Questions about upgrading from an LX10, potentially to the A6400. And a random Inon wide angle lens question.

[LoriAnnKru 4]

I recently tried a friend’s Sony A6000 (after I got water in my LX10 housing) and realized I liked the A6000 a WHOLE LOT BETTER.

Now I want to sell the LX10 and Nauticam housing and get something new. I can use advice.

I liked the A6000 better for these reasons:

• The autofocus was SO much easier to use, it was like a revelation. I really had to futz with back button autofocus for the LX10, and THEN futz a lot with the half-trigger focus. The Sony autofocused quickly and easily with just the half-trigger.
• My friend had a Sea & Sea housing for the A6000, and it was a lot lighter than my Nauticam for my LX10. I couldn’t believe how heavy and unwieldy my rig was in comparison! I was able to take photos with one hand for the first time ever. I also found it a lot easier to maneuver into tight spots and to get low and tight and angle up for wide angle. I also did a lot more vertical shots because it was so much easier to set that up.
• The Sea & Sea housing had ball mounts right on top of the housing. (I have a tray with arms with ballmounts on my LX10 housing). I was able to put my arms and strobes (YS-D2Js) right on the top of the Sea & Sea housing and had a much easier time seeing around the rig. (It had no tray and no arms—so it was just the housing and the strobes. It had a small hand strap on one side.)
• I found the aperture control to be much easier on the Sea & Sea (I could use my thumb without moving anything else) than on my Nauticam (aperture control is on front of housing).
• The trigger pull on the A6000 operated the way I’d hoped a trigger pull would operate. Even with the trigger release extention on the Nauticam, I found it difficult to pull the trigger. I sometimes had shake as a result.
• I just got a CMC-1 lens after using the CMC-2 lens for a few years. I was getting it to work well with the LX-10, but my friend had a 30mm lens on his camera, and I was able to stack my CMC-1 on it. I had a much easier time getting it to focus for macro.
• I have an Inon UWL-H100 lens with a dome lens unit II, and it has produced a weird hair-like shadow on at least half my wide angle shots since the day I got it. The hair-like shadow never appears in the same place.  Does anyone know what causes that, or if it was a flaw in the lens from the get-go? (I am certain there is no debris on the lens itself, and it doesn’t only happen when I’m shooting towards the sun.) I’ve had a few cruise directors/photographers on liveaboards take a look at it, and no one has been able to figure out why it’s doing that. 

I figured the logical place to start researching were upgrades to the A6000. I’ve landed on the A6400 as my jumping-off point. I have a few concerns:

• It appears Sea & Sea no longer offers a housing for this line of Sonys.
• The 16x9 LCD screen throws me for a bit of a loop—I’m not sure I like that idea.
• I’m wondering if the fact that it only synchs up to shutter speeds of 1/160 is a drawback.
• I’m wondering if 24 MP will be too limiting. All I do now is post pictures to Facebook and Instagram, but I would REALLY like to get something that I won’t find too limiting in another few years.
• I originally got the LX10 because I was coming off a GoPro and thought video would always be my first love. I’m still working on getting fully competent on manual shooting of stills, but I do know I want to go back to video at some point.

Can any of you comment on those concerns? 

If I should look somewhere beyond the A6400, would you steer me in the right direction? Note well: my neighbor works for Nikon and can get me his discounts on their cameras.

 

 

[ChrisRoss 150]

I think the answer is that it depends on what you want to do, the Sony cameras are popular but they do have limitations including lack of native fisheye (solvable with converters) and not a fantastic choice in the way of macro lenses.  What you are comparing is AF on compact style camera with a true macro lens - compacts are often slow with macro AF.

On the 30mm macro be aware that that lens achieves 1:1 focus about 20mm from the lens front element and you lose about 10mm of that due to the port, the glass is maybe 5mm thick and a little clearance between lens and post.  What that mean that even with the CMC mounted you were not pushing macro magnification.  The CMC can't provide you with any benefit as wet lenses work by reducing minimum focus distance so you can get closer and still focus.  If the minimum focus distance is only 10mm already adding any wet lens does nothing - it may still focus just fine but no magnification benefit.

This also means you were not testing the lens at close to 1:1 which is where any AF system starts to break down,

Sony's other macro options are the Sony 50mm and Zeiss 50mm, both of which are a little slow and the 90mm macro which is arguably too long at least in temperate waters where slightly larger subjects require you to be too far away.  Either of the two 50mm macros really need a well fitted port so the front element is close to the glass, not every housing vendor provides this. 

1/160 flash sync is a slight inconvenience and you mainly notice this trying to do sunballs with wide angle shots. 

My main suggestion is take a few steps back and work out what you want to be able to achieve with any new system  - don't start with the camera body.  Look at what lenses you would like to use and look up UW reviews on them.

The A6000 has never been mentioned as snappy focussing, the latest 6500 or 6600 is supposed to be a big improvement by reports on here - don't recall which model eaxtly.  The snappiness you experience was probably the macro at less than 1/2 life size, where most lenses are quite snappy.  The gold standard for fast AF still seems to be a DSLR - though some of the very ltest morrorless offerings appear to be very close.   My EM-1 MkII is quite snappy most of the time with the 60mm macro lens and only gives a bit of trouble in low vis water focusing on particulates.

I understand your issues with the Nauticam housing - they mainly centre around the compact style housing, the housing for example for the EM-1 MkII which I have is much more ergonomic.  Regarding the weight - underwater this is easily addressed with a couple of float arms .  If you have the opportunity I'd suggest visiting an UW retailer to try out the housings, not always possible of course it depends on where you live.  One thing in favor of Nauticam is they have a huge range of ports and extension rings to choose from and getting the right port is easy and much less likely you would need to compromise in port selection. 

Regarding the wet lens I'd be guessing - perhaps start a new thread and post an example.  I assume you know the dome is a dry dome that can't be changed underwater and that you need to burp the wet lens assembly to dislodge air bubbles. 

On the overall question of a new system I would suggest listing all your wants and seeing how you would be solved with a number of options say a m43 system a Sony mirrorless and and an APS-C DSLR rig.  Do be aware that housing price scales with sensor size as does port size if you are looking at rectilinear wides.   Then sit down with a stiff drink and price each option out. 

[Phil Rudin 447]

The Sony A6400 and A6600 which has IBIS are the first two Sony APS-C sensor cameras that have implements Sony's much higher speed AF systems including the Human and pet eye AF systems. 

I reviewed the A6300 and A6400 using Ikelite housings but with completely different sets. Both reviews are located in the back issues (#92 and #108) at UWPMAG.com, this is a free PDF download and if you search the back issues you will also find many lens reviews as well. You can find a fairly wide range of housings at a verity of price points including Ikelite, Nauticam, Fantasea, Seafrog and more. Support for the lenses you will be closing is the main issue. 

 

[LoriAnnKru 4]

Thanks so much, Chris and Phil. Chris, I (obviously) didn’t realize the best thing to do is choose the lenses I want and then back into the camera. Really interesting idea!

I also didn’t realize the CMC1 wasn’t adding magnification, so I feel like a complete dope! It isn’t the first time I’ve felt like a complete dope with my camera, and I’m pretty certain it won’t be the last. :-)

I basically want to do three things:

1 - Very good macro to super macro (stills and video). Bonus points if the lens can be on a flip or very easily removed so I can also do medium-sized shots on the same dive.

2 - Wide angle with crisp, sharp focus with no fuzzy corners. Bonus points If I don’t have to zoom to eliminate a vignette.

3 - Very good medium range for fish portraits and the like. (Is there a technical term for this kind of photography?) On my LX10, I would just use the camera with no additional lens for this. 

2a/3a: Video for 2 & 3. I haven’t looked into whether I’m supposed to use wide angle or a medium range lens for this—is there any “rule?”

Phil, I had seen your article when I was searching other posts. A few questions:

I see you used loc-line arms, which I love. I had just changed my configuration to one 8” ultra lite arm with three foam floats, joined to an 8” loc-line arm holding a YS-D2J strobe.. Even if I just used two ultralite arms loaded with six foam block floats, the Nauticam was seriously negative. Was the Ikelite good without any floats? Is this the difference that a polycarbonate versus aluminum housing makes in general?

With Ikelite housings, is it best to use Ikelite strobes? Also, I read that Ikelite’s TTL works well. I tried TTL with my LX10 and YS-D2J strobes, and people helping me quickly came to the conclusion that I should go to full manual on the strobes. A friend of mine who was shooting a mirrorless also realized the key to her being able to shoot good wide angle was to go to full manual rather than the TTL she uses for macro. So if a photographer is already used to full manual, is there any reason to go back to TTL? 

What is your take on having the LCD screen be set at 16x9 rather than 4x3?

Do you know anything about how well the underwater white balance works for video?

Thanks again to you both!

[ChrisRoss 150]

You want to do three things - is that theree things all at once - that is much harder than individually.

Macro is relatively easy - you need a flat port that fits well.  Optimal full frame equivalent focal length seems to be about 90mm - though this depends on where you shoot, clean tropical waters it's not much of an issue, in turbid temperate water it certainly is.  I wouldn't feel bad about not realising the issue with the CMC, the documentation on these lenses is not that great and are a common subject of questions around here.

Wide angle is a different story and depends what you are wide angling.  The old gold standard is a fisheye lens for CFWA, for wrecks a wide rectilinear, for general purpose some of the wet wide lens options.  As other posts on here attest the new generation wet wide optics are very good but not a complete substitute for fisheye lenses.  Rectilinear lenses are the hardest to get good corners and need big domes, the bigger the sensor the bigger the dome needed.  Wide angle for big animals needs some zoom capability normally some don't come as close as you would like.

Medium lenses for fish portraits are another story, easily used behind a small dome, though if you have a kit zoom behind a flat port the corners are not the best at the wide end.   I use a 12-40 olympus lens behind a 170mm dome and it good for that general purpose sort of work and as a bonus can fill the frame with a 60mm long subject as minimum focus. 

The thing to remember with TTL is that it is the camera making most of the TTL decisions and good TTL is as much about the camera body as it is about the electronics interpreting the cameras commands to adjust the strobe.  In general terms I would expect TTL to work much better with macro than wide angle.  On ikelite strobes you can use other strobes with ikelite housings but you would be using third party triggers if you wanted TTL.  Also ikelite is wired sync only so you would be dealing with electrical sync cords - optical is not supported.

Another factor to consider is it is apparent not many housing manufacturers have the right ports to support Nauticam's WWL (and depending on which lens - other wet wide options like INON)  A lot of the kit zooms used with the WWL are very short, so finding a short enough port is an issue - the port needs to fit well to avoid vignetting.  Even if they do have a suitable port it is generally not listed as such in the port chart so homework is required.

I'm no video expert, but I can say Sony has a reputation for not doing so well with custom white balance underwater - Canon is generally thought best at that.  The other thing to consider is the varying flaming hoops the different manfuacturers force you go through to do a custom white balance.  I think the new Canon cameras need like 12 button pushes.  Other just one or two.

Just to throw another spanner into the works, the YS-2J is difficult to trigger with LED based flash triggers, you need the right combination of trigger and cables to trigger them and it's easier in manual.  Triggering them with on board flash makes life easier as there is much more light but not every camera allows on board flash to be triggered manually - yes you can cancel the pre-flash on the strobe but it chews up battery power - which is another variable to consider with cameras.

[ChrisRoss 150]

I would also add on flotation getting to near neutral should not be that hard, getting right on neutral takes a little more work.  Basic procedure is to hang you rig from a luggage scale in a tub of water fully submerged and add that weight in buoyancy.   You add enough buoyancy to counteract the weight and stop about 100gram short or so - to be sure you don't go positive.  Fresh water is fine there's only about 3% difference to salt.

my rig is a Nauticam EM-1 MkII housing and with the macro port or the small fisheye dome port it is about 100 gr negative with two INON 390 gram floats with two Z-240 strobes.  What sort of foam float are you using ?  do you know its buoyancy?

[LoriAnnKru 4]

Chris, 

I was using the StiX Jumbo Buoyancy Floats for Ultralight Arms. They are supposed to provide .4 pounds of lift per float. I had 3 floats each on 4 arms, so it should have provided 4.8 pounds of lift. But the Nauticam (with either the CMC-1 or the Inon wide angle) was still significantly heavy. 

This last trip, I swapped 2 Ultralight arms with 3 floats each OUT in favor of 8” loc-line arms. I did 65 dives on the trip (long, wonderful trip!) so I had enough time to figure out that the rig was now 2 pounds negative. (I didn’t use it on a few dives, and needed to add 2 more pounds of weight. I know it’s not ideal to depend on your camera for your correct weighting, but in the absence of a better idea, that’s what I did.)

What’s weird is that on prior trips, it was still negative even with the 12 floats. If the floats are actually working, they should have made the rig neutral. But they didn’t—anyone who has ever taken the camera from me to view a shot or shoot a shot has commented that it was quite negative. 

In any case, when I moved that same arm configuration (2 loc-lines and 2 ultralights with 3 floats each) to the a6000, the rig was neutral. This was the case with the 30 mm + CMC1 I used for macro and with a Sony 16mm (E 16mm f2.8) I was using for wide angle.

Here’s what makes no sense to me: I just looked up the weight of the Sea & Sea A6000 housing (1200 grams) and the weight of the Nauticam LX10 housing (840 grams). I guess it’s possible the Nauticam was more dense than the Sea & Sea? But generally, does this make any sense to you? If the Nauticam housing is 2/3’s the weight of the Sea & Sea, why would the Nauticam be 2 pounds more negative? 

Also—to answer your question about what I want to do: 

I don’t take the wide angle and macro lens on the same dive. My brain can’t handle that yet. I DID like having the ability to flip my macro lens off to take a medium shot. 

I’m happy doing only wide angle on a wide angle dive.

[ChrisRoss 150]

Something does not add up I looked up dry and UW weights where I could find them of your rig and put them in a table:

You can see you have UW weight about 1415 gr, while 12 x stix jumbo floats are 2172 gr buoyancy.  So your rig should float.  Some of the numbers are guesses, but they won't be far off.  The UWL, arms/clamps and strobes I found actual UW weights.  The housing is listed as slightly negative - so 100 gr is a good guess the tray and CMC-1 can't be far off. 

Are you sure you have jumbo floats - the large floats fit with a rig that is still negative.  The jumbo are 2.5"x2.5"x2" and the large are 2"x2"x2"  .

Buoyancy is not just the weight if it weighs the same but has a bigger volume it weighs less UW.  I could see the rig with large floats being a problem it would weigh 730 gr UW  which = 1.6 lb.

In any case you will be able to get a rig to be neutral or very close, be it Nauticam, S&S or other brands.  As I said I have my EM-1 MKII olympus rig being about 100gr negative (0.2lb) with two INON floats.  As housings get physically bigger they tend to get more buoyant as they displace more water without getting excessively heavier on their own.  Domes also make a difference  my rig is more buoyant with a 170mm glass dome even though the lens and dome itself weigh more than the macro lens and port for example.

[ChrisRoss 150]

As to what to do if you are doing the macro and wide angle separate , the macro is easy, you probably just need a macro lens and matching port.  Getting to 1:1 is a great starting point but ask your self is you think you'd like to go further in which case you want to buy a lens/port which works well with a closeup lens.  Conversely if you dive in temperate water having a shorter focal length macro is good if you also have larger subjects in the3-8"size range maybe.

Wide angle with WWL is one option giving 130° diagonal field with the right base lens.  Taking that off UW is a bit of a big deal as it is large and heavy - too big to park on a strobe arm so you typically would have a 10-30mm equivalent zoom lens with some barrel distortion for the whole dive.  Nice for larger animals and can do CFWA on reefs.  However the king for that is still a full frame fisheye.  Here's a chart to allow you to compare field of view - I based it on the horizontal field to make comparison easier as fisheye, rectilinear and wet lenses are not directly comparable  if you use the diagonal field of view, the field of view is stretched most in the corners of a full frame fisheye. 

You can see that WWL gives a similar field to your UWLH100 plus dome.  The second column lists the equivalent focal length for a rectilinear lens.  One option that some people have been using is an adapted 8-15mm fisheye on m43.  That goes from fisheye through to roughly 28mm equivalent which is slightly zoomed in on your current camera without wet lenses.  It is a relatively expensive option and needs a housing that will accommodate the adapted fisheye.  You can do this on Nauticam using special adapter along with the Canon zoom gear.  The bonus is the dome is small and lighter and you are having to deal with a detachable lens that needs burping on every dive.  You can't do this with larger sensors, though the tokina 10-17 goes close on an APS-C sensor camera.

you choices will depend a bit on what type of wide angle you do - reefscapes and CFWA in clean tropical water, large animals, shipwrecks all have slightly different needs.

[LoriAnnKru 4]

Chris, thanks so much for taking the time to research this! As it turns out, I do in fact have the jumbo StiX. I took them out and measured to make sure, so it remains a mystery why the camera was negative. But your showing me how to do the calculations is really helpful so that I can figure out buoyancy for the next camera. 

Additional information: when I shoot wide angle; it’s always for reefscapes or reefscapes and divers. CFWA would be terrific, but I haven’t had success getting the critter in acceptable focus so far. I don’t intend to get serious about photographing wrecks or large animals. I do enjoy being able to take a nice shot of a shark, turtle or whale shark. But I wouldn’t spend extra money on equipment specially for that. I always dive in warm clear water (The Caribbean, Hawaii, or Indo). I’m thinking about trying a dive under a bridge here on Long Island (NY, USA) where I live, and I would take my camera. But again, I wouldn’t spend money on equipment specifically for that. 

I watched a lengthy video last night of Backscatter interviewing a Nauticam representative about lenses. I realized from that that I really like the rectilinear look. The lens they were touting was nearly $5000, though. So I can’t justify that. But I will start paying attention to rectilinear to see if it’s cheaper some other way.

You’d suggested earlier in this thread that I take a look at three options: an APS-C, a M43 and a full frame option. So far, I’ve got two picked out:

APS-C: Sony A6400 (with a Sony kit lens, the 90 mm lens, and perhaps a Sony pancake and fisheye conversion lens). I need to do more research because I think I read Backscatter doesn’t love one or more of those lenses. 

Full frame: Nikon Z6ii with a 24-70 kit lens, a Nikon 8-15 lens, and a Nikon 105 lens. It appears the Isotta housing may suit my needs, and it’s cost is more mid-range. 

I haven’t been able to settle on an M43 choice yet because I’m getting the impression that the OM-D E-M1 Mark III is more for stills and the GH-5 is more for video. I need both. 

I would love to have both a 60mm and a 90+mm type of macro option. I’m wondering if a 60-range with the CMC-1 I already have might give me both options?

I need more time (and research) to fully understand your wide angle discussion, but I’m getting there!

 

 

[ChrisRoss 150]

Fisheye seems to be the go-to option for CFWA and reefscapes.  I assume you are talking about the WACP-1 with regard to expensive lenses - that also weighs 4.7kg  (10 lb) in air, it does have a floatation collar to help in the water, but still!

I would rule out the fisheye conversion lens, optical quality is pretty average.  The Sony APS-C range to me is a bit of an orphan - the 90mm macro lens is very long on that system and the lens selection is a little limited.  Also remember custom white balance can be an issue on the Sony cameras for video (without lights).  The 50mm lenses focus very close and only have limited working room - 40mm on the Zeiss 50mm by my estimate and add-on wet lenses are not really feasible.

On m43 I don't do video so can't help there.  I have heard video is not that well implemented on Olympus.  Panasonic have a very good rep for video, however AF for stills is a little limiting, plus the GH-5 housing is pricey as it includes a lot of specialists video features like huge bulhead for external monitor HDMI cables and has a removable back.  I guess it depends on whether you are a casual video shooter or not.   Here's a link to an article by a wetpixel member who knows a lot about video:  https://interceptor121.com/2020/08/12/olympus-vs-panasonic-for-underwater-use/

I don't entirely agree with the macro AF comments, probably because i don't often try shoot at maximum magnification and just rely on AF which seems to work fine for me.  But you can read his video comments.  I'm guessing there are workarounds for some of them but would certainly turn away a dedicated video shooter.  You'll run into this issue with many video capable cameras - some implement video better than others.

Full frame can get very expensive, large and heavy  very quickly and arguably is not needed for most people.  Think about travelling with the rig.

On the CMC-1 it is quite a powerful macro lens and you'll be working in quite close with it on a 60mm lens.  The thing to remember with wet macro lenses they work by allowing you to focus closer and if you are already focusing very close at max magnification then the lens doesn't help much.  Generally they are regarded to work OK on the olympus 60mm, but not the Canon and nikon 60mm lenses.

[LoriAnnKru 4]

Chris, you are amazing! Thanks so much for all the great advice!

Yes, it was the WACP-1 that’s out of the question cost wise. The article you linked on Olympus v Panasonic more-or-less confirmed what I thought—it just doesn’t seem that either one is really going to make me happy. 

The more I read and and think, the more I’m feeling that bang-on focus is possibly the most important factor to me. I do pixel peep (just learned that term!), and I really like super-sharp focus on whatever my subject is. 

Your comments on Sony white balance are making me lean in the direction of the Z6ii. I borrowed my neighbor’s Z6 today and will hold onto it this week to see what I think. 

Do you think I’m overlooking any other cameras that should be in my mix? I’ve kind of settled in on a budget of $1500 or under on the camera, $2500 or under for the housing, and maybe $2k total on lenses. (I can get about 30% off on Nikon cameras and lenses, so that’s what’s putting the Z6ii more squarely in the mix.)

[ChrisRoss 150]

No worries - it easier to explain now than to disappoint someone later that their system doesn't quite do what they wanted it to.  A couple of comments _ I would ask about Nikon video performance - not sure it's huge amount better than Olympus.  Video is a whole other universe and reading the things posted on the video forum there's a huge amount of detail there with codecs -, external monitors, profiles etc.  I'm not sure how deeply you are into it.  Here's someone asking about Z6 and video  and you can see where the post goes - anywhere but saying about Z6 video. 

just for fun I put together a shopping cart at Backsctter and a Z6 plus 105mm macro plus 8-15 fisheye plus domes extension ring, manual flash trigger came $7900, about half of which was for the camera & lenses with Isotta.  You could get an Oly Em-1 III woth 60mm macro, 8mm fisheye and ports for $6236 in Nauticam or $5667 in Isotta..  If you went EM-1 II it would $700 less right now as it's on sale and UW there is really no difference.  so that would 4967 in Isotta.  I would suggets making us eof the shopping carts to put together some systems so you can see what sort of budget you need.

I would also suggest asking about AF of the 105mm lens on Z6 I seem to recall some hesitation about its performance as it is on the FTZ adapter. 

[LoriAnnKru 4]

Thanks again, Chris.

I’m not deep enough into video to consider external monitors, Gates housings, or a camera over $1500. :-) But I definitely will ask around about the video performance of the Z6ii, anyway. Agree that I’d like to know what the story is before I plunk down any money!

My video story is that I used to do a ton with a GoPro. I eventually got frustrated with the inability to take good stills, so I went to the LX-10 based on Backscatter’s recommendation—I told them I thought my first love would always be video. Turns out once I got the LX-10, I felt I needed to concentrate on stills and manual exposure because I just had no clue what I was doing. So I haven’t actually ended up doing a ton of video with the LX-10, but what I have done has been acceptable in most ways. I think anything that has better video capabilities than the LX-10 will be a happy step forward for me. I still haven’t gotten into color correction beyond iMovie, but I do plan to move to Premiere Pro at some point. I really would like a nice white balance beyond 50 feet, but I’m not pushing my budget because of that.

Thanks for the push on the EM-1 III and EM-1 II. I’ll get cracking on that research tomorrow.

I’ll also look into that issue with the 105 mm on the Z6.

One more question: I’m leaning in favor of the Isotta housings because it looks like the positioning of the strobe arms will more closely mimic what I had on my friend’s Sea & Sea housing for the a6000 (ball mounts right on top of the housing.) Not having handles in the way helped me see around the camera a lot better. (I wear a prescription bifocal mask, so sometimes my ability to see the LCD monitor wasn’t so great.) In addition, neither the LX10 nor the Sea & Sea A6000 housing had viewfinders, so my only choice was the LCD screen for composing and reviewing. I’m excited about the potential the viewfinder has for me to see what on earth I’m doing, but I figure I may as well hedge my bets by also keeping the rig configured in a vision-friendly way. Do you have any thoughts about that and the Isotta? Or if the viewfinder gives those of us with bifocals a better chance?

Edited February 9, 2021 by LoriAnnKru
Grammar and punctuation

[gobiodon 62]

I would just add that Michele Hall uses a sony A6300 professionally (behind the scenes photos for Howard Hall film making):

 

[ChrisRoss 150]

Assume you are talking about aiming the macro rig, I think that's basically practice, particularly if you are working in close.   The view finder should help you out a bit , with a bit of practice popping your eye up to look along the port will help with the aim.   Viewfinders seem well liked by those who have them, apparently the 45° ones are gerat for macro but have a learning curve.  Have you seen this video:

 

I don't know that isotta or Nauticam will be a great deal different in that regard they have a similar housing shape and the handles/arms are off to the side, you tend to look over the top of the housing.  The ease of use with the 30mm macro rig may have been because the magnification was lower?  and you have a bit of port length to help aim over.

You could also consider a second hand rig, which would get you more bang for your buck.  They tend to go for 50-60% of new price.  I see there's a Pany GH5 rig with 60mm & fisheye going in the classifieds now.  Be aware the older model housing sold for about $700 less than the new model. 

[TimG 62]

Loads of great advice from Chris.

If you thinking seriously of macro, as Chris suggests, there is load of good second hand stuff around and it may well be worth going down a slightly more classic DSLR route for the moment for macro. An add-on viewfinder (Chris mentions the 45-degree ones) is brilliant for macro and moves any alignment, where-is-it issues.

There have indeed been lots of comments about the Nikon Z series and that, maybe for the moment, it's focussing system isn't that great for u/w use. I don't think the Z(x)ii has been around long enough for anyone to have a real view.

As for video/stills, yeah, to me it's a bit like wanting that do-everything-on-every-dive setup: sounds great in theory but if you looking for high quality results, you need the right gear for the right tasks ("horses for courses") AND, as important, you need to be thinking in the right mind set. You can't be thinking video and shoot stills; You can't have the right gear for stills which will then shoot decent video. I just don't think it works.

You've tried out video and perhaps decided that stills is your thing. Fair enough. I'd suggest then that maybe not go slightly backwards and try and find something that does good stills but will bang out reasonable video. Go for one or the other! I'm sure your understanding of what works and what doesn't will go leaps and bounds if you stick with one thing: stills or videos. Chalk and cheese.

[Barmaglot 230]

22 hours ago, ChrisRoss said:

The Sony APS-C range to me is a bit of an orphan - the 90mm macro lens is very long on that system and the lens selection is a little limited.  Also remember custom white balance can be an issue on the Sony cameras for video (without lights). 

For what it's worth, I shoot an A6300 with 10-18mm and 90mm and like it. The 90mm gives me reasonable standoff distance for larger subjects (several inches), and with a diopter (I use Weefine +13) it gives good supermacro - I can fill a reasonable portion of the frame with a leaf sheep slug, for example.

[LoriAnnKru 4]

22 hours ago, gobiodon said:

I would just add that Michele Hall uses a sony A6300 professionally (behind the scenes photos for Howard Hall film making):

 

This is a great reality check for me, Marcell. To some extent, I’ve got to think if it’s good enough for Michele Hall, it really *should* be good enough for me...

[LoriAnnKru 4]

18 hours ago, ChrisRoss said:

Assume you are talking about aiming the macro rig, I think that's basically practice, particularly if you are working in close.   The view finder should help you out a bit , with a bit of practice popping your eye up to look along the port will help with the aim.   Viewfinders seem well liked by those who have them, apparently the 45° ones are gerat for macro but have a learning curve.  Have you seen this video:

 

I don't know that isotta or Nauticam will be a great deal different in that regard they have a similar housing shape and the handles/arms are off to the side, you tend to look over the top of the housing.  The ease of use with the 30mm macro rig may have been because the magnification was lower?  and you have a bit of port length to help aim over.

You could also consider a second hand rig, which would get you more bang for your buck.  They tend to go for 50-60% of new price.  I see there's a Pany GH5 rig with 60mm & fisheye going in the classifieds now.  Be aware the older model housing sold for about $700 less than the new model. 

Argh, I had not seen that video, and now, of course, I’ve decided I “need” another $1k worth of equipment. I’ve been updating my husband every night about where my research is landing. It’s a REALLY good thing he has a sense of humor.

I think because I have the focus light directly on top of the housing, I tend to peek around the left of the housing to see what I’m doing. 

I’ll keep an eye on the second-hand rigs. Would I be correct in thinking Panasonic won’t have the same sharp focus of Sony or Nikon?

[LoriAnnKru 4]

15 hours ago, TimG said:

Loads of great advice from Chris.

If you thinking seriously of macro, as Chris suggests, there is load of good second hand stuff around and it may well be worth going down a slightly more classic DSLR route for the moment for macro. An add-on viewfinder (Chris mentions the 45-degree ones) is brilliant for macro and moves any alignment, where-is-it issues.

There have indeed been lots of comments about the Nikon Z series and that, maybe for the moment, it's focussing system isn't that great for u/w use. I don't think the Z(x)ii has been around long enough for anyone to have a real view.

As for video/stills, yeah, to me it's a bit like wanting that do-everything-on-every-dive setup: sounds great in theory but if you looking for high quality results, you need the right gear for the right tasks ("horses for courses") AND, as important, you need to be thinking in the right mind set. You can't be thinking video and shoot stills; You can't have the right gear for stills which will then shoot decent video. I just don't think it works.

You've tried out video and perhaps decided that stills is your thing. Fair enough. I'd suggest then that maybe not go slightly backwards and try and find something that does good stills but will bang out reasonable video. Go for one or the other! I'm sure your understanding of what works and what doesn't will go leaps and bounds if you stick with one thing: stills or videos. Chalk and cheese.

Tim,

Thanks for the guidance on the Z(x)iis, viewfinder, and the second-hand equipment. You’re absolutely right—there has to be a super compelling reason for me to switch to video if I’ve gone down intending to do stills.  For one thing, it’s way too hard for me to have video lights and strobes on the same dive. (I do use one of my Sola 3800s as a focus light, tho, so I guess it could happen in theory.) But I’m definitely not good enough yet to do that with any fluidity.

My problem is that I think the best thing about sharing video is being able to show animal behavior you just can’t show as well with stills. Sometimes I come back from trips thinking, “Why am I doing all this still work if I myself get such a thrill from rewatching my own videos?” Video editing though—ugh. However, your idea of going for something that can produce amazing stills but still bang out reasonable video is the right compromise. One thing that bugs me to death is sub-par white balance on video, though. So if I can get reasonable video with better than average white balance, I’d be a happy woman!

[gobiodon 62]

19 minutes ago, LoriAnnKru said:

This is a great reality check for me, Marcell. To some extent, I’ve got to think if it’s good enough for Michele Hall, it really *should* be good enough for me...

and it's also good enough for Howard to propmote the big movies. Actually that convinced me that my next upgrade will be a A6400 (from A6000).

[LoriAnnKru 4]

7 hours ago, Barmaglot said:

For what it's worth, I shoot an A6300 with 10-18mm and 90mm and like it. The 90mm gives me reasonable standoff distance for larger subjects (several inches), and with a diopter (I use Weefine +13) it gives good supermacro - I can fill a reasonable portion of the frame with a leaf sheep slug, for example.

Hi Barmaglot, and thanks! Do you have an Instagram account or other place I can check out your photos? That would be really helpful for me to get an idea of the camera’s full capabilities. 

[ChrisRoss 150]

6 minutes ago, LoriAnnKru said:

Argh, I had not seen that video, and now, of course, I’ve decided I “need” another $1k worth of equipment. I’ve been updating my husband every night about where my research is landing. It’s a REALLY good thing he has a sense of humor.

I think because I have the focus light directly on top of the housing, I tend to peek around the left of the housing to see what I’m doing. 

I’ll keep an eye on the second-hand rigs. Would I be correct in thinking Panasonic won’t have the same sharp focus of Sony or Nikon?

You can easily add the viewfinder later - it can represent another degree of difficulty with aiming for macro. 

The Panasonic is capable of perfectly sharp images , just the AF might be a little slower compared to Olympus and any of the DSLR's.  Some of the latest Sony's are reported to be quite fast at AF, though reports are the 90mm is a little slow and the 50mm lenses a little slower.  Reports are though that the very latest models are quite snappy in AF.  You'll likely only notice that in macro as you approach 1:1. 

There are other ways to get sharp images with macro - so if you get close with AF you can use focus peaking to show what's in focus and rock back and forth and snap when you are in the right spot.  Some cameras implement focus peaking better than others. 

Some of this also depends on what you mean by macro.  On sites I dive there's lot's to shoot in the 10-50mm range and any surge adds a whole order of magnitude more difficulty as both you and the subject are subject to the surge, but some critters lag in moving with the surge.  SO the net result is I only ever use the 60mm bare and mostly around 1/2 life size where the AF is much snappier.  Be much more demanding on the AF if you are shooting sub 5mm critters with a close up wet lens.

[ChrisRoss 150]

5 minutes ago, LoriAnnKru said:

Tim,

Thanks for the guidance on the Z(x)iis, viewfinder, and the second-hand equipment. You’re absolutely right—there has to be a super compelling reason for me to switch to video if I’ve gone down intending to do stills.  For one thing, it’s way too hard for me to have video lights and strobes on the same dive. (I do use one of my Sola 3800s as a focus light, tho, so I guess it could happen in theory.) But I’m definitely not good enough yet to do that with any fluidity.

My problem is that I think the best thing about sharing video is being able to show animal behavior you just can’t show as well with stills. Sometimes I come back from trips thinking, “Why am I doing all this still work if I myself get such a thrill from rewatching my own videos?” Video editing though—ugh. However, your idea of going for something that can produce amazing stills but still bang out reasonable video is the right compromise. One thing that bugs me to death is sub-par white balance on video, though. So if I can get reasonable video with better than average white balance, I’d be a happy woman!

I think there is a good point there, producing little video clips that convey the message is something most cameras can do well enough.  Looking at the button pushes required to do a custom white balance is recommended.  Download the instructions for any candidates and look this up - if the manual makes no sense  find a you tube video that demonstrates how to do it  You should be able to get decent colour with custom white balance down to about 10m in tropical water on many cameras.  Sony as I said seems to be an exception.   It seems to me this is how you would do video when on a stills dive. 

Also confirm you can switch to video without jumping through flaming hoops.  My EM-1 MkII for example has three custom modes on the mode dial.  You can set one to manual flash settings, another to TTL flash settings and a third to natural light video settings for example.   Being able to do stuff like this without diving into menus is vital IMO. 

On the subject of video for editing you could consider the free version of DaVinci resolve.  I played with it and did some color grading and seemed to work well enough.

There's lost of pointers above and things to consider, I know it's rather geeky, but put together a spreadsheet with all the systems you want to compare add up the costs , then score all the features you want - 5 points for a true one -touch white balance, 0 points for a 13 button push for example.