Seacam 5D review

Great review with good information. Thank You James. I am just thinking about the viewfinder issue. Presently I use the 10D with an enhanced viewfinder. Some people have said they feel uncomfortable with enhanced finders because the eye has to be aligned correctly in relation to the finder to get the big picture. I never noticed this to be an issue because there is enough headroom for eye alignment and I never had problems to see the entire image or even noticed any difficulty at all. But with bigger viewfinders like the 5D, does it become more difficult? Maybe because the camera’s bigger finder image gets closer to the enhanced housing finder’s edges and there is less headroom for eye movement? My understanding is that the 5D has a significantly bigger viewfinder image than the 1D MkII has and is very close to the 1Ds MkII finder’s size.

Julian

Hi Julian

Yes, a very good review. Although I've only handled a couple of 5D bodies, my immediate impressions have been of a slightly smaller sized viewfinder image as well as a little less tolerance for 'off centre' viewing than the viewfinder on my own 1DS bodies. I have a 5D housing on order and will do a comparative test IF I can borrow a 5D, but I would think the inherent differences between the 5D and 1DS camera viewfinders give rise to the situation which James describes.

I actually use an S45 Sporstfinder with my own housing and can say that I find that this offers an extremely good viewfinder image - whilst there is a degree of alignment needed, I've never found this to be a problem, and it is certainly far better than using no viewfinder optic or a reducing optic. Feedback from other S45 and S180 users, especially those who use 'pro' series cameras, is very good indeed, but I do have to say that whilst the S45 did do a good job on the Fuji S2Pro I ran for some time, the 1DS and a fast lens give me an extremely large, bright and most importantly of all, easy to compose with, viewfinder image. The trade-off is of course bulk and, as was pointed out, weight, giving rise to reduced buoyancy. Perhaps I should point out that Seacam's larger flash units help increase buoyancy and so help neutralise buoyancy of the whole rig.

So my own personal opinion is that viewfiders like the S45 and S180 are far better than smaller ones. As a side comment, another user found trying the S45 somewhat disconcerting when handed my housing during a dive! Like anything else, it takes getting used to.

Hi Paul,

as you have used the S2Pro, I understand you would say there is not much difference in eye alignment exactness between a cropped camera viewfinder (S2Pro) and the 1Ds MkII in conjunction with S180/S45? As said, I haven't experienced this being an issue as some have written about. But from James' review, I wonder how it'll be with a full frame camera which uses the enhanced housing finder to its fullest extend (less margin left for eye positioning to see the entire picture easily?). On the other hand, those enhanced finders haven’t been designed for APS cameras, they have been build for 35mm cameras / finders and successfully used with them in the film past already (maybe with the slight drawback that the Seacam finder kind of protrudes into the LCD area which hasn't been the case with film cameras).

Julian

Hi again Julian

The whole situation of camera finders has always been a mystery to me. Given that the viewfinder image is the interface between the photographer and image to be created, it has always seemed to be something which has been neglected. The first camera to really address this was the Nikon F3 with its high eyepoint prism. Since then Nikon's 'pro' cameras have always offered pretty decent viewfinders.

I've not used Canon film cameras so I don't know how the 5D compares with FF film cameras, but I suspect that it is not dis-similar. The 1D Series DO have decent finders though. As the Seacam Sportsfinders were developed for use with either film or digital, I presume that the 5D will behave pretty much like the EOS 5 and similar models. But there is nothing to beat starting with a good high eyepoint finder in the first place (1D Series, D1 & D2 Series) although as usual you pay for the privilege! The S2Pro was an oddity as the image was central but the viewfinder info was substantially lower - it used a masked 35mm (F80) viewfinder! The S45 coped with this well but it felt odd at times!

I'm glad to see that viewfinder development for housings is something which manufacturers are addressing. Now if only camera manufacturers would stop chasing MPixels and concentrate on even better viewfinders........

Julian, I have not used a 1D underwater but I agree with james's comments about the 5D viewfinder.

The size is nice but compaired to the 10D you have to push your eye really close to the viewfinder to see it all. I think this is because the actual hole that you look through is not that much bigger than that of the 10D (they use the same eyecup) but the focus screen is a lot bigger so in order to see it all you've got to really smash your face against the camera.

From playing witd a 1D at B&H, the 1D has a smaller focus screen but a bigger hole making it easier to see - you can see it from a further distance.

A quick look on dpreviewand other sites shows the following:

Magnification of viewfinders and Eyepoint

1D Series = 0.7x Eyepoint = 20mm

5D = 0.7x Eyepoint = 20mm

10D = 0.9x Eyepoint = 20mm

Which would indicate that both 1D Series and 5D are identical, but they aren't!

Perhaps it is to do with the physical aperture through which you view the viewfinder image?

Hi William,

thank you, that is exactly the point I am wondering about the 5D. Such big camera viewfinders can easily hit the edge of the camera’s finder hole like with film cameras in the past. With many of them it was not even possible to see the entire viewfinder picture on land to 100% into the corners without little eye movement. I held my housing GD finder onto the 5D and the picture got critical at the edges in terms of eye alignment (not much headroom). I was wondering if that is something similar to the thing James has described in his review as he mentioned it was easier with a smaller (cropped) camera finder (1D).

I am still unsure if my GD finder makes sense for the 5D. The drawback is, the Sealux GD finder isn’t user interchangeable and I should decide before ordering to send it in for mounting.

@Paul, I don’t think Seacam had too many digital SLRs in mind when designing the finder about 10 years ago. As said, it doesn’t matter because they already covered 35mm film format.

I have never used the Seacam finder underwater. Do you have to put your diving mask quite close to the finder (what I assume) or does it allow some greater distance?

I don’t think 1D series has a high eyepoint ‘sportsfinder’ as their eyepoint is no different from the other cameras. I think you have to get your eye to the viewfinder like with all current cameras. It might be easier to see the entire picture then if the ‘hole’ is bigger. Sadly, cameras with sportfinders are a thing of the past. Like the ones from Pentax or Nikon, where you could see an entire viewfinder image (corner to corner) from 5 or 10cm distance between eye and camera.

A quick look on dpreviewand other sites shows the following:

 

Magnification of viewfinders and Eyepoint

 

1D Series = 0.7x Eyepoint = 20mm

5D = 0.7x Eyepoint = 20mm

10D = 0.9x Eyepoint = 20mm

 

Which would indicate that both 1D Series and 5D are identical, but they aren't!

 

Perhaps it is to do with the physical aperture through which you view the viewfinder image?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

You have to take the slight crop into account, 5D displays only 96% of the picture, 1Ds series does 100%. In exchange, 5D has a slightly greater magnification. So they are very close in terms of size. So I think you are right that the aperture thingy (hole) can make a noticeable difference.

Julian

I agree with both of the above. If you do the same math that Paul did with the D200 and D2x, the D200 will apparently be 0.8mm (or something like that) larger, but the physical aperture of the D2x is larger. I was wondering how this would affect shooting underwater. When I am shooting just for fish ID (composition not critical) I usually hold my housing at arms length away from me and can see more than 60% of the viewfinder (central area) through the non-magnified Subal eyepiece.

Luiz

Julian

The Seacam S45 requires the mask 'reasonably' close - but I'm not the person to ask as I hold it as close as possible usually to ensure I see the entire viewfinder image very clearly so that I can do my utmost to compose precisely!

I'm just wondering if there is also an issue with prism size? This may have a bearing on viewfinder images and certainly the 'pro' cameras appear to have larger (heavier) prisms. There has been discussion on robgalbraith.com about viewfinder brightness, etc. and I wonder if prism size affects brightness and/or view angle tolerance. If it does then it would explain why using a Sportsfinder still shows up differences.

Hi guys,

I've been out of town but I'm back and have read this thread w/ interest. I am holding my 1DmkII and the 5D in hand and there is a clear difference between the viewfinders.

The 5D finder's "hole" is smaller. To see the viewfinder image, you have to get your eye much closer to the "hole." When you are close, the image is big. As for only seeing 96%, I don't detect a difference when looking at the shots - just remember you'll get an extra 2% on each side I guess. The viewfinder brightness is a little better on the 1dMkII but very close.

Now, on the Wetpixel trip, I used the 5D in the Seacam and the Aquatica housings. The Aquatica housing has their standard viewfinder, and I used the Seacam w/ the S180. (I'm excited to try the new Aquatica magnified finder when it comes out.) To use the Aquatica, you have to have your mask really pressed up against the housing, but when you do that you get a pretty good viewfinder image.

The Seacam w/ the S-180 lets you pull your mask back a bit and still see just about everything. W/ the 1DmkII you could pull your mask back a bit and you COULD see everything, so there is a difference (the 1.3x crop probably). The Seacam is not ultra-sensitive to where you eye is, unlike the Subal, which I have found from bench-testing (not underwater) is more sensitive.

Because my insurance will replace my Seacam housing, I deliberated long and hard about doing a direct replacement and getting the 1DsmkII. But in the end, I decided that the small size of the 5D setup, the lower cost (I can get two for the same price as the 1DsmkII), and the excellent image quality of the camera were important enought to go w/ the 5D setup.

I have the standard Seacam Pro viewfinder, so I may try putting that on today too.

Cheers

James

Hi guys,

 

I've been out of town but I'm back and have read this thread w/ interest.  I am holding my 1DmkII and the 5D in hand and there is a clear difference between the viewfinders.

 

A The 5D finder's "hole" is smaller.  To see the viewfinder image, you have to get your eye much closer to the "hole."  When you are close, the image is big.  As for only seeing 96%, I don't detect a difference when looking at the shots - just remember you'll get an extra 2% on each side I guess.  The viewfinder brightness is a little better on the 1dMkII but very close.

 

B

The Seacam w/ the S-180 lets you pull your mask back a bit and still see just about everything.  W/ the 1DmkII you could pull your mask back a bit and you COULD see everything, so there is a difference (the 1.3x crop probably).  The Seacam is not ultra-sensitive to where you eye is, unlike the Subal, which I have found from bench-testing (not underwater) is more sensitive.

 

C

Because my insurance will replace my Seacam housing

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

A. ... the viewfinder image, you have to get your eye much closer to the "hole." :

This is what is called 'eyepoint', the higher the eyepoint the farther your eyeball can be while still seeing the whole field. The first adverised as high eyepoint finder that I recollect is when Nikon came out with the F3 HP (guess what HP stood for). This was mainly so glass-wearers could see the whole field. The downside was that the image was a bit smaller than the F3's that preceded it. Now it is more or less standard to have high eyepoint finders, at least in the pro models. Eyepoint is a variable so the eyepoint of one finder might be just 1 mm more or 1 mm less than another one as an example. I suspect higher eyepoints are better for adapting to UW housings and may be why the S180 did not work as well. It may be more critical with a 24x36mm, so-called FF camera, to have a higher eyepoint.

B. My experience using the S180 with a Nikon D2H mirrors this statement. To get closer to a fish I was able to push the housing forward a bit (an inch or two) from my mask, without moving my body, and still see the image and shoot the pic. The S180 is simply great also, while using it I never touched the housing back with my regulator and my bubbles did roll up the back to the housing and into my vision as in other cases.

C. You lost your 1D housing?

Tom

The trouble is that I don't see any standardisation about what the eyepoint measurement actually is! Is it from the film/sensor plane, the exit pupil of the viewfinder (I suspect this is it, and if so it begs the question as to where the exit pupil is meaured from - presumably this needs specifying too) or the back of the camera(?)?

What all this shows is that good objective reviews tell potential users of equipment what the differences actually are in use - something which is difficult to appreciate from figures alone.

My own personal experience of using the S45 and EOS1DS is that I'd be very hard pushed to have to use anything 'inferior' again! For my style of underwater photography, this is the best set up I have ever had or used. My concerns about the 5D's viewfinder started when I first looked through one - not that it is bad, far from it, but just that it was not quite as good as the 1Ds's. I suppose that there must be a difference or Canon would lose a lot of 'pro' sales. Whilst the 5D is tempting for its weight/bulk, it goes to show that there ARE other factors to take into account. I'm interested to read James' view after using a 1.3 crop sensor camera.

Hi Paul,

"I'm interested to read James' view after using a 1.3 crop sensor camera."

What would you like to know?

Cheers

James

Hi James

I realise that you haven't had the 5D that long but after you have used it for some time can you post as to the pros/cons compared with the 1DMkII UNDERWATER. I'd be really interested to know how you find the viewfinder and whether the weight saving really impacts on your ease of carrying gear (an ever present problem these days). What port set up are you using with the 24/1.4L? (I'm using the DP95 which is proving excellent with minimal corner softness) and how is its AF against the 1DMkII in terms of speed and accuracy?

Basically I would like your opinions of the 5D/Seacam relative to the 1DSeries/Seacam set up. Again though I will comment that the Seaflash units do tend to provide buoyancy and I've never had a problem with this!

The trouble is that I don't see any standardisation about what the eyepoint measurement actually is! Is it from the film/sensor plane, the exit pupil of the viewfinder (I suspect this is it, and if so it begs the question as to where the exit pupil is meaured from - presumably this needs specifying too) or the back of the camera(?)?

snip

Eyepoint is a well-defined concept. I found these links:

1. http://microscope.fsu.edu/primer/anatomy/oculars.html

scroll down to the paragraph beginning: "Light rays emanating from the eyepiece intersect at the exit pupil or eye point, often referred to as the Ramsden disc, where the pupil..."

2. Here is a table comparing some eyepoints, note how relatively huge the eyepoints of the sportsfinders are:

http://www.geocities.com/rick_housh/camera...n/eyepoint.html

3. This article shows how the cone light leaves an eyepiece:

http://www.microscopy-uk.org.uk/mag/indexm...r03/pjhigh.html

scroll down about 2/3 of the page.

4. An optical encyclopedia on binocs, but also applies more generally:

http://nikon.topica.ne.jp/bi_e/encyclo/encyclo.htm

scroll down to: ' Long eye relief (High eyepoint)'

I assume that the Seacam and other makes housings are designed so that all viewfinders with lenses correctly line up to the eyepoint - i.e., position along the optical axis of the viewfinder eyepiece.

Tom

I'd be really interested to know how you find the viewfinder and whether the weight saving really impacts on your ease of carrying gear (an ever present problem these days). What port set up are you using with the 24/1.4L? (I'm using the DP95 which is proving excellent with minimal corner softness) and how is its AF against the 1DMkII in terms of speed and accuracy?

 

Basically I would like your opinions of the 5D/Seacam relative to the 1DSeries/Seacam set up. Again though I will comment that the Seaflash units do tend to provide buoyancy and I've never had a problem with this!

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

My impression of being on the boat with Eric and James - both very satisfied 1D(S) Seacam users - was that initial impressions of the 5D housings were very positive. It was nice and compact and is wonderfully finished. The compactness is much less significant UW, where the strobe arms and particularly the monster Seacam dome (which you have to have for the fisheye?) give it the same frontal area and drag. It is of course lighter for travel, I think that it was agreed that it is less negative UW than the 1D because of the lighter camera batteries.

The controls were very nice, although not as perfectly placed as those on the 1D housing. The only gripe was the poorly placed shutter release, which was really quite awkward. We all agreed this could almost certainly adjusted - but we didn't try too on the boat. The new handles were also nice.

Personally, I really didn't like the viewfinder that james had on the housing. I found it really hard to see through it. But I would add that I would probably get used to it if it was my housing. I also really liked the little seacam bags that everything came in - and I also used the Seacam branded O-ring grease to give my own housing a treat!

I thought that the consensus was that the viewfinder was not as nice as the 1D series and that the AF was closer to the 20D than the 1D series. Although shark photography hardly stretches AF performance - so it was hard to be conclusive.

My feeling was that the image quality is better from the 5D than the 1D Mk2, but not as good as the 1DS Mk2. But all three are of course very impressive.

Anyway, these are my thoughts, guided by their experiences. I am not intending to put words into their mouths. James definietly favoured the Seacam to Aquatica housing, although IMO both were let down somewhat with ergonomic flaws on major controls (the shutter on the seacam and the aperture and shutter speed on the Aquatica). But none of these problems were significant in stopping James getting some great shots. But both housings are very nice and I think that the current Aquatica housings have really improved in many areas.

Alex

Tom

Your links are interesting BUT the problem as I see it is that no standardisation exists as to where the eyepoint is compared to say, the back of the camera! So its difficult to compare different cameras on paper. I assume that the figures quoted for the dSLRs all relate to the optical eyepoint relative to the prism, but I still don't see how this is directly comparable from one model to another as it depends on the prism and associated optics and its position. I assume that a smaller prism will have a significant effect and although its eyepoint may be the same, it might not be as usable than that from a larger eyepoint!

All this is frustrating as it would be useful to have a simple set of figures to compare different cameras with. I'll query an optical engineer friend and see if he can shed some light on the subject too.

Seacam certainly place viewfinders carefully for different cameras and I assume are matched up within physical imitations!

Interesting comments Alex. I found the S45 took some time to get used to but I wouldn't go back to a smaller finder now!

Hi Paul,

I used the 24L with a 24mm extension ring. Bruce Yates and myself both tested out different rings while doing a pool session at West End (hence the humoUrous photos in the other thread.

I put both of my cams side by side last night - the 1DII and the 5D - and the size of the rectangle for the viewfinder looks pretty much the same. I didn't measure them or anything. The 5D requires your eye to be closer - this is subjective observation and doesn't agree w/ them both having a 20mm eyepoint.

In other news, I've been watching Ebay and I just say two 1DsMkII's sell for $5,000 and $5,200. That is only $2,000 more than a new 5D - making that a really tempting purchase.

Cheers

James

Thanks James

"The 5D requires your eye to be closer - this is subjective observation and doesn't agree w/ them both having a 20mm eyepoint."

It does agree if the prism is smaller and the measurement is from the output pupil of the prism's viewing optics. I suspect a smaller exit pupil which is positioned further forward relative to that of the 1D series. Which makes sense. Without a camera and housing to try out it is difficult to check this sort of thing and make a valid comment on the differences between the 5D and 1D series. So its very handy to have reviews and observations like yours.

Have a look at 1DS prices too - I still think that these are excellent cameras and they do have their afficianados who rate their tonality and colour rendition to be up there with later models. In the UK they are now going for below £2k.

Hi Paul,

I decided long ago not to get a 1Ds and to go w/ a 1DmkII instead. I used my camera for a lot of different types of photography, and the noise performance of the 1Ds is pretty poor. I wouldn't recommend the 1Ds at ISO's above 400 while I regularly shoot my mkII at 800 and 1600.

The 1DmkII is incredible at ISO1600 and so is the 5D.

Cheers

James