Moving up to Full Frame

[bill1946 16]

I've shot the Olympus 4/3 OM-D series for years. I'm thinking about moving up to a full frame. I'm nearing the end of my diving and will keep the FF for use afterwards. So, what would be your choice and why? I'm leaning towards the the Sony A 7 iii or the A7r. However, as I learned from the forum, be open to what experienced users recommend!!

[lbedogni 4]

What are the limits you see on m4/3 right now?

[hyp 115]

Keep the 4/3 for UW and only use FF for topside. Satisfy the GAS for less money. 

[TimG 62]

1 hour ago, hyp said:

Keep the 4/3 for UW and only use FF for topside. Satisfy the GAS for less money. 

Yeah, I’m with hyp. I used to always have two identical FF camera bodies, one for topside, one for u/w so I had a travel camera and a spare. But I came to realise, horses for courses, that for me DX was better for underwater and FX topside. So now it’s a D500 in a housing and a Z6 for the dry bits 

[phxazcraig 123]

Being a long-time Nikon shooter, I use Nikon underwater and above.   Personally I use the same camera (D850 now, D810 before that) above and below water.   I wanted the best camera I owned to go underwater with me, and it took me 10 years to convince myself to take that risk (and spend that much $$).   I am extremely happy with the D850 underwater, and I would prefer it over the Z7 for instance, unless I was shooting video and wanting acceptable autofocus there.

That said, I've come to the point where I typically don't mix above and below water for shooting.  I used to do it a lot - diving from a cruise ship is a good example.   But I got tired of lugging all the gear for 2-4 dives on a trip, or even 10 dives over 5 days.   I've since started just doing dedicated dive trips of 1 or 2 weeks where I can get in 18 dives/week.

When I go on a dive trip, ESPECIALLY WITH FX CAMERA, I simply don't have room to take many lenses.  in fact due to the packing situation I have, I can really only take 3 lenses, and two of them are for underwater.   The third has to be some shorter prime to fit the remaining space.  Sometimes that is an 85f1.4, sometimes a 35f1.4.   My diving lenses are limited to 16-35 and 105 macro.   So on a dive trip, I typically don't have the lenses I want for above water anyway.    To me this argues in favor of a dedicated dive camera as it may not be used much above water anyway. (I use my cell phone a lot for above water, and I also use my old RX100 which comes along as an emergency spare dive camera (along with housing).

If you haven't looked at the logistics of bringing an FX camera along, or looked at available lenses, start looking.  When I shoot Nikon FX underwater, I have the choice of fisheye, wide and macro - nothing in the middle.  I don't much like fisheye, so that means I have a choice between a 16-35 (and a 230mm/9in) dome or a 105 macro.  M4/3's has a lot more choices.   DX has somewhat more choices.   And a 230mm dome port?   Until you've held one you don't know how big it is, and it is BIG.  Until you've packed one, you don't know what will and won't fit in your bag.   And it will limit you in how you pack and what you bring.  TSA is really curious about it too when it shows up on the x-ray.

[TimG 62]

Some good comments from Craig.

The problem of moving FX gear was one of the reasons I decided to go back to DX. As Craig sets out, if you are going to use a 16-35 lens, the dome you need, the 230, is ENORMOUS and, for me, traveling with it was a right pain. Unlike Craig though, I was pretty happy with the Sigma 15mm FE and toyed with the idea of moving back to a 180 dome just using the Sigma and, effectively, ditching the 16-35.. 

When the D850 appeared I though long and hard. But given the comparative cost of a D500 body over the D850 and the difficulties of wide-angle with FX, I settled on the D500.

I also blame our beloved Administrator, Adam Hanlon, who helped persuade me that DX was the way to go. 

He was right. Phew.

 

 

[Akoni 11]

I am patiently (not really!) waiting for Nikon's ML D500 counterpart if only for the improved live view and video aspects because otherwise the D500 continues to be a fantastic camera. I have a Z6 that I really enjoy as well and have considered the idea of a housing for it but have mostly convinced myself to wait on the next round of Nikon Z's hoping for that D500 replacement.

[TimG 62]

 

 

1 hour ago, Akoni said:

I am patiently (not really!) waiting for Nikon's ML D500 counterpart if only for the improved live view and video aspects because otherwise the D500 continues to be a fantastic camera. I have a Z6 that I really enjoy as well and have considered the idea of a housing for it but have mostly convinced myself to wait on the next round of Nikon Z's hoping for that D500 replacement.

Z50?

Yep, I rather like the Z6 too...... 

[Akoni 11]

41 minutes ago, TimG said:

Z50?

Yep, I rather like the Z6 too...... 

Although I have heard good things about the Z50 I'm not sure that I'd put it on the performance level of a D500? I've not seen an announcement for a housing either.

Have you tried one out? I'd love to take one for a spin.

[Tom_Kline 143]

I use FF mainly for very high ISO. I use 12800 a fair bit (35.5K of 315K underwater images according to LR) as that is the upper limit I have set for auto ISO with my Canon 1DX which is now somewhat old. Have used higher but then needed a very heavy hand at noise reduction. I am also shooting FF Nikon mainly for the RS lenses.

Does the OP have a high ISO need?

[TimG 62]

11 hours ago, Akoni said:

Although I have heard good things about the Z50 I'm not sure that I'd put it on the performance level of a D500? I've not seen an announcement for a housing either.

Have you tried one out? I'd love to take one for a spin.

No, I've not tried the Z50 (my camera stable is full! D5, D500 and Z6) and, no, not sure I have seen or heard of a housing yet either. It was just a thought.

Reading folks like Thom Hogan's views on the Nikon line-up, he seems to think that the Z series are pitched slightly below their DSLR equivalent. So Z7 slightly below D850, Z50 slightly below D500.