DSLR or Mirrorless

Hi all, 

I am still using my TG camera. 

Thought of upgrading for better IQ shots so considering whether DSLR or Mirrorless. Then these two categories is further divided into Full Frame, Crop, MFT (4/3). Also the interesting point and shoot 1inch sensor. 

For best budget and IQ, ease of use UW like going through the settings, making use of the external strobe (via FO).

Thank you 

5 hours ago, saga7 said:

Aquatica housing nikon d60, nikon d60 body, extension, ikelite AI strobe and sync cord, TLC arms. Only thin you need is dome port which is easy to get and lens $1200usd          reefscenics.smugmugmug.com to see samples of what this housing does.

saga7

Please do not respond to the sorts of questions asked by the OP by offering your equipment for sale. I think Adam has mentioned this to you before. 
 

14 hours ago, scubadudee said:

Hi all, 

I am still using my TG camera. 

Thought of upgrading for better IQ shots so considering whether DSLR or Mirrorless. Then these two categories is further divided into Full Frame, Crop, MFT (4/3). Also the interesting point and shoot 1inch sensor. 

For best budget and IQ, ease of use UW like going through the settings, making use of the external strobe (via FO).

Thank you 

A very open ended question.  The step up in image quality from a 1/ 2/3" sensor to even a 1"sensor is quite large, the sensor size goes from 6.1 x 4.5mm to 15.8 x 13.2mm.  That's 28 mm2 to 116 mm2 or 4x the light collected and m43 is almost double that.  Collecting more light is what allows image quality to improve. 

As you go up in sensor size, the cost goes up, sometimes quite significantly and the things like dome size, shooting aperture and overall weight go up as well.  Mirrorless bodies are smaller than DSLR in many cases but they still need the same size accessories such as large domes for rectilinear wide lens and in some cases the housings are nearly as big as the DSLR housings for equivalent models.  Size and weight is very important for air travel and also ease of use underwater. 

A similar question was asked here:

View archived post in: First Camera Advice!

suggest you have a read over that thread as it covers things like comparative cost of the different systems and some of their pluses and minuses.  Please get back if you want to clarify anything further.

I've thought about going mirrorless, and the advantages and disadvantages for diving.

I'm currently shooting a D850 in a Nauticam housing and very happy.  Also used a D810 in a Nauticam for 4 years.  Before that, a Sony RX100 II in ... a Nauticam housing.

I've also used a series of Canon point-n-shoots before upgrading to DSLR.

Coming from the Sony RX100 might be a similar path to your own.   Here's the pros and cons I found, and where I think mirrorless has a serious edge.

First off, I started with the RX100 and dual strobes.   The strobes moved to the DSLR's so no advantage there, but some cost savings.

Thing about the Sony was it had a pretty useful zoom range, though IQ was clearly not as good as the D810/D850.  When I went to FX underwater, my lens choices were basically fisheye (ugh), wide angle 16-35, and macro, 60mm or 105mm.   That pretty much left me as a 16-35 wide shooter or a 105mm macro shooter with nothing in between.  So there's a bit of caution - lens choices are very limited.

Once I started using the D810, it just excelled at stills.  AF was fast and the camera very responsive.  IQ outstanding.  But video - I just really didn't ever do any video.  AF not usable, and I didn't know video anyway.  By the way, the 16-35 required a 230mm dome port, which is enormous and heavy and expensive.  And it didn't give me decent corners until I added a S & S  Internal Correction Lens.  If you commit to wide angle on FX, it's definitely a commitment!

The D850 was just more of the D810 - mostly faster autofocus.  I started learning video with this camera last couple of weeks, and i have to say it does a decent job.  But only if not trying to zoom the lens (noisy) or autofocus (almost hopeless).  I think mirrorless has a big advantage here, save perhaps the D780.

In fact I'm thinking that underwater, a Z7 II should be easier to use in most ways, or just about the same, as a D850.  Underwater plays to its strengths, though I think above water I'd prefer a D850.  It's just plain easier to do video on mirrorless cameras.

Unless you are a seasoned DSLR shooter and swear on using the OVF get a mirrorless. For people coming from a compact with no experience with SLRs it is a much smoother transition as the only thing that really changes are the interchangeable lenses. 
 

Sensor size depends on your budget, willingness to carry heavy gear and willingness to make (fairly small) compromises on IQ. In my opinion if you don’t want to print larger than 60x40cm Micro Four Thirds is good enough. If you want to go larger you might want more pixels. Low light advantages of FF get eaten up by requirements for higher apertures so I don’t think they’re all that relevant. 

Was hoping to really see some feedback on a long term FF dlsr user who had converted to mirrorless... Maybe if there are some mirrorless you who had a ff dslr I would like to hear what you like and dont like about the mirrorless and if you thought it was a good move. Thank you in advance.

1 hour ago, Riana said:

Was hoping to really see some feedback on a long term FF dlsr user who had converted to mirrorless... Maybe if there are some mirrorless you who had a ff dslr I would like to hear what you like and dont like about the mirrorless and if you thought it was a good move. Thank you in advance.

I don't think it's as simple as DSLR vs mirrorless, some camera companies have done a better job with their mirrorless offerings than others, for example in how good the AF is vs their DSLR offerings.  Sure there is a difference between looking through an OVF vs a EVF, I've not used an OVF UW, but used them on land for many years, both AF and MF cameras.  For me the EVF has a number of advantages not least being so much brighter compared an OVF in low light and things like focus aids and magnified views at the touch of a button and the ability to review the shot without taking your eye away from the viewfinder.

@Riana

Although I'm not a DSLR shooter that's moved to mirrorless, I am a DSLR shooter (both D850 & D500, Nauticam housings) that dives with his daughter, who started with a Sony A7III and now shoots with an A7R4 (and I've shot with her rigs many times).

Comparing FF->FF for a moment, the D850 (with most lens options) has better autofocus, and shooting low light macro, much better autofocus. Taken to an extreme, a D850 (or D500, both with a 60mm) shooting blackwater is outstanding, shooting with the Sony on the same dive, almost unusable (unless you are shooting squid-sized subjects). 

To be fair - some of this is about lens options - for Sony the 90mm lens is the goto macro lens. In Lembeh, shooting against black sand, it hunts (less with the A7R4 vs. the A7III). Never have had this issue with either if Nikons I shoot with. Adding a focus light helps a bit, but it's still slower. Shooting a nudi - not much of an issue, shooting a shy goby, you risk not getting the shot.

Wide angle:
This is where the Sony has a real advantage. My daughter shoots with the WWL-1B wet conversion lens. To match this (on the D850) I shoot with a WACP. This setup makes her rig (much) cheaper, easier to handle, and more flexible (u/w).

Having said this - there is no doubt that mirrorless is the future, but the question is - when does the future make sense to move to? 

For Nikon shooters, the Z9 finally looks like it has the capabilities worth considering, the problem is both size & cost. Assuming Nikon does what it usually does (move features & capabilities down to new models), I'm waiting to see what the next Z7 (Zx?) looks like.

For Sony, the newly released A7IV might be that camera, but I was more intrigued by the Sony A1, right up until I heard several u/w photographers still struggling on blackwater dives when trying out this camera.

Blackwater scenarios might not be on everyone's list of requirements, but they are for me.

 

On 9/19/2021 at 9:55 AM, scubadudee said:

Hi all, 

I am still using my TG camera. 

Thought of upgrading for better IQ shots so considering whether DSLR or Mirrorless. Then these two categories is further divided into Full Frame, Crop, MFT (4/3). Also the interesting point and shoot 1inch sensor. 

For best budget and IQ, ease of use UW like going through the settings, making use of the external strobe (via FO).

Thank you 

Users that are on DSLR find difficult to switch however people that already use a compact less so. DSLR housings have a higher entry price despite cameras may not be equally expensive. Mirrorless Sony or MFT are very cost effective options if budget is a consideration

4 hours ago, oneyellowtang said:

For Nikon shooters, the Z9 finally looks like it has the capabilities worth considering, the problem is both size & cost.

Yeah, the specs and initial reviews read really well. But, as you say, size - it doesn't sound that much smaller or lighter than the D5/D6 - fabulous cameras but beasts especially for travelling!

As you say, will the guts be built into the next Z7 update - a bit like the then revolutionary D3 into the D700? 

We also still need to see whether the algorithmic AF that is used in the D9 works underwater.... 

Part of the problem with all these new cameras is that underwater represents such a tiny proportion of users and potential sales. Many features that work amazingly well on the surface, do not do so underwater!

@oneyellowtang - I'm not sure it is fair to compare the images produced by WWL and WACP. Perhaps a better comparison would be WWL and an 8-15mm fisheye with a 7" dome? This is considerably lighter and cheaper!

Also, if the WWL works with the a7, surely it can also be made to work with the D850? It should be a matter of lens and extension selection, rather than compatibility per se.

Adam

@adamhanlon

The WWL-1 was originally designed for mirrorless and compact cameras. I haven't tried it with the D850, nor have I heard anyone trying this.

Might be an interesting experiment...

For subjects, shooting either with 130 degrees of coverage seems like a reasonable comparison.

Agreed the WWL was designed for compacts originally, with mirrorless a happy circumstance. However, if it works on a full frame Sony camera...it should work on a D850! 

The only wrinkle may be the sensor: flange distance, but it should still work. 

Field of view is only one part of the picture. I think the difference between the WACP and WWL is the curvature of the image. To me, the WWL has much more barrel distortion and gives a more "fisheye-like" effect that the WACP. The WACP is almost rectilinear. Of course, to achieve this, WACP needs larger and more expensive lens elements.

Hence I think it is better to compare WWL with a fisheye lens and dome port. The latter is, sadly, not yet a native option for most mirrorless full frame cameras, and I think this has caused the experimentation with WWL. 

@adamhanlon

Hmm... 

My experience is that the WWL-1b has less distortion than a number of (mirrorless) fisheye (like) pairings between lenses and domes. 

I used dslr and switched to mirrorless.

I think dslr ovf has more advantages than mirrorless evf.

But the reason I use a mirrorless is that I use contact lenses because I have poor eyesight. Contact lenses can fall out if i close one eye. This is not the case because it is currently filmed through an external screen. my new planning to add an underwater monitor now.