The Perfect Underwater Camera

Hmm.   There can't be a perfect camera.  It seems as you demand more quality, the size goes up and the lens choices go down.  Every dive has to be a specialty dive - macro//supermacro, wide, video, etc.

Or you demand less and less weight and complexity until you arrive at a cell phone in a housing.

Or you demand flexibility and end up with something like a Sony RX100 with a mid-range zoom lens.

Or you dive a big macro DSLR/ML rig and mount a GoPro on top of that for some video.

Now for me, I accept the limitations of specializing on dives with limited lens selections.  I dive with a D850 and either a 105mm macro or a 16-35 wide angle.  Nothing in between.  But the results I get have me not wanting to give up anything, so for me a better camera has to be better than the D850 at something without giving up anything.  That might be the Z9 now, but ultimately the things I really want because the D850 is lacking are related to video.  Internal prores raw and usable autofocus during video would top my list there.  More pixels might be useful. 

If I could find a Z9 in stock somewhere, I would have ordered one by now in a weak moment.  Some clear advantages over a D850 without some of the Z7 disadvantages.

@GeorgeH

Chatting to the Nikon Pros that I know (outside of the published marketing reviews) they all admit that the AF on D850/D500 is still better than that of the Z6II/Z7II. None of them have used production versions of the the Z9 enough yet to have a real feeling either way. Certainly, no one has used it underwater much yet.

Until there are suitable lenses available for UW use, this holds true: "The optical advantage of moving the lens' rear element closer to the sensor is a potential bonus of all the new mirrorless flanges. This is definitely a potential improvement, but should be qualified by 2 factors. Firstly, we shoot through water, with all the inherent optical issues this produces and secondly, this limits lens choices. Until there is a full complement of the lens that are useful for underwater use, we can't take advantage of these optical advantages."

Using the FTZ adaptor removed all the optical advantages of the Z flange mount. 

In fact, with the Z mount lenses currently on offer, the only real wide angle lens solution is the WACP, which adds another $5,000 to the package!

What made you chose the Z9 over the (much cheaper) D850, or even more pertinently, D500? I can see no actual advantage (for underwater use), but am perhaps missing something? 

I like the large pixels idea, and perhaps and should add this to the list, but equally, this would mean that a Sony aSIII would be the best tool?

I don't think Nikon is the king of Autofocus for mirrorless though. By all accounts the current crop of sony cameras blows everything else out of the water in terms of AF. Maybe it's just unwarranted hype, but I believe too many people are saying it's true. Personally, all those FF systems are too large for me, so my perfect AW camera would still be travel friendly and likely in MFT format. 

It would have global shutter for unlimited sync speed and probably more megapixels than the current ones (30 maybe). I think that with current tech, only one of those is realistic though, in which case I'd prefer global shutter. While the AF of my current EM5 (original) sometimes leaves me wanting better AF, I think that already a camera like the EM1mkII would be good enough for my needs in terms of AF. I don't really think that UW photography is the most challenging for AF, certainly not anywhere near BiF.

16 minutes ago, hyp said:

I don't think Nikon is the king of Autofocus for mirrorless though. By all accounts the current crop of sony cameras blows everything else out of the water in terms of AF.

As I understand it, a big step forward in mirrorless AF is owed to the faster readout from stacked CMOS sensors that are found in Sony A1 and Nikon Z9, but for now, this does not translate to improvement down the product line.

1 hour ago, adamhanlon said:

@GeorgeH

Chatting to the Nikon Pros that I know (outside of the published marketing reviews) they all admit that the AF on D850/D500 is still better than that of the Z6II/Z7II. None of them have used production versions of the the Z9 enough yet to have a real feeling either way. Certainly, no one has used it underwater much yet.

Until there are suitable lenses available for UW use, this holds true: "The optical advantage of moving the lens' rear element closer to the sensor is a potential bonus of all the new mirrorless flanges. This is definitely a potential improvement, but should be qualified by 2 factors. Firstly, we shoot through water, with all the inherent optical issues this produces and secondly, this limits lens choices. Until there is a full complement of the lens that are useful for underwater use, we can't take advantage of these optical advantages."

Using the FTZ adaptor removed all the optical advantages of the Z flange mount. 

In fact, with the Z mount lenses currently on offer, the only real wide angle lens solution is the WACP, which adds another $5,000 to the package!

What made you chose the Z9 over the (much cheaper) D850, or even more pertinently, D500? I can see no actual advantage (for underwater use), but am perhaps missing something? 

I like the large pixels idea, and perhaps and should add this to the list, but equally, this would mean that a Sony aSIII would be the best tool?

Hi Adam, I believe for stills  pixel size does not materially impact overall image noise.  If you look at an individual pixel it has collected less light and if noise from the pixel is constant then that pixel is noisier.  Whoever you don't print and frame pixels or post them online - you print or post the whole image or a crop from it.  The biggest impact for getting more signal is the area of the sensor.  The signal/noise in an image overall is set largely by the amount of light collected - the more light the less noisy the image - for same output - so same pixel dimension on the monitor or same printed size.

Noise is broken down into components and includes shot noise and read noise .  Shot noise scales with area so the net result is the same on a signal to noise basis, read noise is theoretically the same for each read So more pixels read equals more noise but it doesn't add arithmetically, if you have 4x the pixels, read noise is 2x the base.  The noise might be a small amount greater on a small pixel sensor but it's in pixel peeping territory. See for example this article:  https://www.dpreview.com/articles/5365920428/the-effect-of-pixel-and-sensor-sizes-on-noise/2

Special use cases like video may be a different story as you don't generally want to resize video and the A7SIII for example I believe takes the video directly from the sensor without interpolation for 4K.

All sorts of other gremlins can get in the way of the best image of course, but these days they seem well under control and images quality on top end cameras is really very good.

Also to be technically correct, Z flange mount allows the designer to change the lens design so the rear element is closer, but it's theoretical advantage that the lens designer may or may not take advantage of and probably drowned out by resolution lost with the air-water interface issues in all but the very best  optics (WACP) .  F mount lens will give the same optical performance on Z camera as they do on the F mount DSLR.

1 hour ago, hyp said:

I don't think Nikon is the king of Autofocus for mirrorless though. By all accounts the current crop of sony cameras blows everything else out of the water in terms of AF. Maybe it's just unwarranted hype, but I believe too many people are saying it's true. Personally, all those FF systems are too large for me, so my perfect AW camera would still be travel friendly and likely in MFT format. 

It would have global shutter for unlimited sync speed and probably more megapixels than the current ones (30 maybe). I think that with current tech, only one of those is realistic though, in which case I'd prefer global shutter. While the AF of my current EM5 (original) sometimes leaves me wanting better AF, I think that already a camera like the EM1mkII would be good enough for my needs in terms of AF. I don't really think that UW photography is the most challenging for AF, certainly not anywhere near BiF.

Agree, the Canon R5 and Sony A1 are currently the cameras being talked about as having excellent AF that is a step apart and truly competitive with the best DSLRs.  The Z9 may or may not join that list.

The need for good AF UW is debatable but generally a good AF system will also snap in faster on macro subjects, as you approach 1:1 and beyond this is als a real test of the quality of the AF system.  There are other special use cases like big animal photography with fast moving subjects.

8 minutes ago, ChrisRoss said:

The need for good AF UW is debatable but generally a good AF system will also snap in faster on macro subjects, as you approach 1:1 and beyond this is als a real test of the quality of the AF system.  There are other special use cases like big animal photography with fast moving subjects.

The true test of AF is blackwater. Tiny subjects among a sea of particles, moving in all directions, limited light, often translucent so they're low contrast...

My perspective on AF is coloured by my wife's work as a wedding photographer using D850/D800 Nikons. Accurate focus above water is more important to me than speed. When each of ten lenses has to be AF fine tuned to four bodies and the AF fine tune varies slightly with zoom position AND with aperture you have a nightmare on your hands. Nikon lent her a Z5 and Z6II recently and I found the focus to be far better for me shooting women, but for her, subject tracking shooting into the light wasn't as good as the D850.

Underwater shooting wide we are using apertures where focus accuracy is not that important. In the far off days when I shot macro I always locked focus and rocked the housing.

I think a better approach might be to start from the lens rather than the camera. High quality versions of the Tokina 10-17 and the FF version, the Pentax 17-28 fisheye zoom would be a great start. (the 8-15 is wasted on FF I think.)

For me, I wanted affordable water contact rectilinear, so I went for a Nikon Z50 and WWL-C (which has slight barrel distortion). If you are fit, I think a D500 and 10-17 is still hard to beat.

9 hours ago, adamhanlon said:

@GeorgeH

Chatting to the Nikon Pros that I know (outside of the published marketing reviews) they all admit that the AF on D850/D500 is still better than that of the Z6II/Z7II. None of them have used production versions of the the Z9 enough yet to have a real feeling either way. Certainly, no one has used it underwater much yet.

Until there are suitable lenses available for UW use, this holds true: "The optical advantage of moving the lens' rear element closer to the sensor is a potential bonus of all the new mirrorless flanges. This is definitely a potential improvement, but should be qualified by 2 factors. Firstly, we shoot through water, with all the inherent optical issues this produces and secondly, this limits lens choices. Until there is a full complement of the lens that are useful for underwater use, we can't take advantage of these optical advantages."

Using the FTZ adaptor removed all the optical advantages of the Z flange mount. 

In fact, with the Z mount lenses currently on offer, the only real wide angle lens solution is the WACP, which adds another $5,000 to the package!

What made you chose the Z9 over the (much cheaper) D850, or even more pertinently, D500? I can see no actual advantage (for underwater use), but am perhaps missing something? 

I like the large pixels idea, and perhaps and should add this to the list, but equally, this would mean that a Sony aSIII would be the best tool?

First, I currently own a D850, an Aquatica housing for it, a large dome and any other ports I might need. I also own a D5 that I still prefer to the D850 and a D3S and D3S housing I no longer use. I don't choose my camera bodies with UW photography as a priority. Although I "retired" from shooting professional sports a few years ago (a 2nd job) I am considering starting again now that I have also retired from my day job. I still do other types of photography in addition to sports.

A local pro I know and have shot with many times has changed to a pair of Z 9 bodies. We were a couple of the Nikon shooters in a sea of Canon shooters for a number of years. I learned he is now a Nikon Ambassador. The AF is improved over even the D6 and the video is much better. He is featured on the Nikon USA website talking about AF.

While the Z series lenses may have a theoretical advantage over the F mount lenses, there is no difference in the performance of an F mount lens on a Z 9 compared to a F mount lens on a D850 or D6.

I have read and watched a number of reviews confirming the advancement in AF on the Z 9. The lead story on the front page of DPReview is a comparison of the Canon EOS R3, Sony a1 and Nikon Z9. The Z 9 did well. None of the previous Nikon mirrorless cameras interested me. I've ordered a Z 9 but don't have any current plans to get an UW housing for it. I had just expected to come to this forum and read all the opinions on it and am surprised there weren't any. This is a body that has finally put Nikon to the top or equal to any of the best pro level mirrorless systems.

17 hours ago, GeorgeH said:

I had just expected to come to this forum and read all the opinions on it and am surprised there weren't any. This is a body that has finally put Nikon to the top or equal to any of the best pro level mirrorless systems.

IIRC Nauticam announced their housing few days ago. No news from other manufacturers so far.

And Nauticam Z9 is still decalred as "coming soon"

https://www.nauticam.com/products/na-z9-housing-for-nikon-z9-camera

It seems to be that only Nauticam is able to deliver some new cases in fast pace. I still wait for other brands to sell the case for the Sony A7 IV, there is still only Nauticam on the market .. 

Somewhat  off topic! For which my apologies.

Many people believe that the housing manufacturers have pre-release "fast lane" access to new camera bodies, but this is largely untrue. A few get early or prototype bodies from testing pros or distributers, but the vast majority rely on someone being able to order a camera body and for this to be delivered. Often they use Amazon like the rest of us! Many of them use pre-release imagery to create CAD designs, but until they have an actual finished camera in front of them the tolerances are too close to actually start producing them.

I had a conversation with one of the major housing manufacturers a while ago, and was surprised to learn that selling 50 units of a given camera housing is considered a success. The numbers are probably much smaller than we think/expect. With this in mind, it is inevitable that some cameras will not have housings available from some manufacturers. 

Once upon a time, the advice was to ensure that a housing was available before buying the camera....I can see a case when we may well be returning to something similar.

As someone invested in high quality, water contact, full frame optics (Nikon fit) I am not in a rush to move away from them. I think it would be perfectly possible for someone (Metabones) to make a AF-D lens adaptor for Z (and perhaps other brands). Even if it needed its own battery to power the AF motor. That would be on my wish-list for the future perfect UW camera.

Alex

2 minutes ago, adamhanlon said:

Somewhat  off topic! For which my apologies.
Once upon a time, the advice was to ensure that a housing was available before buying the camera....I can see a case when we may well be returning to something similar.

I'd agree with this. I think we’re returning to an age where photographers run housings for 5-10 years, rather than 2-3 years. As the cameras don’t offer the big jumps in capability any more. This will hit housing manufacturer’s profits and there will be more of a demand for them to build robust housings, rather than simply first to market housings.

4 minutes ago, Alex_Mustard said:

I think it would be perfectly possible for someone (Metabones) to make a AF-D lens adaptor for Z (and perhaps other brands).

Alex, is this that are you speaking of?

https://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/mirrorless/lenses/ftz.htm

Yes, that is what Nikon currently make. 

Does not allow focusing with widely used lenses such as Nikon 16mm fisheye, Sigma 15mm fisheye, Nikon 28-70mm (the lens the WACP-1 was designed around), Nikonos 13mm fisheyes (many people’s dream optic).

I don’t think it would be that difficult for a company to make an adaptor with the AF motor and screw drive used by these lenses - assuming the circuitry in the Z cameras send signals through the connectors to control it. For underwater shooting - I think most of us would accept even a quite slow AF with these wide angle lenses, to be able to use them. If the camera doesn’t send the right signals, then maybe even a powered focus like the Nikonos RS had, could be used. 

Alex 

Ah ok

the devil is in the details!

1 hour ago, adamhanlon said:

Somewhat  off topic! For which my apologies.

I will report you to the Admin :-p

Let's just say that when it comes to photography, it's getting harder and harder to add new must-have features with each iteration.
Being able to convince your customers that they absolutely need a new camera is every manufacturer's nightmare. From the video point of view, since now they are all hybrid machines, instead at each iteration the improvements are important but it's normal being a technology introduced in the machines recently.

Let's say that in this round, Nikon and Canon have it easier since there is an important technology change: the transition to mirrorless. Personally it's also interesting to read the communication stunts to sell a technology that competitors have had for years. Good times!
Irony of fate: Panasonic who invented mirrorless and Olympus who was among the first to embrace this technology have nearly disappeared from the market. the real competitor is Sony.

I and my wallet can only be happy if the update cycle slows down. 
Nauticam has beaten all the competition thanks to an incredible time to market and range of models. Before Nauticam, each manufacturer had a maximum of 2 models in their catalog.
Although I have been a Nauticam customer for years, I must say that not all that glitters is gold (precisely because of this exasperated TTM). Lately I've been playing with an Aquatica case and.... WOW...

1 hour ago, adamhanlon said:

I had a conversation with one of the major housing manufacturers a while ago, and was surprised to learn that selling 50 units of a given camera housing is considered a success. The numbers are probably much smaller than we think/expect.

I'm honestly surprised by this - perhaps they were referring to the ultra-high-end of the market, like the RED cinema cameras and such? Because I see compacts and crop DSLR/mirrorless, even in Nauticam and other metal housings, too often for that '50 units' number to make sense.

I think housings for Cameras like Fuji or the less popular cameras will often sell in very low numbers. There is a reason many manufacturers (Seacam, Subal, Aquatica come to mind) only offer a very small selection. Nauticam probably sells more housings but I bet something like the Panasonic GX8 housing sold less than 100 times, quite possibly less than 50.