The future of SLR cameras in dive photography?

[PatW]

I think we have to talk terms first.

SLRs are single lens reflex cameras that are film cameras. And those are not used much anymore.

DSLR is what I think you are talking about. That is digital single lens reflex. Instead of film the camera has an electronic sensor that records the shot onto a digital storage device like an SD card. That image can be loaded onto a computer and manipulated with photographic software. So this was a major advance. You could change your ISO while shooting. With film, you were stuck with what you had. Also, you can take as many images as your cards can store and your batteries could last. With film, you were limited to 36 shots.

Now there are mirrorless cameras. You do not look directly at the image through the lens like an SLR or DSLR. Instead the sensor examines the image and projects it onto a TV screen displayed on the back of the camera and or in the viewfinder. It used to be that the resolution of these screens was low and the electronics were slow making auto focus glacial. These problems have been largely surmounted. The mirror on the DSLR caused a certain minimum distance between the sensor and the rear of the lens. With a mirrorless camera, the rear of the lens is closer and this allows for the design of lenses that are faster (lower f stop) and with higher resolution. Both of those are good things. Because mirrorless cameras have intrinsic advantages over DSLRs, camera manufacturers are pretty much only designing mirrorless cameras in the future. Sure the Nikon D850 is still a nice functional camera but it is slowly falling behind.

Now the other thing is why not just shoot with phones? Well why not? The problem is phones have tiny sensors. Tiny sensors have issues that are intractable because the physics of light. Larger sensors on dedicated cameras will always produce better images.

But how much do you need? For most shots in good light, displayed on a low resolution format like facebook, phones work great, For low light or high resolution photography, full frame cameras are superior, And medium format cameras with even larger sensors have an edge over full frame in certain circumstances. A problem medium format has is if you want a long lens for wildlife or sport it will be ENORMOUS and cost $$$$$$$$. So forget that.

 

[bvanant]

John: you had me going for a second, my view of your post showed only the dolphins and I thought you had built a housing for the Sinar, that would be fun.
Bill

 

[bvanant]

DSLRs are I think, going to be a niche product going forward. Let’s talk about the practical realities of owning one for Scuba as a hobby.

To give my example - I have an OMD mirrorless camera and a set 3 lenses that have been lying in the cupboard (a waste of $1500 better spent of Scuba gear) since more than 8 years now because for International trips my carry-on is filled with 4kgs of electronics (all scuba related - 18650 lithium batteries, dive computers, chargers, power banks, 2 action cam and accessories etc etc). Combined with a fully packed scuba gear check-in suitcase that weighs exactly 20kg after careful planning and load distribution, I just don’t see a point in lugging a 3rd carry-on which would be a camera case, apart from my laptop/tablet sling bag. Or… paying another $50-100 per ticket over and above the extra $100 I am already paying for ferrying my Scuba gear - for excess baggage over and above my 2-piece check-in bags weighing 28kgs or more. And so - given that 3 carry-ons are not allowed universally, I will have to check-in my camera using those special pelican hard case luggage boxes with foam inserts (add $200, maybe $300 for DSLR sized boxes and lenses), which means a $500 ticket will cost me $650-700 typically - and that’s after ignoring domestic flights in the destination country. And then while a typical DSLR body only costs above $1200, the UW housings are all upwards of $2500! (That’s bare minimum cost ignoring lenses and dome ports for now)…

Totally doesn’t make sense for most middle-income people from any part of the world and certainly not for people living in non-affluent countries… For those of us for whom photography is not a livelihood or side-gig with income, cellphones and action cams are a very acceptable compromise. All done one typically has to pay less than $500 for the cam + $60 for a UW housing add a few dollars more for extra batteries and one is all set! Money better spent of diving, gear or flight tickets… What I mean is that people in non-affluent countries will still continue to buy expensive camera gear costing up to $3000 or more for bird and animal photography etc, but post the fact that you discover in you a diving addiction, and given that Scuba is an expensive hobby that requires extensive foreign travel, it is unlikely that a regular middle-income person (i.e the vast majority in the market) is going to splurge on DSLR rigs for diving going forward, given that the current levels of action cam IQ and performance is pretty decent and favourable.

As for me - I am happy to have a “point and shoot” action cam on my dives that lets me just focus a bit more on enjoying my dives rather than fiddle with intricate gadgetry all the time. With a bit of post-processing and editing effort, I am quite pleased with the results from any camera with a sensor larger that 1/2.3. To my eyes the newer action cams with 1/1.3 sensor sizes give acceptable output although even better are the 1” sensor small mirrorless cameras but with added cost.

Moreover I have always felt comfortably smug on Liveaboards while lounging that extra half an hour on the sofa with a coffee mug in hand while I watch the big-camera folks anxiously go over the vacuum tests on their large camera rigs, fussing and fretting over their gear and o-rings some half an hour before the next dive starts… not for me, No Thanks!

Lots of assumptions in your post. Some of us still dive locally so now planes or even trains to get to the water. Second, while housings for cameras can cost $2500 or more, there are lots of housings for less than $1000. Action cam IQ and quality and particularly dynamic range are not close to that of even micro 4/3 cameras or TG7 systems and for macro they are mostly useless. We dive about 250 dives a year so a $4000 system over 2 years means $8 per dive, less than the cost of nitrox for local diving. Most of our diving friends are not wealthy (comparatively) but think of UW photography as an important part of their lives. Our best diving buddy has never gone overseas to dive, but willingly spends $$ on camera gear for UW and for Birds.


Cheers
Bill