Does a full frame makes (even) more sense UW

[Mr Wir 0]

What I mean is: water filters light in a different way compared to air. Does the bigger sensor makes a dramatic change UW more than it does outside of water?

[Interceptor121 707]

7 minutes ago, Mr Wir said:

What I mean is: water filters light in a different way compared to air. Does the bigger sensor makes a dramatic change UW more than it does outside of water?

No. Water have an effect in skewing the expected balance of colour that a traditional bayer sensor is built to manage

A typical RGGB schema expects double green than red and blue so you have issues of clipping the blue channel in water (in blue water in green water not so much as a paradox)

Considering that most shots are using artificial lighting larger sensor means you need more strobe power to even things out so it generally impacts portability because is not just about a big camera but also about much bigger strobes

Other things where a full frame camera can have an advantage are more latitude in your raw files and being more forgiving if you get your exposure wrong however this is exactly the same as when you shoot on land there is no significant difference

I do a lot of land shooting post covid and do regular print club competitions (land or unrestricted) and format is not what wins the day

It is however true that most professional and respected underwater photographers shoot full frame DSLR but this is just a habit in my opinion and many competitions are won with Nikon D500 and other cropped DSLR

If there is one thing to be said about underwater photography is that the level of mirrorless adoption compared to land shooting is lower when you look at full frame or APSC and this is also because Nikon especially has been lagging but is catching up.

[ChrisRoss 150]

The air-water interface also impacts resolution, only now it that being solved with newly developed (expensive) water contact optics, that takes away some of the extra resolution from shooting full frame.  Also full frame really benefits low light shooting a lot more so than other cases and a lot of UW shooting is done at low ISO, often less than ISO400 and the differences between formats are less pronounced. 

[TimG 62]

One vote for not full frame underwater - rather APS-C.

I can see the argument if your life/career/income depends on the images. But if it is not that super-critical, I'd suggest APS-C makes more sense. For wide-angle images APS-C is much easier, cheaper and more manageable. You can use smaller domes, smaller EXRs, less correction lenses and less weight to move around - with the travel implications of that.

I've used both going from D300 (DX) to D800 (FX) and now D500 (DX). I can't imagine for the vast majority of purposes that you can tell the difference. But the difference in what I have to carry to travel is significant. Farewell 230 dome port, 90mm EXR...... 

And I sell lots of pics all the time.

Sure, full frame sounds great but for underwater use, it's really hard to beat APS-C.

 

[Mr Wir 0]

10 minutes ago, TimG said:

One vote for not full frame underwater - rather APS-C.

I can see the argument if your life/career/income depends on the images. But if it is not that super-critical, I'd suggest APS-C makes more sense. For wide-angle images APS-C is much easier, cheaper and more manageable. You can use smaller domes, smaller EXRs, less correction lenses and less weight to move around - with the travel implications of that.

I've used both going from D300 (DX) to D800 (FX) and now D500 (DX). I can't imagine for the vast majority of purposes that you can tell the difference. But the difference in what I have to carry to travel is significant. Farewell 230 dome port, 90mm EXR...... 

And I sell lots of pics all the time.

Sure, full frame sounds great but for underwater use, it's really hard to beat APS-C.

 

Thanks Tim, this was super helpful. I don't know why but I thought that full frame made a big difference UW. That was of course a prejudice without any practical basis but now I know what to look for. 

I always liked aps-c and I will stick with it considering what you said.

[Mr Wir 0]

3 hours ago, Interceptor121 said:

No. Water have an effect in skewing the expected balance of colour that a traditional bayer sensor is built to manage

A typical RGGB schema expects double green than red and blue so you have issues of clipping the blue channel in water (in blue water in green water not so much as a paradox)

Considering that most shots are using artificial lighting larger sensor means you need more strobe power to even things out so it generally impacts portability because is not just about a big camera but also about much bigger strobes

Other things where a full frame camera can have an advantage are more latitude in your raw files and being more forgiving if you get your exposure wrong however this is exactly the same as when you shoot on land there is no significant difference

I do a lot of land shooting post covid and do regular print club competitions (land or unrestricted) and format is not what wins the day

It is however true that most professional and respected underwater photographers shoot full frame DSLR but this is just a habit in my opinion and many competitions are won with Nikon D500 and other cropped DSLR

If there is one thing to be said about underwater photography is that the level of mirrorless adoption compared to land shooting is lower when you look at full frame or APSC and this is also because Nikon especially has been lagging but is catching up.

Thanks, this helps!

[ChrisRoss 150]

53 minutes ago, TimG said:

One vote for not full frame underwater - rather APS-C.

I can see the argument if your life/career/income depends on the images. But if it is not that super-critical, I'd suggest APS-C makes more sense. For wide-angle images APS-C is much easier, cheaper and more manageable. You can use smaller domes, smaller EXRs, less correction lenses and less weight to move around - with the travel implications of that.

I've used both going from D300 (DX) to D800 (FX) and now D500 (DX). I can't imagine for the vast majority of purposes that you can tell the difference. But the difference in what I have to carry to travel is significant. Farewell 230 dome port, 90mm EXR...... 

And I sell lots of pics all the time.

Sure, full frame sounds great but for underwater use, it's really hard to beat APS-C.

 

Actually if you look at the testing sites the Olympus 20MP sensor is very close in performance to the D500 and gets you a little smaller and cheaper as well.

 

[Mr Wir 0]

21 minutes ago, ChrisRoss said:

Actually if you look at the testing sites the Olympus 20MP sensor is very close in performance to the D500 and gets you a little smaller and cheaper as well.

 

I will have a look at it!

[TimG 62]

4 minutes ago, Mr Wir said:

I will have a look at it!

One day Chris will convince me too. One day.....

 

[Interceptor121 707]

2 hours ago, TimG said:

One day Chris will convince me too. One day.....

 

I think the lack of being convinced is not the IQ which is indeed very similar is the ergonomics and features of a DSLR going back to my original point about adoption

[troporobo 237]

I'm in the m4/3 Olympus camp with Chris, for both size and weight and for the advantages it brings to macro and telephoto shooting. The pro series lenses are brilliant and I love the 60mm macro.  I agree that low light performance isn't as good as DX or FX, but thats not an issue with strobes and the sensor is more than good enough for my needs.  The limiting factor is the wetware directly behind the viewfinder!

[TimG 62]

1 hour ago, Interceptor121 said:

I think the lack of being convinced is not the IQ which is indeed very similar is the ergonomics and features of a DSLR going back to my original point about adoption

You could be right, Massimo. Old habits die hard, eh?

[TimG 62]

1 hour ago, troporobo said:

The limiting factor is the wetware directly behind the viewfinder!

Ain't that the truth!

[Interceptor121 707]

You could be right, Massimo. Old habits die hard, eh?

It was not a criticism I really think the mirrorless transition is not obvious


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[TimG 62]

50 minutes ago, Interceptor121 said:

It was not a criticism I really think the mirrorless transition is not obvious


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Yeah I agree.

Nor does the "benefit" of FX that the manufacturers tout - for underwater use anyway. My experience was that it's a bit of a negative.

[PeteAtkinson 44]

I think the sweet spot is DSLR crop sensor. I went from D200, D7000 to D800 and now Z50 mirrorless. Mirrorless has advantages for focus above water, but none underwater where we are using wide lenses at smaller apartures. Crop sensor mirrorless has the advantage that you can use water contact optics like the WWL-C but if you have a D500 and a Tokina 10-17 I think you will hardly ever need the WWL-C. A D500 or D7500 would be my choice. This could change if anyone made a proper zoom fisheye for full frame like the old Pentax lens.

[oneyellowtang 80]

@PeteAtkinson

Interesting... I have both a D500 (+Tokina 10-17) and a D850 (+WACP) - both in Nauticam housings.

For wide angle (and disregarding travel weight) I prefer the D850 w/the WACP over the D500. Corner sharpness being the primary advantage... This doesn't apply in all situations, but for the most part...

 

[Barmaglot 226]

3 hours ago, PeteAtkinson said:

if anyone made a proper zoom fisheye for full frame like the old Pentax lens. 

Canon 8-15mm doesn't count?

[Interceptor121 707]

This thread has gone off topic as usual with the sensor comparison

The question was does the benefit of larger sensor that exists on land gets amplified underwater?

And the answer is no it doesn’t the sensor benefits are unchanged and as side effect of shooting small apertures the gap may even close

However provided you invest in equipment and are happy with the weight larger sensor do provide the best images example buy a WACP small apertures are no longer an issue buy it weights a ton or get a massive dome for a fisheye lens


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Interceptor121 707]

Canon 8-15mm doesn't count?

That is a circular or diagonal fisheye not the same of tokina that is a diagonal fisheye zoom


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Mr Wir 0]

3 hours ago, Interceptor121 said:

This thread has gone off topic as usual with the sensor comparison

The question was does the benefit of larger sensor that exists on land gets amplified underwater?

And the answer is no it doesn’t the sensor benefits are unchanged and as side effect of shooting small apertures the gap may even close

However provided you invest in equipment and are happy with the weight larger sensor do provide the best images example buy a WACP small apertures are no longer an issue buy it weights a ton or get a massive dome for a fisheye lens


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Thanks, this was very helpful and cleared up my thoughts!

I got into photography years (and years) ago and the best choice (at the time) was dslr, infact I do have a d3100 and never upgraded since I have been waiting for a Nikon mirrorless for a long time but when they finally came out the f mount became obsolete so I got a bit confused on how to proceed. I always considered then selling my lens and, actually, buying an Olympus, even if many people tried to convince me to get a Sony.

[PeteAtkinson 44]

6 hours ago, Barmaglot said:

Canon 8-15mm doesn't count?

The 8-15 in Canon and Nikon go from full-frame fisheye (which is useful) to circular fisheye (which in my view is useless on a full frame camera). An equivalent of the Tokina 10-17 in full frame that goes from fisheye, 180 degrees corner to corner to something narrower would transform the choices underwater, like the Pentax 17-28 full frame fisheye. On a crop sensor camera the 8-15 is far more useful, emulating the the Tokina 10-17, but it is much more expensive. Unfortunately the AF of the 10-17 won't work with Nikon FTZ adapter.

[Draq 111]

I am in the DX format camp.   I used micro four thirds for years and then moved to a D500.   Due to the larger format, I have more flexibility in cropping, but the big differences for me were dynamic range and the focusing performance of the camera compared to EM1 MkII.  Much faster and more accurate focusing, especially in lower light and much better tracking of fast moving creatures.

Perhaps with better skills I could overcome this, and I have retained the Olympus gear, but the DX vs M43 size difference is modest and the DX is really just a lot more enjoyable for me.  When making the switch from M43, I was thinking of going full frame and almost bought a D850, but was talked out of it by several people, and frankly, as someone who does this as a hobby, and who has to travel to dive, I am glad I went DX.  I just cannot deal with the travel implications of a 230mm dome.   This (and price) has also kept me from the Nauticam wet lens options.  I tried and still have a WWL, but it is heavy and some of the other options dwarf the WWL.

For me, APS-C and its amenability to 100mm, 140mm and 170-180mm domes and crop factor boost for macro lenses hits a sweet spot.  Also, for wildlife photography, the crop factor gives me a some nice options in hand-holdable / comfortably-carried telephotos and zooms.

Unless Nikon and Canon put more effort into DX format mirrorless, I am not sure I will go that route willingly.

 

Edited September 19, 2021 by Draq

[TimG 62]

4 hours ago, Draq said:

almost bought a D850, but was talked out of it by several people, and frankly, as someone who does this as a hobby, and who has to travel to dive, I am glad I went DX.  I just cannot deal with the travel implications of a 230mm dome.

I’ve had a very similar experience to you, Draq. 

[oneyellowtang 80]

@Draq & @TimG,

Being lucky (daft?) enough to have both a D500 and D850 (both housed in Nauticam housings) there are really only 2 scenarios where I lean towards shooting with the D850 over the D500.

1. Wide angle where I can shoot the WACP on the D850 (with the old 28-70mm lens, for example). I don't take the WACP on every trip, and when I do it means lugging around another piece of luggage just to hold the WACP (small to medium suitcase just for it). The optics are really nice however (w/good corner sharpness), so if you there's a good chance to find large(r) subjects it often makes sense to bring it (like in the Maldives this summer).

2. Blackwater diving - the D500 with a 60mm is very good, however I've found that the D850 with (the same) 60mm is virtually as good focusing, and you can crop into the image a little bit more, so you tend to keep a few more shots.

For regular macro I actually prefer the D500 - I find it to be more flexible framing subjects and it's really good in low light or where a subject is being a bit elusive. Also, shooting anything "fish-size" I prefer the D500, might just be that I've shot with it longer, but it feels a little bit more flexible.