Which mirrorless system for UW..e-pl3 vs gf2 vs sony nex-5n?

[DSR-3]

You spent less than $1500 on a MFT with an UW housing? I guess you didnt buy any strobes or other "optional extras"..

I never looked seriously at DSLR (I knew it was too big for me, and it looked like too many $$ to hide...), and I thought it was even a bit of an exaggeration when I wrote that. But, I spent less than that for everything you see here*. I did buy the camera, strobes, BigBlue, and Y-cable used, the SubSee was a gift, and the rest is DIY. *That would even include the Tamrac 9 backpack that it all fits in.
No doubt there are some killer deals out there on used DSLR's & kit, and I'm not trying to debate any of this- just stating my example.

 

[Tigerman]

Was that new or used? Cause that picture DOES look like a killer deal for < $1500 if it was new

 

[tarjan]

I am personally boggled by the iso comments, as I have read all of the same posts and get something entirely different. It is just one of many measurements and settings used in taking a picture and you absolutely cannot use it as a definition of quality. In the case of oly and panny, iso 200 and 100 are the same thing.

There are plenty of P+S cameras out there with iso 80. Does that mean they are better than my canon 50d?

The reality is that you need to look at the end result and ignore these numbers as a direct comparison. The dynamic range and low noise output of the m4/3 systems, given similar picture conditions, is a huge increase in quality over P+S. APS-C based cameras are undoubtedly better, but the end difference is much less than the difference between P+S and M4/3. Say "perfect" is 100, I would place smartphones at a 20, P+S are 30 to 50, canon G and S series is 60, m4/3 is probably about an 80 and then we get to aps-c at about 90 and full frame 95.

In underwater shooting, with strobes, you need fast response and decent dynamic range. Because you are using (probably) two strobes, there is a good deal of light and the focus distances are fairly close to get out of backscatter issues. This actually makes m4/3 a good tradeoff system since you are, generally, not trying to take pictures lit by candle light without flash, nor are you doing landscape work. No sports shooting at 500 ft away under artificial light... These are things where aps-c cameras are undoubtedly the better choice.

Shooting a slow fish, a school of fish or even a moving shark are well within the capabilities of m4/3. Sure, your lockon could have been .1 seconds quicker with phase vs contrast autofocus, but you also didn't have to lug an extra 15lbs of stuff with you, nor have a much higher expense.


If that extra 10% is worth it to you, certainly go with aps-c, but for the cost and size I believe the pictures speak for themselves with m4/3.

 

[bvanant]

I did exactly that. It confirmed all my suspicions and settled itonce and for all. No MFT camera for me until they stop this absurd race for ever-higher ISO sensitivity.

Another thread with more technical details.

In the thread above, very experienced (and monied) photographers are discussing this and time and again, the assertion is made that lower ISO results in higher Image Quality, and in every case I read, the assertion was uncontested.

Paraphrasing (and perhaps oversimplifying ): Think of the camera's ISO range as electronic Window that is range bound by physics. Beneath the window is list of ISO ranges. When you move the top of the window, the bottom comes with it. So opening up new, higher ISOs sacrifices lower ISO's.

The fact that IQ is improved with lower ISO is undisputed in this thread. If you are patient and read enough you will see examples which highlight the need for lower ISO.

The MFT forum in DPReview has 876 pages of topics. I obviously didn't find the one you read, but I doubt seriously that anyone will refute the fundamental claims:

• Lower ISO = Higher Image Quality
• Lower ISO = Lower Noise (Same as above)

Until such time as they stop this nonsense of marketing by virtue of the highest ISO(at the expense of lower), MFT's are off my table.

I think that if you actually look at photographs, particularly those taken underwater (unless you are in the Nasa pool maybe) you will be hard pressed to tell the difference between shots at ISO 50,100 and 200. Theoretical differences are maybe true but I would guess that for any practical purpose (say printing to 20x40 inches) the noise in the water will outweigh the noise in the camera.
Bill

 

[cheetohcat]

Thought I'd circle back up on this since you all were kind enough to share advice, opinions, food for thought.

I ended up going with the Sony Nex 5n, 18-55MM, 16MM, fisheye, and the Recsea housing and with dome and 18-55MM ports. I also picked up the 67MM adapter that snaps onto the front of the 18-55MM port so I can use my macro wet lenses. Bluewater Photo had everything in stock, so I didn't have to wait for it to come together piecemeal.

The camera is very intuitive to use, and the Recsea housing controls are very precise and the same UI/layout as the camera itself so it's a very seamless transition between in or out of the housing.


Here's a photo of the set up:




Had a chance to do a few dives with the 16MM + fisheye as well as a few dives with the 18-55MM and macro wet lenses so far and I'm really liking the set up so far. The camera + housing are only slightly larger than my s90 set up once you factor in the lenses/ports, and picture quality is by far superior. I have a lot of learning to do of course, but looking forward to improving with it!