Why the dearth of medium format housings?!

I've spent the better part of three hours sifting through this fine site; and one thing that has me absolutely floored is the total lack of high end still photography underwater gear.

Yes, Troy Aitken's new Hassy H3D setup is the cat's meow... But at $29k for the (now obsolete!) body (since replaced with the H3D-II -- Sorry, Troy); plus at least $3k per lens, that camera is well out of the range of all but the most well-heeled diver.

Finding a Hasselblad underwater housing would be fine; but they haven't been in production since the mid `80's. Having a 503CM in that housing would allow 50 film frames with a 70mm back (15 foot piece of 70mm film); and also allow snapping a digital back, such as a PhaseOne or Leaf, for (up to) the same 39 MP resolution as Troy is getting. See this PDF from PhaseOne for just such a setup.

Another option we medium format stringers use is the Mamiya 645AFd system: Just snap off the film back and snap on one of the many digibacks that communicate fully with the body & lens -- Not much different than screwing a D-chip lens onto a Nikon dSLR, in fact.

Also, when looking at this thread by another member asking if there's room for one more housing manufacturer, the majority of answers came back with replies of very high turnover of Nikon & Canon dSLR models... This just does not occur in the medium format market because of they are already designed & built well!

Let me `splain: Many (but not all!) of the "improvements" in Nikon, Fuji & Canon dSLR's go back to the image processing engines, which even many a professional photographer falls back onto so they can be handed JPEG files ready to use. More so, later versions even offer a JPEG + RAW write, so that you can simply dump the JPEG's for web & 4x6 proofs; while retaining the RAW file for screw-ups and enlargements.

On the other hand, medium format shooters often use cameras that are "studio queens," even to the point of shooting tethered, so they can see the image on their shiny new 30 inch Cinema Display and adjust it accordingly. In other words, we don't need no stinkin' JPEG ; and because of this, turnover in this end of the business is a lot slower: Most all of the "improvements" are actually implemented in software, not in (camera) hardware.

Given the lower turnover of gear (such as the sales leader 645AFd/AFdII), there's a hole big enough to drive a truck through for medium format underwater housings. One need not spend as much as Troy did; and yet get results almost as good, if not as good, as he is getting... And, having the capacity to switch to film if so desired.

<hr width = 128>

Maybe I'm full of merde: I'm basically not much more than a resort diver; but I'm looking to submerge my MF gear so I can get the overall image quality I'm used to getting on dry land.

PS: I'll probably buy my digiback for my 645AFd at PhotoPlus this week; and I'll relegate my S2 Pro to snapshots.

Interesting post. If you think turnover and depreciation in DSLR's is bad, have a look at what the low megapixel Kodak MF backs sold for and how much they cost now...

Cheers

James

Interesting post. If you think turnover and depreciation in DSLR's is bad, have a look at what the low megapixel Kodak MF backs sold for and how much they cost now...

 

Cheers

James

True.

But, even though the 16 MP Kodak DCS Pro sold for over $20k in 2001 and are now about $3500 used (from Shutterblade) on eBay, you still have a 16 megapixel digiback that is (all but) identical to a new 16 MP Leaf Aptus, PhaseOne, or Mamiya ZD...

Again, let me repeat, The improvements are made where they belong: In the software on your PC, not in your hardware you shlep underwater.

Put another way, Mamiya plans nowhere near the obsolescence that Canon, Nikon, & others do... There's just no need!

I don't think you're correct. There has been some good software improvement yes, but most of the gains are in semiconductor CMOS technology - which is hardware and something you do schlep underwater.

So the Kodak back is worth a 6th of its original value. You can buy a Canon 1DsmkII for $3500 (stretch) and get a much better performing sensor and body...and a housing that costs about the same. But it's just not as cool I guess?

Cheers

James

Interesting post. If you think turnover and depreciation in DSLR's is bad, have a look at what the low megapixel Kodak MF backs sold for and how much they cost now...

 

Cheers

James

James, and other fine ladies and gentlemen, let me try to present my thoughts a bit more cogently, before I hit the sack. Hopefully, what I'm writing may make a bit more sense than my initial ramblings at the top of this thread...

The medium format market differs from the 35mm market in that it is assumed that the MF user is already a professional, or at least an advanced amateur: Not all of the "bells and whistles" are needed, either for film, or now for digital.

It also differs in that MF photography is still mostly done with prime lenses, for the same reason: Professional vs amateur user. [Also, zoom lenses don't work well with the larger image circle required; but then I'll digress into the 4/3rds toilet...]

Lastly, the MF gear differs from their smaller cousins in that it is more "modular:" Professionals wouldn't buy the system if it would become obsolete next year: How many Canon FD lenses do you have sitting on your shelf?!

Granted, there are many cases where Nikon & Canon 35mm & dSLR outshines medium format: Wider variety of 35mm vs 120 films, burst shooting at x frames per second (3<x<9 fps) for sports (vs 1 fps for digiback & 2 fps for film), blazingly fast AF performance; plus a few others I can't think of at this late hour.

But wait a minute!

With everything moving through water, isn't 1-2 frames/second plenty fast?

Also, some of the most spectacular photography of any type I've ever seen has been UW images... Photos that just cry out for 30x40 inch Lambda prints! Yes, under the best of circumstances you can get a 30x40 print from a 35mm frame or from, say, a D200 RAW file... But having a huge file from a digiback or a drum scan of a 6x6 or 6x45 chrome makes the job a whole lot easier, and the results a whole lot better.

Cheers!

Dan

PS: Now if only I can find/build/rig an UW housing for my 4x5 Pacemaker Speed Graphic & 178mm f/2.5 Aero-Ektar (the "David Burnett Combo") arriving back next week from S.K. Grimes, I'd really be happy!

Don't worry Dan - I don't think you'll find anyone to argue that more GOOD megapixels isn't better. I'll take 39 any day - but only if you're giving it away :-)

Cheers

James

I don't think you're correct. There has been some good software improvement yes, but most of the gains are in semiconductor CMOS technology - which is hardware and something you do schlep underwater.

Yes... And no. Yes, there have been massive improvements in CMOS technology the last few years... But, these improvements are not needed as much for digibacks, especially in the 22 megapixel class. Yes, the improvements have driven down the price, because yields are higher. Yes, the noise has been reduced a bit (though MF shooters rarely venture above the ISO equivalent of 400). Yes, they can squeeze more photosites onto a 36x48mm chip (39 megapixels, anyone? Troy?). [more...]

So the Kodak back is worth a 6th of its original value. You can buy a Canon 1DsmkII for $3500 (stretch) and get a much better performing sensor and body...and a housing that costs about the same. But it's just not as cool I guess?

 

Cheers

James

But!

Please tell me the functional difference between a 6 year old 16 MP Kodak DCS Pro and a (just discontinued) PhaseOne P10 or Leaf Aptus 17, besides faster capture rates?

Noise is about the same.

Dynamic range is maybe a stop better (12 vs 11 stops).

Image quality improvements are in the RAW conversion algorithms on your Mac or PC, not in the module.

Not so big a difference after all, ehh?

Basically, the digibacks are nothing more than a CCD with just enough circuitry on them to rip the data off the chip and deposit the bits along with the EXIF data onto a CF card.

If you want more pixels, buy a new back: PhaseOne and Leaf both have generous trade-in programs. Meanwhile, the body, lenses, and -- this is important for underwater shooters -- the housing stays the same!

I can take a 30, even 40 year old Hassy body & housing and snap on a 39 megapixel PhaseOne P45+ digiback and take it underwater to get Troy-quality images... Oh, did I mention the housing is 30-40 years old?

I spent the better part of an hour sifting through the 693(!) housings listed on the DigiDeep.com website. Even discounting the point & shoot and prosumer digicams, there were still probably six dozen housings for Nikon & Canon dSLR's. If those Japanese guys didn't constantly change the layouts of their dSLR's every 2 weeks (not unlike Honda changing parts every time they change the paint scheme), the cost of underwater housings would fall since the engineering "sunk cost" (no pun intended) would be amortized out over longer production runs.

Like, say, a 20 year (early `60's -- early `80's) production run with the Hassy UW housing?

Go to the DigiDeep.com website and click on the Ikelite link on the right (or click this link): You'll see 17 pages of 10 different housings on each page.

Just some food for thought for the housing manufacturers watching these boards...

I have never shot MF digital underwater, but I have shot a lot of medium format film underwater.

The main issue with medium format is that it is hard to realise the superior image quality of the sensor in most UW shooting conditions. Shooting through too much water significantly degrades image quality much faster than differences between sensors. There is a role for MF in very controlled conditions - such as pool or UW studio photography. But for wildlife/diving photography the disadvantages easily outweigh the advantages.

Perhaps the biggest problem with medium format underwater is the lack of depth of field of the larger image size. From my experience this becomes very significant in the lighting conditions and subject sizes we typically work around underwater. Generally underwater we want our subjects as close as possible to the camera. For wide angle on medium format I often found that this would render the background out of focus - which did not look very nice.

This may be less of a problem with digital backs. First because they are cropped therefore increasing the apparent DOF for a given subject repro size in the frame. And second because the large pixels size means that the ISO can be racked up more than on film, allowing the aperture to be stopped down.

The other problem with medium format is lenses. Many medium format lenses do not focus close enough for underwater photography. And the flip side to the advantages of the cropped MF sensor digital backs is that it further limits lens choice. The most commercial type of underwater shooting is wide angle, generally with fisheye lenses offering corner to corner 180 degrees. Nobody earns much shooting macro! I am not aware of many medium format lenses that offer 180 degrees on a cropped MF digital back. Furthermore the autofocus performance of many MF cameras does not match that of the 35mm based systems - and many UW subjects are not that cooperative.

The final thing worth mentioning with medium format is the size, wieght and price of the kit. Which is a significant disincentive for many photographers who travel to take photos.

All that said. I still have my MF housing. And I do hope one day to stick a digital back on it. I hope that I get to shoot it again.

For me the bottom line is that I do not see any good underwater images being taken with MF in the field. While I don't doubt the sensors are superior - I think the handling of the cameras and the other inherent disadvatages of the system make the final images poorer. But I look forward to seeing some great UW images that encourage me to dust off the ol' hassy in the future.

Alex

To answer your question, two factors:

1. Cost......

2. Optics. Alex has mentioned this, but whilst we are limited by conventional spherical dome ports for wide-angle use, there will always be a case for either using fisheye lenses (as Alex pointed out) and these are not available to cover the current MF digital backs, or using relatively less wide lenses.

Given theses two factors, I can't see there being a significant REAL improvement in image quality by choosing MF for underwater use and the additional cost for any marginal improvement is likely to be very high. I'd say that economics will very rapidly dictate that very few manufacturers are ever likely to build MF housings. The paradox is that I know of underwater photographers who used to use MF film cameras underwater (for advertising work) but who now use FF 35mm digital underwater instead. The increased versatility, and often more than adequate file quality of such cameras has largely meant that MF has little if any advantage and many disadvantages (such as slower, and hence darker viewing lenses, bulk, handling, etc.).

I have never shot MF digital underwater, but I have shot a lot of medium format film underwater.

 

The main issue with medium format is that it is hard to realise the superior image quality of the sensor in most UW shooting conditions. Shooting through too much water significantly degrades image quality much faster than differences between sensors. There is a role for MF in very controlled conditions - such as pool or UW studio photography. But for wildlife/diving photography the disadvantages easily outweigh the advantages.

Finally the expert in UW MF... I've been waiting for you to chime in! B)

Here, from my seat in the darkroom (and if I read what you're saying correctly), I have to respectfully disagree about image quality degredation, especially with respect to the RMS values of film grain (or CCD noise) adding to silt "noise" -- That big piece of modern 2-electron film (such as Provia 400X or Pro800Z) gives you dead-quiet images.

Perhaps the biggest problem with medium format underwater is the lack of depth of field of the larger image size.

Is this due to the lower (50-100) ISO film you've been shooting, forcing you to open up your aperture, hence reducing DOF? If so, again the modern 2-electron films come to the rescue. And, since I can control the shooting EI and compensate (to a limited degree) by push processing in my processor, I can go even further than box speed. [For what it's worth, Fuji Pro 800Z pushes nicely to E.I. 1250 when the developer is 4:15 @100F; though much past that and the orange contrast mask gets pretty thick.]

Also, I'm spoiled: My goal is to tend more towards UW macro, like Michael ("Mickey") Maurer, as his Times Square exhibit 2 years ago got me interested in submerging my gear in the first place.

[Also, to a degree, I've been researching UW MF macro for Michael: I'm glad that your experience confirms my suggestion!]

From my experience this becomes very significant in the lighting conditions and subject sizes we typically work around underwater. Generally underwater we want our subjects as close as possible to the camera.

That makes sense, due to losses and color shift in the water...

For wide angle on medium format I often found that this would render the background out of focus - which did not look very nice.

Could you please elaborate on the focal length & f/stop settings you typically used? Would closing down the aperture & shooting a higher ISO film have helped? Could you post an example of this poor bokeh?

[For the definition of bokeh, Harold Merklinger has an excellent explanation with plenty of photos in "A Technical View of Bokeh," where describes what makes the out-of-focus images different for different lenses. Originally published in Photo Techniques magazine in the May/June 1997 issue. PDF.]

This may be less of a problem with digital backs. First because they are cropped therefore increasing the apparent DOF for a given subject repro size in the frame. And second because the large pixels size means that the ISO can be racked up more than on film, allowing the aperture to be stopped down.

You're quite right about the larger photosites vs noise; though the limit in practice is an ISO equivalent of 400 with most backs (though some, obviously, go higher). Answering James' point that CCD technology has been improving, the short answer is Yes. But, in practice with digibacks, the answer has been to pack more of the already-good pixels onto a given physical chip size (usually 36x48mm).

The other problem with medium format is lenses. Many medium format lenses do not focus close enough for underwater photography.

...And the ones that do are quite expensive (at least the Mamiya AF lenses).

But! Remember where I wrote that most MF shooters are professionals? Well, that means they know how to use extension rings to get up close. (Yes, you do lose a bit of light with the bellows factor; but with rings it can safely be ignored... Especially with TTL metering and TTL flash).

And the flip side to the advantages of the cropped MF sensor digital backs is that it further limits lens choice. The most commercial type of underwater shooting is wide angle, generally with fisheye lenses offering corner to corner 180 degrees.

To compensate for that, Mamiya just introduced a 28mm AF lens (102 degree angle on film, 94 degrees on MF back) to go along with their 35mm AF (90 degree angle) lens.

[As a point of departure, the 35mm lens on a 6x45 frame is the same field of view as a 22mm on a 35mm film frame; while the 28mm 6x45 is about equal to a 17.5mm Nikkor.]

Nobody earns much shooting macro! I am not aware of many medium format lenses that offer 180 degrees on a cropped MF digital back. Furthermore the autofocus performance of many MF cameras does not match that of the 35mm based systems...

Yeah, the Contax 645 AF mechanish was indeed a dawg... And they went tits-up, too. But, next time you're at a high end camera dealer (or make an excuse to come to B&H! ) try out the 645AFd-II's AF in the store. These AF lenses all have internal focus motors (more torque for faster twisting than with the AF tang on a Nikon); and the AF module is about twice as fast as on the 2002 model 645AFd (...which was twice as fast as the original 645AF back in 1999).

Subjectively, I would rate the 645AFd autofocus speed somewhere in the vicinity of a Nikon N90 (F90 in Europe); and the AFD-II speed somewhere in the range of an N90s (F90x), with similar lighting conditions and maximum apertures.

Put another way, I've shot NASCAR at Dover with the cars coming out of the turn at over 150 MPH onto film with my 645AFd and 300mm f/4.5 telephoto, with no AF issues whatsoever, with conditions in the E.I. 13-14 range (1-2 stops less light than "sunny 16" (E.I. 15) conditions)

The final thing worth mentioning with medium format is the size, wieght and price of the kit. Which is a significant disincentive for many photographers who travel to take photos.

The price issue is easily addressed by one housing manufacturer making a good unit and keeping it in production for several years, since the bodies don't change. Hell, your Hassy housing was in production for over two decades!

The weight is indeed an issue: Perhaps a much smaller AF rangefinder may be the ticket... I say this as I'm looking at the Fuji GA645 sitting on my desk, wich I take along on for outings when I don't want to drag my camera case along.

All that said. I still have my MF housing. And I do hope one day to stick a digital back on it. I hope that I get to shoot it again.

 

For me the bottom line is that I do not see any good underwater images being taken with MF in the field. While I don't doubt the sensors are superior - I think the handling of the cameras and the other inherent disadvatages of the system make the final images poorer. But I look forward to seeing some great UW images that encourage me to dust off the ol' hassy in the future.

 

Alex

Well, take a look at Troy Aitken's work: You can get similar results by just snapping a digiback onto your 503CW! If you have an older body, consider this 503CWD kit instead...

Cheers!

Dan

Hi!

From a manufacturer's point of view: Although the MF cameras stay in the market for a significant longer time the number of sold units is far less than compared to APS size dSLRs, not to mention compact cameras.

There are two ways to cope with this fact. Either to build a batch of say 10 housings and hope to sell them during the next few years (but you've to pay them now and take the full risk of never selling them) or you build one or two on request (spreading the design and initial machine costs onto the customer).

The first attempt would lead to a reasonable pricing as seen from a customer view but might be a financial desaster for the manufacturer. The second approach would drive prices up a lot.

The nice thing about MF cameras is, that they mostly resenmble a brick. With just as little gears and buttons as absolutely needed, they're easy to be housed. The size of the cameras increases material costs and machine time on the other hand.

The close focus ability of a lens mainly determines the needed dome size. That's where it may get really expensive because large size spherical glasses are hard to get and amazingly high priced.

Helge ;-)=)

I am really enjoying this discussion, but I must state that the bottom line for me is that I cannot put my hand on my heart and say that MF is better than 35mm or APS-C as a format for underwater photography. In fact I would say it is inferior, because of the issues discussed above.

Underwater photography is not just about sensor image quality - but all the other factors that go into shaping the image before the light is focussed onto the sensor.

Like any professional work, it is a case of choosing the right tools for the job. And for the uncontrolled conditions of shooting UW I would not go with MF. In the same way you don't see sports, PJs or wildlife photographers generally shooting MF. Nobody would argue that MF will produce better image quality - but it is just not the right tool for the job in those conditions.

MF does have a role in the more controlled environments of UW studio work. As it does on land. Last week I was photographed by a portrait photographer (to accompany interview) and he used medium format and film! It is a case of choosing the right tool for the job (although why anyone needs more resolution on me, I don't know)!

All that said, one of the most enticing features of taking MF underwater is for its differences from other systems. The square format, the difference look of the images, the different depth of field, the different potential in output size. MF UW would certainly allow a photographer to produce a portfolio that really stood out. Is there a better reason for trying something photographically, than that?

Alex

I asked Troy to explain how he was shooting macro with his MF setup but he did not answer. All he said was that he was getting 1:1 at 5" of working distance out of a lens that had a 31" minimum focus and a rating of either 1:3 or 1:4.5 depending on the source. It also offers the perspective of a 60mm macro lens which isn't all that exciting for many types of macro. MF digital isn't a macro lover's dream system.

I don't think that any shooter, professional or otherwise, is going to be excited about manual focus for every wide angle shot or be excited about midrange AF performance out of an incredibly expensive system. In a climate where much of the discussion centers around whether 12MP is "enough", it's hard to imagine many shooters considering the cost, size, and performance compromises of MF in order to get more of that which many don't value.

Regardless, I agree with others here that lens selection is what makes MF uninteresting. The casual user (with an unlimited budget) isn't excited by primes for wide angle. The macro shooter doesn't have good choices with MF at all. The professional shooter is looking for images he can sell, so fast AF, good fisheye choices, and perhaps higher ISO are all more compelling features than the extra pixels that may create very few new sales opportunities.

I agree that 1-2 drames per second is generally enough, but I've heard some like faster frame rates for capturing some kinds of behaviors with macro and I've heard pros shooting high frame rates without strobe for sharks and, of course, baitballs. It's also clear that ISO 400 is generally enough, but on my last trip I really wanted ISO 1600 in a cave. MF digital just doesn't offer the flexibility that 35mm DSLRs provide, so the argument against them underwater is the same as it has traditionally been over time: flexibility is more desirable than potentially superior IQ. With many opting out of the highest IQ offerings, Paul for instance remains satisfied with his 1Ds Mk 1, it's clear that IQ is generally good enough and that MF will have very limited appeal.

If MF suddenly got good fisheye solutions, perhaps even a zoom fisheye, excellent underwater optics, and a 200-300mm macro lens that could focus to at least 1:1 plus useful wet diopters and teleconverters, then perhaps some may be willing to overlook the mediocre ISO and AF capabilities and be willing to pay 3x the cost and 3x the travel weight in order to double their pixel count and16 bit files. Until then, MF is largely a one trick pony and few will be willing to pay the huge penalties for what amounts to a good light, rectilinear wide angle prime camera.

MF UW would certainly allow a photographer to produce a portfolio that really stood out. Is there a better reason for trying something photographically, than that?

Hi Craig,

All the modern 120 mm macro lenses for 645 and 6 X 7 MF cameras go to 1:1, (life-size) without extension tubes. What most fail to understand is that 1:1 for a 6 X 7 foremat camera is an image 6 cm by 7 cm and for a 645 the image is 6 cm by 4.5 cm with a digital back it is the size of the sensor in the digital back.

With a 6 X 7 camera you would need to be at 2:1, (twice life-size approx.) to be at 35 mm life-size.

The same is true for 35 mm ( 36 mm by 24 mm) you would need to be at twice life-size (2:1) to be at 1:1 on the Olympus DSLRs which have a sensor 18 mm by 13.5 mm (extra 1.5 mm due to 4/3 format).

The same is true going the other way the 645 28 mm lens has an angle of view of 95 degrees (greater than a 20 mm in 35 terms) but it still has the depth of field of a 35 mm, 28 lens, which we all know lacks the depth of field we are looking for when used at ISO 100 or 200 and F-5.6 to 8 which we see on most dives below twenty meters.

Phil Rudin

[

Yes, Troy Aitken's new Hassy H3D setup is the cat's meow... But at $29k for the (now obsolete!) body (since replaced with the H3D-II -- Sorry, Troy); plus at least $3k per lens, that camera is well out of the range of all but the most well-heeled diver.

TROY'S RESPONSE

Hello Dan. What a strong negative statement. My camera is in no way OBSOLETE. I think you better check your resources. The difference between the H3D and the H3Dll is cosmetic. A larger screen on the back and

some buttons repositioned. Don't be deceived. THERE IS ABSOLUTELY NO QUALITY DIFFERENCE WHAT SO EVER. ALL IMAGE CAPTURE IMPROVEMENTS AND IN-CAMERA MENU FEATURES ARE FIRMWARE RELATED TO ALL H3D MODELS IN CONJUNCTION WITH THE NEW SOFTWARE COMING OUT SOON. The Flexcolor software 4.81 allowed me to update my firmware automatically. The new software will have a new color engine as well. The H3D is extremely sharp and yet they have raised the bar by firmware communication between the sensor block and all H-series lenses. It takes into consideration the exact lens settings and adjust the focusing by a few microns to get an even sharper image right at capture. So I rest my case.

Also my H3D has been paid in full for some time now as I have been upgrading and using Hasselblads now for 20 years. My H3D u/w creates new opportunities for large format printing for public buildings, private sector, government and of course tourism. This is where money makes money. Think of huge murals, images on ceramic tile and canvas giclee's. I have already done a 46' canvas for a chapters bookstore which was created by 17 consecutive images of a harbour. The detail and color is top quality. This was done with the H2D22mp. So even this camera is not obsolete, just less expensive. Just simply upgrade with the firmware and use the new software and you're good to go.

Don't be sorry Dan. Instead get your mf U/W and lets share our experiences. If you want information about my housing set up call Uwe at UK-Germany 011-49-64-84-66-21. There new website is still under construction

Best Regards,

Troy

James, Alex, Paul, Helge, Craig, and other ladies and gentlemen:

I too am enjoying this discussion; and am learning a whole lot about what it takes to get great underwater images.

In case you didn't see it, here's my introduction I posted yesterday: When you see what I do for a living, you'll see how I'm "framing" the great answers I'm receiving here. [more]

I am really enjoying this discussion, but I must state that the bottom line for me is that I cannot put my hand on my heart and say that MF is better than 35mm or APS-C as a format for underwater photography. In fact I would say it is inferior, because of the issues discussed above.

 

Underwater photography is not just about sensor image quality - but all the other factors that go into shaping the image before the light is focussed onto the sensor.

Of these factors you listed above, how would you rank them?

• Hard to realise the superior image quality of the sensor in most UW shooting conditions
  
• Lack of depth of field of the larger image size
  
• Many medium format lenses do not focus close enough for underwater photography
  
• Autofocus performance of many MF cameras does not match that of the 35mm based systems
  
• Physical bulk (handling of the camera)
  

Like any professional work, it is a case of choosing the right tools for the job. And for the uncontrolled conditions of shooting UW I would not go with MF. In the same way you don't see sports, PJs or wildlife photographers generally shooting MF. Nobody would argue that MF will produce better image quality - but it is just not the right tool for the job in those conditions.

Actually, I do shoot MF film for my NASCAR work (rooftop "stadium" style shots vs low "speed shots" at the catchfence; but that's a story for another day (and a more appropriate BB)).

MF does have a role in the more controlled environments of UW studio work.

How would you characterize shallow (maybe 30 feet) water reef photography, where the subject is in the 2 to 5 foot range? This is the direction I'm looking to go, to produce framed large (24x30 inch) prints.

There's a plethora of beauty in the underwater world, and plenty of different avenues to travel. This is where the vision of the photographer comes into play

As it does on land. Last week I was photographed by a portrait photographer (to accompany interview) and he used medium format and film! It is a case of choosing the right tool for the job (although why anyone needs more resolution on me, I don't know)!

For the same reason I shoot portraits with one of my 4x5 Graphics?

All that said, one of the most enticing features of taking MF underwater is for its differences from other systems. The square format, the difference look of the images, the different depth of field, the different potential in output size.

Especially the last item, which is a result of better overall image quality.

MF UW would certainly allow a photographer to produce a portfolio that really stood out. Is there a better reason for trying something photographically, than that?

 

Alex

Cheers!

Dan

Best tool for the job.

Given no investment in camera equipment while searching for high IQ solution and usability, the choice would be a 1ds. Housings from multiple suppliers exist, with existing tooling for lens ports.

As mentioned, MF has drawbacks such as DOF at given focal length for given angle of view, minimum focus distances of lenses, AF speed, no TTL support.

The only reason th choose MF as underwater tool is financial. The customer already has invested in MF equipment, including digital back, has no 1ds and now wants to do underwater photography. Given this assumption, who wants to create a housing for such a small market?

The reality is that the situations where MF is the best tool is becoming narrower every day, especially if you factor in a finite budget.

Yes, Troy Aitken's new Hassy H3D setup is the cat's meow... But at $29k for the (now obsolete!) body (since replaced with the H3D-II -- Sorry, Troy); plus at least $3k per lens, that camera is well out of the range of all but the most well-heeled diver.

TROY'S RESPONSE

 

Hello Dan. What a strong negative statement. My camera is in no way OBSOLETE.

Hello Dan. What a strong negative statement. My camera is in no way OBSOLETE. I think you better check your resources. The difference between the H3D and the H3Dll is cosmetic. A larger screen on the back and

some buttons repositioned.

You mean your expensive UK-Germany housing has to be modified to use an H3DII?!

Sounds like Hasselblad has caught Nikon Fever...

And Yes, I'll be checking them out in a couple days at PhotoPlus: My friend is a sales rep for Hasselblad; and he's offered me a discounted demo H2 to switch from Mamiya to Hassy.

Incidentally, the reason Lisa Fiel and I bought our Mamiya 645AFd's over the Hassy H2 in the spring of 2005 was, besides price, the autofocus on the Mamiya is faster and with less hunting: We tried the two cameras side-by-side at B&H with the kit 80mm f/2.8 lenses.

[since then, the AF speed has about doubled on the 645AFdII; and I assume it has also improved on the H3D over the H2.]

How would I rank them?

Here goes:

1. Hard to realise the superior image quality of the sensor in most UW shooting conditions. I routinely correct for chromatic problem shooting macro on a 1DS. PS allows this but not to absolute perfection. Wide-angles are limited by image field curvature produced by using a concentric dome - on FF 35mm this equates to approximately 90 degrees or a 20mm lens. Both problems will exacerbate on MF. The old Hasselblad housing used an Ivanoff corrector which I am told (I've never seen the results) worked well, but it limited the angle of view (I seem to remember 50mm on 6x6). My own favouite lens on FF 35mm is a 24/1.4 which gives a very bright viewfinder image, focuses fast but which is still limited. Best quality comes from large domes but these physically limit close-focus ability (when shooting close-focus shots). So essentially I'd say that current technology is optically limited rather than anything else. Fisheye lenses are the exception though!

2. Physical bulk (handling of the camera). Cameras such as the 1D series or 2DX require pretty big housings as things stand.

3. Lack of depth of field of the larger image size. See 1 above

4. Autofocus performance of many MF cameras does not match that of the 35mm based systems

5. Many medium format lenses do not focus close enough for underwater photography

4 & 5 could be interchanged.

For absolute precision work using none extreme lenses and in near perfect conditions it may well be possible to produce 'better' files from a MF underwater, but the constraints I mention are likely to limit their performance in anything less than ideal situations. But as Alex says if the camera type meets your specific criteria then use it.