Moving to Full Frame Mirrorless is expensive!

After several satisfactory years with my GH5 and now GH5M2 I have considering an upgrade to full frame. My requirements are quite straightforward but the selection of camera is not

1. Not overly large body - no professional battery grip type form factor

2. Able to take great photos and video at 4k60 with no crop

3. Able to reuse my gear as much as possible (I have almost a complete N120 Nauticam port system and the WWL-1)

After careful consideration my choice is the Sony A1 however the initial bill just to reuse the gear I have is considerable 

£6,073 of Nauticam parts

£8,716 of camera and lens

this does not take into account required upgrades to strobes which are going to run in the region of £3,000 and also the fact am using a 180mm dome which am sure will not be optimal

the entry level kit just with the 28-60mm and the hardware to use my canon 8-15mm and 140mm dome is £12,000

I am fiber gasted by such expense I just don't think I dive enough to justify it. I have looked at the Fuji system however as I can't reuse as much and the housing and lens are expensive there is no major benefit but more importantly not a significant enough performance upgrade

I also thought about getting two cameras A7S3 and A7IV and use one housing but it works out equally expensive

I would appreciate some extra suggestions

Biggest problem with the Fuji Cameras is the lens lineup. I guess you would just be planning to adapt a fisheye zoom for that? I agree that upgrading to FF is incredibly expensive. To be fair, the new GH6 housing is also far from cheap. Nauticam has hiked their prices up considerably. 

When I originally got into underwater photography I was using a Sony A7iii, I couldn't justify the pricing for using it underwater. Now I'm using the Olympus EPL10 and AOI housing. I was recently considering getting the AOI housing for my EM1-3 but I've realized that I don't dive often enough enough to justify that expense as well. I recently went from 6-9 dives a month to getting 1-2 dives a month (having a 1 year old  kid kill do that to a fella).

5 minutes ago, hyp said:

Biggest problem with the Fuji Cameras is the lens lineup. I guess you would just be planning to adapt a fisheye zoom for that? I agree that upgrading to FF is incredibly expensive. To be fair, the new GH6 housing is also far from cheap. Nauticam has hiked their prices up considerably. 

The housing prices for non Sony are crazy however the GH5M2 camera costs 20% than the Sony A1

The actual camera body is what brings the prices up a lot A1 costs £6,500 which is 4.8 times the prices of a GH5M2

I will not gain 2.25 stops of performance from this on photos (1.5 more likely) but on video probably yes 

So looking at the value of the body there is a correlation yet it is difficult to digest

I am in a similar situation, but have no hurry (but I think at the latest in 2023 I will upgrade and try out FF by myself). I am currently with MFT (Oly EM1II & EM5II), the difference to Massimo is that I am not very interested in video - I make them very occasionally and any format suffices for me. There are several points I am considering, that I list below:

#1.: What do I expect from upgrading from FF to MFT?

Do be honest, after reading many dozends of reviews and articles on different sensor size, over the water and UW, I still do not know. I hope to get improvements in:

1. a.: ultimate image sharpness (especially for macro), brought by bigger sensor and more pixels..

1.b.: more DR for WA.

1.c.: 14-bit together with 1.b. should give more potential for postprocessing in LR.

#2.: Since I will buy into a new system, all brands are an option to me:

  2.a.: Nikon. Certainly not. Only the oversized Z9 seems to have comparable  AF to the other brands. Even more important, old lenses, important for UW do not work with the mirrorless bodies. Adapters for Sony E-mount and Canon EF-mount lenses exist, but why buy into  a system that con only be used with third party adapters and second party lenses? Also the dieing out and not future proof DSLR line is not an option for me, since I am starting from scratch...

2.b.: Sony is certainly the best option, when only the camera housing itself is considered: small, even with Nauticam housing and best sensor technology, regarding IQ.

    A1: very high IQ and fast AF.

   A7Rv: best IQ and AI AF module. I am not sure, however, whether the AI AF module, with automatic recognition of multiple objects, will be superior to older models for the kind of AF, how I perform it: single point dumb AF in the center and then track the point while framing (C-AF&track).

  A7Riv: best IQ and maybe same AF performance in practice for UW, compared to A7Rv (and maybe also not much worse than A1).

=> Size and IQ vote for Sony, but the big drawback is lens choice. A single longer focal length macro (90 mm) and no native fisheye. So far this was not a problem, since the Canon EF lenses can be used with Metabones or Sigma adapter, but in the future, the new RF lenses will not work with Sony.

2.c.: Canon. Maybe sensor technology is a little bit behind Sony, but I think the difference is more on the academical level and not really relevant for practice. What stands against Canon (R5) is the sheer size of the Nauticam housing. A very big plus is the lens choices: all old EF lenses are reported to work perfect with adapter and it is not the question whether Canon will deliver a Zoom fisheye, but only when. It may be very well that they consider the demands of UW photographers and even come out with a 8mm - 28mm RF fisheye (no question, I would buy into the Canon system then). Also the new APS-C cameras (R7) look attractive for UW and maybe we (me and my wife) could upgrade the second next time to a R7 like body, instead continuing to use and upgrade MFT (e.g. to OM-1).

=> Size is a big problem with FF CAnon, but I cannot see Sony coming out with lenses that can compete with Canon UW.

#3.: WA is indeed a problem with FF, unlike MFT or APS-C.

I think I will start (and mostly use) the Canon 8mm - 15mm with Nauticam 140 domeport. I just will loose the (very practical) ability to zoom in occasionally (maybe I will use the Kenko 1.4x TC that I already have; On MFT I did not find a loss in center sharpness, when using it). Absolutely no idea what to take for regular WA. This May I joined Adam Hanlon and Matt (Yellowtang) on the Red Sea Odyssey and had the chance to hold a WAPC1 in my hands: I doubt that this monstrum is easier to transport than a 230mm domeport, the weight at least is twice, compared to a 230mm domeport...

#4.. The money: Well, did you know that the last skirt does not have a pocket, so that you could take money with you to the next level (not that I am rich, but I set priorities) ?

I am eager to read what others think about this interesting issue...

Wolfgang

2 hours ago, Interceptor121 said:

After careful consideration my choice is the Sony A1

Hmmmmm........ Really?

8 minutes ago, WK's Gone Diving said:

Hmmmmm........ Really?

Yes because it needs to take photos. If video was the focus the A7S3 would be a better and more cost effective option

I have zero interest in 8k video

After I see the price increase by many manufactors. I have the feeling there are only two options. 

1. Go chear for Seafrog and have fun. 

2. Get something like Isotta, Sea&Sea or a like and pay up. I already see that APS-C, M43 or Fullframe will end you in the same backkpark. The new cameras are round about the same size so you just pay a little up and need a bigger dome-port sometimes. 

The hobby seems to be very expansive if you wanna go for mirrorless. I think most times just a small camera like a Sony RX100 will be enough for many people, but we're not sane here  ... 

30 minutes ago, Architeuthis said:

I am in a similar situation, but have no hurry (but I think at the latest in 2023 I will upgrade and try out FF by myself). I am currently with MFT (Oly EM1II & EM5II), the difference to Massimo is that I am not very interested in video - I make them very occasionally and any format suffices for me. There are several points I am considering, that I list below:

 

#1.: What do I expect from upgrading from FF to MFT?

Do be honest, after reading many dozends of reviews and articles on different sensor size, over the water and UW, I still do not know. I hope to get improvements in:

1. a.: ultimate image sharpness (especially for macro), brought by bigger sensor and more pixels..

1.b.: more DR for WA.

1.c.: 14-bit together with 1.b. should give more potential for postprocessing in LR.

 

#2.: Since I will buy into a new system, all brands are an option to me:

  2.a.: Nikon. Certainly not. Only the oversized Z9 seems to have comparable  AF to the other brands. Even more important, old lenses, important for UW do not work with the mirrorless bodies. Adapters for Sony E-mount and Canon EF-mount lenses exist, but why buy into  a system that con only be used with third party adapters and second party lenses? Also the dieing out and not future proof DSLR line is not an option for me, since I am starting from scratch...

2.b.: Sony is certainly the best option, when only the camera housing itself is considered: small, even with Nauticam housing and best sensor technology, regarding IQ.

    A1: very high IQ and fast AF.

   A7Rv: best IQ and AI AF module. I am not sure, however, whether the AI AF module, with automatic recognition of multiple objects, will be superior to older models for the kind of AF, how I perform it: single point dumb AF in the center and then track the point while framing (C-AF&track).

  A7Riv: best IQ and maybe same AF performance in practice for UW, compared to A7Rv (and maybe also not much worse than A1).

=> Size and IQ vote for Sony, but the big drawback is lens choice. A single longer focal length macro (90 mm) and no native fisheye. So far this was not a problem, since the Canon EF lenses can be used with Metabones or Sigma adapter, but in the future, the new RF lenses will not work with Sony.

2.c.: Canon. Maybe sensor technology is a little bit behind Sony, but I think the difference is more on the academical level and not really relevant for practice. What stands against Canon (R5) is the sheer size of the Nauticam housing. A very big plus is the lens choices: all old EF lenses are reported to work perfect with adapter and it is not the question whether Canon will deliver a Zoom fisheye, but only when. It may be very well that they consider the demands of UW photographers and even come out with a 8mm - 28mm RF fisheye (no question, I would buy into the Canon system then). Also the new APS-C cameras (R7) look attractive for UW and maybe we (me and my wife) could upgrade the second next time to a R7 like body, instead continuing to use and upgrade MFT (e.g. to OM-1).

=> Size is a big problem with FF CAnon, but I cannot see Sony coming out with lenses that can compete with Canon UW.

 

#3.: WA is indeed a problem with FF, unlike MFT or APS-C.

I think I will start (and mostly use) the Canon 8mm - 15mm with Nauticam 140 domeport. I just will loose the (very practical) ability to zoom in occasionally (maybe I will use the Kenko 1.4x TC that I already have; On MFT I did not find a loss in center sharpness, when using it). Absolutely no idea what to take for regular WA. This May I joined Adam Hanlon and Matt (Yellowtang) on the Red Sea Odyssey and had the chance to hold a WAPC1 in my hands: I doubt that this monstrum is easier to transport than a 230mm domeport, the weight at least is twice, compared to a 230mm domeport...

 

 

#4.. The money: Well, did you know that the last skirt does not have a pocket, so that you could take money with you to the next level (not that I am rich, but I set priorities) ?

 

I am eager to read what others think about this interesting issue...

 

Wolfgang

 

 

 

If you want a camera for photos only the A7IV not R is sufficient

If you want one camera for video only the A7S3 is sufficient

The issue is to have one set up to cover both and have an upgrade from the GH5M2. When you shoot APSC there is no benefit in video and the lenses field of view changes 

You've probably already ruled it out, but the Canon R7 would pair with the 8-15 fisheye (with adapter), and the 18-45 kit lens works with the  WWL-1.  I purchased an R5 in the Spring, but had the R7 been available then, I would have considered it.  The camera and Nauticam housing are more affordable than other FF options.  Also, don't dismiss the enormous size and weight of a 230mm dome for travel.  Most diving for me is local with a 230mm, but I'm already dreading transporting that contraption on an upcoming trip

1 minute ago, JayceeB said:

You've probably already ruled it out, but the Canon R7 would pair with the 8-15 fisheye (with adapter), and the 18-45 kit lens works with the  WWL-1.  I purchased an R5 in the Spring, but had the R7 been available then, I would have considered it.  The camera and Nauticam housing are more affordable than other FF options.  Also, don't dismiss the enormous size and weight of a 230mm dome for travel.  Most diving for me is local with a 230mm, but I'm already dreading transporting that contraption on an upcoming trip

Hi thanks for chipping in. The R7 does not offer any IQ improvement over the GH5M2 in stills and it is is worse in video 

Other than the Fuji there are no mirrorless APSC cameras I have considered however the cost of Fuji is similar to the Sony system and the IQ improvement negated by the lack of optics 

Currently I am therefore not considering APSC either stay here or full frame

I was going to ask if you had considered the Canon R5C, but I see the Nauticam housing for that camera is significantly more expensive than other options.

Wait a few years and buy used? If you want a top-of-the-line camera and housing, it won't come cheap regardless of format...

4 minutes ago, Barmaglot said:

Wait a few years and buy used? If you want a top-of-the-line camera and housing, it won't come cheap regardless of format...

I would like something that can take photo and video better than what I have got

I don't want something that sends me backward on any of them. I am surprised to the lack of offering out there

51 minutes ago, JayceeB said:

I was going to ask if you had considered the Canon R5C, but I see the Nauticam housing for that camera is significantly more expensive than other options.

I have considered it as well. However it would require WACP so not an option for now

4 hours ago, Architeuthis said:

I am in a similar situation, but have no hurry (but I think at the latest in 2023 I will upgrade and try out FF by myself). I am currently with MFT (Oly EM1II & EM5II), the difference to Massimo is that I am not very interested in video - I make them very occasionally and any format suffices for me. There are several points I am considering, that I list below:

 

#1.: What do I expect from upgrading from FF to MFT?

Do be honest, after reading many dozends of reviews and articles on different sensor size, over the water and UW, I still do not know. I hope to get improvements in:

1. a.: ultimate image sharpness (especially for macro), brought by bigger sensor and more pixels..

1.b.: more DR for WA.

1.c.: 14-bit together with 1.b. should give more potential for postprocessing in LR.

 

#2.: Since I will buy into a new system, all brands are an option to me:

  2.a.: Nikon. Certainly not. Only the oversized Z9 seems to have comparable  AF to the other brands. Even more important, old lenses, important for UW do not work with the mirrorless bodies. Adapters for Sony E-mount and Canon EF-mount lenses exist, but why buy into  a system that con only be used with third party adapters and second party lenses? Also the dieing out and not future proof DSLR line is not an option for me, since I am starting from scratch...

2.b.: Sony is certainly the best option, when only the camera housing itself is considered: small, even with Nauticam housing and best sensor technology, regarding IQ.

    A1: very high IQ and fast AF.

   A7Rv: best IQ and AI AF module. I am not sure, however, whether the AI AF module, with automatic recognition of multiple objects, will be superior to older models for the kind of AF, how I perform it: single point dumb AF in the center and then track the point while framing (C-AF&track).

  A7Riv: best IQ and maybe same AF performance in practice for UW, compared to A7Rv (and maybe also not much worse than A1).

=> Size and IQ vote for Sony, but the big drawback is lens choice. A single longer focal length macro (90 mm) and no native fisheye. So far this was not a problem, since the Canon EF lenses can be used with Metabones or Sigma adapter, but in the future, the new RF lenses will not work with Sony.

2.c.: Canon. Maybe sensor technology is a little bit behind Sony, but I think the difference is more on the academical level and not really relevant for practice. What stands against Canon (R5) is the sheer size of the Nauticam housing. A very big plus is the lens choices: all old EF lenses are reported to work perfect with adapter and it is not the question whether Canon will deliver a Zoom fisheye, but only when. It may be very well that they consider the demands of UW photographers and even come out with a 8mm - 28mm RF fisheye (no question, I would buy into the Canon system then). Also the new APS-C cameras (R7) look attractive for UW and maybe we (me and my wife) could upgrade the second next time to a R7 like body, instead continuing to use and upgrade MFT (e.g. to OM-1).

=> Size is a big problem with FF CAnon, but I cannot see Sony coming out with lenses that can compete with Canon UW.

 

#3.: WA is indeed a problem with FF, unlike MFT or APS-C.

I think I will start (and mostly use) the Canon 8mm - 15mm with Nauticam 140 domeport. I just will loose the (very practical) ability to zoom in occasionally (maybe I will use the Kenko 1.4x TC that I already have; On MFT I did not find a loss in center sharpness, when using it). Absolutely no idea what to take for regular WA. This May I joined Adam Hanlon and Matt (Yellowtang) on the Red Sea Odyssey and had the chance to hold a WAPC1 in my hands: I doubt that this monstrum is easier to transport than a 230mm domeport, the weight at least is twice, compared to a 230mm domeport...

 

 

#4.. The money: Well, did you know that the last skirt does not have a pocket, so that you could take money with you to the next level (not that I am rich, but I set priorities) ?

 

I am eager to read what others think about this interesting issue...

 

Wolfgang

 

 

 

Size can be misleading.  A smaller camera and smaller housing will likely have less buoyancy.  By the time you add buoyancy the complete size difference is not significant.  I personally would prefer a slightly larger housing with no buoyancy arms than a small camera and housing with large buoyancy arms.  I learned this lesson with the Sony A7C.

59 minutes ago, JayceeB said:

Size can be misleading.  A smaller camera and smaller housing will likely have less buoyancy.  By the time you add buoyancy the complete size difference is not significant.  I personally would prefer a slightly larger housing with no buoyancy arms than a small camera and housing with large buoyancy arms.  I learned this lesson with the Sony A7C.

Size for me is important for land use. I shoot all sorts of outdoors not just underwater and this is why I do not want a body with a battery grip format. I hate battery grips when I go out I take batteries and I change them as I wish having a grip is just more weight at all times where you do not need it

Underwater it matters the size of the housing for the weight on land and you need to carry your rig. My rig especially with video lights is very heavy and I get strain when I carry it which happens as I do not always do liveaboards

You could look at using Isotta housings, you can convert your Nauticam ports (N120 size only) to use them on Isotta by changing out the lug rings.  Of course they don't have an A1 housing as yet.

You could look at using Isotta housings, you can convert your Nauticam ports (N120 size only) to use them on Isotta by changing out the lug rings.  Of course they don't have an A1 housing as yet.

If I were to buy all the mirrorless gear again I think I would switch to the Sony A7R5. It is a smaller housing, lenses and N100 ports for a more compact FF rig. The WACP-C is much better on the Sony lenses because they are IF and you get the full zoom range. I also wish I had the Sony AF, but I have invested so much in Nikon Z and N120 there is no going back for me. I am hoping the next release of Nikon Z cameras get some of the AF tech of the Z 9, but so far nothing.