Jump to content
adamhanlon

Wetpixel Live: Downsizing UW Imaging Systems

Recommended Posts

I have done several cooperations with photonstophotos that does measurements of DR and noise

The mirrorless cameras APSC from canon and nikon have performance usually worse than MFT even in terms of low light

I think this is due to severe cost cutting in internal electronics dsp and asic

So your example is a perfect one fitting exactly into this picture

There seem no intention to produce pro level APSC mirrorless from the two main brands

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

  • Confused 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Did anyone considered the Nikon D5600?

 It has a good sensor, It can except excellent lenses and the housing from Ikelite is small and light. 

Does somebody have this setup ? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Unfortunately the D5XXXX series will not work with screw drive lenses, so you cannot use the Tokina 10-17mm with it...

Adam

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
56 minutes ago, adamhanlon said:

Unfortunately the D5XXXX series will not work with screw drive lenses, so you cannot use the Tokina 10-17mm with it...

Adam

I have the Nikon 8-15 fisheye. I use it today for my D850. It is the same F mount I believe. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, the 8-15mm has a focus motor and will work on a D5600. The Tokina 10-17mm does not. It will mount on the D5600, but will not autofocus. 

The D7XXX series will work with screw drive lenses as will D500 and all the current full frame SLR models.
 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And now for the "big question: I have the D850 - But I want a compact and light setup for underwater photography.

Do you recommend the D5600 + Nikon 8-15 as my first underwater setup ?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No, If you already have the 8-15mm and the D850, I would house them...

There is about 1.5kg weight saving, which is significant, but the D5600 will limit your creative potential, particularly with respect to IQ, AF and ISO performance.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I might have an opposite question: I have a compact setup with rx100iv and I wonder if I’ll have a substantial improvement if I move to m43 setup without compromising size and weight.


Inviato dal mio iPad utilizzando Tapatalk

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, caolino said:

I might have an opposite question: I have a compact setup with rx100iv and I wonder if I’ll have a substantial improvement if I move to m43 setup without compromising size and weight.

Depends on what parameters you look at - between the Rx100 and an EM-1 mkii you have about a one stop improvement in noise and minor dynamic range improvements. 

The main difference is having true macro capability if you fit a macro lens/port or a true fisheye.  The housings are going to be bigger as they typically use the little accessory flash as a strobe trigger.   The AF is probably better with an EM-1 mkII but maybe equivalent with an EPL model.  If you use the 12-40 lens in a dome it will give you a nice improvement over the bare lens in a flat port with very nice quality throughout the zoom range and the ability to fill the frame with a creature 60mm across.

My impression is that something like an EM-1 Mkii would be a nice improvement - like a mini DSLR in many respects, but getting one of the very compact EPL-10 setups, the improvements would be relatively modest, though it would give you the flexibility to use the 60mm macro or the 8mm fisheye. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Depends on what parameters you look at - between the Rx100 and an EM-1 mkii you have about a one stop improvement in noise and minor dynamic range improvements. 
The main difference is having true macro capability if you fit a macro lens/port or a true fisheye.  The housings are going to be bigger as they typically use the little accessory flash as a strobe trigger.   The AF is probably better with an EM-1 mkII but maybe equivalent with an EPL model.  If you use the 12-40 lens in a dome it will give you a nice improvement over the bare lens in a flat port with very nice quality throughout the zoom range and the ability to fill the frame with a creature 60mm across.
My impression is that something like an EM-1 Mkii would be a nice improvement - like a mini DSLR in many respects, but getting one of the very compact EPL-10 setups, the improvements would be relatively modest, though it would give you the flexibility to use the 60mm macro or the 8mm fisheye. 

Thanks Chriss, I was exactly jingling between these 2 setup.
What about the 11-50 with the macro mode, can this be a flexible but quality option?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, caolino said:

What about the 11-50 with the macro mode, can this be a flexible but quality option?

Assuming you mean 12-50; AFAIK engaging the macro mode is only supported in Nauticam housings and requires a special (and very expensive) gear that take something like 15 minutes to assemble on the lens. For all that, the quality, according to reports that I've seen, is not spectacular, although I don't have any personal experience with it, so take this information with an appropriate amount of salt.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I own the 12-50 with port and gear. It’s a pretty cool piece of engineering but it’s not exceptional in terms of image quality. The macro mode is quite nice but for real macro you still need a wet lens. Wideangle is what you would expect for a 24mm equivalent lens behind a flat port. Compatibility with wet wide lenses is not that great. 

The electrical zoom is quite annoying and consumes a lot of power. 

There is also an option to put it behind a dome that has a flip adapter for wet macro lenses. You lose the macro mode, but this may actually be a better option. I’ve not had a chance to try this though. 
 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, caolino said:


Thanks Chris, I was exactly jingling between these 2 setup.
What about the 11-50 with the macro mode, can this be a flexible but quality option?

the 12-50 optical quality is a bit average and at the wide end the flat port causes poor corners.  With the macro button you get about 1:3 and without it significantly less.  The 12-40 is very nice at the wide end behind a 170mm dome.  you can zoom into 40mm and get 1:3 filling the frame with a 60mm subject on the horizontal axis which is better than the 12-50 can do without the expensive macro port option.  This is with the 12-40 @ 40mm, the nudi is about 70mm long and it's cropped a little:

https://www.aus-natural.com/Underwater/Nudibranches/slides/Ceratosoma amonenum 5.html

AT the wide end I like the results in temperate waters like I get around home for schooling fish etc:

https://www.aus-natural.com/Underwater/Bony Fish/slides/Old Wives 18.html

https://www.aus-natural.com/Underwater/Bony Fish/slides/EasternBlueGroper13.html 

groper is about 800mm long

https://www.aus-natural.com/Underwater/Other Marine Life/slides/Giant Cuttlefish 20.html

Giant cuttlefish is about 500-600mm long at 12mm.  To me the 12-40 is more flexible and much nicer optics than the 12-50.  All those shots will be at f8.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for the clarifications and the pictures look great and in line with my expectations of flexibility compared to the current setup.
I have a very compact setup with a fantasea housing with flat port and I was looking for similar setup. It seems the closest can be the AOI with em5 mkII and a semi dome for the 12-40. It maybe there are other less bulky options.


Inviato dal mio iPad utilizzando Tapatalk

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Problem with the 12-40 is that is requires a larger dome, so you cannot fit a wet lens like with the 12-50. I wonder how the 12-45 PRO would perform behind something like the 4" wide angle port that also allows attachment of a flip adapter. Nauticam Port chart has very little info on this lens (macro port 35 + 2x 20mm extension). No idea if that lens would even work, but it might be a better iq alternativ and it allows 0.5 magnification through the whole zoom range, which is better than both the 12-50 and 12-40. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, hyp said:

Problem with the 12-40 is that is requires a larger dome, so you cannot fit a wet lens like with the 12-50. I wonder how the 12-45 PRO would perform behind something like the 4" wide angle port that also allows attachment of a flip adapter. Nauticam Port chart has very little info on this lens (macro port 35 + 2x 20mm extension). No idea if that lens would even work, but it might be a better iq alternativ and it allows 0.5 magnification through the whole zoom range, which is better than both the 12-50 and 12-40. 

 

The problem of many shooters is that they do not understand that lenses that are good on land may not be good underwater or be less compact.

Underwater I use the 14-42mm lens with WWL-1 a lens that I never use on land.

On land I use the 8-18mm and 12-60 both need a dome and they are not compact neither take wet lenses same goes for 12-35 and 12-40mm 

Then you have the macro 30,45,60 all have a small port

And fisheye that in the MFT version takes also a small port

So if you want to have a compact set up you need to avoid wide lenses and good standard zoom or you go into dome territory

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Interceptor121 said:

The problem of many shooters is that they do not understand that lenses that are good on land may not be good underwater or be less compact.

 

Or vice versa!  The Tokina 10-17 is, in my view, horrible above water. On an APSC underwater - terrific!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Or vice versa!  The Tokina 10-17 is, in my view, horrible above water. On an APSC underwater - terrific!

Yes exactly as the 14-42mm


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes exactly as the 14-42mm


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Thanks for the input. I’ve been using the pancake 14-42 on land and as you say I’ve been missing the sharpness of the 12-40. But, if I understood correctly, paired with the wet-lens it’s will on pair of the 12-40. As said have only used the rx100iv underwater so I’m learning.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for the input. I’ve been using the pancake 14-42 on land and as you say I’ve been missing the sharpness of the 12-40. But, if I understood correctly, paired with the wet-lens it’s will on pair of the 12-40. As said have only used the rx100iv underwater so I’m learning.

The 12-40 as the 12-60 remain very sharp but need a dome and are not wet lens compatible


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The problem with the WWL is that it's so huge that you basically have to do make the decision of what you're going to shoot before the dive. If the 12-45 works well behind the 4" dome you could go to 1:1 with a macro lens and still have 24mm equiv which is not amazing, but decent. That would be a pretty cool setup for Video or just when you have no idea what you're going to see on a dive.

The 12-50mm with the MWL-1 would also be able to do this. Not sure about IQ though as there are very few reviews. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, hyp said:

The problem with the WWL is that it's so huge that you basically have to do make the decision of what you're going to shoot before the dive. If the 12-45 works well behind the 4" dome you could go to 1:1 with a macro lens and still have 24mm equiv which is not amazing, but decent. That would be a pretty cool setup for Video or just when you have no idea what you're going to see on a dive.

The 12-50mm with the MWL-1 would also be able to do this. Not sure about IQ though as there are very few reviews. 

12-45 is not an interesting lens. The 4" dome is also a not terribly interesting port!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, hyp said:

Any reasons?

4" dome port or 2" 5 cm width typically out of a 11 cm circle means 57 degrees coverage which is less than 20mm for MFT

Any lens will be pushed into it not to vignette creating severe aberrations

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sponsors

Advertisements



×
×
  • Create New...