The Perfect Underwater Camera

I did not understand when, in the above discussion, a mirrorless suddendly became less capable of a DSRL. My limit.

31 minutes ago, Davide DB said:

I did not understand when, in the above discussion, a mirrorless suddendly became less capable of a DSRL. My limit.

Old-time DSLR shooters are positing that at least underwater, mirrorless autofocus is still lagging behind that of Nikon D500 and D850.

@Davide DB

You mentioned you were playing with an Aquatica housing...

I moved from Aquaticas to Nauticams several years ago. What are you seeing in Aquatica that is making you start questioning Nauticam (which have been rock solid for me, with better port choices, etc.).

22 minutes ago, Barmaglot said:

Old-time DSLR shooters are positing that at least underwater, mirrorless autofocus is still lagging behind that of Nikon D500 and D850.

I have both a D500 and a D850 that I shoot with u/w. My daughter recently upgraded from a Sony A7III to the A7R4, and was able to try the A7IV underwater recently... still a significant delta in AF performance (it's getting better, but it is still not "close" enough to be considered comparable - for example, shooting an anemone fish in a host). 

Some of this may be the due to the macro lens options, but still not good enough for me to consider a change. 

Also (edge case) - the D850 with a 60mm lens is still the best blackwater combo you can hope for... (most of the bw operators will tell you the same - based on what they are seeing people use and get results with).

I sort of like the fact that I am "old time." We used to say the same about those that were reluctant to accept digital

However, my reluctance about mirrorless is based on 2 specific areas:
1. Lens availability
2. AF performance.

Once these two issues are "cured," I will be leading the march to the camera shop. Until they are, I am suggesting that SLR is still a better choice for still shooters underwater. To stress, I am not against mirrorless, but think that it is still immature for what we want them to do in our specific use case. 

@Phil Rudin's point about m4/3 sensor sizes and proportions is also very interesting but I think the key thing for a revamped RS would be to find a way to keep the water out of them

@Tom_Kline - you should let the Nikon 3D AF system work its magic! I'm not sure whether it will work in your use case, but it is definitely worth trying. 

1 hour ago, adamhanlon said:

I sort of like the fact that I am "old time." We used to say the same about those that were reluctant to accept digital

However, my reluctance about mirrorless is based on 2 specific areas:
1. Lens availability
2. AF performance.

Once these two issues are "cured," I will be leading the march to the camera shop. Until they are, I am suggesting that SLR is still a better choice for still shooters underwater. To stress, I am not against mirrorless, but think that it is still immature for what we want them to do in our specific use case. 

Nice thread! It has become a kind of:"everything you ever wanted to say about underwater photography but never dared...". 

@adamhanlonYou don't say anything scandalous to me. I repeat what I wrote pages ago:

Usually the big innovations introduced by each new camera iteration are almost all in the field of video.
For photography, products like the D850 are the pinnacle of current photographic technology and it's hard to top them. Hence also the difficulty of all big manufacturers in communicating to customers the need to change cameras. Several professional photographer friends largely agreed that for 99% of the users it was also unnecessary to switch from the D810 to the D850 (Yes yes, I know, we are in a very specific application here).

But this iteration is particular because for companies like Nikon and Canon, the transition from DSRL to Mirrorless is momentous. Think of it as the introduction of the SLR, the introduction of the exposure meter or the transition to digital.
The only major company that has jumped headlong into this technology right from the start (FF) is Sony and although they produce some of the most advanced mirrorless cameras, they are still behind in some photographic aspects.
The opposite is true for Nikon and Canon: apart from the advertising slogans, they still haven't managed to transfer all their photographic know-how to the mirrorless format. Probably another iteration will be needed.

10 hours ago, oneyellowtang said:

@Davide DB

You mentioned you were playing with an Aquatica housing...

I moved from Aquaticas to Nauticams several years ago. What are you seeing in Aquatica that is making you start questioning Nauticam (which have been rock solid for me, with better port choices, etc.).

I realize I didn't explain myself well.
I write my personal opinions here and since I don't have any sponsor or advertising issues I can write freely.
Underwater video is a simple passion of mine and I am on my fifth Nauticam housing. 

IMHO Nauticam has managed to monopolize the underwater housing market in a few years for 3 reasons:

1. The speed of realization of the housings. Before it took a year from the release of a new camera to see an underwater housing. Now, in many cases, they come out on the market almost at the same time.
    
2. The incredible ability to bring housings to market even for obscure or niche camera models.
    
3. A huge investment in research and development that has led them to revolutionize even the wet optics market.

The three points above can be summarized in one sentence:

Nauticam has introduced an industrial approach where competitors were (and are) all craftsmen.

As a long-time Panasonic user and also a technical diver, the choice of Nauticam was pretty much a no-brainer for me from the start. I'll never stop thanking them for making the 100 meter guaranteed housings for the GH2, GH3 when other manufacturers didn't even know what they were.
From the GH4 on it's all different and you have different choices but, like everyone else, I am a victim of lock-in. I have all Nauticam portholes and have now switched to CMC and WWL-1.

When I said it's not all sunshine and rainbows I meant that from my recent experience I've experienced the downside of the industrial logic applied by Nauticam.

All of their housings are guaranteed 100 meters but it's more of a design specification than anything that can actually be tested for them. Then if the customer actually goes 100 meters they will find out for themselves if it works. Maybe I've been unlucky but both of my last two housings had major problems below 60 meters. Two other dive buddies of mine had the same experience with 2 other GH5 housings.
I already know what you are thinking: who would go to 100 meters? Take a tour on Youtube and Vimeo and then we'll talk. No, mine is not an extreme scenario.

Even with the huge assistance of the local representative it was a long and tedious task to solve the problems because for them everything must be solved magically by sending the case for complete service to the parent company. In the meantime, they don't even listen to what the problem is because the service will surely takes care of it. This is the other side of the coin of a purely industrial logic.
Of course, I don't know if things would have been different with an artisan manufacturer.

Another aspect that leaves me baffled is the external treatment of the housing.I use it intensively in the Mediterranean Sea, which has a fairly high salinity and the fresh water here in Italy generally has a high content of limestone. After less than a year the black treatment starts to stain and discolor conspicuously. I see Aquatica cases after 3 years of intense use like mine look aesthetically like new.
To be fair, the cases that come back from the HK inspection are practically new. The first time I even checked the serial number because I thought they had replaced it with a new one.
Of course, Hong Kong is not around the corner.

Now, if only the new GH6 would fit inside may GH5 housing I would be an happy Panauticam user! 

1 hour ago, Davide DB said:

Another aspect that leaves me baffled is the external treatment of the housing.I use it intensively in the Mediterranean Sea, which has a fairly high salinity and the fresh water here in Italy generally has a high content of limestone. After less than a year the black treatment starts to stain and discolor conspicuously.

I don't think Mediterranean has much, if anything to do with it, it's just the intensive use. I've seen a Nauticam D500 housing used by a liveaboard owner/operator, i.e. diving 3-4 times a day almost constantly in Thailand/Myanmar, and it's got serious discoloration as well.

@Phil Rudin also raises a good point that I hadn't added to my list of desirable features.

Flash sync speed is a great idea. I think 1/250 is the minimum and I guess there is no maximum. There are now numerous work arounds using strobes and circuitry that enable HSS, but a native high flash sync speed would be good too.

I also would vote for a low native ISO of 50 or 64....

21 hours ago, Barmaglot said:

I don't think Mediterranean has much, if anything to do with it, it's just the intensive use. I've seen a Nauticam D500 housing used by a liveaboard owner/operator, i.e. diving 3-4 times a day almost constantly in Thailand/Myanmar, and it's got serious discoloration as well.

Some people like the discolouration. As it allows them to tell everyone that they dive a lot! It is like leaving your drysuit inflator hose on your regulator when you travel - so you can tell/bore everyone on the dive boat that you dive in cold water too! 

6 minutes ago, Alex_Mustard said:

Some people like the discolouration. As it allows them to tell everyone that they dive a lot! It is like leaving your drysuit inflator hose on your regulator when you travel - so you can tell/bore everyone on the dive boat that you dive in cold water too! 

I wish I could agree with you but really I'm just trying to save my investment.
Just think when I sold my 6" Nauticam dome here on WP a user asked me to get macro photos of the metal petals to see if they were scratched. Just saying.

23 minutes ago, Alex_Mustard said:

Some people like the discolouration. As it allows them to tell everyone that they dive a lot!

Divers' version of noble patina

Maybe it should be part of the perfect camera spec - pre-aged coating so you look like you know what you are doing!

It sort of relates to being referred to as an "old timer!"

I have a pre-aged coating to prove my bona fides!

30 minutes ago, Alex_Mustard said:

Maybe it should be part of the perfect camera spec - pre-aged coating so you look like you know what you are doing!

After all, people like pre-aged jeans.

I am with Adam on the Lower native ISO number (25-64) for all cameras. I really don't understand the usefulness of these excessively high ISO values on the latest cameras.

The D850, Z9 and Z7 II are 64 to 25600 expandable to 102,400.

Canon EOS R3 is 100-102,400, R5 is 100-51,200 expandable to 204,800 & 102,400 respectively.

Sony A1, A7R IV, A7 IV are all 100-32,00 expandable to 102,400, A7 IV 204,800.

Who are the folks using 102,400 and 204,800 this seems to me to be only for the purpose of marketing.

In general I think most real world photographers would rather have a lower ISO if it would assist with dynamic range, color, noise and more.

Just curious. Did someone tried the Sony A1 AF underwater?

Is it comparable to Nikon D850 underwater?

2 hours ago, Phil Rudin said:

I am with Adam on the Lower native ISO number (25-64) for all cameras. I really don't understand the usefulness of these excessively high ISO values on the latest cameras.

The D850, Z9 and Z7 II are 64 to 25600 expandable to 102,400.

Canon EOS R3 is 100-102,400, R5 is 100-51,200 expandable to 204,800 & 102,400 respectively.

Sony A1, A7R IV, A7 IV are all 100-32,00 expandable to 102,400, A7 IV 204,800.

Who are the folks using 102,400 and 204,800 this seems to me to be only for the purpose of marketing.

In general I think most real world photographers would rather have a lower ISO if it would assist with dynamic range, color, noise and more.

 

 

It depends what you shoot. If you do concerts in dimly lit clubs ISO 6400 is not rare. Wildlife at dusk or dawn with long (and often slower) lenses is another one. ISO 102,400 is probably just marketing but generally there are good reasons to want high ISO performance. Basically anything where it's hard to add light because it's either forbidden (concerts) or too far away (wildlife/sports) but you still need to freeze the action. 

For Underwater it's probably only useful for Video.

2 hours ago, Phil Rudin said:

I really don't understand the usefulness of these excessively high ISO values on the latest cameras.

 

Think fast moving large animals in very low light. 

Orcas in Norway during the winter?

You need a reasonable shutter speed to prevent subject motion blur, and an aperture that allows for acceptable corners, so all this is left is ISO. In this situation, DR is less critical, color pretty monotone and apps like Topaz DeNoise can sort out any noise issues...

I have friends that have shot amazing images at very high ISO, without these setting, they simply wouldn't be able to capture them

I get all that I have used 6400 underwater but in the long run is 102,400 and 204,800 really more useful to most photographers than say ISO 50 that is native and if it is what limits both.