Housing advice for Canon M5

as a broad generalization, the Ikelites are plastic versus metal, and tend to be somewhat larger as they reuse basic molds. For this housing, it looks like a difference of 20mm on at least two dimensions. That could be slightly more drag, but it also likely is a slightly more buoyant body in the water. Most of us add lots of floats to fight the heaviness. Rarely is one too floaty.

Durability and drop tolerance is the concern to me, and an incentive for metal. The vacuum system is a friendly design as well, though relies on electronics/battery. The Ikelite option is a simpler 'pump out the air and read the pressure gauge needle after some time.'

Nauticam ports tend to be reusable in the future for the same class (size) of camera bodies. Not certain how true that is for Ikelite, but they do support most lens choices. If TTL is of interest to you, they're always supported it.

(FTR, I have an Aquatica and 2 Nauticam bodies in the household)

The M series is a fairly esoteric line, esp for UW. You're unlikely to find parts on the used market for it, and I would expect the resale potential to be very low. So long as you're fine with that - go ahead. Do be sure to get a second M5 body if the supply starts to dry up.

I have a different camera (Panasonic LX10), but had a similar dilemma, the cheaper Ikelite or the more expensive Nauticam. I went for the Nauticam for the following reasons:

1) It's smaller, I prefer to carry my photo and scuba gear in my carry-on so this is a big deal

2) I just came back from Costa Rica a few months ago where we did several rain forest hikes in the rain. I figure with the Nauticam housing, it will be much easier to carry around on land to keep the camera dry.

3) there is a pretty good "pro package" deal where you get the tray/arms and moisture detector for about $300 more.

It's more expensive but I know I'll be using it for 5+ years. I also made sure I had a camera that I think I'll be happy with for the next 5 years. That is a big factor.

My Nauticam is supposed to be delivered today so I can't talk about quality yet.

Both housings are good. I would say neither of them makes you better photographer. It's more like how much you want to spent.

11-22 mm is a good choice for wide angle. 100 mm L is a terrific choice. For full frame. Not so much for APS-C. Your working distance is long meaning you have lots of uw-photographers worst enemy beetween front lens and your subject. It's called water.

I would rather go with

http://photozone.de/canon-eos/484-tamron_60_2_50d?start=2 or

Canon 60 mm EF-S (if possible)

Shorter focal lenght gives you a lot more flexibility, shorter working distance and ability to shoot fishes. 160 mm is too much on the tele side for that purpose. For smallest critters I would recommend a close up lens. Inon is a good choice but there are many others as well.

To minimize the amount of water beetween front lens and your subject you could probably consider having a long macro port. For instance 100 mm port for 60 mm lens. Works very well as long as you keep the front lens clean.

Thanks for the advice. I haven't bought a macro lens yet. I do have a Sigma 150 macro lens for my 6D but that's way too big for underwater. I was thinking the 100mm would give better working distance for skittish creatures but if 60mm on crop sensor generally works better, then I'll go that route. I also figured I could use the 100 on my 6D but more important for me to have the right macro lens for underwater.

I pretty sure I'm going to go with Nauticam housing.

there is a place for the 100 on a crop (160mm equiv), but it's more towards super macro than adding distance. (hard to light up distant macro well) If you spent a lot of time on the objects the size of a penny, and nudis are your bigger targets, you may gravitate here.

But for broad macro, it's a bit tight. I have the 60 on a 4/3rds (120mm equiv) and it can be frustrating when there are attractive subjects the size of an orange. Small frogfish and leaf fish work, but big ones become partial face shots. Shifting from an S95 where you had a bit of zoom range to play with, I think the 60 would be a better transition. A lot cheaper too! And I believe you can use the same port for a 100 later, just with an extension.

One misconception I had, and many others run into, the closeup lenses, the +5, +7, +10s out there - do not magnify. They let you get closer and still focus.

Had a chance to take my M5 out hiking today. Tried some shots at ISO 800. Rather disappointed with the amount of noise. I can still take the camera back if I decide on something else. I see so many more housing options for M4/3, Sony mirrorless.

If I take the M5 back, what might you suggest I go with if I'm switching brands? Lower noise important and I'm mostly interested in Macro and some wide angle.

I haven't looked closely at Olympus or Panasonic but have thought about Sony A6500 or possibly A7II. I'm used to (and happy with) performance that my Canon 6D provides but I want something smaller for underwater so may have to compromise some (unless I win the lottery).

Eyedive said:

I haven't looked closely at Olympus or Panasonic but have thought about Sony A6500 or possibly A7II. I'm used to (and happy with) performance that my Canon 6D provides but I want something smaller for underwater so may have to compromise some (unless I win the lottery).

Click to expand...

I'm very happy with my Sony A6300, including image quality at higher ISO levels. I'm using it in a Meikon/SeaFrogs housing with a fixed port and 16-50mm kit lens, but Meikon has announced a new housing with interchangeable ports for it - - I may end up upgrading to that housing and 10-18mm lens when it comes out. A7 II is full-frame - with FE lenses and associated ports, it won't be much smaller and lighter than your 6D.

The 4/3rds are probably not going to be any better than the M5 in terms of noise - smaller sensor size and not getting the same level of investment. But the lenses are substantially more compact. In the water it helps a bit, though dual strobes and arms are still a handful. But packing the carry on luggage is easier.

Sony would be the starting point if low noise is the key decider. Though I've been reading that Sony tops at 10000k for AWB, forcing use of red filters for video. Nikon has the same sony sensors (often), with better logic and lenses.

Also consider that at least for macro, you're going to be shooting at the base ISO. It matters more for WA.

Well, I went to my local camera store and compared working distance of EF-S 60 to EF 100. In air, EF-S 60 gave about 4" minimum focus distance from front of lens. EF 100 gave about 6". I'm used about 1-2" with my G12 and still don't get 1:1 with it. I suspect 4" (minus the distance from the front of the lens to the front of the port) should be adequate for most small creatures, especially with the underwater magnification. And I did like the angle of view with the EF-S 60 for larger subject.

I've decided to go with the Nauticam housing and the ports for the EF-M 11-22 and the EF-S 60 macro. Thanks for the advice.