Interceptor121

Actually no you will get better images underwater. The D500 is a pretty dated 20 megapixel camera. Yes it is very versatile and effective but lacks in resolution and dynamic range compared to your other models evaluated. Any camera replacement comes at cost

Sony who makes the sensors for Nikon has been outputting HEIF for a while You can store 8,10 bits HEIF with 420 or 422 encoding. This can give you more levels and tonal depth (assuming the display can handle it) but does not result in anything different that an sRGB or Adobe 10 bit file. You can save an HLG HEIF HDR but then you can no longer save the RAW How the histograms are displayed is not affected but the output The predominant reason for HEIF is compression efficiency which is much higher than jpeg and suitable to cameras with 40-60 megapixels Canon can produce HDR PQ HEIF files that are genuinely different unsure about the limitations on RAW

Sony has been doing it for a few years Heif 422 10 bits images exist however they are not necessarily hdr Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

If size matters the only full frame system is Sony. I am sure many will disagree but this is what I found and the reason why I got one With the A1 you can get also incredible performance and small size however many users will be happy with the A7 IV

I think if you are interested in topside wildlife burst rate and lack of rolling shutter when using electronic shutter may be of importance, it is for me. In which case the A7R5 is not really an option, this camera is more for landscape, architecture and casual shooting I have not seen proper reviews of the Z8 shooting birds to see if the autofocus is up to scratch but as Nikon shooter it may be easier to transition to that and you may be able to use any full frame lenses you own. The A1 costs around 1.5x the Z8 here the benefits are higher burst rate and flash sync speed and it is a smaller camera but if those things matter little to you the Z8 may be very viable. You may want to wait for mirrorless comparison to perform their bird test or someone else that is not a Nikon ambassador to provide soe evidence and then make a decision. The Sony full frame system is the most compact for underwater use as there are really small lenses that work behind the WWL-1 and has a smaller port system N100 however this is not true the moment you go into rectilinear lenses or look at the size of a macro lens. I have photos of all my rig set ups on my blog so you can get an idea of what is involved.

1 yes strange 2 means you need to buy the valve like all others Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Am not aware of any new housing that comes with a vacuum valve or trigger. If you have those items they may be compatible

Next time I will pick up the lobster and move it outside the crack where it stands to get an uncluttered frame? Is that a joke? Those were examples to make the point about depth of field Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

https://www.dpreview.com/articles/1345194531/the-state-of-the-camera-industry-according-to-the-people-who-make-cameras

Weather and conditions were not easy and was diving in a drysuit. I had an issue with the viewfinder on my left eye which I think has to do with my mask being too old Some shots taken with a combination of Canon 8-15 + 1.4x TC, 28mm and WWL-1, 35mm and WWL-1, 28-60 and WWL-1

Is the 4.33” tokina version? If yes you need to source an extension possibly Rest you can keep as is and use the 35.5 N120 to N100 adapter with knob for Sony The duck at the edges yes requires stopping down to f/16 nothing to do with dome size etc is because of depth of field to have everything sharp Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I recommend 4.33" acrylic it is flush with the port system. There is no size benefit shooting with the 100mm because 1. the difference is only 1 cm 2. Glass is heavier 3. The mount is N120 so flush with the 4.33 and with the 100m the dome goes inside no space saving Here is what it looks like https://interceptor121.com/2023/03/04/canon-8-15mm-with-4-33-acrylic-dome-for-sony-a1/ You can get a zoom using a kenko tc as shown here https://interceptor121.com/2023/03/18/canon-8-15mm-with-kenko-1-4-teleconverter/ Results are good to great

Because if you don't stop down you get blurred parts in the frame see example with the grouper. I shot it at f/8 I know the lens has no edge issues at f/8 but it has depth of field issues

The idea that you should not get a 50 megapixel camera underwater because it can't resolve the full resolution is flawed and the number of Nikon D850 Sony A7R and other high res cameras around is a demonstration that nobody is really aligned to your thinking You think about the overal spatial resolution of an image this is a mix of Sensor resolution x lens resolution x underwater optics deterioration x conditions deterioaration Keeping the 2,3,4 factors fixed and halving sensor resolution will produce half the spatial resolution In addition at close range YOU WILL resolve the sensor resolution see macro Even if the maximum spatial resolution was say 20 megapixels the lower sensor resolution will resolve 10 The other point you got wrong is the distortion. Water contact lenses create distortion this is an aberration there is nothing positive about it. The reason why wet lenses are distorted is because they focus close and distortion can't be easily corrected so it is left there Large domes or small domes do not induce any distortion of their own if correctly positioned. Domes increase depth of field improving matters but are affected by other aberrations As underwater shooters we are used to distorted images but that does not make them pretty or correct This was not a post about not getting an A1 but about the fact that going up in sensor size brings depth of field issues that can only be cured by stopping down the aperture and this does reduce performance. Now lets look at what this means. I am shooting a fisheye 8mm on MFT at f/5.6 it gives me a spatial resolution of 70 lpmm in the centre and 40 at the edges I then shoot a canon 8-15mm at f/11 to get the same depth of field I now have 40 lpmm in the center and 30 at the edges The benefit of the higher resolution is being defeated partially by the fact i need to stop down the aperture more for a larger system So the problem is not so much that I had too many megapixels but that as I am shooting smaller apertures and lenses and systems are optimised all for the range 2.8 - 5.6 not for f/11 or f/16 which is where I will need to shoot In other words due to how cameras are designed smaller sensors are more efficient to have a frame full sharp top to bottom than larger ones. The dynamic range point and low light are really more important for ambient light shots and video than it is for photos where you shoot with strobes. For video comparing 4K which is 8 megapixel the difference is obvious and not due to number of pixels One benefit of a larger sensor size unrelated to the resolution is that you have more latitude if you had the exposure wrong so you can save more photos but this does not take away the issue of the additional depth of field reducing the resolution My initial thought was that for underwater we give a lot of importance at what is at the edges etc etc and this is not conducive to extract the maximum performance from the camera because closing down the aperture goes against image quality

The image has the diagonal ideally positioned to exploit the argument the bottom corner is closer, the subject is on the upper third left The pale sponge goes up vertical and behind the edge of the reef goes sideways and closer The proof is that the reef on the left hand side which is further away and more in line with the shark is not blurred and the little corals coming up are also sufficiently sharp consider that is an extreme edge This is not about edges is mostly about how the image is taken. Take the same shot with that framing and perspective on land focus on something deep in the frame and you will get a similar result For sure that lens has also a field of curvature issue but the idea that this correction lens works should be demonstrated with a 3d target with similar framing not with a flat resolution chart Field of curvature is an issue where a lens does not manage the edges on a FLAT target however most targets are not flat anyway and dome ports tend to favour depth of field behind the focus point Demonstration with the same lens and same aperture on the same dive First shot right side reasonably sharp top to bottom Second shot subject is deep in the frame edges of the reef comes forward blur increases for part of the reef that is close, top left alga in the edge is sharp however alga on the right and coral not in the edge are soft Third shot the lobster is almost forward this is a 16:9 crop so the bottom is not the lens edge either Reef on the top sharp including the coral edges, right of the image reasonably sharp as aligned with the focal point left quarter not at the edge soft and this was a crop All shots at f/8 28mm WWL-1 No lens is immune by issues of depth of field. I have similar scenarios with a fisheye I wanted to prove myself the idea that a wet lens would achieve better corners are relatively wide aperture, this might be true for far subject (where any lens works better) but it is generally not true as you get close is exactly the same issue If you focus on something 2 meters in the frame and you have something at half a meter not matter where it will be soft unless you stop down the lens a lot or focus differently

I am sorry but most of the conclusions of this pseudo science are flawed Shooting a flat target has to do with field of curvature however shooting a 3d target is predominantly affected by depth of field The whole corner sharpness topic is vastly overrated and exploited I ran two months of tests with flat targets topside and in the pool with a test set up and then taken shots When you get close no matter what adapter you have if your edges are on a different focal plane they will blur especially the ones closer to you This is absolutely nothing to do with corner sharpness of the lens The picture of that sharp is a typical manipulation The reef is way closer than the shark that is the subject in focus if you had put your hand in the frame in the center sideways it would have been blurred too Cropped sensor having more depth of field will give you a more homogeneous result although in the center or the subject the resolution will be less Furthermore if I use the same lens system with a 24 megapixel camera and then with a 48 megapixel camera the results differ The 48 mp will not resolve everything due to the lens but say it resolves 24 this means the 24 megapixels will resolve 12 not 24. It doesn’t work exactly like that but you can follow the reasoning. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I guess my point is Nikon is not making any money from you using your old lenses and in addition autofocus systems are designed with lens systems backward compatibility usually sucks out advanced functionality. The effort to implement what you describe would not generate any value to nikon I guess many photographers need to understand that if they don’t spend a penny their camera companies go bust This doesn’t mean you should not use old or second hand but then don’t complain about innovation that have the purpose of keeping that company afloat Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Why would you do that? Subject recognition already work with the standard image pipeline of a mirrorless camera? Chip costs are driven by volumes Phones are stacked soon there will be enough volume to drop also cameras Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I have to admit I am rather puzzled by the anxiety of sharpness across the frame that seems to be the motto with underwater shooters Topside sharp images throughout as usually architecture, landscape, studio work withour distracting elements. There needs to be sufficient depth of field for the subject or part of the subject if that is more interesting. If you were taking a picture of a flower or a bird you would not want the rest of the image to be sharp throughout the opposite you want whatever is not subject to the blurred to emulate how your eyes see. Recently there has been an influx of wide angle macro lenses for topside Laowa is a prominent example of it and this is all about close up and subject and the rest is just an idea of the background leaving the rest to imagination Close focus wide angle instead is all about sharpness if possible throughout. This is of course difficult if not impossible without stopping down the aperture Mirrorless camera lenses frequently can't be stopped down more than f/22 and stacking is not really an option underwater On the same coin new cameras are optimised to shoot at f/4 f/5.6 no longer f/8 f/11 and by f/11 resolution starts to drop by f/16 normally halves f/22 is mostly a garble Even if dome ports increase depth of field there is a limit to where you can go so with a real tridimensional target you won't have the entire frame in focus I have normally shot my MFT camera at aperture which had good peak sharpness and were not affected by diffraction generally anything more than f/11 was forbidden unless required by a specific situation. This still gave me plenty of depth of field Now with a full frame camera shooting at f/8 f/11 to get the lens peak performance the drop in sharpness due to depth of field (nothing to do with domes etc etx) is very strong and I did not buy a 50 megapixel camera to shoot it at f/16 and produce at best 20 megapixels on the other hand I find annoying that there is such a drop between the areas in focus and those out of focus as my eye is trained to get a certain type of shot As a paradox I am finding full frame much more rewarding for video where the larger sensor means being able to shoot ISO 4000 and no noise I am not sure if this is time to reeducate myself or just shoot at f/16 and forego the extra 30 megapixels I just gained This post is an hyperbole but I am interested in view points from fellow shooters

What DSLR development are still possible? I believe the new requirements of the public can't be accomplished by a camera that is designed to only take photos. This was the consistent message in a panel of manufacturers interviews at CP+ few months ago DSLR broadly take only pictures and there is no market for devices that just take a picture Of course DSLR could take videos in live view but that is not anything anyone is interested in as of today

Every raw file has a jpeg normally thumbnail size If there is a raw processor is to create a jpeg There are programs that can extract it. It is a good learning on why you never ever save raw only Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Not sure how nikon does it now generally you need to save full rez jpeg and raw otherwise you are displaying the low rez embedded jpeg Doing this with the A1 I am zooming into a 50 megapixel file using a 2 megapixel evf so you need to go 20x to be 1:1 Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

The LCD resolution of this camera is lower than the D850. Combined with the lower resolution EVF this is for my a serious issue I am frustrated with the low resolution LCD of my A1 however the EVF more than makes up for it I don't understand why you should be skimping on display for a £3999 camera, higher resolution EVFs are expensive but expected at this price point

Black water is generated by water Which means the subject needs to be standing out of the bottom This is obviously an issue with most macro subjects that sit on something You can take a backdrop with you making sure you don’t damage the bottom or simply get an old pair of sola spot flood As your lights are further away even a narrow beam expands so you need to be on top of things Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I have to say I am surprised First dive site is custom white balance and ambient light filters on video light Second is a deep dive 40-25 meters with just lights and auto white balance Shot ISO 4000 all along