The Future of Film

[LavaSurfer]

I didn't realize that my personal preferences were going to ignite such a storm of controversy and outrage. My apologies.

No outrage in this from me.

I disagree! Isn't America great! LOL

I was being friendly

Up till now I have been using a cheap (bought it on a cruise ship) $25 35mm Point and click. Develop the pictures and scan them for the web. Its reloadable and easy. It works and when I scratched the lense I tossed it and bought another. I had a rate of 1 in 4 for good keeper photos.

Here are spome examples of underwater CHEAP camera shots. Not that bad.
http://www.kona-aloha.com/photos/Roatan2006/Underwater/index.html

these are acceptible but on land I use nothing but digital. I have several digitals and now I am the proud owner of a SeaLife DC500 - Yet to get wet camera.

No hard feelings, I see your point. Clearly!

 

[Jamdiver]

Okay: I'm not saying that film cameras don't flood, photos don't burn, or dogging out digital in any way. I'm saying that, as a complete amateur and a new diver, I want something that I can shoot photos with, with a minimum of task loading. I don't like messing around with aperture, shutter speed, f-stops, white balance, and all of the other stuff that I don't know a damn thing about. I don't have the desire to justify or spend $500+ at this time, for a camera and housing.

As an example: I have a $10 knife. I have $5 sunglasses. If I drop my knife underwater, it's gone. I don't care. If I lose my sunglasses, (which I'm constantly doing) I don't care. If I flood a $100 35mm camera, it sucks, but it's better than wiping out a $500-$1000 digital.

I didn't realize that my personal preferences were going to ignite such a storm of controversy and outrage. My apologies.

You said the f--- word .
No need to apologise Fish, at least you're learning something :14:.
Imagine if you started a Canon vs. Nikon debate .
If you get the chance visit a large electronics retailer and look at the samples that the latest generation of photo printers can produce, you'll be shocked by the image quality.

Think we've all taken quite a turn from the OP's question, am still sticking with my recommendations made above.
For the budget that you've quoted Kraken you should be able to build a great system with great longetivity (camera a few years, strobe even longer) that can produce quality pics.

:14:

 

[LavaSurfer]

This really isn't a digital vs. film issue. It's more of a p&s vs. dSLR issue for the most part. With a good p&s camera, either film or digital, that should allow you to not worry about your settings if you want to just point and shoot. But a good camera will also give you the flexibility to take more control, should you wish.

True statement although most P&S and dSLR's in AUTO mode take VERY POOR pictures underwater or in low light. I no longer use a camera in AUTO mode for White Ballance or ISO as they really mess it up. They do focus well but thats about it.

Even my dSQL is crap in auto mode.

Most sunset pictures I take require all manual setting to get them just right.

 

[Footslogger]

I didn't realize that my personal preferences were going to ignite such a storm of controversy and outrage. My apologies.

=========================================
No storm of controversy. In fact some really good info is being exchanged here regarding the trade-offs. The decision is a personal one and it affects u/w photographers differently. I know that the cost of slide film, plus processing was getting out of control ...only to find myself throwing out a lot of shots (that I could have deleted right up front if shot digitally).

'Slogger

 

[Warren_L]

True statement although most P&S and dSLR's in AUTO mode take VERY POOR pictures underwater or in low light. I no longer use a camera in AUTO mode for White Ballance or ISO as they really mess it up. They do focus well but thats about it.

Even my dSQL is crap in auto mode.

Most sunset pictures I take require all manual setting to get them just right.

True enough, you can have auto settings with both P&S and dSLR, but for the UW photo newbie looking to just point and shoot, a true p&s camera is typically the easiest way to go, in terms of operational ease, cost effectiveness, and convenience (small size, fewer pieces, etc.). I agree, I find it's difficult to get any decent shots using auto settings with either setup, but if you have your heart set on using auto mode, I'd go with a decent p&s. It's be a bit of a waste to get a dSLR only for that.

 

[LavaSurfer]

True enough, you can have auto settings with both P&S and dSLR, but for the UW photo newbie looking to just point and shoot, a true p&s camera is typically the easiest way to go, in terms of operational ease, cost effectiveness, and convenience (small size, fewer pieces, etc.). I agree, I find it's difficult to get any decent shots using auto settings with either setup, but if you have your heart set on using auto mode, I'd go with a decent p&s. It's be a bit of a waste to get a dSLR only for that.

Agreed!

 

[LVDiver]

I'd like an opinion, (or a few), on a couple of issues. I have a very basic 35mm film camera I used on a few dive trips last year, (they were actually my first). Just being able to take pictures underwater was great, but now I'm looking to get some better quality.
I am getting a Fuji900, (I have gift cards so it will be free). I recently purcahsed a house so finances are a bit tight. The Ikelite housing for it is about $350. However, a decent strobe or flash is gonna be over $1000. This doesn't include all the extra memory cards and spare batteries and chargers. I know whatever I use, I have to have a flash. I can't swing that price right now however, I can add a flash to my current camera, along with some macro lenses for about $300. In a year I'll probably move up to digital, but this should get me through my trip next month to Belize and my 2nd trip in fall. Is it wrong to take this approach in the given situation?
Also, I purchased "Master Guide for underwater Digital Photography". It was a bit overwhelming. Having no photography background, I got the idea that by the time I figured out which adjustments I needed to make for each shot, I'd be almost out of air. If you just use the manual settings, will the pictures be of somewhat decent quality, (I know there are many variables). This book made it seem like the manual settings don't apply well underwater.
Any advice would be greatly appreciated.

Thanks,
Sean

 

[LVDiver]

Sorry, I meant if I use the auto settings, will the pictures be decent.

 

[Fish_Whisperer]

No outrage in this from me.

I was being friendly

Up till now I have been using a cheap (bought it on a cruise ship) $25 35mm Point and click. Develop the pictures and scan them for the web. Its reloadable and easy. It works and when I scratched the lense I tossed it and bought another. I had a rate of 1 in 4 for good keeper photos.

Here are spome examples of underwater CHEAP camera shots. Not that bad.
http://www.kona-aloha.com/photos/Roatan2006/Underwater/index.html

these are acceptible but on land I use nothing but digital. I have several digitals and now I am the proud owner of a SeaLife DC500 - Yet to get wet camera.

No hard feelings, I see your point. Clearly!

Great photos! Like you, I use a digital on land. I hope I can take shots that nice... We'll see. If the MX-10 ends up being a real PITA, or I'm not satisfied, then it's back to the drawing board, and I really WILL be saving my pennies for a digital. I like the size of the Sealife DC500. In fact, if/when I shop for another underwater camera, that is probably going to be my choice.

Thanks.

 

[fdog]

I think for me, the biggest reason to hit the digital world is the cost. I'll live with shutter lag, poor white balance, and all the other intracacies of a digital camera (although I'll find a model that minimizes this) and bathe in the joy that is no processing fees. Just think, 2000 photos in one trip. I don't even want to think how much that would cost to process. You could probably buy a whole backup digital system for that. And you'd only keep 5% of the shots, maybe? I'd rather have slightly lesser quality in the photos, and only pay for the processing of the ones I want.

My second job is as a photojournalist; I lived through the transition from film to digital. Now the only film I shoot is for artsy stuff.

I can tell you that as a professional, it is not cheaper than film when you take all the costs into consideration.

On a different note, one of the things I've seen posted as a reason in support of digital is all the images you can shoot on a single dive. I rarely come back with more than 40. Maybe it's habit holdover from film, but I just don't shoot more than a frame a minute after I find a subject. Anything more than that, and it's just machine-gun images, with no composition or thought.

All the best, James