300d/d70

So lenses might or might not be an issue. I think that what Craig said makes sense, that a 14-16 mm fisheye will be enough for most people. What about that thing I don't understand, the flash sync speed? What will it do for me UW? (compare: what have you done for me lately)

Burst speed I think might be useful for non-strobe shooting, but will hardly be of importance otherwise. Also, I'd really like to hear from the handful of current 300d users as to what extent the electronic crippling of the 300d is a hindrance UW.

Noise performance is also of significance to me, as I will try to shoot in low light conditions with no strobe. I know the 300d produces some excellent pictures at iso1600. Is there a reason to believe the d70 won't be as good?

I really like the way this thread is turning out, and I'm getting some useful information. The confusion, however, has not gone away. Which I guess is normally the case - more knowledge; more confusion. I judge housing options to be roughly equal, so it still comes down to TTL and lower price vs. extra features and (possibly) more lens choices. The difficulty lies in evaluating what these factors will mean to me.

Maybe material for an article.

That would be great, James!

No, that was "wise man" not Wiseman. Man that VIP is going to your head.

What about that thing I don't understand, the flash sync speed? What will it do for me UW?

Not much use underwater. If you are shooting fast moving subjects beyond strobe distance, then you need a faster shutter speed to eliminate motion blur. The only problem I've had is sea lions zipping around in the background.

Noise performance is also of significance to me, as I will try to shoot in low light conditions with no strobe. I know the 300d produces some excellent pictures at iso1600. Is there a reason to believe the d70 won't be as good?

Probably not. I think the image quality and noise performance will be close enough that you wouldn't much notice.

The D70 has some more features. The price difference is $100.

For underwater use, the Nikon offers better/more lens choices.

For underwater use, the Nikon offers better/more lens choices.

Can someone expand on this? I'm going through the same process as Paste is (this thread has been amazingly helpfull!). I think that the two are pretty comparable cameras and the more important question for people just starting out down the SLR path is which lense system to commit to.

I've looked for a broad comparison of the lenses between Canon and Nikon but can't find anything other than specific lenses. I'm guessing that the UW preference for Nikon is because of the WA lenses? How about topside? (another article topic perhaps?!?)

See James's reply above:

Canon has all the same lenses except:

12-24DX

70-180 Macro Zoom

10.5DX fisheye

60mm Micro goes 1:1

These are all pretty useful lenses from what I have read. In fact they are the top 4 on my list to get (probably long term).

The 60 mm macro will probably be my first purchase. I think it will be easier to learn to get great photos at macro than any other style. I think it will be easier to control strobes and focus on stationary subjects like coral and slugs before I move on to more challanging and mobile critters. I probably will have more success close up with strobe effectiveness and less water. This is also a fairly inexpensive lens at around $3-400.

I love WA the best but never quite know what I will want to shoot on a dive. The 12-24 would be an excellent way to get that flexability. Sigma also makes a comparable 12-24 lens for both Canon and Nikon but there is some doubt as to weather it will fit in the Ikelite port. I have read that it does not. Anyone know?

The 10.5 looks like an awesome WA lens too especially for very large subjects. I've see it give excellent results especially with the image correction software. It is reasonably priced and would be a blast. It doesn't bother me that it can't be used for film. I'll never go back. But I'm a bit worried that it won't be useful if they come out with full sized sensors in their lower priced dSLRs soon and it won't be useable.

The 70-180 macro would be a great addition if I get really good at macro and want to take the really small stuff. I also like the ability to zoom and get exactly what I want in the frame. This will probably be my last lens to buy on the list though.

I also like the flexability option of switching body manufacturers next time around. Both Kodak and Fugi use the nikon system. So the system will be a good one to stick with.

C'mon and sell me one already! Before I change my mind--again.

That pretty much sums it up, thanks!

I think it very unlikely that Nikon and Fuji "consumer" DSLR's will move away from the 1.5x DX sensor format.

Cheers

James

Nikon lenses I have/use underwater:

12-24mm

16mm fisheye

17-35mm (my favorite still)

60mm macro

105mm macro

200mm macro

Others used, but not by me, at least not yet:

10.5mm fisheye

18-36mm (cheaper alternative to the 17-35mm)

70-180mm macro

Topside, some would say Canon has an advantage with a better selection of L and IS glass. I would agree with them. Nikon has been catching up, but Canon still has an edge.

The underwater world tends to favor very wide angle and macro.

I'm pretty familiar with the commonly used Nikon lenses...What do the Canon folks do? Reading this thread makes it sound like there's nothing usefull in the Canon lineup, but I know there are plenty of people using Canon glass UW. Are they really just making do with an inferior selection?

(Paste - If this is deviating from the intention of your original post too much, let me know and I'll start a dedicated thread)

luminary - this is certainly one of the things I want to know; the UW useability of Canon lenses. No need for a new thread.

Underwater, I mostly use either the Canon 100 mm macro or the Sigma 50 mm macro (on a 10D) since the Sigma goes 1:1. As for wide angle, I use the 16-35 L glass and it is quite spectacular. I haven't gone to the Sigma 12-24 but for 95% of what I want one of the three lenses above serves well. I like the 50 mm a lot since it is good for 1:1 macro and for fish portraits, the 100 mm macro is good for really tiny stuff.

Canon 17-40 L is an AWESOME lens underwater. It's not really wide, but it spent a ton of time on my camera on my last trip. Substitute the 16-35L here as well, it's comparable. The Canon 100mm macro is also pretty darn good, very sharp, reasonably good AF, I just haven't had enough time to use it yet. I also managed to get a Canon 28-135IS housed, although the useable range was limited to 28-80mm. Nice lens though. I may put some more effort into getting it to work through the full range. I own other lenses, but these are the primary one's I use UW.

My next lens for UW use will likely be a Canon 15mm fisheye. I might try to get a Sigma 12-24 as well, but that's a ways out really.

What about that thing I don't understand, the flash sync speed? What will it do for me UW?

 

Not much use underwater. If you are shooting fast moving subjects beyond strobe distance, then you need a faster shutter speed to eliminate motion blur. The only problem I've had is sea lions zipping around in the background.

 

I strongly disagree with this. Eliminating motion blur is only one function of a faster shutter. The shutter speed determines the ratio of natural light to strobe light since the strobe exposure is independent of it. That's an important degree of freedom. Increasing the flash sync speed increases your exposure range and can make a big difference on shots with bright sunny background. IMHO, it is the most important difference between the D100 and the D70.

Canon glass I've used underwater so far:

17-40L - I've been really pleased with this lens. I think it's a great all-round underwater lens. I've used this about 85% of the time.

Tamron 90mm macro - does 1:1, is quite cheap and optically brilliant. AF is crap. I think I'd buy the Canon 100mm though for underwater use.

I think a 12-24 that can be easily housed would be the main thing on my canon wish list - I haven't heard of anyone actually using the fat sigma 12-24 underwater yet.

Do you really need a 10.5 fisheye? I can live without it, it wouldn't determine my choice of system.

I'm tending towards downgrading to a 300D for underwater use due to the availability of cheapish housings and the tantalising posibility of TTL strobe. I'd go the 1DMkII if someone would build an affordable housing and promise me eTTL2 support!

But there's a Sigma 12-24 for Canon, right?

Hejsan Paste,

I bought the 300d with the intention of using the Sigma 12-24mm housed in Ikelite. (Ikelite because of their supposedly superior service, as opposed to Aquatica, which some of my buddies have had trouble with, and also because of the availability of housing right now). However, I only just was made aware that Ike does not at least yet have ports that will house the sigma 12-24mm. So if the 12-24 lens is really important to you, the you'll be better off with the Nikon... but you willhave to wait for the housing a while. Topside, I am really happy with the dREBEL. I find it a bit sad that it gets the "Cheap treat" because it is a truly great camera. The proof is in the pics, not in the tag. Another thing to keep in mind is that soon we will look back at the 6.3 m cameras and wonder why we paid all this $$$... All the best from a former vasteras roedeers fan...

Only in Asia...:-)

I agree the D-Rebel takes EXCELLENT photos - as do the photographers I know here who use it.

Cheers

James

All the best from a former vasteras roedeers fan...

What are the odds? A Vasteras Roedeers fan at a UW photo forum!!!

I must say right now I'm leaning towards the 300d, even though I might change my mind tomorrow. The TTL is mighty tempting, especially since I don't get to dive very often. Of course, I could do an insane amount of pool diving taking pictures of rubber ducks and dead sea shells on the pool floor, or aim to master the art of shooting perch and pike in <1m viz...

I just might end up flipping a coin to decide!

So because Ike does not house the 12-24 you suggest that they get a completely different camera?

I have never had anything but great Aquatica service. Actually outstanding service. Now I live in Canada where they are located so I am unsure if that has part to do with it. If you like the 300D then either wait for Ike or look at the Aquatica again. I was told it will fit the housing and ports they have and judging by the photos they should be out and ready to go very soon.

You could also check digideep for listings of other housings available. I believe the UK is out.

I've got to agree with Todd, I wouldn't switch camera systems simply because one housing manufacturer doesn't make a housing for a given lens. Conventional UW wisdom says look at the available housings for a camera before buying it, but the 300d looks to be one of the better supported bodies out there, especially as compared to other Canon's like the D60 and 10D.

In the case of the Ikelite housing, it's not likely that you will be able to house the 12-24 in the near future, as increasing the maximum diameter of their ports would be a major retooling effort. Other manufacturers do provide larger diameter ports, although you may need a custom zoom gear to handle the Sigma 12-24 for some period of time.

Just a few thoughts...

Tom

jonah will house the sigma 12-24 for the 10D, so i assume they would do it for their 300D housing as well.

/paul

Nope, I am not saying that at all if you read my post. I am saying to be aware of the fact that drebel+ike is not compatible with the wide 12-24mm. Anyhow, Nikon has a better selection of super wide angle lenses than Canon. Selection of camera and housing is of cousrse dependant on what kind of shooting yo are planning to do.. and for some of us, also... belive it or not... the price of the complete package. The drebel and the ike housing, as well as Sigma lenses are appealing to those of us who want to land withing a certain budget. However, if money is no object whatsoever, the the selection of housing etc is of course wider.