Let's chat about DSLR vs Point and Shoot - looking for some wisdom / experience

[nanohawk]

I have a feeling that a DSLRs are being replaced by mirrorless cameras. If I was in the market to get an (new) underwater housing I would shop for one accommodating a mirrorless camera.

Recently Nikon D/C the Nikon D6 and D500. That sent a chilling message to many of us.

I think you are 100% correct. Unfortunately, the nature of the housings is that they are specific for each camera model/make. I think we are such a niche market that the manufacturers don't think about the impact of moving buttons around, etc. Moving buttons and changing the size is the root cause of the housings not being more interchangeable.

 

[nanohawk]

I went from a point and shoot to a DSLR. The point and shoot was a Nikon. It did raw. I had an Ikelite case for it. The focus lock was slow. It was OK for still stuff and for large rather slow moving stuff. But fish that moved much were nearly impossible. I used to take hundreds of photos per dive to get some keepers.

My powershot G9 was like that..... focus lock was slow. But the photos were okay.

I switched to a Nikon DSLR with a Nauticam housing. The housing is very well laid out and gives great control over the camera. It also has a vacuum lock seal with a light that turns green when the seal is good. So there is virtually no chance of a flood. Also my DSLR acquires focus very fast. I take far far fewer photos now. I can review the exposure underwater. I can also get a good idea of the focus. Of course, the camera is far larger. Underwater that is not such a big issue because it is nearly neutral buoyancy.

Another possibility would be a mirror less system. The mirrorless cameras are far more compact than DSLR. That makes packing them for a trip far easier. Their speed of focus is far faster. And they have a decent array of lenses. They can be pricey if you go with a system that is up there with the best DSLR systems.

I think mirrorless will come down in price in the next few years. The DSLR is going to become a niche like film.

If you want a mirror less system that is not so expensIve and pretty good, you can get that.

Whatever you do, if you can go visit a dedicated retailer. You will see the stock and be able to handle it. Some will even let you rent a rig and dive locally with it. I know three of these: Backscatter, Bluewater Photo and Video and Reef Photo and Video in Fort Lauderdale (I live in FL so they are my go to).

Despite living in Houston, I have been unimpressed with the LDS here. They are all fixated on adventure diving... i.e. pet a shark, go to the recreational limit, explore a deep wreck, learn to cave dive, etc. I'm happy for the folks that enjoy this. I still go to the guy who taught me to dive. He's a solid LDS owner. He just isn't into photography.

My ideal dive is to be left alone on a patch of sand next to the coral heads in about 20 to 30 feet of water with an oversize tank. Let me settle down on the sand and wait for the reef critters to forget that I'm there. Strangely, that's not super appealing to most people. On the bright side air consumption is really good when my well-fed butt is not doing underwater aerobics.

 

[Blackcrusader]

There is a huge difference between the quality of RAW files between P&S and DSLR. That said, weight, the expense of ports, and a travel case are big factors to consider. I pack my rig in a large Pelican case and check it in. It's way too big and heavy for carry-on. I have to use floatation arms or else I'm carrying around an anchor during the dive. Still, I wouldn't go back to using a point and shoot camera. I'm happier with my photos now.

I use the Olympus TG6 and this series of camera is quite popular as are Go Pro's. I like the TG6 for Macro photography and I am happy with the results I get. Mainly I take them for vacation memories. I out my camera batteries, lights, my Shearwater Perdix and some other gear into a DJI Phantom3 hardcase as I also have a drone. It is really good for carrying my gear and also full of foam so it floats. It is also the correct size for hand carry on airlines.

For me being a vacation photographer I often use my cell phone for shots on land and TG6 for my diving. DSLR better photos but far more expensive on housings and setup.

 

[Blackcrusader]

I don't find underwater seascape photography to be that interesting. I swear if you have seen one parrotfish you've seen them all. Same goes for Nurse sharks, squirrel fish, etc. I do find the little stuff interesting and I like photographing soft corals and the little stuff around them.

This is why the Olympus TG6 is popular. It takes good macro and close up photos and even landscape photos.

Some of the little stuff I have taken with my TG6...

 

[Blackcrusader]

I think Tersiops has a good suggestion for you. The Olympus TG 6 is very small, light, easy to use and takes great macro with very good image quality. When you flood it ( and you will eventually ) replacement cost won't kill you.

Why risk flooding it when you can just using the Olympus housing?

 

[Blackcrusader]

I can also relate to eye sight issues. I made it just fine until a couple of years ago.

I used to have eyesight issues, no longer. I went to Australia and had these put in. Perfect vision now for the rest of my life.

Trifocal intraocular lenses

This fact sheet about trifocal intraocular lenses provides information about how they work and are used in cataract and refractive lens exchange surgeries.

visioneyeinstitute.com.au

 

[Compressor]

This is why the Olympus TG6 is popular. It takes good macro and close up photos and even landscape photos.

Some of the little stuff I have taken with my TG6...

View attachment 707566

View attachment 707565

View attachment 707567View attachment 707568View attachment 707569View attachment 707570View attachment 707571

View attachment 707572View attachment 707573View attachment 707574

SIMPLY spectacular pictures. Beautiful.

 

[Barmaglot]

However, it's a fallacy to compare a point and shoot with a 1 inch sensor to a full frame sensor and it's much larger much higher quality optics. The chart below is worth a look.

Bigger is not universally better. Larger sensors gather more light and resolve more detail, yes - but they also have less depth of field and come with shutter speed limitations, and even their positive points are not always good. Gathering more light is can be detriment when you're shooting with strobes, as it drives you to need more powerful strobes in order to overpower the blue or green-tinted natural sunlight in your shots. More detail is good... but how much detail do you need? Where are you outputting your images? Phone screen? Desktop/laptop screens? Televisions? Prints? In case of the latter, how large do you print? Below a certain output target, that usually being very large prints, the 50+ megapixel resolution of large sensor cameras is mostly wasted.

On the other hand, the shallow depth of field inherent to large sensors actively impairs image quality when shooting through domes, forcing you into very small apertures and associated compromises. Likewise for macro; where a TG-6 may have the whole nudibranch in focus, an EOS-5D will give you just the rhinophores, with the rest in blur. There is also the matter of shutters - most interchangeable lens use a focal plane curtain shutter, which limits their flash sync speed to something between 1/160s to 1/250s, with a few models going to 1/320s and a very select few reaching 1/500s (to the best of my knowledge, the only cameras to do this are Nikon D70 and Sony A1). On the other hand, fixed-lens cameras typically employ lens-plane leaf shutters, which allow flash sync all the way to 1/2000s or even 1/4000s without resorting to HSS. This is particularly important underwater when you're shooting into the sun.

It's also worth pointing out that the current camera market is a lot more complex than compact vs. DSLR. Historically, yes, it was true - the dividing line was that SLRs had dedicated phase-detection autofocus arrays, whereas compacts relied on contrast detection, which is a lot slower and less reliable. However, today, you have:

1. Fixed lens compacts, which, in turn, come in several categories:
   1. 1" or smaller sensor normal zoom cameras, such as Canon G7 X series and Sony RX100 series
   2. 1" or smaller sensor ultrazoom/bridge cameras, such as Sony RX10 series or Nikon Coolpix P series
   3. APS-C or four thirds zoom or prime lens cameras, such as Canon G1 X series, or Panasonic LX100 or Fujifilm X100V
   4. Full-frame fixed lens compacts, typically with a prime lens, such as Sony RX1R or Leica Q
2. Mirrorless cameras, which also come in several sensor sizes:
   1. Micro Four Thirds, primarily from Olympus (now OM Digital) and Panasonic
   2. APS-C, mostly from Sony and Fujifilm, but also from Canon (seemingly orphaned M mount) and Nikon (two models using their new Z mount)
   3. Full frame - that's where most of the innovation is happening right now, with Sony, Canon, Nikon and Panasonic releasing new models as fast as they can
   4. Medium format - largely the domain of Fujifilm's G mount cameras
3. DSLRs, which, having stagnated for a while now, still come in a range of sizes:
   1. APS-C (or DX in Nikon-speak) and minor variations with 1.4x or 1.6x crop instead of the standard 1.5x
   2. Full frame
   3. Medium format (mostly Pentax 645)

...and within each of those categories you have a range of different types of cameras, such as those targeting sports, or landscapes, or portraits, or whatever. The PDAF/CDAF divide is no longer there either, as in almost every category you can have some cameras that use one or the other, to varying degrees of effectiveness. Nikon generally has the best autofocus in SLRs, while Sony rules the roost in mirrorless, although Canon and Nikon are playing catch-up there. Olympus isn't bad, but Fujifilm is lagging, and Panasonic does not use PDAF at all, relying on what they call 'depth from defocus', which is basically a fancy name for slightly more intelligent CDAF, both in their M43 and full-frame cameras.

One of the most popular cameras among underwater photographers is the DX (APS-C) Nikon D500. Many prefer it to its bigger full-frame cousin, the D850, specifically because the bigger sensor brings too much baggage.

A note specific to the Canon G7 X series - these cameras use the same sensor as the Sony RX100 series (as in, Canon is buying sensors from Sony rather than making their own), but they do not incorporate Sony's hybrid AF (on-sensor PDAF) technology, relying on contrast detection only, which makes them significantly slower to focus. Moreover, while G7 X II had one-touch custom white balance, an immensely useful feature for video and, to a lesser extent, natural light photography, the G7 X III lost this capability - now it takes several button presses and navigating through menus.

 

[Blackcrusader]

Likewise for macro; where a TG-6 may have the whole nudibranch in focus, an EOS-5D will give you just the rhinophores, with the rest in blur.

That really depends. From a side on shot yes but a length shot from the head, the body is blurred. TG6

 

[Barmaglot]

That really depends. From a side on shot yes but a length shot from the head, the body is blurred. TG6

It depends on critter size and shot composition, but my point is that small-sensor cameras get a lot more DoF than large ones. On land this is typically viewed as a negative, as photographers want to control their depth of field, but underwater, it's a positive, as we almost always don't have enough DoF rather than too much.