39mp underwater

[Troy Aitken 0]

Good Evening Dan,

 

Yes! Quiet indeed. Converting the same 3.fff files to dng would introduce a little noise when going out to tiff. However, staying in Flexcolor always results in clean sharp conversions with no evidence of softening. I could have gone to f11 or even f16 but the backgroung would have gone darker than I would have liked. I was 85ft deep and overcast that day. That was my 3rd dive with the mf. Next time I will play with 1/60 to compensate. Even slower shutter speeds to create some motion. So far I have been playing it safe with 1/125 and taking it slow.

 

I was at 1/4 power and most definately had a good 2 stops of light left over.

 

Let us know what you find out.

 

Thanks,

Troy

Edited November 2, 2007 by Troy Aitken

[james 0]

Why don't you guys have a read through Thom Hogan's RAW photo primer:

 

http://www.bythom.com/qadraw.htm

 

You'll be interested to note that just because the noise reduction is set to 0 (in whatever program you are using) there may still be noise reduction going on. Just an FYI.

 

Cheers

James

[craig 0]

That is exactly what I said!

 

...

 

Once you get to a 1:1 pixel ratio in the RIP, i.e. each pixel in the camera image being mapped to a single pixel on the C-print, any additional data is pretty well moot. Remember me writing, (a)lso, the number of pixels a camera can deliver is overrated, when it comes to digital photo prints (as opposed to inkjet).?

Dan, you said "Troy can easily crop out 60% of the pixels and still have as many to play with as in the 16 million in a 1DsII image... and still have a better image because of better software." Do you see the "still have a better image" nonsense, Dan? That's what I said you had to prove and that's, of course, what you will not. This is all about avoidance and obfuscation with you. Bluffing us with name dropping and technical terms that you clearly have limited grasp of just tries our patience.

 

Regarding printing, it's not even relevant to the discussion. You don't have to print to care about IQ differences between these cameras. Nevertheless, I'm not the one boasting of 5'x8' prints, Troy is.

 

I don't care what the standard is, but the standard must apply equally to all cameras in the discussion. Paul asked me to define IQ but did not respond to my answer. Once a standard is applied equally to all cameras, the standard itself drops out of the comparison. That's the beauty of division.

 

The fact is that H3D sensor is roughly a 1.5x larger version of a 1Ds3 sensor, and the 1Ds3 is roughly a 1.5x larger version of the 40D sensor. Any experience between DX and full frame is relevant in this discussion except that moving up to H3D from full frame means giving up a lot of valuable lenses.

 

If you want to define IQ based solely on identical print sizes, then fine. An H3D can shoot macro with a perspective ranging from 70mm to 120mm and still match the enlargement capability of a 1Ds2 or 1Ds3. The Canon camera, however, is much more capable than that. The Canon offers focal lengths that range from 50mm to 180mm without the use of teleconverters and very high quality 1.4x converters are available. Canon will win this comparison easily. If all you want to do is shoot angelfish portraits, either will do.

 

Of course, beyond certain people struggling to find an argument in favor of the H3D, there's no reason to approach the H3D this way at all. No one in their right mind would house an H3D in order to achieve results no better than what a 1Ds2 can do.

 

I'm tired of the relentless double standards and refusal of the MF advocates to discuss these matters in standardized, objective terms. What's happening here is certain people want to view the H3D in "faith-based" terms. Digital SLRs and sensor sizes are not a religion and there is nothing mystical about larger sensor that makes a system better. We know why larger sensors are better, and if the resultant system can't apply those advantages in a meaningful way then it is not an improvement.

[craig 0]

To say what either format can and can't do simply by white spec papers simply will lead to tension.

You have yourself to blame, Troy. The first person to quote "white spec" information in this thread was you in the very first post. Since then, you and Dan have both engaged in that activity. If you think it's unproductive, don't blame others when they call you on it.

 

35mm DLSR example images have been posted here for ages and you can learn about the capabilities of those systems through a little research of your own. It's nice that others offer examples for you in this thread but the information is already available.

 

I'm surprised that you hadn't researched 35mm already since you bypassed those solutions in order to custom-house your H3D. If the ultimate goal is to produce large commercial prints, then proceeding with the H3D in ignorance of 35mm seems like foolish risk of company resources. If it were my company, I might have to fire someone who spent 10s of thousands to custom house a $35K studio body without first researching what a system at 1/4 the price was capable of.

[Troy Aitken 0]

Dear Craig,

 

Here is my first post-

 

Hello everyone,

 

I have recently purchased a new housing from UK-Germany designed for the H3D by Hasselblad. A medium format digital camera with 39mp's. I am using 2-Subronic Nova strobes that have the batteries built into the arms. Also a spotlight overhead to create contrast if needed. The lenses I use are the 120mm Macro, 80mm and the new 28mm wide. I use the flexcolor software to edit the raw files along with Photoshop CS3.

 

Observations:

 

Housing

built like a tank and well balanced u/w (more on housing later)

 

Camera

all functions operate to 40ft/basic functions to 120ft

crazy detail and colour reproduction (raw file 55mp/tiff file 225mp)

camera can produce 5ft.x8ft. prints (16bit through colorbyte rip)

with no loss of quality on Epson 9800 printer.

looks like film w/o the grain

wide angle focus is fast enough and ultra sharp

macro focus is an area that I am still learning. (more on macro shooting later)

 

Strobes

produce wide even light

Each battery lasts up to 185 shots on TTL and 140 full power

dials are at your fingertips and work perfectly

 

Photos soon to come

 

 

Thanks to Uwe at UK-Germany my dream has come true

 

regards,

Troy

 

THIS IS NOT A WHITE SPEC SHEET, I'S A REPORT OF MY INITIAL FINDINGS.

 

You seem to be the most antagonistic person on this thread bent on misrepresenting me. I don"t honestly see how this is benefiting anyone on this thread or those who are following along. My u/w set-up cost was 13K, not "TENS OF THOUSANDS". This was an equal amount quoted to me to take my 1ds u/w of par quality.

 

Again,you seem to be making yet another excuse to not post any of your own illustrations to practically demonstate your points. Please don't discourage others from posting 35mm format images to further this thread. This is is my personal equipment and also a family business. I have seen and researched the 35 u/w for a few years now and in fact took my own 1ds u/w. I have also seen first hand 35mm u/w prints and most of them look too digital for me. I personally am intensely enjoying my equipment and I am very much willing to work within its discovered limits. Also I prefer ccd over cmos.

 

Will you or will you not post an image Craig? I would greately appreciate that. If not, then something is wrong with this "picture"

 

Thanking you in advance Craig,

Troy Aitken,

Aitken Imaging

[rodriguezfelix 0]

Guys you are really ruining this post for everybody making of it your personal playground...

 

Let it go... and keep posting some images to compare and see what are the pros and cons of MF UW.

 

Troy there is a really bad weather going on in the bahamas? dude!, what happend with those sunballs and sunrays??? Get wet mate!!!

 

Again... there is no point on keep defending your self stands about something already discussed...

 

Dan you better start taking some UW images before all the forum take it on you...

 

P.S.: At least if this post did not serve for was primary intended to do, could be a "who knows the most about tech stuff" post... (at least I know who I´m going to PM when I have serious technical matters...)

[Dan Schwartz 0]

Felix, I'm following this thread closely because I'm already shooting AF medium format (Mamiya 645AFd), am waiting for a Phase One P21 digiback to pop up on the trade-in market, and am (at least was) looking to take the whole thing underwater, either for film or digital on Grand Cayman, where my parents have several time-share weeks on the East End.

 

The "was" comes from the ergonomics of a medium format housing vs my (lack of) SCUBA diving skills.

 

Dan you better start taking some UW images before all the forum take it on you...

[yahsemtough 0]

Dan,

 

What Felix is suggesting is that you are not following the thread you are posting comments and insights as if you have some actual experience with what is being discussed. That said, he is not the only one who has noted this and as a result a number of members are getting annoyed at your disruptions to what may be a beneficial threads of information to others who are truly following the discussion.

 

He, like everyone here value practical experience and insight in making their own personal decisions about shooting and gear purchases. For many it is a very costly decision.

 

We certainly encourage practical insights and lively discussions with differing experiences. What we do worry about is members trying to garner information about possible future purchases and them basing those decisions on potentially inaccurate and inexperienced accounts. Thus Craig's enthusiasm with regards to his responses.

 

Please recognize the importance of this to the forums.

 

Respectfully submitted

[loftus 42]

One of the things I would like to add to the discussion here, that Troy may or may not appreciate, and Dan cannot appreciate, by virtue of his lack of experience underwater, is the issue of lens availability as they relate to MF vs Full Frame or DX DSLR's.

If one follows the underwater photography 'scene' I think it will become obvious, that the most exciting photography being produced by the top guys today is at the extremes of macro and close focus wide angle / fisheye. Much of the stuff in between has either been done before, or very often from a photographic perspective are just 'snapshots' underwater artistically, even if the image quality is superb.

Personally, I have no interest in trying to just reproduce what others have done, or simply produce 'snapshots' underwater, no matter how high the image quality.

Just my perspective on why lens availability etc is so important underwater.

Similarly, it is important to understand why we keep harping on things like sunballs etc with CFWA and fisheye images. These are the type of shots where many of us, at least in DX format, are less than satisfied with our results on many occasions. The point being, that if MF can only offer us extremely high quality snapshots, but cannot offer us exciting images at the macro and wide angle extremes, then MF will not be of much interest, even if we could afford it.

Edited November 2, 2007 by loftus

[Dan Schwartz 0]

One of the things I would like to add to the discussion here, that Troy may or may not appreciate, and Dan cannot appreciate, by virtue of his lack of experience underwater, is the issue of lens availability as they relate to MF vs Full Frame or DX DSLR's.

 

Thank you!

 

You are the first to present a cogent argument about the "scene" in UW photography, and lens choice... And your point is well taken.

 

I'm coming in from the "lab rat" side, where image quality -- and reproducing it -- is king; and photographers & commercial photo labs spend tens of thousands of dollars for improvements... As Troy has done.

 

If one follows the underwater photography 'scene' I think it will become obvious, that the most exciting photography being produced by the top guys today is at the extremes of macro and close focus wide angle / fisheye. Much of the stuff in between has either been done before, or very often from a photographic perspective are just 'snapshots' underwater artistically, even if the image quality is superb.

Personally, I have no interest in trying to just reproduce what others have done, or simply produce 'snapshots' underwater, no matter how high the image quality.

(Cut)

 

So, if I read you right, you place photo composition ahead of image quality? That is a legitimate "philosophy" -- And one that I was not made aware until now with respect to UW shooting... Thank you for pointing this out!

Edited November 2, 2007 by Dan Schwartz

[TheRealDrew 0]

I'm coming in from the "lab rat" side, where image quality -- and reproducing it -- is king; and photographers & commercial photo labs spend tens of thousands of dollars for improvements... As Troy has done.

So, if I read you right, you place photo composition ahead of image quality? That is a legitimate "philosophy" -- And one that I was not made aware until now with respect to UW shooting... Thank you for pointing this out!

 

 

I think that holds true in any photography. (At least for me) Of course there is going to be a point where image quality will not be enough to carry a photo, but when people look at a photograph hanging on a wall 5 feet away unless the quality is horrible or readily noticeable the first thing will be the overall composition. (Again for me.)

[loftus 42]

So, if I read you right, you place photo composition ahead of image quality? That is a legitimate "philosophy" -- And one that I was not made aware until now with respect to UW shooting... Thank you for pointing this out!

I would not say ahead of image quality, but given overall acceptable or very good image quality, other issues may tip the balance in favor of smaller frame DSLR's.

[Troy Aitken 0]

Hello Loftus,

 

I can appreciate that Loftus. I think your two factual points concerning the two extreme ends have been accepted already. These are the limitations that I am willing to accept. For the H-series, Hasselblad came out with a 50mm wide first, then the 35mm wide and now the 28mm utilizing the full frame of the sensor. On the horizon there could be something wider.

 

To date, I have yet to fully test and fully experience my set-up. I know I can't shoot super macro to fill the entire frame with, or super wide say 10mm or even fisheye (yet the Zeiss fisheye is available using an adapter and getting a new port for it) to get more in the frame at closer distances. But in between these extremes (mid- macro at 30mmx55mm frame sizes (give or take afew mm's) and 22mm equivilant wide shots are plenty to work with.

 

Sincerely Loftus, If you think all shots within these limitations have already been done in 35mm format and there's simply no room for something new, then you might as well say that is also true for the extreme ends as well. Beyond equipment there must be other variables to be put in the equation for that stellar image, that when everyone sees says, "No way, that image can't be real, it's just to fantastic!" Even to do great images similar to what you have seen that you can call your own is everyon's desire. As for me, to have images that are breathtaking in image quality that has been seen before but only in web file size (which can hide a lot) would be enough for me. I firmly believe the H3D will serve me well to create a gallery that would sell in large print format and one day do a book.

 

So, can someone provide a super macro shot and crop tight on the critter 100% to show image quality. Remember crop 8x12 @72dpi which should result within file size restrictions here at Wetpixel. Then lets look at the results properly. Also someone using 10mm with a subject very close to port along with a diver or something else filling up the frame to the edge. Doing 100% crops at sides, top and bottom, will we see distortions that are hidden in 8x10's and revealed in 30x40's ? Let's find out so we can see if the increased lens options provide large format printing solutions up to 30x40 in size.

 

My requests cannot be found on this website.

 

Thanks for your continued interest one and all,

Lets keep going and I will post new images weather permitting.

 

Troy

[loftus 42]

Troy, let's just say that equipment can expand your creative abilities, as well as limit them. I am not trying to get an argument going all over again. I think we all know that your rig can produce image quality as good or better than any other presently available underwater system.

Unfortunately everyone, from expert photographers to lay people, are supersaturated with images, it's the reality of our age. Even I can now produce occasional images, that 20 years ago, only very skilled photographers could produce. Historically, let's say 50 years ago, most people had never even seen an underwater photograph. Just to see a snapshot of a fish, was a new experience. Now almost everyone has seen just about everything from a guppy to a whaleshark, so it is much more of a challenge for photographers to do something different underwater. I am not a professional photographer, but every professional I have spoken to has expressed the sentiment that it is now much more difficult for them to separate themselves from the amateurs.

Given that reasonable image quality is now available to the masses, whether it is through camera systems or post-processing, image quality is now pretty much a given, and other issues that pertain to the creativity of the photographer have become more and more important. Being able to present a different perspective, which in many cases is driven by use of different lens combinations etc, I think has taken a priority over being able to produce high quality images, simply because the image quality component of the photo taking process is now more easily achievable.

You yourself have said somewhere in this thread that only a very small percentage of people, essentially knowledgeable photographers, will be able to appreciate the difference in image quality between the different formats.

Okay, I know I digress, I still am very keen to see what you can do.

[craig 0]

Troy, I will quote you even though you've done it yourself:

crazy detail and colour reproduction (raw file 55mp/tiff file 225mp)

camera can produce 5ft.x8ft. prints (16bit through colorbyte rip)

with no loss of quality on Epson 9800 printer.

looks like film w/o the grain

Those are spec sheet claims. I could make the same for a 1Ds2 or a D2X. It's just marketing hyperbole. The file sizes are meaningless except to stupid people who measure "quality" that way.

 

My u/w set-up cost was 13K, not "TENS OF THOUSANDS". This was an equal amount quoted to me to take my 1ds u/w of par quality.

Your housing may have been 13K, or perhaps your housing and ports, but your body is 35K and your lenses are 3-4x the cost of comparable lenses as well. "tens of thousands" is not an inaccurate description of what your rig costs.

 

Please don't discourage others from posting 35mm format images to further this thread.

I have never done this.

 

I have seen and researched the 35 u/w for a few years now and in fact took my own 1ds u/w.

Then why do you need others to show you what it can do?

 

I have also seen first hand 35mm u/w prints and most of them look too digital for me. ... Also I prefer ccd over cmos.

More examples of faith-based advocacy. These are the notions you cling to, and these are the kinds of statements that continue to elicit reaction from me. I don't believe in magic nor am I a member of any photographic cult whether full frame, MF, Canon "L", or anything else. This equipment should be considered on real merit, not imagined. I'm perfectly happy to discuss the real merits of an H3D, it's you and Dan that aren't.

 

Again,you seem to be making yet another excuse to not post any of your own illustrations to practically demonstate your points....

Will you or will you not post an image Craig? I would greately appreciate that. If not, then something is wrong with this "picture"

I've already explained that twice already. This is a thread about the H3D, so posting images from unrelated cameras is "unrelated". It's not an excuse, just your way of doing to me what you accuse me of doing to you. Not once have been able to defend a position I've challenged you on, but instead you challenge my motivations. Your "dirty pool" isn't increasing my motivation to participate in the manner you choose, nor is your condescending attitude.

[craig 0]

You are the first to present a cogent argument about the "scene" in UW photography, and lens choice... And your point is well taken.

What!?!

 

I'm coming in from the "lab rat" side, where image quality -- and reproducing it -- is king; and photographers & commercial photo labs spend tens of thousands of dollars for improvements... As Troy has done.

Careful! Troy takes exception to that.

 

So, if I read you right, you place photo composition ahead of image quality?

What!?!

 

Dan, this is the worst kind of garbage. Nothing in loftus's post suggested any priority regarding image quality. The first part of image quality is the ability to get the image at all. Lens choice is what we are all harping on here. If you are unable to realize that lens choice is about getting the composition you want then it's your failure. We require composition AND image quality, unlike you who advocates heavy cropping to achieve your macro composition.

[Troy Aitken 0]

Good morning Loftus,

 

No argument here, you post with respect void of any hint of contention. Your points are well received and accepted. My goal is to produce large quality prints within the mf limitations. That's it. When and if mf goes wider and closer, then great, I look forward to it. For now, I would not be able to exhaust the potential of my set-up for years to come. When I come across or anticipate a well composed shot, I want to be with my mf. That's it. One year from now, God willing, if I have captured high quality u/w images that are selling, then I have acheived my goal.

 

Have you found those images yet?

 

All the best to you Loftus,

 

Troy.

Edited November 4, 2007 by Troy Aitken

[Troy Aitken 0]

Hello Craig,

 

This is in fact what you said-

 

If it were my company, I might have to fire someone who spent 10s of thousands to custom house a $35K studio body without first researching what a system at 1/4 the price was capable of.

 

 

Again you twist the truth regarding what I said. I DID NOT SPEND 10'S OF THOUSANDS TO HOUSE MY 35K CAMERA. My H1 was procured by 1 single job, in fact if you really want to know, I was loaned the H1 by my dealer for a weekend and the resulting images were sold and I turned right around and bought the camera. All upgrades to date to the H3D was from profit gravy. from my second dive, I have already begun to make some profit to go towards paying for my housing.

 

You see Craig, until you post some of your own images created from the extreme ends showing crops, then our back and forth posts of defending ourselves will continue bear no good fruit.

 

Take care,

Troy

[Troy Aitken 0]

Troy, I will quote you even though you've done it yourself:

 

Those are spec sheet claims. I could make the same for a 1Ds2 or a D2X. It's just marketing hyperbole. The file sizes are meaningless except to stupid people who measure "quality" that way.

Your housing may have been 13K, or perhaps your housing and ports, but your body is 35K and your lenses are 3-4x the cost of comparable lenses as well. "tens of thousands" is not an inaccurate description of what your rig costs.

 

I have never done this.

Then why do you need others to show you what it can do?

More examples of faith-based advocacy. These are the notions you cling to, and these are the kinds of statements that continue to elicit reaction from me. I don't believe in magic nor am I a member of any photographic cult whether full frame, MF, Canon "L", or anything else. This equipment should be considered on real merit, not imagined. I'm perfectly happy to discuss the real merits of an H3D, it's you and Dan that aren't.

I've already explained that twice already. This is a thread about the H3D, so posting images from unrelated cameras is "unrelated". It's not an excuse, just your way of doing to me what you accuse me of doing to you. Not once have been able to defend a position I've challenged you on, but instead you challenge my motivations. Your "dirty pool" isn't increasing my motivation to participate in the manner you choose, nor is your condescending attitude.

 

Oh! my, my, my ,my, my, my,

 

All posts that I have done are from personal and practical experience to share with others who would like to know.

 

To know something is understood by some to simply memorize knowledge. And there are those who prefer to apply that knowledge to gain a deeper understanding. If people always looked at their limitations, they would cripple themselves to do nothing. How many people in history have done and created beautiful and incredible things with unfair limitations or resources.

 

I WISH YOU WELL CRAIG.

 

Until you post some of your own examples, I will not post a response to you. I think this would be best for all.

 

Sincerely

Troy

Edited November 4, 2007 by Troy Aitken

[Don Silcock 14]

What the hell is happening to WetPixel? The thing that always impressed me about this site was the great input to be found here, but lately it just seems to be "flame central".

 

We don't need all this negativiity. As my son keeps telling me - build a bridge, get over it....

[craig 0]

Again you twist the truth regarding what I said. I DID NOT SPEND 10'S OF THOUSANDS TO HOUSE MY 35K CAMERA. My H1 was procured by 1 single job, in fact if you really want to know, I was loaned the H1 by my dealer for a weekend and the resulting images were sold and I turned right around and bought the camera. All upgrades to date to the H3D was from profit gravy. from my second dive, I have already begun to make some profit to go towards paying for my housing.

So because a single job paid for your camera you didn't spend it? Your rig didn't, in fact, cost $50K+ because you paid for it so easily? I'm twisting the truth? Let's throw the facts on the table, Troy. Housing a 1Ds2 will cost roughly $20K including appropriate lenses. Your rig, including only two, very limited lenses, ran you apparently $55K. Those would be advertised prices, anyway.

 

It's good that money and customers come so easily to you, Troy. Think how much more profitable your images would be if the equipment costs were lower and capabilities higher. Not that I expect that you will ever acknowledge that...

 

You see Craig, until you post some of your own images created from the extreme ends showing crops, then our back and forth posts of defending ourselves will continue bear no good fruit.

...

Until you post some of your own examples, I will not post a response to you. I think this would be best for all.

Who says this discussion isn't bearing good fruit?

 

One year from now, God willing, if I have captured high quality u/w images that are selling, then I have acheived my goal.

God told me he shoots Canon. He also edits on a Mac, but everyone knows that.

[james 0]

Hi Don,

 

You're certainly got a point there. Wetpixel (this thread in particular) wasn't like this until just a few weeks ago. Ask yourself what changed?

 

It's been sort of a quandry for us as we don't like to censor people.

 

Cheers

James

[Troy Aitken 0]

Hello everyone,

 

I just found a link to super macro shots done with 35mm format-

 

http://www.flickr.com/photos/timothytan/se...57602669118336/

 

If you go to this site and click on the enlarge icon to the top of the image you will see the 100% size of the image. All images look great small but when they get a little bigger I see alot of limitations coming into practical view. Would this be a good representation of what one should expect when being able to get the shot by what only a 35mm can get? These are the types of shots that I have seen in dive magazines and on the internet. And usually very small. Very, very few shots have I seen got it just right. Is it realistic to say that this extreme end of macro shooting can be acheived by a good experienced photographer?

 

Now weighing out the pros and cons by seeing the resulting images from both formats would show what actually can be acheived. I think as I post more macro shots at my most extreme end, we can learn how both formats differ and what their strengths and weaknesses are. As far as I can see for now, I would rather shoot a macro critter further away, crop it and get a sharp vivid colored image to print on a 16x20 rather than having the ability to get closer and not print any of the image to a decent 16x20.

 

Being that I am the only one with a digital mf u/w on this site, I am completely outnumbered. Nevertheless, I ask that we proceed to a better understanding between both formats in a friendly manner. I hope to have more examples soon as weather and time permit.

 

Respectfully,

Troy

[craig 0]

That's a broken link. Hard to tell what images you are referring to.

 

The recent images there are taken with a D200, an excellent 10MP DX sensor camera. There are higher resolution 35mm cameras available, though. The D200 is to the 1Ds3, resolution-wise and sensor size-wise, as the 1Ds3 is to the H3D. Also, the shots seem to be taken with either a 60mm or 105mm. These are the bread and butter lenses for 35mm, not particularly "super-macro".

 

I'm not seeing anywhere where 100% crops are available either. The original sizes of these are what the photographer originally uploaded i.e. 1280 in the largest dimension. They are also web-processed jpegs. I'm sure the photographer has higher quality versions of these images.

 

So, no, I wouldn't think these Flickr samples should be considered representative of the best capability 35mm can do. I'm confident that a photo pro, especially a medium format one, would know better than to critically judge images based on 1280-pixel Flickr samples.

 

What is the resolution required to print a "decent 16x20"? A D200 can do it at 200dpi but that assumes that no cropping is done at all.

 

I would rather shoot a macro critter further away, crop it and get a sharp vivid colored image to print on a 16x20 rather than having the ability to get closer and not print any of the image to a decent 16x20.

Fortunately, 35mm doesn't force you to make this choice. With 35mm you can achieve far better magnification at longer working distances than the H3D + 120mm offers. It is the H3D that is forced to "get closer" to shoot subjects, not 35mm. I seriously don't understand your struggle with this, Troy.

[Dan Schwartz 0]

Troy,

 

The "website digester" munged the URL you posted

 

Try using the "link" tool (the globe & chain link) to format the URL properly...

 

Else Craig will jump down your throat!

 

Hello everyone,

 

I just found a link to super macro shots done with 35mm format-

 

http://www.flickr.com/photos/timothytan/se...57602669118336/