Canon EOS-1DS Mark II

I’m pricing out a “dream system†for an institution full of marine biologists. The system is based on the Canon EOS-1DS Mark II. I’d like recommendations on specific equipment including prices. I’m especially interested in lens recommendations at the moment as I’m new to the Canon line.

What I have so far is:

Canon EOS-1DS Mark II, 16.7 (Body $8000 at B&H)

Underwater housing (Subal $4,700),

DS-125 Ikelite digital strobes ($660 each),

??? wide angle lens (???)

??? macro lens (???)

??? standard range zoom lens (???),

DS-125 Ikelite digital strobes ($660 each)

eTTL II strobe sync cord (???) $200?

Ultralight arm system ($800)

4 MB flash memory cards ($400 each)

backup batteries and chargers, ports for the housing, protective filers, o-rings. . .

Anything else?

James Wood

I can think of no possible reason why scientists would need a 1DS Mk2. Doesn't seem the best use of funding to me. A digital Rebel would be a much better system and would produce quality that far exceeds any scientific needs.

But I realise that this is a "dream system" question, so to answer it.

Wide angle - I would get a 17-40mm. The fisheye would be too difficult to use for a non-specialist photographer. Plus it would be useless for collecting data because of the distortion.

Macro - 100mm USM

Standard - Money no object - how about Canon's 28-70mm f2.8

As far as I am aware you can not get eTTL with the Ike strobes and this camera. ANother reason why the rebel would be better.

Otherwise you have most things covered. Also budget for insurance.

Hope this helps,

Alex

I also think that a DRebel or 20D on an Ikelite housing with iTTL would be more useful for scientists, only because most of them would use it as a point-and-shoot. Hell, you can even buy 2 systems based on a 20D/Ikelite, and that would still be a lot cheaper than a 1Ds on a Seacam.

I agree with Alex' lenses choices, but for Macro on a full frame I would prefer the 50. Two lenses for cropped sensor cameras are excellene, the 10-22 and the new 60 macro, but they don't work on the 1Ds.

Are you at the Bermuda Biological station? I will be there in august/september.

Maybe I should have added that this particular scientist teaches Scientific Photography at the Bermuda Biological Station (yes I work here!) and does a lot with images from low res web work to high quality cover photographs of books (mostly childrens). One of my other resons for this camera is the full frame sensor for wide angle work which I'll want for several projects and the fact that I won't have to upgrade for a good looooooong time.

I'm not planning to loan this out (!) but do often take images for other projects and for development.

Good suggestions and thanks for pointing out the eTTL issue. Ike's solution doesn't work with this baby then? I wonder if the cord will fire the strobe so I can use manual exposure.

James

Is your scientist already a Canon user? Canon now has a WA rectilinear zoom lens for the 1.6 crop cameras ala Nikon DX so a FF cam may not be needed. Other than the 15mm FE, folks have been having difficulty finding a really good WA to use UW with the Ds's (see Stephen Frink's Seacam site for example). Also read up, or your scientist should read up, on Alex's recent successes with the D2X.

You may also want to consider the computer requirements for jumbo files that certain cameras generate. Whatever you get will probably be obsolete in a few years so it is best not to overbuy. Ascertain your real needs.

Tom

I'd consider then 100mm + 50mm macros, 15mm FE and 17-40L to be a reasonable standard lens kit for full frame underwater. These are all 'cheap' lenses, by the standards of what you usually shoot on a 1-series, and the cost is relatively minor compared to the cost of body and housings. And if you have research funding to pay for it all, I'd go for the 1Ds Mk2. The rebel may be equally functional, but the 1 series do look kind of cool.

My university just sent me a Sony MVC-CD500 Mavica digital camera this week (definitely does not look cool). I'm annoyed enough by the crappiness of it that I just might take it diving in the EWA-bag. Maybe I should move to Bermuda?

My memory of Stephen Frink's reports was that he was fairly happy with the 17-40L on his full frame.

Maybe I should have added that this particular scientist teaches Scientific Photography at the Bermuda Biological Station (yes I work here!)

 

I'm not planning to loan this out (!) but do often take images for other projects and for development.

In that case I take back my earlier comments. The 1DS Mk2 is an amazing camera and an ideal tool for an advanced user. It is just not something to be leant out.

I think the choice between the need for rectilinear wide angle (zoom) and a fisheye is to some extent personal. And heavily influenced by your dominant subject matter.

As Whitey says, to get the most out of the 1DS Mk2 image quality you definitely don't want to buy cheap lenses.

The 17-40L does seem to divide opinion - and it definietly pays to try a few until you are sure you have a good one.

Alex

Alex:

I am surprised to hear you say that you can think of no reason why a scientist would need full frame. Speaking as a scientist (topside only) I can think of lots of reasons, most of them having to do with comparison of images where resolution is the most important factor. To some extent that is a lens issue but more pixels are almost always better, you can throw them away if you don't need them. I agree that I probably wouldn't lend out the system too much but the body might live at the top of a microscope when it isn't underwater.

Bill

Actually, I like using a D70 on a microscope because it is light weight (in conjunction with a magnifying right-angle finder). A heavy camera will contribute to instability. I use lower power eyepieces to deal with the crop factor on a compound scope. The D70 worked well also as a quick slip on the eyepiece to shoot live zooplankton on a stereo scope during a bumpy research cruise.

Tom

PS. The 1Ds's are quite a bit heavier than a D70!

Tom

Alex:

I am surprised to hear you say that you can think of no reason why a scientist would need full frame. Speaking as a scientist (topside only) I can think of lots of reasons, most of them having to do with comparison of images where resolution is the most important factor. To some extent that is a lens issue but more pixels are almost always better, you can throw them away if you don't need them. I agree that I probably wouldn't lend out the system too much but the body might live at the top of a microscope when it isn't underwater.

 

Bill

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Hi Bill,

It is more that I don't see the average scientist needing the resolution that a 1DS MK2 offers. I don't believe that microscope optics are good enough to see any real improvement in image quality between a 1DS MK2 and a 350D. I may be wrong. But that is the impression I have from looking at trannies taken down a microscope.

Sure extra pixels are always worth it on paper. But just like medium format unless you get the optical setup/lighting etc all spot on then you will not realise this extra resolution.

I would happily reccommend a 1DS MK2 to a scientist who knew what they were doing photographically, but for the majority I feel that this isn't the case. This thread was started asking for a dream system for "an Institution full of marine biologists".

So while scientists who are photographic experts will benefit from high end cameras (which is why I revised my original answer) - but in my honest opinion most wont. I know lots of scientists who photograph on their microscopes and underwater - and they are interested in collecting data not great images - and there is more to quality data than pixel counts. I honestly think an 8MP 350D or a 6MP D70 will be way more than they ever need.

Alex

You are probably right there since you know more marine guys than I do. In our lab though, we have a 20D and a D30 on some microscopes and in that case, the higher resolution really shows through. We also have an 8 MP canon P&S and the 20D is noticeably better but that might be for lots of other reasons. As for grant money, I guess that some folks have to spend money by the end of the grant or it goes back, our lab used to be like that (we bought books, not cameras though).

Bill

Thanks again for all the suggestions!

Yes, I can see how I wasn’t especially clear in my original post. While I have a LOT to learn, I am also teaching Scientific Photography and shooting occasional cover photographs. “Scientific needs†range from “ugly†data gathering shots, to low rez education and outreach shots for the web to high quality images for popular books. Alex, from your web page it looks like you have published A LOT of popular articles on marine life! It is true that most scientists don’t need the high rez I’m hoping to obtain sometime down the road.

I seem to be cursed with microscopes so I can’t comment on them. LOL Tom, how you can take pictures through a microscope on a moving ship and NOT get seasick is beyond me.

Over the years I’ve had a Nikonos V with Sea and Sea 15 and a housed S2 that was recently returned to my former employers. I have a 20d now to get by with but no housing or strobes (HORORS)!!! The 20d had a lot of nice features and I’m starting to like it more and more but my initial impression was that it wasn’t as solid/rugged as the other 2 (which were near the top in their time). I was shooting Pentax systems topside before I took the plunge.

I’m not a Canon user but am becoming one. I don’t know the Canon line very well yet.

Distortion: There are programs to remove distortion from wide angle lens –correct? Has anyone played with them?

Distortion: There are programs to remove distortion from wide angle lens –correct?  Has anyone played with them?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Correct me if I'm wrong, but as far as I know you can only remove distortion from Nikon's 10.5 fisheye lens, using Nikon Capture.

Seasickness when looking through a microscope must be difficult to handle. In our lab/manufacturing, we used to have only binocular scopes that folks assembled things while looking through. We have mostly switched to video systems but some of the folk can not figure out how to make their fingers work while looking away from their hands. I would guess these guys would never be able to work on a boat.

Bill

I would not want to be looking through a microscope while sea-sick either! A stereo-microscope provides three dimensionality which makes the work not too difficult. The main problem I have encountered is when the sample (zooplankter) slides in and out of the FOV due to ship's motion. I keep water level in the petri dish to a minimum for this reason. OK as long as the dish itself does not slide off the scope! I often have to keep one finger on the dish edge - there is a probe in one hand and a forceps in the other.

There was an article in the RMS Journal a few years ago that showed that the resolving power of a Coolpix was comparable to that of a high-end objective. Software (in the camera and post-processing) and technique may account for some of the differences you observed. Was the camera always parfocalized with the scope?

Scientists more commonly use P&S cameras these days, very few SLR's. You might end up being the photographer for the project.

I have used the de-fish tool in Nikon Capture - pretty neat but even topside the corner res is not as good as with a rectilinear lens.

Tom

Since someone will be curious I found this shot on my HD from a cruise last October but dumbed it down from 300 to 100 ppi to conform to size limitations. The largest copepod here is about 9mm long. Shot using a D70 with an old 35mm f/1.4 lens focused at infinity (taped in place!) as an eyepiece lens on a Wild M5 scope set at lowest power, 6x.

Tom

Cool copepods!

Distortion: There are programs to remove distortion from wide angle lens –correct?  Has anyone played with them?

Many people use PanoTools (free) with various Photoshop GUI plugins. One that I have at home has a database of lenses. You just pick your camera, lens, and focal length, and it magically corrects.

Unfortunately, I can't seem to remember what it's called at the moment.

ptlens - great and simple to use frontend.

Julian