ce4jesus

I was golfing with a fella last week. About hole 5 I asked him how his congregation was. Puzzled he said, how do you know I'm a pastor. I said, no one else I know can golf that lousy without cussing. A man was golfing with his wife. He hits a long drive on a par 5 that lands just in the rough behind a tree. Upon arriving at the ball the wife suggests chipping it onto the fairway. He examines the lie and notices that he can see the flag between the first branches of the tree. He proclaims golf a mans game and then he pulls out the 3 wood. He connects really well. The ball hits the tree richochets off and hits his wife in the head killing her instantly. 3 weeks after the funeral he's golfing with his buddy and his buddy hits the identical drive on the same hole. As his buddy is sizing up the shot and reaching for the 3 wood, his friend says I woudn't do that if I were you. I tried it a few weeks back and got a bogey. What do you call a dog with 3 legs, 1 eye, 1 ear and a broken tail? .... lucky.

I disagree. I've been a fisherman most of my life. The color of the lure is extremely important when fishing crankbaits. It pertains to colors attracting fish...ie sharks.

You rarely see any solid black fishing lures...most are a bright colors like neon green or yellow.

You have to wonder if high powered military sonar isn't responsible. I'd imagine a painful, high powered noise would drive anything, anywhere to avoid it.

Ardy, I've used the 50mm macro behind the PPO-E05 flat port. It works. The lens extends. You don't need the light blocking rubber piece that fits to the 14-42. I've yet to have any reflection in any shots using it. I'm going to guess that is because of the focal length. When the 14-42 is at 42 mm there's no reflection either, however when you go wide without the rubber light blocker in place you'll get reflection...go figure. All, I have a brand new Olympus PPO-E03 macro port for the 50mm for sale at about %40 off new price. Send me a PM if you're interested.

I think that's the closest shot I've ever seen carol..nice job! I had a bazzillion of these guys off the house reef in Dumagette but couldn't quite get that close without spooking the little guys!

http://www.fun-in.com.tw/catalog/index.php?cPath=95_34 I've ordered two Z-240s through these folks via email. The S-2000 is Inon's newest strobe. The Z240 would be a good strobe to grow with. $617 US plus about $50 for the fiber optic D Cable should fit in your budget. Here is a great strobe comparison chart if you want to do a little research. http://www.digitaldiver.net/strobes.php

Regardless of the camera, you'll be disappointed without a strobe even with the ability to post white-balance in RAW. Just my 2 cents.

I don't think the sand detracts much at all from the photo. I like the unique compisition which catches my eye and then the sergeant majors also as a secondary subject. You might try darkening the background a bit if the sand worries you.

Alex the photos and captions were great, I'm now going to have to schedule a stop at the peanut butter cleaning station! Jeff - Whoa!!! The last 2 White tip photos are just awesome!!! I want to know how you got the photo of the White Tip God descending from the clouds!!!!

It could be that the water is coming through a button. If you could isolate which one, you could always remove it and grease the orings with the Olympus Grease you purchased. A small leak in a pool will become a big leak at depth if its a button so the advice to dive without the camera is very good. There were only a couple of other ways to flood the PT-030. One was to not have the camera seated correctly...ie the zoom wouldn't work. The 2nd was to pinch the lens cap lanyard in the housing as you close it, therefore not allowing it to seal correctly. I managed to do both while using that setup. The shutter button was notorious for sticking and I would start there if you still have a leak tomorrow.

bump ends tomorrow

Talk about spoilin' the fun...

Maybe I was a bit generous toward the 10D but it does perform well given its age. My point is that at base ISO it is almost impossible to tell the difference between any camera today unless you're cropping in over 100%. Since cropping is almost as favorable as the English Prime Minister these days, what's the point? http://www.dxomark.com/index.php/eng/DxOMark-Sensor Okay semantics out of the way, my statement was accurate. IQ as you stated above is better with better, larger, more expensive cameras but they're not football fields apart. The best sunburst image I ever saw was from a Canon A640 digicam. Furthermore, if you read the entire thread, I don't think anyone on here is trying to say that the Olympus Entry DSLR's are going to compete with a 5D. The opening question was is the 5D worth the extra money, weight, size etc over a smaller, lighter, less expensive camera like the 620. The original question contained parameters and probing questions about IQ versus other considerations. In a nutshell here's my stance: I golf about once a month and am fairly adept. I might be able to shave a few strokes off my game by dropping a grand on new clubs. But I'm not going to. Saving those few strokes would be nothing but an ego fix and the oohs and aahs I might get from owning the latest greatest gear. If I were able to make some money by saving those strokes, yeah then it might make sense. To a point, great clubs don't make great golfers. I take the same stance with Photography. Would I be thrilled with D700, you bet and it might even improve my game a little with its advanced focus system. But in light of expense, weight, size, the amount of times I dive a year it doesn't make sense. There are people in that same boat. It will be quite awhile before I reach the skill level that will outgrow my E520. That may not be true with other folks on here and as always, one size doesn't fit all.

1. Empty wallet 2. In the pool, with camera, ruler and watch...when its raining 3. taking photo of said watch and ruler 4. Expounding on DOF, focal distance and size ratio Steve....I can't imagine why? BTW, I can't imagine a diopter making AF easier. It should theoretically give you a shorter working distance and shallower DOF. The lack of DOF should make focusing a little more challenging...but what do I know.

Of the stuff you put up...that one is the worst of the bunch. Love the tree abstract...wonderful shot. I just snorted my coffee...thanks! At least you know your sensors clean...I wonder what your score would've been with a dust bunny in there.

That's why I stated topside glass. The lenses OLY has available to dive with are all well within the price range of its competitors. ...and I know a well respected site which claims the Canon 10d outperforms many of the newer Canons and Nikons in this regard however, this is minutia and indistinguishable by the human eye.

Simply due to the fact you have very little red light after 40ft and therefore would require strobes on most underwater photography. High ISO has its nitch and might give the user greater creativity with deep water wrecks, shallow water and available light photography with filters. This area is just now being approached by some pros on here using the D700 but I've yet to ever move my camera off of base ISO. In any case, any shot without the need of strobe would benefit from high ISO.

Well said. I strongly considered the Canon and Nikon when I chose to purchase the E410. To me, both were excellent cameras. However, in order to get the price in the range of the Oly OEM housing, I had to go with Fantasea who had just released a plastic housing similar to the ikelite. The nice aluminum housings you sited are nice in size but take photon torpedos to the wallet. The Fantasea was slightly more money and a little larger than the PT-E03 and E410. The other "big" issue for me was the use of fiber optics over cables. I'd been using cables with my old SP350 wired to an olympus housed strobe but ended up ruining an entire mini vacation due to an expensive cable having issues. I switched to fiber optics on the SP350 and never looked back. The Fantasea wouldn't allow the flash in the housing to be raised so optics were not an option. Since image quality and performance in low ISO ranges were similar, the Olympus option became a clear winner for me. I've since upgraded my camera body, housing and added Inon strobes and the system has worked well for me both in use and in transit. Dislikes about the Oly 1/180 sync speed with the internal strobe. I need a wired cable to my inons in order to go above that. 140ft limitation on the housing - Although this isn't a real big deal for me, for wreck divers it should be a big consideration. Expense of the pro glass. - There's some excellent topside glass but it comes at a huge price. Even the Sigma options are expensive. Housing seems somewhat fragile to me (although other than feel I have no empirical data to support my fear) - I treat it like I'm carrying a Ming Vase.

Oly wins on price, size and weight with its selection of underwater DSLRs. The only place oly loses with Canon and Nikon is in ISO's past 800 which isn't useful underwater in most cases. Lenses? There are plenty of selections for an olympus user. WA 7-14mm Professional lens and expensive. 14-28mm equivalent 8mm - Fisheye lens. The lens and port for jaround $1400 16mm equivalent 9-18mm - Port and lens for around $1100 18-36mm equivalent 11-22mm - 22 to 44mm equivalent Zoom 14-42mm - kit lens with port 28mm-84mm equivalent 12-60mm - 24mm-120mm equivalent 14-54mm - 28mm-108mm equivalent Macro 35mm 1:1 macro - 2:1 equivalent macro 50mm 1:2 macro - 1:1 equivalent macro Sigma 105mm macro 1:1 macro - 2:1 equivalent macro ***These are all digital lenses designed for the 4/3 sensor and all have ports designed for them. I'll must make a comment on macro. Anyone that shoots great macro, IMO, is using either TC's or external wet diopters to accomplish greater than 1:1 equivalent. I prefer wet diopters because they allow you some versatility underwater versus a TC. Given the above complement of lenses, I think its being misinformed to say Oly doesn't offer a complete line of underwater lenses. As someone stated above, the Sigma isn't a great solution due to focus speed and there's been rumors for years about Oly coming out with a 100mm, 1:1 lens.

Okay, maybe you can tell me where you fould the statistics for the PT-E06 because I couldn't even find them for the PT-E05. I'll weigh mine when I return home but I think 5lbs without a port is very generous. I was thinking about 3. I don't think brining in trays and arms is relevant since no one is locked into a particular brand. Olympus will actually do both sync cord and optical for firing some strobes and needs converters for handling others with a wired setup. What would be interesting is to have someone with a D80 sign up to weigh their D80 in an ikelite with a standard kit lens. I could do the same for the E520 which would be very similar to the 620. Anyway,

I agree completely. I think when you purchase a camera you are essentially marrying yourself to the glass and ports because the bodies and housings will change over time. That's a big committment that each individual has to weigh.

Okay maybe he should have said, carry to and from dive location, carry to/from boat, carry camera to/from dive site, dive with camera all day ... so I guess you're parcing the term "lug" He stated that for the majority of us, or 90% in his words, there would be zero impact. We can argue semantics all day but he's right. The majority of us will never need anything more than what a 4/3 system offers. Finally yes you are correct about the 4/3 micro however if image quality is solid and performance is DSLR-like then I'm not sure many folks will marry themselves to the SLR mechanics just to stay in a club. As far as the G9 goes, I don't think it applies. There still is no point and shoot with the focus speed, write speed and interchangeable lenses. As far as image quality, it was a G9 that won best of show in the Scuba Diving Magazine last year.

So? What does an Aquatica F4 setup have to do with anything? I believe he was using the F4 as a reference for weight. I'd like to see proof of that. There's no way that the travel weight of an entire D80 setup would be 50% more than an entire Oly setup. Since when does anyone carry a camera rig all day? Since when does weight have any effect on a camera getting "knocked around in a reasonable sea"? The camera body of the E620 alone weighs 1/3 less than the Nikon. 4/3 lenses are smaller and generally weigh less than Nikon. The Olympus housing is very light and is lighter than the ikelite. The new 9-18mm lens has a 100mm port from Athena which is considerably lighter and smaller than any WA Dome port made. Given all of this, 50% is a reasonable estimate when considering the entire rig. I suppose for the younger generation lugging a camera with dual strobes back and forth to the boat 3 times a day is no big deal but there are folks who have arthritis and other issues where a lighter rig is a distinct advantage. It is nonsense to suggest that you have to be among the elite UW photographers to appreciate the difference in camera gear. If that were the case, who decided that the 4/3 system was the right threshold? I suggest you read it again. He never stated you had to be a pro to enjoy differences in camera gear. He's merely stating a fact that some professionals on here need some of the more advanced options while the majority of the rest of us do not. The person asked if the E620 would be a viable option if weight were a consideration. The answer to that question is yes. When the 4/3 micro comes out it might obsolete the current 4/3 system as the lightest DSLR rig in the world. Craig, Maybe you are in this group Overall, I think you're being too hard on the post.

http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewI...em=120422170248 List on Ebay with a buy it now of $275