Does a full frame makes (even) more sense UW

[TimG 62]

Thanks, oneyellowtang.  Interesting. I must admit I don't miss the FX (from my old D800) and I sure don't miss the fag of moving a 230 domeport around! Scary that the WCP needs its own luggage.

It was St Adam of Hanlon that persuaded me a few years back not to upgrade to the D850 but to go for the D500. I've never regretted that decision. Thank you St Adam!

Like you I really like the D500 for macro with either the Nikkor 60 or 105. 

I'm intrigued now what Mr Wir, from his original post, makes of all this.

Mr Wir?

[Alex_Mustard 0]

I realise I can no longer claim to be a typical underwater. But I shoot with full frame (through choice). Although I am no blind evangelist for the format, persuading people into M43, 1.5xcrop and full frame in fairly equal numbers when they come to me for advice. 

I have active underwater cameras of all three formats, but my main cameras are both full frame Nikons. The D850 is my most used camera, although stuck in the UK for the last 18 months, I have been regularly taking both out of boats with me and shooting them side by side. 

While I don’t feel I need the resolution of the D850 for any of my current image uses, I do like the reassurance of the future proofing it gives to images (resolution & image quality). Despite knowing, that even my D100 (6MP digital images - that many experts at the time (2003-2004) told me were useless) still sell today, I have this concern. I fear that ultimately as the world gets used to larger digital files, I concerned that there will be a time when customers demand such files, even if they really don’t need them (and the customer is always right, even when they are wrong)! 

For me, I have many lenses that are optimised for full frame (RS13, Zeiss corrector with 20mm, WACP-1, ENWL-1, Trioplan 100), which adds a reluctance to change. Also the cost of full frame and bigger strobes, big domes, water contact lenses etc - is not a factor for me (sponsorship, rather than size of bank account).

But I have always understood what is right for me is not right for others, which is why I recommend such a wide variety of systems when people ask me what is right for them.

Alex

 

[Architeuthis 136]

10 hours ago, Alex_Mustard said:

I realise I can no longer claim to be a typical underwater. But I shoot with full frame (through choice). Although I am no blind evangelist for the format, persuading people into M43, 1.5xcrop and full frame in fairly equal numbers when they come to me for advice. 

I have active underwater cameras of all three formats, but my main cameras are both full frame Nikons. The D850 is my most used camera, although stuck in the UK for the last 18 months, I have been regularly taking both out of boats with me and shooting them side by side. 

While I don’t feel I need the resolution of the D850 for any of my current image uses, I do like the reassurance of the future proofing it gives to images (resolution & image quality). Despite knowing, that even my D100 (6MP digital images - that many experts at the time (2003-2004) told me were useless) still sell today, I have this concern. I fear that ultimately as the world gets used to larger digital files, I concerned that there will be a time when customers demand such files, even if they really don’t need them (and the customer is always right, even when they are wrong)! 

For me, I have many lenses that are optimised for full frame (RS13, Zeiss corrector with 20mm, WACP-1, ENWL-1, Trioplan 100), which adds a reluctance to change. Also the cost of full frame and bigger strobes, big domes, water contact lenses etc - is not a factor for me (sponsorship, rather than size of bank account).

But I have always understood what is right for me is not right for others, which is why I recommend such a wide variety of systems when people ask me what is right for them.

Alex

 

It is interesting that you recommend FF, APS-C and MFT more or less equally to different people. Could you please outline the criteria how you decide, what sensor format you recommend (and what about 1" and smaller sensor compacts)?

 

Thanks, Wolfgang

[Isaac Szabo 86]

As someone who only does natural light underwater photography, full frame's superior low light performance offers a definite advantage for me. I also really appreciate the higher resolution. And a full frame setup doesn't necessarily have to be huge. My FF Sony mirrorless + Nikon R-UW 13mm combo is smaller than most APS-C DSLR setups. 

[Interceptor121 707]

As someone who only does natural light underwater photography, full frame's superior low light performance offers a definite advantage for me. I also really appreciate the higher resolution. And a full frame setup doesn't necessarily have to be huge. My FF Sony mirrorless + Nikon R-UW 13mm combo is smaller than most APS-C DSLR setups. 

Which is the same it is on land things do not get further improved underwater
That was the exam question not what’s the best format though everybody seems to want to answer that question

[Isaac Szabo 86]

1 hour ago, Interceptor121 said:

Which is the same it is on land things do not get further improved underwater
That was the exam question not what’s the best format though everybody seems to want to answer that question

With natural light underwater photography I'm often shooting in low light at high ISO values. So a larger sensor that provides better low light performance makes a bigger difference for me than it does for general shooting on land that is done at lower ISO values. It's the same reason why full frame sensors are advantageous for milky way photographers. And besides that, I also really value the extra resolution. I currently shoot on a 42mp sensor, and as far as I know APS-C and MFT don't offer anything close to that yet. Just because a high resolution FF sensor isn't useful for you doesn't mean it isn't useful for other people. 

[Interceptor121 707]

6 minutes ago, Isaac Szabo said:

With natural light underwater photography I'm often shooting in low light at high ISO values. So a larger sensor that provides better low light performance makes a bigger difference for me than it does for general shooting on land that is done at lower ISO values. It's the same reason why full frame sensors are advantageous for milky way photographers. And besides that, I also really value the extra resolution. I currently shoot on a 42mp sensor, and as far as I know APS-C and MFT don't offer anything close to that yet. Just because a high resolution FF sensor isn't useful for you doesn't mean it isn't useful for other people. 

Yes but the question was does this benefit becomes larger underwater? And the answer is no it does not it is the same situation that occurs with standard photography on land the gap does not get larger.

What is important to understand is that is the lens that collects more light in virtue of a larger physical aperture however once you equalise that there is no benefit of any sort. Typically large dome ports require small apertures so what you gain you loose you need to resort to special equipment such as WACP or vintage solution like Nikonos lenses to balance things out

With regards to Milky Way photography or night photography this is a different use case to underwater as the level of light are extremely low and not comparable to any situation other than pure dark. While larger sensor may have some benefit in situation of extreme low light there are plenty of dedicated astro cameras that feature smaller sensors. 

I do quite a lot of night photography and milky way in polluted areas and so far the issue has been light pollution and conditions much more than the camera equipment

 

[Isaac Szabo 86]

31 minutes ago, Interceptor121 said:

Yes but the question was does this benefit becomes larger underwater? And the answer is no it does not it is the same situation that occurs with standard photography on land the gap does not get larger.

What is important to understand is that is the lens that collects more light in virtue of a larger physical aperture however once you equalise that there is no benefit of any sort. Typically large dome ports require small apertures so what you gain you loose you need to resort to special equipment such as WACP or vintage solution like Nikonos lenses to balance things out

Again, for my situation the answer is yes. I never said anything about using large domes or shooting at small apertures. I use small domes/lenses and shoot at wide to medium apertures. With my current wide angle setup (Nikon R-UW 13mm) in low light situations I'm able to shoot at f/4 or even f/2.8 if necessary and still get pretty darn good image quality. And if I'm having to raise the ISO to 2500 or similar I'm going to be getting better image quality than if I was using a smaller sensor. I realize that my situation is not applicable to you or others who use strobes, but I never claimed that it was. I was just relaying my experience that for those of us who shoot natural light a larger sensor can be advantageous. If you don't like my perspective/gear choices, that's fine. But there's no need for you to get on here and tell me that I'm wrong. I would certainly never criticize you for using a MFT camera. I think it's great that you're happy with what you're using. There are no universal right or wrong answers to "what camera/lens is best" type questions because different people can have very different needs.

[Interceptor121 707]

Just now, Isaac Szabo said:

Again, for my situation the answer is yes. I never said anything about using large domes or shooting at small apertures. I use small domes/lenses and shoot at wide to medium apertures. With my current wide angle setup (Nikon R-UW 13mm) in low light situations I'm able to shoot at f/4 or even f/2.8 if necessary and still get pretty darn good image quality. And if I'm having to raise the ISO to 2500 or similar I'm going to be getting better image quality than if I was using a smaller sensor. I realize that my situation is not applicable to you or others who use strobes, but I never claimed that it was. I was just relaying my experience that for those of us who shoot natural light a larger sensor can be advantageous. If you don't like my perspective/gear choices, that's fine. But there's no need for you to get on here and tell me that I'm wrong. I would certainly never criticize you for using a MFT camera. I think it's great that you're happy with what you're using. There are no universal right or wrong answers to "what camera/lens is best" type questions because different people can have very different needs.

The question you are answering is not what is being asked

You are answering the question is there a benefit to full frame?

The ops question is 'Is the benefit of full frame accentuated underwater compared to shooting on land'

The latter question answer is no the benefits are the same. What you describe is not special it is the same thing that happens on ambient light on land. The gap does not get larger

So there is no disagreement you are just answering a different question that what is being asked

[Tom_Kline 137]

9 hours ago, Interceptor121 said:

The question you are answering is not what is being asked

You are answering the question is there a benefit to full frame?

The ops question is 'Is the benefit of full frame accentuated underwater compared to shooting on land'

The latter question answer is no the benefits are the same. What you describe is not special it is the same thing that happens on ambient light on land. The gap does not get larger

So there is no disagreement you are just answering a different question that what is being asked

I do considerably more color adjustment compared to topside for many if not most of my freshwater shots so no they are not the same. As well I tend to use ISO up to 12,800 (1Dx) and 16,000 (D4s) with autoISO and these cameras far more underwater. I have only used super high ISO for shooting with very slow vintage lenses such as a 500mm mirror lens for topside shooting.

A not sensor size per se but camera advantage is that currently only certain FF cameras use large batteries (gripped models; see models already mentioned). (I did used gripped APS-C cameras (no longer made) a few years ago for the same advantage. Not sure if the D500 accessory grip uses them or not but I known of no housings for this combo.) These big batteries are an advantage for the cold water (a local stream has a mean temp of 4C - reported in an MS thesis - it is always numbing cold) I typically shoot in for long duration - camera is powered up for hours. Even so I have manged to run these batteries down to 0. Swapping batteries is a bit more challenging underwater compared to topside - in my case the o-rings need to be cleaned every time the housing is opened do to sand and silt in the water.

Edited September 21, 2021 by Tom_Kline

[Interceptor121 707]

3 minutes ago, Tom_Kline said:

I do considerably more color adjustment compared to topside for many if not most of my freshwater shots so no they are not the same. As well I tend to use ISO up to 12,800 (1Dx) and 16,000 (D4s) with autoISO and these cameras far more underwater. I have only used super high ISO for shooting with very slow vintage lenses such as a 500mm mirror lens for topside shooting.

A not sensor size per se but camera advantage is that currently only certain FF cameras use large batteries (gripped models; see models already mentioned). (I did used gripped APS-C cameras (no longer made) a few years ago for the same advantage.) These big batteries are an advantage for the cold water I typically shoot in for long duration - camera is powered up for hours. Even so I have manged to run these batteries down to 0. Swapping batteries is a bit more challenging underwater compared to topside - in my case the o-rings need to be cleaned every time the housing is opened do to sand and silt in the water.

You are assuming that you have more headroom to do that but actually you do not know as you don't adjust your land shots and again the benefit is the same full frame does not have extra benefit underwater as white balance is metadata. If that you could argue that higher bit depth in raw file may help reduce banding but in reality most cameras do not resolve even 10 bits colors

With regards to gripped there are cameras with battery grip in the housing in all formats APSC and MFT but take also into account that DSLR usually take more shots regardless of sensor size because mirrorless keep the evf/lcd on all times. Again this is a technology difference not a sensor size difference

For clarity I have shot all formats Full frame APSC MFT and I am not saying at all that smaller is better. I am just saying underwater does not highlight additional benefits to land use. In your case you shoot high ISO and there are plenty of land scenarios on high ISO where the benefits are the same 

Water does not really change much except blue channels clips sooner across the piece

[Phil Rudin 426]

Some excellent points brought up by Tom in this thread regarding how and where you shoot. 

I would also be interested to know how Isaac is adapting the Nikonos RS 13mm to the Sony FF cameras. 

A third point not mentioned is that many of the higher MP full frame cameras also make excellent APS-C cameras. My Sony A7R IV can be moved into APS-C mode with a single button push extending all lenses by 1.5X at 26MP (21MP with A1) with better image quality than most native APS-C cameras. These systems are also smaller and lighter than most DSLR APS-C systems. Both cameras noted above can also be used with the WWL-1/1B and WWL-C water contact optics to avoid needing the large 230mm dome ports.

Like Alex I am frequently ask questions about which sensor size is best and I can make a case for FF, APS-C or 43/M43 depending on the discussed budget, weight, size, lens selections and much more. One size definitely does not fit all.  

[Tom_Kline 137]

As you mention above this thread is not about format but topside vs underwater. My local freshwaters are stained to varying degree - it looks like the fish are swimming in CocaCola! Thus WB adjustment is extreme compared to topside. I do this in LR so it is only metadata within LR. Keep in mind I do most of my shooting by remote control so I am generally not looking through the viewfinder (without the special Seacam accessory) and do have not access to menus without withdrawing the housing from the water which would defeat the purpose of remote control - disturbing my subject.

List the housings you refer to above - I am a Seacam user and not familiar with any. Nauticam has some housings for an auxillary battery but have no idea of the benefit and how well it would work for me. Besides the cold and long duration I have managed to take thousands of shots during one shoot - record is over 10K with the D4s the day shot in continuous mode.

Edited September 21, 2021 by Tom_Kline

[Interceptor121 707]

21 minutes ago, Tom_Kline said:

As you mention above this thread is not about format but topside vs underwater. My local freshwaters are stained to varying degree - it looks like the fish are swimming in CocaCola! Thus WB adjustment is extreme compared to topside. I do this in LR so it is only metadata within LR. Keep in mind I do most of my shooting by remote control so I am generally not looking through the viewfinder (without the special Seacam accessory) and do have not access to menus without withdrawing the housing from the water which would defeat the purpose of remote control - disturbing my subject.

List the housings you refer to above - I am a Seacam user and not familiar with any. Nauticam has some housings for an auxillary battery but have no idea of the benefit and how well it would work for me. Besides the cold and long duration I have maned to take thousands of shots during one shoot - record is over 10K with the D4s the day shot in continuous mode.

I am not suggesting it would work for you. I think you know exactly what you need. Some cameras like the Olympus EM1X take two batteries and have the same form factor of a professional DSLR. I am not aware of cameras that can house a battery grip or spare battery sorry if this created confusion. What I can say though is that even with my mirrorless camera using a trigger I can take over 600 shots and do a whole day of diving without opening the housing and the battery is 50%. Yet in general terms a DSLR will always outdo a mirrorless on that and if it has a grip shape with effectively two batteries the gap will be larger

For what concerns white balance your freshwater is not blue and perhaps more green so the white balance is less of an issue with an RGGB bayer sensor unless the water is red. Surely you make adjustments you don't do but that is because the are not required not because the are not possible.

I am amused when people make comparison to land shooting but do not actually do land photography. I am not suggesting you don't but I happen to do a lot of various things as you know at the edges of what a camera can do so I do have an idea based on practical experience. I.e. to talk about milky way photography and what is like it does help to actually do it and the same with night photography or other low light disciplines. 
Surely there are differences shooting underwater compared to land. I need to shoot 100m to get haze while in water just a few meters, there are issue of light transmission and scattering of blue. However all those issues do not care about your sensor size more than anything else.

so unless there is a more clear articulation of which gap is increased i remain of the opinion that underwater or on land the benefits of sensor size and even rig size are very similar

Edited September 21, 2021 by Interceptor121

[Tom_Kline 137]

@i121, Ya, this is kind of an apples vs oranges thread.

I am curious if anyone has taken the gigantic Oly under water. The housings must be as large as those for the gripped FF cameras.

Edited September 21, 2021 by Tom_Kline

[Isaac Szabo 86]

30 minutes ago, Phil Rudin said:

I would also be interested to know how Isaac is adapting the Nikonos RS 13mm to the Sony FF cameras.

Here’s a quick overview: I separated the front element from the rest of the lens and used it to make a port (like Seacam does), and I mounted the rest of the lens onto the camera body using the Techart Leica to Sony AF adapter (and a Nikon to Leica adapter). I also had to make some gears and a knob for the aperture control. So I end up with autofocus but manual aperture. I'm sure it doesn’t work as well as getting the lens converted to work on DSLRs and using it on a Nikon DSLR, but it’s surprisingly usable. Another interesting thing is that I can use this same approach to attain autofocus with the older Nikonos lenses. One of my next projects will be to do just that with the Sea&Sea 12mm fisheye.

[Phil Rudin 426]

Thanks Isaac, keep me posted on the progress with the Nikonos manual lens mounts. Thanks to all of those who went  a bit off topic to expend the conversation. 

[Interceptor121 707]

11 hours ago, Tom_Kline said:

@i121, Ya, this is kind of an apples vs oranges thread.

I am curious if anyone has taken the gigantic Oly under water. The housings must be as large as those for the gripped FF cameras.

Don't know. The EM1X is very popular for birds shooters which typically do not overlap with underwater

Nauticam has phased out some housing that were slow moving but this is still being made someone might as well use it

[Phil Rudin 426]

Regarding the Olympus EM1X and Nauticam NA-EM1X housing, Atim Lau has posted several Blackwater photos in the Facebook BW group using a 30mm macro lens, RetraPro strobes with the supercharger and RGBlue system lights. Many of his images are excellent and I see he is also using the 12-45 Pro for larger subjects.

YES, I have held the housing and it is quite large nearing the size of the D6 housing. It reminds me of the Aquatica housings I had for the Nikon F-1 with the motor drive and sport finder.  

[Interceptor121 707]

50 minutes ago, Phil Rudin said:

Regarding the Olympus EM1X and Nauticam NA-EM1X housing, Atim Lau has posted several Blackwater photos in the Facebook BW group using a 30mm macro lens, RetraPro strobes with the supercharger and RGBlue system lights. Many of his images are excellent and I see he is also using the 12-45 Pro for larger subjects.

YES, I have held the housing and it is quite large nearing the size of the D6 housing. It reminds me of the Aquatica housings I had for the Nikon F-1 with the motor drive and sport finder.  

Housing is 3.27 kg in air so D6 3.8 Kg D500 3.02 Kg so EM1X heavier than APSC DSLR and all the rest of MFT

 

[Phil Rudin 426]

While the EM1X has impressive build quality all that extra size and two batteries only gives you an ICPA battery rating of 870 frames,

My Sony A7C has a battery rating of 740 with one battery. It also does the same top mechanical speed of of 10 FPS with auto focus and gives you a 24MP 14-bit raw file not the 20MP 12-bit raw of the EM1X. Not sure what Olympus was thinking at a price point of $3000.00.

[Interceptor121 707]

14 hours ago, Phil Rudin said:

While the EM1X has impressive build quality all that extra size and two batteries only gives you an ICPA battery rating of 870 frames,

My Sony A7C has a battery rating of 740 with one battery. It also does the same top mechanical speed of of 10 FPS with auto focus and gives you a 24MP 14-bit raw file not the 20MP 12-bit raw of the EM1X. Not sure what Olympus was thinking at a price point of $3000.00.

The EM1X does 18 fps CAF in eshutter and 15 in mechanical it has procapture at 60fps that works well for certain animals (not underwater).

That is one of the strength of that camera that is aimed at wildlife enthusiast spending a lot of time outdoors in all sort of conditions. We can argue that Olympus exaggerates their weather sealing benefits but the Sony A7C is just a toy in comparison in that segment.

When it comes to underwater use the EM1X does not really have many benefits compared to anything else on the market I doubt anybody would look at that camera and buy it for an underwater rig

A camera functionally similar to the A7C is the Panasonic S5 that has only a housing from Ikelite. Nauticam said they would not do one. Performance is very much identical but you need to adapt Canon EF lenses if you want fisheye. I have the 8-15mm and worked very well with the S5 but I sold the camera when Nauticam came with the news a housing was not being made

MFT sweet spot is hybrid use still and video, APSC are probably the easiest path for a DSLR user today and full frame has good selection between mirrorless and DSLR for people focussed on stills with specific models mostly Panasonic and to an extent Sony more video focussed

With regards to 14 bits to 12 bits file it mostly affects tonality not colour and may give a smoother gradation but there is a lot you can do with editing this days and many shots are fairly simple with low dynamic range anyway

[hyp 104]

As Interceptor121 has already said, the EM1X has a completely different target audience compared to the A7C. The A7C has as far as I know only one control dial and that pretty much says it all. Also, it really is not a camera that anyone sane would take underwater and I was surprised when Nauticam announced a housing for it. They must have sold in the low single digits...

In the end, both mu43 and FF have their raison d'être. Alex already pointed it out, but our job as experienced and knowledgable underwater photographers is to guide people to a sensible decision. Both Formats have their strengths and weaknesses. Personally, I believe that unless you know the exact reason for why you need a FF camera (more specific than "I need better Image quality) you should probably not buy one. There are plenty of cases where a smaller rig would probably lead to better results because the photographer behind the camera is out of his depth with the gear he has.

On the other Hand @Tom_Kline has provided plenty of reasons for why a FF DSLR is the superior option for his kind of shooting style. People just need to understand that everyone has their own perspective based on what, where and how they shoot and take that into consideration when making their own choices about gear.

I would say that this thread already showed that a simple FF is better or Mu43 is better just does not cut it.

 

[Barmaglot 226]

3 hours ago, hyp said:

The A7C has as far as I know only one control dial and that pretty much says it all.

There is a dial on top and another on the back, same as the A6xxx series APS-C cameras.

[Tom_Kline 137]

8 hours ago, hyp said:

.

On the other Hand @Tom_Kline has provided plenty of reasons for why a FF DSLR is the superior option for his kind of shooting style. People just need to understand that everyone has their own perspective based on what, where and how they shoot and take that into consideration when making their own choices about gear.

 

When I started digital underwater photography I had already over two decades of shooting film under water. I mainly had to learn about the digital part (which alone was quite substantial) and had to gain some practical knowledge of dome ports as I had been using the Nikonos RS for preceding ~decade and thus did not have to worry about it.

A new underwater photographer on the other hand is in a Catch-22 position. It is hard to know what to buy without having any experience. A new underwater photographer needs to set forth goals. What are the photographs going to be used for? What are the conditions (locations, seasons, depths, visibility, etc.) in which the photographs will be taken? What are the specific subjects that will be taken? Will any specialized underwater techniques be required to accomplish ones goals (a Catch-22 question so I a have left it to last)?