The importance of accessories

[Alex_Mustard 0]

I met up with Martin Edge last week - and as usual enjoyed many wide ranging discussions on the world of underwater photography. One issue that came up, that I think could benefit from more discussion is the importance of accesories in creating stunning images. And by accessories - I mean fundamental things like lenses and strobes.

 

These days it seems that everyone is overly hung up on the sensor in the camera - to the point that they won't consider the other elements of kit that go into a good underwater camera system. I see plenty of high end DSLRs being pushed around underwater with just a kit lens (17-80mm) and a single strobe.

 

When budgeting for new gear - the attitude seems to have shifted towards buying the most megapixels possible - even if it means skimping on lenses and quality strobes. Is this a good attitude?

 

Is it best to get the best camera body you can afford - and then add the other bits as you go? Or get appropriate lighting and lenses in place for underwater photography?

 

Personally I think we can learn a lesson from compact shooters. I see many awesome shots being taken by photographers with fairly basic compact cameras - but the best of these photographers have had the wisdom to invest in wide angle and close-up accessory lenses and a pair of strobes - to achieve these results.

 

And I can't help feeling that those getting into a DSLR would be better off with slightly fewer megapixels at times - and slightly more versatility in lighting and lenses. I'd be interested in hearing opinions?

 

Alex

[Simon K. 0]

Megapixel is for sure not the main point to look at.

 

When judging a DSLR Body for UW I think following Points are Important:

Useable ISO-Range (including Noise-considerations.), AF-Quality and Speed, Sensor Size (low Sensor Size MP Ratio)

 

But generally you are right: Accessories such as strobe, lenses and a shooter who knows what he do are at least as much important.

 

My Way was: decent Compact alone, Very good Strobe, Additional Lenses were not available at this point but i would have bought them at this point if I could, DSLR + Housing (not the top notch camera at this point which enabled me to buy a used Housing), Good Lenses (16-35L, 50mm and 100mm Macro), Second Strobe.

 

I think this was a good way, and this Forum helped me a lot to buy next what is most important.

 

I always tried to learn enough how to use it. Main problem is that I have not enough time to use it and breakes between the trips are to long so that I need at least halve of the trip to get back to my top performance and learn new stuff.

 

I would like to add that "Digital Darkroom" accessories and skills are also very important for digital UW photography.

 

Simon

Edited January 23, 2007 by Simon K.

[loftus 42]

One thing I am guilty of may be too much 'kit'. I agree having the best possible lens quality, strobes etc is probably more important than megapixels but then it is critical to really work the limits of a particular lens etc rather than changing back and forth too much. I just completed a topside seminar with fine art photographer Jeff Dunas doing nudes last week, and he was insistant that we do this. He made us use one wide angle focal length, and keep the camera on a tripod rather than handheld. This forced us to be more disciplined in composition and design of the picture, and appreciate the characteristics of a given focal length better.

I plan to dive a little more 'simple' for a while.

[CeeDave 0]

I am, perhaps excessively, devoted to accessories. And so far, this is working for me.

 

I am still shooting my D70, and plan to continue for a couple more years. Eventually, better focus, lower noise, and better sealing (I shoot in the damp, a lot) may inspire me to move to something like a D300, when it arrives. (I also want a wired rather than the rather awkward IR remote release for shooting from the tripod, and ideally a less awkward way to do mirror lock-up).

 

In the meantime, instead of cameras, I have invested in good lenses (f2.8 zooms and fast primes), a tripod and ballhead (Manfrotto + Markins), filters (multicoated, thin CPL and grads), and even got a good deal on a used subal ND70 that I haven't yet had an opportunity to use. My latest 'photo' accessories are high-top rubber boots and an inexpensive kayak for exploring the wetlands here in Louisiana. My next purchase will probably be 1.4 and 2.0 TC's to complement my 1.7, for the 70-200; I'd buy a fast wide rectilinear prime (10mm or so) in a heartbeat. Much of this is for wildlife or landscape (70-200 f2.8, tripod, filters).

 

Because I only get a couple diving trips a year, this has given me a lot of joy and experience using my camera, honing composition, exposure, and holding technique. I am learning how very different low-light woodland telephoto photography is from anything I've done before, and it is challenging fun.

 

And all of this kit (including the kayak!) cost less than a new D200 + quality housing. And all of it (except the used ND70) can be used with my next camera, whenever that arrives.

[belizediversity 0]

I agree with you Alex.

 

You can learn alot about underwater photography by using a well equiped compact camera set up. The limitations of this camera system will make you think more about what you are doing.

 

Plus you can get more strobes, lens adapters etc and try new ideas without breaking the bank. Provided you keep the iso settings low the noise issue becomes a bit of a moot point for the average user, especially someone just starting up in U/W photography.

 

 

Martin

[davichin 18]

I see a common way of thinking like:

 

"I upgrade to dSLR but I will start only with one lens so I can learn how to use it before I buy another lens that may confuse me..."

 

I have seen this happen a lot with 60 mm lens or kit lenses.

 

Another thing I see is:

 

"I upgrade to dSLR but I want a lens that does everything like my previous compact..." I was one of this!!

 

With strobes we see people that like one for WA (the painting with light idea...) and two for macro and other people that like the other way around. But I guess this is just a personal taste decision...

[Paul Kay 62]

You may think that I am biased but viewfinder, viewfinder, viewfinder! Its the interface between photographer and composition and as such is the most important accessory that you can buy! From what I'm reading on wetpixel, manufacturers are starting to produce more viewfinders which can only be to our advantage.

 

I've personally stepped backwards to prime lenses - which removes the temptation to use zooms to adjust composition and sometimes deliver less than wondrous results. Fast primes are expensive but offer a brighter viewfinder image than zooms.

 

Last, strobes - not all are equal. Various strobes produce differing qualities of light (not just colour and power). I like horseshoe shaped flashtubes which can produce wide soft light beams - there are several manufacturers offering these. Others prefer harder smaller tubes for a contrastier light.

 

Accessories are essential and we have loads to choose from - we've probably never had it so good - and as Alex says, the megapixels are far from being the whole story and certainly are not the be all and end all of photography.

[mrbubbles 0]

I think the use of strobes is an issue. How many photographers ever move their stobes to try different lighting effects? If you have good equiptment, use it to its fullest. There are so many ID type shots where a lighting effect can turn it into art. my 2 cents

[fdog 3]

The most important accessory to invest in is the one between your ears.

 

Good shooters always produce, no matter what equipment they have in their hands. My old roommate won NPPA (news catagory) shot of the month with a disposable cardboard camera.

 

All the best, James

[markdhanlon 0]

I wonder if the desire to buy the camera with the most megapixels isn't just a consequence of the significant cost of housings. To buy a newer, faster, bigger camera may cost a little bit more now, but it won't change the price of the housing significantly. And if that means that you get an extra year or so before upgrading, it might be worth it. After all, you can always add lenses, strobes, etc. after the fact, but it will cost you a lot of money to add megapixels later.

[ce4jesus 1]

Well...when I started out in this whacky addiction over a year ago I never, ever thought I'd cough up $400 for some strobe arms and a tray. However, I'm dead certain that despite my lack of any appreciable photographic talent, I'll be more than happy to throw good money after bad and purchase myself a DSLR in the coming future. :glare: I picture myself drawn to the megapixel monster like a moth to a flame. Uncertain as to why I'll be spending 40% more than I budgeted yet certain that $1000 and 2 megapixels more will fix whatever ails me . DTI (domestic tranquility index) will hit rock bottom at -10 (its never positive anyway but a -3 or higher will allow for a dive trip or two). Alas, for the next year or so I'll be amused at the thought of buying accessories beyond my budgetary grasp. However, all of this will at least afford me the oohs and aahs at my next family get together. Thusly fanning the flames of this insatiable insanity . ....my two cents

[JackConnick 76]

I agree with most all the sentiments above.

 

I am making a big move up from a Fuji digicam to a D80. I didn't make that move until I felt like it was holding me back. That has been the 'justification" of moving from an S&S EX to first one then another digicam.

 

But I feel like I've come home. God it's great to have an slr in my hands again. My first real camera was an old Exacta with a Zeis lens. It was sharp and worked well. I lusted after through the lens metering and finally managed to buy a Nikkormat and a couple 3 lenses that I had for many years. But it was too heavy and stopped working.

 

Now I have something that has an incredible array of features, a great viewfinder and tons of lens options. I love my Sigma 17-70 for instance.

 

My two best accessories so far? A polarizing filter and a monopod.

 

But the housing is coming soon and there will be much to buy for the system...

 

Jack

[markhardy 2]

Yes, quality lenses and a favourite set of strobes can indeed yield results that give tremendous satisfaction (but not always! ).

 

(I've recently switched to digital and will soon find out whether my new D200/Inons combo gives results that please me as much as my warmer F100/Subtronic did).

 

I suspect that a laptop computer and/or hard disk storage with good quality screen must also rank amongst the most useful accessories for a reason other than the obvious storage/back-up and processing capability that they offer. Whilst not as instant as the much smaller camera screen, they offer prompt and very detailed feeback when back on the boat or on land, thus playing a big role in improving our u/w photography and contributing significantly to that steep learning curve.

 

Btw, I have now got my hands (very temporarily) on Epson's brand spanking new P-5000 AND Jobo's Giga Vu Pro Evolution, and hope to find a moment after work to do a side by side comparison of these two hard disk storage devices. It won't be detailed, but should at least provide some comparison of download speeds, etc. Watch this space...

[Paul Kay 62]

"The most important accessory to invest in is the one between your ears."

 

Perhaps a 'hype' filtering sysytem would be useful to fit outside eyes and ears - I see/hear some unbelievable garbage promoted as very relevant information - much of it on the web, but thankfully not here on wetpixel!

 

Yes you are right - it is all down to the photographer, his/her knowledge and skills. My library needs yet another bookcase - much of it photography and marine natural history - you can't have enough USEFUL information.

[dhaas 35]

I agree with Alex's first premise, in that getting even one or two good lenses, whether for macro or wide angle shooting and rounding this out with the best lighting system would benefit most new, especially dSLR underwater shooters.....

 

But I also see WAAAYYY too much of the opposite approach. People buying every lens from 10.5mm - 150mm tele-macro and never really getting good shooting with any one lens. Traveling with more gear than a National Geographic assignment photographer.

 

P&S shooters have an advantage, being able to add on a wide angle or hit the flower "macro" button all on one dive....Yes, the sensor is smaller, with less resolution and dynamic range, blah, blah, blah.....But with good post processing programs available these days many stunning photos result from practiced shooters.

 

When I coach people using ANY zoom lens, I teach them to think of it as three primes. Wide, medium and close up.....Then find subjects that fit this "view" the best, and work the angles, lighting, etc. Shooting this way forces one to "see" your image as the lens sees it, which for many photographers is never achieved in a lifetime of shooting

 

I posted recently on a forum, citing I believe Alex's old post on what lenses he used for 90% of his images in "The Art of Diving" book. I think it was the 10.5mm and 105mm. And he wrings every bit of capability out of them as we frequently see...

 

I find myself doing the same these days, picking up one lens per day on a dive trip, and making myself find and shoot subjects best served by that lens. Like Paul Kay, I have reverted to primes these days, in the form of a 15mm Sigma or Canon Fisheye on a cropped sensor dSLR and occasionally a 50mm macro.

 

OK, I did last year use my El Cheapo' Canon 18-55mm EF-S lens on many shark dives but shot it like 2-3 prime angle lenses. Leaving it at wide (28.8mm equivalent) or zooming to mid-range for some shots. I rarely used it at the telephoto 55mm end (90mm equivalent) where it falls apart sharpness wise. But I was happy with many shots.....

 

So yes, adding a bit of "kit" would help shooters past their original "kit lens" zooming mentality, but I believe you can go too far and not get any decent shots due to "task loading" and never honing one tool.....

 

YMMV

 

dhaas

 

[CeeDave 0]

When I coach people using ANY zoom lens, I teach them to think of it as three primes. Wide, medium and close up.....

 

David,

 

I'd be even more extreme. Looking at my EXIF's for land shots (have yet to shoot a zoom UW), something like 80% of my shots are very close (say, 10% of zoom range) to the extreme wide or extreme telephoto end of the range. On land, it's often easier to crop with the zoom; in water, I tend to fin, instead.

 

Also, while I am guilty of having a large lens bag, I share your approach on concentrating on a particular lens for a while, to help me learn to see images from the perspective of a particular FOV. I am most always anticipating a particular distance, orientation, and sometimes even final print size. Opportunism is great, but I think having a plan or goal really improves shooting, UW or on land.

 

Chris

[pauloem 0]

I've been using an old point-and-shoot for UW photo for quite a while now. It's a Sony P150, with no strobes nor accessories. And I decided it was time to move towards DSLR.

I'll purchase my gear this week, when I'll be in the US (here in Brazil prices are 3x-4x US prices). I decided on the Nikon D80 after lots of research and reading reviews from the most different types of photographers. The fact that I chose a 10mp camera has a lot to do with what Mark Hanlon said before. New technologies are lowering prices and making it possible for amateurs like me to by high mp cameras these days for a bit more $$$.

Considering lens, I was thinking about getting a 60mm and a 12-24 or 10-20, but one thing that scared me (and maybe others who are moving towards DSLR) is the fact that you can't change lenses under water. If I dive with a WA and see lots of nudis, I won't be able to get good pictures of them. Or if I go down with a macro and suddenly some manta rays show up, I'll lose precious photos. I've decided on the Sigma 17-70, which appears to be a good lens to start with (thanks in part to Dave Harasti and Peter Rowlands on their articles on Sigma 17-70, Nikon D80 and Ikelite Housing on UwP Magazine #34). I want a good gear for land photos as well, and I think a versatile lens such as the 17-70 would fit my needs.

You may not agree with me, but I think it's very important for a beginner in the UW DSLR world to be sure that this is what he wants, before spending lots of $$$ on 2 strobes, 2-3 lenses and a bunch of accessories. I think the benefit of trying it out with fewer accessories (1 strobe, 1 lens) for a while, and then move to more lenses / accessories is worth the cost of not getting your "ultimate" UW DSLR kit right away... my 2 cents (quoting Gary)

[Paul Kay 62]

"If I dive with a WA and see lots of nudis, I won't be able to get good pictures of them. Or if I go down with a macro and suddenly some manta rays show up, I'll lose precious photos."

 

No you won't! I find that I develop a 'mindset' underwater and if I'm diving with a macro I might not notice the great white finning over me (no I'm kidding really). Seriously, its about discipline, trying to achieve everything generally results in very little being anything more than adequate in my experience. My two main underwater lenses are the 100 macro and my fast 24 which like Alex's two favouite lenses are so far apart in what they can do that I don't ponder the 'is it possible to try to get XXX shot" because I know that I can't!

 

And lastly, 'photos that might have been' are the photographer's version of the 'one that got away' for anglers - they don't count!!!

[rodriguezfelix 0]

I want a good gear for land photos as well, and I think a versatile lens such as the 17-70 would fit my needs.

 

Yes it´s true, for now It´ll fit your needs but eventually you end it up shooting macro dives with a 60 or 105 and WA dives with 10.5, 15 or 16 because as good as Sigma 17-70mm is, it won´t give you the sharpness of a prime, and I totally agreed with you because I start shooting exactly the same way...

 

But after you take a lot of pics, you start to realize that the thing is missing in the photo or that thing that make the difference between a really good picture and a WOOOH picture is that second or more powerfull strobe, or that FE lens, or that big dome port, and the difference between the lots of yelling, cursing and frustation behind the regulator and a more easy way to do things, is that powerfull focus light or that teleconverter or those buoyancy arms... Or at least is the things I learned so far in the begining of my learning curve...

 

My 2 cents.

[manatee19 5]

Remember in the past century when it was a Nikonos with a 15mm and a housed camera with a 60 or 105....

 

Same should apply to digital. My $0.02: better off for 95% of u/w shooters with a nice DSLR (could be D70s, D80 or their Canon equivalent) and good primes + right ports and a "couple" of strobes.

 

Also, remember that Joe McNally shot the first all-digital NG story with a D1X and... a D100. Of course, today it would probably be a D2X and a D200 but... this old D100 made it to the yellow box magazine!

 

I'd also suggest that a beginner saves some money to attend a good workshop/course.

 

The megapixel race does not make sense for most enthusiasts. What is probably more important is the progress made in the built-in software that process the images and makes post processing less complicated.

 

Once someone is in the 8-10 Mpix vicinity, the priorities should go elswhere. Also, if someone buys good lenses, he/she will keep them longer and they will be used on future cameras. The opposite is not quite true... IMHO

 

Humbly

 

Michel

 

PS: And there must be some money left to pay for those trips as well