DSLR or Mirrorless or Compact? My decision process...

[charlesml3]

Gang,

I'm not new to underwater photography. Been shooting for more than 10 years now. It was time to upgrade my old camera and housing so I went through the agonizing process to select a new camera and housing. Here's how I went through the process to decide:

• DSLR and Mirrorless systems: As far as image quality goes it doesn't get any better than this. Especially on full-frame cameras such as the 5DMKIV or the EOS R. You have a LOT of choices of lenses, all come with their port requirements, etc.
• Advantages:
  • Image quality as listed above.
  • Light gathering - These fast f/2.8 lenses are very, very good at gathering light. You'll be able to shoot at lower ISO and with deeper depth-of-field using a fast lens.
  • Flexibility - You can bring a macro and a wide-angle port and various lenses on the dive boat.
• Disadvantages:
  • Cost - Shooting DSLR or Mirrorless is very expensive. You can easily have $10,000 in a rig.
  • Size - The housings are big. The 8" dome port is big. It can make traveling with this difficult.
  • Flexibility - Yes, I listed this as an Advantage and a Disadvantage. With a setup like this, you must pick BEFORE you leave the dive boat. Are you shooting Wide-Angle or Macro? You can't do both and you can't change your mind underwater.

• Compact and some Micro 4/3 systems: Systems without removable lenses. I only considered the ones with very good sensors. No P&S. These are the cameras that are just under the image quality/price point of a DSLR/Mirrorless.
• Advantages:
  • Camera and housings are less expensive.
  • They're smaller and easier to deal with traveling and on the dive.
  • Flexibility - Most housings allow wet-mount lenses. You can carry wide-angle and macro lenses on the same dive and change back and forth during the dive.
• Disadvantages:
  • Image quality - The compact cameras are MUCH better than they were 10 years ago, but still cannot reach the image quality of a DSLR/Mirrorless.
  • Wet-mount lenses just aren't as sharp.
  • Light gathering - The lenses just aren't as fast. They can't gather as much light as a fast f/2.8 or so lens on a DSLR.

Other things that were important to me:

• TTL flash - I know this isn't a HUGE deal but I wanted the flexibility. I shoot with Ikelite DS-161s and they can do TTL metering or I can adjust them manually. If the circumstances allow, I can just shoot TTL and it's one less setting I have to manage. Even in TTL mode, I can still go into the cameras "Flash Output" setting and dial it up or down. Or if I need to I can go into manual mode and adjust each strobe manually.
• This can be difficult to do in the Compact/Micro 4/3 arena. Many of these cameras do not have a hot-shoe and therefore cannot do TTL. This very much limited the choice of cameras for me.

I agonized over this for days. I had an EOS R and all the extras I would need in my virtual shopping cart but couldn't quite convince myself to push the "checkout" button. It was a LOT of dough even considering I already have the two DS-161 strobes. Plus I was discouraged by the whole "You have to pick before the dive" thing. I love shooting Macro, but I want to do more with wide-angle. Having to decide before the dive was making me pretty reluctant.

After talking with Backscatter and Ikelite, I eventually settled on a very good Compact. It has a very, very good sensor, hotshoe for TTL and good choices for Macro diopters. I realize I'll be giving up some image quality, but I'll get the flexibility I want. The whole rig is much smaller. That appealed to me both from the travel and dive point of view.

It's a long process. You have to REALLY consider what's important to you. From there you can narrow down the choices. My discussions with Backscatter and Ikelite were very helpful. They both listened to what I was after and quickly narrowed the field down to 2 or 3 systems.

-Charles

 

[Lewis88]

So, what did you end up buying?

 

[charlesml3]

So, what did you end up buying?

I ended up with a Panasonic Lumix LX100 II in an Ikelite housing. It's a 4/3 sensor at 17 Megapixels in a compact body. Plus I was able to use my DS-161s in TTL mode. I thought about giving up TTL and going with a different camera/housing, but none offered any substantial advantages over the LX100.

-Charles

 

[wetb4igetinthewater]

@charlesml3,

I used to have housing for my Canon 5DM3. I loved it, but travel .... what a pain. While IQ from full frame as you've mentioned is above 4/3rds, how easy is it to distinguish? I.e., how much do you crop and/or how large of prints do you make?

I think you chose an awesome camera that will serve you very well, and I hope to see some of your pics soon!

 

[charlesml3]

I'm headed down to the Exumas the first week of December and this will be the first dive trip on the new camera/housing. I have been SCOURING websites for tips/techniques. I'd worked out some of them on my own over the past few years but my previous camera/housing was very much a macro rig. It just wouldn't do wide-angle. I'm looking forward to getting into that aspect of UW photography.

-Charles

 

[wetb4igetinthewater]

Have you seen this? Underwater Photography Resource Center :: Handbooks for Better Underwater Photography

 

[Barmaglot]

Light gathering - These fast f/2.8 lenses are very, very good at gathering light. You'll be able to shoot at lower ISO and with deeper depth-of-field using a fast lens.

Fast lenses aren't particularly useful underwater. You're almost always shooting with strobes, and stepping down for depth of field - corner sharpness if you're using a dome, getting more of the subject in focus if you're shooting macro. On my APS-C mirrorless, I very rarely shoot wider than f/8, and sometimes go all the way down to f/22. There are exceptions - some dive sites prohibit the use of strobes - but they're very few and far between.

 

[Chris Ross]

You also don't get more depth of field unless you stop down. the depth of field between a fast lens and a slow lens does not vary at the same aperture. The only potential advantage for a fast lens is more light for the AF module, but for wide angle applications the AF is generally very fast even on slower lenses.

 

[digdug87]

Thank you for sharing.

 

[stuartv]

[Disclaimer: I am no expert. Some people have already responded here that I think know a lot more about this stuff than I do. Take the following with that grain of salt in mind. Maybe one of them will correct me on some of this, if I say anything that is not right.]

If the flexibility of shooting macro and WA on the same dive is really important, the top option that I know of is a full-frame rig with a Nauticam WACP. E.g. a Sony a7r IV with the "kit" 28-70 lens + the WACP. Absolute top image quality for WA with the lens zoomed to 28. And passable macro(-ish) with it zoomed to 70. And with 60MP to work with, being not "true" macro (I think) can be compensated for quite a lot with cropping.

But, the WACP is $4K just by itself, so it is not for everyone's wallet....

Other thoughts:

A fast lens isn't that useful underwater - for its speed. But, I think faster lenses usually come bearing an additional gift - better image quality. So, you may be shooting a constant f/2.8 lens at f/8, but I would generally expect it to give a better quality image than an f/3.5 - 5.6 lens at the same focal length and f/8.

The big caveat to that is that underwater, the whole package matters. So, a better lens through an inferior port/dome might not give as good IQ as a "lesser" lens through a better port/dome. Case in point, shooting through a WACP. The WACP is specifically intended to work with the "kit" lens. It gives better IQ than a "better" lens though a normal port/dome.

But, barring consideration of the WACP, I would *think* (note: I am NO expert) that a "faster" lens would generally give better IQ, just because it's better quality glass.

Shooting with TTL? I think, as a general statement, if you want the best photos, you need to ditch TTL and learn to shoot in Manual mode. Martin Edge's book, The Underwater Photographer, was very helpful to me in getting decent results shooting in Manual mode very quickly after starting to try.

I am in the process of upgrading from a m43 interchangeable lens setup to a Full Frame camera. Smaller sensors can capture truly excellent images. I have gotten a few (in my opinion, of course) with my current camera and I've seen even better from the likes of a Sony RX100 Mk IV. But, I am stepping up to FF partly because my camera is an older one and the Auto Focus is just not NEARLY as good as what the latest and greatest tech has. If I was shooting, for example, an Olympus OM-D E-M1 Mk II, I would likely be sticking with it. But, when I have other reasons for upgrading anyway, going to FF is what makes sense to me (for myself).

Quite simply, there are times when the smaller sensor just doesn't work well enough. Sometimes, the ambient light is low enough that the background of whatever I'm shooting is going to have too much noise, from having to use too high an ISO. The Crop Factor on a m43 sensor is 2. That means the ISO Crop Factor is 4. That means, an image I could capture on a FF sensor at ISO 1600 will require me to use ISO 6400 on a m43 camera to capture the same image (i.e. same exposure, same field of view, same depth of field). Besides AF performance, my camera's age also means that the sensor is more noisy than the latest tech. ISO 6400 on my current camera is just not as clean as I want.

However, the dollars required to go to a FF setup are not for everyone's wallet. I may yet decide they are not for my wallet, for that matter.

Congrats on your new LX100! It will certainly allow you to capture some excellent quality images!