Does a full frame makes (even) more sense UW

3 hours ago, Interceptor121 said:

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

Thanks, this was very helpful and cleared up my thoughts!

I got into photography years (and years) ago and the best choice (at the time) was dslr, infact I do have a d3100 and never upgraded since I have been waiting for a Nikon mirrorless for a long time but when they finally came out the f mount became obsolete so I got a bit confused on how to proceed. I always considered then selling my lens and, actually, buying an Olympus, even if many people tried to convince me to get a Sony.

6 hours ago, Barmaglot said:

Canon 8-15mm doesn't count?

The 8-15 in Canon and Nikon go from full-frame fisheye (which is useful) to circular fisheye (which in my view is useless on a full frame camera). An equivalent of the Tokina 10-17 in full frame that goes from fisheye, 180 degrees corner to corner to something narrower would transform the choices underwater, like the Pentax 17-28 full frame fisheye. On a crop sensor camera the 8-15 is far more useful, emulating the the Tokina 10-17, but it is much more expensive. Unfortunately the AF of the 10-17 won't work with Nikon FTZ adapter.

I am in the DX format camp.   I used micro four thirds for years and then moved to a D500.   Due to the larger format, I have more flexibility in cropping, but the big differences for me were dynamic range and the focusing performance of the camera compared to EM1 MkII.  Much faster and more accurate focusing, especially in lower light and much better tracking of fast moving creatures.

Perhaps with better skills I could overcome this, and I have retained the Olympus gear, but the DX vs M43 size difference is modest and the DX is really just a lot more enjoyable for me.  When making the switch from M43, I was thinking of going full frame and almost bought a D850, but was talked out of it by several people, and frankly, as someone who does this as a hobby, and who has to travel to dive, I am glad I went DX.  I just cannot deal with the travel implications of a 230mm dome.   This (and price) has also kept me from the Nauticam wet lens options.  I tried and still have a WWL, but it is heavy and some of the other options dwarf the WWL.

For me, APS-C and its amenability to 100mm, 140mm and 170-180mm domes and crop factor boost for macro lenses hits a sweet spot.  Also, for wildlife photography, the crop factor gives me a some nice options in hand-holdable / comfortably-carried telephotos and zooms.

Unless Nikon and Canon put more effort into DX format mirrorless, I am not sure I will go that route willingly.

4 hours ago, Draq said:

almost bought a D850, but was talked out of it by several people, and frankly, as someone who does this as a hobby, and who has to travel to dive, I am glad I went DX.  I just cannot deal with the travel implications of a 230mm dome.

I’ve had a very similar experience to you, Draq. 

@Draq & @TimG,

Being lucky (daft?) enough to have both a D500 and D850 (both housed in Nauticam housings) there are really only 2 scenarios where I lean towards shooting with the D850 over the D500.

1. Wide angle where I can shoot the WACP on the D850 (with the old 28-70mm lens, for example). I don't take the WACP on every trip, and when I do it means lugging around another piece of luggage just to hold the WACP (small to medium suitcase just for it). The optics are really nice however (w/good corner sharpness), so if you there's a good chance to find large(r) subjects it often makes sense to bring it (like in the Maldives this summer).

2. Blackwater diving - the D500 with a 60mm is very good, however I've found that the D850 with (the same) 60mm is virtually as good focusing, and you can crop into the image a little bit more, so you tend to keep a few more shots.

For regular macro I actually prefer the D500 - I find it to be more flexible framing subjects and it's really good in low light or where a subject is being a bit elusive. Also, shooting anything "fish-size" I prefer the D500, might just be that I've shot with it longer, but it feels a little bit more flexible.

Thanks, oneyellowtang.  Interesting. I must admit I don't miss the FX (from my old D800) and I sure don't miss the fag of moving a 230 domeport around! Scary that the WCP needs its own luggage.

It was St Adam of Hanlon that persuaded me a few years back not to upgrade to the D850 but to go for the D500. I've never regretted that decision. Thank you St Adam!

Like you I really like the D500 for macro with either the Nikkor 60 or 105. 

I'm intrigued now what Mr Wir, from his original post, makes of all this.

Mr Wir?

I realise I can no longer claim to be a typical underwater. But I shoot with full frame (through choice). Although I am no blind evangelist for the format, persuading people into M43, 1.5xcrop and full frame in fairly equal numbers when they come to me for advice. 

I have active underwater cameras of all three formats, but my main cameras are both full frame Nikons. The D850 is my most used camera, although stuck in the UK for the last 18 months, I have been regularly taking both out of boats with me and shooting them side by side. 

While I don’t feel I need the resolution of the D850 for any of my current image uses, I do like the reassurance of the future proofing it gives to images (resolution & image quality). Despite knowing, that even my D100 (6MP digital images - that many experts at the time (2003-2004) told me were useless) still sell today, I have this concern. I fear that ultimately as the world gets used to larger digital files, I concerned that there will be a time when customers demand such files, even if they really don’t need them (and the customer is always right, even when they are wrong)! 

For me, I have many lenses that are optimised for full frame (RS13, Zeiss corrector with 20mm, WACP-1, ENWL-1, Trioplan 100), which adds a reluctance to change. Also the cost of full frame and bigger strobes, big domes, water contact lenses etc - is not a factor for me (sponsorship, rather than size of bank account).

But I have always understood what is right for me is not right for others, which is why I recommend such a wide variety of systems when people ask me what is right for them.

Alex

10 hours ago, Alex_Mustard said:

I realise I can no longer claim to be a typical underwater. But I shoot with full frame (through choice). Although I am no blind evangelist for the format, persuading people into M43, 1.5xcrop and full frame in fairly equal numbers when they come to me for advice. 

I have active underwater cameras of all three formats, but my main cameras are both full frame Nikons. The D850 is my most used camera, although stuck in the UK for the last 18 months, I have been regularly taking both out of boats with me and shooting them side by side. 

While I don’t feel I need the resolution of the D850 for any of my current image uses, I do like the reassurance of the future proofing it gives to images (resolution & image quality). Despite knowing, that even my D100 (6MP digital images - that many experts at the time (2003-2004) told me were useless) still sell today, I have this concern. I fear that ultimately as the world gets used to larger digital files, I concerned that there will be a time when customers demand such files, even if they really don’t need them (and the customer is always right, even when they are wrong)! 

For me, I have many lenses that are optimised for full frame (RS13, Zeiss corrector with 20mm, WACP-1, ENWL-1, Trioplan 100), which adds a reluctance to change. Also the cost of full frame and bigger strobes, big domes, water contact lenses etc - is not a factor for me (sponsorship, rather than size of bank account).

But I have always understood what is right for me is not right for others, which is why I recommend such a wide variety of systems when people ask me what is right for them.

Alex

 

It is interesting that you recommend FF, APS-C and MFT more or less equally to different people. Could you please outline the criteria how you decide, what sensor format you recommend (and what about 1" and smaller sensor compacts)?

Thanks, Wolfgang

As someone who only does natural light underwater photography, full frame's superior low light performance offers a definite advantage for me. I also really appreciate the higher resolution. And a full frame setup doesn't necessarily have to be huge. My FF Sony mirrorless + Nikon R-UW 13mm combo is smaller than most APS-C DSLR setups. 

As someone who only does natural light underwater photography, full frame's superior low light performance offers a definite advantage for me. I also really appreciate the higher resolution. And a full frame setup doesn't necessarily have to be huge. My FF Sony mirrorless + Nikon R-UW 13mm combo is smaller than most APS-C DSLR setups. 

1 hour ago, Interceptor121 said:

Which is the same it is on land things do not get further improved underwater
That was the exam question not what’s the best format though everybody seems to want to answer that question

With natural light underwater photography I'm often shooting in low light at high ISO values. So a larger sensor that provides better low light performance makes a bigger difference for me than it does for general shooting on land that is done at lower ISO values. It's the same reason why full frame sensors are advantageous for milky way photographers. And besides that, I also really value the extra resolution. I currently shoot on a 42mp sensor, and as far as I know APS-C and MFT don't offer anything close to that yet. Just because a high resolution FF sensor isn't useful for you doesn't mean it isn't useful for other people. 

6 minutes ago, Isaac Szabo said:

With natural light underwater photography I'm often shooting in low light at high ISO values. So a larger sensor that provides better low light performance makes a bigger difference for me than it does for general shooting on land that is done at lower ISO values. It's the same reason why full frame sensors are advantageous for milky way photographers. And besides that, I also really value the extra resolution. I currently shoot on a 42mp sensor, and as far as I know APS-C and MFT don't offer anything close to that yet. Just because a high resolution FF sensor isn't useful for you doesn't mean it isn't useful for other people. 

Yes but the question was does this benefit becomes larger underwater? And the answer is no it does not it is the same situation that occurs with standard photography on land the gap does not get larger.

What is important to understand is that is the lens that collects more light in virtue of a larger physical aperture however once you equalise that there is no benefit of any sort. Typically large dome ports require small apertures so what you gain you loose you need to resort to special equipment such as WACP or vintage solution like Nikonos lenses to balance things out

With regards to Milky Way photography or night photography this is a different use case to underwater as the level of light are extremely low and not comparable to any situation other than pure dark. While larger sensor may have some benefit in situation of extreme low light there are plenty of dedicated astro cameras that feature smaller sensors. 

I do quite a lot of night photography and milky way in polluted areas and so far the issue has been light pollution and conditions much more than the camera equipment

31 minutes ago, Interceptor121 said:

Yes but the question was does this benefit becomes larger underwater? And the answer is no it does not it is the same situation that occurs with standard photography on land the gap does not get larger.

What is important to understand is that is the lens that collects more light in virtue of a larger physical aperture however once you equalise that there is no benefit of any sort. Typically large dome ports require small apertures so what you gain you loose you need to resort to special equipment such as WACP or vintage solution like Nikonos lenses to balance things out

Again, for my situation the answer is yes. I never said anything about using large domes or shooting at small apertures. I use small domes/lenses and shoot at wide to medium apertures. With my current wide angle setup (Nikon R-UW 13mm) in low light situations I'm able to shoot at f/4 or even f/2.8 if necessary and still get pretty darn good image quality. And if I'm having to raise the ISO to 2500 or similar I'm going to be getting better image quality than if I was using a smaller sensor. I realize that my situation is not applicable to you or others who use strobes, but I never claimed that it was. I was just relaying my experience that for those of us who shoot natural light a larger sensor can be advantageous. If you don't like my perspective/gear choices, that's fine. But there's no need for you to get on here and tell me that I'm wrong. I would certainly never criticize you for using a MFT camera. I think it's great that you're happy with what you're using. There are no universal right or wrong answers to "what camera/lens is best" type questions because different people can have very different needs.

Just now, Isaac Szabo said:

Again, for my situation the answer is yes. I never said anything about using large domes or shooting at small apertures. I use small domes/lenses and shoot at wide to medium apertures. With my current wide angle setup (Nikon R-UW 13mm) in low light situations I'm able to shoot at f/4 or even f/2.8 if necessary and still get pretty darn good image quality. And if I'm having to raise the ISO to 2500 or similar I'm going to be getting better image quality than if I was using a smaller sensor. I realize that my situation is not applicable to you or others who use strobes, but I never claimed that it was. I was just relaying my experience that for those of us who shoot natural light a larger sensor can be advantageous. If you don't like my perspective/gear choices, that's fine. But there's no need for you to get on here and tell me that I'm wrong. I would certainly never criticize you for using a MFT camera. I think it's great that you're happy with what you're using. There are no universal right or wrong answers to "what camera/lens is best" type questions because different people can have very different needs.

The question you are answering is not what is being asked

You are answering the question is there a benefit to full frame?

The ops question is 'Is the benefit of full frame accentuated underwater compared to shooting on land'

The latter question answer is no the benefits are the same. What you describe is not special it is the same thing that happens on ambient light on land. The gap does not get larger

So there is no disagreement you are just answering a different question that what is being asked

9 hours ago, Interceptor121 said:

The question you are answering is not what is being asked

You are answering the question is there a benefit to full frame?

The ops question is 'Is the benefit of full frame accentuated underwater compared to shooting on land'

The latter question answer is no the benefits are the same. What you describe is not special it is the same thing that happens on ambient light on land. The gap does not get larger

So there is no disagreement you are just answering a different question that what is being asked

I do considerably more color adjustment compared to topside for many if not most of my freshwater shots so no they are not the same. As well I tend to use ISO up to 12,800 (1Dx) and 16,000 (D4s) with autoISO and these cameras far more underwater. I have only used super high ISO for shooting with very slow vintage lenses such as a 500mm mirror lens for topside shooting.

A not sensor size per se but camera advantage is that currently only certain FF cameras use large batteries (gripped models; see models already mentioned). (I did used gripped APS-C cameras (no longer made) a few years ago for the same advantage. Not sure if the D500 accessory grip uses them or not but I known of no housings for this combo.) These big batteries are an advantage for the cold water (a local stream has a mean temp of 4C - reported in an MS thesis - it is always numbing cold) I typically shoot in for long duration - camera is powered up for hours. Even so I have manged to run these batteries down to 0. Swapping batteries is a bit more challenging underwater compared to topside - in my case the o-rings need to be cleaned every time the housing is opened do to sand and silt in the water.

3 minutes ago, Tom_Kline said:

I do considerably more color adjustment compared to topside for many if not most of my freshwater shots so no they are not the same. As well I tend to use ISO up to 12,800 (1Dx) and 16,000 (D4s) with autoISO and these cameras far more underwater. I have only used super high ISO for shooting with very slow vintage lenses such as a 500mm mirror lens for topside shooting.

A not sensor size per se but camera advantage is that currently only certain FF cameras use large batteries (gripped models; see models already mentioned). (I did used gripped APS-C cameras (no longer made) a few years ago for the same advantage.) These big batteries are an advantage for the cold water I typically shoot in for long duration - camera is powered up for hours. Even so I have manged to run these batteries down to 0. Swapping batteries is a bit more challenging underwater compared to topside - in my case the o-rings need to be cleaned every time the housing is opened do to sand and silt in the water.

You are assuming that you have more headroom to do that but actually you do not know as you don't adjust your land shots and again the benefit is the same full frame does not have extra benefit underwater as white balance is metadata. If that you could argue that higher bit depth in raw file may help reduce banding but in reality most cameras do not resolve even 10 bits colors

With regards to gripped there are cameras with battery grip in the housing in all formats APSC and MFT but take also into account that DSLR usually take more shots regardless of sensor size because mirrorless keep the evf/lcd on all times. Again this is a technology difference not a sensor size difference

For clarity I have shot all formats Full frame APSC MFT and I am not saying at all that smaller is better. I am just saying underwater does not highlight additional benefits to land use. In your case you shoot high ISO and there are plenty of land scenarios on high ISO where the benefits are the same 

Water does not really change much except blue channels clips sooner across the piece

Some excellent points brought up by Tom in this thread regarding how and where you shoot. 

I would also be interested to know how Isaac is adapting the Nikonos RS 13mm to the Sony FF cameras. 

A third point not mentioned is that many of the higher MP full frame cameras also make excellent APS-C cameras. My Sony A7R IV can be moved into APS-C mode with a single button push extending all lenses by 1.5X at 26MP (21MP with A1) with better image quality than most native APS-C cameras. These systems are also smaller and lighter than most DSLR APS-C systems. Both cameras noted above can also be used with the WWL-1/1B and WWL-C water contact optics to avoid needing the large 230mm dome ports.

Like Alex I am frequently ask questions about which sensor size is best and I can make a case for FF, APS-C or 43/M43 depending on the discussed budget, weight, size, lens selections and much more. One size definitely does not fit all.  

As you mention above this thread is not about format but topside vs underwater. My local freshwaters are stained to varying degree - it looks like the fish are swimming in CocaCola! Thus WB adjustment is extreme compared to topside. I do this in LR so it is only metadata within LR. Keep in mind I do most of my shooting by remote control so I am generally not looking through the viewfinder (without the special Seacam accessory) and do have not access to menus without withdrawing the housing from the water which would defeat the purpose of remote control - disturbing my subject.

List the housings you refer to above - I am a Seacam user and not familiar with any. Nauticam has some housings for an auxillary battery but have no idea of the benefit and how well it would work for me. Besides the cold and long duration I have managed to take thousands of shots during one shoot - record is over 10K with the D4s the day shot in continuous mode.

21 minutes ago, Tom_Kline said:

As you mention above this thread is not about format but topside vs underwater. My local freshwaters are stained to varying degree - it looks like the fish are swimming in CocaCola! Thus WB adjustment is extreme compared to topside. I do this in LR so it is only metadata within LR. Keep in mind I do most of my shooting by remote control so I am generally not looking through the viewfinder (without the special Seacam accessory) and do have not access to menus without withdrawing the housing from the water which would defeat the purpose of remote control - disturbing my subject.

List the housings you refer to above - I am a Seacam user and not familiar with any. Nauticam has some housings for an auxillary battery but have no idea of the benefit and how well it would work for me. Besides the cold and long duration I have maned to take thousands of shots during one shoot - record is over 10K with the D4s the day shot in continuous mode.

I am not suggesting it would work for you. I think you know exactly what you need. Some cameras like the Olympus EM1X take two batteries and have the same form factor of a professional DSLR. I am not aware of cameras that can house a battery grip or spare battery sorry if this created confusion. What I can say though is that even with my mirrorless camera using a trigger I can take over 600 shots and do a whole day of diving without opening the housing and the battery is 50%. Yet in general terms a DSLR will always outdo a mirrorless on that and if it has a grip shape with effectively two batteries the gap will be larger

For what concerns white balance your freshwater is not blue and perhaps more green so the white balance is less of an issue with an RGGB bayer sensor unless the water is red. Surely you make adjustments you don't do but that is because the are not required not because the are not possible.

I am amused when people make comparison to land shooting but do not actually do land photography. I am not suggesting you don't but I happen to do a lot of various things as you know at the edges of what a camera can do so I do have an idea based on practical experience. I.e. to talk about milky way photography and what is like it does help to actually do it and the same with night photography or other low light disciplines. 
Surely there are differences shooting underwater compared to land. I need to shoot 100m to get haze while in water just a few meters, there are issue of light transmission and scattering of blue. However all those issues do not care about your sensor size more than anything else.

so unless there is a more clear articulation of which gap is increased i remain of the opinion that underwater or on land the benefits of sensor size and even rig size are very similar

@i121, Ya, this is kind of an apples vs oranges thread.

I am curious if anyone has taken the gigantic Oly under water. The housings must be as large as those for the gripped FF cameras.