Costs and benefits: D500 -> Mirrorless ( A1, Z8, A7RV )

3 hours ago, Interceptor121 said:

The decision to buy a new camera is subjective however to say that the D500 is in the same league of the other options and will produce identical or even similar idea is very arguable in fact incorrect

Any time the op will 'upgrade' or  actually replace his camera will be faced with switching costs. The D500 was not a cheap camera when introduced considering it is APSC

The DSLR housing in general are more expensive than Sony mirrorless 

Eventually the op camera shutter will fail and will need to consider again if repairing the camera or buying a new one

I think changing camera every 3 year is a bit hasty, 5 about right, more just a case of sweating your assets but you can't say the performance is the same

I'm not trying to say that the new cameras are the same, certainly there is an improvement.  I'm saying it's valid to conclude that from an individuals users standpoint the improvements are small enough that they won't see a significant (subjective ) benefit for the images they shoot and they way they use them.

2 minutes ago, ChrisRoss said:

I'm not trying to say that the new cameras are the same, certainly there is an improvement.  I'm saying it's valid to conclude that from an individuals users standpoint the improvements are small enough that they won't see a significant (subjective ) benefit for the images they shoot and they way they use them.

Yes cost benefit is subjective. Normally people that have money to spare don't quibble and just do it. When funds are less avaiable you tend to find reasons for the spend not to be worth it.

Any kind of hardware refresh has cycles. Cameras for me are 5 years similar to a computer however recently I got a new laptop and found out some files of the A1 cannot be processed by my desktop with the same agility. I had no appreciation of the value of the laptop until I bought it but this was not the main reason for it which was too much time spent on trips processing denoise (that now I do not even need)

Ok, saying "not at all" may have been a brash comment, but for my *personal* photography I don't think it would make a big enough difference underwater to warrant the cost of switching, whilst also dealing with the downsides. Unfortunately I also need to consider land based wildlife photography. 

It won't improve my images a whole deal underwater, despite the increased dynamic range and image quality, but it probably would for available light shooting - something I'm getting more in to. If I'm entering competitions, the camera is very unlikely to make the difference between winning / losing for me. Cropping might be a factor if rules allow and the resolution is higher of course. 

I am often blown away by m43 entries in competitions, as I was led to previously believe that the latest and the greatest hardware could not be matched.

I'd welcome the improvements, and anything to make composition easier (tracking) probably would net me better shots than spending time moving the autofocus point around.

I've placed in UWPotY and recently won another comp with the D500 - it's no slouch and I'm sure shooting with a Z8 wouldn't net me better results, personally. 

I will switch at some point, but given the size of the Z8 housing it's not something I could consider now.

However @Interceptor121s comment about Sony being the most compact FF camera out there is sound - I hope with their release cycle, an A1ii or similar is due, and I'll hold out for that, hoping they'll introduce pre-release/pro-capture. If so I'll switch to Sony in a heartbeat. 

Very interesting to me, as I've only just moved on to a D500. I don't enter competitions, but I don't think I'd ever notice the improvements as they stand. However, why not have a new toy if you can afford it!

I'm interested in your lens budget for the new system. It seems a little light to replace the lenses you have for your current dslr set up. I have to admit that this is the thing that has put me off moving to mirrorless at this upgrade point. I've got lots of nikon glass from nearly 20 years of collecting and it seems such a shame to replace it with just slightly better Z optics. Is the 8-15 an alternative to the Tokina 10-17 (I'm just not familiar with the lens) and is it really £700 - I couldn't see one for that price more like £900 for a good 2nd hand one?? Will the 90mm macro for sony replace the 60mm and 105mm (again I don't know a lot about this lens)? I mostly dive in the UK and rarely use the 105m, I still use the 60mm and 105 abroad to be honest. And what about your (or at least it is for me) 17-70 hunting lens (ie when I don't know what I'm going to photograph), am I missing something or is that missing from your replacement list? Any zoom gear costs (I guess only a few hundred quid but probably worth costing?)? Finally, I think you are a bit optimistic on the price of your lenses for selling - no one is buying the 60mm even at £200 (I checked recently) and more like £300-350 for the 105mm for one in excellent condition - again they aren't selling and one in excellent condition went for £270 yesterday.

However, all this aside - as you say you want it for top side and having 2 camera systems is probably going to result in one just losing money sitting doing nothing. It is probably better to move any lenses on now as their value is likely to drop even more in the next few years as mirrorless becomes the only system. It is sort of like when AF came out or digital took over from film - older systems are just going to be worthless.

I'm happy to stick to the glass I have for the moment (even though I agree that is possibly a bad idea - it owes me nothing) and I tend to keep underwater and top side systems separate - the extra costs of housing, strobe triggers etc mean I change about every 10 years. The value of a body after 5 years is negligible compared to the money lost on housings with every swap.

Good luck and thanks for spelling out your thoughts - most interesting.

42 minutes ago, MTH said:

Is the 8-15 an alternative to the Tokina 10-17 (I'm just not familiar with the lens) and is it really £700 - I couldn't see one for that price more like £900 for a good 2nd hand one?? 

I did see a second hand for £700 (or 700something) but the cheapest I can find now is £800. It's a matter of luck but £100 isn't the thing that will make or break a new system for me  The 8-15 is the only good fisheye lens that will work with the FTZ as far as I'm aware, as the others are not AF-S.

Quote

Will the 90mm macro for sony replace the 60mm and 105mm (again I don't know a lot about this lens)? I mostly dive in the UK and rarely use the 105m, I still use the 60mm and 105 abroad to be honest.

that's the idea. I have been using a D500 for a long time, and the crop factor makes the 60mm on a D500, essentially a 90mm. The Sony would have a 90mm only, and I'd use the SMC or crop a bit to make up for the difference.

With the D500, I use both the 60 and the 105 underwater, even in the UK. With half decent lighting you can avoid a fair amount of backscatter which we all dread in the UK, even with the 105  My main issue with the 60 is just how close you need to get to fill the frame, it's hard with some subjects here.

Quote

And what about your (or at least it is for me) 17-70 hunting lens (ie when I don't know what I'm going to photograph), am I missing something or is that missing from your replacement list?

Honestly, I was naive before not listening to wetpixel users. Many said the zoom lens is not really here nor there - you either want wide angle or macro. However I found the 17-70 a good all arounder if you on a shark dive or similar, where they're unlikely to get close. I can probably count on two hands how often I've used the 17-70, vs the fisheye/macro, it's not even a contest. This is just my personal opinion - but if you can't get close enough, is the photo even worth taking? Maybe, if there's enough available light

Quote

Any zoom gear costs (I guess only a few hundred quid but probably worth costing?)

There wouldn't be any zoom gears required for the 90mm macro if switching to Sony, or the 60 / 105mm which I'd keep if I switched to Nikon. I use back button focus so I don't really have a need for manual macro focus.The 8-15mm fisheye lens either gets used at 8mm without the hood on the dome (to give a circular fisheye without shade interfering with the vignetting) OR at the 15mm end - there really is no in between with that lens. And as mentioned, I'd just drop the idea of having a zoom lens. Lastly, if I needed a focus/zoom gear for any of the vintage / adapted lenses, I would probably just DIY them.

Quote

Finally, I think you are a bit optimistic on the price of your lenses for selling - no one is buying the 60mm even at £200 (I checked recently) and more like £300-350 for the 105mm for one in excellent condition - again they aren't selling and one in excellent condition went for £270 yesterday.

Probably, I can't say I spent more than a few minutes guesstimating these prices based on a few sold auctions I've seen. If that's the case, anyone getting these lenses are in for an absolute bargain - I wish that was the case when I bought my 105mm .

Ultimately, if my estimates are a few hundred quid off in favour or against the price of the complete package, that won't be the deterrent. The issue is that the size of the Z8 + housing is bigger than my D500, and that unfortunately was the deal breaker. I could live with most other things, and I had the Z8 on pre-order with the FTZ, which I subsequently cancelled after Nauticam published their housing dimensions. The main reason their housing is so deep is because it caters for the FTZ by default.

The thing is...there will be some new wonder-camera next year and/or the year after.  Unless the D500 is holding you back, there is little harm in waiting until something comes along that really calls to you.  In the meantime, if you like wide angle and CFWA, it is hard with a full frame camera replicate the usefulness of the Nikkor 8-15 or Tokina 10-17 (with or without a 1.4TC), and a 100mm dome is very handy and much better on cropped sensor than full frame. 

Do the mirrorless cameras still go through batteries really fast?

There are always tradeoffs.

Possibly, a bonus point for the Z8 would be similar menus and settings to the D500 and the ability to share lenses with the D500 by virtue of the FTZ adapter, so you could upgrade your wildlife camera but still use D500 underwater without the hassle of managing two different systems.  I have spent no time looking at the mirrorless Nikons, so that may not be true.

By the way, if the 60 and 105 are not quite cutting it for macro on the D500, have a look at the 85.  I think it may be discontinued, but they are still around.  I have found the 105 just a little too much for "general" macro, and the 60 requires me to get close enough to scare away  some stuff.

20 hours ago, sinetwo said:

Ultimately, if my estimates are a few hundred quid off in favour or against the price of the complete package, that won't be the deterrent. The issue is that the size of the Z8 + housing is bigger than my D500, and that unfortunately was the deal breaker. I could live with most other things, and I had the Z8 on pre-order with the FTZ, which I subsequently cancelled after Nauticam published their housing dimensions. The main reason their housing is so deep is because it caters for the FTZ by default.

Sorry to hear that. I was just curious on the cost having only just "upgraded" to a D500. And you are right, I forgot about the 1.5x multiplier when compared to FF, doh!

I was interested on your comments on not using the the 17-70. I've used my zoom quite a bit. I get the macro or fisheye all the time view, I've usually either got the Tokina or macro fitted. However, I found a zoom very useful when diving with say dolphins or sharks or just for that mixed dive when I don't really know what I want BUT want to take the camera. The zoom is the least used lens I have BUT there are times I'm glad I've got it. I think with a FF and the 8-15 I'd be lucky to get that close, going back to the 1.5 factor the tokina is really 15-26. 

You are clearly a better photographer than I am, so just picking over your thought process really - bit cheeky but I have to learn.

36 minutes ago, MTH said:

However, I found a zoom very useful when diving with say dolphins or sharks or just for that mixed dive when I don't really know what I want BUT want to take the camera. The zoom is the least used lens I have BUT there are times I'm glad I've got it.

Absolutely! I'm off to the red sea and dolphins are VERY high up on the list for two specific dives. Whilst I would *love* to use the fisheye, there is no guarantee they'll get that close, at which point I'll probably bring the 17-70. It's nice to have but I think if I had full frame, I'd use the 8-15 with a teleconverter for that extra reach. It's likely that it'll be available light shooting, or potentially strobes way forward at lower power to just add a kiss of light. Much like yourself, it's nice to have the 17-70 in those situations, but I honestly thought I'd use it a lot more.

My diving now is usually very objective based if i'm doing repeat dives ("I want to shoot this" or "I want to compose this type of image"). Even if it's a brand new site, I will usually bore the DMs to death by asking what we're likely to see, and do my set up on the basis of that  So all in all that usually lends itself to either fisheye, 60 or 105mm macro, and it would be likely fisheye or 90mm if I moved over to Sony

I’m a D500 shooter and almost always use either the Tokina 10-17 or a Nikkor 60 or 105. I’m also one of those irritating WP folks who preach go for any of the above but not the mid-range zoom. 

That said, as sinetwo comments, the Tokina is often not great for sharks and dolphins who won’t come close enough; and the 60mm isn’t much use either. 

I think I’ve solved this with the Nikkor 10-24. Over the last few months I’ve got Caribbean reef shark shots that I’m really happy with as the 10-24 just suits those better.

I’m off to the Red Sea too shortly and intend to use it for the dives where dolphins tend to rock up. Fingers crossed!

@TimG would be good to meet up if you were on the same boat but there are so many I doubt were on the same trip end of June! 

Yeah, it would be good indeed. I’m going in August though on Emperor Elite. Another time!

Some late comments as I just saw this thread for the first time.   I can comment just a bit on the costs of ML transition, and a few discoveries.   I shot a series of compact point-n-shoot Canons for years until I felt I had done about as much with those cameras as I could.  I moved on to a D810 in a Nauticam housing and shot that from 2015 to 2019 when I moved on to a D850.  In June 2023 I bought a Z9 (and 7 lenses).  Soon thereafter I bought a new Nauticam housing for it and other bits to replicate my D850 rig in Z9 hardware.

The costs were enormous, but since I had the money in savings I just went for it.   I calculated the upgrade cost me $18,000, including camera.  I was able to retain my strobes, arms * fiber cables and 230mm dome port.   I had to replace the macro port, the dome extension (90mm to 50mm), and housing (& leak detector).   The Nauticam housing doubled in price from the D850 cost and shot up to $7500.   That was the huge cost.   Camera was $5500.   I only use two lenses, and so I bought the z-mount 105macro and the 14-30.   In addition I bought the 82mm version of the Sea and Sea Internal Corrections Lens as one of those was so useful on my 16-85.

So what did that buy me in terms of underwater differences?  So far, not a lot, other than video.  (Huge differences in video, but I rarely shoot video, yet.)   Subject detection is mostly useless underwater, and I've just used the same old tried-and-true 3D Tracking, with firmware 2 and 3 so far.   I have to say that 3D Tracking underwater is pretty close to the D850 capability, with (I think) the D850 maybe focusing more often where I want it, but the Z9 maybe focusing a bit more accurately at times.   But really it's a wash.

The biggest change in AF ability for me (aside from video) is that the focus points go all the way to the frame edge, so that leaves me sometimes with better compositions.  Since I was always happy with the D850 focusing (aside from video), I'm happy the Z9 seems as good.

In terms of usability, one change has manifested itself that I would never have predicted.  I quit using my 180 degree viewfinder in favor of simply using the back LCD.  Essentially I've gone to the equivalent of Live View focusing.   While the 180 helps stabilize the camera against my mask, I've not seen a loss of sharpness using the LCD instead.   Perhaps IBIS doing its job well.  Eliminating the 180 viewfinder has made the rig easier to carry out of the water,  mostly.   I've still never used the stock viewfinder even once on any of my Nauticam housings.

Now that firmware 4.0 is out for the Z9, I may well try using Auto Capture.   Someone suggested it would be great for Garden Eels, which I would, but I'm thinking maybe using it while handholding for certain subjects might also work, particularly in conjunction with distance settings.  I'm thinking of current surges sweeping me back and forth toward a small subject like a blenny.   Maybe letting the camera decide the focus point instead of me will work in more situations.   I'm sure Auto Capture will show up on the Z8 at some point.

There are some ML features of the Z9 that I still need to get comfortable with, but which seem like they offer advantages underwater.   The EVF (which is almost as fast to come out as turning on a D850) definitely helps if not using a focus light, and it helps to see overexposures in ambient lighting. Precapture burst looks interesting, and if it worked on RAW files I'd have tried it already.  DX mode can help focusing issues, and since I routinely crop a lot anyway, DX mode can effectively turn my Z9 into a D500, though I have not tried any DX lenses on it.

Aside from video ... (Yes, I say that a lot) ... there isn't that much benefit to jumping from the D850 to the Z9, certainly not enough to justify the cost.  Then again, underwater photography is probably the most costly form off common photography there is, and you can't really think in terms of cost justification once you start spending multiple thousands of dollars to get some fish pics for your hobby,

I see the Nauticam housing for the Z8 is much cheaper than the Z9 version, at $4832.   Between the cost savings there and the camera, an upgrade the way I went would have been closer to $15,000 than $18,000.   Still pretty expensive, and more so if you don't start with a big dome port for FX.

Interesting comments from @phxazcraig.

Camera bodies topside are completely different and, for that, I find the Z9 terrific. It includes a number of features that I would not use underwater - not that I can use my Z9 underwater.

I do wonder though, once you get to the level of features and capability in camera bodies such as the D500/D850, whether any "upgrade" is really going to make a significant difference to the images we capture underwater - especially given the costs.

The impact of shooting through water, esoteric lens choices and the constant movement of all the elements involved create challenges which are not a significant part of the design of most camera's features. Many of the more advanced features therefore have little relevance underwater. 

And in any case, are they really necessary? You only have to look at the images created by @justinchan to see what can be created underwater with what is a relatively simple system (a TG6). 

Going mirrorless is something different as it involves a technologically new approach by the camera manufacture and is clearly the future direction. But the advanced features issue remains: many of them won't work effectively in an underwater environment.

I'm not entirely sure where this stream of consciousness is heading......  we all (?) love the shiny new toys and the promises seducingly dangled by the marketeers. But the fact is, for underwater systems, Buyer Beware. They come at high cost and are unlikely to transform your image-making.

@TimGI agree actually, the more I look at the effort in changing out my D500, the more I get somewhat annoyed. I still feel like the Z8 will not really net me a lot of better images underwater than the D500 already does.

What I love about the D500 is it's relative compactness, whilst it's not A1 tiny, it's not huge. Olympus for example has the worlds largest flash trigger, and it makes the housings huge, and not a million miles off a D500. If you then remove an arm and shoot with your right hand only, all of a sudden it feels pretty compact, couple that up with the 4.33" dome and you're off

The other thing about FF is the fisheye issue. The Nikon equivalent is about £1000 used, whereas Tokina is still an incredible bang for buck. I haven't started worrying about corner sharpness quite yet, although I can see myself getting there soon enough. Ideally I just want a single set up, but it's extremely rare of me to need the Z8 and the D500 on a trip.

I think if I went to Kenya for both diving AND safari, then yes I would consider bringing both, at which point it makes sense to condense. But part of me thinks it would be easier to pay for extra luggage and bring both, rather than pony'ing up for the Z8 underwater.

I'll be interested in seeing what Marelux and Isotta brings out, if their housings are significantly smaller, and marelux's have some fancy built in battery solution, then i may just swap over, and sell the D500 + Nauticam housing and go 100% Z8...

I do wonder though, once you get to the level of features and capability in camera bodies such as the D500/D850, whether any "upgrade" is really going to make a significant difference to the images we capture underwater - especially given the costs.

Wow, thanks, Nicolas, this is a really impressive side-by-side and some cracking images, especially the macro shots at f4.

As you say, very sharp in quite challenging conditions. Thanks for sharing what, I'm sure, will be of interest to lots of WP members.

I can certainly see the benefits of the Z9 AF - that 3D tracking looks very good. I'm just not sure I'd want to shell out all the cash! It does make you think though (very dangerous......)

Wow, thanks, Nicolas, this is a really impressive side-by-side and some cracking images, especially the macro shots at f4.
As you say, very sharp in quite challenging conditions. Thanks for sharing what, I'm sure, will be of interest to lots of WP members.
I can certainly see the benefits of the Z9 AF - that 3D tracking looks very good. I'm just not sure I'd want to shell out all the cash! It does make you think though (very dangerous......)
 
 

I went through a similar transition this year, but chose to switch from Nikon SLR to Sony. I thought I'd share a few of my reasons.

Although I would qualify this by saying that I do like the Z8 and hope to shoot it on my next trip. My decision came down to a few small advantages adding up in one column and no real negatives. I know forums often encourage quite polar views, where we argue one brand is brilliant and one is awful - that is NOT the case! 

Lenses: To switch from Nikon SLR to Nikon Z I would need to buy new lenses and use existing lenses on adaptor. All the Nikon lenses I had that I could use on a Nikon Z underwater  with an adaptor (8-15mm, 16-35mm, 60mm, 105mm) I could also use with one adaptor on Sony cameras. They all work great. So there was no inherent benefit with lenses in staying with Nikon over Sony based on what I own.

I greatly value Nauticam's UW optics. Sony has good lens option for WACP-1 and also works well with the smaller WWL, for trips where luggage and potential subjects does not justify the WACP-1. Plus the same lenses work with the forthcoming FCP. Sony macro lens is also currently the best mirrorless macro lens with the EMWL-1, whereas the Nikon Z's have some AF limitations (relating to how they focus).

I can also use some fun optics like the Nauticam 13mm UW fisheye (that I shot this morning) and the old Nikonos 15mm (which is decent, but I don't recommend wasting money on one if you are a stills shooter - I have one I have owned from new) on the Sony. This was a big attraction.

AF: The main technological plus for an UW shooter to switch to mirrorless is autofocus performance. The moment I tried the Sony A7RV underwater it was clear that the AF was a big step on from my Nikon. Z users tend to report that the AF is better/worse/about the same as the D850. In short the main reason for going mirrorless is AF, and Sony currently has the best.

Other mirrorless tech like super high frame rates, pro-capture are only valuable to certain types.

EVF: For some (especially Canon R5 users) the EVF is the penalty for switching to Mirrorless. In fact, I would say that with a good EVF there is hardly any penalty and plenty of upsides compared with an optical viewfinder. The latest Sony camera have the best EVF, in terms of size and resolution (this is not everything) but they are also the nicest to look through).

BATTERY: Mirrorless cameras use their batteries more than SLRs, but the Sony battery is really good. The Z8 is a safe one dive and change. I would not expect it to make 2 dives. The current Sonys will safely do 2 dives (I've tested even in 2˚C water) and I have done 3 dives plenty of times too. The Nikon Z9 will safely do 3 dives. 

OTHERS: I do a lot of tropical reef wide angle. And I chose a Sony A1 camera because it offers me 1/400th flash synch as standard. I am disappointed that the Zs have only 1/200th. When I know I won't need fast shutter speeds I use the A1 in electronic shutter (which I had it in this morning on the Thistlegorm wreck, but have switched it back to mechanical shutter to have those extra clicks of flash synch now I am back on the reef.

I like the small size of Sony cameras and the smaller size of the housing and ports. And I like that Sony keep the camera bodies the same between generations, so you often can use new bodies in older housings.

I have been a Nikon user since the Nikonos V, through Nikonos RS and SLRs from F100-D850. But I found switching brands very easy. All that said I don't really want to encourage too many people to switch, as I like having a camera advantage! 

Alex

I am running a Red Sea workshop right now. We have 8 FF Mirrorless on board this week - all Sony. All other FF are Nikon and Canon SLRs.

@Alex_Mustard you can imagine how quickly I jumped at reading this post, considering you're one of few that I'm aware has completely made the jump that I have been considering (albeit I'm on D500).

I ended up with the Z8 for topside, but I'm still shooting D500 underwater. I'm checking to see what all the housings look like comparatively, then I will make a decision. 

So far I'm very happy with the Z8 topside, but all the reasons you list, are reasons I would go for the A7RV or A1, had I not been shooting topside. Unfortunately the Sony system does not adapt lenses well at all for topside (limiting both AF and fps to 15).

When Sony has a good wildlife topside lens selection (both Canon and Nikon has them beat), I'll swap - or perhaps Nikon's AF and battery will have caught up by then.

As you mentioned in your talk, the penalty or cost of swapping isn't as bad as it once was, if you're only shooting underwater, with the ability to adapt. 

Good luck to all those who will eventually make the switch - it has completely changed topside photography for me, and I'm hoping we start seeing similar advantages underwater (USB-C sealed bulkhead charging please!) 

1 hour ago, sinetwo said:

(USB-C sealed bulkhead charging please!) 

You can already have this and data transfer as well from Dive -n see.  They sell M24 and M16 USB-C bulkheads which will fit many housings.