Opinions from experience please

[bvanant]

If it were me, I would get the Ike housing for the Flip-side video. For most beginners, video is a lot easier to get at the front end (the back end though not so much) and much more interesting to your friends.
Bill

 

[Puffer Fish]

Well, you guys have already exceeded my knowledge of RAW processing! I usually shoot in RAW, but let Picasa do it's thing with adjustment - I find with the Canon RAW it does a very passable job for viewing on my computer or TV. I did have a set of Hawaii pics I took in jpg and I took a look at the histogram and indeed there wasn't much red there and attempts to color adjust didn't do much good, whereas with the RAW from the same trip (and depth, no strobe) there was much more latitude, seen both in the histogram and the adjusted image. Thanks for that insight!

I wonder, would this comparative benefit narrow at all had I used a red filter?

Puffer, I'm not sure I understood your last point about shutter speed. Are you saying that even with both cameras focus- and exposure-locked, the high-end P&S will have a significantly faster shutter time than the cheaper cam? I don't have anything to compare to, but my old S70 seems plenty fast like that...

Me not making sense is nothing new, sorry.

There are two good things about P&S camera's over interchangeable lens ones:

1. Depth of field at a given field of view and F stop. The SLR people would tell you they have better control of depth of field, and they would be correct, except that they need to, because they have so much less of it.

2. The second is a bit more obscure. All focal plane camera's maximum flash sync at something between 1/125 to 1/250th (that I know of). I believe the micro four thirds are 1/160th maximum (to lazy to go look, sorry). If you want to cut out ambient light, you just have to increase the F stop. But, depending on the lens, after around F8, the image will degrade. By F16, you still have a nice image, but from an absolute quality point of view (not an internet image) one is now something below a really good P&S. And if you let ambient light in (assuming one is shallow and in clear water), then you are limited to the stop action of that 1/160th (which is not that good for really fast moving thing).

An LX-5 can flash sync up to 1/4000... the new fuji and the Oly will 1/2000. It varies with the canon's but they are at least 1/500th. Truth is, they need that because they don't have large number F stops, and they don't have those because they would make really crappy images. But for fast moving, underwater animals, you can freeze things that cannot be frozen with a SLR.

But you typically only get that with the higher end models...

It is not all good, by the way, as it can produce what I call the frozen fish look...

 

[Osric]

I wonder, would this comparative benefit narrow at all had I used a red filter?

In my opinion, using a red filter is like using channel mixer. A red filter will make white lite look red, and create better looking photos by reddening up the image. But the same can be accomplished by taking some percentage of the green channel and making it look red in photoshop. There's a good video about this that DevonDiver has posted several times, and you can make good looking pictures this way.

My objection to the approach is that you're essentially 'faking it'; you'll get red where there is none as well as where it really is. With the approach I am advocating, you get the colour that's there. You can still exaggerate it by mistake, or underemphasize it, but fundamentally what looks red had at least some red in it.

Osric

P.S. And because I can't resist, two color corrections of a mantis shrimp @ 84':

 

[Puffer Fish]

You know, one can always just do a manual white balance. Savings having to cutout all the light other than red or later work, and you get the same thing that raw is doing later. If diving under consistent depths, one only has to do it once per dive.

 

[Osric]

You know, one can always just do a manual white balance. Savings having to cutout all the light other than red or later work, and you get the same thing that raw is doing later. If diving under consistent depths, one only has to do it once per dive.

Yes, this would work really well too. I don't know which P&S cameras have a manual WB mode.

For photos like the mantis, I still like having the option to crop it in very close without loss of detail.

Osric

 

[spoolin01]

That fast sync feature sounds interesting - I've tried a few times to get pics of cleaner wrasse and other darty things, but I don't think camera performance is the only challenge for me there. That's why hawk fish are one of my most popular subjects.

In my opinion, using a red filter is like using channel mixer. A red filter will make white lite look red, and create better looking photos by reddening up the image. But the same can be accomplished by taking some percentage of the green channel and making it look red in photoshop. There's a good video about this that DevonDiver has posted several times, and you can make good looking pictures this way.

My objection to the approach is that you're essentially 'faking it'; you'll get red where there is none as well as where it really is. With the approach I am advocating, you get the colour that's there. You can still exaggerate it by mistake, or underemphasize it, but fundamentally what looks red had at least some red in it.

Osric

P.S. And because I can't resist, two color corrections of a mantis shrimp @ 84':

I'm going a bit out on a limb here again (which hasn't gone that well so far here...), but I wanted to ask about your comments on the quality of red-filtered images. It's not like mixing pigments, correct, the red filter can't add red light, or change the wavelengths, it just filters out some non-red, resulting in a more balanced mix, right? If that's the case, how does that differ from doing it post-exposure with Photoshop? From just the overall impression the images give, I've had good luck using red filters with film and digicams, and with U/W video (Kodak Zi8 and the older mini-DVD). I'm sure there's a learning curve component as well, but I've just spent probably 40+ hours adjusting and organizing 2000 pics from my last couple of Hawaii trips, just so they can be conveniently viewed by slideshow. For the slideshow, I just let Picasa do it's auto-adjustment to the RAWs, then made jpgs, with a little additional brightness adjustment for the worst of the lot. Then the slideshow and originals go on DVD for archive and sharing. It sure seems daunting to consider more detailed image-by-image adjustment on that scale. Doesn't the red filter do a good job at that, and would it be much different than a batch process post-exposure?

You know, one can always just do a manual white balance. Savings having to cutout all the light other than red or later work, and you get the same thing that raw is doing later. If diving under consistent depths, one only has to do it once per dive.

This is one thing I've never gotten in the habit of, since I've only shot jpg by accident. I've wished for this feature for video, but so far haven't gotten a rig where this can be done.

 

[bvanant]

There are two good things about P&S camera's over interchangeable lens ones:

1. Depth of field at a given field of view and F stop. The SLR people would tell you they have better control of depth of field, and they would be correct, except that they need to, because they have so much less of it.

2. The second is a bit more obscure. All focal plane camera's maximum flash sync at something between 1/125 to 1/250th (that I know of). I believe the micro four thirds are 1/160th maximum (to lazy to go look, sorry). If you want to cut out ambient light, you just have to increase the F stop. But, depending on the lens, after around F8, the image will degrade. By F16, you still have a nice image, but from an absolute quality point of view (not an internet image) one is now something below a really good P&S. And if you let ambient light in (assuming one is shallow and in clear water), then you are limited to the stop action of that 1/160th (which is not that good for really fast moving thing).

An LX-5 can flash sync up to 1/4000... the new fuji and the Oly will 1/2000. It varies with the canon's but they are at least 1/500th. Truth is, they need that because they don't have large number F stops, and they don't have those because they would make really crappy images. But for fast moving, underwater animals, you can freeze things that cannot be frozen with a SLR.

But you typically only get that with the higher end models...

I am not quite sure what to make of some of this. DSLR cameras have big sensors and P&S cameras have little sensors. Image quality with big sensors is much better than with small sensors. While the DOF of a large sensor (at the same viewing parameters) is smaller than with a P&S there is no lack of DOF with a DSLR that can shoot at F22 compared to my P&S that can only shoot at f8. Besides, the reason that DSLR folks talk about DOF is that they can make the DOF shallow for creative reasons, something that can not be gotten by most P&S cameras.
As for freezing the motion of an underwater fish, the sync speed of the camera to the strobe is totally irrelevant if you do it correctly; only the duration of the flash is important. This is of course not true if the ambient light is so bright that any reasonable shutter speed will lead to overexposure but for most practical situations shooting at 1/250 of a second at f16 will lead to minimal ambient exposure and you can capture the speed of almost anything you want. I personally have never wished for a higher sync speed than 1/250 except in the case of shooting a sunball and wanting to get a black background but trying to do that with a P&S is even more absurd. To me the biggest advantage aside from size of a P&S system is that you can shoot both macro and WA on the same dive. The disadvantage is that the IQ of the images that you will get will not be as good as those gotten with DSLRs. Of course not as good might still be way more than good enough, YMMV.

Bill Dive often and safe

 

[AussieByron]

Me not making sense is nothing new, sorry.

There are two good things about P&S camera's over interchangeable lens ones:

1. Depth of field at a given field of view and F stop. The SLR people would tell you they have better control of depth of field, and they would be correct, except that they need to, because they have so much less of it.

2. The second is a bit more obscure. All focal plane camera's maximum flash sync at something between 1/125 to 1/250th (that I know of). I believe the micro four thirds are 1/160th maximum (to lazy to go look, sorry). If you want to cut out ambient light, you just have to increase the F stop. But, depending on the lens, after around F8, the image will degrade. By F16, you still have a nice image, but from an absolute quality point of view (not an internet image) one is now something below a really good P&S. And if you let ambient light in (assuming one is shallow and in clear water), then you are limited to the stop action of that 1/160th (which is not that good for really fast moving thing).I have to disagree with you here puffer. Degradation of an image when shooting passed f8...........I find that unbelieveable. As an example in shooting macro, shoot between f22-f29 is the common practice and there is no degradation in the image.

1/160th for example will stop anything moving fast underwater. The fact is that a DSLR would be able to focus and shoot this fast moving subject at a much higher rate than a point and shoot. If in shallow water using ambient light and no strobes you can shoot the DSLR on continous.

An LX-5 can flash sync up to 1/4000... the new fuji and the Oly will 1/2000. It varies with the canon's but they are at least 1/500th. Truth is, they need that because they don't have large number F stops, and they don't have those because they would make really crappy images. But for fast moving, underwater animals, you can freeze things that cannot be frozen with a SLR.
As bill said the only time where you need really high sync speeds is when your shooting direct into the sun and want to capture a perfect sunburst. DSLR are limited to their flash sync speed which is normally 1/200th-1/250th and up to 1/500th on some models but the DSLR has the ability to use a small aperture (higher f-stop) than the limited f8 of a point and shoot. But for shooting fast underwater animals one can not compare the DSLR focusing speed in capturing the subject.

Here is a shot taken at f32 of a fast moving Clownfish. The image looks as good at full size as it does as a small internet image.

1/200th f9 on a fast moving eagle ray.

Regards Mark

 

[Osric]

I'm going a bit out on a limb here again (which hasn't gone that well so far here...), but I wanted to ask about your comments on the quality of red-filtered images. It's not like mixing pigments, correct, the red filter can't add red light, or change the wavelengths, it just filters out some non-red, resulting in a more balanced mix, right?

I guess my answer is I'm not sure! I thought that a red filter made white things look red, and therefore was like using channel mixer to get red from the other wavelengths, but I don't have a red filter to try it.

Osric

 

[PatW]

Well on the cost of cameras, it isn't the camera that is expensive. For DSLR's almost all of the Ikelite housings cost about $1400 plus another $400 for a couple of housings plus $1200 for a couple of strobes, so before you buy the camera, you have $3000 in the system. So it does not make sense to buy a cheap camera.

In your situation, a camara that does Manual and RAW would make a big difference. But you have a system, you might as well use it.

I would suggest using your camera in shallow, calm situations without current. That way, the diving will be easier. Also in shallow waters, you will have more light and more natural colors. Only use a camera when you feel comfortable.

Also, underwater photography puts a huge premium on buoyancy skills.

Another thing that would help would be to grow another pair of arms. I always seem to have too few when I use my camera. I will have to work on that one.