Compact or APSC? Any suggestions are welcome

[WS007]

When you photograph an entire wreck, you cannot illuminate the entire scene with strobes. At most single spots of the scenery with remote strobe(s). Here the sensor size contributes to better image (less noise at higher ISO), but 60m is really deep and there will be little light. Another factor then is the aperture - the wider open the better. This is a classical application for a FF camera and WA water contact optics (e.g. Nauticam WACP or FCP) - large sensor plus wide aperture - and the difference in IQ compared to a compact camera will be substantially. That does not mean that you cannot make nice photos with a compact camera as well...

You second scenario is inside the wreck and light comes mostly from strobes (also her preferentially remote strobes, otherwise you will get a lot of backscatter from floating particles). Here the sensor size makes a smaller difference, when you manage to light your scenery well with the strobes...

=> I think that the difference in IQ between a GoPro and an "edulis" compact (e.g. Sony RX100) with high quality water contact optics for WA (e.g. Nauticam WWL-C) and two (or even more) good strobes will be enormous, like night and day.
My recommendation would be that you start with this now and after a couple of years, when you know exactly what you want, you reconsider...

Wolfgang

 

[WS007]

Here are test photos (from DPReview) that allow to compare (between compact/MFT/APS-C/FF) what happens to the shadows, when you blow up the shadows by approx. 5 EV. The cameras have different base ISOs, so the comparison is not 100% identical, but it shows nicely how much (or how little) you really gain with sensor size: Image comparison: Digital Photography Review

=> This tool does not cover GoPro, but you can enhance the shadows by yourself in LR by 5 EVs on your photos and have a look...

 

[arew+4]

This may seem extremely heretical, but it's something I have suggested to others in the past. Start with film, it is not at all forgiving and forces you to internalize concepts and plan shots as well as dives. Also, it is really cheap to get started these days. And it will get you instant cred with any hipsters you may cross paths with.

 

[Barmaglot]

If you're shooting a lot of wrecks, then another thing you need to consider is distortion. All water-contact lenses give you a significant amount of barrel distortion, as do fisheye lenses, which is fine and even desirable when you shoot wildlife, but can be distracted when you shoot man-made objects with lots of straight lines, i.e. wrecks. Rectilinear wide lenses keep straight lines straight (although when you go very wide, you get significant perspective distortion), but they are suffer from poor sharpness away from center of the image. This is mitigated by stopping down, reducing sensor size, or using a larger dome. In general, micro four thirds and APS-C cameras can get away with 170-180mm domes for a rectilinear wide lens, but full frame pretty much need a 230-250mm dome, which is huge, expensive, heavy, expensive, cumbersome, and did I mention expensive? While full-frame systems have superior light-gathering capabilities, when you shoot underwater and cannot use a fisheye, this is for the most part offset by the need to stop down the aperture to regain depth of field.

 

[Nico-ITA]

When you photograph an entire wreck, you cannot illuminate the entire scene with strobes. At most single spots of the scenery with remote strobe(s). Here the sensor size contributes to better image (less noise at higher ISO), but 60m is really deep and there will be little light. Another factor then is the aperture - the wider open the better. This is a classical application for a FF camera and WA water contact optics (e.g. Nauticam WACP or FCP) - large sensor plus wide aperture - and the difference in IQ compared to a compact camera will be substantially. That does not mean that you cannot make nice photos with a compact camera as well...

You second scenario is inside the wreck and light comes mostly from strobes (also her preferentially remote strobes, otherwise you will get a lot of backscatter from floating particles). Here the sensor size makes a smaller difference, when you manage to light your scenery well with the strobes...

=> I think that the difference in IQ between a GoPro and an "edulis" compact (e.g. Sony RX100) with high quality water contact optics for WA (e.g. Nauticam WWL-C) and two (or even more) good strobes will be enormous, like night and day.
My recommendation would be that you start with this now and after a couple of years, when you know exactly what you want, you reconsider...

Wolfgang

Thank you Wolfgang.
What you told me was one of the scenarios I considered, which is to start from a compact, and once I practice and better understand what I need, then I will think about investing in a more focused way, maybe with a bigger budget.
Maybe investing a bit more in quality strobes and wet lens today, so that tomorrow I "only" change camera and housing so without buying everything back from scratch.

So in case one wants to take a pic of an entire wreck at high depths (thus with little natural light), do you think the noise of a compact camera can still give a decent result, or would the noise be too high?

I attach a couple of picture of me that had been taken with a full frame Sony a7RIII + Strobes some years ago. It was on the outside of a wreck at around 50-60 meters.
Had it been an APSC or compact with the same strobes, would the result and noise have been very different in your opinion?

Many thanks
N

 

[Barmaglot]

Yes, I didn't mean to suggest the EM10 IV was cutting edge tech similar to a flagship camera like the OM-1, and was expressly suggesting it as an alternative to compacts if OP prefers that route, not to the OM-1 or apsc. Obviously there are some advantages to spending more or going heavier or bigger.

But I'd also beware of autofocus improvement hype. Just because tech is newer doesn't necessarily equate to better results. One review from a site that promotes Sony cameras wasn't impressed with a6100 af underwater (typos etc. are in original):

"At times underwater it almost focused too fast where it would choose partical floating in the water instead of the subject and fire of the shot quickly. One of the most notable improvements from the Sony a6000 is the improved AF tracking including the exciting new animal eye AF. One of the often followed “rules” of underwater photography is to have your subject’s eyes in focus. Theoretically, AF tracking should make keeping the eyes in focus and easy endeavor – even with moving subjects. When we tried this with the a6100 underwater, the animal eye AF was slow to engage even on larger animal eye's such as an eel...."

Sony a6100 Review

Also, the bang for the buck comment referenced the package of the camera and housing. Not many a6100 housings seem to have been released yet, but the ones I can find online are at least several hundred dollars more expensive.

The eye AF is still kind of dodgy for underwater subjects even on latest Sony cameras that have it working like magic on land - I guess the AI algorithms simply aren't trained on the subjects that we encounter. The general purpose PDAF, however, works very well even on my older a6300 (a generation behind a6100; thanks Sony for your very clear naming scheme!).

Regarding housings - I'm guessing that's the main influence behind Backscatter pushing E-M10; they sell AOI housings, but they don't sell SeaFrogs, which is priced competitively with AOI - at the moment, their A6xxx (fits a6000 through a6500) housing is $276 at seafrogs.com.hk, a port for 16-50mm with wet lenses is $99, acrylic domes are $205/$275 for 6"/8", glass domes are $384 and $783 respectively. The AOI housings have a built-in vacuum system, which is a definite plus, but you can add a €‎255 Leak Sentinel to a SeaFrogs housing and still stay competitive on price; the AOI E-M10 housing is $699 set up for 14-42mm and wet lenses, while the SeaFrogs A6xxx equivalent is $645.

 

[Nico-ITA]

Here are test photos (from DPReview) that allow to compare (between compact/MFT/APS-C/FF) what happens to the shadows, when you blow up the shadows by approx. 5 EV. The cameras have different base ISOs, so the comparison is not 100% identical, but it shows nicely how much (or how little) you really gain with sensor size: Image comparison: Digital Photography Review

=> This tool does not cover GoPro, but you can enhance the shadows by yourself in LR by 5 EVs on your photos and have a look...

Thank you! I will take my time to look at them

 

[Nico-ITA]

This may seem extremely heretical, but it's something I have suggested to others in the past. Start with film, it is not at all forgiving and forces you to internalize concepts and plan shots as well as dives. Also, it is really cheap to get started these days. And it will get you instant cred with any hipsters you may cross paths with.

It could be interesting, but I love editing too much

 

[Barmaglot]

Had it been an APSC or compact with the same strobes, would the result and noise have been very different in your opinion?

Those shots are of a relatively small object at short range, fully lit with strobes. At this range, the difference in image quality between a 1" compact and a full-frame ILC, as far as noise is concerned, is marginal, as the strobes supply all the light you need. It's when you move out of strobe range that the differences start to manifest.

 

[Nico-ITA]

The eye AF is still kind of dodgy for underwater subjects even on latest Sony cameras that have it working like magic on land - I guess the AI algorithms simply aren't trained on the subjects that we encounter. The general purpose PDAF, however, works very well even on my older a6300 (a generation behind a6100; thanks Sony for your very clear naming scheme!).

Regarding housings - I'm guessing that's the main influence behind Backscatter pushing E-M10; they sell AOI housings, but they don't sell SeaFrogs, which is priced competitively with AOI - at the moment, their A6xxx (fits a6000 through a6500) housing is $276 at seafrogs.com.hk, a port for 16-50mm with wet lenses is $99, acrylic domes are $205/$275 for 6"/8", glass domes are $384 and $783 respectively. The AOI housings have a built-in vacuum system, which is a definite plus, but you can add a €‎255 Leak Sentinel to a SeaFrogs housing and still stay competitive on price; the AOI E-M10 housing is $699 set up for 14-42mm and wet lenses, while the SeaFrogs A6xxx equivalent is $645.

The fact that Backscatter is somehow the only one to push the E-M10 so much gave me some doubts and I came to the same conclusions.

Maybe we leave out the used cameras and just talk about the new ones. The question I ask myself as an electronics and technology enthusiast in general is whether in 2024, for someone starting from scratch, it makes sense to invest in a micro 4:3 system.
With the term investing I also refer to optics, etc.

My knowledge of photography is very limited, but in terms of technology, it doesn't seem like a system destined to progress over time, quite the opposite.
If the differences in features and price were almost similar, I would have no doubt in preferring a technology where most of the big players are investing.