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

From the field update on Sony battery life. I have done two dives this morning. In warm water (26C). 449 images taken, 66% battery remaining.  I could definitely do 1, probably 2 more dives. But I am happy to change battery over lunch which will see me through the rest of the day. 

45 minutes ago, ChrisRoss said:

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.

I've seen that one, I'm hoping to see some reviews, and idea more widely adopted solutions by housing manufacturers. I know ikelite has jumped on it, I certainly hope Nauticam and marelux will soon as well. 

1 hour ago, sinetwo said:

I've seen that one, I'm hoping to see some reviews, and idea more widely adopted solutions by housing manufacturers. I know ikelite has jumped on it, I certainly hope Nauticam and marelux will soon as well. 

I would think it's either going to work or not, it's only a cable mounted into a bulkhead, no different to HDMI cables used for monitors.

7 hours ago, sinetwo said:

(USB-C sealed bulkhead charging please!) 

Ikelite also made a USB-C transfer system in M16 which would work with several Sony housings, cost $175.00US.

Hi Alex,

Thanks for the extra inputs on the Sony system, which I am also curious to try underwater.

The only recent mirrorless camera that I've used is the Z9, but I did spend several weeks testing it, so let me add-up to your comments on the Z range. I look forward to your observations/comparisons once you've tried the Z8.   

16 hours ago, Alex_Mustard said:

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.

I am also hearing that the Z6/Z7 don't live up to Nikon DSLRs in terms of AF.

However I saw a significant improvement from the Z9/Z105mm over the D500/F105mm combo (DX mode comparison), based on low-light, low-visibility temperate diving, which is arguably the most relevant testing ground to tell AF systems apart.

In wide-angle (Nikon 8-15mm fisheye with Z9), over 1300 shots taken on fast-swimming fur seals, the Z9 only had 5 out of focus, and this was due to bubbles stuck on the dome. That's 99.6% success rate, or 100% success if you excuse the bubbles. 

Only conditions where Nikon DSLRs do better: night diving under a red-light.

All details on my testing are available here for anyone interested: https://theunderwaterclub.com/nikon-z9-review-part-2-autofocus-performance/

I have doubts about Sony's mirrorless AF being better underwater than the Nikon Z9/Z8 AF. I am not saying it's not, but I just don't know of anyone having purposely compared both systems in similar conditions, and as we know, we can't extrapolate top-side performance to the underwater world.

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).

Another important consideration is how the EVF gets affected by camera use (some mirrorless EVF will drop in resolution or refresh rate while focusing or shooting).

I found the Z9 EVF very comfortable to use and I suppose its fixed refresh rate of 120 Hz and fixed resolution help.

When ambient light abounds, I found the 3.69 Mpix of the Z9 EVF to provide an "optical like" experience (all my observations detailed here: https://theunderwaterclub.com/nikon-z9-review-part-3-viewfinder-experience/). 

I wonder how much of a difference the 9 Mpix of the Sonys would make in the viewing experience. I mean the more the merrier, but how much does it matter.

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. 

With the Z9, my observation is that the battery life is more a matter of duration of use rather than number of shots (and it's about the same whether you use the EVF or the rear LCD screen).

Assuming 60mins per dive, the Z9 battery easily covers 6 dives (I am consistently getting 6 to 7 hours of intense use). All details on my measurements conditions here: https://theunderwaterclub.com/nikon-z9-review-part-4-battery-life-burst-shooting-max-synchro-speed-and-image-quality/

The Z8 battery life is a question mark for me (haven't tried yet), but it's meant to be about half of the Z9, so I anticipate 2 dives with a large safety margin, or 3 dives with a thinner one.

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.

Agreed that is a bummer on the Z side of things... Not an issue for all the temperate diving I do most of the time, but I did feel the need for higher synchro speed in Jordan, when I was shooting with strobes against the bright sunballs (red sea, mid-day).

The above comments may sound like I am defending the Nikon camp, but to be clear I don't have any commercial ties with Nikon, I am just another long-term Nikon DSLR shooter who is considering his options for the future (OK I do like the potato brand a fair bit ). 

At the end of the day, I might go Sony, might go Canon (curious about the future R1 / R5 mark2), but when it comes to AF/EVF/battery life, I am unaware of clear advantages on the Sony/Canon camps, when compared to the Z9 (putting aside the EMWL focusing issues, which might get resolved, fingers crossed). 

On 6/22/2023 at 9:42 AM, sinetwo said:

@Alex_Mustard you can imagine how quickly I jumped at reading this post, .....

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.

Sony has in fact very good wildlife lenses at reasonable prices - the 200-600 comes at a reasonable price and is extremely sharp, fast AF and versatile. Especially at the long end. But on the other hand Nikon announced a 180-600 that could be comparable in price and quality.

Many of the recent bird pictures are with the A7IV and 200-600 https://www.instagram.com/p/CtzZAsHNdzN/?utm_source=ig_web_copy_link&igshid=MzRlODBiNWFlZA==

15 minutes ago, fruehaufsteher2 said:

Sony has in fact very good wildlife lenses at reasonable prices - the 200-600 comes at a reasonable price and is extremely sharp, fast AF and versatile. Especially at the long end. But on the other hand Nikon announced a 180-600 that could be comparable in price and quality.

Many of the recent bird pictures are with the A7IV and 200-600 https://www.instagram.com/p/CtzZAsHNdzN/?utm_source=ig_web_copy_link&igshid=MzRlODBiNWFlZA==

I'm veering slightly off topic here as this isn't a huge consideration for the majority of wetpixel's users, but you cannot get any 2.8 wildlife lenses on Sony for <$10k today. They will be announcing a 300 2.8 soon, but it's likely that will be in the ballpark range of $5-6k+. Whilst their 200-600mm is attractive, it's narrowest aperture detracts from that. In addition, adapted lenses do not work well on Sony's e mount. Whereas for Nikon and Canon, you have several cost effective options at f/2.8.

1 hour ago, sinetwo said:

I'm veering slightly off topic here as this isn't a huge consideration for the majority of wetpixel's users, but you cannot get any 2.8 wildlife lenses on Sony for <$10k today. They will be announcing a 300 2.8 soon, but it's likely that will be in the ballpark range of $5-6k+. Whilst their 200-600mm is attractive, it's narrowest aperture detracts from that. In addition, adapted lenses do not work well on Sony's e mount. Whereas for Nikon and Canon, you have several cost effective options at f/2.8.

I fully agree if you need the 2,8 aperture. The 400/2,8 and the 600/4 are in the higher price range (>10k), but I think this is similar to other manufacturers...

On the other hand - I think many of the photography-addicted members here use their cam above and below the surface of the oceans, therefore it might be interesting which manufacturer has the best options for both use-cases...?

26 minutes ago, fruehaufsteher2 said:

I fully agree if you need the 2,8 aperture. The 400/2,8 and the 600/4 are in the higher price range (>10k), but I think this is similar to other manufacturers...

On the other hand - I think many of the photography-addicted members here use their cam above and below the surface of the oceans, therefore it might be interesting which manufacturer has the best options for both use-cases...?

Could be of interest, but I didn't want to conflate the two in this topic, as its generally a separate consideration. But for clarity: this is honestly the only reason I did not move over to Sony. I would've moved over to A7RV or A1 if I did not shoot wildlife topside. Sony's lens offering is good for anything that isn't fast wildlife (f/2.8).

My comment re: >$10k is that you can't adapt lenses on to e-mount without an FPS or AF penalty, at which point the purpose of having a Sony system severely degrades for topside wildlife shooting. This isn't really the case for Nikon or Canon - you can adapt and get amazing results. With adapting, this also opens up a 2nd hand market: for example, I've bought a used 300 2.8 and a 1.4x TC14-e iii, for maybe 1/10th (give or take) of what the Sony equivalent lens would cost me. For a 400 2.8 Sony lens, you can buy an entire underwater setup, which to me just seems insane.

Either way, mirrorless currently is a very exciting space, with a tonne of competition happening - the Olympics in 2024 is coming up, and no doubt will the top 3 compete for brand recognition. Rumours are that Sony will be bringing out new hardware for it. I have a feeling they'll do well, and if they include "pro-capture" / "pre-release" / "raw-burst mode" and auto capture (like Nikon) with their AF system, it'll be a killer lineup.

I will stick with Nikon until Sony either allows for better adapting of lenses for top side use, or release affordable 2.8 wildlife glass. Until then, the maths are very simple: it's cost prohibitive for me to use Sony for both underwater and land. But if I only shot underwater, I'd change in a heartbeat.

Figured I'd offer my two cents as I did move from the Nikon D500 to Sony A1, back in October 2022.  I had my D500s for just over 6 years and it was a fantastic rig (both topside and underwater).  That said, the A1 is on another level.  It is a beast.  First time I used it I knew I made the right decision.

For starters, the size.  I typically travel with most of my gear in a Pelican 1510 case.  With the D500, I could fit in my Nauticam housing, one D500, one lens (Tokina 10-17), several ports, one strobe and small accessories (GoPro, cables, etc...).  With my A1, I can fit in the Nauticam housing, two A1 bodies (topside and underwater), one lens, two strobes, several ports, and numerous small accessories.  Basically everything except my dome port and strobe arms now fit in my Pelican case.

The autofocus on my D500 is fast, but the A1 is insane, especially with a native Sony lens.  I've taken to shooting with a 14mm f1.8 Sony lens and zero complaints.  I never had an real complaints with the D500, but the A1 is noticeably faster and more accurate.  That said, I have used my A1 with a Canon 8-15 and Sigma converter and noticed it is sometimes not as fast as with the native Sony lenses, but it has been more of an annoyance than impacting my work.

One area where the Nikon does beat the Sony is the menu.  The Sony menu is very in-depth and can often be difficult to find specific settings.  I do miss how on my D500, the ISO, F-stop, shutter can all be done with the wheels (and depressing a lever with the ISO).  Its slightly different on the A1.  However, deeper menu settings are difficult to find.  Prime example was the A1 comes with a default setting that prevents shooting in certain low-light conditions.  As you can imagine this was a pain during night dives (which is also when I discovered this was a default).  I'd suggest youtube or Backscatter for videos when checking for how to tweak settings.

The lens availability still is something to be desired on the A1 and I've spent a bit of time and money figuring what I preferred.  I shoot almost exclusively wide angle.  I initially used the A1 with a Sigma converter and a Canon 8-15 fisheye.  While it was a good setup, I despise the circular fisheye look, so I was effectively always shooting at 15mm.  In addition, the autofocus was good, but I was hoping for better.  I was able to pick up a 14mm f1.8 Sony lens for a good price and tested it at Tiger Beach and it was phenomenal.  No circular fisheye effect, crazy-fast autofocus and sharp as a tack.  I used it behind a 230mm glass dome.  Only knock is the field-of-view compared to the fisheye (but I knew that going in).  I've got a couple of shoots over the next 3-4 years that will require a larger field of view, so I went ahead and ordered a WACP-2 to pair with that 14mm.  Haven't had the chance to test that setup yet (it arrives tomorrow), but I've got high expectations, especially with what I've already seen with the 14mm.  That said, look at the price difference of D500 + Tokina 10-17 versus A1+14mm f1.8+WACP2...ouch.

The electronic viewfinder takes some getting used to.  I don't like to keep my head buried in the viewfinder and prefer to review my shots on the LCD (personal and safety reasons with some animals I shoot).  If you are like me, there is a way to create a shortcut to swap between the viewfinder and LCD with just the press of a button.  Backscatter and Youtube both have instructional videos on how to do it (and other shortcuts).  If I shot a lot of macro, I'd probably be in love with the electronic viewfinder though.

The 1/400 sync speed is great.  Didn't have any complaints with my D500 previously, but the 1/400 has now opened up new possibilities.  It was a huge help shooting Mako Sharks earlier this year.

Admittedly the cost outlay for switching from both Nikon to Sony AND moving to the A1 was large, but I also looked at it like a longer-term investment.  Hindsight, maybe I should have waited for the A7R V to come out (I bought my rig literally a week before it was announced), and saved some cash...but if you focus on should-have-could-have-maybe then you'll never do anything, ever.

I was happy with my D500, but holy &^%$, the A1 is a monster.  My only regret is that I didn't make the move sooner.

On 6/23/2023 at 5:47 PM, Lasongo said:

Admittedly the cost outlay for switching from both Nikon to Sony AND moving to the A1 was large, but I also looked at it like a longer-term investment.  Hindsight, maybe I should have waited for the A7R V to come out (I bought my rig literally a week before it was announced), and saved some cash...but if you focus on should-have-could-have-maybe then you'll never do anything, ever.

I was happy with my D500, but holy &^%$, the A1 is a monster.  My only regret is that I didn't make the move sooner.

I agree, you've gotta switch at some point

I'll wait it out a bit longer until affordable 2.8 wildlife glass for Sony shooters - I suspect this will be a few years from now. With their 300 2.8 release early 2024, it'll be some time until that drops to something like £2kish.

Until then I'm quite happy in camp Nikon - I've only heard rave reviews of the A7RV and A1 underwater, so there is an element of "missing out" here. Having said that, there are very few shots I've taken, which I did not get with the D500, being a result of the camera - missed shots are usually my own fault. However with some blackwater subjects, tack sharp eye focus hasn't always been easy! I would welcome a system that would net a higher keeper rate, for sure.

I can imagine Supe's D-Pro strobes and the Sony A1 to be a killer combo, the recycle time with that AF would give you a lot of options to pick the best image.

57 minutes ago, sinetwo said:

Having said that, there are very few shots I've taken, which I did not get with the D500, being a result of the camera

That's how I see it......