Camera Upgrade for snorkeller

I'm an occasional surface snorkeller who has got interested in underwater photography in the last few years. I currently have an Olympus TG5 which has given me some reasonable results but I'm looking to upgrade to a compact or mirrorless with the aim of improving the image quality in particular for stills rather than video.

The main options appear to be the Panasonic LX10/15, the Canon G7X III and the mirrorless Olympus E PL10. I don't have a great technical knowledge so I'm struggling to understand which of these (or others possibly the Panasonic LX100 or the Sony RX100 VA) would give me an improvement in quality given the limitations of snorkelling. Any advice on housings would also be very welcome.

I'm trying to keep the setup as small as possible so I'm assuming that as I'm snorkelling I don't need additional lighting or filters ? I'm also not sure with these cameras whether I would need additional lenses?

Many thanks for any much needed guidance you can give me !!

I don't know all those cameras, but one of the main difference is the E PL10 is an interchangeable lense camera, which may greatly increase the cost (lenses and ports) compared to a compact camera. 

I suggest you also look at housings choice right now, to choose an integral system, not just a camera (do all those cameras habe housing options? I guess so). Cost of housing and port is substancial, especially if you want an aluminium model (ex. Nauticam, Aquatica or Isotta). Plastic (Ikelite, Sea frogs) are cheaper options.

2 hours ago, Steve Hickey said:

I'm an occasional surface snorkeller who has got interested in underwater photography in the last few years. I currently have an Olympus TG5 which has given me some reasonable results but I'm looking to upgrade to a compact or mirrorless with the aim of improving the image quality in particular for stills rather than video.

The main options appear to be the Panasonic LX10/15, the Canon G7X III and the mirrorless Olympus E PL10. I don't have a great technical knowledge so I'm struggling to understand which of these (or others possibly the Panasonic LX100 or the Sony RX100 VA) would give me an improvement in quality given the limitations of snorkelling. Any advice on housings would also be very welcome.

I'm trying to keep the setup as small as possible so I'm assuming that as I'm snorkelling I don't need additional lighting or filters ? I'm also not sure with these cameras whether I would need additional lenses?

Many thanks for any much needed guidance you can give me !!

The cameras you mention all have similar fields of view to your TG-5, the main difference is that they don't have the closeup capability of the TG-5.  It would be helpful to know what sorts of things you mostly shoot when snorkelling, If it's mainly small things the cameras you mention won't do so well compared to the TG-5, if it's mainly fish and reef scenes then the field of view will be similar, you'll just record it on a larger sensor.

Thanks - all the cameras I mentioned have housings which I'm looking at as well. I had seen quite a price range but hadn't realised that some were metal and others plastic. I saw a very positive review by Backscatter of the E PL 10 plus housing which included a 14-42mm lens at roughly the same cost of the compacts including housing, so I wondered if this could be an option for better quality images given the larger sensor or would I definitely need additional lenses ? Its operation also looked very similar to the TG5 so an easy transition.

Chris - I mainly shoot fish and a few other scenes rather than small things so I've rarely used the TG5's macro capability underwater. Is recording on a larger sensor the key to better quality images ? If so this might push me towards the E PL 10 or the Panasonic LX100 which both have 4/3 sensors as the other compacts have 1" sensors (although still bigger than the TG5)

Hi Steve

Chris may have a slightly different view, but if you are snorkelling, especially "surface snorkelling" having a larger sensor is not going to make a huge difference to the image quality.

Underwater photography tends to be more about proximity to the subject (the closer the better) and the ability to light the subject well.

Obviously meeting this criteria is not so easy if you are surface snorkelling. Whether the housing is metal or plastic, similarly, makes little difference - expect "metal" (aluminium) is much more expensive!

Could you post a couple of typical pics that you have taken and tell us what you what you'd like to improve? That'd help with giving you more thoughts on what might work for you. 

Hi Tim

A little nervous to post some of my "amateurish" pics given some of the amazing ones I've seen on here but here goes. Just a couple of typical ones taken in the Mediterranean. I guess what I'm looking for is less grainy  and sharper images and potentially a wider depth of field.

If its a bright day when I'm snorkelling it feels like the light near the surface is pretty good so I was hoping a larger sensor camera would give me the improved image quality and a wider depth of field. I was also thinking that in lower light conditions it would take more light in than a smaller sensor and therefore help with image quality in those conditions as well? 

Thanks

Steve

Hi Steve

No need at all to worry about "amateurish". All that matters is if you are pleased with the pics; then what sort of improvement you are seeking to achieve.

Couple of thoughts by way of background: you talk of a "wider depth of field". There could be two issues here. The first is a wider field of view. To achieve this you need a wider angle of view than you have with your current lens.  So a wider angle lens. That doesn't seem to be an issue for these photos and, in fact, working on the law of u/w photography, the close the better, you wouldn't really want to go wider angle unless you were maybe shooting a reef scene.

The second is a greater depth of field. This is where more of the picture is in focus and is achieved by using a smaller aperture. The smaller the aperture, the greater the depth of field (DOF) or in other words, more of the image is in focus.

Neither of these issues would necessarily be achieved by using a bigger sensor. In addition, I'd suggest with u/w photography you need to be a little cautious about necessarily wanting greater DOF especially with the sorts of pics you are taking. Because you are photographing largely from the surface it's hard to isolate the fish against the background. Increasing the DOF will actually make this worse.

In the two images you have, the subject shows up pretty well against its background. If you had increased the DOF the fish would merge more into the background.

I'm not so familiar with the camera models you are thinking of although I'm sure Chris (when he wakes up in Oz) and others will chip-in. I know the Canon G series and the LX100 have been very popular. But I do wonder whether they will make a significant difference for you over the TG-5 for surface snorkelling. You could end up spending a ton of cash for little real gain.

Regarding potential for better image quality, the single biggest step you can make in terms of sensors is going from a 1/2.5" sensor with 25mm2 sensor area to a m43 with 225 mm2 sensor area.  A full frame is 865 mm2.  So TG-5 to m43 gives you a 9x increase in light collecting area while m43 to full frame gives just short of a 4 fold increase.  Collecting more light is what picture quality is all about.  SO there is a good chance for a decent increase in image quality. 

Having said all that the it may be hard to pick between the a TG-5 and an EPL-10 at the image scale shown here.  What it might allow you to do is have headroom to process the images differently, as well as ISO noise issues the TG-5 will have a stop or so less dynamic range.  This might allow you to deal better with harsh highlights you see in these pics. 

How close are you to these fish? - it looks like you are pretty close, but hard to judge not knowing the size of the fish.  Are you at full zoom?

Going to a larger sensor will give you less depth of field in most circumstances  and that's not always a bad thing especially for fish portraits. it tends to separate them out from the background better. 

The single biggest thing you can do though IMO is to add lighting it helps the fish pop and separate it from the background.  I know it goes counter to keeping things compact but it does make a significant difference. Here's an example of a snakeskin wrasse from on of my local divesites, taken on an EM-5 MkII (similar sensor to EPL-10) at 40mm focal length:

Thanks for your comments guys - really helpful and informative.

Tim - I hadn't really thought depth of field through and as you say for fish portraits a smaller depth of field is probably beneficial so a greater depth of field shouldn't really be on my wishlist.

Chris - the increase in sensor area from the TG5 to a m43 is really interesting and gives me hope that an upgrade could give some increase in image quality. I know lighting would probably help but I don't think its really practical for snorkelling where I'm trying to keep things as small as possible.

I was probably about 6ft to 10ft from the fish in the pics and the fish were quite small - 3 or 4 inches in length. I was zoomed in 2x but did process them in Lightroom and crop both of them to around 25% of their original size.

Thanks again

Steve

9 minutes ago, Steve Hickey said:

Thanks for your comments guys - really helpful and informative.

Tim - I hadn't really thought depth of field through and as you say for fish portraits a smaller depth of field is probably beneficial so a greater depth of field shouldn't really be on my wishlist.

Chris - the increase in sensor area from the TG5 to a m43 is really interesting and gives me hope that an upgrade could give some increase in image quality. I know lighting would probably help but I don't think its really practical for snorkelling where I'm trying to keep things as small as possible.

I was probably about 6ft to 10ft from the fish in the pics and the fish were quite small - 3 or 4 inches in length. I was zoomed in 2x but did process them in Lightroom and crop both of them to around 25% of their original size.

Thanks again

Steve

The distance through the water at 6 to 10 ft will be your limiting factor much of the time  and at that distance beyond the practical range of lighting.  The thing with snorkelling is the fish spook, you can get much closer diving.

Working on getting closer will help, no matters the camera. I do snorkeling too and shoot with a TG6, this picture was taken at 18mm (100mm FF equivalent) and is very slightly cropped. I remember shooting this at ~6-10inch if this small (1.5in) fantail darter. Patience and slow movements help.

@Steve Hickey

I was going to say something similar to @OMorissette, getting closer is going to make the biggest difference in your images.

The way to think about this (for snorkeling) is that more water you have to shoot through the less "clarity" you will have in your resulting image (where clarity here is a generic term that encompasses color, sharpness, etc). By adding a light source (like a strobe) you can counter this a bit, but only within the range of the light reaching the subject.

What many folks initially overlook is that water is ~800x more dense than air. This, along with some of the physical properties of liquids means you are shooting through a much larger amount of suspended "stuff" (while dealing with diffusion & diffraction). 

For many of us, getting closer equates to taking more time to approach a subject - with snorkeling this can be more challenging.

There was an u/w photographer instructor in Bali that taught photography while free diving (pre-pandemic) - his rule of thumb was, until you can spend ~10-15 seconds "still" at depth to set up a shot you should spend more time on your diving skills, less time focused on photography.



 

Hi Steve, 

I''m a big fan of the TG5 (and TG6) for snorkelling . I also have an Olympus EPL-10 which has a very similar sized housing. I think one factor is how much you enjoy processing images. I don't - and so the JPEGS using the in-camera underwater white balance settings are great for me.  A big difference was getting the AOI UWL-400A wet wide angle lens for the TG5 Olympus housing which gives up to 120 degrees field of view and much better pictures. It's also reassuring back-up to have a water-proof camera inside a water-proof housing! Using this set-up without a tray or arms is very convenient for free diving and long surface swims.

I believe another good option is the Olympus FCON-T02 fisheye accessory lens which can be used on the camera or with an Ikelite housing with dome. I don't have one of those but I think it does circular and diagonal fisheye and split shots. 

Cheers

John

Hi John

I always shoot in RAW and process afterwards and don't have a housing for the TG5. Thanks for the suggestions - I've had a quick look at the wide angle lens and the fisheye accessory lens and they look like potential options. With the wide angle lens I would need a housing as well but I wondered what sort of pics you used it for and if you felt it improved the image quality ? 

I was really interested to hear that you had the Olympus EPL-10 as well. How does it perform in comparison to the TG5/6 and do you use each camera in different situations ? There is a big difference in sensor size - has this translated into better quality images with the EPL-10 for you in practice ?

I saw that you live next to the Great Barrier Reef which must be fantastic for snorkelling and I love the turtle pic. I live in the north-east of England so don't have the same opportunities !!!

Cheers

Steve

Hey Steve

The fact that you shoot RAW is very helpful. If you have Lightroom , for example,  tweaking the Clarity and Dehaze settings could make quite a difference especially as you don't want to use lights/strobes.

I appreciate making these changes is not the same as creating the image in-camera, but it will bring a sharpness of colours and definition which would be very helpful and, I suspect, achieve what you are looking for.

Putting the camera in a housing won't make any difference of course to image quality - although you might sleep better at night not worrying about flooding! If it allows you to attach a wide-angle or fisheye lens, there are a couple of issues to bear in mind.

On the wide-angle, as Chris and I have mentioned, the key thing with u/w photography is getting as close as possible to the subject. Wide-angle lenses underwater are mainly used so that you can get right up to the subject but still show the subject against a background or in a context: eg, imagine a diver in front of a fan coral or against the reef.  With a wide-angle (or especially fisheye) you can be with a metre of the subject, have the whole thing in the frame AND some of the environment. This then gives image a context and eliminates lots of water between the lens and the subject (as Chris mentioned about the distortion/defraction etc) and brings better colour saturation, clarity and sharpness.

I'm attaching one pic which may explain this. The diver/coral is REALLY close to the (fisheye) lens - maybe within 12"-18" - which minimises the amount of water between subject and camera. You don't use this kind of lens (wide-angle/fisheye) normally to show a wider angle of view. 

If you are going to use the wide-angle lens whilst snorkelling on the surface you will increase the angle of view but, effectively, not get any close to the subject - actually make it look even more distant and unsharp. To use the lens effectively you have to get very close to the subject. The same - even more so - with the fisheye.

Hi Tim

Thanks again for your good advice on the wide angle and fisheye lenses. If I'm in the shallows I can get close to the fish but this isn't typically what I'm doing so probably isn't for me. 

On Lightroom I already use it on every photo and find it very beneficial and use most of the functionality to improve clarity and sharpness especially the dehaze button.

Cheers

Steve 

Hi Steve,

To answer your questions... the wide angle lens on the TG housing improves images by getting closer, but also by changing the subject matter available compared to what you may be used to with the TG5 alone - and remember they are removable for versatility. I'm picturing wider scenes in kelp gardens with maerl beds, or seals at the Farne Islands, lions-main jellyfish, lobsters, close focus wide angle of sea squirts etc near the shoreline, split shots along the shoreline etc?? Presumably you have a wetsuit rather than a dry suit and can free dive to get better photographic angles? I've done lots of UK diving in the past...

As for the EPL-10, the housing feels good quality, as do the wet lenses. The housing includes a leak sensor and vacuum which works well. I really like the camera and, handily, the menus are familiar after using the TG5. I haven't used the camera enough though to say too much about the results underwater. 

As for picture quality, I think the TG cameras are great for anything shown on a screen and the ability to have a waterproof camera inside a waterproof housing is great if you are using the gear a lot (beforehand I had Canon S110 in a housing, then Canon G16 in Fantasea housing).

I do a lot of diving and snorkelling for work and fun and prefer small size and ambient light for snorkelling/free diving. Also, a good option could be a surf housing (like Aquatech) which are made for many different top end cameras. These are popular for free divers that want very good picture quality.

John

Hi John - many thanks for taking the time to answer my questions. I really think the EPL-10 is a serious contender if i decide to upgrade given the large sensor and the familiar menus which will help with the transition from the TG5.

Cheers

Steve

On 3/14/2022 at 2:51 AM, Steve Hickey said:

Hi John - many thanks for taking the time to answer my questions. I really think the EPL-10 is a serious contender if i decide to upgrade given the large sensor and the familiar menus which will help with the transition from the TG5.

Cheers

Steve

 

I upgraded from the TG-6 to the EPL-10 and found it to be a smooth transition.  The Olympus menus/UI is pretty consistent so was easy to get used to the EPL-10 controls. 

Considering you are planning to shoot in natural light I would get the epl10 or an lx100. The epl 10 also allows growth by getting a fisheye later on. The lx100 probably has a better lens out of the box, but I believe housing options are much more expensive unless you manage to find one used. For the money I don’t think you can go wrong with the epl10.