Editorial on UWphotography.com

I just read this editorial (by Benny Sutton) on another website (about underwater digital photography):

http://www.underwaterphotography.com/Artic...c/DigitalUW.asp

His conclusion:

Digital on land, Yes – digital underwater – not yet.

His main gripe was that lenses are not wide enough and TTL is not available.

Well, I've got a suggestion for him - get your hands on an S2pro, strap on a 14mm lens, and go diving!

Thoughts?

Cheers

James

If the 12-24 makes it's rounds, that will solve the wide-angle issue. 99 degrees, that's +5 more than a nikonos 15 mm. The 1.5 crop should utilize the sharpest portion if there is any loss in the corners. As far as I'm concerned, the TTL issue is resolved.

I read up to this point:

"Even in the hands of a novice you are guaranteed 100% correct exposure from a 35mm SLR like the Nikon N90/F90 with a TTL strobe."

What a total load of bullshit. If you don't know enough about exposure that you have to shoot TTL all the time to get a good exposure, then you aren't a photographer - you are just a monkey pushing a button.

Since he also states that "Underwater photography is wide angle photography" (which is also BS - wide angle SELLS better, which is why most pros shoot primarily WA) - a situation that TTL doesn't work properly in anyway.

He lost all credibility with statements such as these.

The ONLY point he has is that the 20mm isn't wide enough on a DSLR - which is true to an extent. I shot film last week (S2 housing was in for service) and I was shocked by how wide the 20mm is compared to on the S2 - I had forgotten.

M

(develop your talent, not your film B) )

Yes, and other statements like calling the external screen a "CCD screen" don't help his credibility either . . .

I came to the conclusion he couldn't get hole and ass in the correct order!

You guys are pretty harsh! I happen to agree with a number of points in the article - but certainly not all of them, and not his conclusion.

Serious UW digital photography is still in its infancy and it's hard to keep up with it sometimes. I know that there were MANY people who bought the D100 that didn't know about DTTL. You have to do a lot of research - and the information is pretty much only available on the internet. Less than 30% of Americans use the net...

Cheers

James

You guys are pretty harsh!  I happen to agree with a number of points in the article - but certainly not all of them, and not his conclusion.

I thought I was actually gentle. You should have read the first version of my thoughts.

James,

Yes, I'm being harsh, but the internet has turned anyone who can use FrontPage into an authority on something. In order to support "opinions", dubious "facts" are sometimes introduced. Sometimes this is done deviously, other times ineptly. Gosh, it wouldn't surprise me if just about every one of us hasn't made some form of uninformed comment on this forum in the past! I think the real problem is that while 30% of the US uses the net, several percent less than that actually research their purchases adequately independent of where the information is available. Instead they go to sites like that one and read one editorial and go, "hmmm, he must know what he's talking about because his site has a cool name", or ask the guy one cubicle down what he thinks. Others simply go out and by a camera without thinking, as you point out. Then they try to return it, or just sell it to the next guy to come along on eBay. Even worse, they write an uninformed review on epinions.com telling other people not to buy it! I'll admit that he has a few valid points, though they are fairly obvious ones. I'll even give him the benefit of the doubt on the "CCD screen" comment (though the c and the l on my keyboard aren't close to each other). However there are enough questionable statements there to make me think less of his opinion than I might otherwise . . .

Rant off,

Mike

Interesting. Although I disagree with many of his oversimplifications, and personally love digital, many of the underlying points of his article are exactly why I bought a film camera for underwater.

Wow, you guys let it rip here. I thought his opinions covered no new ground and were simply prejudiced. Why else say the UW photography is wide angle (what?) and no TTL is a big problem (for wide angle?). Any photographer will see through his simplifications.

What bothered me was that he dumped unfairly on digital, then declared himself "not anti-digital" as if it pained him to preach the gospel truth. I hate that. And what about "Compacts are worse! No TTL at all and no prospect of anyone ever making one." He's really poorly informed.

As James said, the wide angle lens issue is already addressed. We have options for that and things will only get better.

Heck, I would have said the same things he did....a year ago. A year ago I could make a laundry list of why film was superior to digital, but times change.

I won't repeat the inaccuracies that have already been noted. Reality is that any shortcomings are slowly disappearing, whether it be on the front end (lenses) or the backend (software/printing).

As for wide angle, a 15mm(=20mm on land) Nikonos will produce a better image than any SLR or D-SLR. Just my opinion, fire away! The new 12-24mm takes care of the crop. Besides, 20mm is pretty wide. Often too wide. I shot the 17-35mm on film (no crop). Good framing was generally never at 17mm. I could show examples, but I still can't find the EXIF information on the side of my chromes.

Like I always tell people that ask me which is better, film or digital. The answer is film, but that's not the right question. Ask the right question and the answer can be quite different.

Like I always tell people that ask me which is better, film or digital. The answer is film, but that's not the right question. Ask the right question and the answer can be quite different.

I would say, "Depends on the intended useage".