Although full-frame mirrorless cameras like the Sony A7R IV and the Nikon Z7 have been grabbing a lot of the 2019 headlines, a number of very exciting crop-sensor mid-range mirrorless cameras have also been released in 2019, many very recently. There are 4 that we have recently looked at for underwater photography over at the Underwater Photography Guide (click the links to see the initial impressions/reviews):

• Nikon Z50 Initial Thoughts
• Olympus OM-D E-M5 Mark III Initial Thoughts
• Sony a6400 Detailed Review
• Sony a6600 Initial Thoughts

Specs Comparison

There are a lot of specs to go through, and I find it’s easier when they are put into a convenient table.

Sensors

The first thing to look at is the sensors, both for resolution and sensor size. The OM-D EM5 Mark III is at a disadvantage here, as it has the smaller micro-four-thirds sensor, compared to the larger APS-C sensor of the other three cameras. Yes, it has similar resolution, at 20 MP, but when it comes to image quality, resolution is generally not as important as sensor size. Comparing the E-M5 III to any of these APS-C sensors, especially the Z50, the size of each pixel on the E-M5 Mark III sensor is noticeably smaller. This generally means lower image quality, as larger pixels allow for lower noise and higher dynamic range. As can be seen from the DXOMark ratings, the EM5 III has the lowest rating, while the a6600 has the highest, and there is a significant difference (80 vs 85).

Features

The features are fairly competitive among the cameras, though there are a few notable differences. The main things to consider are autofocus, image stabilization, video quality, size/build

Autofocus

The specs look stacked against the E-M5 III, but although it may have less autofocus points, that doesn’t mean it performs worse, especially underwater. We found that although the Sony a6400 autofocus works great topside, it did hunt a fair amount underwater, and overall seemed to perform worse than many micro four thirds systems. As the E-M5 III has the top autofocus system in the micro-four-thirds lineup, we expect it to perform better. We will have to see how the Z50 and the a6600 perform in testing. Based on Nikon’s Z6 and Z7 autofocus performance, we do expect the Z50 to perform quite well underwater; it may be the best of the bunch (that or the a6600). But don’t count out the E-M5 III!

Image Stabilization

Here, the more expensive camera bodies, the OM-D E-M5III and the a6600, carry the advantage; the cheaper a6400 and Z50 have no image stabilization. This can be a concern for underwater photography, though as long as you are shooting with strobes, it’s typically not a big deal. It’s a different story for underwater videography; underwater videographers will definitely want one of the cameras with in-body image stabilization.

Video Modes

Each of these cameras offers about the same video specs, except the Nikon Z50 has 1080/120p, compared to 1080/60p for the others.

Flash Sync Speed

The Sony cameras have quite a slow flash sync speed, which gives the advantage to the E-M5III and especially the Z50 (with high speed sync functionality) for sunball shooting and macro shooting.

Lenses

Lenses are interesting. APS-C cameras have generally been designed to just use full-frame lenses, where the smaller sensor size results in a crop factor of 1.5 (meaning that if you shoot a 60mm full frame lens on an APS-C camera, it’s the equivalent of shooting a 90mm lens on a full frame sensor). APS-C cameras have traditionally been targeted at consumers who mostly just want a nice camera they can use with the kit lens, so camera manufacturers have not put a lot of development into dedicated APS-C sensors.

That is certainly the case here, as with the Sony and Nikon offerings, the lenses that you will need for underwater use are all full frame lenses. This means they are larger and more expensive than a corresponding lens designed specifically for APS-C sensors. This is the big advantage of the Olympus OM-D E-M5 III; with all of the great micro four thirds lenses out, it has great native options for fisheye, wide angle zoom and macro lenses, and the smaller sensor size allows the lenses to be significantly smaller than their full frame competitors.

On the other end of the spectrum, the Nikon Z-mount lens lineup does not have any good lenses for underwater use (yet), so a Nikon FtZ adapter has to be used, alongside Nikon dSLR full-frame F-mount lenses.

Body & Build

All of these cameras are designed to be small with the OM-D E-M5 III the smallest camera body. The a6400 is a bit lighter, but when taking the lenses needed into consideration, this gives the advantage firmly to the Olympus. Battery life ratings are roughly comparable, and should be sufficient to get two dives in between battery changes, except for the a6600, which has so much battery life you should be able to get 3 or 4 dives between battery swaps.

One of the best things going for the OM-D E-M5 III is it’s small size and weight, as well as the small size and weight of its native lenses.

Overall Comparison

Wait, that’s it? Nothing else to talk about? Well yes, there are some other differences in specs, but really what matters most for underwater photography are sensor/image quality, autofocus, and lenses. This is weighed against cost, size and weight considerations, especially if you like to travel light. So let’s look at what it takes with each camera here to get a nice underwater macro photography system.

• OM-D E-M5 III with 60mm macro lens (120mm full frame equivalent): $1200 + $500 = $1700; 414 g + 186 g = 600 g
• Nikon Z50 with FtZ adapter and Nikkor F-mount 105mm micro lens (157.5mm full frame equivalent): $860 + $250 + $900 = $2010; 450 + 135 + 750 = 1335 g
• Nikon Z50 with FtZ adapter and Nikkor F-mount DX 85mm micro lens (127.5 mm full frame equivalent): $860 + $250 + $520 = $1630; 450 + 135 + 355 = 940 g
• Sony a6600 with 90mm macro lens (135mm full frame equivalent): $1400 + $1100 = $2500; 503 + 602 = 1105 g
• Sony a6400 with 90mm macro lens (135mm full frame equivalent): $900 + $1100 = $2000; 403 + 602 = 1005 g

OM-D E-M5 Mark III: Smallest and most compact

If you want the cheapest and lightest setup you can get, with a nice snappy autofocus system, the OM-D EM5 Mark III is the best option. However, this option is the same price as the Z50 with 85mm DX macro lens, though it is still significantly lighter. It is also only $300 cheaper than the Z50 with 105mm macro lens, or the Sony a6400, both of which will give better optics and better image quality (though in the case of the Sony, worse autofocus performance). The in-body image stabilization helps the case for videography, as does Cinema 4K video mode. Outside of 24 fps Cinema 4K, expect lower video quality than the competitors. It would be great if this camera were $100-200 cheaper though…the only saving grace here is the great native lens selection, as without that, the E-M5 III body by itself is outclassed for the price.

Sony a6600: Most expensive and best quality

If you want the best image quality and you’re willing to spend some extra money, the a6600 is a great bet. Same with videography; this setup will give higher quality video than its competitors, with a high amount of in-body image stabilization to boot.

Nikon Z50: Best Performance/Cost Ratio

Although larger, and either the same price as the E-M5 or a bit more expensive, the Z50 gives a bump up in sensor spec, and we expect also a bump up in autofocus performance. If going with the 105 mm lens, the optic quality will be better than the Olympus 60mm, though that comes at a cost (money-wise and weight-wise). But if you are willing to spend the extra $300 and carry around the extra 700 g, this is a high performing macro setup for a relatively low cost, and looks like the best value option of this comparison.

Sony a6400: Low Cost, High Video Quality

The a6400 takes great video, but unfortunately does not have in-body image stabilization. For videographers used to going to great lengths to keep their video rock stable (like macro videographers with large underwater tripod systems), this is a great low-cost option which will provide excellent high quality video. For stills, the Z50 and the E-M5 III may both be better choices on account of the autofocus and lens selection.

The post Mid-range Mirrorless Roundup: Z50 vs EM5 III vs a6400 vs a6600 first appeared on In Focus Underwater Photography Blog.

While travelling over the past year, my partner Lisa and I took a lot of GoPro video, and used it to make professional-looking underwater videos. As an underwater photographer, I am always thinking about lighting – more importantly, how to light up my subjects in a way that shows the brilliantly beautiful colors of the underwater world. Just as in photography, with video, the most important ingredient is lighting. GoPros can and do take exceptional, high-quality video when provided with the right lighting conditions. The problem with most underwater GoPro footage is not the GoPro itself, or the subject matter, but rather the lighting.

How Light Behaves Underwater

Water absorbs light very quickly, starting with the slowest wavelengths – red, then orange, then yellow. After passing through only 15 ft of water, light loses all red wavelengths, and then the other colors follow.

GoPro Version Matters

Before I go too far, let me qualify the piece about lighting. Great lighting with an old GoPro will give you decent footage, but old GoPros can’t compete with the latest GoPro image quality. The performance step change from the GoPro 5 to the GoPro HERO6 Black was massive. Check out the underwater photography guide’s review of the GoPro HERO6 Black. The improvement from the 6 to the 7 was not very big for image quality, but it was huge for image stabilization. So to get nice image quality from your GoPro, upgrade to at least a 6. If you want incredibly smooth, professional-looking footage when shooting handheld, the 7 is by far the best choice, as you can see in the GoPro HERO7 Black detailed review.

What Lighting to Use?

My partner Lisa, being new to underwater imaging, was at first very resistant to using any lights with the GoPro. Lights are big, heavy, and expensive. Doesn’t that defeat the whole purpose of the GoPro? So we started off with a Light & Motion Sidekick Duo, which is a very compact underwater light designed to be connected directly to the GoPro mount, thus not adding much in the way of size or weight. In some situations it added some nice color, but overall we found it was just too limited in terms of positioning, power and beam angle. Some videos it would add some nice color, but others it would create a hotspot on the subject, or just light up a ton of particles in the water, making it look like it was snowing.

We also used a Sealife Aquapod Mini, which gave us extra reach with the GoPro, theoretically allowing us to get closer to subjects without scaring them. It was useful when snorkeling with sharks in French Polynesia, and for dipping in the water from a boat to capture action at the surface. However, for day-to-day use while diving, we found that the benefit of getting closer to subjects was outweighed by the disadvantage of having the GoPro on a long stick; stability. It was very hard to get stable video, especially in any kind of current. Not to say a setup with a Sealife Aquapod and Sidekick light are bad; I would say it is a pretty decent setup for casual snorkelers who just want some videos of their trip so they can remember things. However, we were interested in higher quality video.

Our current GoPro rig – Hero 7 black, Macromate mini flip diopter, tray with ball mounts, 2x Kraken 3500+ WRSU lights.

As it became apparent that we had outgrown our video setup, and wanted something better, we decided to go for it. We bought a tray with handles and two small video lights. This is when things got good. The tray helped us get stable video – holding the GoPro close to the body with two hands was a lot more stable than holding it on a long stick with one hand. And we could not place the tray down on a rock or on the sand to get it really stable. We tried some different lights, including SeaLife Sea Dragon 2000 lumen lights, which gave us some nice results. Now we have landed on the Kraken 3500+ WRSU lights, which provide a ton of power, as well as versatility of modes: flood beam, spot beam, red light and UV light, all with different power settings available.

Check out our sample footage using the Sealife Sea Dragon 2000 lumen lights below, and you can read more about these lights on the UWPG’s Sealife 2000 lumen video light review. The review also contains a comparison video showing footage taken with two lights vs footage taken with just a red filter, vs footage taken without any lights or filters.

How Many Lights? How Many Lumens?

For wide angle video, having one light is much better than no lights, and also much better than a filter. However, having two lights will allow you to position them further away from the GoPro lens, which means you light up less particulates in the water and get cleaner video.

The amount of lighting power you need depends on the conditions you will be using them in. The brighter the ambient light, the more powerful the video lights need to be, if you want to overpower the dull blue ambient light and restore the colors. Though if you go really shallow, you can capture nice colors with ambient light, especially with the sun at your back. So with that said, a good starting point for light power is the 2000-4000 lumen range. Under 2000 lumens and you really don’t have enough power or reach for many situations, and over 4000 lumens you are starting to get into higher end, more professional light systems. With 2000 lumen lights, you can get very nice colors, but only if you are no more than 1-2 feet from your subject. Anything more than that and you’ll want more lumens…but even with really powerful video lights you won’t see much effect beyond about 5 ft.

On the other end of things, if you really want the best quality underwater video you can get, then go for the 10,000 lumen + range – it sure will look nice! The store recently got in the new Sola Pro 12,000 and 15,000 lumen lights, which will give you some amazing video quality.

For macro video, you have to bring the lights in close anyway, so one light should do the trick. A second light does give you more lighting options, but you can make very nice macro video just using one. If you want to learn more about shooting GoPro macro video, check out our beginner’s guide to GoPro macro video, up on the UWPG. Additionally, since you will only be a few inches from your subject, 2000-3000 lumens is more than enough light for nice, bright colors and sharp details.

The below sample macro footage is shot with a GoPro 7 and Macromate mini, and a variety of video light powers (2000, 2500 and 3500 lumens).  Without lights, macro video tends to look quite colorless and flat, as expected…it really loses its magic. So I would not recommend trying your hand at macro without a light!

The Bottom Line

We have used our GoPro with tray, video lights and macro lens to create promotional videos for a few dive resorts, and they have all been very happy with the results.

As they say in the movies…lights, camera, action! With just the camera, and no lights, you can get some decent footage under ideal conditions (ie at or near the surface of the water). But if you really want to get consistently great underwater footage, you need all 3. Sufficiently powerful video lights, a GoPro 6 or 7, and some great underwater action!

Hit me up at bryan AT uwphotographyguide.com if you have any questions!

The post Getting professional-quality video by using video lights with a GoPro first appeared on In Focus Underwater Photography Blog.

Dome Port Basics

As anyone who has used a dome port is probably aware, they are notoriously prone to scratching. So why even use one in the first place, when a flat port is much easier to care for? Optics, optics, optics. Flat ports magnify images underwater by about 30%, due to light refraction. This is why things look larger underwater than they really are – because scuba masks are basically large flat ports in front of your eyes. Dome ports avoid this issue, meaning that they maintain the wide field of view of a wide angle lens underwater. (See Dome Ports and Wide Angle Optics and Dome Ports vs Flat ports on the UWPG for more technical info than you thought was possible).

A wider field of view allows you to get closer to your subjects, meaning sharper images due to less water between camera and subject, and better lighting due to less distance for light to travel between your strobes, the subject and the camera lens. Most importantly, good luck trying to put a fisheye lens behind a flat port – and as I wrote in a previous blog post, Why You Should Use a Fisheye Lens for Wide Angle Shooting – in my opinion, as well as that of many professional underwater photographers, the fisheye is the best wide angle option out there! So, that is why a dome port is essential for taking great underwater images.

Acrylic vs Glass

So now, should you go with acrylic or glass? Acrylic ports are a lot cheaper, lighter, and generally smaller, but they are less robust and much easier to scratch. Glass dome ports are more expensive, heavier, and often larger, as well as much more scratch resistant and better at shedding water…and manufacturers claim they have better optics. Take that claim of optics with a grain of salt though, as our test of Sea & Sea Glass vs Acrylic dome port image quality found basically no difference.

As someone who has used both a glass and an acrylic dome port with my Olympus OM-D E-M1, Olympus 8mm Fisheye lens, and Nauticam OM-D E-M1 underwater housing, my preference is for the glass dome port over the acrylic, despite the more expensive cost. (Here is what I have used: Nauticam 140mm N85 Optical Glass dome port and Nauticam 4″ fisheye dome port). I prefer glass because of the durability and the better shedding of water. Let’s talk about each of those.

Durability

First is durability. I started off using an acrylic dome port, and got some scratches on it. I tried to remove the scratches with a micromesh kit, but ended up creating an irreparable mess. I had a Bluewater Galapagos photo workshop coming up, which I knew could have crazy currents and surge, so I decided to try a glass port for its scratch resistance. The diving was amazing – check out the Bluewater Travel Galapagos diving guide for more info. And, as expected, I got banged about on the rocks at a number of dive sites.

Unfortunately, I had not yet learned my lesson about prioritizing my dome port over photos, so I picked up a couple of scratches. However, I know with an acrylic port it would have been a lot worse, as a number of the times I scraped my dome port on the barnacles or the rocks, no damage was done to the glass. Another trip attendee had an acrylic port, and scratched it so badly he had to move his focus point off to the side, otherwise his camera just focused on the scratch on the port!

I captured this hammerhead at Wolf Island, a couple of dives after getting battered around and picking up my first scratch on my new glass port.

Protect your Dome!

Despite getting some scratches, I was still able to take lots of great photos on the trip, and just had to remove some scratch bits and pieces from some images in Lightroom/Photoshop. From this trip I learned a really important lesson – always protect the dome port!

Now when diving somewhere like Komodo, where it’s time to go into some heavy current, I put my neoprene dome port cover on my port before letting go of the rocks, so that in case I lose control of my camera, the port will be protected. I always have my camera passed to me from the boat with the dome port cover on, and take it off as I descend. I put it over my wrist, where it fits nicely (please note, if your dome port cover fits too loosely over your wrist, you might lose it – in that case, put it down the neck of your wetsuit). Then, at any point where the conditions seem crazy, I put the cover back on, and I always put it on at the end of the dive before I pass my camera back on to the boat.

Having my glass dome port while diving with the marine iguanas was a life-saver. I have never been smashed around so much on the rocks, and port survived without any significant damage despite quite a few bumps.

Since the Galapagos I have scratched my port a few more times, diving in places like Fakarava, but most have not done much of any permanent damage. And speaking of Fakarava and the Galapagos, both are amazing places for shark diving, landing on the Top 5 Shark Diving Destinations in the World over at Bluewater Travel.

Now that I am extremely careful with my port, I have pretty much stopped hitting it on stuff. I don’t think I have really lost any shots to the scratches on my port, but those original scrapes from the Galapagos do cause me to spend a few minutes editing some of the photos which they show up in, and that time does add up. So now I am looking at getting a new glass port, which I will keep immaculate, and any time I have a crazy dive, I will put on the old scratched port and just remove the scratches in post.

I didn’t notice any scratches on the image while taking this photo with my now non-immaculate port.

Shedding Water

This brings me to the second reason I picked glass, and that is the ability to shed water. Split shots are a really cool way to show the underwater world through a different lens, and something every underwater photographer should try to add to their portfolio. Here’s a great tutorial about shooting split shots (over-unders).

Large dome ports are best for split shots, and with smaller dome ports like the ones I have used, split shots can only really be taken in relatively calm conditions. But in the right conditions, the glass port can take some great shots. Here is one from Greenland, where we had very calm water. With the glass port, I fully immerse it in the water, and then pull it half out of the water and take a few shots right away. Using this technique I rarely get any water drops in my photos.

Other than the -3 C water, this split shot was very easy to capture with my glass dome port.

Other than the -3 C water, this split shot was very easy to capture with my glass dome port.

Final Thoughts

Whether you go with glass or acrylic, as long as you protect your dome port, you will be able to take great photos. The important thing is to know your limitations and how to best use the equipment you get. If you get the acrylic port, you may learn that it’s not worth your time trying to take any split shots unless the water is mirror-flat, but enjoy the advantages of the smaller, lighter and cheaper equipment. Or you may figure out a technique that works for you. If you get the glass port, then you will be able to get better split shots, and shrug off a good amount of the contact between the port and rocks/coral (but still do your best to protect it!).

Happy shooting, and always feel free to email me with questions. bryan@uwphotographyguide.com

The post Dome Ports: Acrylic vs Glass first appeared on In Focus Underwater Photography Blog.

I shoot with an Olympus OM-D E-M1 in a Nauticam E-M1 Mark II housing, and whenever I am shooting wide angle I use the Olympus 8mm f/1.8 fisheye lens. I run into a lot of people who either don’t use a fisheye lens at all, or who think it is a specialty lens that you only use for big things like mantas, whale sharks or humpbacks.

Yes, fisheye lenses are definitely the best for giant subjects like that, but they are incredibly useful for a lot of other situations as well. Although fisheye lenses are used more as art lenses or for niche applications on land, underwater, it’s a different story. Rather than the fisheye being the specialty lens, underwater I think of the fisheye lens as the default wide angle lens, while non-fisheye wide-angle lenses are the specialty lenses.

Fisheye Lenses 101

The first thing to understand about fisheye lenses is what sets them apart from normal wide angle lenses. The big difference is that they have an enormous field of view – typically, 180 degrees! Compared to the 75 – 114 degree field of view of the 7-14mm f/2.8 Olympus wide angle lens, the 8mm fisheye’s 180 degree field of view is much more (plus it is significantly smaller and cheaper).

To be able to create this massive field of view, the fisheye lens warps the image, with the warping most pronounced at the edges of the image. For more of a comparison between the two types of lenses, check out this very detailed article on fisheye lenses vs wide-angle.

Wide Angle Shooting Basics

When shooting wide angle underwater, you always want to be as close to your subject as possible (while still having a nice composition). The closer you are, the less water between you and your subject, meaning the subject is sharper. Additionally, the less distance your strobe lights have to travel between your camera and the subject, and then back to your camera, the brighter and truer the colours will be.

If your strobe light has to travel 4 ft to the subject and 4 ft back, you will have a lot less color (especially reds) than if your strobe light only has to travel 2 ft in each direction. Of course, the fisheye lens is the best at getting you as close as possible to your subject. Additionally, the barrel distortion of the lens, which can be very difficult to use above land, works great underwater, where there are very few straight lines.

Below is a collection of my favorite shots taken with my fisheye lens, as well as some explanation about why the fisheye made them so great.

Manta ray belly taken at Manta Point, Nusa Penida, Bali. The water was pretty murky there, as it is at most manta dive sites. The only way I was able to get the belly so sharp and detailed, and have the nice lighting, was by shooting with my fisheye lens in my underwater housing and being only about 3 feet below this manta as it passed over me. With a wide angle lens, I would have had to be much further away to get the whole manta in the frame, meaning less clarity, more backscatter, and poorer lighting.

Octopus in Manta Bay, Nusa Penida, Bali. The fisheye lens allowed me to get very close to this octopus, bringing out the detail in it, but also to include two dive models in the photo, and bring the sun into the composition. I did this by getting low and shooting up. Without a fisheye lens I would have had to be further back from the octopus just to get the two dive models in the photo, and would not have also been able to include the sun. There was not enough space to get that far back and that low for the same composition. Without the sun, this photo loses an important point of interest, and becomes just a decent photo rather than one that really pops.

Coral at Crystal Rock, Komodo. The fisheye lens allowed me to get very close to the coral and rock, within less than two feet. This meant I could stop down my camera to f/18 and max my shutter speed at 1/320s to bring out the details in the sun, but I was close enough to my subject that I could still light it very brightly with my strobes. When I tried this shot 2-3 feet further back, which is what I would have had to do with a wide angle lens, my YS-D1 strobes at maximum power could not illuminate the coral and rock properly.

School of fish beneath the jetty at Tetamanu Village, Fakarava South Pass, French Polynesia – one of our 5 “scuba diving bucket list” destinations. Without my fisheye lens, there is no way I could have been far away enough from these fish to get them all in the frame with a nice shape, and close enough to light them properly with my strobes. This shot was taken about 3-4 ft in front of them. The added bonus of the fisheye is that with the exaggerated perspective it creates, it amplifies the “3D” effect where it feels like the fish in the water are coming right at you out of the image.

A beautiful reef scene at Batu Bolong, Komodo…one of the nicest sites I have ever dove. Same as above…sun rays, beautiful colors, sharpness…only a fisheye can start to do justice to a spectacular reef scene like this. No matter what I did I could not get a photo which really did this site justice, but at least the fisheye gave me a fighting chance.

I have lots of other examples, but I think these shots give a good idea of some of the reasons why I love shooting with a fisheye lens, and why if you don’t have you, you really should pick one up for your rig – assuming your underwater camera supports a fisheye lens.

Which is Right for You?

When people are just getting started and they ask me whether they should get a fisheye lens or a wide angle lens, I ask them this question. Do you want to be able to get a lot of decent photos, especially of skittish pelagic subjects? Or do you want to get a lower number of decent photos, and have some frustrations with skittish pelagics, but instead be able to get some really amazing, extraordinary shots?

If you want the former, then go with a plain wide angle lens. But if you want to get those shots that make people go “Wow” when they see them, the shots that can win awards, and are OK dealing with some frustrations, then it’s fisheye all the way!

Some Great UW Photo Destinations…

And if you want to travel and do some great diving where amazing wide angle opportunities await you on every dive, definitely check out the places where I took these shots:

• Bali Dive Travel Guide
  • Bali Hai Diving Adventures – amazing resort, small groups, excellent boat and guides. Beat the rush to manta point by staying on Nusa Lembongan, so you can get there ahead of all of the day boats from Bali!
• Komodo Diving Guide
  • Dragon Dive Komodo – budget diving in Komodo, but with top-notch guides with a heavy focus on safety, small groups, and customizing experiences for people based on skill level and experience.
• French Polynesia Diving Guide
  • Tetamanu Village – spectacular walls of sharks in a remote paradise

Learn More About Wide Angle Photography!

If you want to learn more on the Underwater Photography Guide about wide angle photography, check out these useful tutorials:

• Strobe positions for underwater
• Wide-angle underwater photography
• Underwater composition

As always, if you have any questions then drop me a line at bryan@uwphotographyguide.com!

The post Why You Should Use a Fisheye Lens for Wide Angle first appeared on In Focus Underwater Photography Blog.

One thing that does not get talked about much, but is very important for an underwater photographer, is the bag or bags used to transport and keep your gear safe while traveling. Every experienced underwater photographer seems to have their favorite, but I want to convince you that you should think about the one that I use! I shoot an Olympus OM-D E-M1, with Nauticam housing, ultralight arms and foam floats, dual YS-D1 strobes, a GoPro 6 Black and a Sola 1200 photo light. So, a standard mirrorless setup; not as big as a dSLR package, but also not small. On my first underwater photography trip, to the Sea of Cortez, I had bits and pieces of this rig packed into any spare space I had in my other bags. After the trip I went looking around on BlueWater photo for a good protective case that would keep my rig safe during travel, but that would also not be too heavy or bulky. I was thinking about some kind of hard case, as I had seen other people on the trip with them, and that seemed the norm. As I was browsing around, I came across a very intriguing item – the AO Cooler Bag, for a cool $70 for the “24-pack” size. It’s an insulated, soft bag for keeping drinks cold, meaning that it is heavily padded, tough, and waterproof. It sounded like just the answer I was looking for, so I picked one up.

I thought it would be good, but I did not expect to become so attached to it. Here is why I like it so much:

• It’s the perfect size. It fits my complete mirrorless rig with some room to spare, and is a perfect size to be my second carry-on bag on the plane
• It is heavily padded, so it keeps my gear totally safe during travel
• It is easy to access – the wide zipper across the top allows me to easily unpack it at airport security and then pack it back up after the TSA officers have inspected everything
• It is waterproof, meaning that it is a perfect little portable dunk tank
• It has a decently wide base with good “grip”, so it does a decent job of staying put on a rocky boat deck
• It is large enough that I can fold up my assembled rig and fit it inside, making it perfect for keeping it safe from moving objects on boat decks (especially small boats)

I have taken this bag all over the world with me. Whenever I fly anywhere, I carry on my cooler bag. It slings over my shoulder in the airport, and fits perfectly in the overhead luggage compartment, or under the seat in front of me. It has protected my camera from people and rolling objects on a pitching boat deck while searching for orcas in Northern Norway in January, and also kept my gear safe when I had to check it for a flight on a very small plane. It has kept my camera safe and in one place on some rough and choppy boat rides in BC, Canada and in Mexico. It got my gear to the Galapagos and kept it safe throughout many long international flights, and it kept my gear out of the wind when ice diving in a snowstorm with a topside temperature of -15 C (0 F).

Most recently I took it ice diving in Greenland in April, where I really put it to good use. When taking a small plane from Iceland to the remote airport of Kulusuk, East Greenland, it was the only bag I had that could fit on the plane as carry-on luggage. While some people left their camera rigs on the ice between dives, I could put mine back in the bag, to insulate it and reduce the amount of battery drainage, as well as protect it from any gear being slung around by ice divers suffering some level of exhaustion after too long under the ice. After every dive day I zipped it up and put it on the snowmobile to take my gear back to our house, confident that even if it fell off the sled, it would protect my gear. And after the trip was all done, as other people were holding their camera rigs under the shower and trying to press every button to clean off their housings, I just filled my cooler bag up with water and left my rig to soak. Then I used it as a dunk tank to soak my regulators, and after that I was all set to go home. (link to Greenland article on UWPG)

So, if you want a cheap, lightweight and versatile bag for your rig, check out the AO Cooler Bag. You may find yourself liking it a lot more than you ever expected to like a camera bag. And don’t forget, it also doubles as a portable cooler for, well, a 24-pack of cans, or the equivalent!

Here are a couple related articles on uwphotographyguide.com:

• Greenland Iceberg Diving (for more info about my trip)
• In the Camera Bag with Ken Kiefer

AO Cooler Bag keeping my gear from freezing to the ice

Rinsing my rig in the AO cooler bag

Rinsing my regs in the AO cooler bag

AO cooler bag fitting nicely under the small seat of the plane from Greenland.

Iceberg photo from Greenland trip

Iceberg photo from Greenland trip

Iceberg photo from Greenland trip

The post One of My Favorite Underwater Photography Accessories – the AO Cooler Bag first appeared on In Focus Underwater Photography Blog.