Compact or APSC? Any suggestions are welcome

[Nico-ITA]

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.

Very clear, thank you.

Speaking instead of light and shadow recovery in post, in your opinion is there much difference between a file generated from a compact and one from an APSC?

 

[WS007]

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.

It is right that a fraction of UW-photographers make wreck photos entirely with rectilinear WA lenses and domeport, because of the distortion problem. Others don't really care (including me)...

I think that the fisheye distortion is less of a problem as is often assumed. When you look e.g. at the homepage of Alex Mustard (to have an example of a great and professional UW-photographer; I could give less professional examples with full-blown fisheye effect and others where it is almost overlooked) and type in "wreck" in the search function, you see a many great photos made with fisheye and/or water contact optics (but not all of them). Sometimes the fisheye distortion is a welcome creative element and sometimes one has to look carefully not to overlook it...

Here with the link: Search | Image library | Alex Mustard

 

[Nico-ITA]

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.

Thanks for this comment, very useful and interesting.

 

[WS007]

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

It is as Barmaglot says: the noise will be larger in the region lit entirely by natural light, i.e. mostly the open water behind you (and the parts of the wreck that are more distant), and there the noise is more or less irrelevant...

Was the wreck the Vassiljev?


Wolfgang

 

[Nico-ITA]

It is as Barmaglot says: the noise will be larger in the region lit entirely by natural light, i.e. mostly the open water behind you (and the parts of the wreck that are more distant), and there the noise is more or less irrelevant...

Was the wreck the Vassiljev?


Wolfgang

Thanks!

The wreck was the SS VIS

I take this opportunity because I believe that the images of the wreck you find at that link were taken with a Sony A6xxx in natural light (I know who took them and at that time I think he had that camera).
Excuse my repetitiveness, I wonder if those same photos had been taken for example with a compact Sony RX100 VII, would the difference have been very noticeable in your opinion?

Tthanks again
N

 

[Barmaglot]

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.

As far as the basics of taking images are concerned, the technology has plateaued for a while now. As I understand it, the sensors are sensitive enough to detect single photons - there isn't really anywhere to go from here. Where the advances are being made are in ancillary features such as tracking autofocus - the latest generations of cameras have varying degrees of subject detection and recognition, and sensor readout speeds continue to improve, which is useful in supporting the latest AF tech. The 'fastest' sensor technology at this time is stacked CMOS, where memory is integrated into the sensor, and this is used in only a handful of cameras - Sony A1 pioneered it, and it was followed by Nikon Z9 and Z8 (basically the same camera with Z9 have an integrated vertical grip), Canon R3, Fujifilm X-H2S and OM Systems OM-1. Notice how those are all extremely expensive flagship cameras - A1 MSRP is $6500, R3 is $6000, Z9 is $5500, Z8 is $4000, X-H2S for $2500 and OM-1 is $2200. OM-1 Mark II has just been announced with MSRP of $2400.

However, for your stated use case, all those "speed, speed, SPEED" features are largely irrelevant. You're not shooting fast-moving sharks or dolphins, nor are you doing macro in surge and current or blackwater. If a wreck is going somewhere, I dare say something has gone very, very wrong, and you are unlikely to be concerned with photography at this point. For a completely static object, even manual focus is going to be fine, and in certain cases might be preferable over AF.

Therefore, you need to work back from the type of shots that you want in order to decide what type of lens and camera that you need. Is barrel distortion okay? Are you prepared to carry large, heavy glass? Can you deal with longer exposures? If you want panoramic shots of wrecks, then carrying strobes might be counterproductive - you may be better off getting a bunch of video lights with tripods and strategically positioning them around the wreck to light up specific spots; for example if you have an enclosed bridge or a conning tower, place some lights inside to light up the windows. As far as camera goes, something like an A7R III or a D810 with a 16-35mm lens would be perfectly adequate - if you're willing to deal with a 230mm dome.

 

[Trilobite]

....

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.

If size/weight isn't a concern for you, esp. since you aren't traveling by plane, then there is probably not much reason to consider m4/3 rather than APSC. Esp. if you are only shooting wide angle--where the difference in lens weights vs APSC will be small. The main point of m4/3 is to give you high image quality with less size and weight than larger sensor cameras. I don't agree at all that it is not destined to progress over time and don't know where you got that impression, but I think that question is moot for you at this point.

Above water, I have been shooting flagship m4/3 cameras and 1" sensor compacts (LX10) on my travels for years. The LX 10 is good, but I always use my m4/3 when I can; less noise, more DR, better optics, and more flexibility in post processing. So I'd lean towards APSC in your circumstances; I certainly don't see the attraction of spending lots of $$$ on the Sony RX100 series when you can get larger sensor cameras for less and size/weight aren't a concern for you. The RX100 series has advanced AF features but those aren't important for what you do.

 

[WS007]

Thanks!

The wreck was the SS VIS

I take this opportunity because I believe that the images of the wreck you find at that link were taken with a Sony A6xxx in natural light (I know who took them and at that time I think he had that camera).
Excuse my repetitiveness, I wonder if those same photos had been taken for example with a compact Sony RX100 VII, would the difference have been very noticeable in your opinion?

Tthanks again
N

Ah, SS Vis...
I did not dive there, I guess too deep for me ...

It is hard to say how the photos would look with a compact under these special conditions, but I guess you could make similar photos with Sony RX100. It is certainly more difficult with a compact camera (every single parameter must be adjusted to the absolute optimum), but possible. A great and very skilled photographer could possibly make photos with a compact that are photografically and overall even better (not when printed out on large poster, of course)...

I am not an expert for compact cameras (I have Sony A7R5), but I read in treads that the newest RX100 models, e.g. mark VII, are not as good for UW as an older model, I think it is mark VA, but I am not sure. If going this route you should have a close look before deciding...

 

[Nico-ITA]

As far as the basics of taking images are concerned, the technology has plateaued for a while now. As I understand it, the sensors are sensitive enough to detect single photons - there isn't really anywhere to go from here. Where the advances are being made are in ancillary features such as tracking autofocus - the latest generations of cameras have varying degrees of subject detection and recognition, and sensor readout speeds continue to improve, which is useful in supporting the latest AF tech. The 'fastest' sensor technology at this time is stacked CMOS, where memory is integrated into the sensor, and this is used in only a handful of cameras - Sony A1 pioneered it, and it was followed by Nikon Z9 and Z8 (basically the same camera with Z9 have an integrated vertical grip), Canon R3, Fujifilm X-H2S and OM Systems OM-1. Notice how those are all extremely expensive flagship cameras - A1 MSRP is $6500, R3 is $6000, Z9 is $5500, Z8 is $4000, X-H2S for $2500 and OM-1 is $2200. OM-1 Mark II has just been announced with MSRP of $2400.

However, for your stated use case, all those "speed, speed, SPEED" features are largely irrelevant. You're not shooting fast-moving sharks or dolphins, nor are you doing macro in surge and current or blackwater. If a wreck is going somewhere, I dare say something has gone very, very wrong, and you are unlikely to be concerned with photography at this point. For a completely static object, even manual focus is going to be fine, and in certain cases might be preferable over AF.

Therefore, you need to work back from the type of shots that you want in order to decide what type of lens and camera that you need. Is barrel distortion okay? Are you prepared to carry large, heavy glass? Can you deal with longer exposures? If you want panoramic shots of wrecks, then carrying strobes might be counterproductive - you may be better off getting a bunch of video lights with tripods and strategically positioning them around the wreck to light up specific spots; for example if you have an enclosed bridge or a conning tower, place some lights inside to light up the windows. As far as camera goes, something like an A7R III or a D810 with a 16-35mm lens would be perfectly adequate - if you're willing to deal with a 230mm dome.

It is true that I don't plan to take this camera on an airplane, mainly because I don't make overseas diving trips usually. It could happen of course, but those are not the dives I usually do.

However, the fact of having something extremely bulky might need more careful handling. I imagine for example going down with the rebreather + n.x stages + scooter and a very bulky camera! Aargh!

However, I don't know if I will ever go so far as to purchase and place extra lights in a wreck to get the perfect shot. Never say never, although let's say in the next few years I see myself doing more wide angle with a couple of strobes, then some editing to fine tune my shots as best

 

[Nico-ITA]

If size/weight isn't a concern for you, esp. since you aren't traveling by plane, then there is probably not much reason to consider m4/3 rather than APSC. Esp. if you are only shooting wide angle--where the difference in lens weights vs APSC will be small. The main point of m4/3 is to give you high image quality with less size and weight than larger sensor cameras. I don't agree at all that it is not destined to progress over time and don't know where you got that impression, but I think that question is moot for you at this point.

Above water, I have been shooting flagship m4/3 cameras and 1" sensor compacts (LX10) on my travels for years. The LX 10 is good, but I always use my m4/3 when I can; less noise, more DR, better optics, and more flexibility in post processing. So I'd lean towards APSC in your circumstances; I certainly don't see the attraction of spending lots of $$$ on the Sony RX100 series when you can get larger sensor cameras for less and size/weight aren't a concern for you. The RX100 series has advanced AF features but those aren't important for what you do.

My idea about micro 4:3s came from Internet, so I may have misunderstood certain concepts or not given them the proper weight.

Investing in a compact to begin with has in my opinion the advantage of gaining confidence and experience with photography in general (I have very little of it and iso, aperture, etc. are still somewhat nebulous topics for me in practice) and specifically understanding the mechanics of underwater photography, all at a fairly low expense.
If my passion for underwater photography then continues, I would certainly feel the need to upgrade, but at that point with clearer ideas.

Of course if the feeling of wanting something more came for example after one year, then I would have invested my money badly I think

I am now keeping my eyes open on the used market for a Nauticam/ Isotta housing for an RX100 VII or a6400/6500. Let’s see