Upgrade from prosumer to DSLR

Hi Gang,

I've just uploaded an article I wrote which answers some of the frequently asked questions from folks thinking about switching to a housed Digital SLR.

The article can be found at:

So You're Thinking of Buying the Digital Rebel

Thoughts and comments are welcomed.

Cheers

James Wiseman

Nice article, James. I'm tempted at times by the simplicity of the 5050 et al (no worries about ports etc), but a DSLR is IMHO a much more powerful tool. The digital Rebel is really tempting as it's getting good housing support from manufacturers, it's cheap and comes with a useable focal length zoom for underwater.

How did you go with zoom controls on the 18-55 kit lens?

You sound disappointed with the 'macro' performance if the 18-55. Have you tried any other wide angled zooms? (The 17-40L performs quite well in this regard, but is obviously a more expensive choice. I'm not sure how the two compare in terms of close focusing, but I'm guessing the 17-40L focuses closer).

Interesting choice with the Sigma macro. Did you manage to get it to manual focus in the housing?

I'm REALLY excited about the Aquatica TTL advances. Ike will apparently be doing some work on this too. I think the Canon DSLR users around here have gotten used to shooting manual flash and forgotten how useful TTL is. Unfortunately, flash exposure compensation is really, really important once you're using TTL, which the Digital Rebel lacks. Once Ike and Aquatica build functional, cheap TTL housings for the 10D I will be very happy...

The other option would be flash exposure compensation on the strobe (like on the 550 EX speedlite). That would make the Digital Rebel a really useful device - so if someone could start building this strobe about now, that would be great!

Hi Whitey,

I'm glad you enjoyed the article.

I don't own a digital Rebel - I have only tried one out at the photo store. I did own a D60 for a while and shot it underwater on a few dives though, so am familiar w/ this excellent sensor.

How did you go with zoom controls on the 18-55 kit lens?  

 

You sound disappointed with the 'macro' performance if the 18-55. Have you tried any other wide angled zooms? (The 17-40L performs quite well in this regard, but is obviously a more expensive choice. I'm not sure how the two compare in terms of close focusing, but I'm guessing the 17-40L focuses closer).  

I don't consider a 28-85 (equivalent) lens to be a macro lens, I consider it a mid-range zoom. A macro lens to me shoots at LEAST 1:2 macro. The lens should be easy to zoom with a gear.

Interesting choice with the Sigma macro. Did you manage to get it to manual focus in the housing?

This lens is similar to the Canon Compact Macro lens but it shoots 1:1 (film magnification) as opposed to 1:2 for the Canon lens. I've owned the compact macro lens and it's about the same quality as the Sigma (ducking). I think the lens will work well in autofocus. If you really need manual focus, it is available if you have a manual focus port for your housing and the correct focus gear.

I'm REALLY excited about the Aquatica TTL advances. Ike will apparently be doing some work on this too. I think the Canon DSLR users around here have gotten used to shooting manual flash and forgotten how useful TTL is. Unfortunately, flash exposure compensation is really, really important once you're using TTL, which the Digital Rebel lacks. Once Ike and Aquatica build functional, cheap TTL housings for the 10D I will be very happy... The other option would be flash exposure compensation on the strobe (like on the 550 EX speedlite). That would make the Digital Rebel a really useful device - so if someone could start building this strobe about now, that would be great!

TTL is a great tool in my opinion. If some compansation is ALWAYS required for macro shooting, I'm betting is can be preset (using a computer connection to the camera) or can be built into the housing circuitry.

Cheers

James

James, good points and well written

BTW, we're going to FG in June with our local shop and to Wakatobi in September with Ken Knezick's group.......there's room for one more?

Would still like to link up for a FG trip sometime.

Karl

Lemme have the date for your June trip Karl.

Cheers

James

Excellent article. Unbiased and clear. I went through that very dilemma before going with the 5060. The Canon DSLR was far superior and was only a few hundred £/$ more in the shops.

But your side by side comparison spells it out. By the time you consider ports, lenses, housings etc. The cost of the whole outfit is nearly double.

Certainly shattered my dreams as a strictly amateur snapper.

Also agree - well presented.

Just a few things about the Sigma 50mm macro. Its a great sharp lens and I used it extensively with my housed film Canons.However when I got my 10D I couldnt use the Sigma as it was not compatable ( gave a error 99 message ) So if you buy one of these make sure it is a recent production. You can phone or Email Sigma with the lens serial number and they will tell you if it will be compatable with Canon digital SLRs. If you are testing it on your digital SLR, be sure to try and take at least 5 shots as the error sometimes doesnt show up immediately.

Another consideration is that the lens extension from infinity to life size focus is considerable- the Canon 50mm macro is only 1 inch -albeit only to half life size. So you may need a longer port or a ring extension. This also makes the lens behave a bit more like a 70mm or so lens at the far focussing range due to the considerable distance from front of lens to port glass.

Finally, if you want to use manual focus, you may be out of luck with a focus gear.

Cheers. Andre

Yep, I wouldn't call what the 18-55 EF-S does macro either - but the lens manufacturers of zooms often do - which is why I always call it 'macro'.

Having said that, the 17-40L will focus to around 25cm, and underwater can give quite pleasing closeups.

I have taken my 90mm Tamron macro underwater on the 10D a couple of times. I found myself focusing manually prior to shooting ie deciding on the magnification factor first, and then focusing by camera movement relative to subject. Autofocus wasn't really useful on this lens. Incidentally, it almost doubles in length when zoomed to 1:1.

Shooting macro above the water I use the flash exposure compensation a lot - so figure I'd really miss it underwater. A lot of the shots I see are a bit heavy on the flash and look a bit unnatural; I'd really like to be able to vary the flash exposure on a shot by shot basis. Failing that, the pre dive computer adjustment of flash exposure compensation could be handy.

I often use(d) a +4 diopter with my 16-35/17-35/2.8. With a large dome port, I could focus almost right up to the acrylic, and zoomed to 35mm, it's sort of like a "56mm" macro lens. Not so bad, esp. if you have to shoot wide angle on a dive but think you might see something small.

Hey James - Thanks for the great article. I think that I will keep my 5050 for a while more.

I often use(d) a +4 diopter with my 16-35/17-35/2.8.  With a large dome port, I could focus almost right up to the acrylic, and zoomed to 35mm, it's sort of like a "56mm" macro lens. Not so bad, esp. if you have to shoot wide angle on a dive but think you might see something small.

Two questions about this please Eric:

How small an object can you actually shoot with this setup?

With this kind of setup, is there any downside to the image quality of your typical wide angle pictures? If there isnt, shouldnt we just stack as many diopter as possible on to our wide angle lenses to give us more options for macro on a dive?

I'm not sure how small an object you can shoot to fill a frame. But think of a 56mm lens focusing on something right in front of the port, which is only a couple of inches away. I've found it to be very sharp, still, and don't notice an appreciable difference in sharpness between having it on, and having it off.

But it can be frustrating if you suddenly come across a big animal, because you won't be able to focus on it from far away. It doesn't really give you more options. It just... shifts the option pool a bit.

But it can be frustrating if you suddenly come across a big animal, because you won't be able to focus on it from far away. It doesn't really give you more options.  It just... shifts the option pool a bit.

I don't know if I understood this correctly. With the 16-35 under the dome and a +4 Diopter you can't focus to objects far away? How do you handle large animals then? Or was this only based on WA lenses with a lot of diopters on it?

As you might know i'm very intersted in this subject ;-)

Simon

You handle large animals by getting really close or by removing the +4. You can no longer focus on infinity with the use of a + diopter. Although if you stop down enough and focus far enough away (past the hyperfocal distance), in theory it should be sharp all the way through to infinity.

right? (I'm guessing that, since it holds true for non-diopter use as well)

OK, so I am also kind of contemplating upgrading my Oly C5050 to dSLR. One thing that I am a bit confused on is the choice of WAL. With wetmount WAL, I can get about 90 degree view, with WAL and inon domeport, I could get 130 degree view, so what lens would I need to be able to get equavalent to 90 or 130 degree view? My understanding is that 12-24mm lens will give something like 60 ish to 99 degree view on land, what would it be like underwater with a domeport?

Hi ssra30,

My answer uses some approximations, since I don't have all of the "tech spec" handy for these lenses.

The Inon WAL gives a pretty distortion-free image, so for discussion's sake, let's call it "rectilinear." When you put the dome port on, straight lines will no longer be straight, there will be a lot of barrel distortion. It's somewhere in between a rectilinear lens and a fisheye lens.

Fisheye lenses can give a VERY wide field of view (130 deg) but you almost have to forget about the focal length when comparing them to rectilinear lenses. For example, a 15mm FE lens will be MUCH wider than a 15mm rectilinear lens.

The Nikkor 12-24 lens will give you a field of view behind a dome port of a bit wider than the Inon without dome attached. Use of a 15mm (sigma) or 16mm (nikkor) fisheye will give you about the same field of view, but there will be some distortion. For ultra-wide (weitwinkel), Nikon makes a 10.5mm fisheye, which will give a wider field of view than even the Inon w/ dome.

I don't think Canon has an equivalent to the Nikon 10.5 fisheye yet, so most people shoot the 15mm Sigma or Canon fisheye behind a dome.

Cheers

James

Thanks for the clarification. I guess my problem with dSLR right now is that I am more interested in Canon body but like Nikon's lens selection better, hmmm, decision, decision...

When using a wide lens with a dome, the dome converts infinite focus to a finite point. Because of that, the use of a diopter does not cause you to lose infinite focus so long as it is not too strong. You do lose it out of the water, though.

There are formulas for calculating the right diopter to use in this application, but you should think of the diopter as a device that brings the focus range in. Even if a +4 is what is recommended by a formula doesn't mean it won't work with a +2 or even without one. I think an afternoon in a pool is sometimes helpful.

When using a flat port, a diopter will cause you to lose infinite focus of course.

Nikon mount lens choices are better but only by virtue of the 12-24 and 10.5 fisheye. The fisheye is a very specialized lens. Perhaps Canon will solve the 12-24 issue soon or you could consider the Sigma. Without the option of a diopter on the Sigma, you will be required to use a large dome.

Having spent a decade with an n90s underwater, and now several years with a canon G2 digi, there are a few more points, that might be added to your excellent article, James.

Back in the 90's, the big thing for underwater, if you could afford it, was to get a camera with an action finder, (F100, or F4), and house that. Big bucks.

The tiny view you get, with the optics in an underwater housing, and a normal SLR viewfinder, is usable, but not great. Lots of squishing mask against back of housing...

To me, one of the great things about the prosumer digicams is composing on the LCD. This is a big win. Not just a small difference.

The fact that most of the digicam manufacturers put in crippled Autofocus systems is a big loss.

But the latest sony's kick butt in this regard - DSC-F717, DSC-V1, and now the DSC-F828. The LCD responsiveness is also good. Sony's digital video heritage is making them a big winner in this regard.

The image quality of a 4 or 5 megapixel consumer digi, is certainly sufficient for web work, or photo albums, or 8x10, maybe even 11x14 prints.

How many of us need or want larger than that? What good is "better image quality", when the cruft in the water almost always prevails?

The other huge advantage of the digicam, is weight. I'd struggle to get my photo gear alone, (housing, 2-3 ports, 2-4 strobes, batteries, chargers, arms, tools), in under the 75 lbs airline limit. Now they've reduced the limits to 50 lbs...

I'd also think you underestimated the price difference, since no one with an SLR is going to be happy without a macro lens, which requires another port... The oly 5060 or the nikon digicams do a fair job of macro, straight up.

What do you think?

Don

For macro, even when I've had access to a larger screen I've preferred a true viewfinder.

I think there's not a lot of correlation between pixel count and visibility. I think water quality limits the ultimate resolution you can get but not that much. If I'm going to take pictures of suspended particles at least let them be crisp!

I want the best quality I can get during the dive. I can never reshoot the shot.

Major international flights are still largely 70 lbs. per bag. Considering the cost of trips like this and the expense of the gear, I would think that everyone would view the occasional overweight charges as a nuisance rather than a showstopper.

I think current digicams do macro well up to a point. SLR's do macro well way beyond that point. Depends on what you want to do.