Diving depth G9

Started 5 months ago | Discussions
coldfire22x
coldfire22x Regular Member • Posts: 243
Re: Diving depth G9
1

Fregoli wrote:

dontfret wrote:

underwater housings for panny cameras run from $550 to $1700 on Amazon.

That's the problem. These diving housings are as expensive or more expensive than the camera itself.

Was hoping for some simple DIY solution, so I could get shots like this guy: https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/62769880

There are a couple of reasons housings are so expensive.  They are specifically designed for a specific camera (with pretty tight tolerances) and they allow you to manipulate the controls on the camera at depth.

As the saying goes, you get what you pay for.

And as my saying goes, if you have too much cash burning holes in your pocket, underwater photography can fix that for you

-- hide signature --
 coldfire22x's gear list:coldfire22x's gear list
Olympus E-M1 Olympus E-M5 II Panasonic Lumix G Fisheye 8mm F3.5 Olympus Zuiko Digital 1.4x Teleconverter EC-14 Olympus M.Zuiko Digital 45mm F1.8 +6 more
mostlyboringphotog Veteran Member • Posts: 8,940
Re: Diving depth G9

Fregoli wrote:

dontfret wrote:

underwater housings for panny cameras run from $550 to $1700 on Amazon.

That's the problem. These diving housings are as expensive or more expensive than the camera itself.

Was hoping for some simple DIY solution, so I could get shots like this guy: https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/62769880

First, you are a scuba diver?

And there is "meikon underwater housing" runs between $200ish for ML and up for DSLR housing.

Not sure if they have G9 housing but I found cheaper to get a camera that fits the housing. I assumed they had OM-10 housing but alas they did not. So I got A6300 and the housing.

An in my short diving experience, I feel lucky to get a photo of shadow of shark

The example shot is not a DIY project, in more ways than putting a camera in a plastic bag...

 mostlyboringphotog's gear list:mostlyboringphotog's gear list
Panasonic Lumix DMC-GM1 Pentax 645Z Nikon 1 J5
spike29 Senior Member • Posts: 1,879
Re: Diving depth G9
1

I did with a Canon S45...... bought a official housing and was fun (got kids stopped diving). like this I never will dive with a 1000,- plus body unless i need to.

Gran canaria (15m)

Mallorca. (12m)

If you want to bring down a digital camera use one with as less as possible knobs and buttons. Better a "old big sensor camera" like Sony A6300 and a simple zoom (3.5-5.6 16-60mm). you need some zoom because the vis swim faster then you swim LOL

You want a low light capable camera with a small housing and as less "air" as possible in and around the camerbody and lens. Because your camera is put in a closed container at 40 degrees celsius (at 66% RH or higher )and dropped down to water at 12? 20? degrees. Moist will come and condensation will be there. (Try to put the camera inside the housing in a room with the closest temp to your divingwater. (less Relative Huminity change)

google: sony a6300 dive housing

Or rx100 with a diving housing.

No use to bring a expensive G9 down to condensation level in the see water.

No touchscreen to use, all the function buttons are less functional.

You don't want to press or twist to much knobs (knobs with a seal around a axel.) at -20m surfacelevel one bad seal and water is inside corroding your camera to scrap.

See this dutch secondhand offer All done at ones.

(not mine just a quick google search.)

Don't go fooling around in zipbags or "zwimmingpouches" great for rainy days or around the pool and see side to film and photograph your kids with no fear of splashing your cam with water.

(i envy you, not about bringing a G9 down under but the diving )

-- hide signature --

knowledge is addictive, every time i get some i want more.....
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(If i can remember 1/1000 of everything i learned/read in the past i will be happy as a monky with........)

 spike29's gear list:spike29's gear list
Fujifilm FinePix F70EXR Panasonic Lumix DMC-FZ200 Panasonic G85 Panasonic Lumix G Vario 14-140mm F3.5-5.6 O.I.S Panasonic Leica 12-60mm F2.8-4.0 ASPH +1 more
Kawika Nui Contributing Member • Posts: 834
Re: Diving depth G9

Fregoli wrote:

dontfret wrote:

underwater housings for panny cameras run from $550 to $1700 on Amazon.

That's the problem. These diving housings are as expensive or more expensive than the camera itself.

Was hoping for some simple DIY solution, so I could get shots like this guy: https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/62769880

Those images don't look very clear.  If the water was clear, his camera wasn't very good.

Just get a decent underwater cam like an Oly TG-5 or TG-6.  The IQ is at least as good as your sample, pretty good feature set, and no risk to your G9.  Remember: all waterproof cameras and housings can leak at some point.  A single grain of sand is enough to create space for water to enter, especially at pressure (i.e., depth).

Architeuthis Regular Member • Posts: 188
Re: Diving depth G9

Kawika Nui wrote:

Fregoli wrote:

Was hoping for some simple DIY solution, so I could get shots like this guy: https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/62769880

Those images don't look very clear. If the water was clear, his camera wasn't very good.

I was at Malapascua by myself 10 years ago: the water IS clear, but the problem is the sharks come in the early morning at a depth of 25-30m (very low light) and flashes are not allowed (and because of the distance of the sharks not possible in most cases). These photos are a real challenge for the cameras sensor and the results are already good for what can be achieved with the small MFT sensor (G9 would not bring improvement in this case. Very strange imagination that someone brings there a G9 down in a nylon sack  )...

Wolfgang

 Architeuthis's gear list:Architeuthis's gear list
Olympus E-M1 II Olympus E-M5 II Canon EF 100mm F2.8L Macro IS USM Olympus M.Zuiko Digital ED 9-18mm F4.0-5.6 Panasonic Lumix G Vario 7-14mm F4 ASPH +6 more
Lichtspiel
Lichtspiel Senior Member • Posts: 1,768
Re: Diving depth G9

Fregoli wrote:

Anyone here gone diving with their camera?

I'm thinking of not more than 20-30ft and using a plastic bag.

Thoughts?

I was thinking about that and purchased one of those glorified plastic bags (with a fairly clear plastic disc for the lens to shoot through) but the problem was that it wasn't waterproof. 

So I ended up buying a refurb Oly Tough for $100 which took pretty good shots, not as good as an OMD, but then I didn't have to worry about ruining a more expensive camera/lens.

Got some shots diving Cenotes, and swimming with Whale Sharks. IQ isn't overwhelming, but as a personal memory good enough.

 Lichtspiel's gear list:Lichtspiel's gear list
Olympus E-M1 II Panasonic 12-35mm F2.8 Panasonic Leica DG Summilux 15mm F1.7 ASPH Olympus 8mm F1.8 Fisheye Pro Olympus M.Zuiko Digital ED 40-150mm F4-5.6 R +3 more
Fregoli
OP Fregoli Regular Member • Posts: 210
Re: Diving depth G9
1

Lichtspiel wrote:

Fregoli wrote:

Anyone here gone diving with their camera?

I'm thinking of not more than 20-30ft and using a plastic bag.

Thoughts?

I was thinking about that and purchased one of those glorified plastic bags (with a fairly clear plastic disc for the lens to shoot through) but the problem was that it wasn't waterproof.

So I ended up buying a refurb Oly Tough for $100 which took pretty good shots, not as good as an OMD, but then I didn't have to worry about ruining a more expensive camera/lens.

Got some shots diving Cenotes, and swimming with Whale Sharks. IQ isn't overwhelming, but as a personal memory good enough.

Thanks everyone for the suggestions. Doing further research, I now see that the water plus something I had missed--the pressure change--can cause problem.

Will look at an affordable readymade solution like Oly tough.

LarsPolarBear
LarsPolarBear Regular Member • Posts: 491
Re: Diving depth G9
2

Architeuthis wrote:

Kawika Nui wrote:

Fregoli wrote:

Was hoping for some simple DIY solution, so I could get shots like this guy: https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/62769880

Those images don't look very clear. If the water was clear, his camera wasn't very good.

I was at Malapascua by myself 10 years ago: the water IS clear, but the problem is the sharks come in the early morning at a depth of 25-30m (very low light) and flashes are not allowed (and because of the distance of the sharks not possible in most cases). These photos are a real challenge for the cameras sensor and the results are already good for what can be achieved with the small MFT sensor (G9 would not bring improvement in this case. Very strange imagination that someone brings there a G9 down in a nylon sack )...

Wolfgang

Thanks, Wolfgang for that comment.

Apparently a lot of people commenting on things that they don't understand, you summarized it quite nicely...

Just two more remarks for the record:

1.  Your comment should have read "...the water IS generally clear...".  Unfortunately during the 8 days of diving at at Malapascua we had heavy thunderstorms, including the strongest of this year, resulting in rather poor visibility and very challenging conditions to see anything (while we had sightings on all days).  Only on our last day it cleared up a bit leading to the photos that I posted.  However, if people would not be so lazy, they cloud have seen from the exif data that I was shooting at something around 86mm - 100mm (35mm eq.), leading to a lot of water and particles between me and the subject. No, a TG6 would have not even gotten close in IQ...  There are a lot of people down there with GoPros, they got nothing to show...  This comment is not targeted at you, Wolfgang.

2. I envy you that you made it 10 years ago, it was never on my radar screen until lately, and I have been diving this region for close to 20 years.  Today it is a zoo and it is a challenge to not have some stupid idiot chasing the sharks away or a whole group of divers blowing a wall of bubbles in front of your lens...  Only because we outlasted the zoo, due to diving with Nitrox (3 minutes bottom time left when I finished the shoot) and better air consumption than most of the people there (we jumped first and came back last), made these photos possible.  I know that these pictures are not perfect, but yes, I am proud of them because I know what went into taking them (including some significant financial investment - yes, I am not shooting with an E-PL7 because I cannot afford a E-M1 II, but because it is the best tool for me).  Anyone thinking they can just wrap a bag around a camera and immediately take some fantastic underwater picture has no understanding of the difficulties of underwater photography...  ok, that is enough of a rant...

Wolfgang, do you have an picture of your tip 10 years ago (I know cameras were different at that time), would love to see them

Have fun shooting,

Lars

LarsPolarBear
LarsPolarBear Regular Member • Posts: 491
Re: Diving depth G9

Fregoli wrote:

dontfret wrote:

underwater housings for panny cameras run from $550 to $1700 on Amazon.

That's the problem. These diving housings are as expensive or more expensive than the camera itself.

Was hoping for some simple DIY solution, so I could get shots like this guy: https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/62769880

Unfortunately, "proper" underwater housings cost a lot. The best bang for the buck is currently Meike or Sea Frogs, as they call themselves now (https://seafrogs.com.hk/).  As you might have figured out yourself, they don't produce a housing for the G9 (only GH5), which obviously has something to do with the low sales volume of m43 (that comment is for all thoses who say: "I don't care if others are  buying m43, I like m camera"... it does matter).  They currently are focusing more on Sony products.

Alternatives are from Ikelite, Nauticam or Fantasea, but they are all much more expensive, especially if you add the different dome ports and the lighting options that you need for it.

I have never used a "bag" in my almost 20 years of underwater photography, therefore I cannot comment on it specifically, but I agree with some assessments I have read here:

1. I have also heard people commenting on the bag being squeezed and becoming un-operational since the bag presses all buttons at the same time -  at 10m (about 30ft) you face a pressure of 2 bar, which is what you have in the tire of your car - that is significant.

2. I would be scared to take a beautiful camera like that in a bag, but again, that is not based on experience.

3. TG5 or TG6 are very good cameras for taking macro underwater shots where you can use the build-in flash or external strobe, however, their small sensor struggles in low light / natural light environments like the shark pictures.

Good luck with your endeavours,

Lars

Architeuthis Regular Member • Posts: 188
Re: Diving depth G9

Hi Lars,

I have now a EM1-II and I do not think it would do any better compared to your EPL-7 under these conditions. Also the optical quality of a lens will not make a difference...

Very well done Polarbear!

I have put sample photos in your original tread, for comparison (but from Lumix TZ-5 and at good visibility) ...

Wolfgang

 Architeuthis's gear list:Architeuthis's gear list
Olympus E-M1 II Olympus E-M5 II Canon EF 100mm F2.8L Macro IS USM Olympus M.Zuiko Digital ED 9-18mm F4.0-5.6 Panasonic Lumix G Vario 7-14mm F4 ASPH +6 more
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum MMy threads