Digital Photography Question

I am looking at getting into the world of underwater digital photography. On land I am dedicated to my SLR but want something more compact for underwater use. I was wondering what your opinions are on using digital cameras desigend to be used underwater(ie. sea and sea dc3000) as oposed to cameras designed to be used on land inside of a housing. I will be using the camera exclusivly for diving so on land concerns should not be an issue. I look forward to hearing your views.

A few points here:

If you love your SLR topisde, you will likely have some serious frustration working with lower end digital cameras and even some of the higher end prosumer cameras.

This is different than people who are entering UW photography with no SLR expereince (as many here are), where they don't have the SLR experience and methods to compare with. In this case they are generally entering photography or are using thier land digital camera and are comfortable with the methods used to get the best image from the camera and are not used to the available setting and functions and the 'no shutter lag' SLR experience.

I guarentee you will not be happy with the dedicated UW cameras as their resolution and picture quality will not be something you will be pleased with - especially compared to film and your SLR. They occasionally produce a decent image (especially for those who use them extensively), but most of the time it is more of a 'even a blind dog finds a bone once in awhile' type experience. Limited settings - basically they all shoot in a 'Auto' type mode with very little control from the photographer.

Honestly, for you to be happy you would be better off buying a DSLR that utilizes your current lens set (I am assuming Nikon or Canon) and buying a housing and strobe (or strobes) for that setup.

Yes, that will be expensive, but you will make it up in replacing the cost of film & developing in no time and in not incurring the cost of upgrading a cheaper setup when it doesn't meet your expectations.

If you don't want to spend this amount of $$$, then you should be thinking of at least a Olympus 5050 setup + strobe. At this level you wont reach your frustration point anywhere near as quickly as you would with the cheaper set up (although you still will eventually)

M

Agree a lot with Marriard, but...maybe you don't want to spend that money or get into UW Photo as much as you are into land photo.

I would still head for the Oly 5050 type rig. If you want an even less expensive option, have a look at the Canon A series. It is missing RAW, but its shutter lag is not too great (I think my A70 has less lag than my Oly 5050) and you can add external strobes & lenses to make a truly flexible system. You can control all settings through the housing and you have manual control. Check out LukeRob's gallery for examples from the A70.

It's nice and small and does a great job.

It's not the tool, it's the artist...

Just my two cents...there are so many options out there that you are bound to get a ton of suggestions - good luck and enjoy!!

After trying a Nikon 990 when it first came out I was totally turned off to digital cameras; coming from a SLR base (Minolta for 20 yrs, the last 10 with Nikon, as well as a Pentax 6X7 MF slr) I couldn't stand the shutterlag as well as the lack of resolution to get a shot up to my quality standards. After picking up my Fuji S2 in March , (actually a step down in bodies from my N90s) I have shot 6 frames of Provia and that just to finish the roll off to get it developed. In the mean time, I'm at 2000+ shots w/ the Fuji both above and below water in 8 1/2 months. That would have cost ~ $890 worth of film and proccessing, not counting my time to scan them afterwards. The absolutely total lack of grain from the Fuji lets you make enlargements equal or better than 35mm film. I've been having a blast with my Canon 9900 printing 13X19's that are better than anything I have scanned from 35mm. At that scaling, the grain in the film , and this is Provia mind you, gets in the way of it's slightly higher "Technical" resolution so when you actually look side by side with a 35 film vs. a DSLR print, the digital print "looks" sharper.
You still could get a housing for your film cam and skip the cost of having to buy a new camera, housing, etc. A major part of good U/W photography is being familiar with your camera. If this is something you are only going to take out a couple times a year, the menu's and settings and buttons are going to take up more time (air) for you to remember vs. a camera you know like the back of your hand. Just something else to think about.
The downside is, that a SLR housed rig is HUGGGE !!!!. I often times envy the people with their Oly's w/ their Pt ... housings hanging off there wrists while I have this massive robotic contraption to deal with. Also, when you choose a lens w/ a SLR you're stuck with it for the duration of the dive. If you decide to shoot macro with your 105mm you're going to see a Whale shark. If you're going W/A you're going to find the Jawfish mouthing it's eggs. Zooms can only work in the "middle ground".
Choices,choices; but in any event don't go w/ the S&S if you decide to go the P&S route. Get a good 5-6 MP consumer digicam and a housing for it.

Digital or film the same rules apply. I was brought up on the Chris Newbert style of U/W Photography. Tack sharp focus, correct exposure (background and subject), min. shadows, low grain film and perfect composition.

The camera well suited for this has always been an SLR with an Actionfinder/Speedfinder, in manual mode, factory lens, bracketing the exposures, multi. strobe setup.

The advantage I see in digital is than you can take more pictures and more opportunities to learn, which is what U/W Photography is all about.