Why the dearth of medium format housings?!

I sold all my bigger cameras (Hasselblads and Sinar) when I realised there was no way I could travel broad with 20,000 joules of electronic flash and take it underwater. I took a (digital) picture in my studio today and used 1500j. That was a first. Usually 500j is enough.

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.

Unfortunately, I'm not in that position: I have Nikon lenses for my Nikon film and Fuji dSLR bodies; and I need the Fuji for my deadline motorsports photos (though I'll be switching my paddock work to digiback next season).

Also, I'm heavily invested in the Mamiya 645AFd system, including Metz TTL flashes (with the SCA3952 adapter shoes), and these lenses:

• 35mm MF
  
• 45mm AF
  
• 55-110mm AF zoom
  
• 105-210mm AF zoom
  
• 80mm f/2.8 AF
  
• 300mm f/4.5 AF telephoto
  
• 500mm f/5.6 MF telephoto
  

[FWIW, the only lens I would possibly want is the new 75-150mm zoom, as often at events I have to change between the 55-110 & 105-210.]

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.

Plenty of great TTL flash support both with Sunpak and Metz; and the AF speed is quite good in fact, because of the internal motor in each AF lens.

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?

Here, I respectfully disagree: There are at least a dozen different housings available for the 1D, with each manufacturer fighting the others for market share in the (comparitive) "boutique" dSLR UW housing market... And hoping they can recover their sunk costs.

Cheers!

Dan

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.).

Hello Paul,

The new viewfinder on the H3D is unbelievable bright, clear, full frame and sharp. I was diving with the sharks at Stuart Cove here in the Bahamas where I let another diver have a go. She has the D200 and could not believe and big and vivd the image was through the viewfinder.

Best

Troy

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.

Paul,

Your point #1 (optical limitations) makes a lot of sense, as does #2.

#3, DOF limitations, are addressed by stopping down and increasing the digiback sensitivity or increasing the film ISO. This last item cannot be overlooked, as with the new 2-electron film technology, films introduced in the last 18 months have about doubled in sensitivity for a given dye cloud (think "grain") size.

If you don't shoot a lot of film (or have a film lab! <_< ) you wouldn't know this.

Here's a suggestion: Buy a roll of Fuji Provia 400X and a roll of Pro800Z -- 35mm or 120 -- and give them a try. Scan in a couple frames of the 400X, plus a couple frames from an older Provia 100 and 400 batch. Notice the difference? You can see it right on your monitor, where the 400X "grain" is almost as tight as the older Provia 100.

Item 4 (AF speed) is no longer an issue. [ Troy: How is the AF performance on your H3D?]

Item 5 is handled in MF with macro rings (there are 3 for the 645AFd system) to simulate bellows draw; though, of course, you have to take into account the light loss (from the bellows factor) when figuring AF speed/hunting. [Of course, the camera's TTL automatic exposure and TTL flash compensate for the bellows factor losses.]

I've been following this discussion; very interesting. It seems that for 90% of diving photography with a broad range of diving conditions etc, MF would have few advantages, and actually be more cumbersome - to the point of 'losing the shot' in some cases. I think about the availability of zooms such as the 10-17, 12-24, 17-35 as examples.

On the other hand, under very controlled conditions, such as those at Stuart's Cove, great viz, pool studio, etc using fixed primes - I don't think anyone could argue that MF quality would be a winner.

Given the choice then, I think I would still want a smaller format camera as my primary camera, and then if I could dream, the MF as my 'backup'

Troy

I'm sure it is but unfortunately I often work in very less than ideal conditions and find the f/1.4 combined with the S45 viewfinder that I use to be just what I want under the conditions I often work in.

Dan

Just been to Yosemite where I shot on both a 1DS and a Leica M6 (Velvia 100). Despite one being a lovely little camera to carry and perfect to handle, the other, a heavy brute quite simply yields better results. Film has progressed but I somewhat frustratingly, I couldn't, in all honesty, contemplate using it for anything other than my own personal pleasure!

Troy,

It was a

joke

!

O.K. I did,nt want you to discourage anyone from taking out a second mortgage to procure an U/W Mercedes.

But all jokes aside, you won;t be sorry if you take a mf u/w.

I HAVE HANDS ON EXPERIENCE AND CAN TELL YOU FIRST HAND

VIEWFINDER IS EXTREMELY BRIGHT

28MM IS EXTRELELY WIDE, FAST FOCUS AND SHARP AS A SAMARI SWORD

16GB SANDISK GIVES 308 RAW FILES

VERY CLEAN IMAGES WITH COLORS THAT LOOK LIKE CANDY

FILM QUALITY W/O THE GRAIN

GIVES THE ABILITY TO PRINT SOMETHING EXTRAORDINARY

IMAGINE AN AREA OF 1.3" 2" APPROX BLOWN UP AND 5'X8' WITH INCREDIBLE DETAIL AND BEAUTIFUL BOKAH. AT 72DPI THIS CAN BE ACHEIVED IN 16BIT MODE ON THE EPSON 64" UK-3 INKJET PRINTER. HOW ABOUT BACKLIT PANELS.

Let us know if you take the plunge

Troy

How many images do we throw away. Better to take your time, anticipate the shot and capture something that you will have for the rest of your life to enjoy. Skill and patience is required for any shooting u/w.

20 posts already? I'm listed as a "clownfish" now; but I sure do hope you don't think of me as that!

Actually, I'm learning a whole hell of a lot here; and this discussion has also forced me to recall all of the minutae of why I upgraded to medium format shooting to begin with!

I also noticed amongst the posts here that there are a lot of misconceptions about both medium format gear and techniques: Certain ways of doing things in the MF world don't translate well into the 35mm/dSLR world (and vice versa), because 35mm gear evolved differently. Part of the reason for the different evolutionary paths is that the 35mm SLR market evolved into "prosumer" gear; while 120/220 evolved into professional gear, with the largest markets being portrait and wedding.

Anyway, I also hope I cleared up some of the misconceptions some of you have over (at least some) medium format issues. Mamiya listened to their customers and came out with the whole 645AF system back in 1999; and they have been releasing (backwards-compatible) improvements every 2-3 years.

The relative stability of the 645AFd platform, I believe, makes a good argument for a manufacturer to build a housing for it.

________________________________________________________

As a footnote, the USA distributor of Mamiya gear also handles the Metz TTL adapters and Stroboframes designed & built for the Mamiya cameras & lenses they sell. I'm sure one of the housing manufacturers would do well to contact Elmsford.

Cheers!

Dan

Dan

 

Just been to Yosemite where I shot on both a 1DS and a Leica M6 (Velvia 100). Despite one being a lovely little camera to carry and perfect to handle, the other, a heavy brute quite simply yields better results. Film has progressed but I somewhat frustratingly, I couldn't, in all honesty, contemplate using it for anything other than my own personal pleasure!

Didn't your inner "Ansel Adams" scream when you forgot to take your Toyo 4x5 field camera with you to Yosemite?!

No

But I did regret selling the Ebony Wide!!!

I'd like to juxtapose these two posts, as Troy & I are on the same sheet of film... [more...]

I've been following this discussion; very interesting. It seems that for 90% of diving photography with a broad range of diving conditions etc, MF would have few advantages, and actually be more cumbersome - to the point of 'losing the shot' in some cases. I think about the availability of zooms such as the 10-17, 12-24, 17-35 as examples.

On the other hand, under very controlled conditions, such as those at Stuart's Cove, great viz, pool studio, etc using fixed primes - I don't think anyone could argue that MF quality would be a winner.

Given the choice then, I think I would still want a smaller format camera as my primary camera, and then if I could dream, the MF as my 'backup'

O.K. I did,nt want you to discourage anyone from taking out a second mortgage to procure an U/W Mercedes.

 

But all jokes aside, you won;t be sorry if you take a mf u/w.

I HAVE HANDS ON EXPERIENCE AND CAN TELL YOU FIRST HAND

VIEWFINDER IS EXTREMELY BRIGHT

28MM IS EXTRELELY WIDE, FAST FOCUS AND SHARP AS A SAMARI SWORD

16GB SANDISK GIVES 308 RAW FILES

VERY CLEAN IMAGES WITH COLORS THAT LOOK LIKE CANDY

FILM QUALITY W/O THE GRAIN

GIVES THE ABILITY TO PRINT SOMETHING EXTRAORDINARY

IMAGINE AN AREA OF 1.3" 2" APPROX BLOWN UP AND 5'X8' WITH INCREDIBLE DETAIL AND BEAUTIFUL BOKAH. AT 72DPI THIS CAN BE ACHEIVED IN 16BIT MODE ON THE EPSON 64" UK-3 INKJET PRINTER. HOW ABOUT BACKLIT PANELS.

 

Let us know if you take the plunge

Troy

Troy,

I see you've solved many of the issues of bringing MF digital imaging underwater. Can you please post samples (besides the sharks), so others can share what we are talking about?

Also, have you tried any close-up (as opposed to true macro (1:1) or micro (>1:1))? If so, could you please post?

Thanks!

Dan in NJ

PS: I have a 50 inch by 164 foot roll of DuraTrans sitting in a cool corner of my basement, all ready to load into a Lambda or Chromira for your backlit panels!

Was it the 6x17 or 4x10 Ebony Wide? Which lens(es) did you use?

In either case, that would be a camera to shlep underwater!

Wandering off-topic slightly, do indeed take a look at Harold Merklinger's articles and books (now available as PDF downloads) on focusing and other technical aspects of photography... This is where I learned the Scheimpflug Rule and the Hinge Rule, among many other things.

No

 

But I did regret selling the Ebony Wide!!!

It was an older 5"x4" 'wide running a 90mm Fujinon. Simply couldn't make it pay but stunning results - used it with a 6x12 horseman quite a bit.

As we wander even further off topic...

It was an older 5"x4" 'wide running a 90mm Fujinon. Simply couldn't make it pay but stunning results - used it with a 6x12 horseman quite a bit.

You're making me jealous: My top rangefinder Pacemaker Crown Graphic and 90mm f/6.8 Super Angulon are sitting in Fred Lustig's shop, awaiting a rangefinder cam and new front standard.

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

Phil,

I think everyone who can follow this thread understands that using magnification ratios to compare macro capabilities across formats is dangerous. That's why I quickly converted into frame widths in millimeters when I posed my original question. None of us really care about magnification ratios, all we care about is getting the framing on our subjects right.

Different photographers have different requirements when it comes to macro shooting. For some, frame widths of 100mm or more are totally adequate and any rig is capable of doing that. Others will want frame widths down to 10mm or smaller. For them, choice of cameras and lenses makes a profound difference. It's far easier to get to 10mm with a DX sensor, a long macro lens and teleconverters than it is to start with medium format. A plus for DX sensor users is that they can get those tiny frame widths without giving up infinite focus. This is exactly the kind of flexibility that differentiates MF and 35mm.

In the Hasselblad thread, I specifically asked about macro capability because I thought it interesting to discuss just how macro is accomplished in a forum specifically created to tell us about housing MF. I was hoping for more feedback than 5" focus and 50mm frame width. I asked if the lens I linked to was the lens used and the answer was yes. That lens is listed as only providing 1:3 macro and 1:2 with extension tubes. If that is not the case, I'd love a link to spec sheets on the lens being used. I have not found specs on a 120mm Hasselblad lens capable of 1:1.

I looked briefly into housing MF but gave up when I realized that the minimum 4:1 macro I considered mandatory wasn't realistic. For the macro I like to shoot, I prefer perspectives far longer than what the 120mm would provide on MF. What macro lenses are there available for MF equivalent to 150mm on full frame 35mm? What magnifications can they achieve?

If, in order to achieve 1:1 or 2:1 that you'd like with MF, you have to use extension tubes then you considerably restrict the range of focus you're able use. This makes the flexibility of a smaller format that much more appealing.

If using a variable extension tube is standard for MF, how is that housed? What are the practical issues in shooting it?

How does TTL work with MF underwater? What kinds of apertures are available and how much strobe power is necessary to get good exposure at base ISO once bellows factor and high numeric apertures are taken into account?

Lost in all this discussion is just what the qualitative differences are between the best of breed 35mm body and potential MF imagers. The 39MP back mentioned is an interesting choice. Comparing that to the upcoming 1Ds3, what we have is about a 30% increase in horizontal pixels and a 45% increase in vertical pixels. The qualitative aspects of the pixels may be different as well, but what is clear is that these cameras can be compared from an IQ perspective. Boasts of 8' and 46' output aren't helpful. Those things can be done with 35mm. Huge murals and billboard posters don't require high dpi, and if they did then the <2x pixel count doesn't get you there tremendously faster.

If can be readily seen that any difficulty with MF image quality because of optical problems or lack of magnification can eat away or entirely defeat the IQ advantages of the larger format. Same goes for ISO, where 35mm DSLRs hold considerable advantage. Then there's the case of not getting the shot at all due to size, light or focus issues that all work against MF.

As has been said before, it's a matter of the right tool for the job. For certain jobs MF may be king underwater, but there are plenty of situations where it's easy to imagine that it's not. I've always felt that the largest sensor will perform the best, but that has to be considered in the context of a complete system including lenses, housings, ports, and strobes.

Craig,

Part of the issue is simply confusing 1:1 macro with "close-up" photography.

Last time I looked, the only times 1:1 true macro photography are really needed are for when you look under a loupe; and for alternate process (like Azo) contact printing.

Unless you need dimensional measurements, please tell me the difference between 0.9 and 1.1 image sizes?

Does it make a difference when blowing up the image to a 20x24 inch print when you can easily crop the scan or CCD image in Photoshop?

.........

(crickets chirping...)

Cheers!

Dan

Phil,

 

I think everyone who can follow this thread understands that using magnification ratios to compare macro capabilities across formats is dangerous. That's why I quickly converted into frame widths in millimeters when I posed my original question. None of us really care about magnification ratios, all we care about is getting the framing on our subjects right.

 

Different photographers have different requirements when it comes to macro shooting. For some, frame widths of 100mm or more are totally adequate and any rig is capable of doing that. Others will want frame widths down to 10mm or smaller. For them, choice of cameras and lenses makes a profound difference. It's far easier to get to 10mm with a DX sensor, a long macro lens and teleconverters than it is to start with medium format. A plus for DX sensor users is that they can get those tiny frame widths without giving up infinite focus. This is exactly the kind of flexibility that differentiates MF and 35mm.

 

In the Hasselblad thread, I specifically asked about macro capability because I thought it interesting to discuss just how macro is accomplished in a forum specifically created to tell us about housing MF. I was hoping for more feedback than 5" focus and 50mm frame width. I asked if the lens I linked to was the lens used and the answer was yes. That lens is listed as only providing 1:3 macro and 1:2 with extension tubes. If that is not the case, I'd love a link to spec sheets on the lens being used. I have not found specs on a 120mm Hasselblad lens capable of 1:1.

 

I looked briefly into housing MF but gave up when I realized that the minimum 4:1 macro I considered mandatory wasn't realistic. For the macro I like to shoot, I prefer perspectives far longer than what the 120mm would provide on MF. What macro lenses are there available for MF equivalent to 150mm on full frame 35mm? What magnifications can they achieve?

 

If, in order to achieve 1:1 or 2:1 that you'd like with MF, you have to use extension tubes then you considerably restrict the range of focus you're able use. This makes the flexibility of a smaller format that much more appealing.

 

If using a variable extension tube is standard for MF, how is that housed? What are the practical issues in shooting it?

 

How does TTL work with MF underwater? What kinds of apertures are available and how much strobe power is necessary to get good exposure at base ISO once bellows factor and high numeric apertures are taken into account?

 

Lost in all this discussion is just what the qualitative differences are between the best of breed 35mm body and potential MF imagers. The 39MP back mentioned is an interesting choice. Comparing that to the upcoming 1Ds3, what we have is about a 30% increase in horizontal pixels and a 45% increase in vertical pixels. The qualitative aspects of the pixels may be different as well, but what is clear is that these cameras can be compared from an IQ perspective. Boasts of 8' and 46' output aren't helpful. Those things can be done with 35mm. Huge murals and billboard posters don't require high dpi, and if they did then the <2x pixel count doesn't get you there tremendously faster.

 

If can be readily seen that any difficulty with MF image quality because of optical problems or lack of magnification can eat away or entirely defeat the IQ advantages of the larger format. Same goes for ISO, where 35mm DSLRs hold considerable advantage. Then there's the case of not getting the shot at all due to size, light or focus issues that all work against MF.

 

As has been said before, it's a matter of the right tool for the job. For certain jobs MF may be king underwater, but there are plenty of situations where it's easy to imagine that it's not. I've always felt that the largest sensor will perform the best, but that has to be considered in the context of a complete system including lenses, housings, ports, and strobes.

[cut]

 

If using a variable extension tube is standard for MF, how is that housed? What are the practical issues in shooting it?

 

How does TTL work with MF underwater? What kinds of apertures are available and how much strobe power is necessary to get good exposure at base ISO once bellows factor and high numeric apertures are taken into account?

[balance cut]

Unless one is using a focusing rail with bellows, (at least for the Mamiya 645AFd system) one uses one of three different thickness macro spacing rings. Given that they have pass-through contacts (just like your Nikon D lens teleconverters), one can even stack them to get more distance.

And TTL is just that: Through-The-Lens, with a photocell measuring the average light bouncing off the film (or CCD) surface. Whatever quantity of light that is used to shut down the strobe is the same amount of light impinging on the film (or CCD) surface.

[Yes, different films have different reflectivities; and this is compensated for in the flash itself, or in (the Metz) adapter shoe by sliding a switch...]

Lost in all this discussion is just what the qualitative differences are between the best of breed 35mm body and potential MF imagers. The 39MP back mentioned is an interesting choice. Comparing that to the upcoming 1Ds3, what we have is about a 30% increase in horizontal pixels and a 45% increase in vertical pixels. The qualitative aspects of the pixels may be different as well, but what is clear is that these cameras can be compared from an IQ perspective.

[balance cut]

1.3 x 1.45 = 1.885

39 megapixels divided by 1.885 ~ 21 megapixels.

I think your arithmetic is off by about 25%

Hello Craig,

Quote:

"In the Hasselblad thread, I specifically asked about macro capability because I thought it interesting to discuss just how macro is accomplished in a forum specifically created to tell us about housing MF. I was hoping for more feedback than 5" focus and 50mm frame width. I asked if the lens I linked to was the lens used and the answer was yes. That lens is listed as only providing 1:3 macro and 1:2 with extension tubes. If that is not the case, I'd love a link to spec sheets on the lens being used. I have not found specs on a 120mm Hasselblad lens capable of 1:1."

Troy's comments:

I think captured images would tell the story best of what works and what doesn't work. Please be patient to see some of my images coming soon. I think a 5mm - 10mm macro critter or several of them in their environment would tell a wonderful story of their habitat and interactivity. Putting such a macro critter that size in a 50mm wide enviornment can become quite creative when printing to large format as opposed to a very tight shot. Better to learn the limitations of a tool and work with it for your advantage for others to enjoy.

Quote:

"Lost in all this discussion is just what the qualitative differences are between the best of breed 35mm body and potential MF imagers. The 39MP back mentioned is an interesting choice. Comparing that to the upcoming 1Ds3, what we have is about a 30% increase in horizontal pixels and a 45% increase in vertical pixels. The qualitative aspects of the pixels may be different as well, but what is clear is that these cameras can be compared from an IQ perspective. Boasts of 8' and 46' output aren't helpful. Those things can be done with 35mm. Huge murals and billboard posters don't require high dpi, and if they did then the <2x pixel count doesn't get you there tremendously faster."

Troy's response:

You're right. Huge murals and billboard posters don't require high dpi. We do large and very large printing for companies, tourism, government and hotels all the time. This is not what I was talking about. For large fine art printing, large giclees, large custom photographic prints and high quality murals you need a high quality file that has has a lot of attention to detail put into it. These are the products our company produces all the time. I think a well composed macro shot that has the subject or subjects in focus with some information going on around it with eye candy color bokah in the background that can be printed to such a large print as 5ft x 8ft and still look as good as the 11x14 would, I think that would be quite amazing. It could be used for an array of purposes in advertising a product, dive shop, equipment that was used or someon's home on canvas. By the way, I print canvas giclees almost on a daily basis and there is a more natural professional quality in mf prints compared to 35mm. Consumers don't usually see the difference, prosumers should see it and professional really enjoy the difference.

Quote:

"If can be readily seen that any difficulty with MF image quality because of optical problems or lack of magnification can eat away or entirely defeat the IQ advantages of the larger format. Same goes for ISO, where 35mm DSLRs hold considerable advantage. Then there's the case of not getting the shot at all due to size, light or focus issues that all work against MF."

Troy's response:

It cannot be readily seen. Anyone can criticize something or someone they really don't know or have experienced. Why not discuss an image someone has captured using a mf camera along with a macro lens instead of putting it down with specs w/o any experience what so ever. Believe me, it is not as limiting as you think, although it is not as easy to use as what you have mentioned using 35mm. Dive sites known for their macro critters have so much opportunity on a single dive alone. Be honest, how many files do you discard compared to the ones you actually keep? If you ever get a mf in your hands u/w you will be ruined for the ordinary. Moreover, get to play with the file and do a print then everything will fall into perspective and you will appreciate both formats equally and know they are two different animals that have different strengths and weaknesses.

A proper set-up is good, having a photographic eye is better, but being in the right place at the right time and having the right settings for that moment in time is the best.

Keep an open mind and let's see what images pop up soon.

All the best

Troy

Hi Dan - your post two posts back shows that you haven't really tried all of this yet. I think you'll learn a lot when you get in the water and start shooting a lot. The folks here are trying to help but you have to read and really think about the replies you are getting - because we're taking a lot of time and putting a lot of thought into them.

Cheers

James

Troy,

Unfortunately it will be tough for us to truly appreciate the quality of your images and compare on our measly monitors. I read somewhere, maybe on the other housing thread, that you plan to display these at a gallery. Where do you have a gallery? I get to the Bahamas at least 3-4 times a year and would love to see some prints first hand.

Any chance you'll be at DEMA in Orlando in a few weeks?

Jeff