Nikon F6 Underwater? (AKA Digital vs. Film, part infinity)

Agreed. 1) It would be tough to sell an alternative back for a D2x housing when a complete F100 and housing can be had for under 3k. 2)Any future film housings would be chasing a very specialized market.. Expect the price to reflect that low volume! Would you be willing to spend 50% more to house an F6? 3)I've never done any drum scans with my slides, but they would have to be FAR better than my Coolscan results to match my D2x. So far in my experience the D2x has been tough to shoot on land - many have commented that the small pixels make it succeptible to hand shake. This all goes away under water - especially with flash only exposures. The detail and color are better than a projected slide, and no scan can better that! Once you've dived your 2x you'll agree!!!

Re-D2X: its no surprise that Signore Skerry has been using two for National Geographic UW assignments this year.

p.s. Its great to read your enthusiasm for this camera, Kasey. Glad you are so happy.

Re F6: The alternative for housings is to go to a manufacturer like UK-Germany who accept commissions.

Alex

Hi guys,

I think absolute statements (e.g., better, far superior, film is dead, digital rules, etc. etc.) from both digital and film camps just reflect personal preferences.

Some people like Toyota and others Honda. Both make good cars and get you to your destination. The same can be said about photography. When you see an outstanding photograph, who cares if the shooter used film, digital, Nikon, Canon, or a disposable camera? As long as the image is not a fraud, the technology behind it is irrelevant. Comparisons between digital and film files have so many variables that it's hard to make an apples to apples analysis.

The F6 looks like an amazing machine, another tool like the D2X. If somone makes a housing for this film camera, I can see myself buying it. The F6 raises eyebrows because the momentum of the digital wave is huge, and the launch of a top end film camera today counters this momentum. The digital adoption rate is enormous, but apparently not suffocating.

regards,

mpo

www.mpostock.com

www.batfishbooks.com

Michael, i couldn't agree more. I still love film and would shoot it more if i had some access to E6. But i don't so my Nik V and 15mm is gathering dust at the moment... I still have a half roll in it too!!! oops

Quick question, mostly for Divegypsy i guess. You state you are getting the F6 even though you have two F5s. What are the advantages for you over the F5 which you already have? If i recall correctly the autofocus is faster? Obviously it is smaller as well. What other advantages does it have in your opinion over the F5? I haven't looked into it myself so am being lazy and asking questions instead

Thanks

Mike

Dear Mike Veitch,

I'm still shooting three N90s in Aquatica housings - I'm not using F5s. Looking to upgrade/update in the near future (next 12 months or so).

E6 processing is readily available here in Florida. All my images are then professionally scanned and submitted digitally.

Best regards,

mpo

www.mpostock.com

www.batfishbooks.com

Sorry for the misunderstanding Michael, there was a poster on the previous page who owns F5s and stated he just purchased an F6.

However, i have a nice N90s sitting in a closet back in my parents house if you are interested in a 4th?!

Mike

I also have an n90s + Aquatica housing + lots of Aquatica extensions/ports/etc. I'll never use them again and they can be had for a bargain.

kaseycanton@mac.com

Hello Again,

Mike has asked what I might hope to gain from an F6 that I'm not getting from the F5.

The actual fact is that I own three (not two) F5's and Seacam housing outfits. And doubles or sometimes even triples of the lenses and seacam ports and extension rings I use most. Why three? I usually travel with only two, but the third set is there in reserve in case one system disappears in transit (read about one guy's loss of stuff on trip to and from Bonaire) or is lost in some kind of boating or diving mishaps. I feel that if you are trying to do underwater photography professionally, you have to have back-up for your gear that are immediately, or nearly immediately available. (Ever ordered a housing, or port, or strobe, or lens and had to wait and wait for it to come? As a pro I don't feel you can just make excuses to a client)

This "reserve back-up" is all the more necessary because I often work with one or two machine shop guys to make special parts for or modifications to my housings. My F5 housings have all been modified to all the following capabilities and features: (1) a double o-ring seal system on all my ports and extension rings, (2) a modified focus point selection control that I like better than Seacam's own, (3) a port lock so that certain ports and extension rings cannot "twist" off accidentally causing a leak or flood, (4) a modified SCM auto-focus mode control that automatically disengages from the manual focus gear on the lens when I switch to S or C. (This means I don't have to try to pull the manual focus knob outward against water pressure, which becomes difficult to impossible as you go deeper, (5) and a simple lever that pushes on the lens release button so that I can easily change lenses, whether or no they have large, complex gears, just by taking the port off and without taking the camera body out of the housing. It would be impossible to have all these things added economically on a "rush" basis. So the "reserve" housing is the best solution for me.

What would I hope to gain with an F6?

One - the F6 does (as confirmed by my handling it at PMA) have better auto-focus which would make it a better camera to use under low contrast situations where the F5 still sometimes has trouble, such as near night and night conditons. Or very large subjects without much contrast. And on faster moving subjects and groups of subjects. And the extra auto-focus points and multiple-point capability would also allow me to try different things.

Two - if both cameras can be make to fit into the same housing, it would allow a choice on cameras on each dive without having to have travel with totally different housing for each camera type. Imagine traveling with just two housings, into which you could put either a pair of F6's if a particular client preferred film, or a pair of D2X's if he preferred digital, or one of each (see also Three). The best of both worlds.

Three - And if there ever is a good i-TTL underwater strobe, the D2X could then be the "perfect polaroid" for the F6 if I bought two of those housings. And would let me try to put together more complex lighting on special occasions. And "pre-test" unusual new optical rigs more quickly. I will still be able to pre-test many combinations with a housed D2X and shooting the strobes on manual. One example of that is the rig I use for higher magnifications (larger than 1:1 and up to 4.4x lifesize) which consists of camera, Nikon AF-S converters (1.4x or 2x), Kenko auto extension tubes, and the Nikon 105mm micro-nikkor. I use the Nikon AF-S converters because my tests indicated they give me better sharpness than di the Kenko converters. But it took a few days of testing to prove this to my satisfaction when I had to shoot a roll of film and wait for processing to see results before shooting another. I could have gotten much of the testing done in a single day with the D2X. And I fully expect to use the D2X for many initial tests in the future, despite the fact that it is not full frame and thus not totally equivalent.

divegypsy

Hi Guys,

A few more thoughts on the various film cameras and digital. I'm the guy using primarily F5's and wrote that I had just ordered an F6. F6 still on order, but the D2X has arrived. I feel that digital has finally come to the point where it offers some advantages over film - mainly the immediate feedback and more shots on a big CF card. Alex's contention that the D2X has better resolution than film is unshared by any magazine I have been in touch with over the last two years, which included National Geographic, German Geo, Terre Sauvage in France, and the publications of the National Wildlife Federation. However, virtually all of them are willing to accept digital images (but rarely Nikon Coolscan 5000 scans) if they are from a top quality digital camera. The Canon 1Ds was most mentioned and to be expected as the Nikon D2x had not yet appeared. When its been around a while I would expect it to be also acceptable. I think the choice between film and digital still comes down to the use you want to put the final images to and which camera offers the most chance of successful image shooting of the subject(s) you are hoping to shoot on that particular dive. Pick the best tool for each job!!

Film camera thoughts related to underwater. Short of a Seacam optical finder, nothing comes close to Nikon's own action finder. The action finder also has the advantage of NOT being 3D Color matrix. Why advantage? Because according to Nikon's own literature the color matrix applies different exposure values to different colors, and different algorithms. I want whatever I point the spot meter at and center at 0.0 exposure to be rendered the same density value on the film. I don't want someone else's feelins about how much lighter blue ought to be rendered, because its usually a sky (not blue water) reading, to be factored in. And this is why I would buy the action finder for the F5 rather than use even Seacam's optical finder. But why I will miss an action finder with the F6. A reasonable second choice to the Seacam 45 and 90 degree finders is Subal's new optical finder, which despite not giving quite as much magnification, is considerably more compact and much less expensive.

F5 vs other Nikon film cameras. The F90. F100, and F5 share virtually identical TTL technology and in my tests, primarily on land, I could find no significant differences. What was significant to me is that the F5 has an action finder, the F5 (and also F100) has multiple focus points, and the F5 has custom functions that allow me to shoot differently than I would be able to do with the F100 or F90. On the plus for the F100, that camera is much less expensive and with a good housing is smaller and lighter. A good optical finder reduces the money difference to almost nil though. And although the F100 is significantly smaller and lighter in its housing alone, that in my opinion diminishes in significance when you add a large dome port (such as Seacam's superdome), and a pair of big, strong strobes (such as Ikelite 400's, or my preferred Hartenberger 625's) at the end of extended strobe arms. Given big strobes on long arms, sometimes a larger housing mass at the center makes for a more stable and easier handling total package, especially in stronger currents or surge.

If the weight underwater of a more compact macro rig is too negative underwater, make and add a custom block of marine styrofoam, with which you can easily achieve true neutrality if that is what you want. You don't HAVE to use any of these housing just as they come from the box. I believe you should make any changes you feel will make the housing easier to use and get good pictures with.

Years ago Ike looked at the multiple changes I'd made to an Ikelite housing and said, "What did you do to my housing?"

I replied, "I did nothing to YOUR housing. The moment you took my money, it became MY housing and mine to do whatever I liked to!"

divegypsy

I think the choice between film and digital still comes down to the use you want to put the final images to and which camera offers the most chance of successful image shooting of the subject(s) you are hoping to shoot on that particular dive.  Pick the best tool for each job!

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Thanks for taking the time to share you experience, Fred.

I think just about everyone would agree with your central argument (that I have quoted above). And I think many differences of opinion over equipment come from why people take pictures, what they photograph and who they sell them too.

I look forward to hearing what you make of the D2X once you have take it on a serious shoot UW.

Alex

Hi again Guys,

Talked with Harald at Seacam the other day about the F6 and his D2X housing. Harald told me that he hadn't really looked at the F6 because although he had about 80 D2X housings on order, I was the first person who had ever even asked about the F6. He also said that even though the D2H and D2X are built almost identically, the D2H doesn't match up really well with the D2X control linkages. So he wasn't too optimistic about an F6 working in the housing as is.

I'm willing to buy the housing if it works perfectly for the D2X and I can change a few minor things when I change to an F6. An continue to hope that with the assistance of a good machine shop guy that will be possible.

Another reason for wanting this possibility is that I read carefully my new warranty with the D2X and cleearly Nikon is not willing to give any of their digital cameras the same kind of support they do the film cameras. (D2X has a one year regionally-limited warranty vs three year world-wide warranty on the F6) See the new topic on this subject in the digital SLR forum.

divegypsy

That sounds like a good move Fred. I haven't tried to fit a smaller alternative Canon in my 1Ds housing, but now I'm thinking about it.

Cheers

James

Just a few comments. Firstly on digital vs. film capture. I find that one of the biggest problems is in the printing stage. Many designers and printers do not seem to want to understand digitally derived images are now better than scans (could this be to do with a loss in scanning fees???) if shot on the lkies of the EOS1DSI/II or D2X. Regardless of the arguments (and I for one would argue that the cleaner, smoother image quality of these digital cameras outclasses 35mm film) digital is very much here to stay and magazines will undoubtedly start accepting files or find their image options ever decreasing from now on. (On the scanner note, I scan on a Coolscan 8000 when I need to and haven't had any problems provided the printer doesn't know).

Secondly, fitting an F6 inside a D2X housing may well be possible but bear in mind that Seacam will realign an EOS1DS housing to allow a 1DSMkII to fit - although the cameras are close, they are not identical - and the rotating on/off switch won't work if this isn't carried out - from my observations we are probably talking in fractions of a millimetre here. The adjustments required are small and must require a high degree of accuracy, so I would say that such a conversion may be fraught with irritation!

Lastly, I suspect that the warranty situation is more to do with a policy of ensuring that significant price differentials don't occur worldwide. In the UK it was actually possible to extend the EOS1DS's warranty for an additional 2 years at a cost of around £700 ($1000+) which I haven't bothered to do, so there clearly is a risk of failure. Given the decreasing value of any digital gear (EOS1DS cameras are roughly half their new price now) I'm not convinced that this is as important as it might be with a lower volume unit like the F6 which after all uses very tried and tested technology and so should be expected to be very reliable.

Divegypsy said

(

Film camera thoughts related to underwater. Short of a Seacam optical finder, nothing comes close to Nikon's own action finder. The action finder also has the advantage of NOT being 3D Color matrix. Why advantage? Because according to Nikon's own literature the color matrix applies different exposure values to different colors, and different algorithms. I want whatever I point the spot meter at and center at 0.0 exposure to be rendered the same density value on the film. I don't want someone else's feelins about how much lighter blue ought to be rendered, because its usually a sky (not blue water) reading, to be factored in. And this is why I would buy the action finder for the F5 rather than use even Seacam's optical finder. But why I will miss an action finder with the F6. A reasonable second choice to the Seacam 45 and 90 degree finders is Subal's new optical finder, which despite not giving quite as much magnification, is considerably more compact and much less expensive.)

I knew there was a reason I loved these finders so much.

Is that true that the nikon D2x does not have a Full Frame finder (LCD)??

Mark

I am sorry Alex but comparing a digitally captured image on your D2x with one from film scanned on a 4000dpi scanner is simply not fair (I know because I have a 4000dpi scanner) because film scanned properly on a drum-scanner, in my opinion, beats it well into second place.

If you want to see what I mean, take a close look at the main image used on the Dive 2005 Show Guide. Chris Boardman's face represented a minute area of film yet it is so sharp the hairs on his chin are obscene!

However, when all is said and done, the quality either way is good enough.

Sorry John but I've just had a series of prints made from immages off both the EOS1DS and a Contax 645 (shot tripod mounted on Velvia) which are printed to A0! The digital files from the Canon are marginally better than those of the high quality scans from the Contax (which is a cracking camera and has stunningly sharp Zeiss glass). The images are landscapes for use in a foyer and have to look good, and have been printed on a digital solvent based printer. Today's 10MPixel+ digital SLRs deliver cleaner, tonally better and far more versatile image files than 35mm film does.

You might be right Paul. I speak only as I find - but then there are a lot of professional advertising photographers (earning in excess of £3000 per day) in London getting it wrong!

How are you making those prints from film? Are you making an interneg with unsharp mask or are you using notoriosly unsharp reversal paper? Both methods are fraught with disappointment.

You might well get a better print direct from your digitally recorded image but if you had the film properly drum-scanned (and I stress the word properly) you might have been surprised!

If your sole aim is to make prints yourself, then digital imagery keeps you in control. If your stuff is going off to be reproduced elsewhere, the story is very different. It is not just sharpness either. I have got some vary variable repro from digital files in this months mag (see green dolphins and a disappearing whaleshark) from digital shots that looked perfect at my end when I am always happy with what they get from film.

Hi John

The problem is twofold. First is that GOOD digital photographers produce stunningly good digital files but poor photographers produce files which are all over the place. For most of us there has been and incredibly long learning curve (most of us are still at the bottom of it) BUT we are probably far beyond most other sectors in the image handling industry because we're at the sharp end. The quality issue when it comes to publication is a very significant one. There is a real belief that all digital files are the same and they most certainly are not. I have a friend who runs a graphic design and print business - he can produce superb prints from scans (he has a high end scanner) or digital files, but has to explain that poor files/scans simply won't print up well!

Second is that printers SHOULD treat every individual image differently and adjust the files (including unsharp masking) before using their conversions which are taylored to their own print system. Many do not and this is a cause of some problems. But it is always easier to blame a poor scan or digital file than it is to admit that you didn't spend enough time adjusting them.

Of couse, since printers no longer make money from scanning, are usually working to a cost and deadline and won't admit to shortcomings the result is usually less than perfect.

In the past I've never been totally satisfied with prints from transparencies but today's prints from digital files are getting far closer to what I want to see.

I agree that John is right about many studio pros still shooting film. Many have bought and tried nearly all the digital camera (and a good number have switched) but some have stuck with film. One of the reasons for this is that they have a workflow (with film) that works for them, plus the look of their favoured film stock and printing is important in defining the look of their images.

Heck if you are earning 3000 quid a day, it certainly ain't broke, so why fix it. Except for the fact that the film companies are slowly abandoning more and more of their products. I guess they don't appreciate these guys' business!

The problem I see with scuba magazine printing is a lack budget and time and therefore a lack of proofing. AFAIK most dive mags are pretty small productions and don't have money to waste at repro-houses colour proofing the whole mag before going to press. They may do the cover and a few important DPSs, but most stuff is batch converted to CMYK and is not colour corrected file by file and certainly not after viewing printed proofs of each file. All diving mags run on limited budgets and wasting this sort of money on their production costs would not be a sound management decision (despite the fact that as photographers we would like them too). As a result there is no lack of examples of poor printing of both slides and digital files in scuba magazines around the world. But most of the time decent files = decent results.

Anyway, these publications have been used to working with scans for many years and their batch CMYK conversions must surely be tailored to scanned slide characteristics? Digital camera files have slightly different characteristics, but slowly CMYK conversions will be adapting to suit them as digital files already dominate editorial submissions. In a few years it will be the scans that are printing badly and the digital reliably well.

I agree with Paul, that the failure to print digital files well (whether scans or camera files) is often a failure in the RGB-CMYK conversion stage. This failure is often determined by budget and time, rather than an inherent problem with the original files.

One example I have from my own work is the goatfish that is on Rob Galbraith at the moment. I took this shot with the D2X and it was used on the cover of the Divequest brochure (UK readers may well have one knocking about). The CMYK conversion used there was not nice at all and the image looks flat and washed out. The blue water printed so badly that they actually painted in a cyan background instead (that still doesn't look great). This picture is also in my book, and when properly converted into CMYK at a good repro-house it prints wonderfully and looks better in the proofs than the screen version does on Galbraith! In fact I didn't ask for any adjustments on that image from their standard conversion. Anyway both were exactly the same RGB - TIFF file!

Alex

Getting back to the F6. Why did the Nikon company bother to spend the money developing and manufacturing it? Because they think it has a market. Now I am just a poor working class lad who certainly cannot afford to flood such expensive hardware (film or digital), and I guess that no underwater photographers are going to think otherwise about the F6 either. But someone obviously is going to buy it so there must be a reason to make it - or have the guys at Nikon simply got their sales projections wrong?