Starter film camera

[divemed06]

The only really bad picture...is the one not taken! This is why digital is good for a beginner like me. IMO, once you understand the finer points of photography and how to "work with" the u/w environment, you might be alright with 36 shots....but until then...go digital.

 

[lanun]

if i had to do it again at that time, i'm not sure if i'd go digital straight away. this was before 3 or more Mpixel + housing became more affordable. i blanched when i saw the IKE housing (hmm ... regulator set or camera housing, decisions, decisions).

nowadays, i'd say go digital.

the 'enthusiasm erosion' due to film learning curve need not be offset with the add'l cost of film/processing. the yield i got was about 2 per roll. the demon was backscatter. probably fixable had i gone housed/strobe or the mx10/motormarine II with detacheable strobe. or maybe lug a 2000 gph mechanical filter from the aquarium, complete with 2 cannister batteries

my 2 cents.

 

[-hh]

Seadiver5 once bubbled...
I have to agree with the Digital options for $ savings on a beginner basis. While I don't personally use a digital camera the initial cost of a digital camera with housing is relatively inexpensive when compared to the cost of a low end camera and film and processing.

I agree that there's some benefits to be had in immediacy of feedback, and film processing costs, and while these are good things particularly for beginners they ultimately need to be weighed against other elements within the digital/film trade-off.

Digital cameras could be used without supplementary lights/strobes but the colors are no where near as good.

You can be into a digital setup for under $500.00 if you look around and or buy used.

Agreed. The problem here is that while Digital appears generally more tolerant of lowlight situations, red wavelength absorption is a phyiscal reality, and you can't capture what's not there. As such, for those applications where a "good strobe" is necessary, you're not going to be able to buy any system (film or digital) for only ~$500, because this is roughly the cost for just the "good strobe"!

And we must also apply similar pragmatism when making our end-to-end comparisons. For example, people will correctly point out that the Nikkor 15mm lens for the Nikonos costs around $2000, whereas a wide-angle adaptor for a digicam might be $200. This is technically true, but there are profound differences in the optical quality between the two that do not make this a fair comparison because even if we're not aware of it, there are less expensive alternatives.

For this specific example, if you're willing to live with the optical compromises of an adaptor lens, you can get a WA adaptor lens that fits over the Nikkor 35mm lens for around $250 (FYI, it is made by Sea&Sea, and it is in addition to their ~$900 15mm prime lens that's also an aternative to the Nikkor 15mm).

One of the best things about the digital revoloution is that due to the ease of using digital cameras and the "better initial results" the excitement for underwater photography doesent wane like it does in so many cases with people who try Film first.

True, although I personally believe that much of the real impediment here is that fewer people today really know the fundamentals of photography.

Now before you accuse me of saying that this is an attitude of "REAL" photographer chauvenism, please let me explain:

One of the wonderful things that has happened in photography over the past ~2 decades are advancements in automatic exposure. This has allowed a lot of people to get good quality images with minimal knowledge of the underlying principles: they merely push the button and the computerized system does the work.

The problem is that the UW environment isn't particularly compatible with these automated systems that were originally designed for land photography. Digital has minimized this problem to a degree, but the net result result remains that blind trust in the equipment without knowledge as to what its really doing will result in a drop in yield when the equipment is used beyond its envelope of competency. Its the photographer who has the fundamentals who is able to compensate and minimize the loss in yield.

Those who don't follow the natural course: when you have too many failures while trying to do something (not just photography), the natural human tendency is to lose interest in what we often call "exercises in futility".

FWIW, the lack of a strobe arm on many inexpensive cameras is the perfect system to produce maximum backscatter, which really only exasperates this problem of poor performance creating disinterest.

The problem exists in both film and digital, but it is less pronounced in digital, because the per-shot cost is lower, and because its more immediate feedback provides a better opportunity to recognize and learn from basic mistakes and get out of the "rut" sooner.

Thus said, I do have to comment that over the past ~2 years, I've seen a lot more lousy UW photo's that came from digital systems than from film. Much of this is merely people who haven't learned the self-critical discipine to strongly cull their shots before letting the rest of the world see them...its been said that the difference between an amateur and a pro is merely the size of their garbage can

FWIW, I don't let anyone else see roughly 90% of the photo's I shoot, regardless of how much I shoot, land or UW. And when I shoot digital, this ratio doesn't change (if anything, my reject rate should increase).


-hh

 

[Mitten Diver]

thank you for all of your replies it seems that I have reached a cross roads. I was trying to get out of the camera acquisition for a few sheckls less than I wanted to spend. This has been a very expensive year for me as my son James and I got certified this summer and acquired our gear as well. I do not know how much I will get into photography, but I know that I would like to capture some of the memories for our scrap book.

I have just purchased Mother a Nikon N75 film camera for Christmas for top side pictures as she has spent a countries gross product on crap book stuff. We had looked at a digital for this purchase but decided against it because of the addition investment in a quality printer and paper. She has it in her mind that she would like to become a better photographer like a couple of her friends. I am wondering now if I should be looking at an Olympus with a housing or if I could get away with one of the scuba ready cameras like the Sealife DC200 or something comparable. Thoughts? I have a Sony CCD-TRV65 high 8 movie camera maybe I should just build or buy a video housing for that. I have the plans that Padi Pro had posted for a dive light and would like to construct a couple of these for me and the boy.

I would have loved to have captured some of our dives in Lake Superior this summer.

Mitten Diver

 

[Padipro]

If you need any assistance in building the housing just let me know. I'm sorry to say that I still haven't finished posting the full set of plans for the housing on the MSN site, been busy trying to put my boat back together and finish Christmas shopping, but I'll be glad to give you any help I can.

Good luck.

Scott