Not a huge fan of my GoPro

[bvbellomo]

Wow, I am thinking strobes are either the problem or the solution is brighter strobes and he didn't even use strobes at all. I still really like Paul Bentzen's pictures. Not sure how much is the camera, subject or photographer.

 

[bvbellomo]

I'm not sure Canon EOS M series is a good choice; Canon seems to have pretty much abandoned that line in favor of the R series, which use a different lens mount. There were few lenses released for it, and the 10-18mm lens that you listed won't mount without an adapter. I can't say anything about Ikelite without consulting their port chart, but with SeaFrogs, you will only get zoom gears for a few most common lenses, and an adapted 10-18mm is not one of those. SeaFrogs' best efforts appear to be aimed at supporting Sony cameras.

FWIW, I use a Sony A6300 with 10-18mm, 16-50mm and 90mm macro lenses, in a SeaFrogs housing with their 8" dome port and long macro port. Lights are a pair of Retra Pro strobes and an Archon D15VP focus light. Here is an album from my last week's trip to North Andaman Sea (10 dives on Richelieu Rock, 2 on Koh Tachai, 1 on Koh Bon and 2 blackwater dives) on The Smiling Seahorse: https://photos.app.goo.gl/Dt9qXrktr7t2dMYv9 - some of them still need to be cleaned up a bit, particularly the blackwater ones, but you can get the general idea of what it does.

I want to avoid abandoned lens mounts and adapters. I looked at the Canon just because its what I have now, although there seem to be very few APS-C options.

These (A6000, A6100, A6300, A6500) are almost the same price, released at the same time and look like the same camera. What's different? The A6500 has image stabilization build in, how much of a difference does that make under water?

We are back to how to build a system - the whole point is to buy as little that's replaced later, especially things that have low resale value. A nice body, 1 cheap lens and housing for this trip - and 2 years later I replace the $500 Seafrog housing with a Nauticam and nicer lenses and I get to use the A6500 for land photography. Or the whole $1600 PEN E-PL10 gets replaced. Of course, you could make the case to buy the $1600 PEN E-PL10 and put the difference towards a $16000 full frame a decade from now.

 

[rx7diver]

I... the whole point is to buy as little that's replaced later, especially things that have low resale value. A nice body, 1 cheap lens and housing for this trip - and 2 years later I replace the $500 Seafrog housing with a Nauticam and nicer lenses ...

You might consider getting the "best" glass (lens) you can, initially, to live with for a good, long while. Then there will never be any question about whether marginal photos are due to the lens.

Sort of what some people "into" high-end audio recommend: Purchase the "best" front end (turntable and cartridge, or CD player, or digital music server, etc.) that you can, initially, to live with for a good, long while. Then there will never be any question about whether less than pleasing sound is due to the front end.

rx7diver

 

[Barmaglot]

These (A6000, A6100, A6300, A6500) are almost the same price, released at the same time and look like the same camera. What's different? The A6500 has image stabilization build in, how much of a difference does that make under water?

They are three distinct generations. The first generation was A6000 and A5100, the latter distinguished by lack of an EVF and a flippable screen. The second generation was A6300 and A6500, bringing a slightly improved sensor, better autofocus and some other features, such as a digital level, with A6500 also having in-body image stabilization. The third generation is A6100 (replacing A6000), A6400 (replacing A6300) and A6600 (replacing A6500). They bring another generational improvement in sensor and autofocus, with A6400 distinguished from A6100 by additional features (digital level, etc, I think there's some video stuff too) and A6600 having IBIS and much larger battery from the newer full-frame Alpha cameras, but losing the pop-up flash.

Since the bodies of A6000 through A6500 are very similar, SeaFrogs Salted Line series housing supports all five models, albeit with a little part swapping required. A6600 has a different grip shape from the larger battery, and thus requires a different housing, which uses a larger port opening than the Salted Line, sharing ports with SeaFrogs' full-frame housing series. Since A6600 lacks a pop-up flash, it needs a trigger to fire strobes - SeaFrogs recently released a very cheap one ($20) but I have no idea how well it works.

I want to avoid abandoned lens mounts and adapters. I looked at the Canon just because its what I have now, although there seem to be very few APS-C options.

Canon has three mounts - EF (with EF-S subvariant for APS-C) for EOS SLRs, EF-M for EOS-M mirrorless APS-C cameras, and RF for mirrorless full-frame cameras. The EOS-M/EF-M line coexisted with EOS DSLRs for a good few years now, but Canon hasn't developed it to the extent that Sony developed their E-mount system. They do appear to be going all-in on the new RF system, but time will tell how it will pan out. EF and EF-S lenses are physically compatible, while EOS-M and R cameras require adapters to mount EF lenses; results may vary.

We are back to how to build a system - the whole point is to buy as little that's replaced later, especially things that have low resale value.

Well, for what it's worth, things that I have replaced since I started on this path some four years ago, have been:

• SeaFrogs fixed-port housing - replaced by the SeaFrogs Salted Line housing and eventually sold, for $150 (purchased for $250).
• Archon D36V video lights - one was lost through user error (cold show mount securing nut came loose, I did not notice, and when I splashed down it fell off and sank into 200+ meters of water), the other is still occasionally used on night and/or UV dives, but not as a primary light anymore.
• SeaFrogs ST-100 Pro strobes - purchased for about $430 for the pair IIRC, used for several years, replaced with Retra Pros, sold them last week for 5000 baht ($160).
• Some very cheap clamps from Aliexpress that rusted as soon as they touched saltwater.

I am considering replacing my current assortment of clamps with Ultralight (I have two, and they feel much nicer than the other cheap clamps that I have) and my arms (5x20cm ladder arms, 4x20cm 300g float arms) with Weefine adjustable float arms - those have a button that lets water in, so buoyancy can be adjusted to exactly neutral. I don't see any reason to invest in a new camera body or housing at this point - maybe if Sony updates the APS-C line with the tech from A1, but probably not even then. I'm also considering getting a proper wet wide lens and shooting it with 16-50mm, instead of 10-18mm + dome, but the chances of that happening are not very high. The wet lens may be better, but dome gives good enough results, and I'd rather spend the money on more dives.

 

[Barmaglot]

You might consider getting the "best" glass (lens) you can, initially, to live with for a good, long while. Then there will never be any question about whether marginal photos are due to the lens.

Sort of what some people "into" high-end audio recommend: Purchase the "best" front end (turntable and cartridge, or CD player, or digital music server, etc.) that you can, initially, to live with for a good, long while. Then there will never be any question about whether less than pleasing sound is due to the front end.

rx7diver

This sounds good in theory, and is certainly true for land photography, but underwater photography relies on specialist lenses that aren't always particularly expensive. If you shoot birds or sports, yes, you need those great big telephotos; if you shoot portraits, you need those fast portrait primes, but underwater lenses generally come from four categories:

1. Fisheye - most of them are fairly cheap, notably the Tokina 10-17mm is a very popular choice. Canon 8-15mm is an exception.
2. Ultrawide - 10-18mm or 10-24mm on crop cameras, 16-35mm on full-frame. Cost is usually midrange, in the $500-800 range.
3. Macro - again, with some exceptions such as Sony 90mm, you can get them for around $500-800.
4. Water contact optics - not strictly a lens, but these can get really expensive. Nauticam WACP-1 retails for $4700, but pairs with cheap kit lenses to give absolutely stunning results.

Remember that underwater, we never shoot from far away, and we rarely shoot at wide apertures, making the challenges to lens design that are common on land and require complex and expensive optical solutions simply aren't present. We do, however, shoot in extremely challenging lighting and environmental conditions, ones that simply cannot be solved by any lens or camera combination, and thus we invest in very expensive lighting setups.

 

[Chris Ross]

Wow, I am thinking strobes are either the problem or the solution is brighter strobes and he didn't even use strobes at all. I still really like Paul Bentzen's pictures. Not sure how much is the camera, subject or photographer.

The pics you linked seem to have been taken very shallow or snorkelling - you can only get good colour like that quite shallow in very clear water and know what you are doing with white balance. The fish portraits all use a strobe. Reproducing this deeper is more challenging - the shadows under overhangs will be more severe and white balance more challenging until you eventually run out of red light, then yellow. You only get the deep blue water if you reduce the exposure and if you do that your subject gets quite dark.

Make no mistake, getting good UW shots with strobes is a learning curve - from positioning to minimise backscatter and produce pleasing lighting to balancing ambient and strobe, not to mention maintaining it all and assembling it for each day's diving. But the rewards are there.

 

[bvbellomo]

Before I can even debate investing in good glass, I have to decide on a mount.

The E-PL10 limits me to the 14-42mm EZ Lens, with 1 possible upgrade and 1 useful wet lens. I will never use this camera on land, I will likely never consider using these lenses with a new body, and I can't really take advantage of better glass with a 16MP 43 sensor, at least not compared to the difference it makes on a high res full frame.

Likewise, a G7X isn't a camera to invest in good glass.

The A6X00 models do open me up to a whole world of lenses that could see extended use or work with another camera, but I still don't think expensive lenses are where to start.

From my experience with land photography, I really like prime lenses. That's mostly a factor of my budget, but the sharpness can't be beat. There are times I've been in the middle of the woods and would kill to zoom in or out (you can always stitch images together) but there are times I've learned from good photos using a perspective I wouldn't have tried if I could avoid it. What you pay for with expensive glass is either faster lenses (possibly useful underwater) or telephoto (worthless underwater). That doesn't mean there aren't 'junk' lenses not worth using, but for every popular mount there is always a few dirty cheap lenses on par with the most expensive in restricted situations.

That said, I want a zoom underwater.

 

[clownfishsydney]

I disagree with OP on nearly everything he posted. GoPros are easy to use, very good on battery, get excellent videos and fairly good photos. If he finds it hard to use, then going to any other camera will make diving even harder for him. Only thing it really cannot do is macro. And I agree, you do not need a DSLR to get great photos, a TG-6 will give you great shots, especially macro.

 

[Blackcrusader]

Remember that underwater, we never shoot from far away.

Really? I must get that sticker and put in my mask objects that look like they are far away are much closer.

 

[Blackcrusader]

Make no mistake, getting good UW shots with strobes is a learning curve - from positioning to minimise backscatter and produce pleasing lighting to balancing ambient and strobe, not to mention maintaining it all and assembling it for each day's diving. But the rewards are there.

going from Go Pro to the TG6 and video lights for me was a learning curve. It was really after several dives of trial and error that my photos and video's got better.

This is the first video I took underwater in natural light and I was playing around with the zoom so I didn't try and get too close to the turtle and keeping it in the frame as I was swimming along behind it was fun. I just want video's and photos that come out decent. I can print some good photos and put on my wall or email them to people I dove with.