Wetpixel Review of the Aquatica Kodak Housing Posted

Hi Folks,

I've posted my review of the Aquatica Kodak housing here on Wetpixel. This is an official review based on my experiences using the camera above and below water for macro and wide angle dives using the housing.

http://www.wetpixel.com/module-pagesetter-...-3-pid-50.phtml

I've posted extensive images samples and 100% crops, so please let me know if you agree or disagree with my assessment.

All feedback is appreciated.

Cheers

James

Thanks for the objective review. I found the noise in the wide angle shots somewhat distracting. I hope to see some tropical blue water from this setup soon.

As you know, my biggest complaint about my Aquatica housing was the quality of the finish. Yes, this is partially aesthetic so call me vain for not liking the paint chipping off my equipment. But lets not forget the protective anti-corrosive properties of the paint. Further, the worst chipping on my housing occurred at the bayonet port - I had to constantly check that a flake of paint didn't seat itself under my orings. In contrast, the finish on my 8 yr old Aquatica N90 housing has held up very well - scratches from 100s of dives but no flaking and chipping. Whatever this new finishing process is - it needs to go...

From the review: My philosophy for camera upgrades is that I look for two times image size and quality, going first from a 3 megapixel Coolpix 990 to a 6 megapixel S2pro and finally, the 14 megapixel ProSLRn.

So now you have a 1D2 and a 20D. I make that 8 + 8 = 16MP. Not double 14. I recommend you get a 1DS MK2 and an IXUS 40 (SD300). Then you will have 16 + 8 + 4 = 28MP - and the target is achieved.

Still reading the review! Comments to follow...

Alex

A good read. Enjoyed the obligatory Hairy Hands pictures! And Leno chin comment!

I think you raise good points about some of the WA open water noise coming from murk. I also think that it is hard to judge sharpness in the WA shots because of movement blur of subjects. The macro image quality is very impressive.

You comments on handling and the viewfinder are very helpful. Just what I wanted to know.

My impression from your review is that this camera is capable of awesome image quality when you are completely in control. E.g. a macro shot. But the camera is less good for grab shots. I am looking forward to seeing some images from somewhere like Lembeh - where subjects are common and cooperative. I think the Kodak would shine there.

Alex

I think you raise good points about some of the WA open water noise coming from murk. I also think that it is hard to judge sharpness in the WA shots because of movement blur of subjects. The macro image quality is very impressive.

 

 

My impression from your review is that this camera is capable of awesome image quality when you are completely in control.  

Alex

It is rare to see noise in images at web size, yet with MANY of Maurico's and James' shots I see quite a bite of color noise in the blue water. Some of the colors seem off as well -- in the blue water and in the sea lions. Somewhat Magenta tinged. My interpretation is that the noise problems that plague this camera on land are far worse underwater. I don't understand why anyone would trade off noise issues and color integrity in favor of resolution - I would put an interpolated D100 or D70 file side by side with these Kodak images any day. I suspect I'd get much more satisfactory files from a D70. Many photogs have acknowledged that the slr/n is a specialty tool, and as much as I'd hoped it would excel underwater it seems unsuitable for the task.

The proof is on the wall, I have seen the blow up from Mauricio, flawless is the word, this camera is a tough nut to crack but can yeld awsome result, you know what they say a picture is worth a thousand word. large print are the final word when dealing with photographs, hence if it's good on the wall it's good for me. and no, the D70/D100 or even the S2pro will not match the big size capabillity of the Kodak.

The proof is on the wall, I have seen the blow up from Mauricio, flawless is the word, this camera is a tough nut to crack but can yeld awsome result, you know what they say a picture is worth a thousand word. large print are the final word when dealing with photographs, hence if it's good on the wall it's good for me. and no, the D70/D100 or even the S2pro will not match the big size capabillity of the Kodak.

Necessary but not sufficient. It's possible for a camera to perform well under some lighting conditions and not others. If the photo on the wall is an image with a large dynamic range, sunball + blue water and shadows for example, that would be very convincing.

http://www.wetpixel.com/module-pagesetter-...-3-pid-48.phtml

that's the stuff I saw in print.

The Kodak offers very good dynamic range.

Kasey, you have no experience with the Kodak and don't know what you're talking about. The noise problems that plague the SLRn are in its reputation, not in its images. The camera is, in fact, far lower in noise than the mighty 1Ds and much sharper, too. There's no way that any 6MP DSLR comes close to the image quality of this camera and none deliver its dynamic range either. I say you are judging a camera based on thumb-sized images shot under conditions unknown to you and believing the heresay of photographers who, for the most part, have never used the camera. I can think of no dSLR better suited to underwater use. Too bad the viewfinder is so hard to manage. Once I shot the Kodak underwater I could bear to look at my D100 images anymore. Comparing upres'ed D100 images to a Kodak file would be a complete laugher.

I take 100% blame for any magenta in the images. I used the Channel Mixer to remove the green water tinge and then used a healthy dose of Hue Adjustment to bring the blue back. I'd be happy to provide a RAW file upon request.

The image sharpness and resolution from the ProSLRN is fabulous. You can see grane cables and super-fine detail that would just be a blur with the S2 or the D100. They are cameras in a totally different class. I was very pleased with the topsides results from the Kodak and have the paychecks to prove it. I was able to sell many photos and my company has 32" by 32" prints in our client lounge that will take your breath away.

Cheers

James

Kasey, you have no experience with the Kodak and don't know what you're talking about.

Courteous choice of words as always, Craig. My comments are based on the images displayed on the web, and I don't pretend to have any additional knowledge about the camera. James has now explained the Magenta shift which I assumed to be the camera's fault. I still think that the blue water in the shallow and well lit great white shot has a bizarre color shift, and unless grain was added to the B&W shot it is hugely noisy. The slow-sync shots look fine because of the long exposures and blur.

The fact is that I wanted this camera to be a success underwater, and i actually thought that the noise issues were largely controlled in the new version of the camera. Actually - doesn't Mauricio shoot a 14N - not slr/n? That would explain it. Possibly not my imagination or bias, huh Craig?

No Kasey, it must be your imagination or bias. You've never used this camera nor seen full resolution results from it yet you feel entitled to make significantly critical comments regarding its performance. Multiple times you've stated that an S2 can match its performance yet you have absolutely no basis for making that claim. You said "My interpretation is that the noise problems that plague this camera on land are far worse underwater." Perhaps you can provide evidence of the noise problems that plague this camera? Just a bunch of bias and imagination from others just like you. At ISO 160 it's a very low noise camera---better than the D100.

Mauricio uses the SLR/n, not 14n. I was with him on the trip where he took the great whites and can tell you with certainty that what you see is particulates, not noise. The water was dirty and the subjects were too far away to do better. Mauricio also intended to give the images a raw, gritty look. The following was taken with a 24mm and was a significant crop. That should give you an idea of the distances. I was using a Hartenberger 625 at full power. I can't vouch for James's shooting conditions but if you think that the Kodak can't take noise-free images underwater then you're imagining things.

If you don't want to use the Kodak that's fine. Stick with your "noise-free" D2x's then. There's no reason to fill the forum with baseless innuendo when there are people here shooting with the real thing.

 There's no reason to fill the forum with baseless innuendo when there are people here shooting with the real thing.

As a moderator on this board you should really consider the tone of your posts. The "basis" of my statements are in the web-sized images that were posted. While I would never argue that an image was clean of noise based on a web-size image, if noise is there at that size it is even more apparent at full-rez.

On Mauricio's page referenced above it says he is shooting with a 14N.

Seems like you could have countered, posted images that showed the ability of the camera without personally attacking me. This is the 3rd time, Craig, over different issues, that you've chosen to be rude instead of sharing your differing opinion. I respect your opinions, but I am quickly losing respect for your personality.

Besides - 2 posts does not "fill the forum" now does it?

On your D2x comments - I do not own this camera, nor have I touted it on this forum. What are you talking about here?

This will be my last post on this subject. I hope that you can refrain from personal attacks on me or other members in the future. This is a small forum and an intimate community of underwater photographers. If I make an assessment that you disagree with, please counter like a buddy - with information and examples to back up your point.

KC

As long as you personally refrain from attacks on hardware you have no experience with.

It is rare to see noise in images at web size, yet with MANY of Maurico's and James' shots I see quite a bite of color noise in the blue water.

...

My interpretation is that the noise problems that plague this camera on land are far worse underwater. I don't understand why anyone would trade off noise issues and color integrity in favor of resolution

...

as much as I'd hoped it would excel underwater it seems unsuitable for the task.

It seems as though you've passed judgement on the noisiness of the camera based not on any personal experience but on low quality images taken under conditions of which you are not familiar. Hopefully other readers will take that for what it's worth. I've actually owned and shot this camera underwater and I can tell you that you are most certainly wrong. The Kodak is a flawed camera but noisiness at base ISO is not its problem.

I wouldn't waste my time personally attacking you. I simply don't care for your uninformed slander of equipment that you don't own and know nothing about. This type of senseless ridicule is something you'd expect to find on other boards, not here. As it stands, I'm the one between us with actual shooting experience with this rig and I refrain from commenting on it because of the prototype nature of the housing. When you produce real evidence of the inherent noisiness and unsuitability of this camera for underwater use then I'll respond with a counter argument. You don't find that comment coming from anyone who's actually used the camera. Just what kind of noise do you expect to show up in a 600x400 downsized image anyway?

My SLR/n vastly outperformed my D100 and if it weren't for all the lens and port difficulties I had, it would have outperformed my 1D2 as well. I have switched to Canon for ergonomic reasons, not image quality. The SLR/n produces a sharper image out of the camera than my 1Ds2 does. Not that I'm disappointed with Canon, not at all. I suspect the noise of the Mark 2 is better than the SLR/n but I haven't looked at it. I think with the right lenses, the Kodak is an exceptional underwater camera, and combined with Aquatica makes a far more affordable package than a 1Ds with a Seacam or Subal housing, "affordable" being a relative term of course. I wouldn't recommend anyone casually try the combination until Aquatica works through it's issues first. It's a camera that needs to be understood to be used to its fullest extent and it's one that especially difficult to house effectively.

To bring this thread back around to the topic...nice review james. Someday. Of course, by the time I buy that camera, you'll all be reviewing the 28 MP model

Chris, good to hear from you buddy - I'm glad you enjoyed the review. I put a lot of work into it to try to convey all the "nuances" of the system objectively.

On another note, have you seen the prototype photos of the 20D Aquatica housing? Looks pretty good!

I appreciate all of the comments back and forth about the camera, and without trying to take sides on this one, I'll just say that if anyone wants some RAW files to play with, or has questions about the camera or housing, just ask. I agree that statements about a camera or housing that pass judgement should be based on actual use, or otherwise should sound something like "should" or "perhaps it might" etc.

I too am guilty of making decisions about a system without owning it. Heck, you can't own and try everything (although I'm darned close, lol) but there are now some objective reviews out there providing decision-making information. Think of reviews by Thom Hogan, Phil Askey, Rob Galbraith etc.

Cheers

James