Filter for 5060

Hello all,

I got my housing for my new 5060 in the mail from seashooter(?) I cant wait to use it. I do have a few questions:

Any tips for maintenence? leak prevention? Is it necessary to depth test it as recomended in booklet? I dont want to waste my first dive just bringing housing down...

As for CC filters, should I get the green water or the blue water one as I will be shooting in Moorea (tahiti).

Thanks

Marco

have2fish(at)yahoo.com

Hi and Welcome to Wetpixel!

If there are your first dives using a camera, I suggest concentrating on small subjects and use the camera's internal flash. Don't take a photo of anything that is over 1' away! :-)

Filters will be something you might want to try for your 2nd trip w/ the camera. If you do try one, ask Craig for a recomendation. I think you want an FL-B but I can't remember the exact model that will screw onto the PT-020.

HTH

James

Marco,

Although you can add a UR-Pro filter (67mm) to the PT-020, You loose nearly 2 stops of light by doing so, resulting in slow shutter speeds and blurred photos. As James said, use the built in flash for close ups of fish and critters, and learn to use the cameras maunual "one touch" white balance controls for ambiant light shots. You'll have more light (hense higher shutter speeds) and a more accurate color than you can get from an add on filter.

Doug

Losing a stop of two of light on an Oly digicam is no problem. Even at f5.6, the camera will have plenty of depth of field because of the small aperture and short focal length. I would be in clear tropical water you can shoot f2.8 on the cam with a filter on and get 1/60th exposures. I bet Jeff and Craig can add more because they have done it. Remember, the filter only knocks down the "bad" light that you don't want coming into the lens anyhow.

It's just that filter shooting is pretty complicated because it requires white balancing, post processing, etc. That's why I don't recommend it for beginners.

Cheers

James

Yes, the filter only removes the light you don't want. The alternative is for that light to control exposure and ultimately cause you to lose 2 stops of dynamic range. You will get far better color and contrast with a filter than with electronic white balance and the fact that a camera like the 5060 has plenty of light sensitivity is a great bonus.

That said, you need to be using a strobe. Strobes and filters are not on friendly terms. :?

Since I own a variety of Olympus cameras (including the 5060) & housings and rent them (and teach photo classes with them) on a daily basis to divers of all experience levels, I disagree completely on the filter issue. There is no filter that can give a correct color balance in a variety of water conditions ie: sunny, cloudy, 30', 75', clear or murky. The ONLY way to get accurate color balance for natural light photography is though the use of a white or grey card and manual white balance settings. However... this is generally too complicated for the people renting a camera with minimal instruction, so we use UR-Pro (blue water) filters on the cameras. Although some photos taken in bright sun in shallow water and bright sun come out ok, the majority do not, and need substancial post shot color correction. As for the 1/60th sec shutter speed question, maybe those of us with thousands of dives and years of u/w photo experience (like you James) can pull that off with minimal subject blurr, most divers (the other 95%) can not.

That being said, I definately agree with James & Craig on another point... get an external strobe.

Doug

Who said anything about filters providing perfect color balance? Filters improve the color balance of the light entering the lens. This is always better than exposing with a massive green shift that you would otherwise get. They do not eliminate the need to white balance but they do provide far better results for shots that occur below 10-15 deep. Likewise, white balance is not and cannot be a substitute for filters other than in the mildest cases. Anyone who has actually done this and understands the process will know this is true. As for 1/60 shutter speed, that's never been a problem for me and doubt it is for many people.

Perfect color balance is never acheived underwater except rarely and by accident. Who would know when they achieved it anyway? Water is a continuous and constantly varying filter and your brain is, too.

Just what experience do you actually have using filters, Doug? How many stops of red attenuation is there in clear blue water at 30 feet? How many stops of range does a typical digicam have? How many stops are left and how does manual white balance subsequently work in the context of this example? Do you feel that 4-8 discrete levels of red detail constitutes a good picture? That's what you're going to get, so I hope your like severely posterized reds.

Here is an image taken in ambient light, 40-50 foot vis, at 70 feet:

This is a video frame grab which means heavy compression, interlace, and far worse dynamic range than any current digicam. I dare you to suggest that you can get that kind of color without a filter.

Easy there Craig...:-) I don't think you meant it to be that way, but your post looks a little stronger than a "challenge" to the idea.

None of us have problems with challenging ideas that we think are wrong - but it has to be done so that everyone understands that it's the IDEA that is getting challenged, not the person.

Cheers

James

Thanks James,

As for Craig, my comments were not designed to piss you off Craig and were directed to Marco, who I believed to be a novice digital photographer with a new unused camera. Since I deal with new photographers daily and own several 5060's my concern was to give him an option and to keep things simple. As for my experiences, my guess is that I've been diving and taking photos underwater for as many years as you if not longer.

Doug

Now let's not get personal. How many dives a person has under their belt has absolutely NOTHING to do w/ how good of a photographer they are.

After all, I only have 25 dives and look what I can do!

Cheers

James

Yes, I'm joking, I actually have THIRTY dives...lol

I, for the record, did not advise anyone to use a filter. I simply addressed the commonly stated falsehood that electronic white balance obviates the need for and usefulness of filters. It just isn't so.

If an ambient light shot taken at 70 feet without the use of filters can produce more color detail than the shot I provided I'd sure like to see it. Otherwise, I hope everyone understands that filters and white balance are absolutely not interchangable.

To answer the example I provided, red light is attenuated at least four stops by 30 feet. Digicams like the 5060 offer 6-7 stops of useful dynamic range. At 30 feet, therefore, the red channel of an image can, at best, have only 2-3 stops of "red light" detail unless you use a filter. That's 4-8 discreet values only. Such an image would be severely posterized in red and anyone can easily demonstrate this for themselves. Unfortunately, the problem gets worse. Violet light generates a response in the red channel and violet is attenuated at only half the rate of red. Without a filter, violet detail will overwhelm red detail. That's why filters generate MORE accurate color, not less. Once you get into a tristimulus model you're screwed.

I would expect that, at 70 feet, no digicam will successfully white balance to a gray card without a filter. Haven't tried it myself, but I have tried it with one of the best camcorders ever for this purpose and it can't go much beyond 30 feet (it goes to 70 feet with a filter). At 70 feet, very little red light exists but violet does and in quantities that vary with water clarity. I would expect there to be a 6-7 stop difference between red and green in good conditions. That's a huge difference to ask any current camera to overcome.