Underwater camera setup

SafariBob wrote:

i understand the strobes are important to add back in the reds.

It's not just reds; it's all the colors. If you try to color-balance a natural-light underwater photo, you'll find the water column shifting in all sorts of weird ways. With strobe-lit shots, it stays a brilliant blue (provided sufficient clarity at the time of shooting). There is also the matter of shadows - the sun is often an important piece in the composition of underwater shots, and shooting into the sun inevitably means that your foreground subjects are shadowed, meaning artificial light is required.

yes. This is the crux of the challenge as I see it. Will probably start with a 3000 lumen torch or video light.

That'd be barely adequate for macro. Shooting wide-angle, it wouldn't even register. Put it this way: a decent mid-range strobe, while firing, is about as bright as a one million lumen light. Those three thousands are the approximate equivalent of a fart in a hurricane. With an A7R IV, shooting wide-angle, anything less than a pair of Inon Z-240s is basically a waste of money, and even that is quite marginal - I'd put Inon Z-330 and Sea & Sea YS-D3 as the baseline for this kind of camera, with a distinct preference toward Retra Prime/Pro, OneUW 160X, or possibly Ikelite DS-160/161. Seacam SeaFlash 160D is great, but way too expensive, in my opinion.

edit: I will probably start with a seafrogs and an 8 inch dry dome

You will need to accept some compromises in image quality away from the center of the frame, and stop down a lot. I shoot APS-C with a SeaFrogs 8-inch dome, and with a 10-18mm lens (15-27mm equivalent), my corners are still noticeably soft at f-8-f/11. Examples:

Things get better at smaller apertures, like, say, f/13:

Or f/18:

Or all the way at f/22:

But even with powerful strobes, small apertures are rarely usable due to the need to properly expose the background without going into ridiculously slow shutter speeds or high ISOs. For you, with a 60MP full-frame camera, this effect will be considerably worse.

Little observation about wide angle with dome ports...

Unlike a flat port - like your mask - a dome port doesn't give that 20% magnification effect you get when you look into water.   That magnification is a result of a flat interface (port/mask) with the water.   This means that when you snorkel or dive you see everything magnified.   And of course you get used to that, though it's often surprising to me to see something like a beer can underwater as it seems so big at first.

So, if the average human eye is something like a 45mm lens, it's more like a 60mm lens when you have a mask on.  (Everything looks bigger than it really is.)

Now you start looking through an optical viewfinder and a 16-35 with a dome port, and suddenly everything shrinks by 20% plus you are looking much wider than your typical mask.  You risk ramming the dome port into things because you think they are farther away - look through mask where everything is bigger, but you're used to it.   16-35 seems really really wide at first.   I find that it doesn't work well for stills unless you have a very large subject.

But video is another story.  There I can't seem to get wide enough, though that may be just due to the novelty for me.   When I view my videos shot at 16mm I'm fascinated by the extreme difference in view compared to the very limited angle of view I get through my mask.  I see the dive sites in a totally different way.

Either way, corners were poor with my 230mm dome port until I added that S&S filter.   Smaller dome ports work for fisheye lenses, but not rectilinear ones.   I think you are setting yourself up for failure with a 6-inch port.  On the other hand, traveling with a 230mm dome is such a pain in the butt that I can understand wanting to avoid it, not to  mention the cost of these things.

Barmaglot_07 wrote:

SafariBob wrote:

3.) I am intending to get a seafrogs housing for my a7riv, with a dome port for the 16-35. I realise this may not work in practice, the biggest issue I think would be dragging it along for a snorkeling session, at least in a group session without vastly improved fin action. Recommendation on fins? I have come to the conclusion that macro and snorkeling does not seem to make for an easy combination. The downside is that all these three options would be wide angle.

16-35mm really needs a 230mm or large dome for decent quality across the frame, and SeaFrogs simply doesn't have one.

there is an 8inch dome from what I understand?

Consider 28-60mm + flat port + Nauticam WWL-1, or, alternatively, just stay with a 28-70mm. When snorkeling, you're liable to be shooting from a significant distance anyway, so you won't be able to utilize an ultrawide lens to begin with.

this matches my feelings when I was in the water. But through this discussion, I think perhaps snorkeling photo opportunities are more geared towards wide angle.

Note: Nautical WWL-1B and WWL-C come with Nauticam's proprietary bayonet mounts, and while M67 adapters exist, they're engineered in a way that only fits Nauticam ports, with the 67mm threading on the inside of a narrow channel that requires the port to have its matching threads on a thin protruding lip. This prevents mounting them on SeaFrogs threaded flat ports. The original WWL-1 has an M67 threaded mount and thus connects to SeaFrogs ports without issues.

sure, these are the kind of considerations I may struggle with. I would surely pick up a “better” housing if something can be picked up affordably, however I haven’t seen much of that yet, and I guess that tells me, that I can buy used and sell used if need be for similar prices.

Me, I wouldn't bother dragging a full-frame camera around while snorkeling. It'll be big, bulky, cumbersome, and photos taken from several meters away in natural light won't be much different from those that come from a phone.

i am a very dedicated photographer, and don’t mind going the extra mile to make things work.

If you want good quality underwater photos, don SCUBA and bring strobes; there's no way around that.

That’s probably true for macro shots and schools or singular fish from the underside, but I am hoping there will be different more reef/coral oriented and possible over under in a snorkeling session, and anyway, extremely excited to try. Will be going to Catalina soon for first attempt

SafariBob wrote:

Barmaglot_07 wrote:

16-35mm really needs a 230mm or large dome for decent quality across the frame, and SeaFrogs simply doesn't have one.

there is an 8inch dome from what I understand?

Yes, and I have it - it's closer to 180mm in diameter (though it may be a section of an 8-inch sphere, I'm not sure), and I feel it's marginal with my 10-18mm on a crop sensor. 230mm ports from Zen, Nauticam, etc, are much bigger (you don't really appreciate by how much until you hold one) and even they struggle with ultrawide rectilinear lenses on full-frame cameras. See my other post in this thread for examples.

i am a very dedicated photographer, and don’t mind going the extra mile to make things work.

In that case, don SCUBA (better yet, CCR) and bring strobes. No way around that.

If you want good quality underwater photos, don SCUBA and bring strobes; there's no way around that.

That’s probably true for macro shots and schools or singular fish from the underside, but I am hoping there will be different more reef/coral oriented and possible over under in a snorkeling session, and anyway, extremely excited to try. Will be going to Catalina soon for first attempt

The golden rules of underwater photography are 'get close, and then get closer', and 'shoot upwards'. Neither is possible while snorkeling, and both are very difficult when breath-hold free-diving. Downward-looking shots don't bring any exciting perspective; they're just the hallmark of a beginner who doesn't really know what they're doing. Get a copy of Martin Edge's 'The Underwater Photographer', that'll give you a good start. Cutting corners and trying to reinvent the wheel only results in lost time and wasted money.

PHXAZCRAIG wrote:

Little observation about wide angle with dome ports...

Unlike a flat port - like your mask - a dome port doesn't give that 20% magnification effect you get when you look into water. That magnification is a result of a flat interface (port/mask) with the water. This means that when you snorkel or dive you see everything magnified. And of course you get used to that, though it's often surprising to me to see something like a beer can underwater as it seems so big at first.

So, if the average human eye is something like a 45mm lens, it's more like a 60mm lens when you have a mask on. (Everything looks bigger than it really is.)

Now you start looking through an optical viewfinder and a 16-35 with a dome port, and suddenly everything shrinks by 20% plus you are looking much wider than your typical mask. You risk ramming the dome port into things because you think they are farther away - look through mask where everything is bigger, but you're used to it. 16-35 seems really really wide at first. I find that it doesn't work well for stills unless you have a very large subject.

But video is another story. There I can't seem to get wide enough, though that may be just due to the novelty for me. When I view my videos shot at 16mm I'm fascinated by the extreme difference in view compared to the very limited angle of view I get through my mask. I see the dive sites in a totally different way.

Either way, corners were poor with my 230mm dome port until I added that S&S filter. Smaller dome ports work for fisheye lenses, but not rectilinear ones. I think you are setting yourself up for failure with a 6-inch port. On the other hand, traveling with a 230mm dome is such a pain in the butt that I can understand wanting to avoid it, not to mention the cost of these things.

I’d much prefer doing macro than wide angle if I thought was feasible, and to be fair, I think it would often work fine, but, I have become somewhat convinced that this would be a suboptimal solution leading to many alterations down the line, so I think it’s maybe better to start with the wide angle, and gain experience from that, particularly how well I manage to control the camera in water and bring it along. If this proves unproblematic then getting a macro and strobes makes sense

-- hide signature --

Phoenix Arizona Craig
www.cjcphoto.net
"I miss the days when I was nostalgic."

Barmaglot_07 wrote:

SafariBob wrote:

Barmaglot_07 wrote:

16-35mm really needs a 230mm or large dome for decent quality across the frame, and SeaFrogs simply doesn't have one.

there is an 8inch dome from what I understand?

Yes, and I have it - it's closer to 180mm in diameter (though it may be a section of an 8-inch sphere, I'm not sure), and I feel it's marginal with my 10-18mm on a crop sensor. 230mm ports from Zen, Nauticam, etc, are much bigger (you don't really appreciate by how much until you hold one) and even they struggle with ultrawide rectilinear lenses on full-frame cameras. See my other post in this thread for examples.

i can believe it

i am a very dedicated photographer, and don’t mind going the extra mile to make things work.

In that case, don SCUBA (better yet, CCR) and bring strobes. No way around that.

sure. But I want some experience first

If you want good quality underwater photos, don SCUBA and bring strobes; there's no way around that.

That’s probably true for macro shots and schools or singular fish from the underside, but I am hoping there will be different more reef/coral oriented and possible over under in a snorkeling session, and anyway, extremely excited to try. Will be going to Catalina soon for first attempt

The golden rules of underwater photography are 'get close, and then get closer', and 'shoot upwards'.

I agree that’s one style. I think initially would be more focused on shooting sideways, this is also a challenge. In general, everything would be easier if you did not have to look through the viewfinder or lcd screen, having it on top or at a distance would be much better.

someone pointed out that my ideal camera does not exist, and that is absolutely true.

Neither is possible while snorkeling, and both are very difficult when breath-hold free-diving. Downward-looking shots don't bring any exciting perspective; they're just the hallmark of a beginner who doesn't really know what they're doing.

sounds like me! Hence all the questions

Get a copy of Martin Edge's 'The Underwater Photographer', that'll give you a good start. Cutting corners and trying to reinvent the wheel only results in lost time and wasted money.

I have that book and just ordered the mustard book.

Dann-Oh wrote:

No you dont, The Sony E Mount works for BOTH full frame and APSC bodies. its the Only thing Sony has going for them, you could use the 16-25 and 90 on the APSC body. Shoot Ill even sell you my copy of the 18-105 F4 (apsc specific lens) for a $300 if that will help you out. (I used both the A6500 and the A7iii for some time before switching over to Olympus).

That is not quite how it works, not underwater anyway. Yes, you can put a 16-35mm lens on an A6xxx camera, but the field of view won't be any wider than the 16-50mm kit lens, and you'll lose the 50mm zoom capability that comes in handy when shooting skittish subjects from a distance. If you want to shoot Sony APS-C wide-angle underwater, you need a Sony 10-18mm or a Tokina 10-17mm fisheye with an adapter.

Likewise, while the full-frame 90mm macro is definitely usable - I've taken plenty of shots with it on my A6300 that are, well, maybe not great, but they make me happy - its narrow field of view is quite limiting. Since I got a Metabones IV and a Canon EF-S 60mm f/2.8 Macro USM, I find myself bringing the 90mm only to dives where I expect supermacro opportunities - e.g. hunting for Shaun the Sheep nudibranchs, or going to an anemone with an active clutch of clownfish eggs, that kind of stuff.

SafariBob wrote:

sure. But I want some experience first

This experience would be much easier and less expensive to acquire on an entry-level system such as a TG-6.

I agree that’s one style. I think initially would be more focused on shooting sideways, this is also a challenge. In general, everything would be easier if you did not have to look through the viewfinder or lcd screen, having it on top or at a distance would be much better.

I'm not sure what you mean by 'shooting sideways' but external monitors for underwater housings do exist; they're commonly used by videographers, but some people use them for photography as well. Some are dedicated underwater units, others are housings for above-water external recorders such as Atomos Ninja series.

Barmaglot_07 wrote:

SafariBob wrote:

sure. But I want some experience first

This experience would be much easier and less expensive to acquire on an entry-level system such as a TG-6.

it would be demotivating for me to know in advance that I would feel unfulfilled by the results. I have been putting this off far to long due to my own prejudices.

I agree that’s one style. I think initially would be more focused on shooting sideways, this is also a challenge. In general, everything would be easier if you did not have to look through the viewfinder or lcd screen, having it on top or at a distance would be much better.

I'm not sure what you mean by 'shooting sideways' but external monitors for underwater housings do exist; they're commonly used by videographers, but some people use them for photography as well. Some are dedicated underwater units, others are housings for above-water external recorders such as Atomos Ninja series.

i think that would make a ton of sense for what I would want to do, but my suspicion is that these solutions would run in the thousands. It would be awesome to have a remote screen on the goggles for example, so it would be completely independent. I will look into it, and appreciate any pointers.

SafariBob wrote:

Barmaglot_07 wrote:

This experience would be much easier and less expensive to acquire on an entry-level system such as a TG-6.

it would be demotivating for me to know in advance that I would feel unfulfilled by the results. I have been putting this off far to long due to my own prejudices.

A TG-6 with strobes and a wet wide lens will give you much better results than an A7R IV with 16-35mm in a little dome shooting in natural light.

I'm not sure what you mean by 'shooting sideways' but external monitors for underwater housings do exist; they're commonly used by videographers, but some people use them for photography as well. Some are dedicated underwater units, others are housings for above-water external recorders such as Atomos Ninja series.

i think that would make a ton of sense for what I would want to do, but my suspicion is that these solutions would run in the thousands. It would be awesome to have a remote screen on the goggles for example, so it would be completely independent. I will look into it, and appreciate any pointers.

That it something that does not exist, and in all likelihood will not ever exist. For one thing, projecting camera output into your mask will make you blind to your own surroundings, which is dangerous. For another, there is no way to have high-bandwidth wireless communication underwater (because physics), and a cable leading from a camera to your mask will (a) get entangled and (b) pull your mask off, going back to dangerous. You can get a dive computer readout on your mask - Oceanic Datamask is long out of production and support, but Shearwater has the NERD and NERD 2 dive computers, and Scubapro recently came out with the Galileo HUD, but anything more than that? - forget it.

Barmaglot_07 wrote:

SafariBob wrote:

Barmaglot_07 wrote:

This experience would be much easier and less expensive to acquire on an entry-level system such as a TG-6.

it would be demotivating for me to know in advance that I would feel unfulfilled by the results. I have been putting this off far to long due to my own prejudices.

A TG-6 with strobes and a wet wide lens will give you much better results than an A7R IV with 16-35mm in a little dome shooting in natural light.

well, I will read the mustard book, maybe that will change things, but so far I have yet to see great output from the TG.  If anything, the GoPro and presumably the iPhone is better. I do understand that lighting is critical and that the TG would be vastly superior with lights in many situations to a GoPro without, or a full frame for that matter. But if the results are still not great, I don’t really see the point.

I'm not sure what you mean by 'shooting sideways' but external monitors for underwater housings do exist; they're commonly used by videographers, but some people use them for photography as well. Some are dedicated underwater units, others are housings for above-water external recorders such as Atomos Ninja series.

i think that would make a ton of sense for what I would want to do, but my suspicion is that these solutions would run in the thousands. It would be awesome to have a remote screen on the goggles for example, so it would be completely independent. I will look into it, and appreciate any pointers.

That it something that does not exist, and in all likelihood will not ever exist. For one thing, projecting camera output into your mask will make you blind to your own surroundings, which is dangerous. For another, there is no way to have high-bandwidth wireless communication underwater (because physics), and a cable leading from a camera to your mask will (a) get entangled and (b) pull your mask off, going back to dangerous. You can get a dive computer readout on your mask - Oceanic Datamask is long out of production and support, but Shearwater has the NERD and NERD 2 dive computers, and Scubapro recently came out with the Galileo HUD, but anything more than that? - forget it.

Well it could have a detachable coupling. Will look into your references, but I am sure you are right that it doesn’t exist.

kelpdiver wrote:

SafariBob wrote:

Recommendation on fins?

that's as wide open a field, and just as contentious, as camera choice.

i can imagine!

I'm in the camp that wants as big and firm a plank as the legs will tolerate, and that split fin designs are not suitable. Mine are about the longest you can get before the free diver class, yet still fit in the luggage, more or less. I also rely at times on the solid plank to back pedal at times. In the past I used classic Jet Fins which are wider/shorter. Those are massively heavy, but many newer clones of it are less hefty. (Esp the Deep6 brand)

recently tried short split ones with strap boot, and loved them, but, I think you are right, all things considered, max thrust is the most important.

I used full foot on boats as open heel fins lose some power on the transfer. But if you're on the shore, typical for snorkel spots, then open heel with spring straps is the way to go. You don't want to be holding that massive rig and struggling to get your fins on.

kelpdiver wrote:

SafariBob wrote:

recently tried short split ones with strap boot, and loved them, but, I think you are right, all things considered, max thrust is the most important.

they swear to no end that they work great in current and at less energy, but if its true, its for continuous propulsion. I want one kick to do something, not 10. I also suspect for freediving this is a no go.

I'm a fan of the Apollo Bio Fin split fins.   They have obvious disadvantages for photography in that it is difficult to back up, but boy do they have 'bite'.  I've been diving with them since 2009 so very much used to them.

I once swapped fins with a buddy for a dive.   He was amazed that a single kick would send one forward pretty dramatically compared to his fins.   My experience with his fins was that they were like wearing nothing at all!  I'm kicking away and hardly moving.

Being made of rubber the fins are quite heavy, which is another packing issue.   But at least when I was still researching the subject, these fins constantly won efficiency comparison tests against other fins.  (Based on air usage over time, if I recall correctly.)

Mine are the Mares Avanti Quattro Power Full Foot Long Blade. They're somewhat rare to find. Unfortunately sizing is a bit hard to do blind, so you want a return policy, or to find a big dive show where Mares is exhitibit, or have a return policy option.

I've often wondered what it would be like to dive with (good quality) straight fins.  I'd probably have to add another 2 pounds of weight though!

PHXAZCRAIG wrote:

I'm a fan of the Apollo Bio Fin split fins. They have obvious disadvantages for photography in that it is difficult to back up, but boy do they have 'bite'. I've been diving with them since 2009 so very much used to them.

I once swapped fins with a buddy for a dive. He was amazed that a single kick would send one forward pretty dramatically compared to his fins. My experience with his fins was that they were like wearing nothing at all! I'm kicking away and hardly moving.

Doing photography, I firmly believe that control is more important than maximum speed in a straight line. I use Saekodive rubber fins, basically a jetfin knockoff, and they're great for positioning - helicopter turns, backpedaling, frog, modified frog, etc. They can be fast going forward, doing flutter kicks rather than frog, but being so stiff (almost no flex to them), it takes a lot of force to flutter kick with them.