Mirrorless Cameras Opportunity or Necessary Evil?

8 minutes ago, oneyellowtang said:

Yeah... no.

One example... side by side shooting in dark conditions (A7R4 and D850) - D850 performed better (in a hold of a wreck). I've actually seen some Sony shooters turn off their Live View in some dark conditions because it absolutely screws up your night vision...

I shoot nightscapes I think I have a pretty idea of what happens in real low light

Cameras that are optimized for really dark environment have live view in red monochrome there is no issue and a screen even without when dimmed is not having the effect of a focus light for example

With regards to your example of side by side unless the same person takes the shot with two different cameras and knows how to use them properly I believe nothing of that sort sorry

Both cameras focus at -4EV and today most cameras focus at -4EV but none achieve continuous autofocus at that level of brigthness this is the issue not to be confuse with absolute ability in low light

41 minutes ago, Interceptor121 said:

I shoot nightscapes I think I have a pretty idea of what happens in real low light

Cameras that are optimized for really dark environment have live view in red monochrome there is no issue and a screen even without when dimmed is not having the effect of a focus light for example

With regards to your example of side by side unless the same person takes the shot with two different cameras and knows how to use them properly I believe nothing of that sort sorry

Both cameras focus at -4EV and today most cameras focus at -4EV but none achieve continuous autofocus at that level of brigthness this is the issue not to be confuse with absolute ability in low light

Again... no.

You continue to make assumptions that are incorrect.

I've shot side by side using both systems on the same dive, same subjects (to continue to evaluate when mirrorless may be ready to replace my DSLRs). 

Having shot deep space astrophotography for 2 decades... I'll just disagree.

You do not need to believe anything - you stated an opinion, it seems to be factually inaccurate (DSLR shooters turning on "live view...") given the responses.

 

15 minutes ago, oneyellowtang said:

Again... no.

You continue to make assumptions that are incorrect.

I've shot side by side using both systems on the same dive, same subjects (to continue to evaluate when mirrorless may be ready to replace my DSLRs). 

Having shot deep space astrophotography for 2 decades... I'll just disagree.

You do not need to believe anything - you stated an opinion, it seems to be factually inaccurate (DSLR shooters turning on "live view...") given the responses.

 

You shot deep space on an optical viewfinder? Deep space requires guiding and typically capture on another screen

I do not know anyone that can track a nebula using any camera DSLR or Mirrorless reliably without guiding 

I suggest you learn how mirrorless camera do metering and control the EVF as there is a way to see the shadows if you know how to than it is possible that the camera you is lacking somehow but I doubt it. On Sony you need to disable the setting view usually or otherwise it will be dark

https://helpguide.sony.net/ilc/1930/v1/en/contents/TP0002688430.html

Besides when you see the OVF and click if you don't apply corrections it will clip anyway

There will not be a day where the screen of a mirrorless has more than 10 stops DR so you may be in for a very long wait if you don't work around the limitations and believe a screen can emulate the functioning of your eye which ignores the bright area does not manage them in a backlit shot as your field of view for focus is actually less than 10 degrees

19 hours ago, Edy park said:

I think creativity and shooting skills are more important than equipment.

I can guarantee you that the equipment is not m limiting factor.  Have $100,000 to spend on camera gear will not make me a better photographer.  However having the available fund to spend $100,000 on photography would make me a better photographer. As you said its not the gear its the ability to get out and use the gear you have.  There are many many people out there making AMAZING images with the TG5/6 setups.

4 hours ago, Interceptor121 said:

You shot deep space on an optical viewfinder? Deep space requires guiding and typically capture on another screen

I do not know anyone that can track a nebula using any camera DSLR or Mirrorless reliably without guiding 

I suggest you learn how mirrorless camera do metering and control the EVF as there is a way to see the shadows if you know how to than it is possible that the camera you is lacking somehow but I doubt it. On Sony you need to disable the setting view usually or otherwise it will be dark

https://helpguide.sony.net/ilc/1930/v1/en/contents/TP0002688430.html

Besides when you see the OVF and click if you don't apply corrections it will clip anyway

There will not be a day where the screen of a mirrorless has more than 10 stops DR so you may be in for a very long wait if you don't work around the limitations and believe a screen can emulate the functioning of your eye which ignores the bright area does not manage them in a backlit shot as your field of view for focus is actually less than 10 degrees

Hmm...

The astrophotography comment was only meant to demonstrate that you are not the only one who shoots in dark environments.

For most astrophotography you don't use the viewfinder or the screen for much at all (other than maybe an initial setup).

The point remains: you made a statement that doesn't hold up to the data presented back to you...

If you can find a number of DSLR shooters that use a live view-like functionality on dark dives then we can reconsider, otherwise I think the point has been made (which brings into question why you made the statement in the first place).

In an attempt to bring the thread back to the main question...

Since all the major camera brands are moving to mirrorless, that really is the future. However, for many folks who are happy with their current DSLR systems, there is a question of whether to/when to look at upgrading to the current generation of mirrorless cameras.

Some of the important issues that have been mentioned in this thread are:

Autofocus (AF) speed and reliability

Wide angle shooting into the sun

EVF verses OVF viewfinders

Underwater my experience of digital cameras is only with Nikon: D200, D7100/7200, Z7II

On land my experience of digital is (including the above) is: D850, D810, D610, Z7

So for a Nikon shooter I can give some perspective. I know nothing about Sony or other systems for UWater.

For AF the D850/D810 are superior to the Z7/Z7II - no question. For wide angle I will suggest that the difference in AF is not relevant, I've had no issues with the AF of the Z7II for doing underwater wide angle. For macro, the Z7II AF is prone to hunting and moving to the wrong object (my experience) but once I get the subject the way I want it minor AF changes work well and the EVF helps a lot for composition and nailing the focus (see below)

For wide angle shots into the sun. I find no difference between the mirrorless and the D7200, they are equally hard to get a nicely balanced exposure. I can see the sun just fine on the Z7II. For me, getting the sun exposure dialed in is challenging regardless of system type, but I never felt that seeing the sun in the EVF was the problem - it was the same as ever, getting a composition, getting a model into a decent position, balancing exposure in the foreground (strobe power) with the sun exposure (f stop/shutter speed combo) and other familiar challenges.

For the EVF v. OVF questions. I prefer the EVF, I can see everything I want to see. I have a sharper and brighter view of my subject. For macro I have been able to get a far greater number of properly focused images of small critters than with the D7200, especially for super-macro with a diopter. The other advantage of the EVF is that I can see the composition and the exposure of the image in the viewfinder without moving my camera from the subject. This makes it so much easier to refocus, modify strobes/camera settings since I don't have to move away from the subject or move the camera to view the screen on the back. For me the EVF is a great step forward.

Now, for someone who has a complete D850/D500/similar DSLR setup, the question is what's the point of upgrading and spending all the money to do. In my opinion there's not too much reason for it at this point. The D850 has better AF, you have a system that you are familiar with, you have already spent the money. The D850 and Z7II have essentially an identical sensor (I know there's a several year technology gap, but there's little to choose between them if anything) so switching to the Z7II is barely, if at all, going to change your image quality.

The Z system mirrorless housing is essentially the same size as a DSLR one so there's barely any advantage there. If you use 8 inch (or greater) domes then your pain will not be reduced by switching.

Now, if you are looking for a new system, moving up from a compact camera or just starting out there are different strategies. You can get a used system for a fraction of the cost of buying new. D850, D810, D7200 etc. are all available for very decent prices and you can put together a great system for a fraction of a new Z7 system. You will be happy with the image quality. No question.

Or you can look into the high end mirrorless systems. Your budget will be way higher, you will have great image quality. You will most likely be happy with the images.

However, as pointed out by @Edy park and many others over the years, the real thing to work on is improving our composition and lighting skills. A new camera won't fix those things for us. A new camera may have some features that can help us with exposure or getting setup to take an images but it doesn't improve our skills, only practice and study will do that.

OK, so why did I upgrade then and spend all that money? I upgraded because I had already switched from using my D810 for landscape and other topside images to a Z7 and I was moving to mirrorless anyway. I wanted the ability to get better video than the D7200 offered underwater. I have always been unhappy with my Tokina 10-17 image quality at the edges so I was looking to switch to the 8-15mm and would need to get a new mini dome anyway. I wanted to switch to optical connectors so I could add the Backscatter snoot system. yes, the upgrade cost was huge, it was painful, and while my wife knows it was expensive, she doesn't know how expensive But, for me, it's been fine to make the change with a small learning curve.

Hope this helps anyone who is interested.

Jon/Rinjani

8 minutes ago, rinjani said:

In an attempt to bring the thread back to the main question...

 

Since all the major camera brands are moving to mirrorless, that really is the future. However, for many folks who are happy with their current DSLR systems, there is a question of whether to/when to look at upgrading to the current generation of mirrorless cameras.

Some of the important issues that have been mentioned in this thread are:

Autofocus (AF) speed and reliability

Wide angle shooting into the sun

EVF verses OVF viewfinders

 

Underwater my experience of digital cameras is only with Nikon: D200, D7100/7200, Z7II

On land my experience of digital is (including the above) is: D850, D810, D610, Z7

So for a Nikon shooter I can give some perspective. I know nothing about Sony or other systems for UWater.

For AF the D850/D810 are superior to the Z7/Z7II - no question. For wide angle I will suggest that the difference in AF is not relevant, I've had no issues with the AF of the Z7II for doing underwater wide angle. For macro, the Z7II AF is prone to hunting and moving to the wrong object (my experience) but once I get the subject the way I want it minor AF changes work well and the EVF helps a lot for composition and nailing the focus (see below)

For wide angle shots into the sun. I find no difference between the mirrorless and the D7200, they are equally hard to get a nicely balanced exposure. I can see the sun just fine on the Z7II. For me, getting the sun exposure dialed in is challenging regardless of system type, but I never felt that seeing the sun in the EVF was the problem - it was the same as ever, getting a composition, getting a model into a decent position, balancing exposure in the foreground (strobe power) with the sun exposure (f stop/shutter speed combo) and other familiar challenges.

For the EVF v. OVF questions. I prefer the EVF, I can see everything I want to see. I have a sharper and brighter view of my subject. For macro I have been able to get a far greater number of properly focused images of small critters than with the D7200, especially for super-macro with a diopter. The other advantage of the EVF is that I can see the composition and the exposure of the image in the viewfinder without moving my camera from the subject. This makes it so much easier to refocus, modify strobes/camera settings since I don't have to move away from the subject or move the camera to view the screen on the back. For me the EVF is a great step forward.

 

Now, for someone who has a complete D850/D500/similar DSLR setup, the question is what's the point of upgrading and spending all the money to do. In my opinion there's not too much reason for it at this point. The D850 has better AF, you have a system that you are familiar with, you have already spent the money. The D850 and Z7II have essentially an identical sensor (I know there's a several year technology gap, but there's little to choose between them if anything) so switching to the Z7II is barely, if at all, going to change your image quality.

The Z system mirrorless housing is essentially the same size as a DSLR one so there's barely any advantage there. If you use 8 inch (or greater) domes then your pain will not be reduced by switching.

Now, if you are looking for a new system, moving up from a compact camera or just starting out there are different strategies. You can get a used system for a fraction of the cost of buying new. D850, D810, D7200 etc. are all available for very decent prices and you can put together a great system for a fraction of a new Z7 system. You will be happy with the image quality. No question.

Or you can look into the high end mirrorless systems. Your budget will be way higher, you will have great image quality. You will most likely be happy with the images.

 

However, as pointed out by @Edy park and many others over the years, the real thing to work on is improving our composition and lighting skills. A new camera won't fix those things for us. A new camera may have some features that can help us with exposure or getting setup to take an images but it doesn't improve our skills, only practice and study will do that.

OK, so why did I upgrade then and spend all that money? I upgraded because I had already switched from using my D810 for landscape and other topside images to a Z7 and I was moving to mirrorless anyway. I wanted the ability to get better video than the D7200 offered underwater. I have always been unhappy with my Tokina 10-17 image quality at the edges so I was looking to switch to the 8-15mm and would need to get a new mini dome anyway. I wanted to switch to optical connectors so I could add the Backscatter snoot system. yes, the upgrade cost was huge, it was painful, and while my wife knows it was expensive, she doesn't know how expensive But, for me, it's been fine to make the change with a small learning curve.

 

Hope this helps anyone who is interested.

 

Jon/Rinjani

 

 

 

 

 

very good

On 6/22/2022 at 6:50 AM, Interceptor121 said:

A lot of people think they do

The question is if this is or not a mirrorless user

I shoot plenty of sunbursts I have non problem and on land I have no problem either

There are many evf implentations to overcome pretty much any limit but there are poor implementations that go dark

It really depends

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I take it you have no idea who Berkely White is.

34 minutes ago, phxazcraig said:

I take it you have no idea who Berkely White is.

Yes is the owner of backscatter

When has me made this statement now or 3 years ago?

If you read here you can't take a sunburst with a mirrorless well I have around a million examples including mine

Besides you should be careful with including the sunball into the picture unless the rays are very low as clipping will occur no matter what

Actually shooting sunballs underwater is way easier than shooting sunballs on land where the dynamic range is 1000 higher

9 hours ago, oneyellowtang said:

Yeah... no.

One example... side by side shooting in dark conditions (A7R4 and D850) - D850 performed better (in a hold of a wreck). I've actually seen some Sony shooters turn off their Live View in some dark conditions because it absolutely screws up your night vision...

I will have to agree with I 121, it seems more like an issue of user error. I do my share of night photography as well with my main subject being the aurora. The main trick is getting a good infinity focus which can be difficult with an SLR - focusing on stars if the moon cannot be seen (manual focus). The first time I used live view was for this task - it was with the Canon 7D2. Subject was a comet. Lens was an 85mm f/1.4 to be used at f/1.4. One night it was actually clear so that I could see it. The next night as well and that was it for the entire comet period due to being near the ocean (foggy at night when clear or otherwise overcast). My cometography was not planned in advance. It was a quick decision. I grabbed the camera, lens, and tripod and headed out the door (flashlight in pocket). I did not even know how to turn on live view!! So I had to go back in a few times to consult the instruction manual that I opened and read on my computer screen. I also grabbed a Lupe. In general I have found that live view on DSLRs works better for manual focusing than the OVF. One needs to use a lupe, however (keep in mind I am old and cannot focus as close as when younger).

And that has improved quite a bit with recent cameras due to improved screens as well EVF. I use the EVF (at 200% on my Zs) when manually focusing. If the EVF is not practical I will use the rear rear screen. For example, I have done a couple of night shoots with the 8-15 lens at 8mm with the camera pointed straight up with the screen flipped out (ended up in a vertical orientation). Besides focusing, I used the screen for composition (e.g., minimizing street lights) and for chimping (for exposure). I have not used the Z9 at night because it is the non-dark time of year (just twilight after sunset now).

No EVF experience night diving but plenty of DSLR screen usage. It is important to lower the screen brightness! I mainly use the screen to check exposure and have had auto-chipping off (but am considering having it on the next time). The reflectivity of subjects during blackwater photography varies by multiple stops so it is rather important to keep checking. I have blown a few shots such as when a fish quickly entered the scene. As well the gut contents, especially of comb jellies (carnivores), can be quite reflective. It is important as well to return the screen brightness back to normal after a night dive - I have forgotten once. It may have had something to do with getting back to the hotel after midnight and then scrambling to charge batteries and clean up and set up gear for the next day.

I do not use LV for diving (DSRs) at night because of the exposure simulation issue. I do not think it can be disabled on my D4S. I did not even try to turn it on with most of my Canons (easy-peasy on the D4 series). However I might if the view brightness could be controlled independently (of exposure) and fixed which is the case now with mirrorless. According to Thom Hogan the Z9 AF depends on “exposure” so this might be an issue for night diving at small apertures and using strobes. We do use focusing lights but are they good enough?

7 hours ago, Interceptor121 said:

Yes is the owner of backscatter

When has me made this statement now or 3 years ago?

 

Last week.

11 hours ago, phxazcraig said:

Last week.

 

Wow pretty bad also for his business unless is sitting on stock of DSLR housings

This sounds a lot like the discussions comparing digital to film some 22 years ago.  
 

I wonder how that turned out. 

A bit like guitar bands then, eh? Never catch on.

On 6/24/2022 at 3:44 PM, ehanauer said:

This sounds a lot like the discussions comparing digital to film some 22 years ago.  

Not really....

We are talking about a small technical evolution rather than a fundamental change in our entire lifestyles...or I guess you could say the change has already happened, since iPhones are mirrorless

Surely our goal is to use tools to capture images. When a particular camera/housing/optical/lighting solution offers photographic opportunities that others do not, and you want to capture these images or value these solutions for your creative process...you should absolutely upgrade/change. A great example is the Sony a7s3 in very low light situations...it simply allows photographers to create images that they could not before. If this is what you do, it is a no brainer to change to one...

However, this also defines my current frustration with the whole debate about mirrorless for underwater.

Outside of a few specialist applications/camera models, it really doesn't do anything better than what I have now (and in some instances is worse) and has a limited range of suitable optics, meaning that I can't leverage any of the potential advantages in the mirrorless design. Being able to review images in an EVF is really not a significant enough advantage to persuade me to put up with the other issues and to justify the expense of switching systems. As I have said before, lots of folks seem to have been perfectly capable of creating images that I am still trying to emulate (without success) with optical viewfinders!

However if you think that an EVF's features will enable you to get "those" shots, and it is worth the expense (to you) you definitely should change. 

On 6/24/2022 at 11:28 AM, Interceptor121 said:

Wow pretty bad also for his business unless is sitting on stock of DSLR housings

Of course, change is inevitable, and is driven by a number of factors. Encouraging us to spend money is in every businesses' interests, and I fall prey to this as much as everyone else. I think Berkeley's advice represents much of what is good in our industry. Providing advice based on relevant personal experience and by not allowing the desire for increased profit (or perhaps more commonly in our industry-to remain solvent!) to influence his advice. It is important to stress that camera manufacturers do not consider the needs of the relatively tiny number of underwater image makers as being relevant to their commercial success, technically or financially.

I cannot see any compelling reasons listed in either Massimo's article or more generally, that will persuade me to switch to any mirrorless set-up for the bulk of my photography now. I freely acknowledge that this will change when there are sufficient optical and technical advantages in my doing so, and mirrorless offers the opportunity to capture images I can't with an SLR,  If that makes me an "old-timer" or "being set in my ways," anyone that knows me will also be aware that I am also not a dedicated follower of fashion

Of course, change is inevitable, and is driven by a number of factors. Encouraging us to spend money is in every businesses' interests, and I fall prey to this as much as everyone else. I think Berkeley's advice represents much of what is good in our industry. Providing advice based on relevant personal experience and by not allowing the desire for increased profit (or perhaps more commonly in our industry-to remain solvent!) to influence his advice. It is important to stress that camera manufacturers do not consider the needs of the relatively tiny number of underwater image makers as being relevant to their commercial success, technically or financially.
I cannot see any compelling reasons listed in either Massimo's article or more generally, that will persuade me to switch to any mirrorless set-up for the bulk of my photography now. I freely acknowledge that this will change when there are sufficient optical and technical advantages in my doing so, and mirrorless offers the opportunity to capture images I can't with an SLR,  If that makes me an "old-timer" or "being set in my ways," anyone that knows me will also be aware that I am also not a dedicated follower of fashion [emoji4]

Cameras are "just" tools. To claim that you have to re-learn how to shoot when switching between types of camera is ridiculous. Most photographers switch between surface and underwater camera use, and we all use iPhones....many come from a path which has included mirrorless cameras in some form prior to switching to an SLR. 

The controls and some settings are different, but the learning curve isn't actually very steep. In fact, I think it is similar to changing camera brands in terms of complexity. It requires some learning, discussion and forethought, but isn't really that difficult.

I can still get parts (including replacement shutters) for the Nikon D2Xs - which is 16 years old! SLRs have a long service life ahead of them. I also firmly believe that whenever possible, we should all reuse and repair. As a complete aside, I have recently been "Super Resolving" some of the D2Xs images in my back catalog and they look really good at 48MP

Canon have some very capable underwater suitable lenses for SLRs (e.g. 8-15mm, 100mm, 16-35mm), that have produced (and continue to produce) excellent underwater images. In fact the argument that using existing lenses with an adapter is a reason for switching to mirrorless as it means that the reduced lens choices has little impact, also means that anyone investing now could buy SLR, and then use their lenses with an adaptor in the future? Given that no manufacturer currently produces a native mirrorless fisheye that is suitable, this means that anyone buying mirrorless now, will have to buy SLR lenses...

The single biggest impediment to people investing in better/more capable underwater camera set-ups in cost. I welcome the fact that the commercial drive towards mirrorless is creating a thriving and relatively inexpensive second hand market. This is an amazing opportunity for those getting started (particularly given the new software options.) Even for those with more resources, reduced equipment prices allows more budget for travel and hence increased opportunities to capture amazing subjects. 

To return to my starting point, cameras are "tools" and in the hand of a skilled user in the right place, almost all are capable of producing amazing imagery. Perhaps we should focus more on the techniques and places that allow us to do so?

20 minutes ago, adamhanlon said:

Cameras are "just" tools. To claim that you have to re-learn how to shoot when switching between types of camera is ridiculous. Most photographers switch between surface and underwater camera use, and we all use iPhones....many come from a path which has included mirrorless cameras in some form prior to switching to an SLR. 

The controls and some settings are different, but the learning curve isn't actually very steep. In fact, I think it is similar to changing camera brands in terms of complexity. It requires some learning, discussion and forethought, but isn't really that difficult.

I can still get parts (including replacement shutters) for the Nikon D2Xs - which is 16 years old! SLRs have a long service life ahead of them. I also firmly believe that whenever possible, we should all reuse and repair. As a complete aside, I have recently been "Super Resolving" some of the D2Xs images in my back catalog and they look really good at 48MP

Canon have some very capable underwater suitable lenses for SLRs (e.g. 8-15mm, 100mm, 16-35mm), that have produced (and continue to produce) excellent underwater images. In fact the argument that using existing lenses with an adapter is a reason for switching to mirrorless as it means that the reduced lens choices has little impact, also means that anyone investing now could buy SLR, and then use their lenses with an adaptor in the future? Given that no manufacturer currently produces a native mirrorless fisheye that is suitable, this means that anyone buying mirrorless now, will have to buy SLR lenses...

The single biggest impediment to people investing in better/more capable underwater camera set-ups in cost. I welcome the fact that the commercial drive towards mirrorless is creating a thriving and relatively inexpensive second hand market. This is an amazing opportunity for those getting started (particularly given the new software options.) Even for those with more resources, reduced equipment prices allows more budget for travel and hence increased opportunities to capture amazing subjects. 

To return to my starting point, cameras are "tools" and in the hand of a skilled user in the right place, almost all are capable of producing amazing imagery. Perhaps we should focus more on the techniques and places that allow us to do so?

Well you were the one with other making the point that in some situation a mirrorless camera is not working well and I was the one talking about techniques to make it work

Going on the second hand market to find spares for end of life models is not for everyone 

Majority of users just want something that works and is supported 

In general terms the second hand market has always been there it does not depend on which camera you shoot this is normal when items are expensive and nothing specific to this situation what is surprising is that manufacturers keep being obsessed with replacements and none offers to retire used models. I sell all my used kit on ebay or through forum with one exception I have a good return and I hate to hoard on kit that I do not use so as soon as I realise I do not need it I get rid of it

In UK it is uncommon that retailers get involved in second hand but reef photo in US does it, they just stock your items and charge a commission but don't buy the items off you. I do not understand why other shops do not do that. I have bought loads of items from them including a mint WWL-1

In terms of the techniques of course that is essential and say you can do something with something you cannot do with something else is generally incorrect there is always a way what changes is the effort and most people want to do the least

This does not brush off under the rug the actual issue which is DSLR is at sunset and it is time to review your options if you are in this game for longer

6 hours ago, Interceptor121 said:

This does not brush off under the rug the actual issue which is DSLR is at sunset and it is time to review your options if you are in this game for longer

Why? I plan to be "in this game" for as long as I am able to function. I'm not sure why I need to review my options now? Is this set to time expire? In five (or ten) years time, will I no longer be able to use a new camera? 

My existing cameras will continue to function adequately for the foreseeable future. Even if they do wear out (which is something I have never done) 14 year old cameras are still eminently repairable. D2Xs shutter replacement is still available via Nikon UK's approved repairer...no need to buy "second hand" spares for it, just send it to Nikon....

I agree that second hand cameras have always been available, but the change now is that people are selling lenses too. Amazing underwater lenses like the Canon 8-15, Nikon 105mm VR micro, Nikon 60mm micro and the Tokina 10-17mm are now incredible cheap, which is ironic, considering that for at least two of those listed, there is no mirrorless equivalent. 

When mirrorless options are available that offer creative opportunities and allow me to create better images than those I can produce now, I will switch. I will continue to seek the best tool for the job. Currently, my feeling is that for underwater use, they offer no advantage and are in fact not that well suited for underwater use. Their current utility seems to be as an attractive new revenue stream, not as a better tool for underwater photographers. 

For example, until there is an EVF that can cope with the DR between an unlit foreground and a brightly lit ambient background, no amount of clever technique or new skill is going to make it work  I guess I could compose them separately, but the damn fish keep moving. Perhaps that is the key to using mirrorless underwater? Advanced fish wrangling skills  Mine are plainly not good enough - is this is an age thing?

 

Why? I plan to be "in this game" for as long as I am able to function. I'm not sure why I need to review my options now? Is this set to time expire? In five (or ten) years time, will I no longer be able to use a new camera? 
My existing cameras will continue to function adequately for the foreseeable future. Even if they do wear out (which is something I have never done) 14 year old cameras are still eminently repairable. D2Xs shutter replacement is still available via Nikon UK's approved repairer...no need to buy "second hand" spares for it, just send it to Nikon....

I agree that second hand cameras have always been available, but the change now is that people are selling lenses too. Amazing underwater lenses like the Canon 8-15, Nikon 105mm VR micro, Nikon 60mm micro and the Tokina 10-17mm are now incredible cheap, which is ironic, considering that for at least two of those listed, there is no mirrorless equivalent. 

When mirrorless options are available that offer creative opportunities and allow me to create better images than those I can produce now, I will switch. I will continue to seek the best tool for the job. Currently, my feeling is that for underwater use, they offer no advantage and are in fact not that well suited for underwater use. Their current utility seems to be as an attractive new revenue stream, not as a better tool for underwater photographers. 

For example, until there is an EVF that can cope with the DR between an unlit foreground and a brightly lit ambient background, no amount of clever technique or new skill is going to make it work [emoji4] I guess I could compose them separately, but the damn fish keep moving. Perhaps that is the key to using mirrorless underwater? Advanced fish wrangling skills [emoji4] Mine are plainly not good enough - is this is an age thing?