DSLR vs. PnS

[f3nikon]

I know the aftermarket housing peddlers do not what to hear this...I am a big fan of DSLRs, in fact I was the one pushing for the 60mm macro over the 105mm from my past post, I am just not convinced on its wide use in U/W photography.

"Can I see all the edges at one time? Sometimes, but it really doesn't matter. I can shoot 4 frames in the time I could shoot one with a P&S, because I have a frame buffer."

Are you saying that with 4 frames at a time you are "shot gunning" your photography and bracket the composition? Define that "sometimes" when do you see the entire frame? And how fast can your strobe recycle?

I have seen images from folks using a DSLR but started with a PS...some of the composition actually got worst on the DSLR! The image quality did improve with the DSLR but the earlier PS they were using had half the amount of megapixels and to top it off they slapped an add-on close up lens to degrade the image even more.

Now compare that with the Nikon 5100 that you mention or the Canon G series at 12 megapixels...now its a different ball game in U/W photography. Notice I did not say fashion or wedding or any other land base photography.

I had always wondered why the top DSLR and PS makers like Canon or Nikon really did not bother to make housings for their DSLRs?

 

[Warren_L]

My question to you is why are you getting a liveview camera? Or why is Nikon even going down that liveview road?

Because I am noticing some individuals who think that a DSLR will improve their poor photography skills, this maybe be true with land photography where ones eyes can be placed right on the camera’s viewfinder, but taking the camera U/W will work against you if the camera does not have liveview.

I'm not certain about the motivation to provide a liveview feature. As I've not seen the Nikon implementation or it nor used it, I will have to reserve judgement on the feature on the D300. However, I haven't missed live view one bit since I sold my Oly C5050 and went DSLR. I agree, better camera gear only gets you so far, as you really need to have great photography skills and dive skills to produce those great underwater shots.

With a non liveview DSLR your dive mask and housing thickness is keeping your eyes away from the viewfinder, preventing you from seeing the entire frame without shifting your head around to see what is in the frame. Yes, there are bolt on magnifiers out there to get most of the frame into view but the image is smaller, distorted, a bit darker due to transmission light loss and you still have jam your mask near the camera housing. Plus the price of these magnifiers can be up to $1000!

Actually, not as much as you might think. I've been shooting my D200 for quite some time without issue. You are right about the cost of the viewfinder enlargers, though, they aren't cheap. I have an AquaView enlarger on my Aquatica housing, but you are wrong about the smaller distored image. It may be a bit darker (though I've really not noticed any difference), but the image that I see through the enlarger is really large and clean - very easy to see and to get razor sharp focus with (especially when shooting macro and supermacro). Not something I would even attempt to try with a liveview LCD screen.

Where as with a PS or liveview DSLR you are viewing the entire frame from a relaxed distance away, another plus is the size of the PS housing, since they are much smaller than the DSLRs you can look at the scene from the top of the housing for a quick check of the subject before snapping the picture.

I would suggest how relaxed you are depends on how proficient you are in your diving and how used to your particular rig you are. I find myself no more or not less relaxed using the DSLR than with my old Oly C5050.

 

[f3nikon]

Actually, not as much as you might think. I've been shooting my D200 for quite some time without issue. You are right about the cost of the viewfinder enlargers, though, they aren't cheap. I have an AquaView enlarger on my Aquatica housing, but you are wrong about the smaller distored image. It may be a bit darker (though I've really not noticed any difference), but the image that I see through the enlarger is really large and clean - very easy to see and to get razor sharp focus with (especially when shooting macro and supermacro). Not something I would even attempt to try with a liveview LCD screen.


I would suggest how relaxed you are depends on how proficient you are in your diving and how used to your particular rig you are. I find myself no more or not less relaxed using the DSLR than with my old Oly C5050.

Your input welcome...

Actually, the Aquaview is more than I thought at $1149 thats more than a Canon G9 or Nikon 5100 PS and housing combine! And the size of that thing is as large as a PS camera!

DEMA 2006: Aquatica :: Wetpixel.com

The only true undistorted view one can get from an SLR or DSLR is by using a penta prism like the pictures below.

I mean relaxed like looking at the LCD display from a foot and a half away vs your dive mask jammed up against the DSLR housing and fighting a strong current.

Another bit of history: The Nikon Nikonos cameras were the camera of choice in the early days of U/W photography. Due to its lack of precise focusing (The Nikonos is a rangefinder) the SLRs were placed in a housing...fast forward to today's digital auto focusing, LCD liveview display, real time feedback and high res/mp PS...why put an expensive DSLR into a bulky expensive box?

 

[bladephotog]

....why put an expensive DSLR into a bulky expensive box?[/QUOTE]

Because the quality of the images is so much better. A P&S may be perfectly fine for many but they are no match for a DSLR when it comes to image quality.

 

[f3nikon]

[/QUOTE]

Because the quality of the images is so much better. A P&S may be perfectly fine for many but they are no match for a DSLR when it comes to image quality.[/QUOTE]



And what you gain in “image quality” vs the older PS cameras you give it all back in a lousy composed image because you cannot see the entire frame! Don’t take my word for it just look at U/W images taken by a DSLR, the subject is small does not fill the frame, mostly centered in the frame or off to one side with a bunch of dead useless space on one side. Heavy cropping has to be done to correct the problem, so you crop then blow up the image back to its original size…there goes you Image Quality!

Or worst yet you chop off part of the subject because all you are really concerned about and praying is that the focusing light locking in on target before you fire. And forget about trying to get the subject’s eyes in focus that is hit or miss.

But wait a minute you ask...what about taking your time to shifting your head around the viewfinder to make sure that the subject is placed just right before firing? Well about that 4 frame rapid firing the DSLR has...now you just built in some self made Shutter Lag?!!!

All this is not new or made up we have had the same problems when shooting SLR film cameras, which was the reason for the action or speedfinder…viewfinders.

And lets ignore the latest 12 megapixel Point and Shoot that "image quality" does not count!

 

[bladephotog]

You're basing your entire argument on the assumption that nobody can compose a decent photo with a DSLR underwater and that is an invalid assumption. It can be done and is done on a regular basis. You don't even have to look at what the top pros are shooting to see that. Look at some of the incredible work being done by some of the members here.

You don't have to move your entire head around to see the corners of the frame on a DSLR. Just move your eye around. I wear glasses everyday and shoot 500-1000 frames a day. I'm used to not being able to see the entire frame at first glance so maybe it's just me. But any photographer should know the most important part of your photo is the background. It's imperative to make it a habit to do a quick scan of the four corners of the frame and the background before pulling the trigger. That takes less than a second, not a big deal.

As far as the motor drive is concerned, there is another great reason, other than shooting fast action, why a fast motor drive is nice. When shooting with slow shutter speeds if you rip off 3-4 frames it's usually your second or third frame that is sharp, without any motion blur. This is because the act of pressing the trigger causes motion blur, but if you hold it down your muscles are relaxed allowing for a sharp image. I use this technique all the time. Again, maybe it's only useful for the type of shooting I'm doing.

And you can't make a a mp to mp comparison with a DSLR and P&S. One mp on a P&S does not equal one mp on a DSLR. I'll take the quality of my 8mp DSLR over a 12mp P&S any day of the week.

Also, a DSLR will far outperform a P&S at high ISO's. That may not be an issue for some but for me, shooting wrecks in dark water, it's a huge issue. I can shoot my DSLR at ISO 1600 and it looks better than a P&S shot at ISO 400.

Don't get me wrong, I love P&S cameras and started with one UW like many. You just can't convince me that I'll shoot a better photo with a P&S than I will with my DSLR on a regular basis. Besides, both are just tools. A great photographer will make a great image no matter what he/she is using. Do you want that great image on an inferior sensor?

I've published a couple of stories shot on a P&S but it's a very hard sell and there is a reason for it.

Andy




Because the quality of the images is so much better. A P&S may be perfectly fine for many but they are no match for a DSLR when it comes to image quality.[/QUOTE]

And what you gain in “image quality” vs the older PS cameras you give it all back in a lousy composed image because you cannot see the entire frame! Don’t take my word for it just look at U/W images taken by a DSLR, the subject is small does not fill the frame, mostly centered in the frame or off to one side with a bunch of dead useless space on one side. Heavy cropping has to be done to correct the problem, so you crop then blow up the image back to its original size…there goes you Image Quality!

Or worst yet you chop off part of the subject because all you are really concerned about and praying is that the focus light locks on target before you fire. And forget about trying to get the subject’s eyes in focus that is hit or miss.

But wait a minute you ask...what about taking your time to shifting your head around the viewfinder to make sure that the subject is placed just right before firing? Well about that 4 frame rapid firing the DSLR has...now you just built in some self made Shutter Lag?!!!

All this is not new or made up we have had the same problems when shooting SLR film cameras, which was the reason for the action or speedfinder…viewfinders.

And lets ignore the latest 12 megapixel Point and Shoot that "image quality" does not count!

 

[alcina]

Andy did a great job so I'll just add a +1

 

[Warren_L]

I would agree with Andy on this too - there's no comparison in terms of image quality from my Nikon D200 and my Oly C5050.

However, one thing that may be forgotten here is that the quality of the images has a lot to do with the lens you're using. While the camera and sensor is important, often the difference between p&s and dSLR systems is high quality glass. Even with the C5050 which has excellent optics for a p&s (some p&s cameras use plastic lenses), there's only so much you can do with a smaller lens.

 

[f3nikon]

Why is everyone fixated on comparing the latest DSLR to the older generation Olympus C-5050 and totally discounting the latest point and shoot like the Canon G9 or Nikon 5100 for U/W use?

Is it sell a housed DSLR at all cost here?

 

[f3nikon]

I would agree with Andy on this too - there's no comparison in terms of image quality from my Nikon D200 and my Oly C5050.

However, one thing that may be forgotten here is that the quality of the images has a lot to do with the lens you're using. While the camera and sensor is important, often the difference between p&s and dSLR systems is high quality glass. Even with the C5050 which has excellent optics for a p&s (some p&s cameras use plastic lenses), there's only so much you can do with a smaller lens.

So what about the human eye? The eye lens is even smaller than the point and shoot camera’s lens and the retina or image sensor is not that much bigger, why is the image quality so clear in a normal human eye?

Could it be that the distance between the front lens and the camera’s image sensor is much greater in a DSLR because of the space the reflex mirror occupies?

Forcing the camera designers to make the DSLR’s image sensor a larger size and lens much wider to make up for the greater distance, when compared the Point and Shoot or rangefinder cameras. Because these “cameras” have no mirror to increase the distance therefore can get away with a small lens and sensor.

Maybe this is why Leica cameras (worlds greatest optics) is still making rangefinder cameras?

Leica Camera AG - M System

Canon had to "dumb down" the G7 and excluded the RAW feature so as not to hurt their DSLR market.

Canon PowerShot G9, with RAW: Digital Photography Review

Canon PowerShot G9 Samples Gallery One Gallery: Digital Photography Review

The determining factor here is technology…and how much pixels the chip makers can build into a silicon chip.