 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| PhotoKB HomeDiscussion Groups Digital Photography Digital PhotoDSLR CamerasZLR CamerasPoint & Shoot CamerasFilm Photography 35 mmLarge FormatMedium formatDarkroomFilm and LabsOther EquipmentPhoto Technique Nature PhotographyPeople PhotographyTechnique GeneralGeneral Photo Topics General TopicsAustralian PhotographyUK PhotographyDirectoryPhoto Clubs |
Photo Forum / Digital Photography / DSLR Cameras / March 2006Underwater Photography and SLR's
I've read a lot about DSLRs on this board over the last few months and I wonder how many people actually use them(dslrs) for underwater photography? I know the quality would be better but would the cost versus the quality be worth the expense? Although I sell DC and DSLR I'm not totally convinced that using a dslr would be beneficial to underwater photography. Water is a difficult domain at the best of times and sometimes you'd risk loosing the camera via flooding altogether so my question to this news-forum is this.... If I can take photos with a $800(including housing) camera like this http://kazdivephoto.conforums.com/index.cgi?board=scuba&action=display&num=11415 61194&start=0 why should I upgrade to a $4000(including housing) SLR would the cost versus the quality be worth the expense? _________________ keep up the cool posts kaz > If I can take photos with a $800(including housing) camera like this > > http://kazdivephoto.conforums.com/index.cgi?board=scuba&action=display&num=11415 61194&start=0 > > why should I upgrade to a $4000(including housing) SLR would the cost versus > the quality be worth the expense? sincerly, most of your photos are technicaly mediocare (blured, poor composition and light), although subject is rewarding. I agree that expensive camera would be a waste, unless you are willing to learn a little about using it. But then most of your pictures are also sad evidence of wasted chance. If you want to see how underwater photography may look like, visit http://www.amustard.com/?page=photo&subpage=photo B. why should I upgrade to a $4000(including housing) SLR would the cost versus the quality be worth the expense? Yeah I think the link answers your question.... > sincerly, most of your photos are technicaly mediocare (blured, poor > composition and light), although subject is rewarding. I agree that > expensive camera would be a waste, unless you are willing to learn a > little about using it. But then most of your pictures are also sad > evidence of wasted chance. If you want to see how underwater photography > may look like, I've given your comments some thought and your probably right in saying that my photos are a sad evidence of wasted chance so I don't think I'll bother with underwater photos anymore. > I've read a lot about DSLRs on this board over the last few months and I > wonder how many people actually use them(dslrs) for underwater [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > why should I upgrade to a $4000(including housing) SLR would the cost > versus the quality be worth the expense? It is exactly because underwater is a difficult medium that it is worth investing more--if you really want to reach a certain quality. First of all a decent housing gives you a choice of ports so that you can use different lenses for wide, close-up, etc. Generally underwater you want to be as close to your subject as possible, so the wider the better--a 10.5mm fisheye or 10-20 zoom is ideal. Then, of course, there is the whole question of lighting...If you are really serious you'll want two flashes on adjustable arms that can be set independently.... The answer to your question is really this: If all you want to do is to take some mediocre snaps with your normal or slightly-wide lens then probably the cheaper alternative will serve you almost as well as an expensive camera in an expensive housing with no flash and a 28mm lens mounted. Toby Your right with your comments about getting close with a wide angle > The answer to your question is really this: If all you want to do is to > take some mediocre snaps with your normal or slightly-wide lens then > probably the cheaper alternative will serve you almost as well as an > expensive camera in an expensive housing with no flash and a 28mm lens > mounted. too true >> I've read a lot about DSLRs on this board over the last few months and I >> wonder how many people actually use them(dslrs) for underwater [quoted text clipped - 33 lines] > > Toby > Your right with your comments about getting close with a wide angle > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > too true My friend has a little Minolta digicam in a little housing. He can compose via the back LCD screen and even use the little built-in flash when he is close. He can shoot several hundred frames without having to "change film", and the whole thing is about the size of a normal camera, so it is very easy to take along without it taking up too much attention. It is a very handy thing if all you want are "tourist" shots. Toby well basically thats all i am doing, that is taking pictures for the guests on the dive boat and posting them so they can download them when they get home.  Signature______________________ www.kazdivephotos.com > My friend has a little Minolta digicam in a little housing. He can compose > via the back LCD screen and even use the little built-in flash when he is [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Toby > "©´¯`·kÂz·´¯`©" <news2@kazdivephotos.com> wrote in message > > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > It is exactly because underwater is a difficult medium that it is worth > investing more--if you really want to reach a certain quality. True, although with work, one can achieve surprisingly good results with even a disposable camera. Here's a page (now offline) from Dave Read's "Aquashot" pages, courtesy of the wayback machine: http://web.archive.org/web/20010714074047/daveread.com/aquashot/gallery.html > ...First of all > a decent housing gives you a choice of ports so that you can use different > lenses for wide, close-up, etc. Generally underwater you want to be as close > to your subject as possible, so the wider the better--a 10.5mm fisheye or > 10-20 zoom is ideal. Which means that a dSLR with a ~1.6x crop factor is a bit problemmatic. This is pretty much why I'm not yet really considering replacing my 35mm Nikonos V yet ... > Then, of course, there is the whole question of > lighting...If you are really serious you'll want two flashes on adjustable > arms that can be set independently.... ...of course, that I have $2000 invested in strobes that aren't digital compatible might be a small factor in my decision-making process too. > The answer to your question is really this: If all you want to do is to take > some mediocre snaps with your normal or slightly-wide lens then probably the > cheaper alternative will serve you almost as well as an expensive camera in > an expensive housing with no flash and a 28mm lens mounted. Agreed. I have around $5K invested in my current 35mm Nikonos V system, and I expect that I'll have to spend that amount again in order to move to a comparable dSLR system...or more. I've tried playing with an UW P&S and housing, but the shutter lag is a major factor, as too the limitations on autofocus speed/accuracy. As such, something that the OP might want to consider is to "retrograde" back to film because there's a lot of people selling off very good Nikonos equipment at very good prices. Via eBay, I think that I could build a very respectable Nikonos V + 15mm + dual strobe system for under $2000. -hh > I've read a lot about DSLRs on this board over the last few months and I > wonder how many people actually use them(dslrs) for underwater photography? [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > keep up the cool posts > kaz I had the same question in my head, and SLRs give you a few benefits, but the answer lies in whether you are likely to use any of those features to your advantage. Changeable lenses No shutter delay Image quality (from increased sensor size) Ease of manual use etc. I've got a few images online if you want to compare image styles/quality. The first batch I took in Sipadan on an Olympus C-5050Zoom compact digital (www.snaq.net/PhotoAlbum/SMK/) and the second I took in Australia with a Nikon D70 (SLR) in a Nexus housing with Inon 220S strobe (www.snaq.net/PhotoAlbum/Australia/). Notice how many more of the former shots are natural light due to the restriction I had of no external strobe with the compact. Adding an external strobe to a compact can hugely benefit, so I would look into this first, with something like the Inon D1000 (I think) strobe. Stan > I had the same question in my head, and SLRs give you a few benefits, > but the answer lies in whether you are likely to use any of those > features to your advantage. probably not especially considering that most dives here are not in crystal clear water in fact most of the dives are quite surgy with strong current so a larger camera might be more of a burden > I've got a few images online if you want to compare image > styles/quality. The first batch I took in Sipadan on an Olympus > C-5050Zoom compact digital (www.snaq.net/PhotoAlbum/SMK/) and the second > I took in Australia with a Nikon D70 (SLR) in a Nexus housing with Inon > 220S strobe (www.snaq.net/PhotoAlbum/Australia/). Notice how many more Nice clear water where was this taken http://www.slink.nildram.co.uk/PhotoAlbum/Australia/DSC_1151.jpg > Adding an external strobe to a compact > can hugely benefit, so I would look into this first, with something like > the Inon D1000 (I think) strobe. I use a Bonica slave strobe and its a bit too strong for my camera so I use a nd filter to tone it down a bit > > I had the same question in my head, and SLRs give you a few benefits, > > but the answer lies in whether you are likely to use any of those [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > Nice clear water where was this taken > http://www.slink.nildram.co.uk/PhotoAlbum/Australia/DSC_1151.jpg That was taken on the SS Yongala off the coast of northern Queensland. It's generally considered one of the world's top wreck dives (whatever that means). It's certainly one of the most spectacular wrecks I've ever dived, especially when there's a reasonable current flowing as things start to feed, although that current also causes problems, as you noted above. Last time I was there: bull rays, guitar shark, bronze whaler sharks, minke whales, dolphins, queensland groupers, green & hawksbill turtles, schooling barracuda, giant trevally, etc. You seldom bother looking at much of the wreck on most dives there, simply as there's so much life on it! Several of the other photos are taken there as well, as it's conveniently placed quite close to where I live at the moment (Townsville). > > Adding an external strobe to a compact > > can hugely benefit, so I would look into this first, with something like > > the Inon D1000 (I think) strobe. > > I use a Bonica slave strobe and its a bit too strong for my camera so I use > a nd filter to tone it down a bit Fair enough. Depends on the amount of background light you want to let in really. Small aperture seems to be often used for macro shots to isolate the subject, but wide-angle tends to need a compromise aperture. I'm currently going through a phase of trying to get a balance of fill-flash and natural light such that it's not particularly obvious that the flash has been used, such as in the giant clam photo. Stan your certainly in the right area to take photos and you obviously know what your doing it can be clearly seen by the quality of the images that are on your web site! i'm pretty sure that pentax and nikon might drop prices soon due to some models being updated so do you think that the pentax ist or nikon d50 would be good enough cameras to use? Signature______________________ www.kazdivephotos.com www.scubadivephotos.com > >> > I had the same question in my head, and SLRs give you a few benefits, [quoted text clipped - 47 lines] > > Stan > your certainly in the right area to take photos and you obviously know what > your doing it can be clearly seen by the quality of the images that are on [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > models being updated so do you think that the pentax ist or nikon d50 would > be good enough cameras to use? Yes, they certainly would be. I have a friend here in Townsville who is using a Pentax *ist D and selling his photos successfully around town, although he isn't taking u/w shots. The Nikon D50 seems like a better option though as it has a flash-sync speed of 1/500sec compared to the Pentax 1/150sec, which makes a big difference on shots looking up to the surface. As always it's often nice to freeze motion, and the surface ripples are definitely in motion. A slow shutter speed can cause indistinct and blurry surface - sometimes desired - but sometimes not. At least with a fast flash-sync speed you have the choice. The other thing to check (importantly) is whether you can get a housing for the camera, and at what price. Oddly many people forget this step, and a good housing is often more expensive than the camera. Luckily there's www.digideep.com to help out (both have them available, but not much choice). Stan > I've read a lot about DSLRs on this board over the last few months and I > wonder how many people actually use them(dslrs) for underwater photography? [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > keep up the cool posts > kaz Check out http://www.robgalbraith.com/bins/multi_page.asp?cid=7-7890-8019. Some very nice digital UW photos. This links to the photographer's site. Tom |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2009 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.