Does Size Really Matter: Cathy Lewis

Many underwater photographers are moving away from large DSLR and mirrorless rigs in favour of smaller, lighter camera systems. Is this simply about convenience, or has downsizing changed the way they photograph underwater? We asked a selection of underwater photographers to share their experiences.

First up in our mini-series, ‘Does size really matter’  is Cathy Lewis, a renowned British underwater photographer particularly known for her macro images of marine life around the UK and Ireland. Her work has received numerous awards and recognition in major competitions, including Underwater Photographer of the Year.

We caught up with Cathy to discover why she decided to downsize, how the change has affected her photography, and whether she would ever consider going back to a larger system.

Tell us about your camera journey.

What underwater camera system did you use previously, and what system are you using now?

I’ve always used Nikon cameras and, until two years ago, had the D500 in a Nauticam housing. I loved it – it was the best underwater setup I’d ever had – but also the largest. I now have an OM-1 Micro Four Thirds system, also in a Nauticam housing.

What prompted you to downsize?
Was it weight, travel restrictions, cost, ease of diving, changing photographic interests, or something else?

I’m not getting any younger and had been contemplating how many diving years I have left in me, particularly UK shore diving. Clambering over slippery rocks with a heavy camera isn’t easy when you’re a relatively petite woman on the wrong side of 60! My dive kit is pretty streamlined, and I felt it was time my camera setup was the same. Basically, I was trying to ‘future-proof’ myself.

What have been the biggest benefits?
What do you enjoy most about shooting with a smaller system?

The system feels right for me in that it’s more compact, lightweight and manageable. It’s a pleasure to dive with, and even more of a pleasure to pack and take on holiday. Stressing about luggage allowance is now a thing of the past!

What have you sacrificed?
Are there any compromises in image quality, handling, battery life, ergonomics, or functionality?

On a general level, I don’t feel I’ve sacrificed very much at all. I rarely crop photos, so the reduced image quality isn’t an issue. Battery life is good, and the smaller housing works well ergonomically. I can only think of one setting that isn’t available on the OM-1, but also quite a few new ones that are.

Has downsizing changed the way you shoot?
Has it influenced the subjects you photograph, your composition, or your diving style?

The biggest change I noticed was how much less light the Micro Four Thirds system lets in. This has meant that I’ve had to be much more flexible with light settings than before. However, the camera copes well with high ISOs, and because it has a greater depth of field, I can get away with larger apertures. I’ve also been using slower shutter speeds and enjoying experimenting with motion blur, where the reduced light is actually an advantage.

How does it compare underwater?
Do you find the smaller system easier to manage in currents, when entering and exiting the water, or on longer dives?

My camera isn’t as lightweight as it could be – I couldn’t be without my heavy 45-degree viewfinder, for example – but it is certainly lighter and easier to manage than my old system. This makes a big difference when carrying the camera around on land, shore diving and coping with challenging situations such as getting on a dive lift in a heavy swell.

Do you miss anything about your previous setup?
Are there features or capabilities that you simply can’t replicate with a smaller system?

I tend to do a lot more macro than wide angle. If wide angle was my passion, I might not have opted for the MFT system. Saying that, there are plenty of talented MFT users taking fantastic wide-angle images.

What about lenses?
Do you still have the same creative flexibility with lenses and ports, or do you find yourself working differently?

One of the many pluses of the OM-1 MFT system is that lenses are comparatively cheap and plentiful. I now own a wider variety of lenses than I did for my D500 and can achieve greater magnification on macro subjects than before. I’ve also invested in an (admittedly heavy) wide-angle wet lens that I really enjoy using. The quality is great, and it can focus right up to the lens. On the downside, I don’t find my new system lends itself to bokeh backgrounds as well as the old one.

Looking back, would you make the same decision again?
Would you ever return to a larger camera system? Why or why not?

No, I wouldn’t go back. My priorities have changed. If I’d wanted the best quality and performance, I would have upgraded to full frame, but then I wouldn’t have the convenience of a smaller, lighter system. Changing to a completely new camera setup was expensive, but I was able to sell my old camera and buy most of my new lenses second-hand. I feel that I have invested in my future, the aim being to keep diving and photographing for as long as possible.

Do you have any regrets?
If you could do it all again, is there anything you would do differently?

No, I don’t think so.

What advice would you give someone buying their first underwater camera system?
Should beginners start small and upgrade later, or invest in a larger system from the outset?

I think it depends on the person. If they are an experienced diver looking to take up photography seriously, then a larger system makes sense. If they are relatively new to diving, then I’d start small and prioritise diving skills and experience.

Finally… does size really matter?
In one sentence, tell us whether downsizing has made you a better underwater photographer.

Yes, all change is good! I’m learning and enjoying the capabilities of my new lightweight system and finding ways around any compromises.

Join us next week for the next instalment of Does Size Really Matter?, as we hear from another photographer who has made the move to a smaller system.