Stabilizer or faster lens?

[olegk]

But the dome for Sony 18-55 (Meikon housing) appears to me as flat.

 

[CT Sean]

Perhaps it gos without saying, but in case it doesn't - image stabilization only reduces motion blur cause the the camera itself. It does nothing for blur due to subject movement. If your blur is from fish moving, soft coral/seaweed swaying, etc..., image stabilization will do nothing. The only solution is a wider aperture or higher ISO to allow a faster shutter speed

 

[tursiops]

You ought to try higher shutter speeds (by increasing the ISO) until you find a speed you like for the kinds of pictures you take. Then you'll know if 2/3 stop gives you enough advantage. I'm guessing it won't, so don't bother spending the money. You then get to decide if you would rather live with the higher ISO, or spend a lot more money, or stick with blurry pictures.

 

[Storker]

But the dome for Sony 18-55 (Meikon housing) appears to me as flat.

A dome port's glass is... wait for it... a dome. It's a part of a sphere. Now, the radius of that sphere may be large, but it'd definitely spherical. There are also flat ports where the front glass is... wait for it... flat.

Both dome ports and flat ports have their advantages and disadvantages. The most obvious disadvantage of a dome is the tendency to give poor corner sharpness with rectilinear WAs (a diopter on the lens behind the port may help, though). The most obvious disadvantage of a flat port is a loss of angle of view.


--
Sent from my Android phone
Typos are a feature, not a bug

 

[Interceptor121]

This seems one of those cases where a good results wants to obtained without investment. Unfortunately underwater photography is expensive you can trade off on sensor size but you need lights and wide lenses. You are not going to get great outcomes with a below average set up

 

[Storker]

You are not going to get great outcomes with a below average set up

I think the OP might benefit from a bit more detail here. What, in your opinion, makes the OP's setup 'below average'?


I don't know the NEX-C3, but looking at dpreview I see that the high-ISO IQ is quite decent compared to other APS-C- and m43-sensor bodies. IMO, if you shoot raw and use some careful noise reduction in post, you should be able to shoot at least up to 800-1600ISO with good results in print. So I fail to see why cranking up the ISO isn't an option.

The lens is another issue, though. An 18-55 on the 16x21mm NEX sensor is a normal zoom, and those are less useful for UW photo. Most UW photography is either macro or extreme wide angle (very often fisheye), and the 18mm behind a flat port is only wide-normal (similar FOV to a 24mm on APS-C or 35mm on 'full format' topside). That's perhaps the most significant limitation, apart from light quality.

Existing light UW photo is also difficult, especially if you go below snorkeling depth, even more if you shoot JPEG. A strobe might well be the first investment you'd like to consider, however that makes your rig noticeably more cumbersome to transport and handle.

It's all about how much money and hassle you're willing to pay for that UW photography hobby

 

[Interceptor121]

The camera body is good but the lens is crap and the housing limits it further. There is a nice zeiss 12mm f/2.8 lens that with a dome would do a nice job with ambient light. However this takes the cost up quite a bit hence my comment

 

[olegk]

Small aperture because the dome is curved and if you don't close it you have soft corners. Larger domes give better results for the same reason

But the dome for Sony E 18-55 appears to me as flat, so does this still hold?

 

[Interceptor121]

18mm with 1.5 crop is 27 with water magnification effect 36mm equivalent definitely not good for ambient light. You need 18mm effective behind a dome hence my suggestion for the zeiss 12mm

 

[Storker]

But the dome for Sony E 18-55 appears to me as flat, so does this still hold?

I answered this in post #14



--
Sent from my Android phone
Typos are a feature, not a bug