Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Everything posted by RogerC

  1. The brochures on the 410 and 510 say about 400 shots per charge for the 410, 500 for the 510. personally, I'd go for the 510. The little grip makes it a lot more comfortable for me (big hands) on land, and the image stabilization would be great on land. But the size of the 410 would make it great for travel, and the size of it in the oly housing sure is nice. But big housings and heavy luggage (up to a limit) don't bother me so much, so that's my choice. amazon has all the cameras and kits listed. The kit lenses with these cameras probably won't be legendary quality. But damn, they are small, and for an extra scubabuck or two, why not get them.
  2. eric, just do a get-info on the jpeg file. or do you want more info than that?
  3. just for laughs... there is a ]n mpeg movie of that 10 fps shutter here, on the right, most of the way down: http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/E1DMK3/E1DMK3A.HTM
  4. i'm a big fan of olympus, but I gotta say: PMA is in 29 days. There will be a raft of cameras announced over the next month. Whatever you decide on live view, olympus, nikon, canon, whatever, wait a couple weeks. Anything could happen. D200's could drop to $50. We'll see.
  5. I confess that I have not used my camera connector much yet. I almost always have my laptop, and I already had an 80GB iPod. I'm not interested in a digital wallet, but for $30, the camera connector was a slam dunk for me in case my laptop dies, or for taking along on day trips when I don't plan on shooting more than a card, but you never know. I thought I could. I'll have to check, I may have been shooting raw+jpeg. I haven't done a big download yet, but I'm surprised you're having this problem. you don't have the old Belkin adapter? I think that was USB 1.1. laptops and little screens don't compare, the iPod is just backup for me, but at $30, great backup! Don't
  6. Consider an ipod (80 gig model, $349) and an ipod camera connector ($29). http://www.apple.com/ipod/accessories.html
  7. I've been diving the pinnacles around San Miguel Island (near Santa Barbara, Southern California) for years, trying to get a wide angle scenic that does the area justice. Conditions were great this day, and we hit a new spot (near Wilson's rock) that had a lot of hydrocoral. This image finally captures the life and color that shows why it's my favorite local destination. (so as not to cheat, my other favorites from the year are here: My favorites from 2006)
  8. going back up to Paul's post on closed, limited formats... teh 4/3 system is open, and the last year was very good for it, when finally not one but many companies other than olympus finally joined it. It really seemed to turn the corner and become a real System and one that would last. The zuiko olympus glass is great and always scores very highly in lens tests and in qualitative eyeball print quality. I like my E1 a lot. Great color. Weatherproofing is a great feature. The sonic dustbuster really works. The 7-14 is a great lens. Many friends are getting the E330 with live view and like it. PMA in march should bring a lot more from Olympus.
  9. Do a google search on the sunny 16 rule, a test with no strobe. What does the histogram say? is it happy or not? how about photoshop's historgram (levels)? Look in the manual or do a google search for a full-on nuke-from-space factory system reset button sequence.
  10. This is very sad news. The world of underwater photography has lost a very talented and amazing photographer. We will miss Alessandro's entries in our annual international competition as well as his wonderful contribution to the world of underwater images. Our condolances to his family and friends. - The Los Angeles Underwater Photographic Society His website: http://www.dodiphotosub.com/ Best in show at LAUPS back in 2002: http://www.laups.org/international_results/i2002/index.php 1st in Macro this year: http://www.laups.org/gallery2/v/intl2006/2...Dodi_w.jpg.html and many others.
  11. IMHO, strobes are electronic resusable light bulbs that make flashes, flashbulbs are single use light bulbs that make flashes. Flash is what comes out of either, but it's also a somewhat generic/amateurish term for either. real men use flash rafts: http://www7.nationalgeographic.com/ngm/0505/flashback.html
  12. Acutally, I think there is a nominal cost ($10? $20?) for the CD with mac software. You should do it. You'll still want to jump over to photoshop for some things, and aperture and photoshop play well together.
  13. you said you were running it on your pc's... if you have a windows license, adobe will trade it into a mac licesnce for you.
  14. Thanks. I completely understand, I relied heavily on iPhoto for many years.
  15. have you tried aperture's slideshows? I'm curious to know what you prefer in iphoto. I really like the ability to have a bunch of preset slideshow styles in aperture. I really like the 4-up fast, it's a great way to get through a big slideshow in reasonable time but still give people time with each image.
  16. A couple things: You can turn your windows photoshop license into a mac one. Call them. Aperture has a free demo now. Don't overlook iPhoto. I used it for years, and found it to work well for managing smaller libraries. I'd make a library for each trip, and the 1-5 star system works great for selecting. I tried many things to manage my master library. I wanted some things, like iptc, that iPhoto didn't do. But don't overlook simple stuff, like iPhoto and simple folders with good filenames and spotlight searches. I like aperture better than other things I've tried, including iPhoto, for the fast raw support, the use of stacks for selecting from many similar images (I tend to shoot a lot of the same subject. Stacks are great, but there is a learning curve). I do very little editing other than cropping, so aperture's tools are fine for me. I do still have to go over to photoshop for some things. There are some images that, for whatever reason (like a rare paper nautilus) that I need to do a lot of work on, with adjustment layers, interpolating for prints, fancy sharpening, and you just plain need photoshop. That said, if I could only pick one, it would be aperture. I need it too badly to turn 100 pictures into the 4 good ones from a dive. aperture's backups are great. So easy that I actually use it, and it saved me when a power problem on a liveaboard put my laptop in a coma. I'd love to get rid of photoshop. Adobe seems to get worse and worse, at least on the mac. The interface just gets in my way more and more, I find it unusable for working on anything more than one photo at a time, all the add-ons they've plugged in just don't work for me. I have one machine on which photoshop will no longer update. I have another on which the help system won't run. When I re-installed, I ran out of licenses and had to call them. And even now, it has junk scattered over my hard drive (do I need this stock photo junk?) but I'm afraid to touch any of it because the program is so fragile. Dump some raw files on photoshop, and in ACR they show up in random order, it's impossible to make selects from a group on the same subject. Work in bridge and you're often looking at an old pixellated thumbnail. Without preview images, aperture could be slow, but at least you were always looking at the real image. The point of that rant is, just as many people had trouble trusting their whole library to an aperture database, I have a problem trusting mine to adobe and lightroom. That said, I'm really glad lightroom exists, it will make aperture better, it's already made it cheaper and probably created the free demo. THere are other things as well, like photo mechanic and extensis portfolio. these library management tools have different features and different strengths. They do 3 things for me: help me select photos. Help me improve/edit photos. Help me manage my library. They all do different parts of that differently. We all do things different ways and have different needs. No one piece of software will solve all 3 problems for everyone. Nice to have choices. Be aware that the more powerful the tool, the more of a learning curve there can be. If you do the free trials, give them a fair chance. Look at some of the online tutorials, too.
  17. I'd change that. I'd say I came into the thread thinking: Using a dome you will always have soft edges when shooting wide, unless your lens can focus close enough to work behind the dome. and Paul taught me that Using a dome you will always have soft edges when shooting wide unless your lens can focus close enough to work behind the dome, and has enough depth of field to capture the whole image, which has some curvature to it. Which is a different way of thinking about what happens when your lens can or can't focus close. Pretty interesting. It's basically the same thing you're saying, but by adding the detail, you figure out how to fix it: focus close and have depth of field, or change the dome or some other optic to flatten the image.
  18. need to include price in the review, too. viewfinders will all have a lot of internal surfaces. Bright, clear, non-yellow, means good optical coatings on every surface, and that means $. My guess is we'll see two families of price and performance: one set in a lower price range with uncoated optics and lower performance, and one set in a higher price range with higher performance. I would be surprised to see anything in the middle range on price and performance. I'm not sure how you'd get something in the middle. Smaller optics? coatings on only some optics? An overpriced uncoated viewfinder? an expensive housing with inexpensive optics? Just my wild prediciton to add some interest to the review.
  19. the part of the housing which gets cold the fastest, and hits the dew point temperature the fastest, will get the condensation. In a polycarbonate housing, the poly is a better insulator than the thinner glass in the port, so you may get condensation on the port. You may also get it on the metal buttons which should cool fast. There are long threads on this in the archives, and I got on a soapbox... I say, even if you aren't getting condensation, you are putting your camera in a humid environment, which is bad if you want to keep it a long time, and if the environment is particularly cold/humid, your camera, on return to the surface, may be the coldest thing around and *it* may get all the condensation, even worse. So, my soapbox is, forget all the rituals, the equalization, the air conditioning, all that, and just dry out your housing with some dessicant.
  20. use silica gel, but use the kind with the blue/pink color indicator, so you know it's good. It goes bad pretty quickly in a big housing. it can be recharged.
  21. thanks. I'll have to think about that. I always think back to the simple ray trace diagrams, with the little vertical arrows as images. http://www.glenbrook.k12.il.us/GBSSCI/PHYS...rn/u14l5da.html What you are saying, in effect, is that if your subject is a little vetical arrow, the arrow in the virtual image will be bent over a spherical surface. Gotta think about that... But if that's right, then I completely agree with your whole argument. There will always be distortion out in the edges. The problem is in the dome, not in the lens, and the best a lens can do is get the whole subject in focus. You need a special dome optic, as you said. thanks.
  22. This is interesting. Never thought of it that way, you have a hemispherical virtual image plane and if you have enough DoF, you can get it all in focus... But I'm having trouble with that for two reasons: 1. doesn't the real world have a hemispherical virtual image plane? Aren't there rays of light coming from surfaces all around me into my lens? 2. "the further away the dome is, the further away the virtual image is". Consider two domes, a 3" radius and a 4" radius. Don't they both put the image at the same place, in the center of the dome sphere? does it matter how big the dome is? if the dome was in the right place, would it matter how big it was / could your lens "tell" how far away it was / could your lens tell how big a dome it was? Still seems to me like there is a mismatch in radius of curvature and what the lens wants. I hate to ask, don't want to make you write a tome, but what's the difference? convex front element, to match the curved wavefront coming from the dome? What I come back to in this, is a point and shoot with an add-on wet lens like a wide angle inon, or video with an add-on lens, or even on land, when you add a "wide angle filter" or wide angle add-on to a compact camera or video. If you keep your camera's lens zoomed out, full wide, it works well. If you zoom in at all, the corners get distorted, the same kind of distortion we see behind a dome, for the same reason: The lens, in the corners, is expecting light to be hitting the front element at a certain angle. And it's not. It's too wide. You're too close to the dome, or you zoomed into the wet lens. To work at all, light needs to be hitting that front element at the right angle.
  23. When you close your housing, you want to do it in air that is as dry as possible. Temp doesn't matter. Total moisture trapped in the housing is all that matters. The more moisture that is in your housing, the higher the temp it will fog at. usually, the dryest environment available is an air conditioned one, since an air conditioner pulls moisture out of the air. Use dessicant.
  24. that's probably every currently shipping mac.
  25. You're going to be happy either way you go. I have had a point and shoot compact digital since 2001. I was either going to buy a 15mm for my nikonos or a digital; Jim church told me to buy the digital, he said it was what he was shooting for himself and he was having a ball. I've had an Oly 5050 now for several years and have taken several tens of thousands of frames with it underwater. I've done well in contests with it. I've gotten used to the lag and the buffer. And I love changing lenses in the water, I've captures some rare stuff, like a cooprerative cornetfish and a paper nautilus. And I love composing with the LCD. But I really love the E1 color and glass. I have the 7-14 and the 14-54. The latter is pretty good in the water, a decent lens for fish portraits, large macro subjects, shy large fish (sharks, etc). But it's kind of a compromise lens and not what I'm looking for, most dives. I don't know how many E1 housings were made. Few enough sold to disappoint Ikelite. I only know of a handful of underwater E1 shooters (look at Ike's site for some samples, one of Carlos Martinez's went a long way toward convincing me to buy the E1), or underwater oly shooters, for that matter. I make telescopes for a living, gotta agree with you on the glass, that's why I went with them.
  • Create New...