Video Pro but UW Camera Newb - Seeking Advice Building UW Kit

[LuxPro 0]

Hello,

Putting the TLDR up front:  I'm thinking of taking my a7S III or a6500 underwater, but also wondering if I'd get a better value/versatility out of a GoPro 10 and TG-6 together.  Ideally, looking for a flexible rig that can shoot wide primarily but also get close if needed.  Want to shoot photo and video and already have dual Backscatter Macro Wide 4300s I received as a gift.  Considering the three options below, what do you think is the best value and most versatile?  Other suggestions?

 

1) a7S III UW kit ~ $2630

- SEL2860 ~ $500
- Nauticam WWL-1 ~ $1510
- SeaFrogs a7S III Standard Housing ~ $530
- SeaFrogs Flat short port with 67mm thread for FE 28-60 ~ $90

 

2) a6500 UW kit ~ $1500

- Salted SeaFrogs housing

- E 10-18 F4

 

3) Dual small-sensor cameras ~ $1517

- TG-6 with PT-059 housing (mainly for stills) - $788

- Backscatter M52 Wide Angle Air Lens - $179

- GoPro 10 w/ housing (mainly 4K 120 video) ~ $450

- Backscatter Flip 10 filters ~ $100

 

The longer version: I work professionally in documentary filmmaking, mostly as an editor but I do a fair amount of run-and-gun shooting as well.  I shoot mostly on the a7S III and a6500 above water.  Until now, I've been filming on my dives non-professionally with a GoPro 5, Sidekick Duo light, and Flip5 filter.  My wife recently gifted me a set of two Backscatter Macro Wide 4300 lights and I came across the SeaFrogs line of housings which are so affordable compared to traditional offerings, I thought I might be ready to take one of those nicer camera underwater with me (still as a hobbyist).  

 

My plan had been to pick up a used FE 16-35mm 2.8 GM, and the SeaFrogs housing/dome port/zoom gear for a7S III and that lens here.  It was pointed out to me on another forum, in kinder words, that I'm a dumbass.  The dome port is too small for the lens and I'd likely have to stop WAY down to actually get any focus - making the purchase of that expensive and fast lens sort of moot.

 

So, I'm coming here humbly looking for some suggestions to step up my UW photo/video game but also to make effective use of my limited funds.  I'd like to be able to shoot stills and video (4K 120 preferred) and make the best use of the light kit I now have.  I'd also like to avoid swapping lenses between dives as much as possible so having somewhat of a zoom range would be helpful.  I know for lights that the 4300 duo doesn't quite match the 10k I've seen recommended around here but it's what I have and it was a generous gift that I'd like to make the best use of.  The options mentioned are what I'm considering right now, and I'd love to get some feedback or suggestions on the best path forward or alternate options.  I understand some other things will be required like vacuum pump, tray, filters, rigging, etc but the three options I mentioned are the kit building blocks I'm looking at.  Thanks for any input!

[ChrisRoss 150]

First thing I should highlight is that lights are called macro lights for a reason - they have a very short range maybe 300mm.  The problem you run across is that you have two light sources - ambient light that gets progressively bluer as you get deeper or in temperate waters its a muddy green-blue.  You need the video lights to over power the ambient and that is really your only handle, you can't boost ISO as that boosts the ambient as well as the video lights.  Even 10K doesn't really over power it completely but it adds enough yellow/red light that the camera can now white balance.  SO using those lights you would need to be working in close - very close.

Shooting macro you can get close enough so that the light from the video lights dominates and you you can use higher ISOs to compensate as you stop down - But of course you are interested in wide - the 4300 lumen lights will be a major limitation in getting nice colour unless you are very close.  Underwater the colour is sucked out of the light very quickly and this is a big reason you need very bright lights

Second point on the SeaFrogs housing - a lot of people use and like them but they have their limitations The Acrylic domes are quite buoyant and try to twist up.  You can add some weights to help balance  but trim might be something you find you are chasing.  I think the heavy glass WWL would be a better option in this usage case.  You also need to be very stable even with IBIS to get nice steady video - your buoyancy control UW needs to be very good.

You will need the WWL -1 - not 1B other people have found that the bayonet mounting can't be used on the sea frogs ports.  So you will need to screw it in - you also need to burp it to dislodge air bubbles that develop on the WWL rear element and the flat port.

An intermediate option might be an RX100 with a WWL probably an older version with the 28-70 or 28-100 lens.  The VI and VII versions have too long a lens when zoomed out and you get vignetting problems with the WWL.  The older Sony's have white balance limitations for doing a custom white balance the camera won't let you set a high enough colour temperature .  You need to custom WB with your lights to get the best colour - Auto WB does not cut it with video lights.

We'll see if any of our video specialists chime in.  I'll move this post over to the video forum where they are potentially more likely to see it.

[LuxPro 0]

Thanks so much for the thoughtful reply, Chris!  Those are all great points.  I understand the lights are going to have some limitations with that output.  I was hoping that “4300 macro wide” included wide to some degree.  I expect they will at least be a step up from the Sidekick Duo.  I was able to work around that limitation on the GoPro and get nice color by using the Flip filters when I wasn’t close enough to a subject.  I don’t suppose there’s something like that for mirrorless?  I’ve seen that you can put gels in front of the sensor but since those are stuck there on your dive I imagine if you do have enough light on a subject it’s going to be cast red…

Would the RX100 you suggested have a significant advantage over the a6500 w/ 16-50 (24-75 equivalent)?

I think I can eliminate the a7S III from those options.  It would certainly offer the best video but I’m wary about putting that expensive camera in the cheapest housing on the market.  If the lights aren’t going to cut it anyways then I’m not sure I want to spend that much either.

So that leaves me with either the a6500 or the TG-6.  I’d probably stick a GoPro 10 with Flip filters on top of either of those for 4K120 and to have those filters where the lights fall short.  What I’m finding attractive about the TG-6 is that when combined with the M52 Air Lens you have a nice range from wide to macro, without changing lenses, and while maintaining the option for above/below shots.  This is described by Backscatter from 4:54 to 5:35 here.  Is there a way to rig the a6500 to be as flexible?  I’d like to take advantage of the larger sensor but the versatility of the TG-6 with air lens is also appealing.

Would this Seafrogs housing with 8” dome combined with the E 16-50 lens offer similar versatility as the TG-6 with M52 Air Lens?  Looks like the full-frame equivalent ranges would be 25-100 on the TG-6 and 24-75 on the a6500.  Appreciate any thoughts or suggestions.

TLDR:

- Any equivalent to Flip filters for mirrorless that can be removed when you have enough light?
- Can the a6500 be rigged to be as versatile as the TG-6 with M52 Air Lens?

Edited February 21, 2022 by LuxPro

[ChrisRoss 150]

I'm really only suggesting the RX-100 as an alternative that is a little cheaper but still better quality than the a Go-Pro or TG-6 that would still allow you to use the WWL to get in really close.  The TG-6's strength is in macro really it doesn't get that wide.  24mm in underwater terms is not that wide.  You could probably find a used RX-100 plus a nice Nauticam or similar  housing quite cheaply and fairly readily as a lot of people use them.  I'd suggest looking through the classifieds section here.

The WWL on the other hand will focus on the front element, so you can get in really close to give your lights a chance of working.

On the lights yes they will have a  wide angle of view - that's not your issue, it's purely one of output.  If you look at the light output from those lights you'll think it's incredibly bright but it is spread out very wide and the water will very quickly suck out the reds and yellows.  It will be better than no lights I would think, but some cameras would probably be a challenge to white balance.

Your link links back to the main forum, so I can't find the video you were referring to.  I found some other videos and you'll note they were mentioning getting close - the closer the better and that is where having a very wide lens like the WWL comes into play so you can still fit the subject in while being very close.  The TG-6 with air lens is not that wide.

[Barmaglot 262]

3 hours ago, LuxPro said:

- Any equivalent to Flip filters for mirrorless that can be removed when you have enough light?

On flat ports, yes. You can screw a filter into the port, or you can use any number of flip/swing/bayonet adapters. I believe some people put filters in the back of a WWL-1.

3 hours ago, LuxPro said:

- Can the a6500 be rigged to be as versatile as the TG-6 with M52 Air Lens?

Sort of; you can use it with 16-50mm lens and flat port, then use a wet wide lens for wide-angle and diopters for macro. The equivalent of Backscatter Air Lens would be this, but it doesn't really give you true wide angle - both the Backscatter lens and SeaFrogs wet dome just restore the in-air field of view of the lens behind it. If you want real wide angle, look at AOI UWL-09, Weefine WFL-01, Nauticam WWL-1, etc. TG-6 also has native macro capability that is actually its main strength - the 16-50mm lens cannot do macro by itself, and although you can fit it with wet diopters to focus closely, its field of view is still going to be a bit wider than that of a TG-6 at full zoom.

[LuxPro 0]

54 minutes ago, ChrisRoss said:

I'm really only suggesting the RX-100 as an alternative that is a little cheaper but still better quality than the a Go-Pro or TG-6 that would still allow you to use the WWL to get in really close.  The TG-6's strength is in macro really it doesn't get that wide.  24mm in underwater terms is not that wide.  You could probably find a used RX-100 plus a nice Nauticam or similar  housing quite cheaply and fairly readily as a lot of people use them.  I'd suggest looking through the classifieds section here.

The WWL on the other hand will focus on the front element, so you can get in really close to give your lights a chance of working.

On the lights yes they will have a  wide angle of view - that's not your issue, it's purely one of output.  If you look at the light output from those lights you'll think it's incredibly bright but it is spread out very wide and the water will very quickly suck out the reds and yellows.  It will be better than no lights I would think, but some cameras would probably be a challenge to white balance.

Your link links back to the main forum, so I can't find the video you were referring to.  I found some other videos and you'll note they were mentioning getting close - the closer the better and that is where having a very wide lens like the WWL comes into play so you can still fit the subject in while being very close.  The TG-6 with air lens is not that wide.

All makes sense!  I fixed the video link but you understood anyway.  Thank you!

53 minutes ago, Barmaglot said:

On flat ports, yes. You can screw a filter into the port, or you can use any number of flip/swing/bayonet adapters. I believe some people put filters in the back of a WWL-1.

Sort of; you can use it with 16-50mm lens and flat port, then use a wet wide lens for wide-angle and diopters for macro. The equivalent of Backscatter Air Lens would be this, but it doesn't really give you true wide angle - both the Backscatter lens and SeaFrogs wet dome just restore the in-air field of view of the lens behind it. If you want real wide angle, look at AOI UWL-09, Weefine WFL-01, Nauticam WWL-1, etc. TG-6 also has native macro capability that is actually its main strength - the 16-50mm lens cannot do macro by itself, and although you can fit it with wet diopters to focus closely, its field of view is still going to be a bit wider than that of a TG-6 at full zoom.

Barmaglot, your wisdom follows me across the internet!  I so appreciate your help.  This answers a lot of questions for me.  I think I understand my options now and would be capable of configuring something that produces decent results in line with what I'm looking to do.  Thank you again!

I did some browsing on Flickr comparing underwater photos between the TG-6 and a6500.  Definitely leaning towards making something work with the a6500.  

[ChrisRoss 150]

1 hour ago, LuxPro said:

All makes sense!  I fixed the video link but you understood anyway.  Thank you!

 

OK , the link was about the air lens, yes you can shoot macro with it but it will get in the way of getting as close as the TG-6 can.

On the subject of wet lenses they are not all created equal, the WWL seems to be the gold standard but finding good info on them is difficult.  THis site has large sized samples - they have EXIF embedded so you can read it.  This is important as they are not all taken at the widest setting, some are zoomed in to 28mm equivalent to avoid vignetting.  Not all wet lenses are zoom through and the corners when you zoom in on those that are zoom through are better than at the widest setting on some of these lenses.

https://www.housingcamera.com/blog/product-reviews/the-ultimate-wet-lens-sample-post

[adamhanlon 0]

Keldan do offer a range of color correction filters for the WWL-1. I am not sure whether they are removable underwater.
 

[LuxPro 0]

On 2/20/2022 at 7:38 PM, ChrisRoss said:

yes you can shoot macro with it but it will get in the way of getting as close as the TG-6 can.

Right, I get that it's just restoring the air field of view.  I just thought 25-100 was a pretty good range, as 24-105 is a go-to for above water if you had to pick one lens for a day.  

On 2/20/2022 at 7:38 PM, ChrisRoss said:

https://www.housingcamera.com/blog/product-reviews/the-ultimate-wet-lens-sample-post

This is great, thank you!  I might see how constricted I feel with the a6500 and seafrogs 8" air dome + flat port option w/67mm thread, using the 16-50, as a starting point.  Run the GoPro next to it for wider stuff.  I have to start with something and this seems to have enough ports and options to expand the rig if I desire.  I might be casual enough that I don't need to spend that $1500 on something like the WWL-1 right at the start.  

21 hours ago, adamhanlon said:

Keldan do offer a range of color correction filters for the WWL-1. I am not sure whether they are removable underwater.
 

Doesn't look like they are removable, at least not readily.  I would be curious if there's a way to rig the Backscatter 4300s with ambient light filters, despite knocking out more stops of light... It would at least eliminate the red cast if I do get close enough to something for the lights to make a difference.  

[ChrisRoss 150]

2 hours ago, LuxPro said:

Right, I get that it's just restoring the air field of view.  I just thought 25-100 was a pretty good range, as 24-105 is a go-to for above water if you had to pick one lens for a day.  

This is great, thank you!  I might see how constricted I feel with the a6500 and seafrogs 8" air dome + flat port option w/67mm thread, using the 16-50, as a starting point.  Run the GoPro next to it for wider stuff.  I have to start with something and this seems to have enough ports and options to expand the rig if I desire.  I might be casual enough that I don't need to spend that $1500 on something like the WWL-1 right at the start.  

Doesn't look like they are removable, at least not readily.  I would be curious if there's a way to rig the Backscatter 4300s with ambient light filters, despite knocking out more stops of light... It would at least eliminate the red cast if I do get close enough to something for the lights to make a difference.  

What you learned above water often doesn't apply below the waves unfortunately.

On the lights their range will be very small so getting a red cast would need to be something nearly touching the port I think

[Dann-Oh 40]

I have a Sony 18-105 F4 collecting dust.  If you might be interested in that lens please let me know.

 

I had the RX100Va in a housing, I personally felt the camera was too limited by its focal range, too wide for macro and too tight for wide angle. Something you might want to consider if your looking to buy a new camera and housing is the Olympus EPL10 package from Backscatter. Its a step up from both the TG6 and RX100 cameras but its also very affordable ($1300 for camera and housing). You might eventually ant to upgrade to a fisheye lens and port if you find that you really enjoy wide-angle.

[LuxPro 0]

On 2/22/2022 at 3:56 AM, ChrisRoss said:

On the lights their range will be very small so getting a red cast would need to be something nearly touching the port I think

I would get a red cast with my GoPro / Flip filter with the Sidekick Duo which is only 600 lumens.  Close, sure, maybe a couple of feet.  But it also made any backscatter red.  So I'm not confident that would be a non-issue using red filters and two 4300 lumen lights, especially at the medium shot range I'd be starting out in.  

4 hours ago, Dann-Oh said:

I have a Sony 18-105 F4 collecting dust.  If you might be interested in that lens please let me know.

 

I had the RX100Va in a housing, I personally felt the camera was too limited by its focal range, too wide for macro and too tight for wide angle. Something you might want to consider if your looking to buy a new camera and housing is the Olympus EPL10 package from Backscatter. Its a step up from both the TG6 and RX100 cameras but its also very affordable ($1300 for camera and housing). You might eventually ant to upgrade to a fisheye lens and port if you find that you really enjoy wide-angle.

Already have that one but appreciate the offer!

I had looked at that EPL10 offering from Backscatter.  It seems like a nice package, the major advantage I noted being Backscatter standing behind it and a probably more reputable housing/system than SeaFrogs.  Still, I already own the a6500 and if I go with Seafrogs the housing won't cost any more than the AOI.  It still has the option to add a port with 67mm thread for something like the WWL-1 if I want to upgrade to that.  The MFT 14-42 (28-84) and APS-C 16-50 (24-75) are going to have a similar medium shot range.  So the way I'm looking at it, I should stick with my larger sensor.  Am I looking at this wrong?  

[Dann-Oh 40]

2 hours ago, LuxPro said:

 The MFT 14-42 (28-84) and APS-C 16-50 (24-75) are going to have a similar medium shot range.  So the way I'm looking at it, I should stick with my larger sensor.  Am I looking at this wrong?  

that's not wrong.

The way I look at underwater photo/video equipment is "Can I continue with my needs in life should I destroy this camera?" This is why I went with a micro4/3 camera and housing instead of a phone housing (I still need my phone to operate daily). I assumed you used your A6500 for above land paid work and if it were to get destroyed how would it impact you life above water? Keeping your undewater gear and above water gear separate would allow you to continue to operate as normal.  thats just my thugths.

[ChrisRoss 150]

2 hours ago, LuxPro said:

I would get a red cast with my GoPro / Flip filter with the Sidekick Duo which is only 600 lumens.  Close, sure, maybe a couple of feet.  But it also made any backscatter red.  So I'm not confident that would be a non-issue using red filters and two 4300 lumen lights, especially at the medium shot range I'd be starting out in.  

Already have that one but appreciate the offer!

I had looked at that EPL10 offering from Backscatter.  It seems like a nice package, the major advantage I noted being Backscatter standing behind it and a probably more reputable housing/system than SeaFrogs.  Still, I already own the a6500 and if I go with Seafrogs the housing won't cost any more than the AOI.  It still has the option to add a port with 67mm thread for something like the WWL-1 if I want to upgrade to that.  The MFT 14-42 (28-84) and APS-C 16-50 (24-75) are going to have a similar medium shot range.  So the way I'm looking at it, I should stick with my larger sensor.  Am I looking at this wrong?  

My understanding is you would be using lights or red filter - not both.  In either case you need to do a custom WB in the light you have be it ambient with red filter or lights. 

The EPL-10 is a nice stills option, though I'm not sure it's the greatest thing around in video.

[LuxPro 0]

3 hours ago, Dann-Oh said:

"Can I continue with my needs in life should I destroy this camera?"

Yeah, that's totally valid and it's the reason I gave up on the idea of taking the a7S III.  My a6500 is over five years old now.  If it floods, that certainly wouldn't be fun but it's not going to make or break me.

2 hours ago, ChrisRoss said:

My understanding is you would be using lights or red filter - not both.  In either case you need to do a custom WB in the light you have be it ambient with red filter or lights. 

I hear you.  That would be fine with a flat port and flippable red filter.  I'm just wondering if I can solve the mixed light problem when shooting with a dome where the red filter is committed.  Ambient filters on the lights as seen here seems like a potential solution; however, there doesn't appear to be any threads on the Backscatter 4300s and they are already low on lumens.  So it seems to be a no go there.  

[ChrisRoss 150]

I'm no expert on video lighting but I recall seeing responses on the blue filter option that it seems like a good idea but in reality not necessary.  You are certainly right you don't have the lumens to play around with.

Again I don't think mixing red filters with lights is the what you want to do - you do one or the other, not both.  If the filter is inside the dome you are committed for the dive. 

If you are using filters they are only useful to a depth of 10-15m beyond that you have very little red light left.

[adamhanlon 0]

Ambient filters correct the light's output to the color spectrum that is present at a given depth. In video, the goal is for the light to not be obvious, but just to bring out the red end of the spectrum and light up shadow areas.

Your GoPro's red cast is due to you adding a light source (which is white) to a camera that has a filter that is designed to remove blue color casts. Hence your light appears orange/red. 

Adding an orange filter to an ambient filter will get really complicated really fast, as they attempt to filter out the blue end of the spectrum, which is what you are putting in with the ambient filter....it may improve the color of the light in the video, but it may also completely remove it. This will depend somewhat on exposure and available ambient light. 

Bluntly though, you lights are nowhere near powerful enough to even consider using a filter on them. They simply lack the power to do anything except light up an area very close to the camera, which kind of means that they are of limited value. They are macro lights and will work well when you are really close and not attempting to mix ambient and artificial light sources.

[rileym21 0]

I learned a lot in this thread, the original first post in this thread is where I'm at. I haven't deviated from the A7SIII route yet though. A7SIII with WWL-1 and Nauticam housing is where I'm leaning. Lights I have just started reading about, but the Kraken Solar Flare Mini 15,000 seems like a decent value (although still $800 ea). I have a lot of reading left to do! Great read though, and thanks for so much info here.

Edited March 9, 2022 by rileym21