Upgrading to A6xxx. Which one is best for me?

Please register or login

Welcome to ScubaBoard, the world's largest scuba diving community. Registration is not required to read the forums, but we encourage you to join. Joining has its benefits and enables you to participate in the discussions.

Benefits of registering include

  • Ability to post and comment on topics and discussions.
  • A Free photo gallery to share your dive photos with the world.
  • You can make this box go away

Joining is quick and easy. Log in or Register now!

I have dozens of dives on my Seafrog a6xxx with my a6000. The only problem I've ever had has because I ignored general maintenance and had a a small leak that thankfully pooled in the dome.

As to "too good to be true" keep in mind these are not metal housings and glass domes. They are all acrylic systems so much cheaper in cost. The upside is that savings, the downside is buoyancy. It's very positive and on it's own needs weight to make neutral. It becomes a balance of weight and floats when adding tray, arms, strobes and lights to make it both neutral and trimmed.

I can vouch for the customer service. They've sent out a redesigned back early on because of a design flaw with the original without being asked. When I ordered a vacuum tester last month they sent me the newest upgraded latches at no cost.
Thanks Dan. Good to know about the sea frog. Is yours the salted line ?
 
Thanks Dan. Good to know about the sea frog. Is yours the salted line ?

It is the a6xxx Salted. I did use the early fixed port from Meikon (Meikon, Seafrog and Kitdive are all the same company) but bought the salted as soon as it came out for the dry-dome and changeable ports.
 
Another less expensive brand of housing is Fantasea. I had good experience with one of their housings.
 
I know that @jf3193 was asking about the Sony A6000 as an upgrade, but here is an article that might be worth reading. Yes, it is a totally different camera and in fact camera system, but Backscatter seemed to be very impressed with it.

FWIW, I shot a very early Olympus Micro 4/3 camera (E-PL1) for several years and I liked it. I would imagine that the 9th or 10th Gen version would be very good. Yes, the M4/3 sensor is smaller than the APS-C sensor on the A6000, but that means that the camera and the housing that you are pushing through the water is also smaller.

Olympus E-PL10 Underwater Camera & Housing Review - Underwater Photography - Backscatter
 
Another less expensive brand of housing is Fantasea. I had good experience with one of their housings.
Fantasea makes very good housings, and I was thinking about Fantasea as an option when I recommended the Ikelite. Unfortunately, Fantasea has discontinued the housing for the A6000. @jf3193 would need to buy a newer camera within the A6xxx series if they wanted to take advantage of these housings. There might still be some available, but if there are, their numbers will be dwindling and time is running out.
 
For context, I shoot SONY a7r3 in Sea and Sea housing and am very happy with this setup. I don't know the A6 series, but here are some random points:
- with interchangeable lens cameras you have a much greater level of complexity and expense. Each lens requires a separate port and you have to commit to either macro or wide angle in advance of your dive or boat trip.
- a good housing will cost as much as the camera
- SONY is now on a par for quality with Canon and Nikon. The sensors, autofocus and recent lenses are class leaders. The SEL 90 macro lens in particular rivals the great lenses made by Canon and Nikon
- mirrorless cameras are on a par with DSLRs for most applications, better for some, IMHO, but there is little or no size or weight savings once you get lenses, ports, lights and a housing.
- you can get a great deal on a used package here on Scubaboard or other sites. If I were just starting with an interchangeable lens camera-, and budget was a concern, I would definitely consider a Canon or Nikon used setup in Nauticam or other quality housing.
- camera bodies are regularly upgraded by manufacturers. But quality lenses last a long time.
- I have owned several SONY cameras and like them a lot, but here are some legit criticisms:
ergonomics: they dont feel as good in the hand as some other makes. This is not an issue for underwater because its in a housing.
menus are not intuitive: the SONY menus seem to have been designed by product engineers whose attitude clearly is that you should read the f'ing manual. Other makes have a much better UX. However, most users find the few settings they need for underwater and save them to a memory button. Yes, the menus are a disaster, but fortunately you do not need to know everything thats in them.
weather proofing/durability: the battle tested Canon and Nikons seem to be built like tanks. SONY's A 9 series may be close, but again, with whatever camera you choose, you are shooting in a housing and hopefully take steps to make sure it doesnt flood.

There are a lot of great choices out there. Whichever one you make will let you make great images!
I don't mean to hijack the thread, but I just upgraded my "above the surface" camera to the A7Riii this summer (from an A7iii) and picked up the 100-400 GM lens. Hoag is a "happy camper".:)
 
So , to understand correctly, I will need to purchase a new port for each individual lens I buy? I’m not fully understanding the need to replace ports on a housing. I can understand between a small flat one for macro, or one for a more telescoping lens
 
So , to understand correctly, I will need to purchase a new port for each individual lens I buy? I’m not fully understanding the need to replace ports on a housing. I can understand between a small flat one for macro, or one for a more telescoping lens

You don't quite need a new port for every single lens, but in general, your port choices tend to be:
  • Flat ports for macro lenses
  • Semi-dome ports for mid-range rectilinear lenses
  • Shallow dome ports for ultrawide lenses
  • Hemispherical dome ports for fisheye lenses
  • Very large 'fishbowl' type domes for surface split shots
With most ports, you also have a choice of extension rings. If you're using a flat port, you want your lens front element to be as close to the glass as possible, which is complicated by many lenses extending and retracting during operation. If you're using a dome, you need your lenses entry pupil (not front element) to be aligned with the dome's nodal point (geometric center of the sphere that the dome is part of). Since the field of view of fisheye and rectilinear lenses is radically different, they tend to use different dome geometries, and fisheyes usually use smaller domes. Since different lenses have their entrance pupils at different distances from the sensor, the length of the barrel between the housing and the dome needs to be set appropriately. You also have a choice between glass (heavier, more resistant to scratches but difficult to repair if it does get scratched, usually less prone to flaring, more expensive) and acrylic (lighter, cheaper, but very easy to scratch, although the small scratches can be polished out).
Finally, there is the matter of zoom/focus rings. In most cases, these are custom made to fit a specific lens model. Some people 3D-print their own to save money.
 
So , to understand correctly, I will need to purchase a new port for each individual lens I buy? I’m not fully understanding the need to replace ports on a housing. I can understand between a small flat one for macro, or one for a more telescoping lens

You don't quite need a new port for every single lens, but in general, your port choices tend to be:
  • Flat ports for macro lenses
  • Semi-dome ports for mid-range rectilinear lenses
  • Shallow dome ports for ultrawide lenses
  • Hemispherical dome ports for fisheye lenses
  • Very large 'fishbowl' type domes for surface split shots
With most ports, you also have a choice of extension rings. If you're using a flat port, you want your lens front element to be as close to the glass as possible, which is complicated by many lenses extending and retracting during operation. If you're using a dome, you need your lenses entry pupil (not front element) to be aligned with the dome's nodal point (geometric center of the sphere that the dome is part of). Since the field of view of fisheye and rectilinear lenses is radically different, they tend to use different dome geometries, and fisheyes usually use smaller domes. Since different lenses have their entrance pupils at different distances from the sensor, the length of the barrel between the housing and the dome needs to be set appropriately. You also have a choice between glass (heavier, more resistant to scratches but difficult to repair if it does get scratched, usually less prone to flaring, more expensive) and acrylic (lighter, cheaper, but very easy to scratch, although the small scratches can be polished out).
Finally, there is the matter of zoom/focus rings. In most cases, these are custom made to fit a specific lens model. Some people 3D-print their own to save money.
That is why I like the Nauticam setup that I have, because both the Sony 10-18 wide angle lens and the Sony/Zeiss 16-70 medium zoom lens will work with the same port (#36129).
 
Here's a chart from Seafrog of lens compatibility in different ports for the a6xxx Salted. Some lenses have zoom/focus rings available that go inside but each different port can typically handle a lot of different lenses.

Lots of discussion and usage notes in this thread about the salted line which covers it's initial announcement through long term use and maintenance.

New a6xxx housing from Meikon
 

Attachments

  • Compatible_lenses_list_A6xxx.pdf
    475.8 KB · Views: 126

Back
Top Bottom