Second Thoughts !?!

Thanks, Steve.

I actually did try it, but the ISO went negative

But the noise is pretty good in that event, no?

That would appear to make the Oly plus lenses plus a couple of ports around 3.5-4Kg, against a 5D2 in a 2.5Kg housing plus ports guesstimate around 6Kg so a 30-40% weight saving around 2-2.5Kg saving. An Ike housing would be double the weight of the Oly setup.

It makes no sense to compare only a portion of the rigs. If you care about travel weight then you need to consider everything. If you care about lug-around weight then you need to compare the rigs ready to dive. By comparing only a fraction of the rigs you falsely inflate the percentage difference between the two systems (as is intended). Since 4/3 doesn't offer any advantage in IQ and doesn't offer the lens selection of DX or FX, it appears that dive weight is it's only argument. It's a shame it has to be exaggerated to even seem significant.

My Seatool D300 with a 60mm macro, Nexus port, Inon 45 degree finder and Seatool dual grip tray comes in at 4.4 kg ready to dive (no strobes or arms). The D300 is a heavier camera than the 5D2. The Seatool tray and grips are 450 grams of that so the system without grips is only 4 kg.

What is the weight difference between the two setups when the 4/3 one doesn't even offer the lens that I need for a dive?

It makes no sense to compare only a portion of the rigs. If you care about travel weight then you need to consider everything. If you care about lug-around weight then you need to compare the rigs ready to dive. By comparing only a fraction of the rigs you falsely inflate the percentage difference between the two systems (as is intended). Since 4/3 doesn't offer any advantage in IQ and doesn't offer the lens selection of DX or FX, it appears that dive weight is it's only argument. It's a shame it has to be exaggerated to even seem significant.

 

My Seatool D300 with a 60mm macro, Nexus port, Inon 45 degree finder and Seatool dual grip tray comes in at 4.4 kg ready to dive (no strobes or arms). The D300 is a heavier camera than the 5D2. The Seatool tray and grips are 450 grams of that so the system without grips is only 4 kg.

 

What is the weight difference between the two setups when the 4/3 one doesn't even offer the lens that I need for a dive?

I wasn't aware that I had 'exaggerated' the weight differences, just stated them as fact for a typical setup (body, housing, 3x lenses and ports, without strobes) as I mentioned in an earlier post. And I have made no judgment about weight whether it is a good or a bad thing, just trying to eek out the facts so that personal judgment can be made based on different system setups with a typical set of lenses and ports for a baseline comparison.

You are free to make your own judgment on weight, which is significant for transportation above water and becomes academic underwater, IMO of course !

I thought I had presented a few balanced arguments for and against either system througout all my posts, so weight is certainly not the only issued to be discussed, I have no axe to grind here, just trying to get the collective opinion so I can make a better informed choice at purchase time.

It's interesting you think the 4/3 system does not have the full compliment of lenses for underwater use, which ones would be missing that you might like to use that are missing?? (I am genuinely interested?)

...Somehow I doubt an Oly setup is the cheapest available.

For a housed, ported, lensed, strobed DLSR to cover a couple different shooting ranges (macro to reasonable WA), with reasonable IQ for a hobbyist although clearly not the equivalent of FF...Why not?

You've shot down other arguments based on lack of numerical accuracy, but I don't see any numbers offered to support (or deny) this statement. There's a $1k difference in current body price alone, D300 to E620 right now (B&H). Considerably more between the 5DII and 620, which was the OP's original 'what if' comparison. That's a pretty big start. I can find other bodies in the sub-$600 range from all manufacturers, but only Oly has OEM housings as an additional option. Haven't priced them out - I'm still strictly a bottom-feeder myself (used gear).

Tell us what the OP should be thinking a "complete rig" is to compare with and the total dollars will fall out pretty quick. Assuming "cheapest" was ever the intent, vs. looking for guidance of where on the cost vs performance slope he should be looking to go.

You're not an Oly fan though...we get it.

You think comparing an D300 to an E620 is apples to apples though? How about comparing a D90 or a Rebel Xsi to the E620 instead - even though that wasn't what the original poster was looking at - it's a much more valid comparison.

Cheers

James

You think comparing an D300 to an E620 is apples to apples though? How about comparing a D90 or a Rebel Xsi to the E620 instead - even though that wasn't what the original poster was looking at - it's a much more valid comparison.

 

Cheers

James

So where's the math(s) ?

You think comparing an D300 to an E620 is apples to apples though? How about comparing a D90 or a Rebel Xsi to the E620 instead - even though that wasn't what the original poster was looking at - it's a much more valid comparison.

 

Cheers

James

I don't disagree - I didn't bring the D300 into it, I just rolled with what was already provided with the weight discussion. But neither was the 5DII a 'valid' comparison to the E620 per the OP's question. Not to put words in his mouth, but he wasn't apparently ever after a pure apples to apples based on any one parameter, but asking for advice on relative merits and demerits on several sliding scales - weight, cost, and IQ.

I was certainly exhibiting a little bit of obfuscation of my own. There's no doubt in my mind that a roughly equivalent* "complete" rig between D300 and E620, which would be 'cheapest'. Any more than I doubt which would be 'cheapest' between the 5DII and the E620. Then again that was never the OP's question, was it? "I doubt it's the cheapest" without #s - is a bit of a straw man, thrown out idly in response to an "I decided not to pay 5k for a rig" defense, and in its own way just as ill-numerated as the weight discussion being slammed elsewhere.

Not the cheapest - for WHAT set of parameters? That's what I was pointing out. Or trying to.

That, and craig really isn't a fan of Oly. Or at least not of Oly fans. Doesn't take a lengthy history search to draw that conclusion. I can ennumerate posts later if anyone wants.

[*roughly equivalent meaning similar lens, strobe, and port setups in this case, as IQ difference is already at least partially forced by the bodies mentioned unless a really crap lens or port decision obviates it. Also obviously between 4/3 and other sensor sizes the exact 'same' macro focal length, wide angle focal range, etc aren't going to be found. They're still going to fall into typical usage categories though.]

One last P.S. While I still agree with you that there's a world of difference between the 'higher end' and 'lower end' cameras, if you look at specs, and ignore things that don't strongly influence UW shooting (like FPS) and obvious line differences (sensor size), there's not a huge gap between the D300 and E620: http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/compare_po...20&show=all Aside from the LCD pixel count, but people aren't supposed to want to LV with DSLRs anyway. Watch that spin people up!!

I wasn't aware that I had 'exaggerated' the weight differences, just stated them as fact for a typical setup (body, housing, 3x lenses and ports, without strobes) as I mentioned in an earlier post. And I have made no judgment about weight whether it is a good or a bad thing, just trying to eek out the facts so that personal judgment can be made based on different system setups with a typical set of lenses and ports for a baseline comparison.

 

You are free to make your own judgment on weight, which is significant for transportation above water and becomes academic underwater, IMO of course !

My weight judgement would be entire travel weight. That would include all my photography gear. Ready to dive weight isn't important to me because any still camera is within reasonable range. The weight of a few arbitrary components isn't interesting but it sure can be misleading.

Size of the rig is of some importance since it effects what shots you can get. A housed 4/3 isn't really all that different than smaller Canon or Nikon offerings.

It's interesting you think the 4/3 system does not have the full compliment of lenses for underwater use, which ones would be missing that you might like to use that are missing?? (I am genuinely interested?)

It lacks the variety of macro lenses available in Canon and Nikon mounts and lacks the 10-17 fisheye. The Oly 50mm macro lens provides similar field of view to a 50mm on DX or 100mm on FX but to get more you have to resort to teleconverters. If I had to use nothing but a 60mm/DX and a 1.4x I'd be unhappy.

For a housed, ported, lensed, strobed DLSR to cover a couple different shooting ranges (macro to reasonable WA), with reasonable IQ for a hobbyist although clearly not the equivalent of FF...Why not?

 

You've shot down other arguments based on lack of numerical accuracy, but I don't see any numbers offered to support (or deny) this statement. There's a $1k difference in current body price alone, D300 to E620 right now (B&H). Considerably more between the 5DII and 620, which was the OP's original 'what if' comparison. That's a pretty big start. I can find other bodies in the sub-$600 range from all manufacturers, but only Oly has OEM housings as an additional option. Haven't priced them out - I'm still strictly a bottom-feeder myself (used gear).

If you define the argument so that anything less than the Oly can't be considered then it will certainly be the cheapest, but by what standard do you assume that only 4/3 can provide a low cost, reasonable alternative to DSLRs?

Tell us what the OP should be thinking a "complete rig" is to compare with and the total dollars will fall out pretty quick. Assuming "cheapest" was ever the intent, vs. looking for guidance of where on the cost vs performance slope he should be looking to go.

 

You're not an Oly fan though...we get it.

I don't need to offer advice in order to counter bogus arguments in favor of one particular system. I believe both Nikon and Canon offer compelling entry-level gear. I believe a new buyer should consider cameras, lenses, ports, and housings together when making a purchase. I don't support the idea of buying the cheapest housings in order to control costs.

No, I am not an Oly fan. It's main claim is its reduced size but that is hardly realized at all underwater. Everything else about it is a loser compared to the competition except, perhaps, its price. No doubt they are capable of good quality results. So are digicams and even a used D100. If someone wants a new system with interchangable lenses at the lowest price, a 4/3 may appeal to them and it wouldn't bother me. I just don't like specious arguments and we've seen a lot of them here regarding Oly 4/3. Right now it's weight savings but in the past it's been other things like superior macro lenses.

You think comparing an D300 to an E620 is apples to apples though? How about comparing a D90 or a Rebel Xsi to the E620 instead - even though that wasn't what the original poster was looking at - it's a much more valid comparison.

That depends on your perspective. I brought up the D300 because it was a divable system that I could weigh and it is actually heavier than a 5D2. I believe the weight of the Seatool D300 (aluminum BTW) is pretty competitive. This is the quote I have been responding to:

The money compared to buying an almost obsolete D80 and a housing was 40% less and would have still weighed 50% more.

Taking Drew's numbers for the Oly housing and body, my D300/Seatool combination is comparably light at 3000 grams vs. 2800. Of course, a D90 or Rebel would be smaller and lighter than a D300 and that would make the claims of 50% heavier even less likely.

Very fair responses, Craig. I appreciate you clarifying your views, and I think that should help the OP as well. Sorry if I sounded like I was 'trolling' you. (Well, I was, but mostly because I know when challenged you actually do give good answers vs. what might seem to be toss-off initial comments.)

Thanks again.

With respect to lenses, Oly does offer a 7-14 rectilinear wide angle (14-28 in FF equiv, vs. ~15 - 25 equiv for the Tokina). Clearly not 'equivalent' as rectilinear vs. FE although covering very similar focal ranges, for similar uses. And it does have an 8mm fixed FE. Neither is cheap, the former much more expensive than the Tokina no less, so I'm not trying to claim both equivalent coverage and less expense. Just offering the info for the OP's consideration. The missing 100mm macro (aside from Sigma) is clearly a remaining sore void in the Oly world.

Craig so I get it. What you are saying is that I could have bought a D90 and Seatool housing used my current Nikon 60mm macro or my 105 macro with my 20mm WA and the weight difference would have been insignificant and the costs would have been similar.

I looked for that solution as it seemed to me to be the cheapest solution to my purchase ie no lenses to buy. You must have some amazing buying power as my total system including the 50mm macro I have just bought has cost me $AUS2.5k (approx 2k US). I could not find a new complete system for less than $AUS5k excluding lenses when you add up the camera ports, gears etc. and as I said that was for a D80 not a D90.

It was much cheaper for me to sell my Nikon gear and totally move to Olympus than to just buy a camera and housing + ports.

I do know what the OP is feeling as I was in the same situation when I bought my F4 and Aquatica. It is a buy the perceived best v what will do. It becomes a little unreal for a hobbyist where you want the approval of the other photographers. Well mate I am past that I want quality shots at the minimum cost and I dont want a 3' x 2' blow up and I dont want to crop a close up from a mass of blue water.

I am delighted with what I have and I belive it will last me at least 5 years most probably ten.

Lets not argue about too much detail in only serves to confuse, I did that for 6 months before I bought at Christmas. Go and have a look at Gary's site and tell me how much better a D300 would produce his shots?

Let's get real about evaluations - they are engineering not beauty/marketing parades.

Ok fine, I spent an extra 3 min to find the the PT-E05 weight which is 1.37kg/3.02lbs. So that Amazon weight is so wrong. But let's play fair and bring in a light aluminum housing for a comparable camera, the Canon Xsi, which is the Seatool 450Xsi, which weighs in at 1.6kg/ 3.53lbs. It's actually the most direct comparison since both are designed for use without tray handles, whereas the Ikes aren't.

Let's also not confuse camera brand and types with ability to shoot. Obviously having the right equipment for the right shot is key but seriously... The best uw pic I've ever seen was shot on an "ancient" D60 canon. It still kicks butt as the best action wide angle shot ever to me because the photog put himself in the position to take the shot, regardless of camera.

Ardy, costs is obviously a big factor in any purchase. I do want to add that people should also consider 2nd hand options for camera gear (esp the D300 and 50D since it seems the shift to ff is pretty popular).

No, I am not an Oly fan. It's main claim is its reduced size but that is hardly realized at all underwater. Everything else about it is a loser compared to the competition except, perhaps, its price. No doubt they are capable of good quality results. So are digicams and even a used D100. If someone wants a new system with interchangable lenses at the lowest price, a 4/3 may appeal to them and it wouldn't bother me. I just don't like specious arguments and we've seen a lot of them here regarding Oly 4/3. Right now it's weight savings but in the past it's been other things like superior macro lenses.

Oly wins on price, size and weight with its selection of underwater DSLRs. The only place oly loses with Canon and Nikon is in ISO's past 800 which isn't useful underwater in most cases. Lenses? There are plenty of selections for an olympus user.

WA

7-14mm Professional lens and expensive. 14-28mm equivalent

8mm - Fisheye lens. The lens and port for jaround $1400 16mm equivalent

9-18mm - Port and lens for around $1100 18-36mm equivalent

11-22mm - 22 to 44mm equivalent

Zoom

14-42mm - kit lens with port 28mm-84mm equivalent

12-60mm - 24mm-120mm equivalent

14-54mm - 28mm-108mm equivalent

Macro

35mm 1:1 macro - 2:1 equivalent macro

50mm 1:2 macro - 1:1 equivalent macro

Sigma 105mm macro 1:1 macro - 2:1 equivalent macro

***These are all digital lenses designed for the 4/3 sensor and all have ports designed for them.

I'll must make a comment on macro. Anyone that shoots great macro, IMO, is using either TC's or external wet diopters to accomplish greater than 1:1 equivalent. I prefer wet diopters because they allow you some versatility underwater versus a TC. Given the above complement of lenses, I think its being misinformed to say Oly doesn't offer a complete line of underwater lenses. As someone stated above, the Sigma isn't a great solution due to focus speed and there's been rumors for years about Oly coming out with a 100mm, 1:1 lens.

Ok fine, I spent an extra 3 min to find the the PT-E05 weight which is 1.37kg/3.02lbs. So that Amazon weight is so wrong. But let's play fair and bring in a light aluminum housing for a comparable camera, the Canon Xsi, which is the Seatool 450Xsi, which weighs in at 1.6kg/ 3.53lbs. It's actually the most direct comparison since both are designed for use without tray handles, whereas the Ikes aren't.

 

Let's also not confuse camera brand and types with ability to shoot. Obviously having the right equipment for the right shot is key but seriously... The best uw pic I've ever seen was shot on an "ancient" D60 canon. It still kicks butt as the best action wide angle shot ever to me because the photog put himself in the position to take the shot, regardless of camera.

 

Ardy, costs is obviously a big factor in any purchase. I do want to add that people should also consider 2nd hand options for camera gear (esp the D300 and 50D since it seems the shift to ff is pretty popular).

Well said. I strongly considered the Canon and Nikon when I chose to purchase the E410. To me, both were excellent cameras. However, in order to get the price in the range of the Oly OEM housing, I had to go with Fantasea who had just released a plastic housing similar to the ikelite. The nice aluminum housings you sited are nice in size but take photon torpedos to the wallet. The Fantasea was slightly more money and a little larger than the PT-E03 and E410. The other "big" issue for me was the use of fiber optics over cables. I'd been using cables with my old SP350 wired to an olympus housed strobe but ended up ruining an entire mini vacation due to an expensive cable having issues. I switched to fiber optics on the SP350 and never looked back. The Fantasea wouldn't allow the flash in the housing to be raised so optics were not an option. Since image quality and performance in low ISO ranges were similar, the Olympus option became a clear winner for me. I've since upgraded my camera body, housing and added Inon strobes and the system has worked well for me both in use and in transit.

Dislikes about the Oly

1/180 sync speed with the internal strobe. I need a wired cable to my inons in order to go above that.

140ft limitation on the housing - Although this isn't a real big deal for me, for wreck divers it should be a big consideration.

Expense of the pro glass. - There's some excellent topside glass but it comes at a huge price. Even the Sigma options are expensive.

Housing seems somewhat fragile to me (although other than feel I have no empirical data to support my fear) - I treat it like I'm carrying a Ming Vase.

I have been following the Micro Four Thirds (MFT) development. It seems Panasonic, not Olympus has the money for development. The G1 (Sept 08) and the GH1 (Mar 09) are getting favorable reviews. The Panasonic MFT has two more pins than the current Four Thirds (FT) lens mount which seems to be utilized for faster phase AF.

Another pleasant surprise is the improved shutter lag times for the GH1 (0.4 sec.) and Canon G 10 (0.4 s.). The Nikon D90 is 0.2 sec. All are about twice that in dim light. I am wondering why Panasonic uses a mechanical shutter.

While an adaptor can be used for FT lenses on the MFT mount, I think the success of this system will rest on the quality and options of the MTF lenses. Can we hope for some Leicas? Given good camera performance, hoped for quality lenses, and some first rate housings, I think the MFT could be a winner.

Bob

Gary -

'Housing seems somewhat fragile to me (although other than feel I have no empirical data to support my fear) - I treat it like I'm carrying a Ming Vase.'

After the Aquatica everything feels fragile to me, I dropped the Aquatica in the bottom of a dive boat a couple of years ago and apart from some paint - nothing. A few years ago I put it into that stupid stowage they have in small dive boats and it came loose and wandered around a bit on the floor before I noticed it. Still nothing apart from scratches. Didnt do that again, prefered to carry it, contrary to what Craig thinks it hurts like buggery when the 50th wave jars 10+kgs it into your thighs. Diving with the Olympus is a stroll in the park compared to where I have been for the last 20 years.

I did speak to Phil Rudin (I think) re 40m as I sneak below that from time to time and he said that he had taken his down to 45m without problems.

It is a guarantee that I will not treat mine like a ming vase and it will go below 40m occsionally so if it fails I will let you know. Anyway it will be my fault and unlikely to be the housing, that appears well made.

If Aquatica made a RDX style housing I would have given that some serious thought. 20 years without a single drop of water in is excellent when I look at the dive buddies I have seen with floods over the years.

PS hope you dont mind me using your pics as an example?

In answer to a post earlier about retained value of a Canon/Nikon system, it seems that it all depends on when you upgrade.

There was a D70 with an Aquatica claimed 8-9 dives only with flat and dome port on ebay today that couldnt raise $2k in fact didnt raise a bid, now I am not sure how old that system is but it would work well enough as an entry system. So my take on this is this digital market is moving so fast that if you dont upgrade within 2 years, expect your 5k system to be worth 1.5k after 4 years.

Will have a look at finished sales at some stage to see if this stacks up.

The only place oly loses with Canon and Nikon is in ISO's past 800 which isn't useful underwater in most cases. Lenses? There are plenty of selections for an olympus user.

I'm intrigued by this statement, I've seen it stated that high ISO is 'not as useful underwater' a few times on wetpixel. I would have thought that for WA scenics, wrecks and divers (some of my favourite shots) that higher ISO/lower noise capability would be an absolute bonus to available light photography underwater, opening this area up for great creativity. Maybe not so much for macro, but why do people discount this aspect as fairly worthless underwater?

As an example, I tested a 5D2 in a dimly lit tourist cave recently, I was able to capture images that showed more detail than I could see with my naked eye !! With very little degradation in image quality, I can imagine that ISO 6400 would work very well in the UW environment.

High ISO performance is extremely useful actually. If it looks decent on your camera, you can use the ISO setting as just another control - like Aperture, Shutter Speed, and now ISO too. It's a great thing to have when you need to eek out a little faster shutter speed or DOF.

RE the Panasonic Micro 4/3s cameras, will Panasonic make a low-cost housing? If not, then I think they are irrelevant to this discussion. If Ike makes one that's great for Panasonic fans, but it will be the same size as all of the other Ike housings - so not much size/weight savings, right?

Cheers

James