Why the dearth of medium format housings?!

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

James,

You can bet the house I'm paying close attention to the answers I'm getting here from the real experts in underwater photography... Especially when it comes to the physical handling of bulky MF gear, which is something I didn't even consider at first!

That being said, I believe some of the replies reflect a misconception of where the medium format market has gone over the last 3-5 years, especially the part driven by Mamiya. Basically, my 645AFd with my Metz 54MZ-3 TTL flash is on a par, performance-wise, with my Nikon N90s and SB28 flash (witha non-D-chipped lens).

I also realize full well that certain things I take for granted on dry land, such as changing film backs in mid-roll, and lens movements, are nary well impossible under the sea. D'oh!

On the other hand, please do take a look at Troy's photos with his H3D... No matter how much you bolt on to a Nikon, you just can't get that kind of quality out of a 35mm piece of film... Or equivalent-size sensor.

The challenge is -- And Troy met this challenge -- is to get medium format image quality under the surface.

Again, thanks to all of you helping guide me on this rugged journey!

Dan

Did I miss a link to Troy's photos somewhere? All I saw was that shark image attached to the other thread. The image quality looked pretty good, but the image itself wasn't compelling (although, it's impossible to tell anything at web resolution). I have no doubt the potential of digital MF underwater is incredible, but I have yet to see any good images!

Eric,

Look at the delicate tonality of the (foreground) shark's belly as it transitions from white to dark; and also the holding of highlight detail on the belly itself.

Also, note the eye, especially the lack of any blowing out of the highlights.

Put another way, although some of the shadow details, especially in the background are gone (somewhat due to post processing, IMHO), overall, Troy's shot could pass for a drum-scanned 4x5 chrome on my calibrated Trinitron monitor.

Yes, the image is THAT good... At least to this photographer's eyes.

The downside: Troy has at least $40 grand in his rig

-----------------

Once in a blue moon an image crosses my (virtual) desk, and makes me sit up. The last image in this category was a panorama of Tokyo Bay by Eduardo Galvani. [In fact, I contacted him, and he supplied me his .PSD file to print out on the Durst Epsilon I was using at the time: He let us print out a 30 x 400 inch (2.5 x 34 foot!) poster to hang on the lab wall in return for a pair of 15" x 200" prints for his office.]

Cheers!

Dan

Did I miss a link to Troy's photos somewhere? All I saw was that shark image attached to the other thread. The image quality looked pretty good, but the image itself wasn't compelling (although, it's impossible to tell anything at web resolution). I have no doubt the potential of digital MF underwater is incredible, but I have yet to see any good images!

Good morning Dan

Good eye. Yes it was done in post. During this shark dive, there was more stir up than usual. Too much sand and silt in the background so I crushed the blacks so the focus would be the 8ft shark and his side kick with a little mystery created ny the kneeling diver and the one to the right laying down. The original file size is 258mb in tiff 16bit mode.

Have a great day,

troy

hello Loftus,

Our company is called Aitken Imaging in Nassau. The business district is called Palmdale. Our company is over 35 years old. Just let me know when you are down and i will show you my work and maybe we can do a dive together. You can test it first hand. I will warn you though, you might fall in love with it, from the clear big viewing u/w to the final capture.

We have three departments: The Sign shop, Lab and Studio and Frame Art.

May I ask what is your interest when you are in the Bahamas?

Mostly diving, playing some craps at Atlantis, and subsidizing my wife's shopping addiction.

I'll definitely take note and look you up next time.

hello Loftus,

 

Our company is called Aitken Imaging in Nassau. The business district is called Palmdale. Our company is over 35 years old. Just let me know when you are down and i will show you my work and maybe we can do a dive together. You can test it first hand. I will warn you though, you might fall in love with it, from the clear big viewing u/w to the final capture.

 

We have three departments: The Sign shop, Lab and Studio and Frame Art.

 

May I ask what is your interest when you are in the Bahamas?

ok

troy

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

I don't think there's any confusion here, at least not on my part, and since when am I splitting hairs like you suggest? I don't care to tell the difference between "0.9 and 1.1 image sizes" because that has nothing to do with me. If you think the solution to lack of macro magnification with MF is cropping then I don't see why you even bother with the larger format.

If I need a 20mm wide frame and I can only get 50mm, some may say it's not a big deal but it would be more of a big deal than the difference between 21MP and 39MP. I frequently desire frame widths that small so it's an important consideration for me. I believe many, not all, feel the same way.

1.3 x 1.45 = 1.885

 

39 megapixels divided by 1.885 ~ 21 megapixels.

 

I think your arithmetic is off by about 25%

It's not. The 1Ds3 is 21MP.

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.

So this is just extension tubes. That's fine but extension tubes significantly limit focusing range. If the lens itself is capable of 1:1 then there isn't really a problem. If it is 1:3 like I've seen then extension tubes aren't a good solution. What can be done to narrow the 120mm perspective short of a 2x tele which robs the system of the resolution that justifies it in the first place?

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.

So MF digital TTL works just like film TTL? That would be very nice, as TTL in that case is better than any current 35mm DSLR setup (save the S2).

I was referring to the quality of the PHOTOGRAPHY, and not the quality of the highlight detail! As a pixel peeper, I appreciate the image, but as a photographer, I do not...

Eric,

 

Look at the delicate tonality of the (foreground) shark's belly as it transitions from white to dark; and also the holding of highlight detail on the belly itself.

 

Also, note the eye, especially the lack of any blowing out of the highlights.

 

Put another way, although some of the shadow details, especially in the background are gone (somewhat due to post processing, IMHO), overall, Troy's shot could pass for a drum-scanned 4x5 chrome on my calibrated Trinitron monitor.

 

Yes, the image is THAT good... At least to this photographer's eyes.

 

The downside: Troy has at least $40 grand in his rig

So MF digital TTL works just like film TTL? That would be very nice, as TTL in that case is better than any current 35mm DSLR setup (save the S2).

Why wouldn't it? Once you determine the EV offset for the particular digiback's CCD reflectivity, just dial it in and fuggetaboudit.

Damn, I need to clean the dust out!

Who the hell wants to deal with 258mb single file images ...

It cannot be readily seen...

All the best

Troy

I think there's a miscommunication. What I meant is that it should be clear that a MF system that has compromised optics for the task at hand will give up some, or even all, of its potential IQ advantages. I think that's beyond dispute.

That doesn't say that MF systems DO have compromised optics, but it should be clear that in order to realize the benefits of the superior format you have to have lenses and ports that are up to the task. Lenses and ports are where 35mm DSLRs have a greater variety of choices.

I do not mean to be argumentative, but the question posed here is why we don't see more housed MF systems underwater. I think you have to start with available lenses and how suitable they are to the types of shooting we do underwater. I'm as eager as anyone to be educated on how macro is effectively shot and images posted online in thumbnail sizes aren't what I'm looking for. I'd like to know how we get down to the frame sizes and working distances that are suitable for the kinds of macro frequently shot.

If the answer is simply 50mm wide frames, 5" working distances, and portrait-perspective macro then that's fine. Many people are satisfied shooting 50mm and 60mm macro with 35mm and that's not any different. It would still be clear that one of the disadvantages of MF is lack of narrower perspective macro, greater working distances and supermacro capability. If that's true, then that's a direct answer to the original question and that's my point.

Why wouldn't it? Once you determine the EV offset for the particular digiback's CCD reflectivity, just dial it in and fuggetaboudit.

Dan, TTL in 35mm DSLRs doesn't work that way. It did with the Fuji S2 and it apparently does with MF digital backs, but not with any Canon or Nikon system. Digital TTL is a source of frustration and ongoing development underwater.

As for why not, it's because the sensors aren't sufficiently reflective.

Dan, TTL in 35mm DSLRs doesn't work that way. It did with the Fuji S2 and it apparently does with MF digital backs, but not with any Canon or Nikon system. Digital TTL is a source of frustration and ongoing development underwater.

 

As for why not, it's because the sensors aren't sufficiently reflective.

Four points:

1) Medium format digibacks have interchangeable filters on them: One can snap in an anti-aliasing filter, or one can snap in an IR-cut filter;

2) If I Recall Correctly, the issue with Nikon & Canon having all sorts of TTL difficulty is that there's too much reflectivity off the CCD;

3) Fuji played games with measuring off the shutter curtain, not off the CCD in the S2 Pro. That being said, having owed one for 3 years now, I can tell you that TTL still sucks on it!

4) TTL with film can still get thrown off with different film emulsions and different anti-halation dyes... That's the purple s**t that washes off in the developer (and that is why I use an alkaline prewash when I develop Ilford B&W films!)

That's not correct either. The Nikon D-TTL system was the one that measured the flash light reflected off the shutter. The Fuji S1 and S2pro measure the reflected flash off the sensor/filter pack. It worked quite well for me - I made many dives w/ the S2pro.

Cheers

James

That doesn't say that MF systems DO have compromised optics, but it should be clear that in order to realize the benefits of the superior format you have to have lenses and ports that are up to the task. Lenses and ports are where 35mm DSLRs have a greater variety of choices.

Craig

I quite agree, if you operate within the parameters where MF WILL work well (ie not too wide and/or not too close) then MF should produce stunning images. BUT, personally speaking I would find that the restrictions and bulk that using MF dictates would simply not make it worth considering for me. I had a housing for a 'blad for a bit (the same model that Alex uses) and its handling wasn't too bad, considering (Alex can comment more I'm sure). But even given good AF such housings require careful set-up and by their very nature are not so versatile as smaller dSLRs. For specialised applications they may have a place (Troy seems to have sorted this out for himself) but I doubt they will become a significant part of any housing manufacturer's inventory.

That's not correct either. The Nikon D-TTL system was the one that measured the flash light reflected off the shutter. The Fuji S1 and S2pro measure the reflected flash off the sensor/filter pack. It worked quite well for me - I made many dives w/ the S2pro.

I could indeed have what Fuji & Nikon did for the Nightmare of TTL flash reversed... I'll check with the Fuji rep at the big PhotoPlus Expo tomorrow. (I need to stop by there anyway with my CF card to take some shots with the S5 Pro, as well as the D300).

Out of curiousity, which flashes do you use for your S2 Pro (on land as well as underwater)? I had fits with the SB28DX & D-chip lenses; and not much better luck with the Metz SCA3402 (M3) adapter shoe & 54MZ-3 flash.

I used to use the SB28DX for topside and the Ikelite DS125 for underwater. I've since sold the S2pro and switched to a 1DsMkII and Ikelite DS200 strobes.

Cheers

James

That being said, I believe some of the replies reflect a misconception of where the medium format market has gone over the last 3-5 years, especially the part driven by Mamiya. Basically, my 645AFd with my Metz 54MZ-3 TTL flash is on a par, performance-wise, with my Nikon N90s and SB28 flash (witha non-D-chipped lens).

One more thing you need to take into account is that most uwphotogs shoot manual strobes so TTL flash is not the most important thing...

Digital imagers have very little reflectivity and engineers are always looking for ways to reduce it further. With cropped sensors, there *can* be some reflectivity in the unused portions of the image circle but that would not represent the image being recorded.

If you could dial in infinite "EV offset" and have TTL work, then all the digital TTL protocols we have now would never have existed. The fact that they do is proof that the suggested approach is flawed.