39mp underwater

Jeff, if you look at the MTF curves of the lenses -- Especially zoom lenses; and as you venture from the centerline -- you'd throw up when you see the loss of contrast.

FWIW, last night at the H3D-II launch, they put up on the screens the MTF curves of their new 28mm MF lens... It was so flat, I thought I was looking at the 50mm Leica curves.

[MTF: Modulation Transfer Function]

If you follow a bunch of threads here, you'll see the fisheye lenses, 10.5 Nikon and 10-15 Tokina mostly, have become huge workhorses underwater for close focus wide angle reef and wreck stuff etc without much concern about distortion underwater. It might be worth trying to rent one if such a thing as possible from Calumet or someone.It would definitely lay to rest one of the arguments against MF.

Just my two pennies worth.

Jeff

Loftus

If you are referring to the 30mm V series fisheye which can be fitted to an H series via an adapter, I looked into this some time ago (it can be adapted to Canon too). The problems are that you'd need custom gears for both aperture and focus and it has a very large diameter (it couldn't be used with Seacam's ports for example). These problems aren't impossible to get around though, and the good news is that these lenses do crop up at very good prices especially the slightly older ones (I was offered a used one for ~$2400 (US dollars) not tat long ago). It has the reputation of being pretty good although possibly not up to 'blad's best - hardly surprising it must be a pretty difficult optic to design, and as far as I remember has a pretty good close focus.

Dan

MTFs are great but put a port in front and they will plummet!!! Tricky to test (I think a student on my course back in the early 80's did some lens testing underwater) and few people ever do try much in the way of really objective testing underwater. Thick flat ports and concentric domes are the optical evil necessities of underwater photography

Here's what I think the problem is. Dan Schwartz is 100% unproven in underwater photography, so all of his arguments here are met with skepticism. Troy has taken a MF digital camera underwater, but has thus far not shown any interesting images. If the Hassy folks were truly impressed by that shark image, something is wrong.

There is a sub-thread of MF vs 35mm somewhere in this thread, but it's clouded by Dan's attempts to talk about shooting underwater, which is he not qualified to do. Furthermore, Craig is being very specific and unambiguous in his arguments, while arguments from Dan and Troy talk about things like producing "film-like images -- without the noise!".

This is all really great discussion, but I'm personally tuning out until I see some images -- and until Dan gets his ass in into the water with ANY sort of camera.

.. and when someone starts showing some good images taken with MF digital, the conversation will really start getting interesting. We all know that it's possible, but until we see some results, this is all theoretical.

Eric, you're skepticism is dead-to-nuts... But when I do get my ass back in the water and start shooting, I intend to do it right. In my case, it's the tail wagging the dog: I already have a lot of MF gear; and since I ditched most of my Nikkor lenses,* I have no desire to go back.

Besides, there's a certain pleasure I get when I pull a roll of 120 or a 4x5 chrome out of the processor drum, which I just don't get with postage-stamp-sized frames... But I digress.

Here's what I think the problem is. Dan Schwartz is 100% unproven in underwater photography, so all of his arguments here are met with skepticism.

[cut]

This is all really great discussion, but I'm personally tuning out until I see some images -- and until Dan gets his ass in into the water with ANY sort of camera.

* FWIW I only kept 4 Nikon lenses and my S2 Pro for my NCTS work.

MTFs are great but put a port in front and they will plummet!!! Tricky to test (I think a student on my course back in the early 80's did some lens testing underwater) and few people ever do try much in the way of really objective testing underwater. Thick flat ports and concentric domes are the optical evil necessities of underwater photography

Paul, you're quite correct about taking a great lens and shooting through the bottom of a coke bottle. Fortunately, my fiancee has a swimming pool in our backyard, so I can actually test the rig I choose, with a laminated version of this chart.

If I'm going to take vacation time & spend the $$$ for a trip, why not do it right the first time?

Hasselblad's HCD 4/28 MTF charts can be seen by downloading it's spec pdf from Hasselblad's spec page. Nikon's 14-24 f/2.8 zoom lens has a published MTF chart viewable here.

Jeff, if you look at the MTF curves of the lenses -- Especially zoom lenses; and as you venture from the centerline -- you'd throw up when you see the loss of contrast.

I'm not sure what Dan's referring to by "the lenses", but if you compare MTFs of the HCD 28 and the Nikon you'll wonder what he's talking about. I didn't throw up. In fact, I giggled. ;-) Canon's 16-35 f/2.8LII looks pretty good in comparison as well.

Of course, MTF doesn't tell us all there is (though it's as good as we've got) and Paul is absolutely right that lenses are only part of the optical equation underwater. A big problem with zooms underwater is that they are doubly hard to make work well behind a dome.

One of the downsides of having a glorious, huge imager is that the optics have to be superlative that much further off center. Introduce an unmatched dome (is UK Germany doing custom domes too?) and you could be in a world of hurt. One technique that Canon FF shooters use involves bumping ISO in order to use smaller apertures. The H3D isn't nearly as good at that as a Canon (or now, Nikon) is.

If there's going to be MF advocacy, speaking in generalities about MTF charts isn't useful. Rectalinear wide angle should be the strength of a MF system, so how about we see images with EXIF data and 100% corner crops to prove that the optics are actually good? It won't do anything for the deficiencies in fisheye or macro, but at least we can see one application where MF excels. So far we've seen one shot that didn't impress photographically nor tell us anything about optical capability. We can get good tonality out of 35mm, too.

Fortunately, my fiancee has a swimming pool in our backyard, so I can actually test the rig I choose, with a laminated version of this chart.

If you plan on shooting test charts underwater then that might tell you what you need to know, Dan, but you'd be well served to study how Stephen Frink tests wide angle optics underwater. He has the knowledge, experience and ability to conduct real world tests that help him, and us, understand how wide angle solutions really work. He uses charts, too, but he uses them in ways that tell us something! He doesn't need a chart anything like you've linked to, either.

If I'm going to take vacation time & spend the $$$ for a trip, why not do it right the first time?

Indeed :-) It might cost you a small fraction of what you are planning, as well.

Do you have any references to Stephen Frink's work? It sounds like what I need to look at, not only for wide angle but also normal & telephoto. [more]

If you plan on shooting test charts underwater then that might tell you what you need to know, Dan, but you'd be well served to study how Stephen Frink tests wide angle optics underwater. He has the knowledge, experience and ability to conduct real world tests that help him, and us, understand how wide angle solutions really work. He uses charts, too, but he uses them in ways that tell us something! He doesn't need a chart anything like you've linked to, either.

Actually, using a chart helps diagnose issues you can't quite put your finger on just looking at a photo, such as the effect of astigmatism on the contrast.

If you read through this thread you can see how Stephen tests for corner performance.

Hello Rod,

Pressed at work but I will sure post over the weekend. Crapy weather right now but I will try.

Thanks,

troy

Good point. I will check it out depending how much they rent for.

troy

Hello everyone,

What a busy week for me. Conditions have not been that good. I was able to go out on another shark dive and although not much macro I was able to test the 120mm for the first time. Not much subjects for interesting macro at all.

Here is my opinion with just my first experience:

Not as difficult as one would suspect with all the concerns about limitations.

Not a super macro set up at all. However, the cropability of such a huge format can allow an enlargement of a very small area of the image

Very sharp capture and good color detail

Nova strobes had to be turned way down, so light is definately not an issue

So up to this point if anyone wants to get super macro shots for a very large print then wait for the

Canon 1ds mk3. For me to talk tech talk of mf vs. 35mm when it comes to macro then tech talk would win. However, the quality of capture this camera can produce is stunning. There is just so much potential to grow in. Here are just a few images since I promised I would post something. When conditions permit and I have a day off I will go out in my own boat to find some critters. Everyone, I must say I am really enjoying myself. I feel very fortunate to have such a set up. I think there is room in this forum for mf, so don't knock it too much.

Dan, since you already have a mf it makes sense for you to consider taking it u/w. For someone who is not a professional and does not alread own a mf I would think twice before sinking 50k into a set up. It just does not make sense espcially when it has been proven that there are so many options in 35mm at half the price and less. In my case it was cheaper for me to put my mf u/w @ 13K .

Just wanting to share,

Troy Aitken

Troy,

The color rendition and tone from your Hassy is stunning!

For a moment, I thought I was looking at drum scans from a 4x5 chrome.

Could you post some larger (like 1024x768) shots at JPEG quality 9? Along with that, please post the EXIF exposure data, and the depth you shot it at... [more]

Hello everyone,

 

What a busy week for me. Conditions have not been that good. I was able to go out on another shark dive and although not much macro I was able to test the 120mm for the first time. Not much subjects for interesting macro at all.

 

Here is my opinion with just my first experience:

Not as difficult as one would suspect with all the concerns about limitations.

Not a super macro set up at all. However, the cropability of such a huge format can allow an enlargement of a very small area of the image

Very sharp capture and good color detail

Nova strobes had to be turned way down, so light is definately not an issue

 

So up to this point if anyone wants to get super macro shots for a very large print then wait for the

Canon 1ds mk3. For me to talk tech talk of mf vs. 35mm when it comes to macro then tech talk would win. However, the quality of capture this camera can produce is stunning. There is just so much potential to grow in. Here are just a few images since I promised I would post something. When conditions permit and I have a day off I will go out in my own boat to find some critters. Everyone, I must say I am really enjoying myself. I feel very fortunate to have such a set up. I think there is room in this forum for mf, so don't knock it too much.

 

Dan, since you already have a mf it makes sense for you to consider taking it u/w. For someone who is not a professional and does not alread own a mf I would think twice before sinking 50k into a set up. It just does not make sense espcially when it has been proven that there are so many options in 35mm at half the price and less. In my case it was cheaper for me to put my mf u/w @ 13K .

Just wanting to share,

Troy Aitken

In my case, I already have a complete 6x45 film setup ready for digital; and all I need is a housing to keep it dry; optionally a digiback to replace the film backs... And the balls to take it under the sea!

Hello Troy,

thanks for the pictures. I think you have a nice tool at hands.

Although I dont see real differences between other high quality

35mm cameras (5D and up).

I would really love to see a picture at its original size. Would you mind to

upload such a file to any website? If you dont have access to any

webspace I would love to host the file for you -> contact me via PM

Troy

Its difficult to tell from your images just what the corners look like from the wide-angle (28mm I presume). Would it be possible to post some small 100% crops from bottom centre (where the foreground is clearly sharp) and the corners (same foreground characteristics) from the same shot, as from the one shot where cornres can be seen they appear slightly softer than bottom centre - but the images are far too small to realy see what is going on. What dome/diopter are you using?

Thanks

I think the quality and detail of this images are really good, maybe they are not worthy of the expense, and maybe a high end DSLR could do it... I don´t know, but this is high quality indeed.

That said, Troy I´m pretty sure one of the things must people will love to see, is how your rig manage sunballs and highlights.

Hello dan,

65 ft. of water, overcast day. w/a shots @f4.0 125th iso 100. Next time I will shoot the equivalent at iso 400. Dan, what is the largest file size we can post?

Troy

Hello Mexwell,

Give me some specifics on the type set up you want to see and I will accomodate you. Please respect the copyright issues though.

Thank You,

troy

Yes,

I agree; also in your situation at Stuart Cove, some dappled light shots would be nice to see

http://homepage.mac.com/jeffinorlando/Shar...06/large-7.html

I think the quality and detail of this images are really good, maybe they are not worthy of the expense, and maybe a high end DSLR could do it... I don´t know, but this is high quality indeed.

 

That said, Troy I´m pretty sure one of the things must people will love to see, is how your rig manage sunballs and highlights.

Hello Paul,

Bottom left, right and center are inches away from the dome port. this is what you are mostly seeing. I think what I would need to do is shoot something flat u/w that's close and would fill up the frame. I would suspect you would see some softness but to ruin the shot I don't think so. The lens is virtually perfect when dry this I know. Any slight distortion Flexcolor corrects it completely. But to say this dome port was made specifically for my set up by someone like Fathom Optics or Subal I don't think so. The one I have by UK-germany does the job nicely. Look for the image soon, this will tell all.

Soon,

Troy

Hello Rod,

As mentioned before in this threat and the other by Dan you will see the expense issue addressed. As for Sunballs and highlights that is a matter of proper exposure and balance between sun and strobes. This is true for any set up unless one has a crapy dslr. As for the mf handling bright whites and details in the shadow it does an incredible job w/o looking digital. Again photos soon will show this point conditions permitting.

Regards,

Troy

I think what most of us are excited to see is how the Hassy handles the transition from specular highlights to highlight to midtone and sea blue in a sunball, sun rays etc. Presently the higher end digital full frame and D2X do it pretty well; below that, like my D200, not always so well. Issues like cyan fringing etc raise their ugly head. Not really a strobe related issue.

Similar thing with dealing with the beauty of dappled light, we all know the experience of actually seeing it, but it's tough to really make it sparkle in the picture like it does in real life. I anticipate that your rig will bring us as close to the real thing as we have so far seen with digital.

Hello Rod,

 

As for Sunballs and highlights that is a matter of proper exposure and balance between sun and strobes. This is true for any set up unless one has a crapy dslr. As for the mf handling bright whites and details in the shadow it does an incredible job w/o looking digital.

Hi Troy!

Thanks for the shooting data! I think the limit to post is 500 kilobytes per post if this site hosts the image; but if it's hosted elsewhere and linked via tag, the size is unlimited. Use the square button that has a tree in it to insert a hosted image.

Hello dan,

 

65 ft. of water, overcast day. w/a shots @f4.0 125th iso 100. Next time I will shoot the equivalent at iso 400. Dan, what is the largest file size we can post?

 

Troy

 

Hello Mexwell,

 

Give me some specifics on the type set up you want to see and I will accomodate you. Please respect the copyright issues though.

 

Thank You,

troy