What rig?

[jhelmuth]

OK – without going through the history and research details, I’ve narrowed down my selections for an UW rig to: [1] Oly D-40z -or- [2] Oly C-4040z; either in their appropriate Oly UW housings. The main consideration between them is with the lens speed (f2.8 v. 1.8), a few minor feature difs, size (a plus for the D-40z), and cost.
Any advice from those of you experienced UW pix guys (and gals of course) from your personal experiences? Which would you choose (and why)? I’d also like to hear about what lighting system to add later.

 

[Scubaroo]

Just in case you weren't aware, there is now also an Olympus housing for the C5050.

 

[Wreck Ranger]

As you know, when you are doing UW pictures, there isn't as much light down there. The 1.8 will let more light in than the 2.8 from what I can tell. I have the Olympus C-3020 and I think it does a great job. Dee has the C-4040 and she loves hers as well. To me, I can't see a real difference between my camera and Dee's, but I'm new at this game. I would ask Dee, she knows a tremendous amount about this.

 

[jhelmuth]

I'm very aware of the recomendations on the apature (my Dad is a pro pix guy - he made that recomendation first). What is interesting is that from the samples I've looked at, they have never once used the 1.8 setting! the largest apature I've seen is 4.6 in any sample - this is particulary true even when dealing with either avail. lighting or internal flash! So why is the faster lens such a big deal? Anyway, I like the size of the D-40z. But there is no question that the 4040z is da bomb on paper.=-)

 

[Finesse]

with the Olympus XX40 (1.8 lens) camedia series of cameras...(and I'm sure that the 5050 is all the better) .... Consumer reports did a bit on digital cameras .... and the 3040,1.8 lens, (I dont think its even manufactured any more and they didnt test the 4040) did better than most (ranked #3 out of 21 models tested in the 3-5 mp range cameras) 4 mp cameras offered out there....It was only edged out by a 4 mp Canon G2 and a 5 mp Sony....If I recall when this series of cameras first came out they were considered to be a bit more advanced than most due to the ability to manually control the camera to a high degree.....in other words ....not as simple as point and shoot (although you can still have the camera in full automatic mode)

I think it speaks volumes when a 3 mp camera is compared to a 4 and a 5 mp camera for image quality

As far as the lens goes.....ask Tampascott.....I think he has played around with a slower lens .... and was not happy.....I think he even posted some pics in here comparing an older camera he has (getting better results) to a brand new 5 mp camera with the 2.8 lens.....

 

[jhelmuth]

Yes - I saw TampaScotts sample. It was great for exagerating avail. light photos. I would guess that he took this with the flash off and on the ISO 400 setting. But, since he didn't publish the settings, etc. I can't determine for myself how realistic the quality of the camera's optix etc really are. I'd bet that any other digital or film camera would produce similar (if not same) result given the same settings. Still - it does illuminate (pardon the pun) the issues with avail. light and lens speed. I have seen other samples in comparrison of the C-4040, D-40, and other cameras (which is where I got some other information regarding the f-stop data in my earlier post) and was most impressed with the Oly's. I used as many samples from UW as possible, and it was really amazing what these cameras can produce - even without additional lighting systems. I would readily agree that, given the right conditions, f1.8 would get you a better shot (albeit lacking depth of field) than the same circumstances using f2.8 and keeping all else constant.

 

[clive francis]

check my site, i have pictures from my old C920 (which has the 2.8 - 4.4 lens) and is 1.3M and my newer 3040 which has the 1.8 and 3.34M.

there are lots of examples, the 920 took a good picture, but in poor light it did not fair so well, the 3040 has taken pictures in poor light and even without a flash and they still looked good.

i would honestly say i would stick with oly's, and i still have the 920 as a back up.

 

[jhelmuth]

Clive - dude, I saw your pix. I'm quite envious of your travels! Very nice work. I really don't have any information to back this up - but I think that the lower quality pix you took are a result of the digital aberrations from an older, less sophisticated camera (aberrations are most apparent in low lighting - film also has this quality). In the case of the D-40 and 4040, the "guts" are essentially the same (so aberrations would be equally bad given the exact same settings). But I'd really like to have you point out some specific samples with the shutter-speed/aperture/ISO/etc data. This would really help to point out the diff. In no way should any of my comments be construed to be an argument in favour of the D-40. What I struggle with most is the real value of missing the lower aperture values when I know that these same values compromise the depth-of-field. Maybe what I really want to know more about is: "Do people actually make use of these faster apertures?"
:bonk:

 

[raxafarian]

Here are some available light shots at around 110-120ft using f3-f4 . Shutter speed varies from 1/45 and up.

The wrecks seem to be the only time I shoot without a strobe. Most of my shots are with a strobe and I never considered needing a 'faster' lens. I can certainly see benefits on land, but not something I felt was that important u/w.