Upgrade from prosumer to DSLR

Hi Don,

Thanks for your comments. Like I said in the article, I didn't want to discuss the pros and cons of consumer digicams vs DSLR's. The aim of the article is to give digital shooters looking to go the DSLR route a sort of FAQ. I think I've done that with this article, and I specifically mentioned the smaller viewfinder as something to consider.

I could of course write a future article about "pros and cons" but I'd probably catch a lot of flack about it - so I'm not sure I want to "go there" yet.

Cheers

James

Quote “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.

Would you mind elaborating way beyond your statement, and show me what’s well beyond that point ?

Marc

See Chris Bangs's posts in the DSLR forum.

Cheers

James

Quote “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.  

 

Would you mind elaborating way beyond your statement, and show me what’s well beyond that point ?

 

Marc

I think angelfish portraits are well within a digicam's range of ability and some people consider that macro. I think what Chris Bangs does is well beyond a digicam's ability.

More specifically, digicams are not known for their ability to achieve critical focus or to allow good manual focus control. That limits the effective magnifications they can provide. Without interchangable lenses, they aren't ideally suited for high magnifcation shooting anyway.

If you want a frame width of 100mm, digicams can do that, but if you want a frame width of 10mm, you should use something else.

...

If you want a frame width of 100mm, digicams can do that, but if you want a frame width of 10mm, you should use something else.

Obviously there is a lot of room between 100mm and 10mm. I also think that saying the comfort limit of the viewfinder digitals is around 100mm is misleading. I am not disputing the superiority of the d-SLR for macro, but here is some proof that the C-5050 (at least) is capable of macro shots of subjects in the 15mm range.

And, I took these from a comfortable position, with my face away from the camera, able to see my relationship to the reef and the subject.

Jeff, I didn't mean to imply that 100mm wide was the limit, it's just 1:3 in 35mm terms. I chose 100mm and 10mm because they were round numbers and there was a full order of magnitude difference. I was deliberately trying not to make a claim that was on the slippery slope.

Regarding your fine shots, I question whether any of them are only 15mm in the long dimension. They all look considerably larger to me. A 15mm wide frame is 2.4:1 (35mm), beyond what an APS-sensor SLR can do with a 100/105mm lens. I believe you are showing subjects around 15mm while I was talking the larger full frame dimension. There is no doubt that many digicams can get under 50mm and perhaps down to 30mm very effectively. I have dived with my rig set up to do a 10mm frame width and Chris Bangs tries to get well below 5mm (because he is a madman). This is the difference that I was trying to emphasize. I was not suggesting that digicams were not suitable for macro.

....  I was not suggesting that digicams were not suitable for macro.

Perhaps, but that is how I interpreted it, and I believe most would have as well. I will give you the point that I am displaying subjects of approximately 15mm rather than a total image size of xx-mm, however, the brown lined elysia was probably very close to 10mm and there is just a bit of frame around it. And it is a long way from 100mm.

My point is, Don's comment earlier in this thread has some very real substance to it. Viewfinder digitals have advantanges over d-SLR's that you can argue away if you want. The perfectly configured d-SLR could very well capture an image superior to that caught by a C-5050 or CP-5000, but at what cost? Not just in investment, but also in weight to be carried both above and below water and in size that cannot fit into reef crevices.

I imagine that a d-SLR is the perfect rig for you and Eric and James and many others on this forum. My point is just to let the public know that you don't have to have a $6,000 - 20 pound rig to achieve impressive results.

Jeff, if you interpreted it that way, then you were mistaken. My original quote was this:

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.

I was asked specifically to elaborate on what I though was beyond the digicam's range and I said 10mm frame width. I also mentioned that manual focus is not a strong point of typical digicams.

I absolutely believe that for "super-macro" SLR's are clearly superior to digicams and I believe that true viewfinders are superior to image previews. I also prefer to dive with a larger rig as its handling is superior and I find traveling with two complete D100 setups to be a piece of cake. Do you honestly believe you can get a shot that I can't because you can shove your digicam into a "reef crevice"?

I've never disagreed that you can get impressive results from a housed digicam. You won't get impressive supermacro, though, nor 180 degree full frame fisheye. I have no need to argue away the advantages of digicams over SLR's as there aren't any underwater. The only advantages a digicam has are cost and travel convenience. Underwater they are less flexible, handle worse and offer less image quality. They can be very good, though, and are a good choice for many people. I happen to own and travel with a housed 5050 in addition to my D100's.

....  Do you honestly believe you can get a shot that I can't because you can shove your digicam into a "reef crevice"?

Yes, I do. I've done it. I had the Titan for the Oly E-20, which is still smaller than most d-SLR housings, and I found several circumstances when diving with both, where I could not position the camera where it needed to be with the Titan and I could with the C-5050. Careful with the term "shove", though. This has remained fairly civil to this point, and I would hope it will continue to be so. I have never "shoved" a camera anywhere around a reef.

...  The only advantages a digicam has are cost and travel convenience.  Underwater they are less flexible, handle worse and offer less image quality.  They can be very good, though, and are a good choice for many people.  I happen to own and travel with a housed 5050 in addition to my D100's.

As for less flexible, and handle worse, I disagree. Flexibility implies an ability to take a wide variety of images. I think the zoom lens fits that definition nicely. As for handling, it is smaller, lighter, and can be viewed from a distance instead of up against your mask.

I will concede that manual focus is next to worthless on the C-5050, but I can also count on my two hands the number of shots that I have lost because the camera focused incorrectly.

I'm sure glad the manufacturers still make both styles.

But you aren't shooting things that more or less require manual focus either.

The point is that SLR's by virtue of their interchangable lenses can be used to do things that digicams are not well suited to do. Within the range of things that digicams are well suited, it's clear that they can be very good. Much can be said for the small size and the large display that enables shooting at arm's length, but what works wel for wide angle and portraits just doesn't work for supermacro...and that's OK.

There is no doubt that many digicams can get under 50mm and perhaps down to 30mm very effectively.

This image came from controlled conditions in a dive pool, fresh water. Equipment consisted of an Oly c4040 and Inon 165 macro lens in auto focus. Distance from lens 10cm:

ExposureTime : 1/125Sec

FNumber : F5.6

ExposureProgram : Manual

ISOSpeedRatings : 100

ExposureBiasValue : EV0.0

MeteringMode : Spot

LightSource : single DS 125 TTL

Flash : Fired

FocalLength : 21.00(mm)(103mm equivalent)

Full frame, no cropping. Only modifications were resizing and (extreme!) compression to 52.1kb. No other Photoshopping, no unsharp mask, etc.

Full frame width 36 mm. I believe I see CA's begin at 15mm from center. I purposely avoided characterizing the aberration (i.e. slight, noticeable, moderate, etc....) in an attempt to request objective feedback. Also highly reflective surface and contrast should be considered, yes?

This test was part of a DOF study and was not an attempt to determine how close or large I could get the image. I will conduct that test though.

I hope it adds content to the discussion.....

For those who are curious - film shooters consider a 36mm wide frame to be 1:1

Cheers

James