Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

upgrading to Nikon D100


  • Please log in to reply
12 replies to this topic

#1 Joe Honu

Joe Honu

    Clownfish

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 22 posts

Posted 20 April 2003 - 01:03 PM

Greetings digital photo dudes!
I am now upgrading from U/W point and shoot to U/W SLR. I shoot nikon topside, will my AF lenses work with the D-100? In looking at / for housings, I am reading some problems with the S&S housing (factory recall?) versus the Aquatica....great reviews. Any preferencial statements from wetpixel shooters? I read the review posted previous on the Aquatica and it looks great. Also looking into advice on the use of "domes" for shooting, necessity of the "red filter" for SLR work. I will look further on strobes on that board.
Many thanks for the input, offers of used equip for sale are welcome!!! :)

Joe

#2 donauw

donauw

    Wolf Eel

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 131 posts
  • Location:Big Pine Key, FL

Posted 20 April 2003 - 02:05 PM

RE: Many thanks for the input, offers of used equip for sale are welcome!!!

Check:

http://wetpixel.com/...t=ST&f=6&t=2204

Regards,

#3 marriard

marriard

    Sting Ray

  • Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 295 posts
  • Location:Somewhere with Diving, Asia-Pacific

Posted 20 April 2003 - 02:31 PM

I am now upgrading from U/W point and shoot to U/W SLR.    I shoot nikon topside, will my AF lenses work with the D-100?  In looking at / for housings, I am reading some problems with the S&S housing (factory recall?) versus the Aquatica....great reviews.  Also looking into advice on the use of "domes" for shooting, necessity of the "red filter" for SLR work.   I will look further on strobes on that board.

First - no need for a red filter.

Secondly, don't limit yourseflf to the D100, but also consider the Fuji S2Pro. Both will take your Nikon lenses.

If you go D100, the Nexus housing, the Subal housing and the Aquatica housings are all great housings. The Sea&Sea is slightly cheaper, but despite some early hiccups is OK. Personally I have a huge preference for Nexus housings, but that is a very biased opinion as I used one for my Nikon N90S.

If you do Fuji S2 - Aqauatica is your #1 choice, with Ikelite #2 (it is a very solid housing and cheaaper - I have been using it for the last 6-7 months). I am considering the Aquatica as soon as I hear what it is like from a friend or the show in Chicago.

Domes are wonderful for wide angle work. Use flat ports for macro shooting (60, 90 and 105mm+ lenses)

Lastly, be careful about strobe choices - both the D100 and S2 Pro have differing behaviours for different strobes.

Happy to answer any questions.

Good luck,
M

#4 Joe Honu

Joe Honu

    Clownfish

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 22 posts

Posted 20 April 2003 - 07:32 PM

M-
Thanks so much for your very educated input. I had not even considered the Fuji, just no familiarity with it. I have a N90 which I am very fond of for dry work. I will definitely look into the fuji now!
Can you tell me why the filter is not needed with the DSLR??? Is the pixel processing different from my SONY set-up (P-9 with 50W torch)??? May be a silly Q, but am still curious.

Donaau,
I saw the add for your S&S housing, so did the boss here at the house:P !!! That was why I was trying to get some additional opinions on it versus the Aquatica. Certianly NOT badmouthing something I have NO experience with, just trying to get edjumacated before I start shucking out the bucks...looks like a great deal though!

All responses are welcomed! :)

#5 marriard

marriard

    Sting Ray

  • Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 295 posts
  • Location:Somewhere with Diving, Asia-Pacific

Posted 20 April 2003 - 07:55 PM

M-
Thanks so much for your very educated input.  I had not even considered the Fuji, just no familiarity with it.  I have a N90 which I am very fond of for dry work.  I will definitely look into the fuji now!
Can you tell me why the filter is not needed with the DSLR???  Is the pixel processing different from my SONY set-up (P-9 with 50W torch)???  May be a silly Q, but am still curious.

With a housed system you are going to be investing in some nice strobes. Once you have the 'big guns' anything you are going to light up is going to get full spectrum lighting from the strobes (which produces a massive amount of light in a tiny fraction of a second).

Red filter is useful for adding red in where it has been lost in the water column and where lighting you are providing is not sufficient - and that is going to be inconsequential with strobes.

Never seen anyone with a red filter on a strobed housing. Someone else I am sure has - but I (personally) can't see a reason to use one unless you were going for some kind of special red effect.

M

#6 Joe Honu

Joe Honu

    Clownfish

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 22 posts

Posted 20 April 2003 - 08:08 PM

See, there you go, answering the rookies Q's...I certianly appreciate it! Thanks for the read referral on the Fuji also. Nice touch them incorporating firewire capability for file transfer.

As far as the housings, the aquatica really has sparked my interest (especially from the reviews), but the price on the S&S in the classifieds here sure is right. Input??

Last Q if I may, I understand that strobe lighting is going to be infinitely different u/w, and there are few to no DSLR shooters here in Hawaii that I routinely dive with, but all the big shooters seem to have duals...should I start with a single (maybe an ike ds 125), learn THAT first before jumping into twin sources???

Your input would be appreciated. Thanks again.

Joe B)

#7 craig

craig

    Full Moon Rising

  • Super Mod
  • 2826 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Austin, TX

Posted 20 April 2003 - 08:36 PM

Red filter is useful for adding red in where it has been lost in the water column and where lighting you are providing is not sufficient - and that is going to be inconsequential with strobes.

Never seen anyone with a red filter on a strobed housing. Someone else I am sure has - but I (personally) can't see a reason to use one unless you were going for some kind of special red effect.

M

That's because you've never seen me.

Several misconceptions. First, filters don't add red. Filters can only subtract light. Second, filters are generally not used to alter strobe light although it's perfectly legitimate to do so. Third, strobe reach is not infinite, so I have no idea why anyone would suggest that it is (as in "inconsequential with strobes"). Filters can offer color on subjects 20 or more feet away. Do your strobes do that? Filters are useful for dealing with ambient light as long as their effect on strobes is compensated for. You can do that.

There are plenty of reasons why you might use a filter with strobes. You may want to enhance the color of the background (or further eliminate it). You may want to compensate for the inherent color of the water. You may want to extend the reach of your strobes (which filters can do). I agree that beginners shouldn't be looking at filters, but don't say that filters are of no value just because you don't personally use them. Pick up some for your next dive trip. You may learn something new.

Alex has done some work recently with his D100 and filters. Definitely worth a look.
I love it when a plan comes together.
- Col. John "Hannibal" Smith

------
Nikon, Seatool, Nexus, Inon
My Galleries

#8 marriard

marriard

    Sting Ray

  • Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 295 posts
  • Location:Somewhere with Diving, Asia-Pacific

Posted 21 April 2003 - 03:48 AM

That's because you've never seen me.  

Several misconceptions.  First, filters don't add red.  Filters can only subtract light.  Second, filters are generally not used to alter strobe light although it's perfectly legitimate to do so.  Third, strobe reach is not infinite, so I have no idea why anyone would suggest that it is (as in "inconsequential with strobes").  Filters can offer color on subjects 20 or more feet away.  Do your strobes do that?  Filters are useful for dealing with ambient light as long as their effect on strobes is compensated for.  You can do that.

There are plenty of reasons why you might use a filter with strobes.  You may want to enhance the color of the background (or further eliminate it).  You may want to compensate for the inherent color of the water.  You may want to extend the reach of your strobes (which filters can do).  I agree that beginners shouldn't be looking at filters, but don't say that filters are of no value just because you don't personally use them.  Pick up some for your next dive trip.  You may learn something new.

Alex has done some work recently with his D100 and filters.  Definitely worth a look.


I have a full set of filters I use for various purposes topside where I have the ability to change filters on a per-shot or per-situation basis. I don't have that luxury underwater. So as I said, I only use filters underwater when I am going after a particular shot and not general shooting.

I never suggested strobe light was infinite. And I never suggested that filters have no value (I use them in my day to day topside shooting). What I am suggesting is that they have limited value in general shooting underwater.

Also the 'red filter' question is normally in response to people seeing videographers using red filters.

I have tried various filters underwater - in almost all cases I hated the effect as the images became very unnatural looking. But if you have some ideas on particular filters that may work well underwater, let me know - I am always willing to try something for a dive or two to see if it does something worthwhile.

Your milage may vary. I know mine does.

M

#9 craig

craig

    Full Moon Rising

  • Super Mod
  • 2826 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Austin, TX

Posted 21 April 2003 - 06:04 AM

I never suggested strobe light was infinite. And I never suggested that filters have no value (I use them in my day to day topside shooting). What I am suggesting is that they have limited value in general shooting underwater.

I have tried various filters underwater - in almost all cases I hated the effect as the images became very unnatural looking. But if you have some ideas on particular filters that may work well underwater, let me know - I am always willing to try something for a dive or two to see if it does something worthwhile.

Your milage may vary. I know mine does.

M

What you said was that times where strobe light would not be "sufficient" were "inconsequential". In other words, strobes will always be powerful enough. That is what you said. You also said "... but I (personally) can't see a reason to use one ...". You position is clear and I did not misrepresent it.

Let's face it, Paul. You're predjudiced against filters like 99% of the uw still photographers out there. If the pros don't use them they can't be worthwhile. All the technique there will ever be has already been developed. It's interesting that you broadly dismiss filters as "unnatural looking" yet you shoot through the worst possible filter there is, the water itself, on every single shot. Just what is "natural looking"? Turn your strobes off and find out. Photographers alter the look of the natural scene all the time. It's silly to call that natural.

Underwater is different in that you always know that ambient light is bad and in what way. You don't know how much. That means that for a given type of shooting, the right filter will be consistently suitable, unlike land. Of course, it won't work if one shot is macro and the next is a pelagic, but I doubt your rig is capable of that anyway. Digital has the advantage that post-processing will always be an option, so if even a filter isn't the best choice, the shot is typically not ruined, just suboptimal.

The ideal filter is one that is the inverse of the filtration effect of the water. That's impossible because water varies in both quality and distance for every shot, but the right category of filters are the flourescents. Flourescent filters are not typically found in a typical photographers gear bag so I doubt you've tried them. A flourescent filter is composed of two elements: a color temperature shifter and a green notch (magenta component). For green water and close up you want more of the second and less of the first. The opposite is true for blue water and long distances. I suggest the Hoya FL-D and the Singh-Ray FL-B for these two cases. I also like the straight CC40M and CC50M gels/resins for just the notch. Avoid the Tiffen versions, though.

Another technique is also valid. For CFWA you may prefer to enhance the effect of isolating color by using a blue filter on your lens and a warming filter on your strobes. I'm not ready to try that yet.

Digital is a great format for enabling experimentation and I hate to see people held back by old predjudice. Filters won't just work by putting one on and shooting as usual; you have to choose the right one and adjust your exposure. If done correctly, they can be yet another useful tool in your ever-increasing bag of tricks.
I love it when a plan comes together.
- Col. John "Hannibal" Smith

------
Nikon, Seatool, Nexus, Inon
My Galleries

#10 james

james

    The Engineer

  • Super Mod
  • 9969 posts
  • Location:Houston TX

Posted 21 April 2003 - 06:45 AM

Craig,

I know this is a subject close to your heart. I just wanted to let you know that your reply sounded "pretty harsh" and I'm sure that's not your intent.

I think a separate discussion of filters would be appropriate at this time - perhaps with some posted examples.

Cheers
James
Canon 1DsMkIII - Seacam Housing
Dual Ikelite Strobes
Photo site - www.reefpix.org

#11 marriard

marriard

    Sting Ray

  • Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 295 posts
  • Location:Somewhere with Diving, Asia-Pacific

Posted 21 April 2003 - 07:28 AM

Let's face it, Paul.  You're predjudiced against filters like 99% of the uw still photographers out there.  If the pros don't use them they can't be worthwhile.  All the technique there will ever be has already been developed.  It's interesting that you broadly dismiss filters as "unnatural looking" yet you shoot through the worst possible filter there is, the water itself, on every single shot.  Just what is "natural looking"?  Turn your strobes off and find out.  Photographers alter the look of the natural scene all the time.  It's silly to call that natural.

Underwater is different in that you always know  that ambient light is bad and in what way.  You don't know how much.  That means that for a given type of shooting, the right filter will be consistently suitable, unlike land.  Of course, it won't work if one shot is macro and the next is a pelagic, but I doubt your rig is capable of that anyway.  
The ideal filter is one that is the inverse of the filtration effect of the water.  That's impossible because water varies in both quality and distance for every shot, but the right category of filters are the flourescents.  Flourescent filters are not typically found in a typical photographers gear bag so I doubt you've tried them.  A flourescent filter is composed of two elements: a color temperature shifter and a green notch (magenta component).  For green water and close up you want more of the second and less of the first.  The opposite is true for blue water and long distances.  I suggest the Hoya FL-D and the Singh-Ray FL-B for these two cases.  I also like the straight CC40M and CC50M gels/resins for just the notch.  Avoid the Tiffen versions, though.

Another technique is also valid. For CFWA you may prefer to enhance the effect of isolating color by using a blue filter on your lens and a warming filter on your strobes.  I'm not ready to try that yet.

Digital is a great format for enabling experimentation and I hate to see people held back by old predjudice.  Filters won't just work by putting one on and shooting as usual; you have to choose the right one and adjust your exposure. If done correctly, they can be yet another useful tool in your ever-increasing bag of tricks.

OK, I didn't get personal, but you did. You don't know me. You don't know if I like/dislike filters or otherwise. I have a library of several thousand topside shots that are taken with filters. I take offense to a "lets face it you are prejudice' comment - that is uncalled for, especially when I consider it untrue. I also don't follow blindly what Underwater Pros do because there is very few I follow - my mentors and instructors are all topside Nature and Studio photographers. I am thrilled to be able to expereiment more with digital than I ever did with film.

I also said all the filters I have attempted to use underwater have made unnatural shots. I didn't say all filters did - in fact I followed it up with asking for suggestions for filters that *might* be useful - and I will indeed try your suggestions. In fact I have some of the filters right here in the room with me. I even have some flouro filters for some micro work I was doing. I think they are even the right size for my 105mm lens. I also said I was willing to experiment with ideas.

As for water being an ununatural filter - sure - but it is already there. Can't do much about it.

My choice of words may have been somewhat incorrect in expressing my feelings and thoughts. I will quite happily take this to another thread and talk filters til the cows come home. I would love to see images where you (and others) feel filters have enhanced the image and how you believe it has enhanced the image.

I'm ending this part of this discussion here.

M

#12 scorpio_fish

scorpio_fish

    Orca

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1413 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Dallas, TX

Posted 21 April 2003 - 10:29 PM

Hi Joe,

I'm shooting the D100 in Aquatica housing this week in Palau. I didn't have time to right a 1st impressions report last week.

It's a great housing. I can still take lousy photographs, only I get to kill them faster. I really like the housing. I don't like shooting macro w/o TTL. I like shooting wide angle even better now, because it is easy to tweak the ambient background exposure on the spot.

I'm still doing really stupid things. It's OK once, but I'm tired of doing it on every trip. 1) Forgot to switch lens to AF from MF before jumping in. 2) Mode button on top left of camera accidently depressed and moved to "change ISO setting". Couldn't figure out what was wrong. duh! 3) Didn't change battery soon enough. Got one shot off the greatest dive of my life. Billions of sharks and cuda and schooling big fish. duh!

I are stupid. But the camera and housing are great!
"Me, fail English?.........Unpossible!"

#13 Joe Honu

Joe Honu

    Clownfish

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 22 posts

Posted 22 April 2003 - 10:52 AM

Scorpio fish!
My wife was mad at me last night from the drool puddle I left on the keyboard after reading you were in Palau. I have been getting much advice from MUCHO wetpixel "pros". Very informative group. I am very much looking forward to your additional info on the Aquatica housing and set-up recommendations.
If you have the availability, check out some of the "filter talk" going back and forth. Pretty interesting stuff.

Thanks again for the reply!

Joe B)