Underwater photo galleries sorted by camera.

[parabolic]

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?

Don't want to beat a dead horse too badly but I can't resist responding to this. The answer is that if the images in the D700 gallery were made by an inexperienced beginner and the images in the SeaLife DC200 gallery were made by a talented, experienced underwater photographer, the P&S gallery would most likely have more high quality images.

 

[panglao]

Of course...

 

[parabolic]

Of course...

panglao, care to elaborate on that? You seem to have quite an attitude. If you know all the answers, why did you ask the question? OTOH if your "Of course..." means you are agreeing with my previous post, that was my ORIGINAL point.
++Ken++

 

[panglao]

panglao, care to elaborate on that? You seem to have quite an attitude. If you know all the answers, why did you ask the question? OTOH if your "Of course..." means you are agreeing with my previous post, that was my ORIGINAL point.
++Ken++

Ken things can come across the internet in the wrong way.

If you go back and read all of my posts I clearly stated two things in regards to you.

First, that you were obviously experienced and second, that despite your statement sounding as if it covered all cameras you probably meant something else.

I have better things to do as I am sure you do.

Peace...

 

[parabolic]

Agree, let's drop it.

Peace...

 

[Puffer Fish]

Interesting issue (discounting the personal stuff)...and great example of using Jim Spear's pictures... which show great use of depth of field and lighting using a point and shoot.

The difficulty with UW pictures is that it is the combination of tools, camera and operator skills that results in the final image.... and then because things are posted on the internet, small images. My guess is that if one has dual strobes... almost any camera with over 6 meg.... and the extra tools (wide angle.. close up, adjustable arms, etc) needed for the specific image.. and then it is shown at 800 x 600....that all one would be looking at is the skill of the operator.

If you are comparing just camera images, without strobes.. then the image quality, if very deep, will be so bad, that all will look terrible.

I don't know how it would be possible to judge just the camera...

 

[MauiScubaSteve]

How about just internal flash photos in the stock manufacturer housing.

GreaterUluaFlash - halemano's Photos- powered by SmugMug

Could it be that much of that album is just right time right place?

 

[panglao]

I don't know how it would be possible to judge just the camera...

Pufferfish,

I completely agree with what Larry, Bill and Ken are saying regarding abilities, who could argue against it?

I will tell you what I did and then everyone can decide if I am on crack, off my nut or whatever

When I started looking into cameras I did not want to exceed a budget of $2500. However, I will be diving and taking pictures almost every day so quality counts a little more than just some occasional vacation trip.

After a lot of research I had pretty firmly settled on a high end P&S like the Canon G10/G11. I then searched for as many example images as I could find. After looking at hundreds of images I have switched to a Nikon D90.

I honestly didn't like the quality of most of the G10 photos. Yes there were still plenty of excellent images, but from looking at the rest of the individual's gallery, website, whatever, most of those excellent images were associated with pretty competent photographers.

However, with the D90, while there were plenty of "bad" pictures if you will, the overall image quality for what I am looking for (pleasing to my eye) was much greater. Most importantly, I found a fairly decent percentage of "acceptable" photos that were obviously not taken by someone with great skill considering a lot of their other photos.

This tells me that with all else being equal (regarding my skills), for what I am looking for, I will get more shots I am happy with from the D90 then I will from the G10.

Does that mean anyone else will like the photos? No. Does it mean that the photos will have great composition, or that I will have my depth or lighting set correctly? No, it just means I think I will get more photos I like from the D90.

Does it mean that if I had a G10 I couldn't learn to take as good a shot as I would with a D90? No, but I'm willing to bet the difference in the cost between the two systems that it will be easier for me to get what I want with the D90.

It's really very simple: if I look at 500 Canon G10 photos and I only like 50 images and another 50 are "acceptable". Then I look at 500 Nikon D90 photos and I like at least 150 and another 50-100 are at least "acceptable", chances are I will like my results from the D90 better than I will the G10.

Could I do this same comparison with two relatively similar DSLR cameras? Of course not.

If you looked at the exact same photos I did would you come to the same conclusion? Maybe, maybe not. It doesn't matter. I wasn't looking for perfection, I was looking for what I liked.

Cheers

 

[Puffer Fish]

Pufferfish,

I completely agree with what Larry, Bill and Ken are saying regarding abilities, who could argue against it?

I will tell you what I did and then everyone can decide if I am on crack, off my nut or whatever

When I started looking into cameras I did not want to exceed a budget of $2500. However, I will be diving and taking pictures almost every day so quality counts a little more than just some occasional vacation trip.

After a lot of research I had pretty firmly settled on a high end P&S like the Canon G10/G11. I then searched for as many example images as I could find. After looking at hundreds of images I have switched to a Nikon D90.

I honestly didn't like the quality of most of the G10 photos. Yes there were still plenty of excellent images, but from looking at the rest of the individual's gallery, website, whatever, most of those excellent images were associated with pretty competent photographers.

However, with the D90, while there were plenty of "bad" pictures if you will, the overall image quality for what I am looking for (pleasing to my eye) was much greater. Most importantly, I found a fairly decent percentage of "acceptable" photos that were obviously not taken by someone with great skill considering a lot of their other photos.

This tells me that with all else being equal (regarding my skills), for what I am looking for, I will get more shots I am happy with from the D90 then I will from the G10.

Does that mean anyone else will like the photos? No. Does it mean that the photos will have great composition, or that I will have my depth or lighting set correctly? No, it just means I think I will get more photos I like from the D90.

Does it mean that if I had a G10 I couldn't learn to take as good a shot as I would with a D90? No, but I'm willing to bet the difference in the cost between the two systems that it will be easier for me to get what I want with the D90.

It's really very simple: if I look at 500 Canon G10 photos and I only like 50 images and another 50 are "acceptable". Then I look at 500 Nikon D90 photos and I like at least 150 and another 50-100 are at least "acceptable", chances are I will like my results from the D90 better than I will the G10.

Could I do this same comparison with two relatively similar DSLR cameras? Of course not.

If you looked at the exact same photos I did would you come to the same conclusion? Maybe, maybe not. It doesn't matter. I wasn't looking for perfection, I was looking for what I liked.

Cheers

Understand your reasoning, but consider the following:

1. Many people buy a point and shoot just to take snap shots... given the much lower cost, it is easy to have a very relaxed attitude regarding images.

2. A lot of people will either get a simple strobe. with a low cost tray and arm to go with the low cost P&S.

3. Most people buying a DSLR will get at least one good strobe and a nice tray and arm set.....

4. Most people buying a DSLR are way more serious about taking pics... as they just spent a lot of money.

5. Conditions play a great part in what is the "right" setup....using a wide angle where I dive, for example, and most of your images will not be very good...but dive in cllear water, and the reverse is true.

If you can take all of the above into account... then one might be able to see the dfferences in the camera...

 

[ScubaSteve]

WOW....a fight really can break out anywhere at any time . FWIW, parabolic 's post did not imply anything negative or incorrect IMO.

A good photographer will make a crap camera's pictures look great and a crap photographer will make a great camera's photos look terrible. Sad reality (I have a nice camera and make the shots look terrible .....but I am working on improving).