Need for WA and macro add-ons?

[stuartv]

I am researching my upgrade path from my current GoPro 3. I anticipate getting a good point-and-shoot or a decent used mirrorless with something like a 14-42 (ish) lens. If I go mirrorless, I would still probably stick with just the kit lens and use add-on wet lenses for needs beyond that.

For starters, I will only have a basic video light. I will add a strobe and maybe a brighter video light later.

After much reading, I *think* I have come to some conclusions. I am hoping someone here with actual experience in u/w photography and videography can tell me I'm right or wrong (and why).

My most basic conclusion is that with the kind of camera I'm looking at getting, add-on lenses are things that give me a small(-ish) incremental benefit.

To be more detailed:

- without any kind of macro add-on, I can still get decent shots of small things. But, I will have to crop the images to get what I want to fill the frame. However, if all I'm doing is posting it on the Internet or even printing, say, 8x10 or smaller, the cropped image will give me just as good final image quality.

- without a macro add-on, I will be shooting the tiny stuff from further away, but that might actually give me some benefits in terms of lighting and depth of field (if I want more depth of field, anyway).

- for macro shooting, even a cheap video light or two should give me more than adequate lighting. My current video light is an Archon D11V, which is, I think, really about 600 lumens. Not much for subjects that are more than 2 or 3 feet away. But, for macro shooting, maybe with a second one added to my rig, I think I would be getting plenty of light. Especially if I want to have a lot of depth of field. If the video light is not bright enough for macro subjects, I have a couple of DGX 600 spot lights. I could rig one or more of them to illuminate a macro subject. That definitely seems like it would give me plenty of light.

- a wide angle lens makes stuff look smaller (aka further away). The vast majority of the benefit to that is if I'm shooting with a strobe. That lets me get closer to my subject, so they are lit better, without losing part of the subject out of the frame. But, if I'm shooting without a strobe, then a wide angle lens may not be much benefit at all. And if my subject is, say, a shark that is 20' away, I might actually be better off without a WA add-on lens.

I guess I'm really, ultimately, just trying to get an idea of how much equipment I'm going to feel compelled to buy right off the bat, or if I will be able to do 80 - 90% of the shooting I want to do with just the camera and maybe 1 or 2 video lights.

For cameras, I'm looking at something like a Sony RX100 Mk II or Mk IV or Panasonic LX100 or maybe an Olympus OM-D E-M10 (w/14-42). My gut is that any of those are going to be SO much better for photos and video than my GoPro 3 Black that I will be pretty happy for quite a while before I start feeling like I really need any macro or WA add-ons. But, if the points I wrote above are way off base, I'd like to know before I even buy a camera. I might be swayed to go a much less expensive route on the camera, for now, in order to afford the other things sooner.

I have an old (but mint) Canon SD780 IS digital camera. 12MP, but, by today's standards, a very small sensor and small/slow lens. But I found the Canon housing for it for $160, and I'm hoping a used one will pop up on eBay or elsewhere for cheap. If my points above are way off, maybe I'd be better to start by getting the housing for my current camera and spending the bulk of my current budget on lighting...?

In case you're going to say "well, what do you want to do with your camera. I need to know that before I can respond to your points," I will respond in advance with this: I'm just starting with the whole u/w photography thing, so what I'll end up doing with it is somewhat of a question mark. Right now, what I see doing is taking photos and video when I dive wrecks off the Outer Banks. So, pictures of wrecks. Pictures of sharks. Pictures of sharks on the wrecks. Video of the sharks. Distances could be anywhere from the limit of viz to 2' away. Right now, I don't anticipate a lot of macro shooting. But, I have to say that I dived in Hawaii in April and there were some cool nudibranchs that didn't turn out so great on my GoPro. I would like to shoot those things in the future when I have a chance. But, it will likely be a pretty good while before I get to do any more of that kind of diving.

I *think* for shooting sharks and wrecks, a lot of the time the distances to my subjects will be far enough that having a strobe wouldn't even matter. So, for starters, I'm expecting to be mostly shooting with ambient light. But, again, I could be wrong in my thinking regarding how far away a subject can be and a strobe still make much difference.

So, any words of wisdom will be appreciated!

 

[Cali_diver]

Ok that was a really long post and I sort of skimmed it but I think I can answer. You would be happy if you went to a mirrorless set-up with a kit lens, and you will be fine (for awhile) with 2 video lights and ambient light. The lights will help you with your focus in poor or low light situations. Strobes just pick up back scatter when viz is low especially when not close to your subject. If you get more interested in shooting small things you will want to go to a macro lens eventually (60mm) and use diopters! When I had an olympus, I would use the 14-42mm often but eventually I wanted more. Ambient light for macro works but not nearly as well as it does with strobes. Just make sure you shoot in Raw so you can adjust your white balance in post. And don't forget to increase your ISO so you can keep your shutter speed fast enough to keep your pictures sharp.

 

[Diving Dubai]

Hi Stuart.

My caveat here is that I'm no underwater photography expert:

That said a couple of pointers. Whatever camera you get, ensure that all the functions are accessible via mechanical controls (rather than a touch screen)

And the biggie is to ensure the camera has either a dedicated or a programmable button for white balance. My wife and I both have Canon G15's - I'm not advocating a Cannon but just so you know what we use. We both wanted something more than point and shoot where we could use manual settings, but nothing too big and clumsy.

I have used a video light, but find it unsuccessful for close up as even with white balance it goes too red.

I gave up using a slate for WB I just aim the camera at the subject or at the sand at a similar distance from the subject and hit the button. Obviously changes in depth and distance from the subject all affect the WB.

You will for sure get better results than a go pro. My GoPro 3 frustrated me because of the WB or lack of

I have had good success with photo's of nudi's but we mainly shoot video - although we never find the time to sit down and do anything with it.

I have friends who have similar compacts with flashes right through to big boy camera set ups. Because we're not serious we are not into strobes because they make the units more cumbersome - for us we like to shot images for memories rather than going diving to explicitly get great images.

It's worth ensuring your camera has TTL for external strobes in the future.

Take time with housings too. We both have Ikelite which after 3 years and 300 dives have broken. The casings didn't like the continued pressure changes etc and both developed micro cracks which eventually meant they leaked.

If I were to do it again I'd either invest in a cheaper housing which I could replace more readily OR invest in a high end Aluminum housing. Of course technology moves on and it depends on your intended camera lifecycle.

Hope that helps for a start

 

[JackConnick]

You might want to read the article I have posted here on SB on "Buying an Underwater camera and Housing" for basics.

I think lighting is as much, or more important for underwater photography as the camera. A good strobe freezes the subject and detail, allows for much shorter exposures and gives much richer color saturation than a video light.

If you are going to use a continuous light be aware that most dive lights have a 10° beam or so which will result in a hot spot. Most video lights are 90°+ beam angle and give a wide, even beam that is much more powerful. We don't hardly sell anything less than 1000 lumens and that's just as a focus light. You will really need 2500+ lumens for it to be very effective.

It souds like you're going to be shooting more wide angle. It that case, you can definitely shoot available light - if you have a good low-light camera and fast wide lens. Of the above cameras I'd say one of the E-M10II or other cameras coupled with the 8mmFE PRO lens will yield great results, as below taken at 140' with and E-M1, 8mm lens and one 2500 lumen v25 i-Torch FishLite.



EM1-8mmFE-10 by Jack Connick, on Flickr

 

[stuartv]

Ok that was a really long post and I sort of skimmed it but I think I can answer. You would be happy if you went to a mirrorless set-up with a kit lens, and you will be fine (for awhile) with 2 video lights and ambient light.

Thanks! I bought an Olympus OM-D E-M10 mirrorless today. CraigsList is so awesome. I got it with the kit power zoom lens and tele, all for a total steal. Cheap enough to not break a sweat at all if I outgrow it soon and want to upgrade. Though I doubt I will outgrow it any time soon. All the info I could find indicates that it's a very fine camera to use for u/w photography.

I'm planning to get a Meikon housing for it ($260) and get busy in the water. Well, after I spend some time reading the manual and getting some basic competency with the camera on land....

The housing is cheap. I paid dirt for the camera. No big deal if I develop some experience and learn that I really want something different.

Thanks again for the tips!