35 replies to this topic

[secretsea18]

By "mechanical or electronic" I was referring to the way the housing gives instructions to the camera. Some have levers etc that physically bear against the controls, others plug into the camera. Electronic gives more controls, mechanical is simpler and if well designed is more reliable.

Can you zoom your lens underwater?

Yes I have a zoom gear. The Tokina 10-17mm FE zoom is an awesome lens, especially underwater... The zoom gear goes into the "focus" gear would be, but the camera does the auto focus. It can focus just an inch in front of the lens, so really excellent focusing capabilities, and doesn't need any diopters (which is good because there is no screw on mount up front and no rear gel slot). I sometimes put on a magic filter using tape.


OH I forgot the best part of my rig, and that is my WOODY DIOPTER. External slip on diopter for macro.

What is your rig?

[peterbj7]

Underwater I just use compacts, several Canon and Casio. I am looking to upgrade these though.

On the surface I use a Canon 5D, with their 24-105 and 100-400 zooms. I'm looking to get a 50mm f1.4 (f1.2 would be nice but simply too expensive) and some sort of ultra-wide zoom, but for the latter I don't know what to get. As the 5D has a full frame sensor my choice of lenses is quite different from yours, and I think the widest I'm likely to go to is 16mm. Canon make zooms starting from 16 and 17, though they're very different qualities and prices. I hear consistently good reports on the Tokina you have, but it wouldn't even work on my camera. It would fit (with a Canon mount of course) but would give extreme vignetting, and might not focus safely anyway - most lenses these days focus at the rear, and many (not all) lenses designed for cropped sensor cameras protrude too far for a FF camera, and would interfere with the mirror. You'd have the same issues if you tried to use your lenses on a Nikon D3.

Another issue is that lenses for FF cameras are a lot more expensive than for cropped sensor ones, as well as being bigger and heavier.

I don't think I'll ever take the 5D under water, for two reasons. First is that it's way too expensive for me to risk. Second is that the reason it's so expensive is the extreme picture quality it can deliver including in very low light, and those capabilities are way more than I could make use of underwater. A third reason is that I don't have a suitable lens, which brings me back to the reason for my question. What is the default focal length that you use? If I were to take the camera under water I think I'd probably go for a prime lens, but I haven't a clue which one.

I also have a film SLR, an old Canon A1 with lots of lenses that cost me a fortune at the time. They won't work on the 5D. I wouldn't bring that camera to Belize as it would be too much of a problem keeping the film in good condition. And a housing for it would cost thousands - not worth it.

I have a friend who takes his underwater photography seriously, and he has three D3s, two housings (specially built), and several specialist lenses that cost an absolute fortune. Plus mega strobes that cost ditto. He takes wonderful pictures, usually on commission, and has many published. But I'm not into spending $100k+ on camera gear! There really is no limit to what you can spend if you want to.

I don't understand your reference to diopters....? And what's a magic filter?

[Scubatooth]

TSF

I could post several pages on this subject on whats the best camera for me as theres so many variables.

You mention larger frame size would be better, but not necessarily it all comes down to the number of pixels per square centimeter. Because the more pixels you pack in a area the quality will actually decrease because of heat noise, sensor noise, and electron bleed.

The sensor crop of a camera means nothing really except for how it changes the apparent focal length of a lense (IE making a lense a longer focal length then it really is: IE 50mm lens on a 1.6x crop is now a 80mm lens). what you are really looking for is good glass because it doesnt matter if you have the newest TOL camera as if you have bad glass its all a waste. This is why I havent bought a camera body in 2 years is because i have been buying all my glass (Canon L series lense's , and all are more expensive then the camera body itself) and renting the camera bodies i need for my work.

My recommendation would be that to get a entry level DSLR (D40-60-80, or Rebel XTi or 40D)unless you photography like the back of your hand (like converting Shutter speeds/F-stops to various ISO in your head) or are a serious pro & have a need for the full frame Like i do where i have to have images that have to reproduce on a very large scale and/or have to be tack sharp as press your nose into the print distance.

If your thinking you need a full frame because of what you have read then your falling for all of the marketing hype that they put out which is laughable sometime because marketing is trying to sell a camera not tell the truth/reality of what reall goes on.


Just a FYI even a 5mp camera with the image well exposed and processed well will produce sharp prints in the 20x30 in range. you really need to ask your self what you are planning to do with your images(web, prints, etc) then you can go from there, just remember if you plan on housing a DSLR you need to plan for a min of 10K for all the items you are going to need to shoot(camera, lense's housing, focus gears, spacers, dome ports, strobes, sync cords, arms, and storage case) with at DSLR UW I also dont count Ike housings (which would reduce cost) in this as I feel there not built as well as others on the market.

Well im dead from the day and im gonna crash

[Scubatooth]

peter

diopters are used to bring the minimum focus(from like 9" to 4") distance even closer so that the camera can focus on the virtual image on the dome port. They are also used to help with the sharpness of the lense's in the corners.

Then the magic filter is a filter developed by alex mustard to help restore color in UW images to more natural color. link http://www.magic-filters.com/

[secretsea18]

A third reason is that I don't have a suitable lens, which brings me back to the reason for my question. What is the default focal length that you use? If I were to take the camera under water I think I'd probably go for a prime lens, but I haven't a clue which one.

I don't understand your reference to diopters....? And what's a magic filter?

I usually use the 60mm for macro (rarely now I use the 105mm) because I am usually diving in "dirty" water in Philippines, Indonesia, etc on muck sites with it but I don't have problems with getting up close. The lens is capable of 1:1 magnification.

For wide angle I now use the Tokina 10-17mm. I am getting used to it, as I am not as experienced with wide angle as with macro... it's harder, I like fish in my pictures and most of the "lovely coral reef scenes" with WA seem to be lacking many fish... and I know that it's due to the diver being there, taking time to set up the shot, etc... the fish get scared away, leaving the coral formations without much fish many times...

Will get back to you on the Magic filter, and diopter later... gotta get to work.

[secretsea18]

One of the most important things about UW Photography, is to get close to your subject, and THEN get even closer. This single simple concept will improve almost everyone's pictures, get color better as the strobe is good (usually) within 2-3 feet of the subject. By getting more color into the photo and decreasing the blue, you will have more keepers.

By the way Tooth, many pros use Ikelite housings, as they run through cameras so often and have several of them. I know of many. They are very durable and well built, so even though they look rinky-dinky, they are not. There is nothing wrong with them. For me, I prefer the feel and handle position of the S&S (probably as it was my first housing.... the first housing available for the Nikon F100 when that camera came out!)

[Fordan]

The sensor crop of a camera means nothing really except for how it changes the apparent focal length of a lense (IE making a lense a longer focal length then it really is: IE 50mm lens on a 1.6x crop is now a 80mm lens). what you are really looking for is good glass because it doesnt matter if you have the newest TOL camera as if you have bad glass its all a waste. This is why I havent bought a camera body in 2 years is because i have been buying all my glass (Canon L series lense's , and all are more expensive then the camera body itself) and renting the camera bodies i need for my work.

My recommendation would be that to get a entry level DSLR (D40-60-80, or Rebel XTi or 40D)unless you photography like the back of your hand (like converting Shutter speeds/F-stops to various ISO in your head) or are a serious pro & have a need for the full frame Like i do where i have to have images that have to reproduce on a very large scale and/or have to be tack sharp as press your nose into the print distance.

If your thinking you need a full frame because of what you have read then your falling for all of the marketing hype that they put out which is laughable sometime because marketing is trying to sell a camera not tell the truth/reality of what reall goes on.

Right. A full frame doesn't change the image quality per se, but as you say it does change the effective focal length, with a cropped sensor essentially zooming in a bit vs a full-frame lens. I actually like this effect when I'm using my telephoto, as it gives me a bit more reach. It does make it more challenging, though, to go wide-angle, and that's a common goal for underwater, to my understanding. On the Canon it's not so bad because they make a high quality (not "L", though) 10-22mm lens that uses the EF-S mount. With Canon, full frame bodies can use EF lenses, cropped bodies can use EF and EF-S, because EF-S lenses stick further into the body and would block the mirror on a full frame.

Just a FYI even a 5mp camera with the image well exposed and processed well will produce sharp prints in the 20x30 in range. you really need to ask your self what you are planning to do with your images(web, prints, etc) then you can go from there, just remember if you plan on housing a DSLR you need to plan for a min of 10K for all the items you are going to need to shoot(camera, lense's housing, focus gears, spacers, dome ports, strobes, sync cords, arms, and storage case) with at DSLR UW I also dont count Ike housings (which would reduce cost) in this as I feel there not built as well as others on the market.

Well im dead from the day and im gonna crash

You don't need huge megapixels to create great pictures that will be equivalent to 35mm film. For compact cameras, as I think I've posted before, there's an argument that more megapixels is bad, because it get noisier. This doesn't apply (at least, not at the same levels) to DSLRs due to the larger sensors.

I will say, though, that more megapixels can let you crop an image more to come up with a better composition without dropping the number of pixels to the point of being noticeable. But I'm sure everyone but me gets their composition spot on every time.

At the point when I decide to bring my DSLR underwater, I'll probably go Ikelite because of the cost. I hadn't heard much in the way of issues with them.

[netmage]

Thanks for all the links and advice. I know this is an expensive undertaking, that is why, camera first, housing, strobes, etc. will come in installments.

I currently have an olympus sp350, which is working pretty well for me underwater. I have the Ikelite housing and a small strobe. I just can't take the pictures I want to on land. I was spoiled with all my old Nikon's and just want the same quality pictures. I can't get that without going to the SLR.

I know Nikon and Canon have most of the market share on SLRs, so those are probably the two brands that I'll look at. I know cameras are like computers. You buy one and the next day there is a better one. I've also noticed that more models have a dust reduction system and a live preview.

What I'm a little confused about is the frame size. To me it would seem the bigger the better, which would be a full frame. Any thoughts on that... advantages, disadvantages...???

I use an SP350, Ikelite housing, big strobe.. DS-125... one major addition, Inon wide angle lens... I'm happy w/ it.... thinking about a second strobe, modeling light for night dives, and a dome port....

http:\\www.flickr.com\photos\netmage

[secretsea18]

Well after a little research and putting together my own comparison chart, I think I'm leaning towards the Canon EOS 40D. It looks like you get a lot for your money.

So now my next question, what is a good lens to start out with? I guess a 50mm would translate to a 35mm and f/1.4 or f/2.0 is what I should be looking for?

I apprectiate all your help and feedback!

Do you have any of those Nikon lenses still? Most of them will work on the digital cameras too, and if you have a significant investment in lenses that will work on the digital camera, perhaps you should stay with Nikon!

The best to start out with would be a 50 or 60mm MACRO lens. The F stop you will be using will be F16-F40 so don't stress over the low light stuff, as you MUST use an external strobe anyway. No other option for providing light for macro. Even if you can take a nice picture without the strobe, you will never get the detail and cool colors that you will be expecting and the depth of field will be so shallow that most of your picture will be out of focus, with only a small distance within the depth of field. Other Canonites can steer you towards the correct focal length for this essential lens as I use Nikon. Macro is very excellent to start off with, and you can do so with a small to moderate size single strobe for starters (making the initial cost less).

The conversion factor is the opposite of what you wrote: a 35mm lens on the cropped sensor camera will be like a 50mm lens on the film camera. A 50 or 60mm lens on the cropped sensor camera is like a 75-90mm lens on a film camera.

[EASY]

Well after a little research and putting together my own comparison chart, I think I'm leaning towards the Canon EOS 40D. It looks like you get a lot for your money.

So now my next question, what is a good lens to start out with? I guess a 50mm would translate to a 35mm and f/1.4 or f/2.0 is what I should be looking for?

I apprectiate all your help and feedback!

My 40D was just delivered by UPS about 2 hours ago. I'm diving this weekend and trying it out if I can figure out this monster of system. It's quite intimidating with the SUBAL housing, dome port and two Sea & Sea Strobes. After reading thousands of forums, I went with the Tokina 10-17mm f3.5-4.5 Fisheye and Canon EF-S 60mm f/2.8 Macro USM Lens. The Ikelite system would have been considerably cheaper and I read very good things about it, also. In the end, it comes down to the artist behind the lens and I hope I can do this system justice and make some wonderful memories.

Also, I think you divided instead of multiplying. With the 40D's 1.6 conversion factor, a 50mm lens would become the equivalent of a 80mm.

Eric

Edited by EASY, 30 May 2008 - 03:31 PM.

[peterbj7]

Someone has just started a related thread on Scubaboard that you may find interesting.
http://www.scubaboar...ant-review.html

Can I just clarify something for the OP, who I assume is a novice when it comes to SLRs? The sensor size isn't the only determinant of image quality, but it is a significant factor. And while you can generally use lenses designed for a FF digital camera (which is the same as a film camera) on camera bodies with cropped sensors, the same is NOT true in reverse. If you go out and buy, say a Canon 40D (an excellent camera) and buy lots of APS-C lenses that will work perfectly on that camera, you will find if you later decide you want the benefits a FF sensor can give you that many/most of those lenses will NOT work on it. The same is true for Nikon, though as only their top model has a FF sensor you're not likely to buy it.

You may also not realise the significance of focal length vs. sensor size. The EFFECTIVE focal length of a lens is heavily determined by the sensor size of the body it'll be used on, and you must get to grips with this before you start. Make sure that for any particular lens you know whether the focal length is being quoted for a FF or film camera (the usual), or whether the stated focal length of a lens designed for use only with a cropped sensor camera has already been adjusted. It makes an enormous difference.

I apologise for seeming to bombard you with technicalities, but you MUST understand these points if you are to buy wisely. At present it may seem almost irrelevant as you don't know much about the subject, but once you buy a camera you'll learn fast and you don't then want to find you chose badly. Which is why I said you should decide what sort of land photography you want to do with the DSLR before you part with any money. You're embarking on a very expensive hobby and you should try to learn from others' experiences. How expensive? - just a body and a couple of lenses cost me over $5k, and I have a long way to go yet!

Edited by peterbj7, 30 May 2008 - 07:45 PM.

[Fordan]

Can I just clarify something for the OP, who I assume is a novice when it comes to SLRs? The sensor size isn't the only determinant of image quality, but it is a significant factor. And while you can generally use lenses designed for a FF digital camera (which is the same as a film camera) on camera bodies with cropped sensors, the same is NOT true in reverse. If you go out and buy, say a Canon 40D (an excellent camera) and buy lots of APS-C lenses that will work perfectly on that camera, you will find if you later decide you want the benefits a FF sensor can give you that many/most of those lenses will NOT work on it. The same is true for Nikon, though as only their top model has a FF sensor you're not likely to buy it.

Arguably the sensor size has little/nothing to do with image quality, it's impact on the photographer is focal length/zoom. Full-frame sensors are also more likely to have more pixels, since given the same sensor material/pixel density, a bigger sensor will give you more of them, thus the 5D being 12MP compared to the 20D and 30D's 8MP (20D was out when the 5D was released, and the 30D was released about a year after the 5D). However, once you're up into that general range of megapixels, lens quality is really the determiner of picture quality.

In terms of EF-S lenses (the ones that only fit a Canon APS-C-sensored camera), I prefer the normal EF lenses that will work on either type of camera in general for the reasons you list, but if there's a compelling case for an EF-S lens, I'll get it. Personally, I have 2 EF-S lenses, one is the kit lens that came with the 20D, and the other is Canon's 10-22mm f/3.5-4.5 lens. This is a great lens and relatively cheap (US$700). It has been compared to the Canon L series favorably, and some believe that it didn't become an L lens solely because it is EF-S. Nothing else Canon makes gets me close to that wide with an APS-C sensor, although there are equivalents for full frame lenses that would give them the same width as this lens on an APS-C camera.

Basically, I'd say buy what works best for the pictures you want to take, but if there's an non EF-S lens that's close, buy it. No point locking yourself in (although the only full frame sensor cameras Canon makes currently are the 5D and the 1Ds).

Also, when looking at lenses for land use, I'll add that I'm a big fan of image stabilized (IS) lenses. If you do natural-light handheld shots, it'll effectively give you 2-3 stops, as you'll get good pictures at slower shutter speeds. Only where the blurring is from camera shake, though; subject motion blurring will still bite you and the only answer is a faster shutter speed (with it's corresponding impact to aperture).

[scubafanatic]

....admittedly I'm pretty much clueless about cameras...but I do enjoy seeing dive photos of others, moreover my dive buddy is a major shutterbug (we own a low end Sea Life something or other) and I'm kicking around a possible upgrade for us.....maybe a Sea and Sea DX 1G...heck, I think even something as 'affordable' as this, with a strobe/arm/other stuff...could easily hit $ 2000...and this is by no means a remotely 'serious' system compared to the $ figures being tossed around on this thread....but I'd like to get something 'better' for our big trip this December to the Socorro Islands/Nautilus Explorer...and I can't spend my entire scuba budget this year on a camera......so I'm thinking about this option. Quick question though, given how quickly cameras/electronics are progressing, it seems foolish to me to buy a certain camera, then load up on all the VERY expensive housing/lenses/strobes, knowing if you flood the camera, or technology rapidly renders the camera obsolete.....you are trapped with a sunk investment in gear tailored for a SPECIFIC camera, and have thus invested a fortune in, essentially, paperweights ! sure, maybe you can E-Bay some of it for a fraction of the original cost, but still you're pretty much screwed, aren't you ?

...what do you do, maybe buy 2 or 3 spare cameras, ready to roll in the event of a flood/etc, since you know a couple of years out your latest-and-greatest camera today will be tomorrow's obsolete junk and long since out of production ? Even if you don't 'lose' a camera.....your high-tech 10-12 MP camera of today will be replaced by a 50 MP camera in 2-3 short years with way more features...but you can't afford to replace all the housings/lenses/etc. and upgrade cameras.

...or am I missing something ?

Karl