HELP: SLR versus Digital cameras

[sillago]

Anyone please help,
I have to make an urgent decision very soon:
Which in your opinion would be a better system, a housed SLR system (n90x with 60mm micro) or a housed olympus digital camera (C3030). If you could tell me pros and cons as to which you would prefer, I would really appreciate it!
Macro photography would be the main usage of these cameras.
Thanks

Sillago

P.S. Both have impressive strobe systems as well!

 

[blacknet]

Hello,

Simple. SLR. Reason? Digital is not equal to film resolution, yet.

If you want macro get a decent strobe, something like the sigma 50mm 1:1 macro lens, a housing (ikelite) and the correct dome port (get them from www.bhphotovideo.com they have excelent prices on ikelite parts) and you're all set to go.

This is the option I use. My strobe is an sb-105, canon elan IIe body and the ikelite housing. Nice layout.

As for pro/con of the digital.
Pro: no film/developing cost.
Con: Limited storage capacity for detailed images, POOR image quality period. Lack of compatible parts, i.e. strobes. (not many digitals have ttl connectors) LOW quality for fine artistic detail, i.e. publishing material.

As for pro/con of the SLR.
Pro: unlimited resolution, compared with digital. Diverse printing/developing methods. Diverse film usage. Wide range of supporting material like lens, strobes, etc..
Con: developing/printing cost.

This is just a few things I can think of off top of my head.


Ed

 

[Dee]

In general, I have to agree with Ed on this one. One big question will be what kind of photos do you want and what are you going to do with them.

I've seen some excellent underwater digital photos. I've considered one myself and have done quite a bit of research. At this time, I would go with an Olympus 3030 and Olympus PT-10 housing. You have several strobe options as well as decent photos without an external strobe. Digital photography is a bit different than film photography and not all the tried and true rules apply. The ability to see the shot and take another if it doesn't suit you is a very by draw for digitals. You'll be able to print decent photo album prints and be very pleased. Digital is also extemely easy for using on the internet. Storage is limited unless you want to invest in multiple memory cards or one of the digital albums. This sort of off sets the savings on film.

I don't know anything specific about the N90 other than it is widely used and loved. Again...depending on what end results you want, this may be your best bet.

Here's a few links of the digital research I've done. I have more if you're interested.

http://www.marscuba.com/uwdigital.html

http://www.scubadiving.com/talk/read.php?f=1&i=386586&t=386586

http://wetpixel.com/

http://www.steves-digicams.com/

http://www.scubadiving.com/members/gearreviews.php?s=310

 

[scorpiofish]

Housed SLR is superior on many counts. It does require greater knowledge of the camera system.

One of the current shortcomings of digital is the lack of focal length range. Most higher end cameras, including the 3030 provide an optical zoom of some sort, but getting true macro or really wide angle is not possible. Tetra makes lens attachments but these are quite expensive.

The other advantage of the SLR choice you provided is that the PT housing does not allow for TTL control of strobe output, a real godsend for macro shooting.

Do you already have an N90s?

I have an Ikelite housing for an N90s available for sale. It includes: ports for 60mm and 105mm macro and dome for 20mm, two sets of Ike strobe arms, dual and single sync cord for Ike strobes.

I'm not selling the camera or strobes, but I will sell the 60mm lens.

If interested e-mail me.

 

[The Chairman]

But -I- believe that with 3.3 Mega Pixels and above you have a superior photo. On top of this is the camera's nascent ability to color compensate quickly and easily. Stobes are used to scare the blues away, as well as provide light. Consider a camera that you can color correct on the fly and not need a strobe? No back Scatter, no bulky octopus type arms to scare the fish away. Also, you can preview that picture at depth and see if you really, really got it. Sort of hard to do with a film camera. Then you can easily share these pictures with your friends on the boat and then those of us here on the Scubaboard. I am well on my way to buying an Olympus C4040.

You see, I was trying to come up with a housing for my SLR, but I think I will retire it instead. I will buy no more chemicals or paper for my darkroom, and will probably put all of that equipment in a garage sale. This film purist has seen the available light and will be going digital in the immediate foreseeable future.

 

[blacknet]

Hello,

Let me step in, again, and say that it all depends on your GOALS.. i.e. you just taking scrap book point and shoot pictures of a trip? You trying to get published? you trying to get into an art gallery/museum? You trying to make the cover page of dive international/oceans illustrated like my good friend donald tipton recently did? Again it really boils down to your needs and your wallets limit.

One day digital will surpas cellulose and that day is rapidly coming, but it's not today or tomorrow.

Quite honestly the true answer to this question at hand has no right or wrong answer, it's a matter of preference and a matter of need.

Ed

 

[Rick Murchison]

To get the same resolution that's theoretically possible on high quality 35mm film, your digital camera would have to deliver not 3.3 megapixels, but about 88 megapixels. A long way from the current technology. On the other hand, unless you intend to blow up your photo to something larger than 8X10, the human eye can't tell the difference anyway.
Digital photography is very close, in real terms, to providing images that are indistinguishable to the human eye from their technically much finer (as to absolute resolution) film competition, and digital has great advantages in the field for seeing the finished product while still underwater.
As others have said before me - depends on what you want.
Rick

 

[CheeseWhiz]

While it's technically true that that raw digital photos don't have the resolution of film, unless you are in the habit of examining your printed pictures under a microscrope, I doubt seriously that you will notice the difference. (I say raw digital photos because I believe that the vast majority, if not all, photos which are published in books, magazines and newspapers, whether their origina is film or digital, are digitized before publication.)

Rick, where does the 88 megapixel number come from? All of the published info I have seen says that in the range of 6 - 8 megapixels, a digital foto is, for all practical purposes, indistinguishable from film. But I'll admit I haven't researched the issue.

I have made 8x10 prints from my 1.67 megapixel digital camera which I have hanging on my walls, and which constantly get oohs and ahhs from visitors. The real magic is in the composition, not some technical arcana regarding absolute resolution. If the photographer is unable of "seeing" a good picture, no amount of resolution or technical gimmickry is going to produce a good shot.

As for limited storage capacity for digital photos, hmmmm, let's see....my 1.67 megapixel camera has an 80 MB card which holds about 160 pictures, @ max resolution. My 3.3 megapixel camera has the IBM 340 MB Microdrive which holds....lemme turn the camera on...245 pictures @ max resolution. That's not enough for a 2-tank dive? Maybe I should save up for the 1 GB drive, which should give me about 800 shots.

An additional advantage to digital is that you can load the pictures into your computer, and through the magic of Photoshop or any of a zillion other image manipulation programs, make the picture look any way you want....cropping, colorizing, browntoning, on and on.

If your goal is to take pictures for your own enjoyment and to share with friends / relatives over the internet or via CD or even to print an hand out, digital is the way to go. If your goal is to get published, for example in Skin Diver magazine's excellent annual photographic issue, digital is the way to go (magazine color rendition and resolution is not equal to photographic print quality).

Having said all that, there is a time and place to use film, and situations where I still prefer my 35mm camera. Underwater is not one of them.

 

[blacknet]

Hello,

to clear up some myths.

(I say raw digital photos because I believe that the vast majority, if not all, photos which are published in books, magazines and newspapers, whether their origina is film or digital, are digitized before publication.)

This is most definately a myth. Most printing, like mag's are done via analog methods, film. The submission requirments are FILM. Very few will accept digital submissions. Now you can take your digital artwork and have it transposed onto film.

The use of photo editing for production is strongly frowned upon in the industry. Basics like croping, despotting is ok.

Ed

 

[Rick Murchison]

Originally posted by CheeseWhiz

Rick, where does the 88 megapixel number come from? All of the published info I have seen says that in the range of 6 - 8 megapixels, a digital foto is, for all practical purposes, indistinguishable from film. But I'll admit I haven't researched the issue.

Where I got it was simple math and a misplaced decimal point! You are absolutely right - should be 8.8 megapixels, and that's theoretical, with the practical limit being 6 to 8. Of course the number jumps *way up* if you go to large format negatives, but now we're talking custom housings and a couple orders of magnitude jump in price, too.
Sorry for the huge error!
Rick