iPhone 13 Pro with Waterproof Housing, vs TG6?

Camrarat wrote:

I’m upgrading my phone and deciding whether I should go for the 13 or 13 Pro.

I’ve been considering getting an Olympus Tough TG6 for a long time for snorkeling and nature macro shots (bugs, flowers, snowflakes)

But the new macro and telephoto on the iPhone 13 Pro seems very enticing and makes me wonder if it bests the Tough and makes it sort of obsolete.

I know very little about the image quality capabilities, low light performance, etc of these options tho and am hoping some of you can enlighten me on how these cameras compare.

above water the iPhone will take better pictures. Bigger sensor, newer sensor, no zoom, and better software.

Would an iPhone 13 Pro with waterproof housing take as good or better photos than a TG6? Or would the TG6 still take better photos?

I believe you can’t take this question outside the context of a specific housing for the iPhone. Regardless, there are many challenges with the iPhone particularly in operating the camera under water

I’m especially interested in Macro performance as I mentioned and I want to use it snorkeling (probably with some zoom underwater where theres not the best light). I would also be thrilled if the TG6 coudl function as an all around point and shoot, for museums and traveling, tho I’m guessing even the regular iPhone 13 might have better IQ?

yes

Help me out on figuring out what the limitations are of these cameras!

I am also a newbie in Uw photography

Camrarat wrote:

I’m upgrading my phone and deciding whether I should go for the 13 or 13 Pro.

I’ve been considering getting an Olympus Tough TG6 for a long time for snorkeling and nature macro shots (bugs, flowers, snowflakes)

TG6, and TG5 as well, have well-deserved reputations as decent dive cameras. With some limitations. (Like raw recording.)

But the new macro and telephoto on the iPhone 13 Pro seems very enticing and makes me wonder if it bests the Tough and makes it sort of obsolete.

I'm curious as well.

Are you thinking about something like the Kraken housing?

https://www.amazon.com/Kraken-Sports-KRH02-Smart-Housing/dp/B0725QZVFQ

I know very little about the image quality capabilities, low light performance, etc of these options tho and am hoping some of you can enlighten me on how these cameras compare.

Would an iPhone 13 Pro with waterproof housing take as good or better photos than a TG6? Or would the TG6 still take better photos?

It would be interesting to see a comparison test.

I’m especially interested in Macro performance as I mentioned and I want to use it snorkeling (probably with some zoom underwater where theres not the best light). I would also be thrilled if the TG6 coudl function as an all around point and shoot, for museums and traveling, tho I’m guessing even the regular iPhone 13 might have better IQ? Help me out on figuring out what the limitations are of these cameras!

For museum work, I suspect both cameras have advantages, but the iPhone is really built for that sort of thing.  Consider also what you want to do with the images/videos once you have them.  With a smartphone, your stuff is a button-click away from the internet.  Not so much with the TG6.

Whether or not the iPhone takes better images and especially videos will probably depend on how much/how well you can set a custom white balance.  Underwater white balance is very different, and it will change a lot with depth.  If you shoot in RAW, you can fix in post, but if you shoot JPG or most video formats you'll need to get it right in-camera.  In the field, it is very important that setting white balance is pretty easy to do.  (If diving you need to do it about every time you change depth.)

kelpdiver wrote:

SafariBob wrote:

above water the iPhone will take better pictures. Bigger sensor, newer sensor, no zoom, and better software.

inferior lens, all the same.

i would be extremely surprised if that was the case

Size helps here.

And costs more than 2x as much, of course. Are you ok with losing or destroying it? Then you save $$ by just putting a housing on it. I think you want the one that digitally controls all functions, rather than something that is mechanical in nature.

Personally, I don't want to destroy my primary communications device when I'm in a foreign country. That would put me in a moderate bind.

that’s reasonable, but the device itself is waterproof to a certain level, so flooding isn’t a big deal unless your very deep.

The other dilemma for the OP is that the 14 is said to finally play catch up with Samsung and the others on megapixels. 12mp seems hard to believe in this day, for $999.

Maybe. I think the 13 was a fairly large bumb

I am not experienced with I-phones, but I saw here a video that may be of interest in this context: https://wetpixel.com/articles/video-video-device-comparison-by-matthias-lebo

Wolfgang

kelpdiver wrote:

SafariBob wrote:

kelpdiver wrote:

SafariBob wrote:

above water the iPhone will take better pictures. Bigger sensor, newer sensor, no zoom, and better software.

inferior lens, all the same.

i would be extremely surprised if that was the case

Compare the width of the pinhole lenses in the 13 pro to the compacts - it's a fraction of the size. That forces the fixed focal length, but can't get past the limitations of that size.

Also, while the wide angle camera of the 13 pro pairs with a larger 44mm sensor (versus the TG6's 28mm, that 6x lens has to be paired with a 12mm sensor to get that effective focal length.

the iPhone has a wider aperture, as far as I can tell at all focal lengths. To the extent where it’s gathering more light throughout even taking sensor size into account, as far as I can tell.

Meanwhile, a good compact camera with a 1" lens has a 116mm sensor. The 4/3rds go to 225, and the FF sits at 860.

that’s reasonable, but the device itself is waterproof to a certain level, so flooding isn’t a big deal unless your very deep.

"Apple states all four iPhone 13 models can be submerged and protected in water up to 6 meters deep for up to 30 minutes."

So no, not deep at all.

The other dilemma for the OP is that the 14 is said to finally play catch up with Samsung and the others on megapixels. 12mp seems hard to believe in this day, for $999.

Maybe. I think the 13 was a fairly large bumb

12mp versus 30-108 (Samsung G21 Ultra).

kelpdiver wrote:

SafariBob wrote:

Compare the width of the pinhole lenses in the 13 pro to the compacts - it's a fraction of the size. That forces the fixed focal length, but can't get past the limitations of that size.

Also, while the wide angle camera of the 13 pro pairs with a larger 44mm sensor (versus the TG6's 28mm, that 6x lens has to be paired with a 12mm sensor to get that effective focal length.

the iPhone has a wider aperture, as far as I can tell at all focal lengths. To the extent where it’s gathering more light throughout even taking sensor size into account, as far as I can tell.

You have to be more specific with that statement. A lens that is 2mm wide cannot collect as many photons as a lens that is 12 or 20 mm wide (I don't have a TG, so I can't estimate how wide it is).

yes, diameter of outermost lens determines how much light for a given sensor.

There's also a long running problem with figuring out what f1.7 actually means - actual vs 35mm equilivancy.

You multiply by crop factor.

it’s fairly easy to see that given the f stops of the various iPhone lenses they gather more light than the tg, as far as i can tell

I feel that all that discussion about sensors and lenses is missing the forest for the trees - the single most important differentiating factor is that TG-6 can sync with strobes, and an iPhone (or any other phone currently on the market) cannot. It really is that simple. Strobes are the single most important tool of underwater photography; everything else is secondary. Yes, a highly skilled user can sometimes, in very optimal conditions, take some natural photos that will approximate the quality of a strobe-lit shot - but those opportunities are few and far between. Some types of shots, such as sunballs, simply cannot be taken without strobes. Likewise for critters that are light-shy, will hide in dark crevices, and flee if you shine a constant light at them.

Therefore, I would put the choice like this: if you're content with low to mediocre quality shots taken with minimal effort and investment, either a phone housing or a TG-6 will serve you fairly well. If, however, you're seeking quality photographs, then start with a good pair of strobes, and then look for a camera. TG-6 is a very good choice for macro; it can be okay for wide-angle, given an appropriate wet lens, but it doesn't shine there. Its main limitation is not RAW (Craig must have it confused with Sealife DC2000 or some other camera), but lack of a fully manual mode - in general, people shoot it in aperture priority, and utilize various tricks to make the camera choose the appropriate shutter speed. If that is a deal-breaker, then you can look at Sony RX100 series, Canon G7X, Olympus E-PL10 (it is served by a relatively very affordable and well-featured AOI housing) or something higher-end.

Barmaglot_07 wrote:

I feel that all that discussion about sensors and lenses is missing the forest for the trees - the single most important differentiating factor is that TG-6 can sync with strobes, and an iPhone (or any other phone currently on the market) cannot. It really is that simple. Strobes are the single most important tool of underwater photography; everything else is secondary. Yes, a highly skilled user can sometimes, in very optimal conditions, take some natural photos that will approximate the quality of a strobe-lit shot - but those opportunities are few and far between. Some types of shots, such as sunballs, simply cannot be taken without strobes. Likewise for critters that are light-shy, will hide in dark crevices, and flee if you shine a constant light at them.

Really? Even at 1 meter depth?

SafariBob wrote:

Really? Even at 1 meter depth?

At very shallow depth, in bright sunlight, you can kind of get away with white-balancing - water dives a blue/green tinge to your shots almost immediately, but near the surface it can be dealt with, although the resulting colors still tend to look somewhat off. Anything beyond that and artificial light becomes an absolute necessity.

Here, for example, are some of my early shots, before I got strobes:

Then I got a pair of strobes, albeit cheap SeaFrogs ST-100s, and hey, colors!

On larger scenes, however, they struggled to provide enough output

Then I got a pair of Retra Pros, and hoo, boy!

Note that all these shots are taken using the same camera, in a much-derided (by some) cheap SeaFrogs housing. The difference is in the lighting.

kelpdiver wrote:

Barmaglot_07 wrote:

SafariBob wrote:

Really? Even at 1 meter depth?

At very shallow depth, in bright sunlight, you can kind of get away with white-balancing - water dives a blue/green tinge to your shots almost immediately, but near the surface it can be dealt with, although the resulting colors still tend to look somewhat off. Anything beyond that and artificial light becomes an absolute necessity.

Here, for example, are some of my early shots, before I got strobes:

Then I got a pair of strobes, albeit cheap SeaFrogs ST-100s, and hey, colors!

On larger scenes, however, they struggled to provide enough output

Then I got a pair of Retra Pros, and hoo, boy!

Note that all these shots are taken using the same camera, in a much-derided (by some) cheap SeaFrogs housing. The difference is in the lighting.

Next we know, you'll be drinking the Nauticam coolade!

Lol, I suspect much the same.

Actually just read of a new player - Marelux - showing up that aims to deliver N-level finesse at Aquatica (or better) pricing.

i find the aqua tech elite quite attractive, lack of metal construction not withstanding.

I'm also going to posit that while more powerful strobes were called for, you have also gained the experience of dive time.

this is something I need to understand more. But at this point I think I am willing to just try and see

In any event, this one is the big standout. "Organized" fish school shots are the most interesting, most compelling objective for me.

Magic feeling!

I'll swim into anything.

Love the spirit

SafariBob wrote:

kelpdiver wrote:

Next we know, you'll be drinking the Nauticam coolade!

Lol, I suspect much the same.

Unlikely. I was looking into getting a Nauticam WWL-C, but then found out that there's no way to mount it on my housing. As for Nauticam housings - I prefer spending my money on more dives.

i find the aqua tech elite quite attractive, lack of metal construction not withstanding.

Careful, Aquatech (as opposed to Aquatica) make surf photography housings, not diving - they're lightweight, but they're not rated for significant depth.

I'm also going to posit that while more powerful strobes were called for, you have also gained the experience of dive time.

this is something I need to understand more. But at this point I think I am willing to just try and see

Gaining experience has certainly played a part, but without good strobes and full manual control, I would not be able to take the shots that I'm taking now, regardless of experience level.

Absolutely superb photos.

kelpdiver wrote:

Barmaglot_07 wrote:

Gaining experience has certainly played a part, but without good strobes and full manual control, I would not be able to take the shots that I'm taking now, regardless of experience level.

oh, other than the Aquashot strobe I used in the 90s, I've always had manual control. Just not always as powerful at the DS line.

The SeaFrogs ST-100 Pro strobes that I used for several trips were TTL-only when triggered by optics and manual-only when using electrical sync; I only have an optical bulkhead on my housing. All things considered, the TTL was fairly accurate, but it was limited in power by the camera's pop-up flash pulse duration.