G9 or xti?

[KARELNIJEBOER]

Hi;
Thanks for these nice pics! Pretty nice. Of course the bigger one is nicer indeed. I am sure you can see the difference, but that is more on the level of noise then on the crispness/sharpness of the picture. The pictures on the G9 will in theory be always sharper in terms of depth of field, as the diaphragm is smaller typically.
I sis get the G9 with ikelite, very nice!

 

[vkalia]

A compact simply does not compare to a DSLR in ultimate picture quality - the greater resolution, better tonal rendering and better noise of DSLRs do matter. And I say this as someone who shoots with both a compact and DSLRs, both underwater and topsides.

Quality, however, is only one of the areas that a potential buyer needs to look at. Convenience, usability, ergonomics, affordability and intended usage are all things that need to be factored in when making a decision.

There are reasons to stick to a compact. Someone who doesnt want to deal with the bulk or learning curve of DSLRs will indeed make better pictures with a compact. OTOH, there are some types of shots that DSLRs are better handled to take (CFWA, 1:1 macro), etc.

I have a detailed article on this here:
DIVEIndia - Housed DSLR or compact camera for underwater photography

HTH.

Vandit

 

[f3nikon]

A compact simply does not compare to a DSLR in ultimate picture quality - the greater resolution, better tonal rendering and better noise of DSLRs do matter. And I say this as someone who shoots with both a compact and DSLRs, both underwater and topsides.

Quality, however, is only one of the areas that a potential buyer needs to look at. Convenience, usability, ergonomics, affordability and intended usage are all things that need to be factored in when making a decision.

There are reasons to stick to a compact. Someone who doesnt want to deal with the bulk or learning curve of DSLRs will indeed make better pictures with a compact. OTOH, there are some types of shots that DSLRs are better handled to take (CFWA, 1:1 macro), etc.

I have a detailed article on this here:
DIVEIndia - Housed DSLR or compact camera for underwater photography

HTH.

Vandit

DSLR or Compact - which is best for underwater use?

Good article!

Also to add that since most if not all U/W pictures will use a strobe or flash (to over come the blue cast) the higher ISO use (which is a no no in my book) will not be needed, so the lowest ISO setting (ideal) can be applied to keep the NOSIE down and will not be an issue.

And there seems to be a mental block on other threads on the issue of which camera represents the P&S group and which one represents the DSLR group.

With the lower end Reefmaster at 5mp with a 1.5 inch LCD min. representing ALL P&S and the latest Nikon or Canon 12mp large 3 inch LCD representing ALL DSLRs. Totally Disregarding the latest G9 or A series Canon P&S compact cameras.

 

[f3nikon]

Hi, Karel -

Yes, I kept my strobes; I was using DS125's and still am. Maybe when I recover from the financial shock of going SLR, I'll upgrade one....but that might take a while!

I am a bit bummed that I spent so long NOT going SLR. I can really tell a difference with my pics. Here is an example: coonstripe shrimp (local critter) G7 and 20D:

G7

20D

I think the second one is just a better pic anyways, less particulate and KRILL, of course, but the colors seem better in the SLR shot (no adjustments except a bit of lightening on both during post-processing), and the SLR shot is sharper all through (some of this may be due to the fact that I can use a smaller aperture on the SLR than is available on the G7.

I think you can take great pics on a G9, they are great cameras. But the SLR thing has just made me love UW photography all the more....

Good luck making your decision.

First thanks for sharing your images. To add to my post last posted above...

Or Blaming the P&S or compact for the final image quality when its really due (IMO) to the lack of technique.

The shrimp from the P&S could have been composed a lot better, is that the fault of the camera? Because the P&S shimp has a missing eye, is this the camera’s fault as well?

Or with regards “particulate” matter could you have moved in a bit closer to the subject to reduce this problem?

And the P&S image seems a bit over exposed causing the colors to shift, is that also the fault of the camera?

From reading many posts I am seeing a quite a few folks starting U/W photography after their open water cert. without the basic knowledge of even land photography. I’ am not saying this applies to you.

Most likely they will be using a P&S or compact camera as their “starter” camera, so they will be in fact learning photography with the P&S.

A better test is using the same fixed colorful object on land and taking the many pictures at different settings at the same angle and same light source with both types of cameras (latest P&S and DSLR) side by side, then compare the image quality.

 

[KARELNIJEBOER]

Hi;

I really like the diveindia story. Very neutral, and sound credible to me. I would not mind lugging a DSLR, but for me, an ethusiat diver with just 40 dives a year; this route is not practical; an disprportionally expensive.

Thanks, great article!

Karel

 

[vkalia]

Also to add that since most if not all U/W pictures will use a strobe or flash (to over come the blue cast) the higher ISO use (which is a no no in my book) will not be needed, so the lowest ISO setting (ideal) can be applied to keep the NOSIE down and will not be an issue.

If you are using flash as your primary source of illumination, then yes.

However, there are a few cases where you may find high ISO settings useful:
- if you are trying to balance flash and ambient lighting, as well as manage a realistic shutter speed
- if your working distance is long enough - with my 100mm macro lens, I often face working distances which push my twin Z240s to the limit when stopped down to f16
- if your strobes lack coverage for a scene - add in a diffuser, and use higher ISOs to make up for loss of power

Vandit

 

[MarkH]

For wide-angle photos in places other than the tropics, a DSLR is pretty much mandatory. I use a minimum ISO of 400 and often 1600 for deeper dives. Even then, there's often not enough light in the background. Also, a point-and-shoot doesn't have a wide enough lens so you would have to attach an add-on lens. This would cut down on the light entering the camera even further. If you just want to take casual close-up photos, then a point-and-shoot is probably all you need.

 

[f3nikon]

If you are using flash as your primary source of illumination, then yes.

However, there are a few cases where you may find high ISO settings useful:
- if you are trying to balance flash and ambient lighting, as well as manage a realistic shutter speed
- if your working distance is long enough - with my 100mm macro lens, I often face working distances which push my twin Z240s to the limit when stopped down to f16
- if your strobes lack coverage for a scene - add in a diffuser, and use higher ISOs to make up for loss of power

Vandit

I see your point but I will not move the ISO any higher than the lowest setting until the aperture and shutter speeds are totally exhausted or at their maximum settings for the correct exposure…even if they are at f2.8 or 1/15th of a second, the ISO to me is fixed.

In balancing the “flash and ambient lighting” a “realistic” shutter speed could be as low as 1/15th of a second, the reason being is that the background (openwater or a wall) exposure, for which the shutter speed is controlling is just negative space, the eye does not care if any of the distant “blue” shadowed objects are in focus or not.

The eye really cares about the foreground or subject itself and it must be in very sharp focus. This also gives more attention to the subject.

The rule of thumb for the minimum shutter speed to avoid a blurred picture, when handholding a camera is determine by the lens angle. For example a 15mm wide-angle lens can tolerate shutter speeds of 1/15th of a second, a 60mm lens as low as 1/60th, 100mm to 1/125th of a second and so on.

The eye (most of all the publisher’s eye) will not tolerate a grainy or noisy picture (due to higher ISO settings) unless it is a very rare one of a kind image, it will end up in the round file very fast!

Also if your twin strobes are at their maximum output at f16…open up the aperture! The 100mm is a macro lens there is no rule says that the depth of field should be as deep as possible by using small aperture openings.

What’s important is that the subject’s eye or foreground is in very sharp focus. Plus the fact that most P&S compacts can only go up to f 8.0 in aperture openings anyway.

And since adding a diffuser will cut down on the strobes power output (but increase the coverage) again open up on the aperture.

 

[vetdiver]

First thanks for sharing your images. To add to my post last posted above...

Or Blaming the P&S or compact for the final image quality when its really due (IMO) to the lack of technique.

The shrimp from the P&S could have been composed a lot better, is that the fault of the camera? Because the P&S shimp has a missing eye, is this the camera’s fault as well?

Or with regards “particulate” matter could you have moved in a bit closer to the subject to reduce this problem?

And the P&S image seems a bit over exposed causing the colors to shift, is that also the fault of the camera?

From reading many posts I am seeing a quite a few folks starting U/W photography after their open water cert. without the basic knowledge of even land photography. I’ am not saying this applies to you.

Most likely they will be using a P&S or compact camera as their “starter” camera, so they will be in fact learning photography with the P&S.

A better test is using the same fixed colorful object on land and taking the many pictures at different settings at the same angle and same light source with both types of cameras (latest P&S and DSLR) side by side, then compare the image quality.

Hi -

I agree that the dSLR pic is much better overall - said this from the very first post, in fact. As I stated, I was pointing out the differences in sharpness and coloration by posting the 2 pics. I really like the idea of using both topside to compare - I had the G7 first, then bought the dSLR on a whim. The G7 is quite a nice PnS, but in my opinion, the Eos just gives a better overall quality picture.

That said, I also agree that this is not the only consideration - neither is cost. I dove sans camera for many years, then brought a small PnS, then a strobe plus PnS, then 2 strobes plus PnS...you get the idea. I worked up to it. I think this was a good way to go, ultimately, but then, different strokes for different folks, eh?

Karel, with 40 dives a year, I just don't know...I dive 3-4 times a week, so the expense was justified, and it is my primary hobby (don't know if my husband would say the inconvenience is justified with camera gear on the kitchen counter half the time...). Plus, I am getting very strong hauling that huge rig through the surf on shore dives! A good PnS can cover almost everything - macro and basic WA (plus, you can get a wet lens and change to WA in the middle of a dive), and the Canon PnS has a very short min focal distance for macro. The convenience is really not matched with a dSLR!

At any rate, I'd like to hear what you decide. Please let us know, OK?

 

[f3nikon]

Hi -

I agree that the dSLR pic is much better overall - said this from the very first post, in fact. As I stated, I was pointing out the differences in sharpness and coloration by posting the 2 pics. I really like the idea of using both topside to compare - I had the G7 first, then bought the dSLR on a whim. The G7 is quite a nice PnS, but in my opinion, the Eos just gives a better overall quality picture.

That said, I also agree that this is not the only consideration - neither is cost. I dove sans camera for many years, then brought a small PnS, then a strobe plus PnS, then 2 strobes plus PnS...you get the idea. I worked up to it. I think this was a good way to go, ultimately, but then, different strokes for different folks, eh?

Well said I see your point, thanks for the feedback!