Help choosing DSLR for publication quality fish ID photos

[Jheard89 0]

Hi,

I'm looking to upgrade my Sony RX100 VA in order to take better photos for my research. Part of this includes diving to depths of up to 100 m in order to document new fish species.

My current camera is good enough for most fishes, however, it's simply not up to task for photographing very small gobies, which account for the majority of undescribed species that I'm seeing. A lot of these fish are very skittish, meaning I often have to heavily crop my photos, resulting in poor resolution with my current camera.

As I'm only taking ID shots, I'm wondering if I'd be better off buying a slightly older model, such as a Nikon D500 or D800, which I could get a relatlively cheap housing for. Would you really be able to tell much difference between these and newer DSLRs for fish ID shots? Essentially trying to decide if spending almost double on the camera and housing will be worth it, or if it's overkill for my needs.

[TimG 62]

Hi Jheard89 and welcome to Wetpixel

You ask a good question. I've used both the D80 and the D500 - in fact I switched from the D800 to the D500 and have been using that for about 3 years now.

Unless you really need the much bigger file sizes of the D800 and, maybe, slight better image quality (although I'd argue that for most uses), the D500 is excellent. With it having the smaller DX sensor wide angle lenses are easier to house and cheaper (Tokina 10-17 working especially well).

Both the Nikkor 60mm and 105mm work very well with it and both are very good for small critter fish ID shots (gobies for example). The 60mm is better, of course, for species the size of say grunts, groupers etc.

D800 housings will have dropped in price significantly as that camera has been replaced by the D810 and then the D850. There is no replacement for the D500 so prices for those housings probably hold up better than for the D800. That said, if you are selling a DSLR housing, there is always a significant price drop from what you paid for it so you might well be able to find one for a good price.

If fish ID shots are what you are looking for, I'd recommend the D500 without hesitation. I doubt very much indeed you could tell the difference between a D500 shot and that from a newer DSLR camera body. So, no, not worth spending double the money. You sure will not get double the quality.

 

 

[saga7 6]

 

Edited August 16, 2021 by saga7

[ChrisRoss 150]

If you are shopping second hand probably be good to look at a range of camera models.  For your purposes I would think a DSLR with a 100/105mm macro lens would be what you are looking for to get some decent working distance.  Of course it will limit your ability to shoot larger species as you will have more water between you and your subject., how much of a problem this depends on how large the fish and how clean the water is.

If you are shooting small things you are struggling to get close I would think a crop sensor camera would be the best option.  You could look at Nikon D500, D300S, Canon 7D MkII , 90D/80D or other models.  They all have better AF than the RX100.

 

[pbalves 52]

"very small gobies (...) very skittish"

The way to go is with a DSLR with a cropped sensor and a 100/105 mm macro lens as Chris said.

You can also add a wetdiopter to gain some more magnification.

Do not forget to join a strobe. As your main interest is macro ID Shots, it might be interesting to have TTL capabilities in the trigger and the strobe, as a way to make it easier the photo taking process. Do not forget you are diving quite deep, and having a possibility to make the photographing process easier has clear benefits.

[oneyellowtang 95]

D500 with a the 60 or 105 lens, and a single strobe would be a good set up for what you are looking for.

For gobies in particular, the 105 will be the preferred lens as it will give you more working distance from the subject. Having some experience shooting gobies (in the sand) specifically for ID shots, I ended up switching from the to the 105 when I was helping catalog a reef population in the western Pacific. You will benefit from the cropped sensor as well.  

For the most skittish ones, we played around with using a tripod and remote trigger - worked okay, although framing was still an issue.

 

[ChrisRoss 150]

I'm assuming these gobies are very small perhaps in the 25-50mm range? Which means you'd be operating near life size a lot of the time.  Working distance would be all important I would think .  The Nikon 105mm has 150mm working distance from front element and the Canon 100mm 130mm, though the 1.6x crop vs Nikon 1.5x  means it's about equivalent to 140mm. 

If you think those distances might be a struggle you could always consider a Canon 180mm macro which gives 250mm working distance when working at life size.  It needs a 60mm extension to use with the macro port 94 used by the 100mm macro.  The AF is a little slow but usable near minimum focus.  The only thing to be aware of is the more water between you and the subject the more likely the lens is to lock onto particles instead of the fish.

Older models really won't have a bearing upon ID shots, the AF may be a little more sluggish on some older models but as far as image quality goes nothing that will make or break an ID.

[Jheard89 0]

Thank you everyone for your replies. They've been very helpful.

Thank you Saga7 for showing me a sample of that camera's capabilities and the housing link. Unfortunately I believe aquatica housings are only rated to 90 m, which is a bit of an issue for me.

Yes it was my intention to use a 105mm lens as the majority of species I'm photographing at these depths are mostly less than 15 cm, with a lot of the gobies being 5 cm and under. 

Seems most have suggested the D500, which I'm happy to hear, as I've been given a pretty great offer on a new Seacam housing which is depth rated to 200 m.

Chris and oneyellowtang, you both mentioned working distance, which was a big issue with my RX100. Chris you mention considering a 180 mm lens, which would work well for gobies, but I worry it wouldn't give me the flexibility to shoot slightly large (but still small) fishes, such as damselflies, anthias etc? 

[JohnLiddiard 31]

The DSLR bodies you are looking at have way more pixels than you need for typical ID book publication. You could go back to cropping if necessary.

[Jheard89 0]

38 minutes ago, JohnLiddiard said:

The DSLR bodies you are looking at have way more pixels than you need for typical ID book publication. You could go back to cropping if necessary.

It's mainly for publication in scientific journals that I'm concerned about.

With Trimma and Eviota gobies for example, getting as close as I can with my current camera still requires too much cropping, leaving me with poor resolution. Would a 105 mm not allow me greater distance from the subject, or would it be relatively negligible?

[bvanant 190]

You might take a look at the micro 4/3 systems like the Olympus OMD EM1 Mark II. Same 21 MP as the D500 but with a 2x crop you could use the 60 mm macro lens and get enough resolution easily. Smaller and easier to handle as well.

Bill

 

[TimG 62]

1 hour ago, Jheard89 said:

It's mainly for publication in scientific journals that I'm concerned about.

With Trimma and Eviota gobies for example, getting as close as I can with my current camera still requires too much cropping, leaving me with poor resolution. Would a 105 mm not allow me greater distance from the subject, or would it be relatively negligible?

It would indeed. The only issue becomes that if the subject is larger you might have to move further back to get the whole fish in the frame - then water distortion etc can be a problem.

[pbalves 52]

6 hours ago, Jheard89 said:

Unfortunately I believe aquatica housings are only rated to 90 m, which is a bit of an issue for me.

Aquatica housings can be easily upgraded to 130 m rated. It is only needed to change the springs of the push buttons. Aquatica has kit for that (or when buying new you can have it directly rated to 130 m deep without any extra cost).

As Aquatica has this kit, I believe other brands also has it.  

The housing is quite sturdy to be able to handle those pressures.

The only issue is that the springs being stiffer to  avoid the push buttons to be pressed only by the external pressure, means that to use the housing in not so deep dives or at surface, you need to make much more effort on the push button, which makes it more unconfortable to use on "regular" dives.

The same applies to any other housing rated at same deep.

[ChrisRoss 150]

9 hours ago, Jheard89 said:

Thank you everyone for your replies. They've been very helpful.

Thank you Saga7 for showing me a sample of that camera's capabilities and the housing link. Unfortunately I believe aquatica housings are only rated to 90 m, which is a bit of an issue for me.

Yes it was my intention to use a 105mm lens as the majority of species I'm photographing at these depths are mostly less than 15 cm, with a lot of the gobies being 5 cm and under. 

Seems most have suggested the D500, which I'm happy to hear, as I've been given a pretty great offer on a new Seacam housing which is depth rated to 200 m.

Chris and oneyellowtang, you both mentioned working distance, which was a big issue with my RX100. Chris you mention considering a 180 mm lens, which would work well for gobies, but I worry it wouldn't give me the flexibility to shoot slightly large (but still small) fishes, such as damselflies, anthias etc? 

It's always a trade off with macro work.  The 180mm macro would have a working distance of about 700mm to fill the  frame with a 100mm fish and it's quite a big heavy lens in comparison to the 100mm macro. 

For a 15 cm fish you would have good working distance with a 100/105mm macro.  For a 20mm fish you would be at 1:1 to get a frame filling shot and that's 140/150mm from the front element.  You could back off a little and crop also. 

I only mentioned the 180mm macro as you talked about small and skittish fish.  What scares them off? - movement? - do you use a focus light.  I often turn off by focus light for skittish fish and it makes a big difference.  If you absolutely need a focus light then used the dimmest one you can get away with.  What sort of distance do you think you can achieve before they depart?

Bill mentioned an EM-1 MkII which I use as well, the only downside with that is the AF is not quite as snappy, but as well as being smaller everything is much cheaper and you might be able to buy the whole setup new for less than the price of a D500 Seacam housing.  At 1: 4  the horizontal frame is 72mm across and working distance is 250mm from the front element.

For prices I compared a D500 system new in seacam and total for camera/lens/port/housing/vacuum was just over $8,000.  A Nauticam EM-1 III system with camera/60mm macro/port/housing/vacuum system was $4805.  The Seacam housing alone was $4900.  ($US prices at backscatter).  For UW photo gear you need to look at total system, not just one component - the prices add up quickly!

[Tinman 31]

There are lots of good comments and recommendations in response to your inquiry. Nikon's cropped sensor D500 is an excellent choice for macro use. Another Nikon cropped sensor camera that you may wish to consider would be a D7200.

The D7200 has a slightly higher megapixel count at 24 megapixels than the D500's 21 megapixels. Of course, Nikon made some improvements to the D500 in other areas (like low light sensitivity) and I doubt losing 3 megapixels would make much of a difference to the quality of your images submitted for publication.

If your budget is not limited, a new D500 system would be a great choice. If there are budget limitations, some really good deals on used D7200 housings pop up from time to time.

I use both the Nikon 60mm micro and 105mm micro lenses on my D7200. Both lenses work extremely well, but I have a preference for the 60mm. This said, the 105mm does allow greater working distance. My 'go to lens' for fish images not requiring macro work has been a 16-85mm DX for several years.

Lighting is critical for quality images. Get strobes and learn how to use them. A couple of years ago, I was caught in a low light situation, and missed an opportunity to capture what would have been amazing images. This experience prompted me to stop resisting the purchase of a focus light. I purchased a focus light with a red light option. I have used the red light with success on some skittish subjects. Sometimes, you get a fleeing fish butt image regardless of what you do. 

Of course, there are other manufacturers' cameras and lenses that allow photographers to capture outstanding macro images as well. We tend to talk about the cameras and systems we are most familiar with. Obviously, I am a Nikon guy. (LOL)

-Tinman

[adamhanlon 0]

One important difference between D500 and D7XXX series is the autofocus performance.The D500's is nothing short of magical! 

For the type of images you are seeking, it is an important criteria. 

Adam

[TimG 62]

2 hours ago, adamhanlon said:

The D500's is nothing short of magical! 

Amen to that!

I've spent many happy hours getting a solid focus on the eye of a gobi or arrow crab or cleaner shrimp. The D500 can really nail it.

[Jheard89 0]

Thank you all again for continuing to add many great suggestions. 

Chris - thank you for going into further detail regarding the working distances of different lenses. That has helped. It sounds like the 105 mm would be the best compromise for my needs. Some species are very sensitive to light such as Odontanthias, whereas others (Trimma and Vanderhorstia gobies) seem to be most affected by movement, and I'm often not able to get within 50 cm of the most timid ones. 

I don't have a focus light, so I was using my strobes to illuminate my subjects, which is probably far brighter than necessary. It's dark down there so I wouldn't be able to focus without some sort of light though. So on that note, I will definitely consider getting a focus light with a red light option as per Tinman's suggestion.

I had considered going mirrorless and getting an OMD of some sort, however I've been offered such a great deal on the Seacam housing (would come to roughly $4000 with dome port, viewfinder and the D500 body) that it would probably be cheaper. So I'm very happy to hear so much praise for the D500.

One thing I forgot to mention is that my boss has a D200, 105 mm lens and an Anthis Nexus housing that he says I can have. It's only rated to 70 m though, so I had originally dismissed that idea (I will be taking the lens though). However, hearing from Pbalves about how you only need to switch the springs out to upgrade the Aquatica housing to 130 m has got me wondering if it's that simple for all housings? I couldn't find a kit to upgrade the Anthis Nexus but surely there must be a way if it only involves changing some springs?

[oneyellowtang 95]

@Jheard89

Just one additional comment: a number of folks have mentioned the Oly options - these are good cameras, however the comment above about the difference in AF is accurate. Both my teenage kids started with Oly cameras and both have moved away from these systems because of the AF performance (esp. in low light).

My daughter moved to a Sony A7iii (and now an A7R4) and my son moved to a D500. The D500 AF is "magical" as someone mentioned above. 

 

[ChrisRoss 150]

9 hours ago, Jheard89 said:

I had considered going mirrorless and getting an OMD of some sort, however I've been offered such a great deal on the Seacam housing (would come to roughly $4000 with dome port, viewfinder and the D500 body) that it would probably be cheaper. So I'm very happy to hear so much praise for the D500.

One thing I forgot to mention is that my boss has a D200, 105 mm lens and an Anthis Nexus housing that he says I can have. It's only rated to 70 m though, so I had originally dismissed that idea (I will be taking the lens though). However, hearing from Pbalves about how you only need to switch the springs out to upgrade the Aquatica housing to 130 m has got me wondering if it's that simple for all housings? I couldn't find a kit to upgrade the Anthis Nexus but surely there must be a way if it only involves changing some springs?

Before you leap to the Seacam, just confirm what is needed to trigger your strobes as far as I can see the seacam is electric triggering only so your strobes would also need to have that capability and not all strobes do.  Also if it doesn't have a vacuum valve - I would suggest getting that as well. 

As far as the Anthis nexus housing goes, it is likely quite uncommon and finding parts and additional ports may not be so easy.  I also would not assume the housing is good for 100m as the back includes a very large acrylic window and that is going to be the weakest component in the housing.  I would guess this is why many acrylic housings have a lower depth rating.    Also the D200 is significantly older generation camera and the AF won't be as snappy as the D500.

On the Olympus AF, I would agree on the lower level models, however the EM-1 II/III are hugely better at AF, not D500 level I don't think, but I found I could AF without a focus light shooting mandarin fish at dusk, admittedly I had the 12-40 lens on which is snappier, but it does AF well in quite low light.  It was really quite dim  on that dive.

Whatever you do work out your total costs including all accessories you might need.  What ever focus light you get be sure it is quite dim, I used a red filter on my focus light for the mandarin fish and they didn't like it, a red LED should be better with pure red light, but luckily my camera could AF with the ambient light I had.

[TimG 62]

Just to pick up on the D200 point: I'd be slightly wary of that one too.

The D200 dates back to around 2007. I had one and then the D300. The D300 was a huge improvement in terms of AF and general image quality. The D500 is a leap forward from that.

The D300 was very good and I can recommend that for fish ID shots - I still sell loads of images taken with a D300 from 2008-11. But I would not recommend going down to the D200.  

[Architeuthis 155]

13 hours ago, oneyellowtang said:

@Jheard89

Just one additional comment: a number of folks have mentioned the Oly options - these are good cameras, however the comment above about the difference in AF is accurate. Both my teenage kids started with Oly cameras and both have moved away from these systems because of the AF performance (esp. in low light).

My daughter moved to a Sony A7iii (and now an A7R4) and my son moved to a D500. The D500 AF is "magical" as someone mentioned above. 

 

oneyellowtang,

This is important information. Could you state wich Oly cameras they used (did this have PDAF?)) and how much better AF is on Sony A7R4 and also compare AF of A7R4 to D500?

Thanks, Wolfgang

[Jheard89 0]

Chris - Thank you for the suggestion. I am using a pair of iron z330s. I will make sure to confirm that. 

Okay it doesn't sound like the D200 would be a good idea even if I could somehow make the housing work for up to 100m.

Thank you for reaffirming my decision to go for the D500.

[troporobo 244]

Regarding Olympus cameras, I agree with Chris, the autofocus capabilities are hugely improved in the latest models.  I 've had three Oly cameras and the difference with the E-M1 mk II is like night and day.  I use it with the 60mm macro lens and it's snappy enough to catch jittery anenomefish, and the 2x crop factor (120mm equivalent) has real advantages for small targets.  And I've had no trouble in low light, usually without a focus light. 

As for housings, I'm a big fan of Nauticam, most of which are rated to 100m.

I don't think you can go wrong with any of the excellent recommendations here.  The choice may simply be about the best deal you can find.  

[Tinman 31]

A Nikon D500 is a great choice. Nikon has definitely upgraded upgraded the performance of its cropped sensor camera lineup with the D500. If I had not made a decision to house my Nikon D850 at some future point, I would be looking at bumping up from my D7200 to a D500.

I've got a couple of Nikon D300 cameras and a Nikon D300s that I make available for use by aspiring underwater photographers who want to try a SLR system. Newbies do okay with the cameras, but Nikon has made notable improvements in it cropped sensor cameras.

Obviously, there are lots of excellent housing available. I have Sea & Sea, Ikelite, and Nauticam housings sitting in my equipment closet. All of these housings work just fine. During the pandemic lockdown stuff, I finished work on an old Subal housing for a Nikon F100 (film camera).

-Tinman