magic filter???

i have been reading a lot of reviews on what appears to be a brilliant piece of kit, the magic filter.

as i am only an ocean diver atm would i be right in thinking this would save me forking out on expensive strobes.

i want my diving and my underwater photography to progress together but after forking out for a 20d housing i wouldnt have anything left for strobes, is this wonderful item the answer to my financial prayers?

cheers for any help

andy

if you read the instructions on the website .. you will see that the Magic has specific uses and types of photography you can do. Mostly shallow ish .. and also using available light in clear good vis water .. although rules can always be broken these basics would be good to stick to.

If you feel you can live within the limits of filter photography until you buy a strobe then this is the way forward and if indeed you just can't buy a strobe yet .. then sure get one ... it will aid your photography results by filtering the the colours your camera is shooting.

The results of the magic are speaking for them selves if you read the other threads with examples in you will see for the cost of it in my opinion its well worth it for digital underwater photography.

good luck

G

I agree with Giles. Filter photography is another technique, mostly suited to wide angle. While you might be happy starting off with this technique (as it is a cheap way to start) you will certainly want strobes sooner rather than later.

Filters are not really suitable for deep (>20m, >80ft) dives, night dives (!), and macro photography. They are excellent for shallow (<15m, <50ft) scenic, diver and wreck photography. And are also good for larger marine life.

Alex

p.s. That said I have seen Peter Rowlands (of Magic Filters) do a whole week diving in the Red Sea with two cameras, without ever attaching a strobe to either of them.

well as my limit is 22m it seems a fine investment to get the hang of underwater photography.

cheers guys

Alex, can you explain why the filters are mostly suited to wide angle. I thought that as long as you can get enough natural light in your "scene" it should work. The small apertures used for macro may rule that one out, but I thought 24-60mm focal range shots of smallish fish should work.

Bart

Hi Bart, the problem is exactly getting enough light. You need pretty small apertures to get good depth of field in macro, and that eliminates most ambient light. Even when shooting wide angle (or between 24-60 as you mentioned), relatively slow shutter speeds are necessary to light the scenes with a filter and if you have fast moving subjects like small fish in your shots you will probably notice motion blur. Something to experiment would be high ISO filter photos with the 20D and 5D, but I have no idea how good that would look.

Luiz

What about using a Canon 50mm F1.4 or the 35mm F1.4 (Canon or Sigma) with ISO 800 or 1600 on a Canon D20 in a sunny tropical location at 5-10m depth. I was hoping to try out this combination with Magick filters on Cuba (Breezes Jibacoa) where they have some nice shallow reefs including a very snorkable one right in front of the resort where you can easily spot 50-60 different fish species on a single 1 hour snorkling trip.

If this is doomed for failure then I better spend less money on lenses and get a flash unit right away since I'm not really interested in WA shots of reefs and divers.

Bart

Hi Gang and Happy New Year to all.

Shot this one yesterday off the North Kona Coast..

Used the 10.5.. Dome was just about touching the eel.

It was my first outing with the Magic Filters and it was cool not having the weight and

hassle of strobes.. I was at about 40 feet..

Got the hang of setting the Camera White Balance pretty fast.

Shot JPEG and just added a little contrast with ACDSee Pro

Thinking I want to do more of this..