James/Craig - SLR/N questions

But if you shoot Canon and you want to get a real fisheye shot, what choice do you have?  You have one choice, the 1Ds.  (Example only)

 

PS: Herb, I think you may have been using slightly different terminology.  You chose the Drebel because it has a higher sync/lower ISO than the D100.  I think that's different than dynamic range.

You can get the 8mm FE and crop, but I don't want to do it badly enough to do that. For me, the 15mm FE will do for the next year or two, and I'll decide where to go from there.

Yes. I should have wrote exposure range instead of dynmaic range. Although the Canon 10D and DRebel does also have about a stop of dynamic range advantage.

Why settle. Get one of these:

 

<link to freakishly expensive and huge IMAX camera housing>

Eeeeww, that's like, video/motion pictures isn't it??

Eeeww 8)

And I agree strongly with the "nut behind the camera" ideology, FWIW.

Why settle. Get one of these:

 

<link to freakishly expensive and huge IMAX camera housing>

 

Eeeeww, that's like, video/motion pictures isn't it??

 

Eeeww 8)

 

Yes. 70mm wide by 1000 ft. Lots of pixels. If you want stills all you have to do is to bring a couple of good strobes along.

Compositional skills are overated. Damn fish move anyway and I can't see much through those pokey little DSLR viewfinders. Just push the button, shoot at 8fps and some of the composition will work out fine!

Stills from the IMAX would make composition even easier...

Great equipment doesn't make a great photographer, but a great photographer appreciates and takes advantage of the difference in quality equipment.

Quite well stated, as I sit on the side lines observing... :wink:

[Great equipment doesn't make a great photographer, but a great photographer appreciates and takes advantage of the difference in quality equipment. ]

Appreciates most certainly... takes advantage?That all depends on price doesn't it?

I purchased an SLR/n over a month ago. I have just returned from 3 weeks in Indonesia where I shot loads of topside shots. i am waiting from my housing from Aquatica. I would not have bought the camera if Aquaticia was not committed to this camera.

Below is the text of my original post citing the reasons I purchased this camera ( I have been using the D100 for over a year )...I had posted this on DP review and in another thread on wetpixel.

So fyi, here it is:

Regards,

Rod Klein

Digital Editor

Fathoms Magazine

These are the commnets that I posted on the DP Review Forum....I received my camera last week and have been testing it extensively. I think this will be a great uw camera but my hope is that Kodak will improve the post processing software, Photo Desk. This is the link to the full thread on DP Review http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp...message=9293504

_____________________________________________________________

Greetings to the Kodak SLR forum. This is my first post, although I have been watching this formum for quite some time prior to purchasing my SLR/n.

I am an underwater photgrapher and have been using a D100 in a Light & Motion Titan Housing for over a year. I would consider myself an expert in Photoshop and digital imaging. I teach digital workshops and write for a well known underwater magazine.

Here are the reasons I purchased this camera:

1) I have a number of Nikon Lenses

2) The other high megapixel SLR is just too expensive

3) There is only 1 underwater housuing for the Canon and it too is very expensive

4) A well known uw housing manufactuer in Canada is developing housing for SLR/n which should be shippiing by late summer or early fall.

5) I have been making large 20x30 gilcee prints from my D100 with excellent results and I want to go bigger.

6) With rumors of a new Nikon camera to be released in Sept, I considered waiting but it would probably be another year before a housing would come to the market for anything that Nikon might release later this year.

Bascially, I felt that if I wanted to go to the next level from the D100 I had no choice but the SLR/n.

I have been testing the camera, using I have made no prints from my files ( I( always shoot RAW and covnert to 16bit tif for printing ):

Here are my conclusions so far:

Software:

In comparison to Nikon Capture Editor 4.1, Photo Desk is very weak. I suggest strongly that Kodak software designers take a very close look at the user interface of the Nikon software, as well as Photoshop.

In PhotoDesk you cannot:

1) save RAW settings as separate data files to be loaded into a raw file at later date. You can copy & paste but saving the data files seems to me to be a basic feature that you would see in any good software backage

2) There is no "zoom" tool in the main image view. Yes there is a keyboard short cut, and yes there is a zoom tool in the detail mode, but a zoom tool is a common tool in any photo program

3) The info screen is confusing in its layout, There seems to be no logic to the order of the info.

4) The rendering time, ( in best mode ) even with my dual zeon P4 computer is totally aggravating. The workflow in ACR is MUCH faster, maybe PS in not showing the image at the highest rez. The workflow in PhotoDesk just slows to a crawl when changes are made to any settings.

5) Why is it necessary to make Save As 8bit or 16bit selectable only in Preferences? Why can't that choice be made at the time the file is saved. Sometines I want to save a raw files as an 8bit tif and sometimes as a 16bit tif. The user shouldn't have to go back and forth into preferences to do this.

The bottom line: the user interface and user options are very pedestrian and compared to Nikon or PS, the workflow really sucks.

The Camera:

1) A little large, especially compared to the Canon 1DS

2) The menu functions are very easy to navigate

3) I like that I can change the contrast of the LCD

4) The verticle shutter is a great feature

5) I'm used to seeing the image almost immediatley on the D100 so I have to get used to the few seconds it takes for the image to show up on the LCD

6) I don't think that the image that is displayed on the LCD is as accurate in comparison to the actual file as it is on the D100. It seems a little warmer to me. Maybe the difference is due to the higher rez, I don't know.

7) This camera is ABSOLUTELY MORE NOISEY IN THE SHADOWS than the D100. If I take a raw file from each camera with no sharpening, and default noisie reduction ( none in D100 & normal in Kodak ) at 100% and 200% the extra noise is very obvious.

I can take about 15 raw files in a row with the 512mb buffer, which is very nice for what I do. This is a feautre that I was not expecting.

9) I find that given the exact same exposure,same subject, same lens, in the same available lgith, taken less than a minute apart, the Nikon nef file is 1/3-1/2 stop brigher than the Kodak dsc file....

These are my findings so far. The true test for me will be when I start to make prints on my Epson 2200 and shart shooting underwater.

Comments are always appreciated.

--

Rod K

RHK UW Productions & Design

Digital Editor Fathoms Magazine

http://www.rhkuw.com

Thanks for sharing that Rod, very thorough and useful.

I have heard a number of people on an off Wetpixel express a serious interest in this camera. I get the feeling that Aquatica may have been very wise to decide to build that housing.

Alex

The new version of Photodesk (4.1.1) has a "reduced flare look" which kills the "magenta fringe." It appears to desaturate magenta or do something w/ curves, but I'm not sure exactly what.

Worth a try though.

Cheers

James