Buying into an interchangable lens system -- need advice

[dreifish]

Unless you are talking about a FX camera like a Nikon D4 vs the D7100, the camera and housings are pretty close to the same size. I wouldn't even consider the difference if I were to choose between the following Fx or Dx for my next camera:

D800 (FX)

Approx. Dimensions (Width x Height x Depth)


5.7 in. (144.78 mm) x 4.8 in. (121.92 mm) x 3.2 in. (81.28 mm)

D7100 (DX)

Approx. Dimensions (Width x Height x Depth)

5.3 in. (135.5 mm) x 4.2 in. (106.5 mm) x 3.0 in. (76 mm)


I expect my next camera to be smaller than the D7000, just because of luggage space. The weight, for me, isn't an issue.

James, I think you're right about the size (and weight) of the nauticam housings being quite similar between the D800 and D7100. D800: 87 cubic inches, 4.21kg with camera; D7100: 66 cubic inches, 4.00kg with camera -- 30% more volume, but a negligible 5% weight difference. Arguably this doesn't tell the whole story because the ports for the d7100 might be smaller, but not if you use the same lenses on both. Only area where I could see a big difference is if you use a 8-10" dome on the d800 for rectilinear wide angle and a 7" dome on the d7100. Macro, both use the 105mm and CFWA/fisheye both can operate with a 4.33" dome.

So if there is an image quality advantage to the D800 over the D7100, I think the marginal size/weight difference probably doesn't negate it -- both would be equally (un)wieldy.

The biggest difference in size/weight comes by moving to M4/3--OM-D EM-5 in Nauticam housing is 1.525 kg and 2.95 liters in volume (185mm x 152mm x 105mm). Ports are also smaller, and the lenses weigh less: 8mm + 9-18mm +60mm macro = 165g + 155g + 185g = 505g total.

Compare that to sigma 15mm (332g) + nikon 16-35mm (680g) + 105mm (720g) = 1.73kg. More than 3 times as heavy!

Someone else should figure out the total system weight including ports, but suffice to say, if you want a significant size/weight reduction, you got to move from FF down to M43, not crop, IMO.

---------- Post added October 29th, 2013 at 07:17 PM ----------

While not "excellent M43 work" here are a couple of galleries as examples. I am sure there are others with better results that they can point you to. One is with the EM5 and the other with the Nikon D7000

Oly EM5 Gallery (There is a more detailed gallery if you are bored)
Aquablue Dreams

Nikon D7000 Gallery (There is a more detailed gallery if you are bored)
Aquablue Dreams

Thanks for sharing those galleries, MJH. The d7000 photos look slighly less "digital"/"clinical" to me -- if that makes any sense. More realistic, less artificially sharpened. Maybe it's all in my mind, but this is actually pushing me towards the FF system. Though the weight.. figuring out how to carry all of that to the dive site sounds painful!

 

[James R]

My D7000 with 105mm 2.8 AF-S, Nauticam housing, Macro Port 87, Saga flip adapter, Inon UCL-165, focus light, arms, clamps, floats, batteries, & two z-240 strobes is just under 20lbs according to my postage scale. In the water it's just barely negative and is quite easy to handle.

 

[PatW]

There is an advantage to full frame in resolution.

I a fair bit of experience in light microscopy. In light microscopy your magnification is the power of the eye piece times the power of the objective. So with strong enough optics you can get any magnification you want, right? Wrong. Because of diffraction the magnification of light microscopes is limited to about 1200 times.

The he same thing happens in photography. For a given size of sensor and f stop, there is a mega pixel limit on your resolution. For my D7000 with 16 mp, the f stop limit is theoretically 8. I even tested it. I took a series of photos at different f stops and above f8, I could detect a small loss of resolution at f12. The loss was not too bad until about f22. What that means is if you are shooting at f8, the D7100 and D7000 will have pretty much the same resolution.

if you want really high resolution, you have to go full frame. The D800 gives you the full 36 mp at f8. The limit for the D600 with 24mp is about f12. So if you are shooting at or above f12, you might as well use the D600.

Diffraction limits explain why some landscape photographers still use way over sized formats. The ultra sized format yields more resolution than anything else.

One just has to decide if they really need the increased resolution of ff.

---------- Post added October 29th, 2013 at 01:10 PM ----------

There is an advantage of a crop sensor DSLR over a mirror less crop sensor. The sensor size is the same So that is even. The mirror less system is much smaller so it is easier to pack and easier to dive with. Those are big advantages for the mirror less system.

The DSLR has an optical focus. Focus is precise and virtually. Once you have a lock, you have no effectve lag. The focus is so precise that O can focus on the eye of a small fish. Also focus is so fast that I can track a fast moving fish and get decent photos.

When I used a point and shoot, it used the led for focus. I could really only focus on the outline of the subject. Also there was a significant lag in led display. Ok fast moving subjects, it was a matter of hope. I can get shots of those constant moving small fish with a DSLR that were virtually impossible to get with an led focus.

Now is that advantage important to you and your kind of photography? If it is not, you could go with the far more compact mirror less systems. I am very happy that I went with the DSLR.

 

[Interceptor121]

There are a few things that am curious about your set up firstly the lens you have into uwl-h100 without the dome in water is actually equivalent to 18mm. The camera without the lens is around 35mm I think in terms of angle you already have what you need
If you move to a dslr and go for a fisheye lens you will have the same issue however you can get a wide zoom still linear without distortion behind a dome.
Either way check first what zoom gear is available and which ports before committing to any investment as not necessarily there will be one for the lens of your choice

The D7100 is a great camera if you have the money to take it underwater i would
In theory with a D7100 and a Nikon 10-24 you achieve the 15-36mm range you look for behind a 8" dome with zoom capability

 

[dreifish]

There are a few things that am curious about your set up firstly the lens you have into uwl-h100 without the dome in water is actually equivalent to 18mm. The camera without the lens is around 35mm I think in terms of angle you already have what you need
If you move to a dslr and go for a fisheye lens you will have the same issue however you can get a wide zoom still linear without distortion behind a dome.
Either way check first what zoom gear is available and which ports before committing to any investment as not necessarily there will be one for the lens of your choice

The D7100 is a great camera if you have the money to take it underwater i would
In theory with a D7100 and a Nikon 10-24 you achieve the 15-36mm range you look for behind a 8" dome with zoom capability

Interceptor, I have the uwl-h100 with the dome. I've used it both with or without the dome, though since I put the dome on about 5 months ago, I haven't bothered taking it off. Now.. that could just be laziness on my part, or just evidence that I prefer the wider perspective it offers. Incidently, according to Nauticam, the Uwl-h100 without dome has a 100 degree angle of view, which is about equivalent to 18mm on FF. With the dome, it's 144 degrees. What exactly does that equate to in fisheye terms on FF? I know it's narrower than a 15mm fisheye, but where would it fall in comparison to, say, the tokina 10-17mm fisheye zoom on the D7100?

If I go full frame, I will probably get the Sigma 15mm, Nikon 16-35mm and 105mm macro along with the macro port, the 8" dome port and (maybe) a 4" dome port for CFWA. All three lenses are well supported by nauticam with ports/gears and seem to be the most popular lenses among the full frame shooters.

 

[PHIL RUDIN]

I would suggest that you read the DPReview.com review of the Olympus E-M1 released yesterday. They make it quite clear that the only way any real image quality difference can be seen between this camera and other cameras is to go full frame. Cost differences between the two systems with lenses of like angle of view and image quality plus quality ports should be distinctly different.

Also while Sony A7/A7r full frame mirrorless cameras are also being released they will still need large lenses and much larger ports compared to M43.

Even if you can't get a housing for the EM1 prior to your trip with the price difference you could always take another trip.

Phil Rudin

 

[dreifish]

I would suggest that you read the DPReview.com review of the Olympus E-M1 released yesterday. They make it quite clear that the only way any real image quality difference can be seen between this camera and other cameras is to go full frame. Cost differences between the two systems with lenses of like angle of view and image quality plus quality ports should be distinctly different.

Also while Sony A7/A7r full frame mirrorless cameras are also being released they will still need large lenses and much larger ports compared to M43.

Even if you can't get a housing for the EM1 prior to your trip with the price difference you could always take another trip.

Phil Rudin

Phil, what are your views about APS-C dslr? My conclusion so far is that (a) from a size, weight and price perspective, there's no big advantage to APS-C over FF because housing, ports, lenses are the same price and the same weight, (b) from an image quality perspective, the APS-C advantage over M43 is minimal, and (c) the Tokina and Canon fish-eye zooms on APS-C offer something that FF and M4/3 can't match entirely, but which could be substituted to same extent by the greater resolution of FF (allowing for cropping).

Since my trip is coming up soon and the EM1/Sony FF mirrorless housings won't be out for months yet, I've decide to go ahead and order the D800 system with nauticam, sigma 15mm fisheye, nikon 105mm macro and nikon 16-35mm wide angle zoom. The price is attractive here in Japan (20-25% less overall then in the U.S. -- I got the D800 new for $2200!). If I find the system too big for travel/too unweildy, I will trade down to either M43 or the rumored Sony A9 in 6 months or a year from now.

Does anyone have any recommendations for a carry-on size camera bag/backpack that could fit the Nauticam D800 housing? Perhaps one of the ThinkTank or Lowepro models?

Also, for dome ports, there seems to be a complete dearth of ports larger than 200mm/8". Is the Nauticam 200mm/8" acrylic dome port of reasonable quality, or should I get the Athena 170mm glass port instead? And should I also get the Nauticam 4.33" acrylic dome for the Sigma fish-eye?

 

[PatW]

Dreifish,

Your D800 system sound good. You might want to consider the Nikon 60 macro. It would give you a medium prime with cose up ability but not really true macro because you have to get so close. With the subsea wet diopter on a flip up you can get a sort of pseudo macro ability. It has a greater depth of field than the 105 so it is easier to use. I even use the same port with the 105. I just need a port extender to make the 60 port work for the 105. I really like my 60. Given the price of your system, adding one would give you a flexible midrange option without laying out that much more. It is just a suggestion. The lens might not suit your style of shooting so my suggestion might not work for you

 

[PHIL RUDIN]

Derifish,

My view on the APS-C DSLR cameras is that they have little to no upside over the M43 lenses and the Olympus E-M5/E-M1 cameras.

So to me NO more advantage in fact less due to size and weight over full frame. To me you have two distinctly different system choices M43 or full frame. This changes if you already are heavily invested in Canon or Nikon lenses or already own a D7100, 7D, etc. I do think the Canon fisheye-zoom is an excellent lens but I like very wide rectilinear lenses more for the work I do so would not be buying an APS-C camera just so I can use one lens.

For fisheye I use the Panasonic M43 8mm fisheye which to me has much better overall image quality than the Tokina loved so much by APS-C users.

Regarding a trade from the NA-D-800 housing keep in mind that the port mount for the APS-C housings and the full frame housings are the same size. If you later move to the M43 system you will need new ports as well.

Also keep in mind that so far Nauticam has not made a housing for any Sony cameras other than the NEX mirror less cameras. Also keep in mind that the Sony A7/A7r offerings will require a much larger port opening than the one on the current Nauticam Mini (mirrorless) housings. Even with the NEX cameras some lenses will need to have a special mount to allow you to mount the lens onto the camera while it is in the housing and then mount the port over the lens, the Zeiss 12mm is an example.

I use the ThinkTank airport roll-on bags with a ThinkTank shoulder bag as my second carry-on. Works quite well for smaller systems.

Ports for the D800 is an interesting issue as well. More MP's expose more flaws in the system. For me I would want the ZEN 230mm port for the 16-35zoom several pros I know don't use the 14-24 zoom at all be cause of corner sharpness issues. You will need to check on the Sigma fisheye for D-800 not sure it the Zen 100mm glass port or the Nauticam 4.33 port is designed for the lens.

I use the ZEN Underwater 170mm optical glass port with the Panasonic 7-14 zoom M43 lens and I am very happy with the results.

Phil Rudin

 

[guyharrisonphoto]

I had the choice between housing my D800 system and housing my Olympus OMD-EM5. When I compared the huge extra cost, size, and weight for the Nikon FF system versus the EM5, it was no contest especially with the EM5's excellent image quality. I have ultrawide 7-14 (14-28 in FF terms), general-purpose 12-50 (24-100 in FF terms) which includes full macro function (1:1 macro in FF terms, can fill the frame with something the size of an SD card, no close up lenses needed), and dedicated 60mm macro (120 in FF terms and 2:1 magnification for ultra-macro, no close up lenses needed).

In particular, the 12-50 rig is unprecedented in its versatility. There is just no other similar setup in either FF or APS-C that can compare.

The entire rig with housing, strobes, video lights, ports, batteries, chargers and all, fits in a roll-on size pelican case for easy travel. It is a superb above water travel system as well.

I love my D800e and will never give it up, but for underwater, the EM-5 is the way to go unless you are a full time professional.

Also, I will add that there is a huge difference in handling the smaller system, much easier all aroung but especially in challenging conditions such as a strong current.