Moving to Full Frame Mirrorless is expensive!

1 hour ago, UWPics said:

If I were to buy all the mirrorless gear again I think I would switch to the Sony A7R5.

A7R series has significant issues with rolling shutter, it's not a great video platform, and the OP does a lot of video as well as photo.

I'm thinking the A6xxx line is long overdue for a refresh. Both A6100 and A6600 were announced in August 2019, and A6400 is even older at January 2019 - almost four years on the market. Isn't Sony making the sensor for Fuji's X-H2S? It's high time they put it into one of their own cameras - that might be enough to get me to move on from my A6300.

A7R series has significant issues with rolling shutter, it's not a great video platform, and the OP does a lot of video as well as photo.

I'm thinking the A6xxx line is long overdue for a refresh. Both A6100 and A6600 were announced in August 2019, and A6400 is even older at January 2019 - almost four years on the market. Isn't Sony making the sensor for Fuji's X-H2S? It's high time they put it into one of their own cameras - that might be enough to get me to move on from my A6300.

Fuji foveon sensor however are not bayer design and are not made by Sony

Sony A6XXX line is still made using the original exmor line which is now facing extinction. With Fuji taking a dominant position in APSC especially as it gets more convincing in both photo and video I think Sony is not planning any investment in the A6X line except a possible migration to the RS line which could bear some IQ improvement in low light. However the readout rates have been sluggish and therefore I have no expectation that platform will ever be good for video. In fact Sony has recently launched the FX30 totally video focussed with no mechanical shutter and this for me confirm that APSC for photo is not a path Sony wants to pursue considering their A7C

Unfortunately Fuji does not have the same lens selection of MFT or Sony full frame E-mount. I am personally not bothered by the lack of a native fisheye (Sigma could do one if there was demand though) and it would mean a complete rehaul of my port system with limited benefit for photos if I look at the H2S but is an option am still looking very closely at however nauticam no longer makes any Fuji APSC housings

Oh yes!  Expensive indeed!

In July I got a Nikon Z9, plus a number of lenses.   Up to then I was shooting the D850 in a Nauticam housing with 230mm dome port +90mm extension and a macro port for the 105vr.  Dual strobes and a focus light.

Naturally I wanted to take the Z9 underwater, if only to have good video over the D850.    Absolutely no way to justify the cost - I just wanted to do it and had the money to spend on it.

Still, the cost to move from D850 was enormous!!

Camera: $5500

14-30 zoom: $950

Sea and Sea Internal Correction Lens (82mm size): $725

105s macro: : $950

50mm extension for the 14-30: $475

new, shorter macro port for the 105s: $725

And then we get to the big surprise, the housing:  $7200  (! - the D810 and D850 housings were under $3500)

Vacuum leak detector: $400

two clamps with rings for rope handle: $150

That's about $18,000 in new parts.  Gets worse because I flooded my focus light on my last dive with the D850 so had to replace it as well.  Another $400.   And a new rope handle I don't recall the cost on. 

What are the advantages of full frame over micro 4/3? Better low light performance, better focus tracking, greater cropping ability. Disadvantage? Cost, bulk, weight. Everything in photography/video is a tradeoff. 

Realistically, most of what we shoot will be posted online, where it's usually downrezzed to HD. Even in film festivals, 4/3 holds up exceptionally well projected on a 30x30 foot screen. I can't tell the difference compared to full frame.

What I'm getting at is that for the vast majority of us, 4/3 or crop sensors are more than what we need, barring future developments. They are on the way, but aren't here yet.

 For myself at this point, I don't see the need for full frame.

16 minutes ago, ehanauer said:

For myself at this point, I don't see the need for full frame.

I agree with the points you make. I moved away from full frame back to DX for the very reasons you set out. M4/3 or cropped sensors are perfect for 99.9% of what many of us shoot.

The other option of course is to separate your UW and above water cameras, even go to entirely separate systems?  Time to get out the spreadsheet and evaluate different option, all those $500-$1000 bits add up.  In $US the Isotta A7SIII housing is $1250 less than the Nauticam. You have to buy a lug ring for your nauticam ports, you don't need to buy the very pricey N100-N120 adapters.  Isotta extension rings are quite a bit cheaper a 20mm ring Is $169 vs $441 for Nauticam for example.   Isotta doesn't make an A1 housing but the Nauticam housing fits A1 and A7SIII so makes you wonder if the Isotta would be easily adaptable.  

If you seperate out your above water system you could go for a more popular system that might be expensive to take UW but easier to buy second hand at considerable savings.  The prices you quoted for housing an AI in Nauticam are enough to make me want to think about compromises I might make!  If you did this you might be able to select a better cheaper option for UW that has an available Isotta housing.

I know one photographer over here who went with an Isotta housing for their new mirroless setup as the size and weight was significantly less than the Nauticam option.

8 hours ago, ehanauer said:

What are the advantages of full frame over micro 4/3? Better low light performance, better focus tracking, greater cropping ability. Disadvantage? Cost, bulk, weight. Everything in photography/video is a tradeoff. 

In a GH5M2 vs A1, body size and weight is pretty much the same, as the GH5 is remarkably big for an M43, while A1/A7/A9 series is fairly small for a full-frame body. OP uses his GH5 with a Canon 8-15mm - A1 would use the same lens, just with a different adapter. 14-42mm vs 28-60mm is a pretty much immaterial difference, and both use the same WWL-1. Admittedly, at macro, Sony 90mm is a pound heavier than Olympus 60mm, but still, that's just a pound. The big differences are only in the domes (180mm vs 230mm) and big telephoto lenses for land use.

As for advantages, A1 has four stops of dynamic range over GH5M2 - that's pretty significant.

In a GH5M2 vs A1, body size and weight is pretty much the same, as the GH5 is remarkably big for an M43, while A1/A7/A9 series is fairly small for a full-frame body. OP uses his GH5 with a Canon 8-15mm - A1 would use the same lens, just with a different adapter. 14-42mm vs 28-60mm is a pretty much immaterial difference, and both use the same WWL-1. Admittedly, at macro, Sony 90mm is a pound heavier than Olympus 60mm, but still, that's just a pound. The big differences are only in the domes (180mm vs 230mm) and big telephoto lenses for land use.
As for advantages, A1 has four stops of dynamic range over GH5M2 - that's pretty significant.

41 minutes ago, Interceptor121 said:

Four stops benefit? I wish!!!

Best case 2 in video and 1.5 in photos

Reviewers are rating GH5M2 at ~10 stops of DR and A1 at 14.5 stops; am I reading this wrong?

42 minutes ago, Interceptor121 said:

So the only real weight difference would be for macro which is my least favourite discipline there I am planning to get a sigma lens and yes they are heavy but not more than the dome set up

Why Sigma and not native Sony?

45 minutes ago, Interceptor121 said:

The key issue driving the costs here is new camera and lens the underwater part is actually the least expensive part as I will reuse almost all my ports and water optics

Wait for A1 II to come out and get a used A1 at a discount from a 'new shiny' upgrader?

46 minutes ago, Barmaglot said:

Reviewers are rating GH5M2 at ~10 stops of DR and A1 at 14.5 stops; am I reading this wrong?

Why Sigma and not native Sony?

Wait for A1 II to come out and get a used A1 at a discount from a 'new shiny' upgrader?

Reviewers?

The only reliable sources are

DxOMark which reads 14.5 vs 13.1 Difference 1.4 stops 

Photonstophotos which reads 11.36 vs 10.19 Difference 1.17 stops

Both measurements are influenced by megapixel count if you look 1:1 the gap is only 0.7 Stops

When you look at SNR you are looking at 1.5 stops that would be your high ISO situation

For video only reliable source is CineD

Sony Alpha 1 12.7 Panasonic GH5M2 10.5 difference 2.2 stops consider that Sony applies heavy noise reduction so this is likely to be the same 1.5 stops at the end and most of the benefit comes from pixel binning

Both lenses are slow to focus but I like a longer optic so 105 vs 90 better for me

At this pace however this is not going to happen...

Just wanted to update with my latest thinking

Spending £6,500 for the A1 is not currently something I am planning to do. So I went down the route of considering the A7 IV

For still images and some of my topside use cases this camera is a definite improvement however for video the APSC crop at 4k60 and the rolling shutter at 24/25/30 really suck destroying rapidly the video use case

Considering that at ISO 2000 the GH6 has an improvement of 1.75 stops over the GH5M2 and that in APSC mode there is no benefit in photos nor video with the Sony I believe it makes more sense to source a housing for the GH6 and invest in better video lights.

So for now no full frame upgrade

Canon R6 II might be the only good option when it comes to full hybrid use but you get only 24 MP. I think if you're fine with M43 why even switch? The lens selection is the most importent part our systems in my opinion and it's costs a fortune to switch systems and get all the the glas needed. 

For video use, M43 was allways a very good choise if you're able to work around the small sensor. 

Maybe Isotta will come out with a GH6 housing at some point. Nauticam's sure become quite expensive... Probably cheaper to adapt the ports via a custom made adapter.

2 hours ago, JYk said:

Canon R6 II might be the only good option when it comes to full hybrid use but you get only 24 MP. I think if you're fine with M43 why even switch? The lens selection is the most importent part our systems in my opinion and it's costs a fortune to switch systems and get all the the glas needed. 

For video use, M43 was allways a very good choise if you're able to work around the small sensor. 

From a hybrid standpoint one of the issues with the original R6 is that if you hit the "record video" button in anything other than the video selection it defaults to whatever the settings are in P mode.  In P mode - 10 bit video (i.e. CLog3) is not available so you are stuck with 8-bit pre-graded footage.  I hope that R6 II fixed this (noting the separate switch now) but this makes the R6 less good underwater hybrid shooter.  Above water, this is less of an issue because just swapping to video setting and using the full capability of the camera.

For reference, I shoot an R5 underwater (which I love) and an R6 above water (which I love). The underwater hybrid thing and lack of 10bit of the R6 in "record now" is not something I have seen discussed prior and is an important consideration for some (not all).  If it allowed Clog3 in P, then this would be a non-issue.  I also like that on the R5 it is button pushes instead of wheel turns to change modes. In my experience, housing to wheel connectors get worn out far more often than buttons and the mode selection dial is a main fail (and then service) point for me.

The dynamic range of both of the cameras is astounding in real world use scenarios. In comparison to the A7 III (which is now not that young) is night and day.

From a size perspective, I can travel with the R5 housing (handles removed), 180 dome, and lenses in a carry-on size pelican.  Smaller would be nicer for this, but only slightly so between the A7 series (which I decided against due to the crop at 4k60) but in reality I don't think that difference is much.

I recently got the A7IV and I have paired it with Seafrogs housing, I understand it doesn't match Nauticam housing however I have been using their housing with my A7III for a few years and haven't had any issues. I make sure I leak test the housing before my dives so touch wood there won't be any issues.

The cost savings is big and I can get several Seafrogs housing for the price of one Nauticam and they have a new design for their housing which is the double clasp buckles on both sides. This housing seems much better than their old design.

I understand not everyone wants to use Seafrogs housing but it does the job for occassional divers like myself and the cost savings are significant. 

From a hybrid standpoint one of the issues with the original R6 is that if you hit the "record video" button in anything other than the video selection it defaults to whatever the settings are in P mode.  In P mode - 10 bit video (i.e. CLog3) is not available so you are stuck with 8-bit pre-graded footage.  I hope that R6 II fixed this (noting the separate switch now) but this makes the R6 less good underwater hybrid shooter.  Above water, this is less of an issue because just swapping to video setting and using the full capability of the camera.
For reference, I shoot an R5 underwater (which I love) and an R6 above water (which I love). The underwater hybrid thing and lack of 10bit of the R6 in "record now" is not something I have seen discussed prior and is an important consideration for some (not all).  If it allowed Clog3 in P, then this would be a non-issue.  I also like that on the R5 it is button pushes instead of wheel turns to change modes. In my experience, housing to wheel connectors get worn out far more often than buttons and the mode selection dial is a main fail (and then service) point for me.
The dynamic range of both of the cameras is astounding in real world use scenarios. In comparison to the A7 III (which is now not that young) is night and day.
From a size perspective, I can travel with the R5 housing (handles removed), 180 dome, and lenses in a carry-on size pelican.  Smaller would be nicer for this, but only slightly so between the A7 series (which I decided against due to the crop at 4k60) but in reality I don't think that difference is much.