39mp underwater

Hi Troy

You commented that "Alot of images I have seen, not all taken by 35mm dslr's that are super macro lack sharp clarity". I'm interested to know just you would classify 'super macro' (as opposed to define as definitions so easily become contentious!)? Personally, I'd suggest that any image shot with a lens that exceeds 1:1 reproduction ratio is moving into the supermacro. And just a personal observation, but when trying out the Canon 60 EFS macro lens on my 1DS - to do so I have to use a 12mm MkII extension tube - it gives as good results as the camera is capable of utilising (and probably would do so on higher MPixel cameras too). If however I use the 25mm extension tube, there is a substantial fall off in image quality at closer reproduction ratios. I put this down to the fact that the lens is an internal focus designed lens and is optimised for a standard range (infinity to 1:1). In reality it performs very well at a slightly enhanced reproduction ratio but not when pushed much further.

Given the current trend towards internal focus lenses (am I right in thinking that Nikon's 60mm is the only smaller format lens which is not IF?) I suspect that we are already experiencing problems with newer type lenses lenses used for super macro underwater. I am assuming of course that your 'blad lens is either not IF or is optimised over substantial range - my experience with MF macros is limited to the old 'blad 6x6 135mm or more recently the Zeiss Contax 645 120mm which was an absolutely outstanding piece of glass. Intriguingly, I was recently reading up on the Leitz 100 apo macro and read at least one review which placed it squarely against the Canon 100mm - indicating that these lenses are now probably hitting design/manufacture/theoretical limits and are unlikely to be drastically improved.

So to get back to the reason for this post, I think that it is useful to understand the potential reasons for image quality limitations, and in the case of super macro these are alomost certainly due to use of 'converters, extension tubes, close-up lenses and so on being utilised with lenses the design parameters of which probably accepted a drop in quality outside of their 'standard' operating range.

Vincent,

It has to do with the smooth tonality of the Hasselblad's images; or at least the lo-res JPEG's Troy has posted so far.

>>> By the way, many of you aren't able to see the difference as easily as I can, since you're probably using an LCD display. I'm using a fully calibrated 24 inch Trinitron (1920x1080 res) with a gamma of 2.2, and white points of 6500K for photo editing and 5000K for prepress.

In the lab, when you're outputting hundreds of prints every day, it's easy to pick out the photos that came from Canon, Nikon, and Fuji dSLR's: The Fuji has, by far, the smoothest tones, making them ideal for wedding & portrait use. (In fact, at the commercial lab I worked at, the vast majority of the wedding & portrait shooters were using Fuji S2 & S3 cameras).

Canon, on the other hand, has almost a cartoonish image rendering, looking (IMHO) too artificial. For sports, wildlife, and architectural shooting shooting, that's OK; but not for portrait & wedding.

Nikon's images seem to fall in between the Fuji & Canon extrema; though we only had one wedding shooter use one.

I'd like to see prints from Troy's Hassy, both above and below the waterline, as that is the final determinant.

Hi Dan,

 

Please elaborate a little bit on your statement below, because most probably you are capable of seeing things I can't see

I agree with Felix on his comment and although there is an advantage of cropping, I’d rather know what I want up front and do everything I can to make that picture than try to make it work out later by cropping (except for minor adjustments of course).

 

Cheers

Vincent

Paul, I'm puzzled when you write "If however I use the 25mm extension tube, there is a substantial fall off in image quality at closer reproduction ratios."

How so?, you're using only the center portion of the lens' image circle; and since there is nothing but air in the extension tube, all you need to do is increase the exposure to compensate for the Bellows Factor. In your case, adding 25mm extension to a 60mm focal length yields an approximate additional bellows factor of about 1.5 stops.

[Reference: Figure 5 of The Bellows Extension Exposure Factor: Including Useful Reference Plots for use in the Field, page 7]

If you are opening up your lens the 1.5 stops to compensate for the reduced light, that will reduce your DOF accordingly.

f/8... And be there!

Dan

You commented that "Alot of images I have seen, not all taken by 35mm dslr's that are super macro lack sharp clarity". I'm interested to know just you would classify 'super macro' (as opposed to define as definitions so easily become contentious!)? Personally, I'd suggest that any image shot with a lens that exceeds 1:1 reproduction ratio is moving into the supermacro. And just a personal observation, but when trying out the Canon 60 EFS macro lens on my 1DS - to do so I have to use a 12mm MkII extension tube - it gives as good results as the camera is capable of utilising (and probably would do so on higher MPixel cameras too). If however I use the 25mm extension tube, there is a substantial fall off in image quality at closer reproduction ratios. I put this down to the fact that the lens is an internal focus designed lens and is optimised for a standard range (infinity to 1:1). In reality it performs very well at a slightly enhanced reproduction ratio but not when pushed much further.

Dan

Its an INTERNAL FOCUS DESIGN LENS! This means that the optical construction does not work in the same way as a conventional lens and as such it appears to operate very well within a restricted range but not far outside that range - this is becoming more common and probably the 'norm' for macro lenses. It has benefits - faster focus, no extension of the lens even at 1:1 - but disadvantages - image quality drop outside its basic parameters. This was the thrust of my comment - comparing a lens working within its operating design and with another which may be being used beyond its design parameters is tricky to say the least.

When I push the 60mm lens it loses sharpness throughout the image - typical of a lens being used beyond its capabilities. Keep it within or close to its design capabilities and it is very, very good. Its not about the image circle, exposure factor, etc, but about the image quality and optical construction.

Hi Troy,

As you know I've been following this thread; and so that you know where I'm coming from - I am very, very interested to see whether this hugely expensive technomarvel makes any sense to take underwater - and somewhere out in the future, if it does, I could consider buying one. Unfortunately I think this thread has been hijacked by Dan who knows zip, zero, nada about underwater photography and is somehow trying to impress us with his years of working in a photolab, Sony Trinitron monitors, geekworthy quoting of articles on focusing and depth of field, etc, and on and on. Bottom line is that Dan would drool over your pics if you posted some out of focus fish feces. BTW I have yet to see a photograph by Dan, topside or otherwise, that would not have an honored place in my trashbin.

The fact is that up to now, the photographs you have posted are really not impressive. Most of the folks on this forum need to to see a crystal clear pimple on a gobie's butt to consider giving the macro prize to MF over what we already have with the available Canon and Nikon DSLR's. So far the Canon and Nikon's win hands down with what you have shown us, at least to those of us who are less self-impressed with our esoteric knowledge of lens performance, and who only have Apple 23" monitors( gamma of choice).

I think that you really need to post your pics linked to a server or just give us links to something like flikr to do your photographs justice and so that we can scrutinize the detail and abilities of MF. The thumbnail postings are of very little help for us to evaluate image quality.

Anyway, so far I think the verdict is that for macro, the MF makes little sense with what we've seen so far.

Now let us see large vistas of CFWA with crystal clear coral and reef sharks in the foreground, and a spectacular sun ball in the beautiful blue water with sun rays streaming down, then when you are surfacing at Stuart's Cove grab a few with the reefies swimming around 6" below the surface.

We need this Troy, I want one of those toys you have.

Jeff

Good morning Graig,

Graig said-

No, I'm saying that the pixels of the 1Ds2 are larger than the H3D. The 1Ds3 pixels are slightly smaller than the H3D. The difference between the 1Ds3 and H3D is roughly 10%.

 

Troy response-

On your specific sentence before you certainly did state that the idsmk3 had larger sensors. Now that you re-stated in your second sentence below the other way around I agree with it.

 

Now, my question was to bring out the specs that show the measurement of the individual pixel size of both cameras, not to say it is 10% larger. You like to tal tech talk so thought that would be right up your alley. So if you could validate your statement then that would be something new for me to learn.

 

 

Graig said-

No, I'm saying that cropping eats away at the potential advantages of a larger format, and I'd be surprised if anyone was willing to challenge that claim.

 

Troy's response-

 

Graig, I will agree with that in part in that it reduces image output, period.

 

Graig said-

Regarding posting images to prove my argument, I happen to know that web sized images are worthless for that even if you, and the other true believer here, don't realize it. Thumbnails from one camera can't make results from another camera look "amateurish". Even if they could, I doubt anyone in the world has taken side by side UW macro shots using a 1Ds2 and an H3D, so such images can't possibly exist. Nice try.

 

Troy's response-

 

It's simple, take one of your macro images of your 35mm dslr and do a 100% crop of the critter 8x12 @72 dpi and post it. We can start there. I said any dslr not just the new Canons. This would not be a thumbnail. I look forward to seeing it.

 

Graig said-

If "resolution is one thing" and "quality of capture is another", I challenge you to describe and demonstrate the difference. Just what do you think causes the H3D to offer a greater "quality of capture" than a 1Ds2 or 1Ds3 independent of resolution? It certainly isn't dynamic range since macro essentially never challenges a 35mm DSLR in that respect. It certainly isn't the H3D macro lenses since that's the H3D's achilles heel. The one advantage the H3d has is the larger sensor. If you are going to crop it away then it is useless.

 

Troy's response

 

Mf digital backs are closer if not better (cleaner) to film than any 35mm dslr. The way mf's handle color reproduction is less digital looking and can handle more post work w/o looking artificial.

 

Graig said-

 

Troy, I don't believe in magic. Your H3D works fundamentally the same way as a 1Ds2 or 3 does. If the H3D offers better imaging capability than 35mm under certain conditions then there will always be a technical explanation for it. When you shoot macro and crop your H3D sensor down to 35mm size you will be hard pressed to explain how it can possibly offer "quality of capture" better than a 1Ds3, particularly considering the Canon has REAL competition.

 

Troy's response-

 

Yes! It's magic and in fact we all believe in that one magical image soon to be captured. That's what keeps us going I own a Canon eos 1ds 11mp and have taken literally thousands of pictures with it from Jewelry to Islands as well as reproductions of expensive oil paintings and with a side by side cropped to be equal comparisons it is always obvious which camera was used for which image. Not from tech-talk but from exact comparisons done by cameras that I own. Hopefully the Canon eos 1dsmk3 will have better image quality over the 1ds. I' looking forward to purchasing that camera as well if this is the case

 

Graig said-

No it's not a bit strong. You may choose, though, to believe that shooting a giant sensor and using a chiclet-sized piece of it will offer you superior results. Meanwhile, others will be comfortably outperforming you with "inferior" equipment.

 

Troy's response-

 

Yes! you still are being a bit to overboard in your statements. Relax, I never said I get superior results and professional 35mm dslr's are inferior. You are exaggerating. Remember what I said. Consumers will not see the difference, pro-sumers should see the difference and professionals enjoy the difference. I also said the H3D with the 120mm macro is a good mid-macro tool and definately not a super macro tool. I intensely enjoy my set up and are capturing images u/w with increased improvement. This is plenty good for me. So, if you can just post a 100% cropped super macro image 8x12 @72dpi that shows the outperforming results then you would substantiate what you are saying.

 

I wait patiently for your image and thank you for your time in posting,

Troy

Hi Troy!

 

Due to the decrease in the optimum aperture -- The sweet spot -- for a given film or CCD size due to the circle of confusion vs diffraction distortion, your sweet size is indeed f/16 to f/22. However, if you crop the image down to the size of a 35mm frame, then the circle of confusion increases in size and the sweet spot will drop to f/11.

 

All that being said, don't be afraid to tell the lens to stop down: If your H3D has an auto-bracket function, see if you can program it to hold the exposure value while shooting at f/22, f/27 & f/32; or, of course, you can manually turn the dial to stop down. Remembering that some image distortion is introduced by the port -- Especially the dome port -- you may not notice any softening or loss of contrast at the smaller apertures -- Even f/32.

 

My suggestion is to set up a quickie tabletop scene and test just the camera & lens on dry land, looking for distortion as you stop down. Then, repeat the test in a few feet of water, testing the whole optical path.

 

In any case, the 5412 x 7212 (39 million) pixel matrix is a whole hell of a lot to play with: If you output to a Durst Epsilon or Lambda photo printer at the highest quality setting of 254 pixels/inch and use 1:1 pixel mapping, that is a 21x28 inch print! A good printer RIP, like that found on the Durst imagers, can easily upsample 200% with image degredation it takes a magnifying glass to see, letting you print to a nominal 40x60 inch size. (We took 12 million pixel shots from Fuji S2 & S3 cameras up to 30x40 all the time in the lab!)

 

Also, don't forget that the software on your PC automatically corrects for chromatic distortion, since it reads the lens data and has the correction coefficients already built in.

Hey Dan,

True, I will as soon as I can. A mild Hurricane is headed our way.

Troy

Hi Troy

 

You commented that "Alot of images I have seen, not all taken by 35mm dslr's that are super macro lack sharp clarity". I'm interested to know just you would classify 'super macro' (as opposed to define as definitions so easily become contentious!)? Personally, I'd suggest that any image shot with a lens that exceeds 1:1 reproduction ratio is moving into the supermacro. And just a personal observation, but when trying out the Canon 60 EFS macro lens on my 1DS - to do so I have to use a 12mm MkII extension tube - it gives as good results as the camera is capable of utilising (and probably would do so on higher MPixel cameras too). If however I use the 25mm extension tube, there is a substantial fall off in image quality at closer reproduction ratios. I put this down to the fact that the lens is an internal focus designed lens and is optimised for a standard range (infinity to 1:1). In reality it performs very well at a slightly enhanced reproduction ratio but not when pushed much further.

 

Given the current trend towards internal focus lenses (am I right in thinking that Nikon's 60mm is the only smaller format lens which is not IF?) I suspect that we are already experiencing problems with newer type lenses lenses used for super macro underwater. I am assuming of course that your 'blad lens is either not IF or is optimised over substantial range - my experience with MF macros is limited to the old 'blad 6x6 135mm or more recently the Zeiss Contax 645 120mm which was an absolutely outstanding piece of glass. Intriguingly, I was recently reading up on the Leitz 100 apo macro and read at least one review which placed it squarely against the Canon 100mm - indicating that these lenses are now probably hitting design/manufacture/theoretical limits and are unlikely to be drastically improved.

 

So to get back to the reason for this post, I think that it is useful to understand the potential reasons for image quality limitations, and in the case of super macro these are alomost certainly due to use of 'converters, extension tubes, close-up lenses and so on being utilised with lenses the design parameters of which probably accepted a drop in quality outside of their 'standard' operating range.

Hello Paul,

Super macro to me would be shooting any critter smaller than 5mm in length. As Dan mentioned the Flexcolor software for the H-Series lenses takes into consideration the meta date attached to the file for post correction purposes.

Thanks for sharing,

Troy

Due to the decrease in the optimum aperture -- The sweet spot -- for a given film or CCD size due to the circle of confusion vs diffraction distortion, your sweet size is indeed f/16 to f/22. However, if you crop the image down to the size of a 35mm frame, then the circle of confusion increases in size and the sweet spot will drop to f/11.

I'd sure like to see your numbers for coming up with these claims. If your diffraction limit is based on pixel pitch, then cropping does NOT reduce aperture. f/16 would be the number regardless. If your diffraction limit is based on viewing angle, then cropping does reduce aperture but the full frame limit would be higher than f/22 if you were using 35mm viewing angles. If not, then once you crop down you should change your viewing angles and maximum aperture would, once again, not change. As usual, Dan, you don't understand this as well as you say you do.

All that being said, don't be afraid to tell the lens to stop down: If your H3D has an auto-bracket function, see if you can program it to hold the exposure value while shooting at f/22, f/27 & f/32; or, of course, you can manually turn the dial to stop down. Remembering that some image distortion is introduced by the port -- Especially the dome port -- you may not notice any softening or loss of contrast at the smaller apertures -- Even f/32.

An underwater photographer with any experience would have no need to auto-bracket aperture in order to figure out depth of field. The suggestion is ludicrous and it assumes that strobe power will conveniently adjust itself in the process. Not all lighting lends itself to TTL and not all digital TTL works. Better advise would be to learn how to shoot your camera and learn what to expect when you do.

Also, don't forget that the software on your PC automatically corrects for chromatic distortion, since it reads the lens data and has the correction coefficients already built in.

It may compensate for lens issues but it won't compensate for port issues which will be much more dominant. It would be helpful, Dan, for you to have actually shot images underwater before offering so much advise on how to do it.

Vincent,

 

It has to do with the smooth tonality of the Hasselblad's images; or at least the lo-res JPEG's Troy has posted so far.

 

>>> By the way, many of you aren't able to see the difference as easily as I can, since you're probably using an LCD display. I'm using a fully calibrated 24 inch Trinitron (1920x1080 res) with a gamma of 2.2, and white points of 6500K for photo editing and 5000K for prepress.

 

In the lab, when you're outputting hundreds of prints every day, it's easy to pick out the photos that came from Canon, Nikon, and Fuji dSLR's: The Fuji has, by far, the smoothest tones, making them ideal for wedding & portrait use. (In fact, at the commercial lab I worked at, the vast majority of the wedding & portrait shooters were using Fuji S2 & S3 cameras).

 

Canon, on the other hand, has almost a cartoonish image rendering, looking (IMHO) too artificial. For sports, wildlife, and architectural shooting shooting, that's OK; but not for portrait & wedding.

 

Nikon's images seem to fall in between the Fuji & Canon extrema; though we only had one wedding shooter use one.

 

I'd like to see prints from Troy's Hassy, both above and below the waterline, as that is the final determinant.

I love how you can see differences in cameras so easily due to having equipment that you're confident none of us have, yet you're so uncannily able to tell that Troy's shots are superior based solely on thumbnail-sized web browser jpegs. I'd say the differences you see are based on the opinions you've read on online forums.

How does an H3D produce images of "smooth tonality" Dan? How do these technical differences with H3D images manage to translate themselves into web jpegs? Can you explain this without employing fantasy?

Dan

 

Its an INTERNAL FOCUS DESIGN LENS! This means that the optical construction does not work in the same way as a conventional lens and as such it appears to operate very well within a restricted range but not far outside that range - this is becoming more common and probably the 'norm' for macro lenses. It has benefits - faster focus, no extension of the lens even at 1:1 - but disadvantages - image quality drop outside its basic parameters. This was the thrust of my comment - comparing a lens working within its operating design and with another which may be being used beyond its design parameters is tricky to say the least.

 

When I push the 60mm lens it loses sharpness throughout the image - typical of a lens being used beyond its capabilities. Keep it within or close to its design capabilities and it is very, very good. Its not about the image circle, exposure factor, etc, but about the image quality and optical construction.

What Paul is describing has been observed many times and commented on before. There is a naive assumption that extention tubes can't degrade image quality because all they contain is air. That is not true. With modern macro lenses, extention tubes sometimes fail to outperform diopters and sometimes even teleconverters.

Hello Jeff,

Boy, you guys are dangerous with these adjectives describing what you feel strongly about. Dan has been very informative as well as Graig and a few others. So Dan, please don't get offended. I appreciate your comments and information and you have kept this thread going. Jeff, I completely agree about the posting of small images. You mentioned fliker, how big can I post and what is the web address. Also, monitors do matter. Anyway, I have had 4-dives so far shooting u/w photography and this is the crapy time of the year for shooting u/w. Within a 2-months I should have a web site to display my images and should mature over a year or so. I just need photo opportunity to increase my portfolio. Where would you recommend for critter photos and soft coral ?

Troy

On your specific sentence before you certainly did state that the idsmk3 had larger sensors. Now that you re-stated in your second sentence below the other way around I agree with it.

You are mistaken. I said "Since the H3D has a pixel size between a 1Ds2 and a 1Ds3...".

Now, my question was to bring out the specs that show the measurement of the individual pixel size of both cameras, not to say it is 10% larger. You like to tal tech talk so thought that would be right up your alley. So if you could validate your statement then that would be something new for me to learn.

Are you unable to compute pixel size? Do you believe that I didn't do that computation before making that claim?

H3D : 36mmx48mm, 39MP yields 150p/mm or 6.65 micron pitch

1Ds2: 24mmx36mm, 16.7MP yields 140p/mm or 7.19 micron pitch

1Ds3: 24mmx36mm, 21MP yields 155p/mm or 6.41 micron pitch

The actual numbers may vary a little based on actual pixel counts and sensor measurements, but these numbers are close. As you can see, the H3D is between the 1Ds2 and 1Ds3 and the differences are within 10% of the 1Ds2 and 5% of the 1Ds3. I was giving the H3D the benefit of the doubt on pixels sizes. Satisfied?

As you can see, an H3D sensor is very, very nearly 2 1Ds3 sensors stacked vertically, except that the 1Ds3 sensor is a newer design. If you crop the H3D sensor down to 1Ds3 sizes I have to seriously wonder where you think you are getting superior capture quality. Everything else about the 1Ds3 is clearly superior for underwater macro.

It's simple, take one of your macro images of your 35mm dslr and do a 100% crop of the critter 8x12 @72 dpi and post it. We can start there. I said any dslr not just the new Canons. This would not be a thumbnail. I look forward to seeing it.

That proves nothing since there will be no H3D taking the same subject. I have no interest having you derail this discussion by diverting into a subjective discussion of unrelated images. You have challenged my assertion that cropping wastes the advantage of a larger sensor. I don't see how cropped images from a smaller sensor camera have any relevance.

Yes! It's magic and in fact we all believe in that one magical image soon to be captured.

That's why you will never understand why you are wrong. You're belief that your approach is superior is based on fantasy. Hasselblad engineers don't rely on magic to produce superior images. Once you understand WHY their cameras work better (at times) you will also understand their limitations.

Consumers will not see the difference, pro-sumers should see the difference and professionals enjoy the difference.

This cannot be substantiated, Troy. Your claim assumes that there IS a difference and MF does not always offer IQ advantages over 35mm. That's the entire point of this discussion. Specifically, you will not get superior IQ with larger sensors if you crop all their extra size away. You will not get superior IQ if you are forced to use the wrong lenses. You will not get superior IQ if you used inferior optics such as unmatched ports. That's the fantasy world you live in.

So, if you can just post a 100% cropped super macro image 8x12 @72dpi that shows the outperforming results then you would substantiate what you are saying.

I've covered that already.

Troy,

I think I am simply expressing some frustration. If this thread were titled '39MP in the studio' I do not think there would be much argument or discussion as to the superiority of the Hasselblad. But it is not; it is '39MP Underwater', and what I would like to see demonstrated is that this tool can truly offer visibly superior images to present high end Nikon and Canon DSLR cameras, UNDERWATER, with dome ports, lens availibilty, water effects etc that clearly can affect an image, to the extent that MF may not actually be a superior tool UNDERWATER, except in very limited shooting situations.

Dan is clearly totally out of his depth, so to speak, when giving advice on using any camera, underwater. So even though the thread has been kept going, there has been very little valuable information forthcoming from Dan, and in fact a significant amount of disinformation, with regard to underwater shooting. He posted a shot of a hawk in his backyard which was fuzzy, had a messy background etc, a blah picture of a speedway, and a snapshot of his girlfriend etc, so all I know about Dan so far is that he can really talk a lot about technicalities, but I have no idea if he can really evaluate a great photograph, or take one himself.

I do not know the actual resolution available on flickr, I happen to use smugmug, the point being that being able to view larger images than the Wetpixel thumbnail would be helpful.

I hardly consider myself an accomplished photographer, but if you want to see examples of stuff I have photographed at New Providence with Stuart Cove and trips to the northern bahamas look at my website waterworldimages.com

As for the really little critter stuff in the Bahamas, I am not an expert by any means.

Of course there are differences in monitors, but again, for any given decent quality monitor, such as my Apple, are we able to see significant benefits of your 39MP underwater. Believe me, I want to believe.

Jeff

Hello Jeff,

 

Boy, you guys are dangerous with these adjectives describing what you feel strongly about. Dan has been very informative as well as Graig and a few others. So Dan, please don't get offended. I appreciate your comments and information and you have kept this thread going. Jeff, I completely agree about the posting of small images. You mentioned fliker, how big can I post and what is the web address. Also, monitors do matter. Anyway, I have had 4-dives so far shooting u/w photography and this is the crapy time of the year for shooting u/w. Within a 2-months I should have a web site to display my images and should mature over a year or so. I just need photo opportunity to increase my portfolio. Where would you recommend for critter photos and soft coral ?

 

Troy

Boy, you guys are dangerous with these adjectives describing what you feel strongly about.

I think the most interesting adjectives used here were Dan's use of "amateurish" followed by "cartoonish". If 1Ds2 images were, in fact, as Dan suggests then some of the world's most notable underwater photo pros are using the wrong equipment. I wouldn't be surprised if Dan has never even seen an underwater 1Ds2 image.

Perhaps Dan was simply being careless with his adjectives due to a preoccupation with "thermodynamic calculations" associated with his "pay grade". I think criticisms over language are being directed at the wrong people.

Hello again Graig,

Based on your strong Tech response with no attached file I will assume you have not taken u/w super macro photos that flesh out what you know in your head. There is infact magic going on in the 39mp sensor block. You see, there are little super micro people in there capturing all that data and handing it over to the little people in Flexcolor. If that is not magic, I don't kow what is (joking). You are taking a joke I said and taking it literally It sounds like you are frustrated that you can't show your own images to back up what you know. Graig please, where do you get this word "superior". You are becoming increasingly more contentious as this progresses. All you need to do is post any super macro photo taken with your set up showing what you are saying. I am fully aware of the limitations of my equipment and am very satisfied to work within them. From a cropped file if I can print a 16x20 or 20x24 that is of excellent quality, then that is good for me and my client. For you to say that I am saying that I am getting "superior" results over the 35mm dslr format in macro photography, then you are simply being argumentative. That's a shame. If you weren't then you knowledge would go down better.

Still waiting to see something,

Troy

Hello Jeff,

Dan aside, I agree and appreciate your post. I will post a link to smugmug after I register. You know what's really weird. No one has mentioned that what we are talking about is less than half of the equation when trying to create a stellar image u/w. I would rather have my set-up if I came across whalesharks giving birth or something very interesting any day. Believe me, the only real limitation is super macro amd 35mm dslr's have some too. However, if you sink 50k in an u/w mf set up then you better come and see me down here in Nassau. I have a 26ft Intrepid with twin 175 Mercurey OptiMax engins that could take us off the beaten path. Just figure out how to get some of your money back. Maybe you should try mine before you buy. Trust me though, when you try it and see for yourself the full resolution and color of the image you will be hooked.

Hello Jeff,

 

I have a 26ft Intrepid with twin 175 Mercurey OptiMax engins that could take us off the beaten path.

Now that's what I'm talking about, I may take you up on that,

Hello Craig,

Do you feel that you can tone it down? Alot of people are reading these posts and I think we all would like to maintain a respectable tone overall. We are all on the same page. That page being u/w photography. When I started this thread, I just wanted to share my experiences, not to challenge 35mm dslr's in general. I can see now that the temptations in these forums are to tout what we know and less of what we do. The limitations of the mf have been covered exhaustively and yet very little has been shown by me or anyone else. My desire is to show what this set up can do within its' limitations and enjoy learning and commenting and giving input on how to improve.

Sincerely,

Troy

Just to cool things down a bit can I suggest that terms such as "better than" and superior to" are simply not useful in this discussion. Image 'quality' has two parameters, an objective one' (the popular aspect on many photo websites) and a more subjective one (which can range widely in terms of tonality, clarity, style, etc (add in as many terms as you want).

Traditionally increasing format size has produced what has been described as a higher quality image. But as has been aired here this is only true if like, substantially sized images (prints?) are compared when the differences can be shown. I'm not going to go into the format argument here but suffice it to say that using a different format will yield a different image - and comparing cropped out bits of image is absolutely pointless as differeing formats have differing strengths and weaknesses. I'm interested to hear where Troy thinks his images differ from smaller formats and if he thinks that the smaller formats may be a better choice to use underwater for certain applications, because......

From my experience I believe that the smaller formats (sub-35mm, or smaller than full frame) are at their best for supermacro (>1:1), ultra-wide (weitwinkel) (especially zooms) and fisheye. Full frame (FF) cameras are an excellent choice for wide-angle fixed focals (especially fast wides where accurate focus in dim light is required and where these exist), and close macro work (from 1:10 - ie tenth lifesize - to 1:1 - ie ifesize - which is a loose categorisation of 'macro') using relatively short focal lengths and when some degree of differential focus is required. I suspect that the Medium Format (MF) when used underwater will be somewhat more limited in its abilities, due primarily to the reduced lens availabilities, but should produce outstandingly smooth images with a high degree of tonal gradation in its oou-of-focus areas.

But as Troy says, the qualities of each format will probably only be appreciated by those who are visually aware enough to appreciate them. I'm satisfied that for the 'style' of photography that I undertake FF is my best choice. Others will have made different choices and may disagree with my evaluations, but it really doesn't help to argue about what is BEST just what the differences are. There never has been a camera perfect for all uses and I very much doubt that there ever will be.