adamhanlon

IBIS or any other form of image stabilization is not really useful for underwater use. The water buoys up the weight of the housing, making hand holding possible at shutter speeds that are considerably slower than those possible on land. Think of the water acting as a "semi-tripod". Most people leave theirs switched off, to avoid battery drain. I don't see any reference to IBIS in their review. For what it is worth, the AF on the new full frame Sony cameras seems to be significantly better than that of the EOS R. However, I agree with the advice that full frame adds a bunch of complexity and expense that you could avoid with micro 4/3 or APS-C cameras. The lack of rinse bucket is not an issue. Tracking gear on a dive boat is simply a matter of being organized and telling others your needs/requirements. I dive globally with a huge variety of operators and most are good at taking are of gear, once they have been told how to do so! Adam

Thanks for starting us off Walt...why would (did) you chose the D850? I understand you wanting to use the RS, but you could use this with a D5, a D500 or an older Nikon full frame? I'm really wanting to drill down on why people are chosing cameras.. Entirely separately, are you at DEMA? Adam

It is hard to correct white balance in post if the actual white balance used while shooting is not correct. If using RAW (as it happens for both stills and video), simply applying a correction shifts the whole color spectrum. So unless WB and lighting are as close as possible to "correct" at time of capture, if you attempt to get pleasing reds, the spectrum shifts and your blues go funky and vica versa. Local WB corrections are certainly possible for stills (and I would guess for RAW video too?), but it is really hard to get them looking good. This would be complicated by the movement of parts of the video scene, which would potentially require re correcting each frame!

I'm interested to find out the Wetpixel community's views on current (and older) full frame cameras for underwater use. If you had the choice of any one full frame still camera on the market and expense, current lens ownership, housing choice etc. were no object, which would you chose and why? When responding, please ignore space/size/weight as a selection criteria as all full frame system housings and ports all seem ultimately pretty much the same in terms of weight and bulk. The weight of the camera itself seems to be largely irrelevant! My purpose on this is just to get an idea of what people are thinking. It has no purpose beyond this and I must confess that I am personally very happy with my current choices. Several recent discussions have raised some interesting ideas however, and I think it is a topic that would be useful to explore? Thanking you all in anticipation.

The issue here is that there is no comparison point. The OP is seeking guidance on camera choices and has asked for an opinion about Sony full frame mirrorless. Bear in mind that at this point he can chose any camera as he is seeking to buy into a whole new system. The lack of a native fisheye makes it hard to justify the Sony full frame mirrorless cameras for underwater use when pretty much every other manufacturer offers one. Specifically in terms of your post above, no one knows whether the AF on a native (Sony) fisheye would be fester/more accurate than the 8-15 and MB adaptor, because the lens doesn't exist! As you point out, the AF speed quoted is slower, but this should be balanced by the fact that this statistic is (probably) not based on lenses that we use underwater. Speed is also only part of the issue. Given that we rarely photograph really fast moving subjects (cheetahs hunting, motorbike racing etc.), accuracy is probably more important. Given that we use our cameras in environments that are often challenging for AF, any advantage we can add will help us to capture our images more reliably. Speaking to numerous people that have used both SLR and Sony Full Frame mirrorless in these environments, the consensus is that SLR AF (and particularly Nikon's) is more accurate and faster than Sony's. Many underwater pros initially bought into the Sony system but have now reverted to SLRs. The Metabones adaptors do add additional conversion circuitry (from Sony's to Canon's and across the flanges) and this is in turn does mean that inevitably, speed and (to some extent) accuracy is affected. Adding extra components will always affect performance to some extent. MB adaptors are very good, but they cannot get away from this. Perhaps we should turn this discussion around? Why should an underwater photographer chose a Sony Full Frame camera over a Nikon or Canon SLR (or perhaps other brand full frame mirrorless cameras)? What are the specific advantages of doing so? If you had the choice of any one camera on the market and expense, current lens ownership, housing choice etc. are no object, which would you chose and why? Perhaps when responding, we should ignore space/size/weight as all full frame system housings and ports are ultimately pretty much the same in terms of weight and bulk. The weight of the camera itself is largely irrelevant!

I think this is why we need to be wary on anecdotal evidence! A "guy I met on a boat" may not have experience of using any other system, so may not be able to compare with anything else! He may also have not used the camera's AF in challenging conditions. I agree that the IQ for the Sony cameras is very good, but would challenge any claim that their AF system is as good as the new Nikon D series. I have tried/used both and the difference is an order of magnitude.... When Sony releases their full frame cameras, many experienced underwater shooters embraced them as being the best option. However, many have returned to SLR... Any adaptor (by its very definition) will negatively affect performance. If is has additional optical elements, these will degrade the image, if it has additional electrical circuitry, these will affect AF speed. Adaptors are always (even the very best like the Metabones) a compromise. The NIkon Z series (due to the way Nikon has designed the new mount) has the potential to produce stunning imagery. However, lens options, and AF performance are currently relatively poor. Adam

Welcome new members! Please tell us a little about yourself in this thread. Wetpixel is a vibrant and engaged community of underwater imager makers. This is largely so due to the willingness of members to share their experiences and knowledge. Please contribute yours! Adam

Dear new members, The Wetpixel community is excited to welcome you. I think you will find that that the forums are the largest single resource for underwater image makers on the planet! The community is also very friendly and exists to support our fellow image makers. So if you have question, please feel free to ask them! This thread is to introduce yourself to the forum and tell the community a little about yourself. There are no rules about how to do so, but I guess that best thing to do is to imagine meeting some new people and how you would interact with them. Many people join the community with specific requests or ideas they wish to share. Please note that the Member Introductions thread is not the place to do so. Please introduce yourself to the community here and then post your enquiry in one of the other forums (https://wetpixel.com/forums/index.php) that are relevant to your specific request. Please note that specific buy or sell posts will be removed from this thread and will not count toward elevating your status. Buying and selling must take place on the Classifieds forum. In order to do so, you must make 3 posts in any of the other forums. The goal here is to encourage people to share their imagery, skills and knowledge hence contributing to our community. It also means that community members can somewhat "check out" prospective buyers or sellers. If you have any problems, please get in contact via the Wetpixel Contact page (https://wetpixel.com/contact)

The lack of acceptable fisheye options with the Sony full frame cameras pretty much renders them unusable for underwater use. Yes, you can add a WACP or other lens, but this is not a real fisheye lens, and is an expensive and heavy solution (albeit one with amazing image quality). The Sony 90mm macro is a great lens. While Nikon has announce that they plan to release 60 and 105mm macro lenses for the Z system (and these may be very good), the AF on the Z system is at least a full generation behind that of the D5/500/850. Nikon's AF on the Z system is much better than that of the Sony mirrorless cameras! I would expect that the next generation of Nikon SLR cameras will further improve on this AF performance. Reduced AF performance is huge sacrifice for macro and will mean that you get less usable images. Full frame SLRs typically have a cropped mode if required. My experience is that optical viewfinders are still better than EVFs. This is my (admittedly biased) experience. Ultimately, the speed of the EVF and its ability to render color accurately are challenges that an optical viewfinder simply does not have! We will see how Canon develop, but the 5D series, while very capable, seem to be somewhat outgunned by Nikon's offerings. I am sure the 1DX Mark III will be a stunning camera, but it is another level of expense, as well as bulk and weight. Sticking with bulk and weight, housing sizes and weights are similar for full frame mirrorless and SLR cameras. Port weight and bulk is identical. I confess that I do not get what the advantage of mirrorless full frame currently is for underwater use! I agree - the limiting factor in my imaging is my ability, and that people capture stunning images with a wide variety of cameras. I have yet to own a camera that couldn't take better pictures than I can! However, the latest iterations (particularly in terms of AF, and high ISO performance) do make it "easier" to get good pictures. Ultimately, this is why we upgrade. Will the latest version ensure you get amazing images...no, but it will make it easier to do so! Adam

Sorry, we never delete posts...

The issue here is that the WACP is a conversion lens, so the focal length of the lens used with it is not relevant in terms of a comparison. I'm not sure how many people use it with the Nikon 24-70 f/2.8 as most use it with the Nikon 28-70 f3.5-4.5. I'm not sure there is much info out there about its use with the 24-70? If your query is whether the WACP has enough reach for big subjects, the answer is yes it does! In common with many (apart from those that shot it Nikonos RS cameras), there are very few people around that have shot the Nikonos 20-35mm lens underwater. I guess give its year or two... Adam

Not simply! I don't know of an opto-electrical convertor that will work on strobes with a Nikonos fitting. Ikelite do one for their DS strobes, but the strobe-side fitting is their proprietary plug. There are lots that work on the camera output, but these will not help.

I think this is a simple answer...if you switch from the D850 to any of the current mirrorless cameras, you will find the AF frustrating. I know I keep banging on about this, but the single most important feature of any image is focus. Unless it is deliberately (creatively) blurred, out of focus images go n the delete category! Images that have noise, exposure issues, are badly framed or practically any other issue can be fixed to some extent in post. If they are out of focus, they cannot... Given that we mostly use autofocus underwater, this makes the speed and accuracy of autofocus the single most important feature on any new camera. The AF on the D500, D850 and D5 is a generation ahead of any other any other system. The AF on the Z series (with the ZTF adaptor) is like going back to using a D7000. I understand that the Sony's is similar in performance, but do have native macro lenses which helps. Of course, any camera is capable of producing stunning images. Performance just makes it easier to do so Adam

Thank you all, Perhaps I misspoke, for which my apologies. No existing housing manufacturer except Nauticam offers a solution for using WACP. Port adaptors exist of course, and there are manufacturers that can produce bespoke solutions. Camera placement within housings is not standardized however, so it will take experimentation to discover appropriate port lengths etc, as well as finding zoom gears. None of this is impossible, it will just take some time. I hope that the other manufacturers will correct this very soon! Adam

Currently, only Nauticam housings are compatible with WACP. I hope that this situation will change! Adam