Not a huge fan of my GoPro

[Chris Ross]

I'd still rather have a A7RIII than an A6600, but used a6500's go for under $1000 and the seafrogs housing is much cheaper. I am not sure I agree the dome is less limiting for APS-C, I won't use the dome on land and am not taking a telephoto under water. The standard housing does a E 18-55mm and the 6 inch dome (I don't see an 8 for any Sony) goes to 70mm. If I understand correctly, 70mm is 22 degrees on APS-C and 35 degrees on full frame.

Whether you agree or not, you still need a larger dome to get the same corner quality with a bigger sensor, the dome size has nothing to do with long focal lengths, it's all to do with the optics of a dome port and is most critical for ultra wide lenses. Underwater the camera focuses on a virtual image which for an object at infinity is located 3 dome radii out from the dome surface and concentric to the dome. That's very close and the corners of the field are much closer and even stopped down there's not enough depth of field to make the corners sharp. A 6"dome is quite limiting for a wide rectilinear lens on a large sensor, but will probably work OK with a fisheye lens.

The other factor is the extension used with the dome - to get the best results you have to place the lens entrance pupil at the centre of curvature of your dome if you don't the image is degraded and distortion is introduced. You'll still produce an image but all the money you spent on the best sensor and lenses is somewhat wasted unless you get this right. The amount the image is degraded varies from lens to lens and will vary from pixel peeping issues with a 35 -50mm equivalent lens to obvious blurred corners with a 16mm equivalent lens in a 6"dome even at web sizes. Here is an extreme example full frame 17mm lens at f8, 170mm dome: Sea&Sea Internal Correction lens: the best solution… to date! | Jordi Chias: Underwater photography

Sea Frogs housings are very affordable but they are cheap for a reason, they don't optimize the dome port location and have a one size fits all approach and only have different domes to accommodate physically longer lenses. Don't get me wrong, they'll allow you to get the camera UW and take shots but they won't necessarily be the best optical quality some people accept this compromise others not. Manufacturer's like Nauticam test each lens and recommend how much extension to use with that lens to get the best results and have multiple different dome options to choose from - that is part of the reason for the price difference. It seems to me taking a top line line camera UW with a budget housing is not the best option, particularly when the results from a 1"compact are likely to be just as good and the expense no greater. People still do it and produce images from these systems that are somewhat happy with.

This is a complex subject and explaining every last aspect of it over a series of forum posts is difficult to say the least, just look at the length of this thread.

 

[chris kippax]

Buy Once cry once

Just to confuse you some more
Don't completely write off Ikelite housings. In the right hands they can produce stunning images and can be tricked up to have the majority of features other top tier housings have. They can also greatly reduce the overall cost of the system and let you focus more coin on the important stuff like glass & a dome.
Also for the person with mechanical aptitude they are simple to service and modify.
A used 5DMKIII housing can be had for around $800 and the 8" dome & ports are always on Ebay. The 5DMKIII FL 6871.03 housing can also house the 5DS & 5DSR & 5DMK4 so has some room for upgrades.
Check out the work from Grant Thomas & Ken Keifer for an idea what you can achieve with Ikelite

 

[Chris Ross]

Buy Once cry once

Just to confuse you some more
Don't completely write off Ikelite housings. In the right hands they can produce stunning images and can be tricked up to have the majority of features other top tier housings have. They can also greatly reduce the overall cost of the system and let you focus more coin on the important stuff like glass & a dome.

I would agree with their regular line of housings for DSLR, but their compact ones for EOS M and SL3 for example the only way to zoom is with a dome with a zoom knob and that's only a 6"dome as their is no zoom knob on the housing itself. It always pays to read the fine print in the port charts. They are also larger than you might think.

 

[Blackcrusader]

Are not the issues here several? A diver with not a lot of dive experience, who wants to have photo's better than anything he has seen from a TG6 ( not sure bout video ) but wants a price range that won't break the bank.

OK I went from a Hero 4 black to the TG6 so for macro and photo's it was a big difference for me. Can I take my photos and get them blown up? Sure do they look good? Sure the best ones do. Am I happy enough being a diver who takes vacation photos and gets in some macro video and photos? Sure.

I am not sure what would please the OP as being in the water no matter how clear there are just limitations to how good your photos will be in RAW and how much you can edit them. I think the OP wants to have the same quality of video and photos you see on Nat Geo or BBC Earth.

 

[bvbellomo]

A used 5DMKIII housing can be had for around $800 and the 8" dome & ports are always on Ebay. The 5DMKIII FL 6871.03 housing can also house the 5DS & 5DSR & 5DMK4 so has some room for upgrades.
Check out the work from Grant Thomas & Ken Keifer for an idea what you can achieve with Ikelite

I've been reading every relevant ad on this forum, wetpixel, craigslist and ebay for a few days now. There have been some great deals on used equipment that would be perfect for me that unfortunately already sold. I have 2 months until my trip, so I don't need to buy today but can't wait too long.

There is an unused open box Nauticam A6500 housing for half price that I almost bought and probably will later today if it is still listed.

 

[bvbellomo]

Whether you agree or not, you still need a larger dome to get the same corner quality with a bigger sensor, the dome size has nothing to do with long focal lengths, it's all to do with the optics of a dome port and is most critical for ultra wide lenses. Underwater the camera focuses on a virtual image which for an object at infinity is located 3 dome radii out from the dome surface and concentric to the dome. That's very close and the corners of the field are much closer and even stopped down there's not enough depth of field to make the corners sharp. A 6"dome is quite limiting for a wide rectilinear lens on a large sensor, but will probably work OK with a fisheye lens.

The other factor is the extension used with the dome - to get the best results you have to place the lens entrance pupil at the centre of curvature of your dome if you don't the image is degraded and distortion is introduced. You'll still produce an image but all the money you spent on the best sensor and lenses is somewhat wasted unless you get this right. The amount the image is degraded varies from lens to lens and will vary from pixel peeping issues with a 35 -50mm equivalent lens to obvious blurred corners with a 16mm equivalent lens in a 6"dome even at web sizes. Here is an extreme example full frame 17mm lens at f8, 170mm dome: Sea&Sea Internal Correction lens: the best solution… to date! | Jordi Chias: Underwater photography

Sea Frogs housings are very affordable but they are cheap for a reason, they don't optimize the dome port location and have a one size fits all approach and only have different domes to accommodate physically longer lenses. Don't get me wrong, they'll allow you to get the camera UW and take shots but they won't necessarily be the best optical quality some people accept this compromise others not. Manufacturer's like Nauticam test each lens and recommend how much extension to use with that lens to get the best results and have multiple different dome options to choose from - that is part of the reason for the price difference. It seems to me taking a top line line camera UW with a budget housing is not the best option, particularly when the results from a 1"compact are likely to be just as good and the expense no greater. People still do it and produce images from these systems that are somewhat happy with.

This is a complex subject and explaining every last aspect of it over a series of forum posts is difficult to say the least, just look at the length of this thread.

I was only considering whether or not lenses would physically fit. I appreciate your time, its been very educational and hopefully other people find it useful.

 

[Blackcrusader]

I've been reading every relevant ad on this forum, wetpixel, craigslist and ebay for a few days now. There have been some great deals on used equipment that would be perfect for me that unfortunately already sold. I have 2 months until my trip, so I don't need to buy today but can't wait too long.

There is an unused open box Nauticam A6500 housing for half price that I almost bought and probably will later today if it is still listed.

blackcrusader said:

"A used 5DMKIII housing can be had for around $800 and the 8" dome & ports are always on Ebay. The 5DMKIII FL 6871.03 housing can also house the 5DS & 5DSR & 5DMK4 so has some room for upgrades.
Check out the work from Grant Thomas & Ken Keifer for an idea what you can achieve with Ikelite"

I never wrote that you quoted the wrong person.

 

[bvbellomo]

I pulled the trigger - I am going with an a6300. I know the a6400, a6500 and a6600 are better cameras for not much more money, but I found a used Nauticam setup with more than just the bare bones to get it under water for less than it would cost to build around that a6500 setup on eBay.

I want an a7Riv, but that won't work for 3 times my budget. However a lot of my Nauticam gear and lenses will carry over to that, or an a7Rv or whatever I end up with in 5 years. I know I said the camera body is most important, but the a6300 isn't that bad and I'd rather have a complete, top of the line housing than image stabilization or better focus tracking.

Now to try for those photos better than Nat Geo or BBC Earth - as long I can get to Egypt without another COVID curveball.

 

[hsinhai]

I'm another proponent of G7X or RX100 with 1" sensor. Due to the smaller sensor TG is really poor with any type of wide, and in low light. G7X you have decent enough quality with flexibility to take both wide & macro on the same dive which DSLR does not really offer, and the compact package is just a whole lot more easier to handle, especially if photography is not the main focus of a dive. TG also does not even have a full manual mode so i think you would quickly outgrow it..

Some examples from my G7X, i'm more into small than wide.. but a few of each

 

[Blackcrusader]

Bobtail squid is a nice photo as is the turtle. First pic of your nudi seems out of focus. Second pic of nudi I quite like I know sometimes getting a good focal point is not easy on some critters especially with that opaque white colour.

I believe we all get photos we are happy with. I'm a bit lazy at times and don't post edit from RAW and I shot in both RAW & Jpeg. I do some light editing at times with Lightroom classic. I also found as I was learning that I had too much lighting with my Big Blue VL4200P video lights and need to use much lower power settings.

TG6 has a nice dial that can affect the contrast as well. This at 32m depth on a small wreck dive.