Another topic here recently mentioned the issue of shooting digital vs. film underwater.

While I've yet to shoot digital underwater myself (just ordered my Mako housing for my Sony PC-100 - it'll be low resolution stills compared to what's out there though), I've seen results and they are quite nice, and the immediacy is great.

The April 2001 (I think it was that issue) of Popular Photography had a large overview of digital vs. film, but didn't address underwater photography in any way.

Comments, thoughts?

Jake

My thoughts on this subject; I would never consider switching except for some serious issues underwater, the most frustrating one being framing. Last March in Belize I was luckly enough to have a VW size Loggerhead Turtle swim directly over me, I had my Reefmaster Camera ready and took one picture at a distance and the second when he was about 4' from me. I thought I had a "once in a lifetime shot", NOT, one was to far and the second I only caught a fin in the frame. Both of these errors I attribute to not being able to see the picture before I squeezed the trigger. This never happens out of the water with a SLR. I also have boxes of shots with missed focus. Alot of these errors can be attributed to training but even now that I have corrected some of these problems, framing continues to rear it's ugly head. I also realize that underwater photography is very challeging and I should expect to throw out most of the shots, but this is ridiculous.

Then I thought about digital; Advantages, LCD screen for framing and focusing, automatic focusing, macro/zoom lens built in, quick editing and downloading, print only good pictures, MPG movies if required, ability to switch film speeds on the fly, stores lots of pictures, less use of flash/more natural light pictures. Disadvantages, resolution, potential loss of pictures (bad memory), how to get good prints, storage/archiving of pictures, initial cost (camera + UW housing). Probably a few others on both sides.

What I've found so far; Ellen e-mailed me today and she uses a Sony DSC-P1 Specifications with a Sony UW housing. In my searches this afternoon starting from the UW housing side (made more sense than starting with a great digital camera that you can't get a UW housing for), she has got the best choice for cost vs. quality, it's 3.3 Megapixel camera that with 64 meg memory and UW housing can be had for under $1,000. We're going to do a comparsion of the quality and will post the results.

We've also seen the shots Jason posted (via his bro Kelly) elsewhere here on BonaireTalk using the Olympus C-3000 (I think). Very nice macro capability.

What I find appealing (at least until I try it, no doubt) about the digital is the immediacy - I get out of the water, open the housing, pop out the memory stick, pop that into my computer, and poof, I have access to my photos... I'll play with my housed DVCam in mid August and look forward to sharing the results here!

Speaking of which, I have a Subal housing for a Nikon 8008s/801s along with a couple of dome ports and two camera bodies for sale :-) (E-mail me if you're interested - if the buyer comes to Bonaire I'll even include a lesson or two with the camera housing!)

Jake

Interesting topic guys. I had been looking into changing my camera equipment and was thinking about digital cameras as well. Then I made the mistake of renting an UW dideo camera. Now my thoughts are turning to a digital video camera with a snapshot option. I know I will lose some resolution on the stills but with boxes of old prints laying around I wonder if giving up some resolution in exchange for having to keep only "great shots" and moving video images is not worth it. Any thoughts?

Further to what Jake's posted and for more of what a digital (Olympus C-3030) can do (under the water on on the surface) I suggest visiting Jay's website www.kasdivi.com

As promised, Cecil, here is a link to a great site dedicated solely to digital underwater photography. WetPixel.Com. Lots of examples from different digital cameras and housings and the photographers comments about their setups.

Someone posted a link awhile back to Sean Ansorge's underwater pictures from his latest trip to Bonaire all taken with a Sony DCS S70 and Ikelite Housing. He also includes some comments and complaints about this camera. Here is the link to his pictures. Sean Ansorge's Pictures

Digital versus film.... interesting... yes I haved had some fun..with my 3030 in a tetra housing. observations:
1). Ability to correct... I can take some shots and go back and change settings and see what is happening. neat.. with good results. I think this is the ONLY major advanage of shooting digital unless you are shooting for web page and publications (which I have been) (Ok I forgot to mention the digital editing)...
2) Slow release... Don't care what the setting... the shutters on digital don't seem to respond as quickly.
3) Focus... I have not found that my focus on digital is as consistently sharp as slide...

The other advantages I have experiences has come from moving to a Nikonsis to a house camera with zoom... that is a major improvement..

Overall plans: probably get wide angle for nikonsis and continue playing with the digital setup

First off thanks Ellen, great links. Jason, I went to your site and love the pictures, great quality. I did some more research on quality and prices, looking from my requirements. I've eliminated the to pricing, and low end (low resolution or no zoom) and come up with the following three choices

Olympus C-3040 Zoom Digital Camera $640 3.15 megapixels, 3x zoom, 1.8" LCD, Min focus 7.87"
64mb card $199
Ikelite Housing $750

Total $1589

Sony Cybershot DSC-P1 $579 2.79 megapixels, 3x zoom, 1.5" LCD, Min focus 3.94"
64mb card $139
Marine Pack $249

Total $967

Canon Powershot S300 ELPH $460 1.92 megapixels, 3x zoom, 1.5" LCD, Min Focus 6.3"
64mb card $149
Waterproof Case $287

Total $896

The prices are from PCs 4 Less (except for Ikelite Housing). The min. focus numbers are in air, only God and an optical engineer knows what that distance is underwater. Still looks like the Sony is the best choice.

Actually, Cecil, you can get the marine pack for the Sony DSC P1 for $199.95 and I've seen them as low as $157.00 and a 64mb memory stick for $99.95.

I have been trying to talk Cecil out of buying the Sony DSC P1 setup, which I use, but it doesn't seem to be working! The more inexpensive housings are all for digital point and shoot cameras and I just think the results would be more satisfying with a digital camera with more photographic options like the Canon G1, Sony DSC S75 or S85, Olympus 3040Z, Nikon Coolpix 990 etc.. Of course the housings for these cameras are more expensive but like they say...you get what you pay for.

If you do decide on the Sony, Cecil, I would order the housing right away. They have been out of stock at all the online stores for over two months and they are now in stock!

I should point out that this is just an academic exercise for myself, I wouldn't be buying anything until the fall at the earlest. The other point is I am only looking for an underwater camera, I'll probably stick with an 35mm SLR for above water. I may change my mind after I get a digital.

The two biggest reasons I still like the Sony is the price and size. I'm not a dedicated underwater protographer, I'm just a tourist that wants good pictures. If I was the former, I would own a Nikonos now instead of a Reefmaster. I like the idea that I can clip this little guy to my BC when I'm not taking pictures, and at the same time, if I want a good picture of a Banded Shrimp, I've got a shot at it. I realize that my pictures are not National Geographic quality but they aren't that good above water either (there I use the same equipment). My $.02 ($.03 Canadian).

Ellen,

Is the Marine Pack housing sturdy? I showed my husband the Sony DSC P1 and now he's almost sure he'd like to have it (it'd be a birthday/Christmas present), but we have some reservations about the housing's holding up at depth. Why are you trying to dissuade Cecil?

Although pricey, I have to say that I think the Tetra Housing is worth the additional $200+ over the Ikelite. The ports/lenses that Light and Motion have add a lot and their case is compact and extremely easy to dive with. They have flexibility as to what strobe you may want to use it with..

Depth has been NO issue.... nor do I see ever being one....

Actually, Susan, now that Cecil has stated above what he wants out of an underwater camera the Sony would be perfect for his needs. I had thought that in comparing digital to film that a camera with more photographic options would produce results closer to what a film camera can do.

I agree with Jason on all his observations about digital, with the exception of digital being only good for the web, especially with the new 3.3 megapixel cameras available now. I have printed out an 8x10 image and the quality is great. There is a 1.5 second shutter lag on this camera that can be frustrating when trying to photograph a swimming fish.

I have made 13 dives with the camera and housing and have had no problems with the housing.

There is a filter kit, arm and video light available for this camera. I use only the camera and housing and get the best results above 40ft and preferably with lots of sunlight. I don't use the built in flash because I have been told it produces terrible backscatter. So if you wanted to take pictures at a greater depth I would definitely recommend getting the filer kit and light.

Ellen, a question about the Sony; If you hold the shutter down halfway, I've was told would minimize the shutter delay, true or false?

I went down to Circuit City at lunch to play with these cameras. My God that Sony is tiny (so is the Canon), some concern about losing it. The LCD screen is very small, seems like the viewfinder would be better above water. It should be big enough under water. Still looks like a winner, time to write my Christmas/Birthday want list.

Cecil,
What Circuit City did you go to? We did a web search yesterday and it said they were out of stock in Nashua and Burlington MA.

Cecil, pressing the shutter halfway down is a must and works just fine on land but is impossible underwater. You are right about the LCD. With my bad eyesight, I tend to use the optical viewfinder on land but the magnification underwater makes the LCD fine to use.

If you are concerned about losing the camera definitely consider buying Sony's carrying case for the camera. It's only $20.00 and has a zippered compartment to carry an extra battery, memory sticks etc.

BUSTED, you're good Susan, now I've got to fess up. I didn't play with the P1, I fondled two of the other Sonys that were the same as the P1 except for resolution. I was looking for feel, next time I start playing with the features. The guy at the store said the P1 was discontinued, that I don't believe and if true it will be replaced with an equivalent.

Ellen, interesting about the shutter release, in my limited playing with the camera here, I found myself keeping the button partial depressed while I was framing. To bad that doesn't work underwater, you don't have the feel through the UW housing. If I ever get one, it will end up stuffed in the big camera bag with the SLRs, lens, flash, film, change of clothes, bug spray, sun tan lotion, sun glasses, book, binoculars .. etc. You get the idea, and if I really like it, I'll put it in a sock for protection. I pretty hard on my photography equipment (UV filter, Ha, no way), but I've been doing it that way for 30+ years, haven't broken or scratched a lens yet (knock on wood).

One other quick question; Getting and using a polarizing filter is not a problem?? The one filter I do believe in.

Cecil,

I wasn't trying to trip you up, just wanted to know where to go to get the little sucker! Ain't instant gratification grand! I hope the guy at the store was only saying that because he wanted to sell you some other model, though.

Ellen,

That's good to know about the LCD under water.

Like Cecil, we aren't serious underwater photographers, but like the idea of digital UW cameras. We have an early Camedia, a 2000 model, which is quite nice for our purposes. We're happy with digital - most of the photos on my web pages were taken with the Camedia then cooked down - but would like to go to higher res/better zoom capabilities for our next camera, and getting that with relatively cheap but good UW housing is even better.

Cecil, you can not attach any filters to the P1. It is definitely just a point and shoot camera and has a retracting lens cover. The filter kit is for the housing.

Susan, you can find the P1 online. B&H Photo Video has the camera and housing available and is a reputable online dealer.

In all this discussion and I must admit digital specifications are very confusing to me - I borrowed the one the station has for our Colorado Bonaire-Talk BBQ on Friday and it's an Olympus C3000. Does anyone know if this is a good digital camera? I'm STILL waiting for the person who has the software to save the pictures. I'm afraid she will forget and delete them!

Gail, I have found the Digital Photography Review website a fantastic source of information on digital cameras. They have extensive reviews, forums, buyer's guide, sample images, comparisons etc.

As far as filters go, one feature of digital imaging is that you can 'filter' the stored image with a photo program such as Adobe's new Photo Elements so that a filter on the camera is unnecessary. After all, a filter does cut down the amount of light getting to the CCD and is likely to be optically imperfect and so degrades image quality.

Cecil, I own a Reefmaster, too - bought it the day after I got certified. The framing thing was frustrating, and made me go out and get a Sea&Sea MMII-EX with a couple strobes, some sea arms, and a couple lenses. It's a bit of stuff to drag through the water, but the Hi-eyepoint viewfinder nails the framing perfectly, the shutter goes at the exact moment I push the button, and I've scanned 4x6 prints on a flatbed and made gorgeous (sharply focused, non pixelated) 24"x36" prints on my Epson 7000 printer. I've made some posters for people from their digital cameras, but haven't seen the same results that I can get from a scanned snapshot.(BTW, in my experience, an ink jet print on photo quality media, printed at 720 dpi or greater, needs to be about as many megs as the short dimension of the print in inches - 8"x10" needs to be 8megs, etc. Even 36 megs of storage can only give ya about 18 Jpegs of any real quality) To sum this up, I'm staying in the "dark ages" with film until there is an actual digital equvalent.

According to a Kodak person I talked with at MacWorld Expo this week that will be 'forever'. Just never going to get enough pixels/inch to be equivalent. Certainly not in a 'consumer' camera. 35mm film is a marvelous ROM.

Agree with both of you, it's about impossible to beat 35mm for resolution (well 2-1/4"x2-1/4" will). The real question I have is; How much is enough? Maybe an anology is called for. Have you ever talked to a serious Audiophile (people really into music), they go on and on about fidelity and gain and say listen to this. Sounds like a stereo to me, I just can't hear what they are talking about and I think they spend all that money for nothing (well nothing I can hear). Maybe that's what is happening to us semi-serious photographers we are spending to much time chasing pixels we don't need.

Another aspect that we are missing is the instant feedback we would get from digital. Many experts claim that will greatly enhance the learning process and make us all better photographers.

I've got two rolls in for developing right now, I've been doing some experiments with resolution and framing. If those bass from yesterday don't come out, I'm going to make a frisbee out of that Reefmaster.

Cecil,

Never say never. I would agree that with current CCD technology it may be difficult to beat the 12+ Megapixels of 35mm film on a single CCD, but there are other technologies in the works I seem to recall having read about in a recent IEEE journal which will allow the next major leap in resolution.

Even with current CCD technology, combined with dedicated processors, it could also be possible to use a multi-mirror system to divide an incoming image across multiple CCDs and then have the CPU splice everything together for storage...

I did a presentation for HP's internal scanner summit about 4 years ago, reflecting on the current state of consumer scanner technology, along with a wishlist of what future image capture would look like, and I tell ya, a lot of my wishlist items have become reality in the last year.

Never mind that for most folks, 3.3 megapixel resolution will be more than they ever need.

Jake

Cecil, you're dead-on right about how much is enough? One's ultimate purposes for captured images has to be weighed in a digital vs film decision. However, the demand I see over the retail counter of my photo shop for cropped enlargements from snap-shooters' images makes me believe digital will have to catch-up with film's resolution before disppointments with sharpness go away. 35mm film has set-up our expectations for image clarity since the 1930's, and I've already seen disappointments over enlargements from APS film (60% the size of 35mm), no less digital point and shooters. I hope the general snapshooting public will ultimately force the digital imagery industry to meet the standards of film for clarity, and Jake's comment above gives me hope.

As if this resolution stuff isn't enough of a bugaboo, tonal range capabilities is another dilemna. We can "print through" over exposed negatives and under exposed chromes, but it's my impression that digital clipping is the reason Hollywood and MTV and serious print media people stay with film for now. I recently had a large order of reprints from a digital camera returned for a refund because of "clipped highlights" on peoples faces in pictures taken in broad daylight. My customer was surprised how offensive the effect was in a print even after I showed her that the problem could even be seen on a computer monitor. Sorry to open another can of worms, but I wonder what those UW shots will look like when you point the camera upward to get the effect of "light rays" streaking into the water through the waves up above (one of my favorites) on digital.

Don,

Good point on consumer expectations with digital (especially cheap digital).

But, using Hollywood as an example actually goes against your point. In most movies these days, at least some part of the movie is stored digitally (sure, shot on film initially, but then scanned). After being digitized, each frame of the 24 per second is then usually manipulated to add special effects, remove things not wanted in the scene, etc. After all this is completed, the scene may be blended with some CG content, and then is reshot to film using a film recorder.

Jake

Jake,
Actually you went against your own point there.. Holywood still presents using 35mm has the source of the image... and in addition they have the advantage of using the multiple frames per second of view to add even more depth and resolution..Yes they can digitize and play with the individual frames but in most cases this is added to the original stock as and overlay..then in the end the whole thing is return to the medium for purpose of projection/viewing.. Personally, along the lines Don said, I see myself shooting a combination depending on what I intend to use the end product for...I do look forward the about two generation ahead in digitals.. say around 20 meg or so... hmmmmm

Ansel Adams explains this "tonal range" thing better than I could in his book "The Negative". I was trying to point out that when you take a picture, the scene has a range of tones from the shadows to the highlights. It's my impression that film has the edge for capturing more of those tones than any current electronic capture mechanisms, and that's why Hollywood keeps Eastman in business making film.

BTW, I love the digital aspect of imaging. Sandwiching multiple scans (density brackets) on layers in Photoshop, and then erasing the unwanted areas of each area is so much easier than standing in a darkroom waving cardboard paddles over photo paper during an exposure. And when you add unsharp masking, etc, to the mix it's pure heaven. (And your fingernails don't turn brown from being in too much chemistry.) ;)

And the results don't hold a match flame to Ansel or Edward Weston or any of the greats with the brown fingernails!!! In image definition and pure enjoyability. 'Two different worlds...'

And films are different. Years ago Kodak was making a black and white film for the government that had multiple emulsion layers, with different, overlapping sensitivity ranges. The result was a film which showed detail over a range of light levels several times that of a single layer emulsion. Excellent for photo recconaisance. The example I saw showed detail in the shadows under a car in the sunlight and in the highlights of sun reflection. Talk about 'tonal range'. I think something similar is now in their 'Max' films.

Ah, the Max films. I love them. When little old ladies or the rankest of amateurs come into my store looking for 400 ASA film, I sell them Max film for cheaper than any other 400 ASA that I stock. It's worth it just to know that when they bring it back for prosessing I won't have to sell them nasty, contrasty prints. My wife and daughter have used a lot of Max film in our ReefMaster, and the look of some of their pics has made me wonder if the shot came from my MMII's Gold 100.

Comments on the future of HD digital imaging in Phil Nyutten's column in the June '01 SKIN DIVER p.46, w/ a continuation in Sep. He talks of the future of HDTV and what he calls 'prosumer' 'photo-quality' imaging. Bottom line is better definition coming for lots of dollars, as in several 10's of thousand $, 3 chip video cameras. The Panasonic camera he refers to has an MSRP of $60k plus a $40k housing. An interesting read, in any case.

Great comments Jason, Glen and Don. You have not convinced me, in fact from what I'm hearing about digital is sounding better and better. Let me explain. You guys are telling me that the film is getting better due to the extra emulsion layers which is great but leads me to conclude that a good digital (>3 megapixels) is as good as the older 35mm films (Kodachome, Kodacolor and Ectachrome). I've been using those films for 30+ years and have been very satisified with the results, my walls are plastered with great prints from these films (as I'm sure yours are too).

None of the above has addressed my most serious concern with 35mm, how to frame and get resonable macro shots. I love the thought of getting a 3x macro lens for the Reefmaster that focuses at 9" and no other distance. The only way to get a good picture is a metal frame that I have to put around the subject. Oh yeah, that's going to work with a Frog Fish. Hopefully no one will say "But that's the way we always did it." There's got to be a better way than spending half the bottle getting one good macro shot.

Anyway, here's my very unscientific experiment. I took a couple of Lily pictures with the 1.3 megapixel digital and a 35mm SLR using 200 ASA Kodak Max film. The first pictures are the uncropped pictures the second group are equal blow-ups or her whiskers.

Digital 35mm




The 35mm certainly has better resolution (but not by much), if you look at grain size vs. pixel size, but the digital picture is better overall. Why because I took 4 pictures with the digital before I got one I liked (deleted the others). I took two with the 35mm, didn't know which was best until a week later. I did miss the focus on the 35mm and did not give it enough depth-of-field which is operator error, I was using my least favorite 35mm.

ps. The bass pictures did come out, so I'm not throwing away the Reefmaster just yet.

Cecil, I will not disagree with you on digital as far as rapid access to photo results... but also remember.. you were shooting ISO 200... not exactly the highest quality to start with. Are the blowups using scanned images or did you work from the negative on the 35mm??

Scanned from 4"x6" prints, whisker area scanned at 600 dpi. Same amount of enlargement. Enough so that I could see the grain on the film (which are the little dots in the blow-up).

To supplement what I was trying to say; If I can get enough resolution in order to get a good 11"x14" blow-up of the picture that should be good enough (Consumer Reports also say this about a 2 megapixel camera). That's all I was ever able to get out of a good 35mm negative all these years.

Just an added note: There are quality differences in photo print vendors, in flat-bed scanners, and in operators of Photoshop...

It all boils down to what you are happy with. If you are happy with 'the cat's whiskers' images, then that is your system.

The camera is only the first element in making a viewable image. All the devices used between the object and the eye contribute. The sharpness can be no better than the worst of these. Scanners, ink-jet printers and digital projectors can't match an optical projector and slides. And a Reefmaster is not a Nikon, Canon or Leica, and doesn't pretend to be. Comparing a high-pixel digital with a low-end 35mm not focused and with too shallow depth of field under different lighting conditions (overexposed on the film) hardly leads to a definitive answer between 35mm film and digital systems. Unfortunately, 35mm is more expensive, especially for macro. It always comes down to what you want the equipment to do, and better or more, in whatever way 'better' or 'more', almost always costs more. Framing and focusing macro without wires means seeing the image: through-the-lens-viewing and perhaps autofocus: an LCD on digital cameras or an SLR (or a view camera, like the one used to take the first u/w pics). Someone here posted pictures of a shrimp in an anemone taken with a digital camera. Don't know how much of the bottle that cost but perhaps it is your solution.

The extra emulsion layers don't increase sharpness in the final image (which is really the question between digital and film here) they increase the tonal range. In fact, the extra layers will reduce sharpness, in general, because more layers, more scattering of the light passing through. I still doubt that any digital image (after all, that is what we look at!) will ever equal Kodachrome 25 35mm slide film images--too many 'pixels' in K25.

Agree with everything you say Glen and what's funny about this is I have always argued from the other side. It would drive me crazy when someone would show me a 126 or 110 picture and say that it would look good blown up. No it wouldn't, all you see is grain. I hate giving up resolution, but at this point in my life, underwater time is to precious (way to precious). I need a UW camera, I can get close and far with resonable chance of getting what I'm shooting in frame, and focused and if I have to give up some resolution to get it, so be it. Here's a million dollar idea that will never make a dime, put a LCD/CCD camera on a 35mm UW SLR camera, best of both worlds.

Somewhere recently I read that the optics for digital and film cameras have fundamental differences due to the differing characteristics of the CCD and film. Something about parallel rays from the lens for digital compared to the 'crossing' rays for film. Thus making it difficult to add a digital back to a film system. Will try to locate the words. Or perhaps someone else can enlighten us.

D30 vs Provia100F

Not for Cecil! The Canon EOS-D30 digital SLR is a $3,000 camera.

Good article, Ellen, Thanks for finding it. Digital better than film, who would have thought, I'd settle for even or not losing to much.

Glen I have seen digital backs for SLRs, I was thinking of a CCD camera looking at the focusing glass in a SLR for preview and framing purposes. Use film for the actual picture. Speaking of really stupid ideas, Kodak makes a camera that you take the picture digitally, preview it and then the camera prints the image to film. Talk about the worst of both worlds.

Cecil,

Maybe what you want is a small digital still camera looking through the SLR viewfinder. The image for the photographer would be larger and brighter, good enough for framing and focus. You could post-view the pic you took on the film and in digital memory.

Then you can have the best of both worlds. Good framing; large, bright image; speed of digital for immediate post-viewing and the final quality of an optically printed film image as well as a digital image without scanning. Now, with a couple of brackets and a special housing...

One flaw in the comparisons here and in Ellen's article, as I see it, is the comparison of an all digital image with a 35mm film image then scanned to digital. That is one way of producing a photo but not really a comparison of digital versus traditional film images which are optically presented to the viewer, either through a projector or an enlarger and paper. My comments above were directed to the latter sort of comparison. And I think Cecil was at least unconsciously starting from there when he spoke of 'prints from film' on his walls. With the added caveat of projecting on a smooth surface: a beaded screen significantly degrades an image at normal living room projected image sizes. Sometime try comparing the same image projected onto a beaded screen and a piece of smooth foamcore. You will be surprised, I think, at the difference in definition. Not as bright or viewable over as wide an angle--you takes your choice.

In the continuing series of printed comment, in Ocean Realm, Spring '00 p.75, Alex Broder talks to improving digital imaging.

Maybe I can bumber sticker my problem with 35mm by showing my rather extensive library of Banded Shrimp pictures. The first is a pair of shrimp side-by-side down in the coral, the fact that I saw them and got my dive partner to see them is amazing, the second is a shrimp outside his cave in St. Martin and the third is Divemaster Tom (in St Martin) carefully putting one in his hand so I could get a picture.







Great resolution doesn't help if you can't get the picture.

A couple of new toys to consider:

1) Minolta has just come out with a 4.5 Megapixel SLR - around $1500.

2) USA Today yesterday (Wednesday) did a feature piece on new digital cameras (the Minolta was one of the ones listed), and included overview of a Canon digital camera (cost around $400) for one which could also buy an UW housing from Canon (cost around $300 as I recall), good to 100 feet

Getting more interesting all the time :-)

Jake

PS I just saw an ad for a $250 Epson printer in Pop Photo which has slots for every kind of digital film, and can print directly from the memory card thus inserted. Even prints thumbnails of all the photos on the cards, and for another $100 you can get a color LCD preview monitor to attach to the printer. Oh, and you can hook it up to a PC too :-)

Jake, If you mean the new Minolta Dimage 7 it is a 5.2 megapixel camera and don't forget the Fujifilm FinePix 6900Z that produces a 6 megapixel image from a 3.3 megapixel Super CCD!

Ellen: I just picked up the Fuji FinePix 6800Zoom unit a few weeks ago and have been "experimenting' with it and just love it. It fits into a shirt pocket...great little camera. Stills, video w/ audio, audio and teleconfrencing, too. Instant gratification and great quality, too. Wonderful! Have to get used to it as this is my first digital after years of lugging around my beloved "2-ton" Nikons, etc. Can't wait to put it to use Thanksgiving week when Joe and I return again. Hope to see you that week. Need anything this time around? Let me know. We will have less luggage as it will only be one week, but we can usually find room for "small" items.

Jake: You're making me froth at the mouth.....I am in the market for a new printer to go with our new souped up computer and my new Fuji Digital camera....every time I turn around there is another "new" and wonderful printer on the market. I am going nuts trying to figure out which one to buy...I need it for the photos as well as general printing. Mostly the photos, tho. There are just sooo many good ones out there. I will have to check out the couple you have posted here. Some of the ones I was looking at are running about $1,000 or so. Steep, but might be worth it in the long run. Have to weigh it all out. Thanks for the info. Carole

Jake: When I was researching for my digital camera purchase, the Canon, Minolta and new Fuji were the three highly recommended by my buddy who owns a camera shop. I was handling all three the day I bought the Fuji. They all have great features...some have features the others don't have, but I went with the 6.0 Million Pixel, etc, in the long run. (The Fuji FinePix 6800Zoom). It was a tough decison, however.

Carole, have you looked at the Epson 1280? Less than $500.00, and will do 13"x 19" borderless prints up to 2880 dpi (personally, 720 dpi is plenty in a 5 color plus black printer). If you use the right papers for photos, the prints will last as long as conventional photos displayed in average room light. I have one, and use it for text printing as well as photos - it's great, and Epson's service is excellent.

A treat courtesy of Jay. Regardless of the pro's and con's of digital photography you cannot deny the results!!

Don, thanks so much for the input. I will definitely check this one out. Will let you know what I end up with...eventually. Thanks again, it sounds like something I am looking for. Carole

Kelly: Heck of a shot! What was the equipment and set up Jay was using? Thanks for posting this one. Carole

Jay was using a Canon 3030 in a Tetra housing, stobe was probable Nikonos. He admits being able to sneak up on some of his subjects because he also uses a Draeger rebreather.

Kelly, that is some serious cheating, talk about big bucks. I'd have to get a second morgage just for the camera equipment. Awful nice picture though.

Carole, that a very nice camera, but can you take it underwater. I took a quick look at the Ilelite and Tetra's webpages, no housings for the Fuji.

Belaboring my favorite point the Sony DSC P1; here is a link to a gentleman who took one to the Red Sea recently, great pictures, different fish. Dan's Underwater Page

Actually the camera I used is an olympus 3030 in tetra housing...with the new Sea and Sea Digital YS90 strobe (courtesy of Capt Don's Habitat )...the version kelly posted was shot on one of the lessor resolution settings, cropped and resolution further reduced during re-conversion to jpeg..I ws shooting using the Tetra macro port

Well, I was close, you were in Bonaire and it was a fish (grin)

actually I was trying to shoot soft coral and the darn thing kept getting in my way.. where is a tooth pick when you need it..

Obviously Jay is demonstating the finer "points" of still photography.

Cecil, thanks for the comments about my website! I had to stick my nose in here to answer some of the comments about the P1 and Marine Pak:
Leaks? I greased the O-ring each morning, kept the case closed for three dives a day to a max depth of 26m (about 80ft) and didn't have a drop of water in the camera after a week. Considering that I kept stuffing it into my BC pocket with a nice lead weight for company (and dragging it out again) I think it held up pretty well! And I certainly wasn't in any danger of losing the camera as I had it on a coil lanyard - if I dropped it (which I did) I could retrieve it from behind my head.
I found it easy to use the viewfinder, once I adjusted for distortion - it isn't that the viewfinder doesn't represent what the camera sees, it is just that you don't point the camera in quite the direction you would expect to for it to see the subject - which must be why conventional cameras are so difficult to use underwater. I got used to that (with instant feedback!) after the first dive, and from then on found it incredibly easy to use. For once, everything looking 25% larger underwater is an advanatage! And with there being less light, the P1 viewfinder looks even brighter than usual - I had to turn the brightness down.
I had also heard that the flash would give terrible backscatter, but being digital I could try it and switch it off if the results were no good. Surprisingly, I didn't get much backscatter. The viz was quite good, but there was still plenty of stuff floating around in the water. The only place I experienced bad backscatter was inside the wreck (of the Thistlegorm), but it has plenty of silt lying around and I've been to less busy shopping malls, so I'm not surprised! I actually used the flash on most of my pictures - and turned it up to the "high" setting. In fact I had problems in my earlier pictures because the flash wasn't firing, so I switched it to the "forced flash" mode so it was firing all the time. I believe it brought back some of the lost colour, even if it wasn't lighting the subject all that much. And it certainly did the job at night. I think I should have turned it down a bit for macro shots, however, as there is a bit of burnout.
I had no problem at all with half-pressing the shutter button, and was did this quite a bit. Of course the fish could move, requiring changes to focus or exposure, so this isn't perfect. And in normal use, the P1 does feel pretty slow compared to a conventional camera.
As for resolution, I was taking all my pictures at the maximum JPG resolution of the P1 (before you go to the monster TIFF files) of 2048x1536 and I can print them perfectly satisfactorily at A4 size (Letter size to you, probably!)
And I found that the P1 had plenty of options to keep my as busy as I wanted to be when trying to dive at the same time. If you want to be able to play with settings, I believe the Nikonos V let's you do that
The disadvantage of the P1 is the chromatic abberation it gives at highly contrasting light/dark boundaries - look at the coral in my coral head and chromis shot and you'll see what I mean. But I can live with that. I can accept that this isn't going to compete with my Canon EOS (and I can't afford a housing to take that underwater).
So I'm looking forward to trying my P1 underwater again - next time I'll work on more macro shots (with the flash turned down!) and see if I can get better results. But where to go...? What's this Bonaire place like then?

THANK YOU DAN. Good stuff and you answered a number of questions I had (I was planning on e-mailing you). Very interesting about the flash, I was kind-of leaning towards natural light and maybe rigging a red filter for deep water shots. Shoot if the flash works, why mess with it. I take it there's not an issue with changing the settings on the flash underwater (Off, On, Power). I'm very interested in the macro side and how small of an object can be photographed. The other thing I was wondering about is do you actually use the zoom underwater or do you just leave it in wide angle mode?

Thanks again.

The flash works, but only under the right conditions - you still need to watch out for backscatter. Yes, the flash mode is easily changed underwater with a dedicated button. Changing to high, normal or low flash levels is a little more difficult (but possible) as you have to go through the menus. I'm not sure what the smallest object that you could take would be - I guess the anenomefish are about one and a half inches high. Of course, you can blow the pictures up, but you're limited by resolution. I wish I had taken more macro pictures. Next time.
I used differen zoom settings for different pictures, the general rule would be to go as wide as possible, but that doesn't always get you the shot. My best results close up were to set the camera as wide as I could, put it in macro mode and hold it close to the subject (using my arm, not my eye!) You can get to 4 inches in wide and around 20 in telephoto. Here's another advantage of digital - the camera records information for each shot, so I can tell what focal length I had set. The P1 has a focal length range of 8-24mm, the equivalent of 39-117 for a 35mm camera. So, here are the focal lengths used for some of the images on my site (Warning - the rest of this message contains a bunch of boring numbers, so please feel free to skip it!)
Page 1: 8.0 (full wide), 9.2, 8.0, 17.2, 9.2 8.0
Page 2: 8.0, 8.0, 8.0, 8.0, 8.0, 10.5 (that was a big stingray!)
Page 3: 24.0 (no flash - note the camera shake), 8.0, 15.5, 8.0, 10.5, 24.0 (full tele)
So that should give you some idea.

Me again. I thought you might be interested in seeing some full size images from the P1. I have loaded a few onto here
These should give you an idea of the sort of detail you can get (if you hold the camera still enough).

Nice pictures Dan. 500k?? Is that max resolution/min compression/some combination? Excellent detail, very small objects were clear and sharp. I had to zoom quite a bit to see the pixels.

Ah. I was in a bit of a hurry when I uploaded those sample pictures, and on having another look at them, I find that they're not actually full size. They were versions on which I had already worked a little bit with Photopaint. All I did was to use the "autoenhance" feature, which does a good job of getting rid of the blue/green cast. However, when I saved them out of Photopaint it did a bit of compression on them. The originals were 1.3-1.4Mb. I've uploaded unadulterated versions to the same URL. The camera doesn't give you compression options (except uncompressed TIFF, which creates a >10Mb file), just resolution - and these are at the maximum of 2048x1536. By the way, you can resize the files within the camera, creating a new copy which is useful if you need to save memory space.