James/Craig - SLR/N questions

James beat me to the same conclusion, the S2 Pro would serve you just as well. It's not bleeding edge technology, but it's damn good, and there's an added benefit of TTL support. Plus, if you get the Aquatica housing and ports for the S2, if you eventually upgrade to the SLR/n, you're likely to be able to keep your ports and zoom gears.

To James' point, you can get publishable images from any of the current crop of 6MP dSLRs, so don't let that stop you.

What you don't want is a very high framerate, a sensor designed for high-ISO shooting as a priority, and a cropped sensor with no DX lenses available.   So why is the 1DmkII attractive as an underwater camera?  Beats me...

1. A very high framerate camera used underwater can be taken topside and used.

2. The sensor is great at low ISOs as well. It wasn't necessarily "designed for high-ISO shooting as a priority."

3. Cropped sensor isn't always a bad thing. For macro, it is great, and actually, for wide angle, it's great as well. I've been struggling to get sharp corners with my 1Ds, and I'm thinking that the 1D Mk II might actually get me better shots -- sometimes. I still miss the 15m full-frame fisheye with a D60.

4. People may be Canon shooters.

5. The 1D Mk II is an absolute JOY to use. I really, really love this camera. If you miss a shot with it, it's your fault.

6. Its 8MP are reputedly "better" than the same pixels from a 1Ds. I haven't done the tests myself, but I don't really care. The images from this camera can easily produce a poster-sized print.

7. 1.6fps is too damn slow (see review). 8.5fps is useful with fast marine mammals in strobe-less conditions.

8. The 1D Mk II produces wonderful JPGs. The Kodak seems to be ... debilitated when set to shoot in JPG mode.

9. File-flushing is fast. I'm not sure why the Kodak insists on taking literally minutes to flush a burst of images.

I, for one, would buy a 1D Mk II over a Kodak DCS Pro SLR/c. In fact, I did. (That's really an unfair statement, because I already had a housing that it would fit in -- but it is a true statement. .

-Eric

Oh, and all the housings for the Canon 1Ds and MkII cost more than $5,000 each.

I don't think the Kodak housing(s) will cost that much.

Cheers

James

Hi again

@James

Thanks for your thoughts. "never shot a digital photo in my life " is a simplified version of events but it will suffice ....sure dont need any more detail in this thread then needed to illustrate some relevant points...;-)

I owned a prolab for 9 years....full of pc's crunching files all day long so i'm no stranger to workstations......

i suppose bottom line is you really have to test each setup for yourself to know what you need/want/expect. Sure repro in 160 line screen magazines is not over the top stuff , but high quality repro on gloss art stock in a coffee table book is a little different. I guess a good analogy to what were discussing here is the 35mm Vs 120 debate. Of course this relates to the silver halide days.....

many would ( still do ?) argue that 35 mm is as good as 120 film stock and in the hands of the right photographer there is no difference and 35mm is up to the job. There IS a difference. I saw this day in day out in the lab. I spent countless hours hand enlarging "custom" hand crafted prints. (EP2 , RA4 , P3x R4) 90% of it 120 , 10% 35 mm (C-41 and E6). Its very easy to spot a print from each format from 10 or 12 feet away ( comfortable viewing distance) Sure 35mm has its place and does a comandable job , but 120 will always outclass it (35mm), Still many photographers would argue this over and over and over ( i had many professional clients). In the same light , a 5x4 neg outshines a 120 neg..the difference in quality is really startling at this level....and when you get to 10x 8 negs or trannies, well....need i even say anything ??

My point is this .....120 or 35 mm gets the job done but each is better for different reasons. Yes in the hands of a capable photographer 35mm is good. I still prefer 120 ( and own...oops aarrgghh ..owned bronica ETRS-i, mamyia RZ 67, hassy 503 CX). But there my experience stops. The world has changed, everything is much different now and i've been in the bush for 6 years blowing bubbles most days. Hence my asking what your opinions are UNDERWATER....here i have truely never shot a frame in my life......and so read with much interest yours and others here experiences with digital underwater. I understand i have a long learning curve involved..but i have two good groundings....14 years as a photographer earning the rent payments every week this way....(not easy :-) )and 6 years doing lots of diving every week...so i figure i can use this experience to get up to speed fairly quickly......and as i said before , just keep at it everyday refining technique till i get the results i'm looking for....on the computer side , well i have been playing with pc's since 84 and currently here in London when not playing around with the fish, work as an exchange server administrator so the computer side does not have me phased at all.....

What i dont have is hands on experience with a pro digital camera. Nothing , nuda. As i say i am about to take the plunge but i dont have the luxuary of getting a pro body to play around with for a few months so as to have a baseline from which to compare higher end cameras. This is where the whole story comes together (yeaaaa ..i hear the masses shouting :-) ).........its like the 35mm Vs 120 story in the 90's....well its now the 21st centuary and we have the D70 Vs SLR/N story. I just dont have any experience with any pro digital bodys to make any judgements. This is further compounded by the fact i have never shot underwater....yes i read all the same forums you probaly do and read with much interest all the comments many users have to say....but my real interest here on this board is what your experiences are UNDERWATER and the original reason for this thread.....how are you planning on setting it up...ie lenses , strobes etc, but after numerous posts back and forwards that info is just not forthcoming which leads me to assume you dont want to share it and you proably have good reasons for that.

In the mean time there are other issues involved that i have only touched on ever so slightly....landscapes for example....where i work is such a far out place its amazing....and the SLR/N has no competition for that (single shot under 10k) but i cant justify a SLR/N for landscapes alone if there is no significant improvement UNDERWATER over a D70........for me it always comes back to underwater.....shooting through a few feet of water changes the rules a little......

arrghhh , if this was silver halide based i'd be having no problems knowing what gives what result....Digital....i'm ScoobyNewbie.

Anyway nuff said, thanks for your opinions , they are appreciated.

Many opinons expressed by knowledgeable people here and thats valuable in the context of underwater ,which is one of the areas you guys are expert in and why i came in asking a few questions. Thanks to everyone for the input.

The bottom line for me is i wil be spending many many hours underwater photographing the fish we catch. My thinking is given the effort involved is it not better to do it as high a res as possible ? but is this REALLY needed , especially given my needs....at the end of the day only i can make that decision but your points of view have been very interesting. The other issue for me is cost..but not from the normal "can i afford it point of view"....but from the point of view of having it taken from me ...on one side of the lake is a war zone with rebels everywhere and corrupt Goverment soldiers even more everywhere, on the other side , bandits all over and on the lake itself ...pirates... i kid you not. Much easier to lose a D70 then the SLR/N

Anyway again thanks for the input.

best Regrds

mark

Seeing silver halide is your frame of reference, i would suggest that 6 megapixel DSLRs are very close to 35mm but perhaps not quite so enlargeable. 1Ds or SLR/n will be better than 35mm but not quite as good as 120/220.

So I guess you could ask yourself whether you think you need medium format quality for your output, or if 35mm would have done the trick.

I have been threatening for some time to take my medium format camera down in the EWA-Marine housing, but have not yet been quite silly enough to do it. I read in one of my underwater photography books that medium format underwater did in fact give better quality. But I reckon that 99.9%+ of underwater photographers using film would use 35mm, and that the gains from housing a medium format camera would be minimal in terms of picture quality.

I think you'll be happy with any of those cameras. But having seen a few bandits in Africa, i'd be tempted to go the cheaper camera system.

HiYa there Whitey

Thanks for your thoughts. As i say each is better for different reasons. 35mm film is better in terms of its size and portability. A photo taken is much better then one never attempted ...and the newer emulsions are quite amazing.......i still remember the ripples created when Reala came on the scene......still i was always a dyed in the wool Kodachrome man myself.......only problem is there are only approx 6 K-14 lines left in the world (Kodachrome is process K14).

Yes my head screams D70 for a few reaons..my heart keeps trying to temp me to write out the cheque for the SLR/N and the news of a housing for it is causing plenty of soul searching i can tell you.......

Africa.....( i had a farm in AAFFFRRRICCCAAAAAAAA...Karen blixen) what can i say, for all its inherent problems i just cant leave the place. Quite amazing to think 6 or 7 years ago i owned and ran a prolab in Sydney , quitely living in the burbs......biggest problems i used to face where trying to get all the photographers to thier respective assignments on time......now everyday little things are a mission....like for example the spitting cobra that lives in my pit latrine .YIKES !!!! ( at least you are in the right place with you trousers down to S--T yourself LOL)......

Never made it to Karatha. If things go belly up here i plan to retire to Margret River....still a little ways from your place

What do you shoot up our way ? How are you set up ? ( D10 ?)

Thanks Whitey

Regards

Mark

To add a conclusion to Eric's point about using the MkII underwater, I look at it this way. Topside I do use higer frame rates and ISO settings, and most of my shots are tele stuff, not wide angle so the full frame is not as important. Therefore, if I were to buy an SLR/c, it would be solely for it's underwater capabilities, because it doesn't have all the qualities I look for in a camera, and neither does the 1Ds. I bought the MkII because at $4500, I couldn't justify buying it ONLY for underwater use, and it will still do pretty damn well UW.

Oh, and as for housing cost, yes, the current crop of housings are all over $4000 for the body alone. My hope is that Ike can come up with something shortly that will address this problem for a lot less.

Tom

I know a local shooter that uses the Kodak for catalog shoots. He currently uses an F100 Underwater. He plans on having a housing for his 14N by August. Says that a German company is building a housing for it. So there must be at least two companies making a housing for the camera.

As far as which camera is best. I would take UW the cheapest SLR that does what I need. For anyone but a professional UW photographer that would be a D70 or a 300D. Or perhaps a used 6 mp dSLR of another make.

Did y'all see the photos that Aquatica sent in?

It looks like the prototype housings should be ready soon. The back of the housing looks to be fairly contoured to fit the extended back on the Kodak camera.

Two more photos are posted, click on the news item on the homepage.

Cheers

James

He plans on having a housing for his 14N by August. Says that a German company is building a housing for it. So there must be at least two companies making a housing for the camera.

Perhaps the famous West German company, EWA-marine? Hey, he can buy my housing if he likes!

Nice to see the SLR/n housing in physical form (as opposed to vapourware) so quickly - you SLR/n owners must have been sucessful in your encouragements toward Aquatica to start building.

So why don't Aquatica build a 1Ds housing?? Doesn't sound fair to me...

Digideep.com has shown a UK-Germany housing for the 14n for months now.

But when you click on the image to enlarge, it has a decal on it saying "Canon"... so take this with a grain of salt...

Rob: Do you think Aquatica would make a 1Ds housing when there are already 4 manufacturers doing that? Would they make any money? Probably not, but there would be a lot of very happy Canon shooters...:-)

Aquatica's will be the first widely available housing for a FF Nikon mount camera.

If there is anyone lurking here who has used a UK-Germany housing for the 14n, I'd love to hear from them.

Cheers

James

a lot of very happy Canon shooters...:-)

And we've got far too many of them already with the 1D-MkII, 1Ds, 300 f2.8 IS, 400 f2.6 IS, 500 f4 IS...

At least our flash system kicks butt :? :?

Maybe I should buy a Canon so that I can shoot a 400IS underwater...rofl. Fortunately, a camera housing floating in water provides great IS so underwater, it's other factors that are important.

So I would say it's the opposite that make Nikon shooters happy...10.5DX, 12-24DX, 70-180 Micro, etc...:-)

Cheers

James

But James, surely you too yearn to buy a $4.5K camera and put a $200 smegma lens on it to get true WA

Tounge very firmly in cheek

Don't worry, I just gave the Nikon mothership another $1100 of my money, I'm not leaving the fold anytime soon.

Yeah, but that's a f**m product! eww.

:-)

James

I'd rather buy a $1000 Nikon as a stopgap lens that I can't use once I buy a camera with a sensor larger than APS sized. :)

Tounge   very  firmly  in  cheek

Ditto.

Digideep.com has shown a UK-Germany housing for the 14n for months now.  

 

But when you click on the image to enlarge, it has a decal on it saying "Canon"...  so take this with a grain of salt...  

Hi Craig,

actually this is just a mistake from Uwe :-) The housing exists and has already found several owners. Check the pictures posted in the POTW contest at the end of the page. Uwe called me once and pointed out that he plugged the wrong sticker on the housing before he did the photo. That's also because he did not have Eastman/Kodak labels so far.

To verify also check the lense inside the housing (Nikkor) and the backside. http://digideep.com/imgdb/housing/uk-germa...y/573_front.jpg

I should contact him to replace the image.

Andi

actually this is just a mistake from Uwe :-) The housing exists and has already found several owners.

Well, there yah go then....

The Aquatica housing for the 14n/SLRn will thus be the "first 'mainstream' housing for these cameras readily available to the North American market..."

How does that sound?

I am worried that nobody will make SLR/N housing. If we (the UW digital photography community) want housings for particular cameras then we should let the housing manufacturers know. I believe we should use the people power of Wetpixel to communicate with the industry (e.g. Inon should put more manual powers on their quad flash).

Hi Alex,

actually this is something which digideep.com is doing very successfully. When you jump to a certain camera, we offer our visitors to voice up and register for a housing notification service. The ANONYMIZED, aggregated results are displayed below and are forwarded to our industry sponsors. Among them are several well known housing manufacturers. As you can see the interest in the Kodak camera is rare compared to a top product like the Canon 300D (132 Requests).

So to all users who want one: VOICE UP here :-)

http://www.digideep.com/product.php?pType=...&mID=19&pID=898

or here http://www.digideep.com/product.php?pType=...&mID=19&pID=475

I'd be happy if you could spread the word about among your fellow digital divers and recommend our service to more industry sponsors. It would help to amortize the costs we have put in that feature. :wink: