What camera do you use?
- Thread starter Haleye97
- Start date
Please register or login
Welcome to ScubaBoard, the world's largest scuba diving community. Registration is not required to read the forums, but we encourage you to join. Joining has its benefits and enables you to participate in the discussions.
Benefits of registering include
- Ability to post and comment on topics and discussions.
- A Free photo gallery to share your dive photos with the world.
- You can make this box go away
While I agree with placing high value on diving skills, composition and light I would have to expand your pie slices for camera body and lens quality. Once you're a decent diver and have figured out that the light should usually be behind you, most people can take pretty decent pictures with a point and shoot camera IF it has a reasonably fast auto-focus that stays focused and doesn't hunt and IF the shutter lag and camera metering delay don't cause you to take a picture of a big silty plume where your subject was when you pushed the button.
New cameras are remarkably good in those respects, but I spent three frustrating years improving my diving and photo skills while struggling with a camera that just wasn't fast enough to get the shot. I'm still frustrated using a high quality $7000+ DSLR with very popular lenses that hunt for focus and don't take sharp pictures unless the distance from subject and aperture settings are perfect for the lens. Fortunately, I can fix most of the issues I still have by shooting RAW and adjusting lighting, white balance and contrast after the fact.
I dive every weekend and do a major trip at least once a year, but when the "shot of a lifetime" comes along you often don't have time to think about which side the sun is on or change your lighting settings before that Humpback or Manta Ray disappears. Having a camera that can capably do that for you and still get the shot is a big plus, especially for less experienced photographers. Fortunately, there are a number of really good choices out there now and for about $1500, you can have a camera/housing/strobe combination that will get you about 90% of your pictures without a whole lot of experience or photographic talent. After that, the artistic part-composition, lighting, color, etc. is up to you.
tplyons
Contributor
I have absolutely no argument about composition, buoyancy skills and strobe lighting are crucial to the success, but if we're talking purely about the camera, I'd put my top criteria on the lens/body combination, meaning a sharp autofocus, minimal shutter lag, and the ability to handle RAW. I don't want anything to do with a camera that doesn't have the capability of shooting in RAW.
It's a nice chart, but to be honest, how many photos do you shoot that are perfect right out of the camera without any post?
OK, sounds good! I personally never shoot RAW, but if you feel that it is necessary, then you should use that capacity. It is good for recapturing blown out highlights, though, I have seen that.
Almost none, I do post processing on almost all of my photos. Not sure why you are asking. Are you under the impression that you can't do that without a RAW file? Or that doing it to a JPEG will not give acceptable results?
Larry C:
I'm not quite sure what this means, but if you can fix pictures that are out of focus with RAW processing, then you really are on to something!
tplyons
Contributor
More often than not my post-processing involves recapturing a bit of blown out highlights. Nothing like great composition ruined by something blown out that you didn't foresee. Instead of scrapping the whole shot, I'm always glad I shoot 100% in RAW and can get it back.
While all the things mentioned in the graph are important in my humble opinion the percentages are off. When talking about equipment most photo people will tell you good glass is the most important part of your equipment. To get good glass you need to spend some money on a camera system with a removable lens, which means a higher end camera.
I recently upgraded my camera system from a point and shoot to a Sony NEX and I could immediately see a difference in the shots. I'm shooting in RAW and I find the images to be much easier to edit and get a lot more out of them. Don't get me wrong my point and shoot I got a lot of good shots out of but the shots out of a better camera in a format that is more adjustable I think makes the shots a lot better.
Here is one quick article on RAW v JPEG. pros and cons to both but if image quality is your end goal RAW is going to give you a bit more when used correctly, it its enough to make a difference to you it's a personal choice. Good diving to you .
RAW vs. JPEG
I recently upgraded my camera system from a point and shoot to a Sony NEX and I could immediately see a difference in the shots. I'm shooting in RAW and I find the images to be much easier to edit and get a lot more out of them. Don't get me wrong my point and shoot I got a lot of good shots out of but the shots out of a better camera in a format that is more adjustable I think makes the shots a lot better.
Here is one quick article on RAW v JPEG. pros and cons to both but if image quality is your end goal RAW is going to give you a bit more when used correctly, it its enough to make a difference to you it's a personal choice. Good diving to you .
RAW vs. JPEG
No, the camera can't move the sun, but the auto settings and fill flash will properly expose the picture a lot faster than you can adjust the dials, or compensate for the cloud that just came over when your settings were for brighter lighting. By "get the picture" I mean that the photographer points the camera and squeezes the button and the camera sets the flash level, aperture and/or shutter speed, recognizes the subject area and identifies proper focus in time to shoot the picture and get a decent result. I'm not saying that this will result in great photography. What I am saying is that with the right camera/strobe/lens combination it won't result in a blurry mess that you have to explain to your FB friends as, "really, it was the most awesome Loggerhead Turtle ever as you can see by this blurry looking foot I got a picture of!"
I have spent 8 years of underwater photography learning my way around shutter speed, aperture, depth of field, lighting and composition and get some pretty good results a lot of the time. I've also been shown up on occasion by a 17 year old with no manners who shoves a P&S camera in the face of my subject while I'm adjusting my settings and gets a perfect shot with nothing more than a press of the button.
I have spent 8 years of underwater photography learning my way around shutter speed, aperture, depth of field, lighting and composition and get some pretty good results a lot of the time. I've also been shown up on occasion by a 17 year old with no manners who shoves a P&S camera in the face of my subject while I'm adjusting my settings and gets a perfect shot with nothing more than a press of the button.
That's true. And for underwater photography, your equipment (within fairly broad limits) is the least important part of making good pictures.
---------- Post added August 1st, 2013 at 12:57 PM ----------
Larry, I'm sorry if I'm coming off as being snarky, but I really do think that this sort of statement is typical of a big problem that beginning underwater photographers have. If you have a simple, modern, underwater point and shoot camera outfit, and if you try to take a photo of a Loggerhead, and come away with a blurry foot, no amount of money spent on cameras, strobes or lenses will make any difference.
Seriously, I think that we do a disservice to new underwater photographers by making them think that they need to spend a lot of time and money worrying about RAW capability or high end lenses. You get a good shot of a Loggerhead by knowing animal behavior, having your buoyancy dialed in, getting close to the subject and having good situational awareness.
Sure, at the very high ends of UW photography, having the ability to bring out details in blown out highlights can improve the quality of a photograph that is well composed but technically lacking. But most new UW photographers who are disappointed by their low contrast, poorly focused, miscropped and tiny, distant images of sea life would be far better served by taking a photography course that stresses camera handling over photoshop skills.
I love me some good glass. I have shot weddings with my 7D and L series 85 mm 1.2, and loved the results. Don't get me wrong, I'm all in favor of good equipment where it will make a difference. But there's a term on the photo forums that sort of applies here - pixel peeping. That's what all the interest in minutae sounds like to me...
My 2 PSI..
Similar threads
