Best EVIL camera for underwater use?

[Nicool 26]

Hello Wetpixel,

I'm hearing more and more DSLR shooters that are getting an EVIL camera for underwater use, and I'm myself considering it now.

I currently own a fully equipped Hugyfor gear for my Nikon D7000, and I'm very happy with the quality and ergonomy.

Still, I like to dive as light as possible in any occasion, but I'm also getting several occasions to go abroad for short business trips, in places with good diving potential. I'd love to dive in those places and bring back some pictures, but I really can't affort to carry my 1620 Pelican case with all the DSLR gear...

 

Like most DSLR shooters (I presume), I'm concerned about the loss in image quality (although I believe some Sony NEX cameras are at par with my D7000), and by slower autofocus, but I've never tried any of these EVIL cameras underwater.

 

I say Alex Mustard's article which raised my interest on the Olympus OM-D, but what about the NEX family, the tiny Pentax, etc?

So for those of you who investigated the matter in more detail, which EVIL camera do you think is best for underwater photography, and why?

[bvanant 190]

Any of the NEX or micro 4/3 cameras can be great underwater but if you shoot strobes and a focus light they are not all that much smaller than a DSLR rig by the time you have the arms and batteries and chargers etc.

Bill

[folivier1 3]

Interesting topic and one which I've been considering. Getting tired of lugging around my 5d2 and Subal and don't get to dive as much. I really would like to move smaller for UW and topside but for topside I definately need a viewfinder. Hate using a camera without one.

[Steve Williams 0]

Our friends at Backscatter have some interesting new information up on their website. http://www.backscatter.com/learn/article/article.php?ID=57#Mirrorlessindepth

 

The whole article is well worth reading.

 

Cheers,

Steve

[troporobo 244]

I've gone with the OM-D with the 12-50 lens, Nauticam housing, and a pair of Inon S2000 strobes. I don't (yet) have a true wide angle so no additional port to carry. The whole setup fits very neatly in a normal size backpack so is relatively light and compact for travel.

[guyharrisonphoto 21]

OM-D without question. These are the hottest threads on this forum for a good reason. And yes, it is much smaller that a dslr housing. If you want a single all-around rig, get the Nauty housing with the 12-50 port and gear. A perfect rig for a short travel trip where you want to travel light.

 

Image quality is equal to APS-C DSLRs (except maybe the 24mp ones for resolution) and high ISO performance is outstanding.

[Nicool 26]

Any of the NEX or micro 4/3 cameras can be great underwater but if you shoot strobes and a focus light they are not all that much smaller than a DSLR rig by the time you have the arms and batteries and chargers etc.

Bill

Good point, but it's at least easier to pack, lighter to carry, and I could also consider trading my Inon Z240s for smaller strobes.

 

Our friends at Backscatter have some interesting new information up on their website. http://www.backscatt...rrorlessindepth

 

The whole article is well worth reading.

 

Cheers,

Steve

Thanks Steve! Indeed that was very informative, I had missed this article.

 

I've gone with the OM-D with the 12-50 lens, Nauticam housing, and a pair of Inon S2000 strobes. I don't (yet) have a true wide angle so no additional port to carry. The whole setup fits very neatly in a normal size backpack so is relatively light and compact for travel.

OM-D without question. These are the hottest threads on this forum for a good reason. And yes, it is much smaller that a dslr housing. If you want a single all-around rig, get the Nauty housing with the 12-50 port and gear. A perfect rig for a short travel trip where you want to travel light.

 

Image quality is equal to APS-C DSLRs (except maybe the 24mp ones for resolution) and high ISO performance is outstanding.

That's the kind of benefits I'm interested in!

 

So looks like the Olympus OM-D is very popular, and from Backscatter's review I can understand some of the reasons.

However I see there are some nez Olympus PEN cameras being released, with same sensor as the OM-D, and probably cheaper+lighter. So what would be the drawback of those PEN against the OM-D? Lower number of controls, ie lower ergonomics? One possible advantage I see is the absence of the OM-D's hump, which might mean smaller housings? So smaller housing vs lower controls, what's more important?

 

I see good comments on IQ for the OM-D (very good, stunning...), but is it very good compared to point&shoot, or really at par with APS-C DSLRs? I must say it was a pain when I've downgraded from my Nikon D3 to my D7000, I'm hoping there is no really visible downgrade from D7000 to mirorless.

Also, I imagine no one has reviewed yet the newer NEX cameras (NEX-6) for instance, which still come with a bigger sensor than 4/3 systems, but a reasonable 16 Mpix (I'm afraid 24 Mpix is a bit too much on APS-C), and apparently some major progress on AF performance.

 

Also, Backscatter's article doesn't mention the Panasonic mirorless cameras, so I assume they focused on the best cameras in both Olympus+Panasonic lineups, since they share same lenses?

 

Last, but certainly not least, of my questions: are there some mirorless housings with which you can use a 3rd party vaccum testing system? Now that I'm used with my hugycheck, I couldn't live without it...

[Alex_Mustard 0]

http://wetpixel.com/i.php/full/alex-mustard-reviews-olympus-om-d-e-m5/

[bvanant 190]

If you believe the Dx0 sensor ratings (and you may not) the D3 has an 81 rating, the D7000 has an 80 and the OM-D has a 71, so a much bigger IQ change from D7000 to OM-D than from D3 to D7000. That being said, it all depends on the output. For big prints (16x20) I think the OM-D is a stretch while the Nex-6/Nex-7 can do it more easily. That being said, I think my 7D gives me "better" images than the OM-D even though its sensor ratings are lower. I shot the Nex-5 quite a bit but sold it for the OM-D mostly for macro lens availability and I believe that the images were mostly comparable.

Bill

[guyharrisonphoto 21]

DXO is not the best measure for print quality. Even now, resolution is still the best indicator for large enlargement quality. DXO measures things of high value like dynamic range or high ISO, but if large prints are your primary goai, get a D800. If professional quality, good dynamic range, excellent high ISO, light weight, ease of travel and use, versatllity (nothing matches the 12-50 Nauty rig for that), a full and useful variety of lenses, housings and ports, and image quality that will allow 20x30 prints with careful and judicious post, then the OM-D is the way to go. As I indicated, the NEX-7 has the best EVIL resolution, but is not the best underwater camera IMO due mainly to the lack of lenses.

[Alex_Mustard 0]

If you believe the Dx0 sensor ratings (and you may not) the D3 has an 81 rating, the D7000 has an 80 and the OM-D has a 71, so a much bigger IQ change from D7000 to OM-D than from D3 to D7000. That being said, it all depends on the output. For big prints (16x20) I think the OM-D is a stretch while the Nex-6/Nex-7 can do it more easily. That being said, I think my 7D gives me "better" images than the OM-D even though its sensor ratings are lower. I shot the Nex-5 quite a bit but sold it for the OM-D mostly for macro lens availability and I believe that the images were mostly comparable.

Bill

 

Can't believe I am getting into a DxO ratings discussion! They are what they are, a useful guide, not the be-all and end-all. They are measure all areas of the sensor performance, some of which might be completely irrelevant to the photography you intend to do.

 

My testing with the OM-D back in May, I felt it exceeded the IQ than a Nikon D300 could achieve, had better ISO performance than a 7D and was getting pretty close to the D7000. However, I was not able to do side by side tests.

 

For low light, available light, wide angle photography I would take the OM-D over the D7000 and 7D every time. But for other types of underwater photography I'd still say the SLRs are ahead in terms of an overall package. Unless the size of that package is particularly important to you.

 

Alex

[Phil Rudin 454]

I would agree with Alex, the three lenses I used most (about 95% of the time) with my Olympus DSLR systems were the 50 macro, 7-14 zoom and 8mm fisheye. Since I now have the Panasonic 8mm and 7-14 zoom along with the 45 macro and the Olympus 60 macro my system has not changes much other than a lack of tele converters. I firmly feel that large full-frame optical viewfinders provide the best viewing quality, while at the same time I am quite impressed at how much better the OMD EVF is over past OVF's on the 43 sensors.

 

I am sitting in my room at Atlantis Dumaguete Philippines, dive resort less than 100 meters from the sea with a rather large typhoon bearing down on our door step and I am finding these small details like a DxO review to be of little concern. Hope that makes sense to some here at WetPixel.

 

As for the choice between Sony NEX-7 and Olympus M-E5 I have owned both with the respective Nauticam housings and I can say without reservation that for me the OMD is the better system at this time because of the lack of quality lenses for the Sony NEX systems. You can talk all you want about what is coming but I fail to see any useful lenses other than the Zeiss 24mm and the new as yet untested 10-somthing mm zoom and from what I have read that may not change before 2015. We will see an expensive Zeiss macro that will reach 1:2 and that is about all I see in the near future.

 

Phil Rudin

Edited December 4, 2012 by Phil Rudin

[Alex_Mustard 0]

Stay safe in the storm, Phil.

[Deep6 7]

As I indicated, the NEX-7 has the best EVIL resolution, but is not the best underwater camera IMO due mainly to the lack of lenses.

 

Yeah, you gotta have the glass. The APS-C size sensors (e.g. NEX-n) will have APS-C size lens; the corresponding M4/3 are smaller and lighter. As noted, M4/3 has a large selection of lenses - NEX does not AND only has one lens that can resolve 24 MPs. The "Sweet 16" MPs will do all that I need.

 

 

Bob

[Deep6 7]

Hey Phil, keep your head down! I have my fingers crosssed for you.

Bob

[guyharrisonphoto 21]

Hey Phil, I did not realize you were there! Please stay safe.

 

Guy

[Phil Rudin 454]

The storm has passed in our area and we are all well with minimal damage to the resort. Don't know how the boats made out at this time but will hope for the best. With all the rain we could be in for some poor vis in the next few days. Thanks to all for your concern.

 

Phil Rudin

[Nicool 26]

http://wetpixel.com/...mpus-om-d-e-m5/

 

Hi Alex,

 

Thanks for the link! As usual your reviews are a pleasure to read, and the fact that you took the standpoint of the SLR photographier considering mirorless was very relevant to me, and it got me 90% of the answers I was looking for.

 

Based on your review and on other photographers comments (here and in other threads I've browsed), I'm convinced the OM-D is currently the best EVIL/mirorless camera for underwater.

Still I'm afraid OM-D setups (Nauticam or Olympus housings) miss 2 features that I would have loved:

-Unability to use any system like hugycheck/housing sentry to ensure the housing is waterproof before the dive.

-No "peak focusing" highlight. At least one NEX camera offers it, would be great if Olympus offered it as a firmware upgrade.

Hopefully someone an prove me wrong...

 

Also, I have one question: is there a significant image quality/autofocus trade-off when using wet lenses (wide angle complement or macro wet diopter), as compared to dedicated m4/3 lenses and ports?

Although I have not yet fully explored the lens/port charts of Nauticam/Olympus, I've seen some ports with 67mm/77mm threads, so I would assume the capability exists. If it were possible to use, say the 14-42 or 16-50 lenses behind the same port, and then be flexible to change between ultra wide (weitwinkel) (weitwinkel) (weitwinkel) angle and macro during a dive, with limited quality trade-off, it would be awesome... (that's something I envy to compact cameras shooters)

 

The storm has passed in our area and we are all well with minimal damage to the resort. Don't know how the boats made out at this time but will hope for the best. With all the rain we could be in for some poor vis in the next few days. Thanks to all for your concern.

 

Phil Rudin

Hi Phil,

Good to know you're safe!

No worries about the poor viz: with your top-notch OM-D stabilization you can just shoot at low shutter speed with video light, I believe that would make particles less disturbing in photos ;-)

Just kidding, but I wouldn't mind trading my 20/30m viz in the Med against 2-3m in Philippines :-D

[Phil Rudin 454]

Hi Nicool,

 

I was just in Antibes last month after attending the World Festival of Underwater Pictures now in Marseille. My wife and I had a great time but did not take time to dive as we worked our way along the coast from Nice back to Marseille for the flight home. I have done some great diving in the Med over the last 40+ years, in Malta and Spain but have not had a dive in France yet. I would like to dive one of the subs there. Sorry for getting off topic.

 

Phil

[Nicool 26]

Hi Nicool,

 

I was just in Antibes last month after attending the World Festival of Underwater Pictures now in Marseille. My wife and I had a great time but did not take time to dive as we worked our way along the coast from Nice back to Marseille for the flight home. I have done some great diving in the Med over the last 40+ years, in Malta and Spain but have not had a dive in France yet. I would like to dive one of the subs there. Sorry for getting off topic.

 

Phil

Good to hear you've enjoyed our cost :-)

Still off topic, my wife and I have dived one of the submarines once (it was the "Rubis", close to Cavalaire), but I must say it was a very nice dive, very particular ambiance.

I cannot help pasting 3 pictures from that dive (I'm the model here).

[A.Y. 15]

Since we all have different needs and priorities, there is really no such thing as a "BEST" camera! Make a list of your needs and must-have features and then try out as many cameras as possible to see which one is the best for "YOU"!

 

I decided on the NEX system simply because it was (still is) the only one that could meet all of my work and vacation requirements for stills and videos. My reasonings and links to reviews here: http://www.alyudesign.com/sony_nex5n.html

 

The NEX-6 and 5R now feature on-sensor phase-detection autofocus, capable of tracking moving subjects better than the contrast-detection systems. 10-18mm samples look really good, love the focus peaking feature, and the NEX system has a full frame upgrade path.

[coroander 16]

Sony's focus peaking, probably not the best solution for critical focus:

http://theonlinephot...us-peaking.html

 

In my opinion, Sony camera's look better in the specs department than they perform -- it's a marketing advantage, not an advantage for photographers.

 

24MP might seem like it offers a lot more resolution, but the Sony comes with a stronger anti-aliasing filter (which destroys resolution). The AA filter on the OM-D is very weak (Olympus uses industry-leading software for JPEG users that minimises moire, but RAW shooters get ultra sharp images due to the weak AA filter). Also, 24MP only offers a 22% increase in linear resolution, not the 50% you might expect by looking at the specs.

 

I also believe that Olympus leads the way in EVF focusing downsampling. EVF resolution is not the main determinate of being able to critically focus on the unmagnified EVF, the software that downsamples the sensor for the EVF determines how well critical focusing can be performed, and here again Oly appears to lead the industry, allowing critical focusing without resorting to magnified view even with f/0.95 manual focus lenses at very close distances.

 

Also with Nikon, Olympus and Sony sensors all made by Sony, the differences between sensor design and capabilities are diminishing. One thing that we know, for sensors using the same technology, the difference from M43 to APS-C is only 1/2 the difference from APS-C to full frame (that's because sensor area goes from 1.0 for full frame to 0.39x for APS-C to 0.25x for M43.) Or, in other words, there's a 4/3 stop difference between full-frame and APS-C and a 2/3 stop difference between APS-C and M43.

 

With Sony going to a base ISO 100, the dynamic range and high ISO performance of newer Sony sensors is exactly the same as the OM-D from ISO 200 up. The Sony's typical 1/160 flash sync speed, vs the OM-D's 1/250 unfortunately means the Sony can't quite benefit from the ISO 100 for underwater photography.

 

Lastly, as a compact camera system, the lenses for the APS-C sensor NEX cameras are just too large for the body. Just compare Sony's 50mm f/1.8 portrait lens against the Oly 45mm f/1.8 portrait lens in a shop sometime. You'll also probably never see a macro in the 90mm-150mm full-frame equivalent range, simply because it would be too large for the body (that's why Sony make a 30mm macro -- it's a more reasonable size for the body.) Oly has an ultra-sharp 2:1 equivalent, 120mm equivalent macro. Also you don't find much fast glass for the NEX -- again it's too large for the body, whereas for the OM-D, there's a lot of fast (and sharp!) glass. While Sony lags in the lens department, that lag will be permanent because it doesn't make sense to make such large lenses for compact camera system (if you're going to carry around several APS-C size lenses, why not just carry around a more ergonomic APS-C DSLR, the total size difference just isn't that great.)

Edited December 6, 2012 by coroander

[Alex_Mustard 0]

Take that Sony!

[gobiodon 62]

I'm a sony user but for underwater photography u4/3 is the way to go. Especially after olymus started to use sony sensors the quality difference due to the sensor advantage has diminished. On the other hand u4/3 lenses are way better for UW photography. I've just checked the 60mm macro and it's a jewel. Also a perfect choice for UW photography together with the pany macro lens, while the 30mm sony macro has limited application option. And I don't see many good lens for UW photography on the sony horizont.

Just my two euro cents

 

Marcell