Underwater photo galleries sorted by camera.

[panglao]

Can you please tell me of any underwater photo galleries with categories for different cameras?

I searched online and found one, but I am sure there are others.

I realize many posts have photos with camera info, just looking for a larger collection for comparison.

Thanks!

 

[panglao]

Nobody?

 

[Larry C]

I've seen Flickr groups for different cameras, but I don't know of any specific to UW. Your best bet is to watch here and on the other forums and look at people's posts. Frankly, you can take pretty good shots with just about any camera if the photographer knows what he's doing, and you can get horrible shots with the best camera and a poor photographer. UW photography is much more sensitive to operator error than on land.

 

[parabolic]

panglao you got GREAT advice from Larry. If you could find a group of galleries of underwater photos sorted by camera, and if they contained a large number of images taken by a large number of photographers, the galleries would all look the same. Underwater, it's not the camera, it's the skill, knowledge, and experience of the photographer.

 

[panglao]

Thanks for the suggestion Larry, someone else mentioned the same thing and it has worked well for my purposes.

Parabolic, I am surprised to see someone with your experience make such a statement. Larry did not say what you said.

According to your statement a gallery of low end Sea and Sea pics would be the same as a gallery of high end DSLR pics, which is absurd. I will assume you meant something else.

Cheers

 

[hammerhead man]

I think what Parabolic was stating is that if you viewed a gallery taken by photographers with various experience levels using the same camera you would see both great, mediocre, and bad pics. His comment was not directed at the potential quality that the camera itself can deliver. I have seen stunning photos taken by several point and shoot cameras and have also seen mediocre pics taken with a top of the line DSLR camera. I have also seen stunning photos taken with DSLR cameras and bad pics taken with a point and shoot. In my opinion, the quality of the photos you get is 80 percent or higher dependent on the person taking the pic and not the camera.

Just my thoughts.

Bill

 

[panglao]

Bill,

Parabolic's post implies two things which are false.

First, that it is not possible look at a large group of photos grouped by category and tell a difference because of the abilities of the user.

It is actually because of the errors of non professionals that a larger selection would be more helpful. How are you going to make any judgments if you only took photos from the top ten UW photographers? Low ability users help to identify faults and which cameras can better compensate for them.

Second, that you would not be able to tell the difference between a group of images from a high quality camera and a low quality camera.

"If you could find a group of galleries of underwater photos sorted by camera, and if they contained a large number of images taken by a large number of photographers, the galleries would all look the same."

Sorry, but again this is utterly false. Can anybody with even marginal eyesight not tell the difference between a SeaLife DC200 gallery and a Nikon D700 gallery?

All three of you have implied that it depends on the abilities of a user. But it is because of this that it is more important for someone with less skill to find what type of camera suits their expecations.

Professionals can talk composition and whatever else they want all day long but if the beginner is simply looking for a camera that does a little better in poorer lighting situations, or has a little sharper focus because they are going to take "closeups of cool thingy's underwater" without knowing the plethora of skills everyone else has honed in order to professionally market their shots, then a large gallery for comparison can be very helpful.

It's not a matter of what professionals consider to be a quality photograph, it's what type of attributes that person is looking for, and if later on they want to dive into the deep end of somebody's UW photography clique then so be it.

Like I said in my first reply, maybe parabolic meant something completely different from what he wrote.

Cheers

 

[hammerhead man]

I guess we will have to agree to disagree. I'm not convinced that a high quality camera will compensate all that much for a person that just doesn't take good pics. Most of the pics you see on this web site are taken by amateurs. I will state that there will be a visible difference between a low end point and shoot and a DSLR. However, if you go the the higher end point and shoot cameras I think that a good photographer can get stunning photos. For example, here are some pics taken by Eskasi with the Sea&Sea DX-1G, a point and shoot camera with manual capabilities: Sea & Sea DX-1G in Sipadan, Mabul & Kapalai (Malaysia). When I viewed them I couldn't tell that they were not taken with a DSLR. Here is a link to pics taken by Gilligan with a G-10, a point and shoot camera with manaul capabilities: http://www.scubaboard.com/forums/underwater-photography/305135-sep-24-bohol-pics.html. Again, if you asked me whether these were taken with a point and shoot or DSLR I couldn't tell you.

I am not arguing that, as a whole, a DSLR will give you better pics because they will since they offer more options and capabilities than a point and shoot. And, they should considering the cost of the camera, housing, and strobes, etc!!!!! What I am arguing is that you can get stunning pics from a point and shoot as well and if asked, you couldn't tell whether a point and shoot camera or a DSLR was used. I still believe that the quality of the pics depends for the most part on the person behind the camera.

Regards,

Bill

 

[panglao]

Bill,

We don't disagree at all. You said there will be a visible difference between an extreme low end and a high end, but as quality becomes even somewhat comparable (high end P&S vs DSLR) it depends more on the photographer.

The statement above implies that is impossible no matter the quality of any camera. But all of the galleries on the internet and the tens of thousands of comparison shots you can find in thousands of camera reviews dispute such a comment.

If you take 10 cameras, stick them on a tripod with the same static image in front of them, all settings and circumstances being equal and take a shot. Then ask 10 people which is their favorite picture and which is their least favorite. It doesn't matter whether the people have never used a camera in their life or they are professionals, you will get a difference of opinion because it is a personal preference and how your vision interprets the images.

I did not want the gallery comparisons for an UW photo contest, it was to simply see the image quality (sharpness, etc.), both good and bad in a variety of settings.

Cheers

 

[parabolic]

panglao

Larry said exactly what I said. Underwater, the capabilities of the photographer are much more influential in creating quality images than is the type of equipment. Bill's expanded analysis of what we both said is spot on. I frankly don't understand your argument, plus who said anything about "professionals" and "non-professionals"? What does that have to do with anything in this discussion? It is precisely my experience that forms the basis for my opinions. My opinions are based upon 30 years of taking pictures underwater with a wide variety of equipment, including Nikonos II, III, IVA, V, RS, and housed digital SLRs, and long interactions and friendships with underwater photographers of all skill levels from beginners through widely published professionals. What forms the basis of your opinions?

++Ken++