 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| HomeArticlesDiving DestinationsLearning Scuba DivingMarine LifeMiscellaneousDiscussion GroupsGeneralScuba EquipmentScuba LocationsAustralian ScubaUK ScubaDirectoryScuba Clubs |
Scuba Forum / General / July 2005A new digital camra for diving
I need help selecting a digital camera for diving. I am planning on getting a new digital camera with underwater housing to at least 40 meter. But i am a bit in the dark about what to buy. I want i camera that i can use both above and beneath the water. Should be digital, lots of pixels :) I am a total newbie with photography, so i dont need features like, changing lenses, external flash and stuff like that. I have been looking at Canon Ixus 700 and Sony W7 are they any good ? Are they any good, or has someone a better suggestions ?  SignatureBest regards Søren Reinke Chief Technical Officer www.Xray-mag.com Your free online dive magazine > I need help selecting a digital camera for diving. A few pointers. More mega pixels does not equal better quality. For underwater shots the three key things I find are: 1) Short Shutter Lag - Means you normally take the photo you think you are. 2) Wide angle lens. 3) Manual White Balance correction. I use a Olympus C-5060 which has all of these features however there are other good cameras out there of whcih I am sure others in the group can suggest. I would suggest though getting a bundle from digital depot or similar as it will be cheaper for a first underwater camera purchase. HTH Bari Pollard www.amsac.org.uk >>I need help selecting a digital camera for diving. > > A few pointers. More mega pixels does not equal better quality. I know :) But i want to be able to enlarge part of a picture and get it on paper. That is not always an option with my current Coolpix990 3.14 MP > For underwater shots the three key things I find are: > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > other good cameras out there of whcih I am sure others in the group can > suggest. Okay, thanks for the tip, do you have any idea how this would do: http://www.camerasunderwater.co.uk/d_stills/olympus/pages/pt027.html The Olympus 7070 + PT027 ? Do you have any experience with the wide angle lens you can get for the olympus cameras ? I was not thinking about getting a camera that makes that possible, but i might be a good idea to think a little bit ahead :) And i also like the possibility to attach external flash, > I would suggest though getting a bundle from digital depot or similar as it > will be cheaper for a first underwater camera purchase. 'Digital Depot' sorry not sure what that is ? Second hand ? SignatureBest regards Søren Reinke Chief Technical Officer www.Xray-mag.com Your free online dive magazine Bari Pollard wrote: >> A few pointers. More mega pixels does not equal better quality. > I know :) But i want to be able to enlarge part of a picture and get it on > paper. That is not always an option with my current Coolpix990 3.14 MP Whatever camera you use, in whatever format you take pictures, get as huge a memory card as you can so you can lots of pics onto it, and use the minimum compression you can that is comaptible with a reasonable number of pics. This will permit seletive enlargement with minimal loss of quality for the combination of camera / lens / pixel numbers > Okay, thanks for the tip, do you have any idea how this would do: > http://www.camerasunderwater.co.uk/d_stills/olympus/pages/pt027.html [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Do you have any experience with the wide angle lens you can get for the > olympus cameras ? I use and Olympus C750UZ which this camera outperforms. I am very satisfied with my results. As to the wide angle lens, I use an Epoque lens available from Cameras Underwater. This screws onto the 67mm housing directly without the need for a separate port. It works superbly well under water, and gives great results out of water too, though the edges are a bit blurred when shooting in air UNDER water though it's sharp from edge to edge, and is less costly than the Olympus lens plus housing > And i also like the possibility to attach external flash, Marshall has made kind remarks about my flash setup details of which you can read in another thread on this newsgroup. You can follow the discussion and follow the links on the thread entitled "Clear Otterbox and Auto Slave Light" and related threads. It'll cost around ONE FIFTH of a commercially-available setup. Ken . . . ( . . . who is off diving on holiday in a couple of weeks time and can't wait to take some more pics! And get wet! And keep the camera dry inside its box! And have a laugh! And not think about work! And eat at nice restaurants!) > Whatever camera you use, in whatever format you take pictures, get as huge a > memory card as you can so you can lots of pics onto it, and use the minimum > compression you can that is comaptible with a reasonable number of pics. > This will permit seletive enlargement with minimal loss of quality for the > combination of camera / lens / pixel numbers It's so very true, i always shoot in max resolution, best quality. >>Okay, thanks for the tip, do you have any idea how this would do: >>http://www.camerasunderwater.co.uk/d_stills/olympus/pages/pt027.html [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > shooting in air UNDER water though it's sharp from edge to edge, and is less > costly than the Olympus lens plus housing Might you have a link to that product ? >>And i also like the possibility to attach external flash, > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Light" and related threads. It'll cost around ONE FIFTH of a > commercially-available setup. Do you have a link for this as well ? :) > Ken . . . > ( . . . who is off diving on holiday in a couple of weeks time and can't > wait to take some more pics! And get wet! And keep the camera dry inside its > box! And have a laugh! And not think about work! And eat at nice > restaurants!) 43 days here, until i go to the red sea for 1 week in Marsa Alam and 1 week in Sharm el SHeikh :) SignatureBest regards Søren Reinke Chief Technical Officer www.Xray-mag.com Your free online dive magazine > Do you have a link for this as well ? :) http://www.devilgas.com/uwstrobe ;-) >>Do you have a link for this as well ? :) > > http://www.devilgas.com/uwstrobe ;-) Thanks /Søren > I use and Olympus C750UZ which this camera outperforms. I am very > satisfied with my results. As to the wide angle lens, I use an Epoque lens [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > are a bit blurred when shooting in air UNDER water though it's sharp from > edge to edge, and is less costly than the Olympus lens plus housing Might you have a link to that product ? http://www.camerasunderwater.co.uk/general/lenses/epok.html >>And i also like the possibility to attach external flash, > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Auto Slave Light" and related threads. It'll cost around ONE FIFTH of a > commercially-available setup. Do you have a link for this as well ? :) http://www.benpanter.co.uk/diving/strobe/index.html Ken > Might you have a link to that product ? > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > Ken Did have any of them, double thanks to you :) /Søren > Okay, thanks for the tip, do you have any idea how this would do: > http://www.camerasunderwater.co.uk/d_stills/olympus/pages/pt027.html [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > 'Digital Depot' sorry not sure what that is ? Second hand ? Digital Depot is a Online Store See below. https://secure.hitech-uk.com/acatalog/Underwater_Housings.html No experience with the super wideangle conversion lens but I have found the 28mm suitable for my needs so far. Most digital compact are 35mm lenses and the reduction to 28mm is quite noticable. HTH Bari Pollard. >>Okay, thanks for the tip, do you have any idea how this would do: >>http://www.camerasunderwater.co.uk/d_stills/olympus/pages/pt027.html [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > 28mm suitable for my needs so far. Most digital compact are 35mm lenses and > the reduction to 28mm is quite noticable. Thanks for the tip I am looking at the Olympus 8080 at the moment, i think that will be the one :) /Søren >>> Okay, thanks for the tip, do you have any idea how this would do: >>> http://www.camerasunderwater.co.uk/d_stills/olympus/pages/pt027.html [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] > I am looking at the Olympus 8080 at the moment, i think that will be > the one :) Søren Have a look at the following website if you are considering the Olympus a lot of very useful information on all of the Semi-Pro Olympus models. One of the best things I like on these cameras is the ability to adjust the White Balance by a slider scale for Red and Blue. Very quickly improves the colour underwater, however nothing beats a big bright light! http://myolympus.org/ There are some amazing pictures to look at! Cheers. > Have a look at the following website if you are considering the Olympus a > lot of very useful information on all of the Semi-Pro Olympus models. One of [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > Cheers. Wow nice site, thanks a lot for the tip, and there sure is many good pictures there :) /Søren >>>> Okay, thanks for the tip, do you have any idea how this would do: >>>> http://www.camerasunderwater.co.uk/d_stills/olympus/pages/pt027.html [quoted text clipped - 41 lines] > > Cheers. What's the shutter lag of the Olympus cameras? Adam One trick is to press the shutter release half way. On most cameras that will lock the focus and exposure. There will be a delay. When you press it all they way, it will be almost instantaneous. > What's the shutter lag of the Olympus cameras? > > Adam > What's the shutter lag of the Olympus cameras? > > Adam with the 5060, focussing is the slowest part and can take anything upto 2 secs. metering is virtually instantaneous. so, if you use the half press (to get the focus & metering) that is the bulk of the delay dealt with. you then get the shutter release delay which is around 0.2 - 0.3s. the LCD view lags behind real time - it has to process and display the image - which accounts for most of the 0.2s, however there is a short delay between pressing the button and the image capturing. of course, this is all my subjective experience but it frustrates the hell out of me every time i use the camera until i've accounted for the delays. digital photography with a non dSLR camera will very nearly always be predictive (as described above) rather than reactive. >>What's the shutter lag of the Olympus cameras? >> [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > camera will very nearly always be predictive (as described above) rather > than reactive. All true, but keep in mind that while exposure is quickly ascertained, it is only ascertained *after* focus lock occurs. This is why many images missed due to shutter delay are not only out of focus, but out of exposure as well. Signaturejer email reply - I am not a 'ten' > All true, but keep in mind that while exposure is quickly ascertained, it > is only ascertained *after* focus lock occurs. This is why many images > missed due to shutter delay are not only out of focus, but out of exposure > as well. not in my experience with the 5060, minolta dimage5 or canon dSLR's. in most cases, the camera will not fire the shutter if it can't get an autofocus lock. if you're in manual focus and got it completely wrong, the camera will still get a pretty good exposure. most cams, unless you've got exposure lock enabled, will continually re-evaluate exposure right up until the final image grab when the shutter is finally triggered. dave / devilgas >>All true, but keep in mind that while exposure is quickly ascertained, it >>is only ascertained *after* focus lock occurs. This is why many images [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > dave / devilgas I apologize, I wasn't clear on the conditions involved with my comment. True, I'm assuming full auto mode, and within that context, exposure calculations aren't final until focus lock is achieved. Without proper focus, accurate exposure calculations simply aren't possible. OTOH, if one wants to use manual mode for any function, then the software will do the best job it can within it's own limits, which are inside any other limits imposed on the image by the hardware. So, if manual focus is used and all else is auto, and is not properly sharp, the software can't care enough about proper exposure to offer much help because all the image capture routines (for intensity, hue, saturation, level) don't have a sharply focused image to use. IOW, if you get a properly exposed capture with crummy focus, you lucked into it. Most people wouldn't know if an image is exposed incorrectly if focus was crummy because those are the first images to end up under the delete button. I've tested this on both my digicams with PS, and the histogram is certainly different between the focused image and the same image when it's not. Although it's difficult to call them the same image because according to the rendering software, they're not. You said, "if you're in manual focus and got it completely wrong, the camera will still get a pretty good exposure" - pretty good may be okay with some people, and that's fine, but it's not okay with me. Signaturejer email reply - I am not a 'ten' > I need help selecting a digital camera for diving. Whatever you think you want now, as soon as you get into it you will want more! Though I appreciate the difficulty in buying from this source where you are, have a look at www.camerasunderwater.co.uk for a wealth of information about the subject and its many aspects, and ideas as to how bits of equipment may go together. It is a website worth spending some time on. Ken I have a Sony P100 with the matching underwater housing and recently took that to Nassau. My snorkling pictures turned out beautiful. Ken came up with an ingenious strobe system that worked well. He got the Vivitar DB120 flash and put it in a clear Otterbox housing, rated to 100 feet. You hold the Otterbox over the subject and shoot with your camera and flash. The Vivitar automatically fires in the Otterbox, thus producing more light. Tried this and it worked well. >> I need help selecting a digital camera for diving. > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > Ken I certainly did not expect to find camera experts on a scuba board, but I did. I have an OT question related to cameras, not related to diving, at least not presently. I find I want a digital SLR. Right now, the front runners are the 6 mp Nikon D50 and the 8 mp Canon Rebel XT/D350. I understand the kit lenses for each is somewhat less than top quality although I think I heard that Nikon upgraded theirs. I have no problem buying a body and lens separately. I was reasonably certain that the Canon was the right camera for me until I read a whole series of complaints about poor focus, something that's not real acceptable in an auto focus camera. Anybody have any thoughts to share? Lee >I certainly did not expect to find camera experts on a scuba board, but I >did. I have an OT question related to cameras, not related to diving, at [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > Lee Pentax *istDS - loads of reasonably priced lenses available - same sensor as the Nikon D50, will run (for a limited time) on find-anywhere AA batteries (though prefers NiMhs). I have one, and it works perfectly with 25 year-old Pentax glass. Heavier than my MZ-5n and MX, but a great little camera. I don't know about others, but underwater through lens ports, auto focus can be a liability, particularly with wide angle lenses picking up crap/scratches on the port. Deep. > Pentax *istDS - loads of reasonably priced lenses available - same sensor > as the Nikon D50, will run (for a limited time) on find-anywhere AA > batteries (though prefers NiMhs). I have one, and it works perfectly with > 25 year-old Pentax glass. > Heavier than my MZ-5n and MX, but a great little camera. Thanks. Here I thought I had it narrowed down to two and you go and increase my choices to three. I'll check it out. > I don't know about others, but underwater through lens ports, auto focus > can be a liability, > particularly with wide angle lenses picking up crap/scratches on the port. Frankly, I'm no longer particularly interested in underwater photography. I still have my Nikonos V, but it almost never leaves the Pelican case. I spend a few years taking a lot of underwater pictures, but eventually found that, as I got better at underwater photography, I began to enjoy my dives less. These days, I pretty much restrict my photography to above the surface. What I'm most interested in is outdoor photography, everything from animals in the Everglades to the flowers, trees and plants and, of course, friends. Once I settle on a camera, I'll have to make some lens choices. For sure, I'm going to need a good mid range zoom with macro capability. In fact, it's the macro aspect that is driving my decision to buy now. My little Casio Exlim 3.2 mp camera does OK for most of my needs, but just won't do anything with small flowers and the like. Lee > What I'm most interested in is outdoor photography, everything from animals > in the Everglades to the flowers, trees and plants and, of course, friends. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Casio Exlim 3.2 mp camera does OK for most of my needs, but just won't do > anything with small flowers and the like. Go with a Nikon. Every Nikkor lense ever made (well, almost) will be useful. Just check ebay; http://search.ebay.com/nikon_W0QQfsopZ1QQfromZR3QQsacatZ78997 >> What I'm most interested in is outdoor photography, everything from >animals [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > >Every Nikkor lense ever made (well, almost) will be useful. I agree with the general concept. Buy a camera that has a lot of glass. I own a Minolta HTSi (third body) and about $10,000 worth of lenses. So I'm kind of stuck with film, as Minolta choose to go with a different lens for their digital. Except that they now have a body that uses the AF lenses, so I'm shopping. But first I have to pay for my new MX-10 body. "14 year old body. Poor thing is just all tired out." - Sub Aquatic Cameras >Just check ebay; > >http://search.ebay.com/nikon_W0QQfsopZ1QQfromZR3QQsacatZ78997 Signaturedillon Linux, it's not just an OS, it's a way of life. And a damn fine one, at that. > I certainly did not expect to find camera experts on a scuba board, but I > did. I have an OT question related to cameras, not related to diving, at [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > Lee I don't have first hand experience with the D50, but I do with the D70 and D2X. My only real complaint with the D70 (other than the fact it feels like a toy compared to the D2) is with the viewfinder. I've found that when doing macro work, the focus I see in the viewfinder isn't the focus I get on the sensor. For non-macro work I've been relying on auto focus and G series lenses, and in this mode it works very wel. Based on the similarities between the D70 and D50, I assume the D50 would perform pretty much the same. Alan > I don't have first hand experience with the D50, but I do with the D70 > and D2X. My only real complaint with the D70 (other than the fact it [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > the similarities between the D70 and D50, I assume the D50 would > perform pretty much the same. I doubt there are many people with much experience with the D50. It's a pretty new offering. I've owned Nikon cameras before. They always seemed more robust than my other cameras, but I don't recall they took any better pictures than my Minoltas. That, however, was 35mm cameras. There's no telling with digital. I'm hoping to find somebody with real world experience with the Canon and Nikon models. I don't want to spend $1,000 for a camera I later wish I had not chosen. I tried Ritz Camera, a place where I used to get good advice, only to find that the store I visited has turned into the typical here's the kit, take it or leave it, kind of store. I was ready to buy if somebody had just been able to help me to decide what to buy and why. Oh well. There loss. There are a lot of questions related to this issue. It seems that Canon is the market leader. There's some value in knowing that there are a lot of people buying the same equipment. It's not that volume necessarily means quality, but it does tend to mean lower prices and provide some assurance that service will be available over the longer term. Nikon is, of course, a very well known name in photography, but, to be honest, I'm having trouble reconciling the Nikon's 6 mp with the Canon's 8. I was pretty sure I was going to get the Canon before I started finding negative comments regarding the autofocus. You comment about problems with the autofocus for macro are a similar concern, but not as large of one as reports of problems with the Canon's non macro photography. I kind of expect to have to adapt some for macro. That was true of film photography also. Lee > > I don't have first hand experience with the D50, but I do with the D70 > [quoted text clipped - 34 lines] > > Lee The difference between a 6MP and 8MP sensor is barely worth considering for most users of prosumer equipment. Yes, 8MP will offer better images in print when enlargements are made, but most consumers don't print much bigger than 8x10 anyway, some don't print anything preferring e-publishing. A 6MP sensor produces enough details for outstanding 8x10 prints and smaller, and waaay more than necessary for e-publishing. Personally, I'm a proud owner of a spanking new Maxxum 7D (6MP) with a closet full of glass - I've been a Minolta man for many years, but this new chassis still presents a learning curve. It's sensor is on the larger side of it's class offering the promise of lower noise. For the most part, I've been shooting .jpg, but shooting raw is where the rubber meets the reef. Post-processing is a natural extension of this process, and also provides opportunities for fine tuning an image that would otherwise be lost to the e-can. Now, if I can manage to afford a housing for it, things would be even funner - but I need to be comfortable with the new chassis and technology before increasing my task load below the surface. My comfort zone will NOT come from the 600mm/f4 I've used for film, so I'm shopping for a better wide angle to play with. Signaturejer email reply - I am not a 'ten' > The difference between a 6MP and 8MP sensor is barely worth > considering for most users of prosumer equipment. Yes, 8MP will [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > details for outstanding 8x10 prints and smaller, and waaay more than > necessary for e-publishing. The difference between 6 MP and 8 MP is ignorable in /all/ practical respects. If you want a noticable difference in quality, you have to /quadruple/ the number of megapixels. Ken Rockwell on the megapixel myth: http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/mpmyth.htm -- harald > Personally, I'm a proud owner of a spanking new Maxxum 7D (6MP) with a > closet full of glass - I've been a Minolta man for many years, but this [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > also provides opportunities for fine tuning an image that would otherwise > be lost to the e-can. I considered the Minolta, but the best, most understandable advise I've been able to find says Canon is the way to go "unless you already have a ton of Minolta lenses." In fact, I hve three, only one of which will fit the 7D. It's a 28 to 85 that apparently is not made any more. It goes with my Maxxum 7000 35mm. I've still got an XGM with both an extra fast 50mm and a catadioptic (mirror lens) 300mm. I'm almost willing to bet I can get an adapter to make the 300mm fit the 7D. The biggest problem with the 7D is price. I'm seeing $1,200 plus for a body only. Lee > I considered the Minolta, but the best, most understandable advise I've been > able to find says Canon is the way to go "unless you already have a ton of [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > Lee Yes, the 7D was a top contender for my dinero due to all the glass I already have, however, I'm not immune from taking on another system when warranted. So, the two questions were... 1. Do I scrap all this really fine glass that I'm already familiar with? 2. Do I really want to re-learn not only a new chassis, but in a completely different brand? No and no. So, the 7D came home one fine afternoon. It's on the largish side of current brands of the same class, but familiarity does have it's place. My learning curves are shorter due to the controls closely mimicking my 7000i and 9xi - so I concentrate more on a new technology with a chassis that, not only fits my largish hands, but also my smallish yet familar mindset about where a damn button is - and there's plenty of those. It's a large chassis because all the controls one needs shot-to-shot are not buried in a damn menu, and a larger LCD preview screen comes with it. This is bound to matter when squinting inside a housing. My practice has (so far) been relegated to low ISO shots, which to me, is appropriate for land use. Subsurface will often dictate higher ISO, so noise issues become more relevant, and I believe the 23.5mm x 15.7mm sensor will perform better on that end of the ISO scale. Yes, the price is on the high side, but largely due to the Anti-shake function is located in the chassis sensor, not in the lenses like other brands. A unique design to be sure, and I don't have any other experience to compare to, so I can't say it's better or not. But, my entire library of lenses wasn't orphaned - merely recycled - which I'm really happy with. As Harald mentioned before me, my use of this 6MP chassis could never dissapoint me that it's not 8MP due to this teeny performance hit, but the noise performance, so far, has been excellent. And that's gonna matter a lot later on when I'm trying to keep it dry. Signaturejer email reply - I am not a 'ten' > > I don't have first hand experience with the D50, but I do with the D70 > > and D2X. My only real complaint with the D70 (other than the fact it [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > other cameras, but I don't recall they took any better pictures than my > Minoltas. Glass is more important the bodies, but not every lens Nikon makes is a winner. And, of course, sometimes the photographer plays a part as well ;-) That, however, was 35mm cameras. There's no telling with > digital. I'm hoping to find somebody with real world experience with the > Canon and Nikon models. I have plenty of real world experience with Nikon digital bodies, but not with Canon bodies. I've used an EOS 1D a little bit, but that's not in the same league as the D350, and I don't have enough hours with it to say I really like it or don't like it. I don't have any problems with it, I just haven't used it enough to find things I don't like. I can say without reservation that you would be very happy with the D70, and almost certainly with the D50, except for the viewfinder (and you'd probably be ecstatic with the D2X, except for the price and maybe the weight). I don't want to spend $1,000 for a camera I later > wish I had not chosen. I tried Ritz Camera, a place where I used to get > good advice, only to find that the store I visited has turned into the > typical here's the kit, take it or leave it, kind of store. I was ready to > buy if somebody had just been able to help me to decide what to buy and why. > Oh well. There loss. That's too bad. A good camera shop is a little like a good LDS, especially when it comes to helping people choose gear they're unfamiliar with. I know you've done some web research, but if you haven't yet found this site: http://photo.net/ you might want to have a look around. Among other things, they have a good listing of local camera stores that might be helpful. > There are a lot of questions related to this issue. It seems that Canon is > the market leader. I would disagree with that statement. Canon is *a* market leader, but Nikon vs. Canon is to the 35mm world what NAUI vs. PADI is to the diving world (except that both Canon and Nikon are better than PADI ;-). Both are market leaders and neither is going anywhere in the forseeable future. There's some value in knowing that there are a lot of > people buying the same equipment. It's not that volume necessarily means > quality, but it does tend to mean lower prices and provide some assurance > that service will be available over the longer term. Nikon is, of course, a > very well known name in photography, but, to be honest, I'm having trouble > reconciling the Nikon's 6 mp with the Canon's 8. As others have pointed out, it's not as big a deal as it seems. I see a difference between the 6MP of the D70 and the 12MP of the D2X, but it's not nearly as dramatic as you might expect. If you'd like, I'd be happy to shoot identical scenes with both bodies and let you compare the differences in the RAW files. I was pretty sure I was > going to get the Canon before I started finding negative comments regarding > the autofocus. You comment about problems with the autofocus for macro are > a similar concern, but not as large of one as reports of problems with the > Canon's non macro photography. I kind of expect to have to adapt some for > macro. That was true of film photography also. Of course. But it did really highlight the one weakness of the D70 (which I assume is shared with the D50), which is the viewfinder. I find myself relying on the autofocus all the time with the D70. Fortunately, it works very well, especially with the new G series lenses. > Lee Hi Lee, Get the Nikon D70. Or a Fuji S3 Both take Nikon Lenses. Neither are "cheap". Both work very nicely. Make sure you get all the software for whatever you buy. Shoot in RAW format. The pictures on http://www.derwentelec.clara.co.uk/html/penzance_gallery.html were all taken with a 6Mp Fuji S2. The one on the web site are much trimmed JPEG's, the full things are really detailed. If you have 12Mb in your mail box I'll send you one!! Pete S. www.derwentelec.clara.co.uk Thanks for the response, Pete. > Get the Nikon D70. Why the D70 versus the D50? For those that are following this, I'm leaning heavily toward the D50 for a number of reasons. First are the poor focus reports relative to the Canon. Then there's the long time reputation Nikon has for quality cameras and excellent optics. Another factor, that has not been mentioned previously, is that the D50 takes a SD card which is what I use in pretty much every other device I own including my Casio Exlim, which I'm keeping for the same reasons I bought it, because I can carry it everywhere without effort, my MP3 player, my digital video camera and the PDAs both my wife and I use. That's not key, but it is a tiebreaker. It doesn't hurt anything that I can get the D50 with top of the line zoom lenses that span the effective range from 28 to 300mm for right around $1,000 total. I did not find similar deals for any of the other options. I'm still going to find a camera shop that can offer good advice before making a purchase, but the factors that will lead to a final decision are beginning to clarify. I still need to give some thought to macro photography. The Nikon's smaller zoom, the one it now comes with, will focus down to about 11 inches. I'm not sure that's good enough for my needs. Any of you guys that do macro, feel free to chip in. Lee > Thanks for the response, Pete. > [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > not sure that's good enough for my needs. Any of you guys that do macro, > feel free to chip in. None of the G series zoom lenses are very good macro lenses, in my opinion. The older 35-70 f2.8 zoom (<http://nikonusa.com/template.php?cat=1&grp=5&productNr=1963>) is a decent macro lens, but not as crisp as a dedicated marco lens. My favorite single lens for macro is the 105mm Micro-Nikkor (<http://photo.net/equipment/nikon/105-micro/>), which will allow up to 1:1. I recently did a series of chip photos with this lens and a D70 that were used for our CEOs analyst presentation and some print media. Beyond 1:1 I use bellows (<http://www.novoflex.de/english/html/fr_ema1.htm>), an f1.2 50mm lens, and lots of light. Alan > Lee You're probably beyond what I'll do, or become as a photographer, but I'll certainly keep your comments in mind. I may, in fact, shop around specifically for a macro lens. I'm going to visit a few camera shops this afternoon. I'll take all the cameras, lenses and flash stuff I no longer expect to use with me. Most won't be worth much, but the Minolta Maxxum 7,000, 28-85 zoom and the zoom flash that matches it might bring enough to be worth while trading it in. If not, there's always EBay. Lee > ? "Pete S." wrote > ? [quoted text clipped - 55 lines] > ? > ? > First are the poor focus reports relative to the Canon. > Then there's the long time reputation Nikon has for quality cameras and > excellent optics. In case you don't have enough decisions to make, Olympus has also long had an excellent reputation for their glass, though I think their digital offerings, at least the SLR's, haven't had nearly the success that Canon and Nikon have. Not to knock Nikon at the expense of anyone else, but they also get plenty of well deserved criticism, some of which is about focus issues. I'm not sure about the D50 or D70, but several of their offerings are somewhat infamous for their dismal autofocus capability in low-light settings. While it won't be an issue for an SLR, some of their offerings (including my 5400 which I'm mostly happy with) use a bar graph about 5/8' long with a flower icon at one end and a mountain icon at the other to tell you were you're focused in manual mode. It takes 60 steps to go from one extreme to the other but the bar graph increases in 4 or 5 steps. There's no reason they couldn't have used actual distance in the display, and even listing where you are in the 60 step range would be better. There's also an auto focus mode that locks the focus at infinity but it turns off the flash with no way to manually activate it. I don't expect most people to find it a problem but I do, and what good is full control over your camera when you don't really have full control? IMHO, both are indications that they make some really piss poor design decisions. Of course I'm sure that I'd find similar annoyances with other brands. > I'm still going to find a camera shop that can offer good advice before > making a purchase, I don't think Ritz ever fell into that category. The stuff above should indicate the multitude of issues that might come up with something as feature laden/complicated as digital cameras more than problems with one brand or another, and while reputation is nice, you're buying a particular camera and the manufacturer's reputation won't have any effect on the pictures you get with it. I'd want to be pretty familiar with a camera before deciding which one I'll spend $1000 or so for. This seems like a good time to pay a little more and buy from a shop that can spend some time and give you good info. > I still need to give some thought to macro photography. The Nikon's smaller > zoom, the one it now comes with, will focus down to about 11 inches. I'm > not sure that's good enough for my needs. 11 inches isn't what I'd call macro, but with a higher res you have more lattitude to crop the image to the part you're most interested in. You'll lose some of the auto features (there may be other issues with a dSLR that I don't know about), but an extension tube will turn any lens into a macro lens that's as good as the optics of the lens. It won't be as convenient as just turning a ring on the lens that's already mounted, but it will be far cheaper than a macro lens, and will let you use all of your lenses for macro work. SignatureSteve The above can be construed as personal opinion in the absence of a reasonable belief that it was intended as a statement of fact. If you want a reply to reach me, remove the SPAMTRAP from the address. >> I'm still going to find a camera shop that can offer good advice before >> making a purchase, > I don't think Ritz ever fell into that category. I first started doing business with them when they were Wolfe. Somewhere along the line they either spun off Ritz or merged . . . or I simply didn't know about Ritz at first. The store I used to frequent was staffed by a couple of real photographers. None of them seem to be now. >> I still need to give some thought to macro photography. The Nikon's >> smaller zoom, the one it now comes with, will focus down to about 11 >> inches. I'm not sure that's good enough for my needs. > 11 inches isn't what I'd call macro, but with a higher res you have more > lattitude to crop the image to the part you're most interested in. I agree on all points. I found a real camera shop and am now the owner of a Nikon D50 with an 18 to 55 zoom and a 70 to 300, both with Nikon's better focus motor, glass, etc. I forget what they are called. Whoever said that the 18-55 wouldn't focus below 11 inches lied. It will get down to only a few. However, it's still not a macro. With stackable close up lenses, however, it does what I want. > You'll lose some of the auto features (there may be other issues with a > dSLR that I don't know about), but an extension tube will turn any lens > into a macro lens that's as good as the optics of the lens. I thought that myself, but it does not appear to be the case with cameras like mine. I was told that I could not use tubes with these lenses. I'm not sure why, but it may have something to do with the way the aperature or aperature control works. All I can tell you at this point is that there is not aperature ring on the lenses. They can be set for manual focus. > It won't be as convenient as just turning a ring on the lens that's > already mounted, but it will be far cheaper than a > macro lens, and will let you use all of your lenses for macro work. I have more research to do on this. For that matter, I have a lot of practice taking Macro to do. I've gotten some interesting shots already, but need to work on depth of field issues before I'll be able to be really creative. All things told, I'm pretty pleased about all of this. I always wanted to be an artist of some kind but simply don't have the spark or the patience. That includes photography. I did, however, get the technical knowledge about how to take a good picture and, luckily, was able to see the picture I wanted in the one I took. There are a few shots, now lost forever, that I was not ashamed of, but all of them were altered in the dark room. The really nice thing about digital is that I can keep trying to actually take the picture I want with the camera and, until I do, can edit the pictures I do take, all without paying for film, processing, paper or chemicals. Anybody want a standard Durst M-601 (I think) enlarger with lenses for 35 and 2 1/4 formats? I have one in my attic. Lee > I found a real camera shop and am now the owner of a > Nikon D50 with an 18 to 55 zoom and a 70 to 300, both with Nikon's better > focus motor, glass, etc. I'd be jealous if I didn't already have a good idea of how much the Ike housing costs. Yeah, I know you don't plan on running out and buying one but I'd want to. > I was told that I could not use tubes with these lenses. I'm > not sure why, but it may have something to do with the way the aperature or > aperature control works. All I can tell you at this point is that there is > not aperature ring on the lenses. They can be set for manual focus. To allow any given feature of a lens to work the tubes obviously have to relay the appropriate control from the body to the lens, whether it's through mechanical linkage or an electrical connection. If your lenses don't have an aperture ring I assume the control must be on the body, and presumably uses an electrical connection to set the aperature of the lens. I don't see any sense in that, especially since it would probably mean that a lens with an aperture ring can only be used in manual expsoure mode (which is how I usually work anyway, but even with dSLP's I'm not sure that most of the market agrees with me), if it can be used at all. I was curious enough to do a quick search and there is definitely at least one set of tubes that work with Nikon cameras. Here's a snippet: Kenko's Auto Focus extension tubes are designed with all the circuitry and mechanical coupling to maintain auto focus and TTL auto exposure with most Nikon lenses given there is enough light to activate the cameras AF system properly. Here's a link to the page: http://www.adorama.com/KNAETSDNKAF.html > I have more research to do on this. Yeah, but you've narrowed it down and it will be more fun since you've already gotten the camera. > but need to work on depth of field issues before I'll be able to be really > creative. Depth of field is always a major issue with macro or long teles. The best advice I can offer is find stuff that interests you and is parallel to the plane of the sensor. >I always wanted to > be an artist of some kind but simply don't have the spark or the patience. > That includes photography. Except that I don't necessarily want to be an artist I'm in a similar position. The only things I can draw well are straight lines and circles, and I need a compass or something to trace for the latter. > I did, however, get the technical knowledge > about how to take a good picture That's half the battle and most of the other half is in chosing a good subject. Choosing a good subject is easy (at least when they aren't swimming away). What's difficult is the ability to make a technically good shot of an interesting subject extaordinary instead of just good. The > really nice thing about digital is that I can keep trying to actually take > the picture I want with the camera and, until I do, can edit the pictures I > do take, all without paying for film, processing, paper or chemicals. That's the best thing about digital. After the initial outlay it's practically free. SignatureSteve The above can be construed as personal opinion in the absence of a reasonable belief that it was intended as a statement of fact. If you want a reply to reach me, remove the SPAMTRAP from the address. > Kenko's Auto Focus extension tubes are designed with all the > circuitry > and mechanical coupling to maintain auto focus and TTL auto exposure > with most Nikon lenses given there is enough light to activate the > cameras > AF system properly. Interesting statement "most Nikon lenses." Wonder which ones it doesn't work with. > Depth of field is always a major issue with macro or long teles. The best > advice I can offer is find stuff that interests you and is parallel to the > plane of the sensor. Good advice, but not always easily followed. Sometimes, I realy want my subject to jump out while everythign else is blurred, but not always. > That's half the battle and most of the other half is in chosing a good > subject. Choosing a good subject is easy (at least when they aren't > swimming away). What's difficult is the ability to make a technically good > shot of an interesting subject extaordinary instead of just good. That's the artistic part I was talking about. It seems that, no matter how many of the technical aspects of composition I apply, I rarely get the picture I wanted. Perhaps it will change over time, but for now, I'll have to be content to find the picture I wanted somewhere in the picture I actually took. At least I have enough art in my soul to do that. When I was last heavily into photography, it was not unusual for me to print a quarter or less of the full frame. Needless to say, I did not print large copies and I did use fine grain films. > The really nice thing about digital is that I can keep trying to actually > take >> the picture I want with the camera and, until I do, can edit the pictures >> I do take, all without paying for film, processing, paper or chemicals. > That's the best thing about digital. After the initial outlay it's > practically free. Yep. I'm already enjoying it. Interestingly, though, I find that the fact that it is fee also tends to make me more careless with my originals that I ought to be. I've already resized two photos right over the originals (grrrrr). I knew I had done it as I hit the "save" button. I've got a couple of shots I particularly like, both taken with the 3.2 mp Casio I bought as an "always with me" camera that I put somewhere safe that I'm now having trouble finding. I'm going to have to figure out a system for naming and saving worthwhile originals and interesting crops and other edits that allows me to find them later. It should not be hard. Knowing there is a need is half the battle. The other half is chosing something and doing it consistently. Lee >> Kenko's Auto Focus extension tubes are designed with all the >> circuitry [quoted text clipped - 40 lines] > that I ought to be. I've already resized two photos right over the > originals (grrrrr). I knew I had done it as I hit the "save" button. Annoying, isn't it? :)) Having done it several times, I now copy everything from the memory card in the camera onto the PC's hard drive. I then remove the memory card from the PC, and work solely with the copies on the PC. That way, should I ever do as you describe (sorry- +when+ I do as you describe) I can always fall back onto the original one on the card. > I've got a couple of shots I particularly like, both taken with the 3.2 mp > Casio I bought as an "always with me" camera that I put somewhere safe [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Knowing there is a need is half the battle. The other half is chosing > something and doing it consistently. I agree. I have been waiting for inspiration to overcome me and find a future-proof way of naming pics. So far my mind's a blank (everyone shouts "What's new?"). I have resigned myself so far to grouping them according to the trip concerned, as I seem to be able to remember some time later on what particular dive I took an interesting pic of a mussel or shrimp. Hey, it works for me! Ken >> Yep. I'm already enjoying it. Interestingly, though, I find that the >> fact that it is fee also tends to make me more careless with my originals >> that I ought to be. I've already resized two photos right over the >> originals (grrrrr). I knew I had done it as I hit the "save" button. > Annoying, isn't it? :)) Having done it several times, I now copy > everything from the memory card in the camera onto the PC's hard drive. I > then remove the memory card from the PC, and work solely with the copies > on the PC. That way, should I ever do as you describe (sorry- +when+ I do > as you describe) I can always fall back onto the original one on the card. Indeed, it is annoying. I'm probably going to do something similar, but given the size of the raw and Large/fine files i generate, I'm probably not going to store my originals on my SD cards for long. The SD cards are too expensive. Copying files from the card and onto a pc is a good first step. Off the top of my head, I think I'll probably use a system of directories/folders that start with the word "original" and follow with date and event the pictures related to. I'll probably copy them one more time before I do any editing at all. Ultimately, I suspect I'll use CDs or DVDs for permanent storage and/or backup. Eventually, I'll have to put some kind of index system together to let me find what I want, when I want it. > I agree. I have been waiting for inspiration to overcome me and find a > future-proof way of naming pics. So far my mind's a blank (everyone shouts > "What's new?"). I have resigned myself so far to grouping them according > to the trip concerned, as I seem to be able to remember some time later on > what particular dive I took an interesting pic of a mussel or shrimp. Hey, > it works for me! At present, I'm doing several things and am about to add some. For shots I already have, whether they are scanned from film or taken with previous digital cameras, I tend to name my shots by subject, number and any editing I've done. For example, I've got a picture called Bromiliad 001Cropped.jpg. In the advanced part of the properties function, I add further information including when and where I took the shot. My new Nikon automatically captures information on the camera settings used to get the shot and gives me still more room to comment on it. I plan to make extensive use of these features to retain information I may, one day, care about. Here's what the camera captured for just one shot: Image Width 3008 pixels Height 2000 pixels Horizontal Resoluation 300 dpi Vertical Resolution 300 dpi Bit Depth 24 Frame Count 1 Equipment Make Nikon Corporation Camera Model Nikon D50 Creation Software Ver 1.00 Color Representation sRBG Flash Mode (No Flash) Focal Length 300mm F-Number F/5.6 Exposure Time 1/400 sec. Metering Mode Pattern Light Source Unknown Exposure Program Unknown Exposure Compensation 0 step Date Picture Taken 7/15/2005 9:39 AM The camera also provides the following fields that I can edit. Description: Title Subject Keywords Comments Origin: Author Lee >>> Yep. I'm already enjoying it. Interestingly, though, I find that the >>> fact that it is fee also tends to make me more careless with my [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > some kind of index system together to let me find what I want, when I want > it. First I make a directory on my desktop named after the event e.g. "Red Sea Aug 2005". Within that I make a number of subdirectories. One of them is called "Originals" and the others according to the dive site, and numerically in order of the dives done so e.g. "01 Shark+Yolanda", 02 Thistelgorm" etc. I copy all the files from the camera card into the Originals subdirectory, and as I adjust, crop etc I place the retouched file into the relevant dive-named directory. Once the whole thing is done, I copy the entire lot - originals and altered - onto TWO separate CDs. Only THEN do I wipe the camera memory card. It's a painstaking process at times. >> I agree. I have been waiting for inspiration to overcome me and find a >> future-proof way of naming pics. So far my mind's a blank (everyone [quoted text clipped - 48 lines] > > Author My Oly does similar and yes it can be edited. However what would be nice would be system of naming the file so you don't have to open each one in order to read the info, though the naming becomes cumbersome e.g. "Boops salpa Med July 04.jpg" Does someone out there have a prog than can read all the EXIF information from imagine files in a file manager / explorer view, without having to open the files first? We could read so much more without cumbersome renaming, esp if you can perform a search on the information! Explorer already permits some of this - just hovering your mouse pointer over a filename will reveal pixel size, camera, date and time pic taken and image size (WinXP - someone is about to shout that Linux is sooooo much better). What we need is for this info (and some more) to be displayed in tabular form without the need to hover meeces!! Ken > First I make a directory on my desktop named after the event e.g. "Red Sea > Aug 2005". Within that I make a number of subdirectories. One of them is [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > originals and altered - onto TWO separate CDs. Only THEN do I wipe the > camera memory card. It's a painstaking process at times. The instant I offload the CF card to the PC, I change the original image files (RAW & JPG) to read-only, preventing an overwrite event without warning. > My Oly does similar and yes it can be edited. However what would be nice > would be system of naming the file so you don't have to open each one in [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > Ken http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=EXIF+IPTC+search&btnG=Google+Search Signaturejer email reply - I am not a 'ten' > Interesting statement "most Nikon lenses." Wonder which ones it doesn't > work with. Unless I go out and get one you'll have to work that out for yourself. >>Depth of field is always a major issue with macro or long teles. The best >>advice I can offer is find stuff that interests you and is parallel to the >>plane of the sensor. > > Good advice, but not always easily followed. Sometimes, I realy want my > subject to jump out while everythign else is blurred, but not always. If that's the case I'm not sure I'd say there's a problem with depth of field. For any given image there will probably be a lot of agreement on which parts need to be in focus. Having the eyes and anntennae of a butterfly sharp while the body and wings are out of focus is acase where you don't need to be parallel to the wings, but you will need to be parallel to the plane that best encompasses the eyes and anntennae. Having stuff blurred is the easy part of macro and long teles shots. Getting a deep depth of field when you want it is the hard part. > It seems that, no matter how > many of the technical aspects of composition I apply, I rarely get the > picture I wanted. That at least means that you can visualize the image you want to capture. > Perhaps it will change over time, Being relatively able to easily take a few dozen versions of the same basic photo may allow that to change more quickly. OTOH, all those "free" picures also make it easy to hurry along and take simple snapshots. > Yep. I'm already enjoying it. Interestingly, though, I find that the fact > that it is fee also tends to make me more careless with my originals that I > ought to be. I've already resized two photos right over the originals > (grrrrr). I knew I had done it as I hit the "save" button. A lot of people shoot in RAW mode and consider those files to be their "digital negative". RAW also has the advantage of resulting in smaller files than Tiff's, which means faster processing time in the camera and more images on a given memory card. As others have noted, the usual procedure is to copy the RAW files to a hard drive, and hopefully back them up elsewhere, then do all of your work with copies in another file format. I convert everything to Tiff and save those as the originals and then save any modified images as yet another copy. I've got a > couple of shots I particularly like, both taken with the 3.2 mp Casio I > bought as an "always with me" camera that I put somewhere safe that I'm now > having trouble finding. Computers are great for saving all manner of information because it will always be handy, except that there are so damn many places to put the info. I'm going to have to figure out a system for naming > and saving worthwhile originals and interesting crops and other edits that > allows me to find them later. There are all sorts of image management programs available. I haven't started looking yet, but I gather that the better ones are essentially a powerful database that lets you assign multiple descriptions and then search based on descriptions. That can simplify whatever naming strategy you might come up with, since you won't need to loo for things based on the names. Finding and learning to use all the software that helps manage digital images can easily take on a life of its own. SignatureSteve The above can be construed as personal opinion in the absence of a reasonable belief that it was intended as a statement of fact. If you want a reply to reach me, remove the SPAMTRAP from the address. > Being relatively able to easily take a few dozen versions of the same > basic photo may allow that to change more quickly. OTOH, all those "free" > picures also make it easy to hurry along and take simple snapshots. A trap many starting photographers fall into. Lee > > I don't have first hand experience with the D50, but I do with the D70 > [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > buy if somebody had just been able to help me to decide what to buy and why. > Oh well. There loss. Ritz is the McDonalds/Walmart of photography. Good for price, if you want the standard stuff. You might find a professional store around and talk with them. You'll pay full price, but everyone does. You'll also get some good advice. I have the 350D. My friend has the Nikon D70. The only focus issues I've experienced are with either the kit lens (when it's trying to focus - "hunting") or when the batter was running low. As long as you have a reasonable contrast for hte camera to find, the focus is just fine. As for the lens, you've heard right. The Nikon kit lens is much better than that of the Canon. I don't expect too much for a kit lens, and that is exactly what I got wiht the kit lens. >I certainly did not expect to find camera experts on a scuba board, but I >did. I have an OT question related to cameras, not related to diving, at [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > Lee >I certainly did not expect to find camera experts on a scuba board, but I >did. I have an OT question related to cameras, not related to diving, at [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > >Lee Hold on until Sunday/Monday and I'll let you try my Digital Rebel out for yourself. Rick Simms ******************** Why do men sweat profusely, get weak in the knees, shake uncontrollably and have their mouths go dry whenever they see a woman dressed in leather? Because they smell like a new truck! > Hold on until Sunday/Monday and I'll let you try my Digital Rebel out > for yourself. sh.t. What a jerk you are. You know how I love to buy things NOW !! You've conspired with my wife to delay my camera purchase by 4 whole days. Damn. OK, that's it. I'm telling the wife the REAL story about motorcycles . . . . Wait, no, I didn't mean it. If I did that, she might tell Jayna what I told her. Cool. I presume it's the Rebel/D300 and not the Rebel XT/D350, correct? I'll do better than wait to see yours. I'll drag you to the cameral store with me. I wonder if Jayna and Ronnie (sp?) would like to shop while we ride ATVs around the Everglades . . . assuming of course, that Jayna will let somebody ride the ATV I got for her. Lee >> Hold on until Sunday/Monday and I'll let you try my Digital Rebel out >> for yourself. > >sh.t. What a jerk you are. Ya been talking to Ronnie again haven't ya. >You know how I love to buy things NOW !! Ya can use my extra lenses. >You've conspired with my wife to delay my camera purchase by 4 whole days. >Damn. OK, that's it. I'm telling the wife the REAL story about motorcycles Won't do any good. I bought the 1200-XL Custom last night. All black and chrome. >. . . . > >Wait, no, I didn't mean it. She read the e-mail, she knows. >If I did that, she might tell Jayna what I told her. NAhhhhh, she'd black mail ya first. She's like that ya know. >Cool. I presume it's the Rebel/D300 and not the Rebel XT/D350, correct? It was the first model Rebel to come out. It retailed for $999.00 when I bought mine but I saw them at Circuit City last weekend for about $700.00. I'll have to pull it out of the bag and look at the numbers tonight. >I'll do better than wait to see yours. I'll drag you to the cameral store >with me. Hope its close to Fried Green Tomatoes. I'm dying for a Western omlette smothered in salsa & hot sauce. >I wonder if Jayna and Ronnie (sp?) would like to shop while we >ride ATVs around the Everglades . . . assuming of course, that Jayna will >let somebody ride the ATV I got for her. Ronnie likes to shop about as much as J does. Be better if we leave'em at our house, around the pool with a cooler full of beer and a pitcher of margaritas. Tell Jayna I'll cook dinners if she lets me borrow her little yellow go anywhere fast bike. >Lee Rick Simms ******************** Why do men sweat profusely, get weak in the knees, shake uncontrollably and have their mouths go dry whenever they see a woman dressed in leather? Because they smell like a new truck! > Ronnie likes to shop about as much as J does. Be better if we leave'em > at our house, around the pool with a cooler full of beer and a pitcher > of margaritas. Tell Jayna I'll cook dinners if she lets me borrow her > little yellow go anywhere fast bike. It may cost you more than that, but we'll see. Lee >> I need help selecting a digital camera for diving. > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > Ken I bought my housing for my C750 from them over the internet, their service was very prompt and their advice excellent the housing arrived within 10 days to Johannesburg. Richard I need help selecting a digital camera for diving. I am planning on getting a new digital camera with underwater housing to at least 40 meter. But i am a bit in the dark about what to buy. I want i camera that i can use both above and beneath the water. Should be digital, lots of pixels :) I am a total newbie with photography, so i dont need features like, changing lenses, external flash and stuff like that. I have been looking at Canon Ixus 700 and Sony W7 are they any good ? Are they any good, or has someone a better suggestions ? SignatureBest regards Søren Reinke Chief Technical Officer www.Xray-mag.com Your free online dive magazine i would recommend looking at external flash options (even though you currently don't think you need it) and then working back from there to the camera and housing. the internal flash will nearly always give poor results compared to an external. true, you can make a cheap slave (search the group for vivitar & otterbox), but a main, TTL flash will save a lot of hassles. you think you don't need to buy the strobe....wait until the camera has been used on the first trip...but try to allow for that expansibility at the outset. it also means you should have a better resale opportunity when you move on up. before going down the "more pixels is better" route, with compact cameras, this usually means more noise which gives less scope to take a part of an image. someone mentioned about shutter lag. i'm not sure of any non dSLR camera that has yet got around this. i use an oly 5060 which has an annoying delay - it's short, but still enough to miss "the shot" - and requires pre-emptive shooting or a machine gunning technique. also look at storage types. with the oly, i currently dive it with a 2gb CF and a 512mb xD card which effectively would allow me to shoot around 50 mins of continuous video or take several thousand photos. i'm not sure what the current limits are with other types of card (it's not something i need to know), however that could have a bearing on what you can do with your setup. re the 5060 and noise. the images can be noisy, especially when you raise the sensitivity (ISO) past it's lowest setting. i have however successfully printed an image at 40x30" with acceptable results. sure, close up it doesn't stand up too well, but you don't view a print that size from less than 1m away. hth >I have been looking at Canon Ixus 700 and Sony W7 are they any good ? I'm very happy with my Cannon Ixus (slightly older 400 model) and the Cannon housing. I'm a crap photographer though - above and below water. But they do me just fine. If you're serious about photography, you may want to know that you can't attach an external strobe directly through the Cannon housing. SignatureDavid Mahon > I need help selecting a digital camera for diving. > [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > Are they any good, or has someone a better suggestions ? What is your budget? In the US, my current dream setup is a Nikon D70 with an Ikelite housing and a strobe. I'm still shooting film and scanning it. The camera will be great above water with interchangeable lenses and is an SLR. This will cost about $2,500-$3,000 depending on the strobe. A much less expensive solution is the Olympus C-5060 with an Olympus housing for a little less than $1,000. You still might like to add a strobe later. Only problem is that a friend of mine had his Olympus C-5050 leak so he started over with the C-5060 and an Ikelite housing. I haven't checked it out, but this probably cost $800-$1000. He still takes awful pictures, but he's just not a good photographer. He is a good diver. What are you going to do with your pictures? Make 3x5 prints? Make 11x14 prints? The bigger you want to show them, the better the camera you need. Also, what are you going to use to print them? I've got an Epson 2200, but the new model is the 2400. Great, but it uses 7 ink cartridges. I also calibrate my monitor and printer monthly using Pantone monitor and printer calibration equipment and software. In short, you probably don't need "lots of pixels". About 5 megapixels is a good number. Also, taking good pictures in clear water such as Cozumel is a easier than in a quarry or off Delaware or Scapa Flow. > What is your budget? In the US, my current dream setup is a Nikon D70 > with an Ikelite housing and a strobe. I'm still shooting film and > scanning it. The camera will be great above water with interchangeable > lenses and is an SLR. This will cost about $2,500-$3,000 depending on > the strobe. Around max 1000-1500$ I would love the D70, but to expensive for me :( > A much less expensive solution is the Olympus C-5060 with an Olympus > housing for a little less than $1,000. You still might like to add a [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > takes awful pictures, but he's just not a good photographer. He is a > good diver. I have found the Olympus 8080 + PT-023 for around 1400$ (if i have the correct $ rate) > What are you going to do with your pictures? Make 3x5 prints? Make > 11x14 prints? The bigger you want to show them, the better the camera > you need. Also, what are you going to use to print them? I've got an Mostly A4 of A3 paper size, just for hanging at home, > Epson 2200, but the new model is the 2400. Great, but it uses 7 ink > cartridges. I also calibrate my monitor and printer monthly using > Pantone monitor and printer calibration equipment and software. I have a Canon Pixma3000 printer at the moment > In short, you probably don't need "lots of pixels". About 5 megapixels > is a good number. Also, taking good pictures in clear water such as That is true, the reason i am going a bit higher is to be able to magnify smaller parts of the picture if needed, and also most 'small' pixel kameras have not as good a lense as the bigger once. Thats also a reason i like the 8080. > Cozumel is a easier than in a quarry or off Delaware or Scapa Flow. That is VERY true :) When i worked in Sharm El Sheikh, everything beneath 20 meters of visibility was crap, here in denmark everything above 5 meter is great :) /Søren > I have found the Olympus 8080 + PT-023 for around 1400$ (if i have the > correct $ rate) Since the price where you are may well be different than the price where others are it's hard to tell if you have the correct exchange rate. It looks like the 8080 is $800 to $900 here in the US. I could get the PT-023 for $330, or the Ikelite housing for $510. That puts the camera and Ikelite housing in your budget, and for the extra $180 I'd choose the Ikelite in a heartbeat. Of course there may be a bigger difference where you are. Right now you may think you don't need "advanced" features such as an external strobe but that may change down the road. Remember that the camera and housing are a package - if you upgrade to a better camera you'll also need to buy a new housing. That means that spending a bit more now may save you money later on. Adding an external flash will do wonders for UW shots. An Ikelite strobe will cost less than an Olympus strobe with the UW housing it will require (at least around here), and while you could use an Ikelite strobe with the Olympus housing you'll only get TTL capability with the Ikelite housing. The Ikelite will also let you add a dome port so you can use the Olympus wide angle conversion lens. I haven't seen any corroboration, but I've heard a report that the Olympus housings are prone to leaking after 50 dives or so. Ikelite has a very good reputation and with reasonable care a housing should last as long as the camera. Consider that in a year or two you may want more than you want now, so buying a bit more may be a good idea. You don't need to get a strobe or wide angle converter right away, but being able to add thenm to your existing gear is a lot cheaper than needing to upgrade to new gear. SignatureSteve The above can be construed as personal opinion in the absence of a reasonable belief that it was intended as a statement of fact. If you want a reply to reach me, remove the SPAMTRAP from the address. >> I have found the Olympus 8080 + PT-023 for around 1400$ (if i have the >> correct $ rate) > > Since the price where you are may well be different than the price where > others are it's hard to tell if you have the correct exchange rate. It Yep, prices in europe are high :( Specially here in denmark. > looks like the 8080 is $800 to $900 here in the US. I could get the > PT-023 for $330, or the Ikelite housing for $510. That puts the camera > and Ikelite housing in your budget, and for the extra $180 I'd choose > the Ikelite in a heartbeat. Of course there may be a bigger difference > where you are. Right now you may think you don't need "advanced" > features such as an external strobe but that may change down the road. True :) Trust me i would prefer Ikelite, but they are quite expensive here in europe :( > Remember that the camera and housing are a package - if you upgrade to a > better camera you'll also need to buy a new housing. That means that > spending a bit more now may save you money later on. Very true. > Adding an external flash will do wonders for UW shots. An Ikelite strobe > will cost less than an Olympus strobe with the UW housing it will > require (at least around here), and while you could use an Ikelite > strobe with the Olympus housing you'll only get TTL capability with the > Ikelite housing. The Ikelite will also let you add a dome port so you > can use the Olympus wide angle conversion lens. TTL capability ? Sorry i an a newbie can you explain. > I haven't seen any corroboration, but I've heard a report that the > Olympus housings are prone to leaking after 50 dives or so. Ikelite has > a very good reputation and with reasonable care a housing should last as > long as the camera. Hmm that does not sound good :( Can anyone confirm that ? > Consider that in a year or two you may want more than you want now, so > buying a bit more may be a good idea. You don't need to get a strobe or > wide angle converter right away, but being able to add thenm to your > existing gear is a lot cheaper than needing to upgrade to new gear. True, i have come to that conclusion as well. I have been told by a friend, that the 8080 housing is BIG and clumsy underwater, and very hard to add accesories to, is that true ? Best regards Søren Reinke > TTL capability ? Sorry i an a newbie can you explain. TTL stands for "through the lens" and refers to metering flash exposures in auto mode. With most good cameras the light meter measures the light coming through the lens. That's especially important if you've got interchangeable lenses or a zoom lens (you can measure exposure right at the center of the frame, in which case the focal length doesn't matter, but there's often a good reason to meter some place other than dead center). In the past the meter measured light that was reflected by the mirror in an SLR, but since the mirror has to swing up during the exposure it wasn't possible to meter the actual exposure. TTL refers to the ability to measure the light coming through the lens during the actual exposure. I'm pretty sure it was pioneered by Olympus around 1980, and they did it by measuring the light reflected by the film to light meters mounted just outside the perimeter of the lens. With the advent of electronics, both in the cameras and flashes, TTL metering allowed the flash output to be stopped as soon as enough light had reached the film (and now the sensor that records the digital image). With flash bulbs and older flashes (or newer flashes used in manual mode) once the flash was triggered you got 100% of its light output. A TTL compatible flash will be quenched somewhere between 0 and 100% of full output, when the meter thinks enough light has been captured. The camera isn't as smart as you are, so auto exposure doesn't always work, but that's something you can learn as you go. >> I haven't seen any corroboration, but I've heard a report that the >> Olympus housings are prone to leaking after 50 dives or so. > > Hmm that does not sound good :( > > Can anyone confirm that ? I think the idea is that the controls are the most likely problem spots and on cheaper housings the controls aren't as well made and/or can't always be serviced. Some housings have a flat gasket that isn't user serviceable instead of an o-ring. When I started shopping for an UW set up I thought $500 was pretty steep for a big lump of plastic, but once I got it and handled it I decided I got what I paid for. Ikelite does suggest having the housing checked (maybe they say "serviced" or something similar), so perhaps they expect some leakage as a normal result of prolonged use if the controls aren't serviced. It's also possible that most reported problems result from not following the suggested DIY maintenance. If you send an email to Olympus you may get a useful response. FWIW, the people who told me the Oly's are prone to leaks said they hear that lots of people just buy insurance and get a new camera every so often. That sounds like a reasonable strategy, except that I haven't seen a deal that's cost effective. The stuff I've seen would cost me about $100/year and it only pays 50% (or maybe it was a $200 deductible?) for flood damage. If my camera floods and they allow the full $500 price I'd only get $250, and $100 a year against a $250 risk isn't insurance I need. I decided that a good housing is the best insurance. As long as I'm on the subject, if it isn't lack of routine maintenance that causes a flood it will probably be a user problem while cleaning or closing the housing. A hair or piece of lint caught in the seal will almost certainly wick water into the housing, and salt crystals from letting sea water dry along the seal (or other controls) can deform the O-ring and cause a leak. Be scrupulous and avoid distractions when cleaning the seal and loading the camera, don't let the housing dry until it has been thoroughly rinsed with fresh water, and always hold the housing up and look for water near the beginning of the dive. Sooner or later you're going to have a leak, anyway, but if you have a clear housing and are vigilant an aborted dive may be the only consequence. SignatureSteve The above can be construed as personal opinion in the absence of a reasonable |
Enable EMail Alerts
Start New Thread
Reply to this Message