images. But if it is not that super-critical, I'd suggest APS-C makes more sense. For wide-angle images APS-C is much easier, cheaper and more manageable. You can use smaller domes, smaller EXRs, less correction lenses and less weight to move around - with the travel implications of that.

I've used both going from D300 (DX) to D800 (FX) and now D500 (DX). I can't imagine for the vast majority of purposes that you can tell the difference. But the difference in what I have to carry to travel is significant. Farewell 230 dome port, 90mm EXR...... 

And I sell lots of pics all the time.

Sure, full frame sounds great but for underwater use, it's really hard to beat APS-C.

 

Actually if you look at the testing sites the Olympus 20MP sensor is very close in performance to the D500 and gets you a little smaller and cheaper as well.

21 minutes ago, ChrisRoss said:

Actually if you look at the testing sites the Olympus 20MP sensor is very close in performance to the D500 and gets you a little smaller and cheaper as well.

 

I will have a look at it!

4 minutes ago, Mr Wir said:

I will have a look at it!

One day Chris will convince me too. One day.....

2 hours ago, TimG said:

One day Chris will convince me too. One day.....

 

I think the lack of being convinced is not the IQ which is indeed very similar is the ergonomics and features of a DSLR going back to my original point about adoption

I'm in the m4/3 Olympus camp with Chris, for both size and weight and for the advantages it brings to macro and telephoto shooting. The pro series lenses are brilliant and I love the 60mm macro.  I agree that low light performance isn't as good as DX or FX, but thats not an issue with strobes and the sensor is more than good enough for my needs.  The limiting factor is the wetware directly behind the viewfinder!

1 hour ago, Interceptor121 said:

I think the lack of being convinced is not the IQ which is indeed very similar is the ergonomics and features of a DSLR going back to my original point about adoption

You could be right, Massimo. Old habits die hard, eh?

1 hour ago, troporobo said:

The limiting factor is the wetware directly behind the viewfinder!

Ain't that the truth!

You could be right, Massimo. Old habits die hard, eh?

50 minutes ago, Interceptor121 said:

It was not a criticism I really think the mirrorless transition is not obvious


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Yeah I agree.

Nor does the "benefit" of FX that the manufacturers tout - for underwater use anyway. My experience was that it's a bit of a negative.

I think the sweet spot is DSLR crop sensor. I went from D200, D7000 to D800 and now Z50 mirrorless. Mirrorless has advantages for focus above water, but none underwater where we are using wide lenses at smaller apartures. Crop sensor mirrorless has the advantage that you can use water contact optics like the WWL-C but if you have a D500 and a Tokina 10-17 I think you will hardly ever need the WWL-C. A D500 or D7500 would be my choice. This could change if anyone made a proper zoom fisheye for full frame like the old Pentax lens.

@PeteAtkinson

Interesting... I have both a D500 (+Tokina 10-17) and a D850 (+WACP) - both in Nauticam housings.

For wide angle (and disregarding travel weight) I prefer the D850 w/the WACP over the D500. Corner sharpness being the primary advantage... This doesn't apply in all situations, but for the most part...

3 hours ago, PeteAtkinson said:

if anyone made a proper zoom fisheye for full frame like the old Pentax lens. 

Canon 8-15mm doesn't count?

This thread has gone off topic as usual with the sensor comparison

The question was does the benefit of larger sensor that exists on land gets amplified underwater?

And the answer is no it doesn’t the sensor benefits are unchanged and as side effect of shooting small apertures the gap may even close

However provided you invest in equipment and are happy with the weight larger sensor do provide the best images example buy a WACP small apertures are no longer an issue buy it weights a ton or get a massive dome for a fisheye lens


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Canon 8-15mm doesn't count?