Why the dearth of medium format housings?!

[Giles 1]

Who the hell wants to deal with 258mb single file images ...

[craig 0]

It cannot be readily seen...

All the best

Troy

 

I think there's a miscommunication. What I meant is that it should be clear that a MF system that has compromised optics for the task at hand will give up some, or even all, of its potential IQ advantages. I think that's beyond dispute.

 

That doesn't say that MF systems DO have compromised optics, but it should be clear that in order to realize the benefits of the superior format you have to have lenses and ports that are up to the task. Lenses and ports are where 35mm DSLRs have a greater variety of choices.

 

I do not mean to be argumentative, but the question posed here is why we don't see more housed MF systems underwater. I think you have to start with available lenses and how suitable they are to the types of shooting we do underwater. I'm as eager as anyone to be educated on how macro is effectively shot and images posted online in thumbnail sizes aren't what I'm looking for. I'd like to know how we get down to the frame sizes and working distances that are suitable for the kinds of macro frequently shot.

 

If the answer is simply 50mm wide frames, 5" working distances, and portrait-perspective macro then that's fine. Many people are satisfied shooting 50mm and 60mm macro with 35mm and that's not any different. It would still be clear that one of the disadvantages of MF is lack of narrower perspective macro, greater working distances and supermacro capability. If that's true, then that's a direct answer to the original question and that's my point.

[craig 0]

Why wouldn't it? Once you determine the EV offset for the particular digiback's CCD reflectivity, just dial it in and fuggetaboudit.

 

Dan, TTL in 35mm DSLRs doesn't work that way. It did with the Fuji S2 and it apparently does with MF digital backs, but not with any Canon or Nikon system. Digital TTL is a source of frustration and ongoing development underwater.

 

As for why not, it's because the sensors aren't sufficiently reflective.

[Dan Schwartz 0]

Dan, TTL in 35mm DSLRs doesn't work that way. It did with the Fuji S2 and it apparently does with MF digital backs, but not with any Canon or Nikon system. Digital TTL is a source of frustration and ongoing development underwater.

 

As for why not, it's because the sensors aren't sufficiently reflective.

 

Four points:

 

1) Medium format digibacks have interchangeable filters on them: One can snap in an anti-aliasing filter, or one can snap in an IR-cut filter;

 

2) If I Recall Correctly, the issue with Nikon & Canon having all sorts of TTL difficulty is that there's too much reflectivity off the CCD;

 

3) Fuji played games with measuring off the shutter curtain, not off the CCD in the S2 Pro. That being said, having owed one for 3 years now, I can tell you that TTL still sucks on it!

 

4) TTL with film can still get thrown off with different film emulsions and different anti-halation dyes... That's the purple s**t that washes off in the developer (and that is why I use an alkaline prewash when I develop Ilford B&W films!)

[james 0]

That's not correct either. The Nikon D-TTL system was the one that measured the flash light reflected off the shutter. The Fuji S1 and S2pro measure the reflected flash off the sensor/filter pack. It worked quite well for me - I made many dives w/ the S2pro.

 

Cheers

James

[Paul Kay 51]

That doesn't say that MF systems DO have compromised optics, but it should be clear that in order to realize the benefits of the superior format you have to have lenses and ports that are up to the task. Lenses and ports are where 35mm DSLRs have a greater variety of choices.

 

Craig

 

I quite agree, if you operate within the parameters where MF WILL work well (ie not too wide and/or not too close) then MF should produce stunning images. BUT, personally speaking I would find that the restrictions and bulk that using MF dictates would simply not make it worth considering for me. I had a housing for a 'blad for a bit (the same model that Alex uses) and its handling wasn't too bad, considering (Alex can comment more I'm sure). But even given good AF such housings require careful set-up and by their very nature are not so versatile as smaller dSLRs. For specialised applications they may have a place (Troy seems to have sorted this out for himself) but I doubt they will become a significant part of any housing manufacturer's inventory.

[Dan Schwartz 0]

That's not correct either. The Nikon D-TTL system was the one that measured the flash light reflected off the shutter. The Fuji S1 and S2pro measure the reflected flash off the sensor/filter pack. It worked quite well for me - I made many dives w/ the S2pro.

 

I could indeed have what Fuji & Nikon did for the Nightmare of TTL flash reversed... I'll check with the Fuji rep at the big PhotoPlus Expo tomorrow. (I need to stop by there anyway with my CF card to take some shots with the S5 Pro, as well as the D300).

 

Out of curiousity, which flashes do you use for your S2 Pro (on land as well as underwater)? I had fits with the SB28DX & D-chip lenses; and not much better luck with the Metz SCA3402 (M3) adapter shoe & 54MZ-3 flash.

[james 0]

I used to use the SB28DX for topside and the Ikelite DS125 for underwater. I've since sold the S2pro and switched to a 1DsMkII and Ikelite DS200 strobes.

 

Cheers

James

[davichin 18]

That being said, I believe some of the replies reflect a misconception of where the medium format market has gone over the last 3-5 years, especially the part driven by Mamiya. Basically, my 645AFd with my Metz 54MZ-3 TTL flash is on a par, performance-wise, with my Nikon N90s and SB28 flash (witha non-D-chipped lens).

 

One more thing you need to take into account is that most uwphotogs shoot manual strobes so TTL flash is not the most important thing...

[craig 0]

Digital imagers have very little reflectivity and engineers are always looking for ways to reduce it further. With cropped sensors, there *can* be some reflectivity in the unused portions of the image circle but that would not represent the image being recorded.

 

If you could dial in infinite "EV offset" and have TTL work, then all the digital TTL protocols we have now would never have existed. The fact that they do is proof that the suggested approach is flawed.

[Dan Schwartz 0]

If you could dial in infinite "EV offset" and have TTL work, then all the digital TTL protocols we have now would never have existed. The fact that they do is proof that the suggested approach is flawed.

 

I agree 100%!

 

Sounds like a good reason to switch back to C41 film & pound the snot out of the shoulder!

 

Cheers!

Dan

 

PS: When I shoot C-41, instead of adding 1/3 stop to the exposure (as Ron Mowrey recommends, to compensate for manufacturing tolerances in the toe), I expose at box speed and add 15-20 seconds in the developer, i.e. I set the timer for 3:35 instead of 3:15. As long as I don't go much over 4:00, crossover is not evident.

Edited October 17, 2007 by Dan Schwartz

[Troy Aitken 0]

Hello Giles,

 

I understand your shock if you are use to 5 to 50 mb files sizes in 35mm digital format. Its not difficult for up-to-date computers to handle 258mb file sizes. First of all the Hasselblad raw file 3.fff is 50some mb's in size. Converting it to dng is the same. Then you simply upload in Photoshop camera raw and work on the ones you want to keep. I always convert to 16bit mode which increases the size but if you are capable of printing in true 16bit mode then the quality is better. Just remember, the H3D is a specialized camera and not intended for casual use.

 

regards

troy

[echeng 0]

Giles -- it was confusing to say that a file from the Hassy is 258MB.

 

That's like saying a file from my 1Ds MK II is 95MB. Well, it is 95MB if you convert an image take with it and save it out as a 16-bit TIFF, but the file in its true form is a compressed RAW file less than 20MB in size. And you simply aren't going to convert, process, and save every single image you shoot as a 16-bit TIFF.

[Dan Schwartz 0]

Eric, Giles, Troy and others,

 

"File size" is a leftover from the early days of studio digital photography, where, for prepress use, file sizes were given in RGB and CMYK values, i.e. such-and-such Dicomed back could deliver a 48MB RGB or 64MB CMYK TIFF file. Rating a camera back by file size pretty much went by the boards when scanning backs became obsolete.

 

Giles -- it was confusing to say that a file from the Hassy is 258MB.

 

That's like saying a file from my 1Ds MK II is 95MB. Well, it is 95MB if you convert an image take with it and save it out as a 16-bit TIFF, but the file in its true form is a compressed RAW file less than 20MB in size. And you simply aren't going to convert, process, and save every single image you shoot as a 16-bit TIFF.

[echeng 0]

Dan: I don't care so much about the history of "filesize". My point was that it's not really a useful measure of anything. It's like saying "DPI" without any other qualifications.

[Dan Schwartz 0]

Dan: I don't care so much about the history of "filesize". My point was that it's not really a useful measure of anything. It's like saying "DPI" without any other qualifications.

 

...And that is why it's obsolete!

[Giles 1]

Eric .. I understand you on the filesize point you made and in fact it was kinda what I was saying .. (thank you for clarifying the 258 came from a converted to tiff file.)

 

Ok so someone just went out and bought a Ferrari ... they have it sat in their garage and love telling all their friends about it .. but can they actually drive it ! (Dan did you crash your Ferrari as you think brakes are for pussies ?)

 

Lets see some examples from the MF users to see how amazing the results are. Of course the cameras have superior specs, but do they really work in an underwater setting. We have seen people change from the Pro range dSLR's to the 5d, d300 or etc etc because the practicality of a smaller camera underwater out weighed the advantages of the slightly more pro bodies.

[Dan Schwartz 0]

Wandering off topic a bit...

 

No, that's not a Ferrari in our garage: It's a fully restored 1962 Leffler sprint car, in fact. We have most of the history on it, as Bob Harkey campaigned extensively in the early-to-mid `60's in it on the (mostly dirt, some paved) ovals in the east and midwest. Also, we know Johnny Rutherford drove it; and also Ron Lux was killed in it at Tulsa in 1965... Back then, even if a driver was killed, the car was rebuilt and put back on the track.

 

Somewhere around, I have a T-shirt with a picture of a sprint car which has "Brakes... Are for Pussies" emblazoned on it.

 

When I get a chance to scan in the film from the Warren NJ car show where we displayed the Leffler, I'll post a link to it.

 

---------------

 

Also my fiancee, Adria, raced quarter midgets when she was 8 until she was 14; but then she had a Really Good Mechanic to set up the car... Back in 1963 her father was a mechanic at Indy on the car -- Now in the Museum -- in the picture below. (That's Adria standing beside the #98). Next May, I'll be doing a photo shoot with the family & Parnelli with the car, with some real lighting.

 

Ok so someone just went out and bought a Ferrari ... they have it sat in their garage and love telling all their friends about it .. but can they actually drive it ! (Dan did you crash your Ferrari as you think brakes are for pussies ?)

Edited October 20, 2007 by Dan Schwartz

[craig 0]

I can say, from practical experience, that the only realistic thing you can do with a Ferrari is let it sit in your garage. Over 10K miles is considered "high mileage" and destroys the resale value. Ferraris are about the "ownership experience" not ultimately about the performance. Perhaps that's what they have in common with a housed H3D. ;-)

 

Now back to the meandering discussion...

[Dan Schwartz 0]

Ouch!

 

...Ferraris are about the "ownership experience" not ultimately about the performance. Perhaps that's what they have in common with a housed H3D. ;-)

[Dan Schwartz 0]

I want to give everyone here a Big Thank You for all of the advice received so far, especially since I'm starting with a clean sheet of paper... It's been a humbling experience; and I have learned a lot.

 

I'm seriously rethinking this whole project, especially since it appears that the limiting factor is the optics in the port or (especially) dome.

 

Again, Thank You to All who gave me lots of guidance!

[Dan Schwartz 0]

Just as a side note, the photographer who inspires me is the great photojournalist David Burnett: He's given me valuable advice as well, on shooting Congressional hearings... With a Speed Graphic.

 

And Yes, he's the guy who shoots Presidential campaigns with a Holga and Speed Graphic... Here's a two minute video clip of him on the campaign trail; and here is the NY Times article on him entitled Which Camera Does This Pro Use? It Depends on the Shot.

 

Also, he has been featured in the Washington Post's Camera Works column.

 

Allow me to quote from the NY Times article; and you'll see where I'm coming from:

 

...So with four decades of war, sports and politics at hand, it was easy for Mr. Burnett, one of his generation's top photojournalists, to engage the dozens of photo experts who packed the back room of a Manhattan restaurant last month for one of his guided slideshows.

 

Yet through the first 20 minutes of Mr. Burnett's presentation, the cognoscenti seemed less deeply moved by his work and more entertained by his banter ("These are some of the farmers," he said drolly about a picture of Secret Service agents in a pasture during the 1988 campaign).

 

With one transition on the screen, that changed. In an instant, the chatter stopped, replaced by gasps and a collective groan of appreciation.

 

Mr. Burnett was explaining why in this age of ever more plentiful megapixels, at this moment when the concept of "film" seems as old-fashioned as a rotary telephone, he has spent most of the last two years lugging around a 55-year-old 4-by-5-inch Graflex Speed Graphic camera, complete with tripod.

[Note from Dan: He uses an f/2.5 178mm (7 inch) Aero-Ektar, removed from a WWII K-24 aerial camera.]

 

On the screen was a wide overhead picture of a John Kerry rally last fall in Madison, Wis., which Mr. Burnett shot with a Canon 20D digital camera, the same camera used by thousands of other professionals around the world. Not surprisingly, the picture looks like thousands of others that were shipped around the globe during the campaign.

 

The colors are bright. Every part of the image is crisp, so crisp that just picking the minuscule figure of Mr. Kerry out of the huge crowd takes a "Where's Waldo?" moment.

 

And then Mr. Burnett flipped to a photograph taken seconds later with the ancient Speed Graphic. Suddenly, the image took on a luminescent depth. The center of the image, with Mr. Kerry, was clear. Yet soon the crowd along the edges began to float into softer focus on translucent planes of color.

 

The effect is to direct the viewer's eye to Mr. Kerry while also conveying the scale and intensity of the crowd. In accomplishing both at the same time, the old-fashioned photograph communicates a rich sense of meaning that the digital file does not.

 

The digital picture pretends to display raw reality. The analog picture is a visualization of human memory.

At least for me, Burnett is quite an inspiration.

Edited October 20, 2007 by Dan Schwartz

[StephenFrink 9]

I have never shot MF digital underwater, but I have shot a lot of medium format film underwater.

 

The main issue with medium format is that it is hard to realise the superior image quality of the sensor in most UW shooting conditions. Shooting through too much water significantly degrades image quality much faster than differences between sensors. There is a role for MF in very controlled conditions - such as pool or UW studio photography. But for wildlife/diving photography the disadvantages easily outweigh the advantages.

 

Perhaps the biggest problem with medium format underwater is the lack of depth of field of the larger image size. From my experience this becomes very significant in the lighting conditions and subject sizes we typically work around underwater. Generally underwater we want our subjects as close as possible to the camera. For wide angle on medium format I often found that this would render the background out of focus - which did not look very nice.

 

This may be less of a problem with digital backs. First because they are cropped therefore increasing the apparent DOF for a given subject repro size in the frame. And second because the large pixels size means that the ISO can be racked up more than on film, allowing the aperture to be stopped down.

 

The other problem with medium format is lenses. Many medium format lenses do not focus close enough for underwater photography. And the flip side to the advantages of the cropped MF sensor digital backs is that it further limits lens choice. The most commercial type of underwater shooting is wide angle, generally with fisheye lenses offering corner to corner 180 degrees. Nobody earns much shooting macro! I am not aware of many medium format lenses that offer 180 degrees on a cropped MF digital back. Furthermore the autofocus performance of many MF cameras does not match that of the 35mm based systems - and many UW subjects are not that cooperative.

 

The final thing worth mentioning with medium format is the size, wieght and price of the kit. Which is a significant disincentive for many photographers who travel to take photos.

 

All that said. I still have my MF housing. And I do hope one day to stick a digital back on it. I hope that I get to shoot it again.

 

For me the bottom line is that I do not see any good underwater images being taken with MF in the field. While I don't doubt the sensors are superior - I think the handling of the cameras and the other inherent disadvatages of the system make the final images poorer. But I look forward to seeing some great UW images that encourage me to dust off the ol' hassy in the future.

 

Alex

 

Alex got to the heart of the matter early-on in this discussion, and his experience with medium format film is much like mine.

 

The very first housing I ever bought was a Sea and Sea for a Bronica 2 1/4 square. I've also owned several Rolleimarins, and even had the loan of the Rollei housing for the 6006 for a while. But, the housing that finally turned me off to medium format UW was the Pentax 6x7. The synch speed was only 1/30th second or less, so that was likely a dealbreaker in itself, but when I put the loupe to the images I shot with the 35mm lens (180-degree fisheye for that camera) I recognized that I could never get the depth of field I needed. I could focus on a soft coral in the foreground, but could never hold detail on a diver only 10-feet farther away in the background. The 45mm wide-angle was even worse for the kinds of things I shoot wide-angle underwater.

 

Like Alex, I haven't shot with a digital back on medium format, but assume optics are optics and depth of field is depth of field. I am eager to house the 21 MP Canon EOS1DsMKIII, but the limitations of ergonomics, lens choices, and optical performance at both macro and wide angle ends of the spectrum makes medium format less compelling to me.

 

There was a reason Ansel Adams and Edwards Weston called their large format group the "F-64 Club". UW shooters don't have the benefit of tripods and long shutter speeds to attain the apertures small enough to bring sufficient depth of field to many subjects. Of course, that was in the film days, and now better performance at higher ISOs in digital bring new possibilities. But, I still have to wonder whether working at 800 ISO to get adequate depth of field in wide-angle justifies the hassle and expense.

[craig 0]

I don't believe the H3D-39 even does ISO 800.

[Dan Schwartz 0]

Yes it does, via firmware update. This came straight from the mouth of Christian Poulson, president of Hasselblad.

 

What Troy is doing (may have already done) is update the firmware to what is in the H3D-II, essentially making it the same (save for the hardware (CCD cooling and 3" LCD) differences).

 

By the way, according to Poulson (who is also the engineer who designed the Imacon Flex-Tite scanner), for every 8 degrees C you cool a sensor, you cut the noise in half; and the H3D-II is, due to redesign of the heat sinking, has about a 7C lower temperature. He pointed this out to encourage us to keep the power turned OFF as much as possible.

 

It would be interesting to see the thermal transfer from Troy's camera to the aluminum housing: If he's getting enough cooling, then he can safely run at (the equivalent sensitivity of) ISO 800 without a bunch of chroma noise in the shadows...

 

I don't believe the H3D-39 even does ISO 800.

 

Questions for Dr. Mustard:

 

I have never shot MF digital underwater, but I have shot a lot of medium format film underwater.

 

The main issue with medium format is that it is hard to realise the superior image quality of the sensor in most UW shooting conditions. Shooting through too much water significantly degrades image quality much faster than differences between sensors. There is a role for MF in very controlled conditions - such as pool or UW studio photography. But for wildlife/diving photography the disadvantages easily outweigh the advantages.

 

When you write "shooting through too much water," how far are you talking? Specifically, my interest lies in about 30 feet to shoot reef life in Cayman, where the water is pretty clear.

 

Perhaps the biggest problem with medium format underwater is the lack of depth of field of the larger image size. From my experience this becomes very significant in the lighting conditions and subject sizes we typically work around underwater. Generally underwater we want our subjects as close as possible to the camera. For wide angle on medium format I often found that this would render the background out of focus - which did not look very nice.

 

What aperture range were you shooting at? Which film were you using?

 

The reason for those questions is that film has drastically improved the last 2-3 years, especially Fuji's professional products, with the implementation of the two electron emulsion: Basically, for a given grain (dye cloud) size, the sensitivity has doubled... Allowing you to stop down your Hassy's lens to get back your DOF.

 

Try this: Pick up a 120 roll of Fuji Pro 800Z color neg film and take it for a spin in ambient light conditions, especially with your lens stopped down to f/8 or f/11; and then compare the images to what you got with older 100 & 200 speed films.

 

[The new Provia 400x chrome film is also quite good; but, like any E-6 film it is very susceptible to blown highlights, since the latitude is rather narrow. You may want to pick up a roll as well, since it's great for wildlife.]

 

This may be less of a problem with digital backs. First because they are cropped therefore increasing the apparent DOF for a given subject repro size in the frame. And second because the large pixels size means that the ISO can be racked up more than on film, allowing the aperture to be stopped down.

 

Actually, no on this one: Most digital backs only go up to ISO 400. Troy's H3D will go up to 800; and I *think* the new firmware he has in it will allow it to go to ISO 1600. This is one area where modern 35mm format dSLR's actually excel, with quite good performance at 1600 & even 3200.

 

In fact, those of you Canon 5D shooters are lucky: You can set your ISO dial to 3200 and mode to RAW, then shoot at E.I. 2500 (i.e. dial in +1/3 EV for slight overexposure), and you'll get rather quiet shadow details because of the slight overexposure.

 

The other problem with medium format is lenses. Many medium format lenses do not focus close enough for underwater photography.

 

Dome or flat port? Do you use extension ring(s) with your Hassy?

 

And the flip side to the advantages of the cropped MF sensor digital backs is that it further limits lens choice. The most commercial type of underwater shooting is wide angle, generally with fisheye lenses offering corner to corner 180 degrees.

 

Is this more of an individual shooting style issue than anything else?

 

Nobody earns much shooting macro!

 

Let me tell you a little story, to give you the direction I want to head.

 

The underwater macro gallery exhibit in the American Express building lobby by Michael ("Mickey") Maurer two years ago inspired me to submerge my camera gear. (The exhibition was shepherded through production by Lisa Fiel (who also had this exhibition a block away in the Conde Nast (4 Times Square) lobby; and the curator for both exhibitions for The Durst Organization was (is) Lanny Powers).

 

The issue Mickey had is that because all of his images were shot on 35mm film, very few of his enlargements were over 16x20 inches; while Lisa's prints shot on 6x45 were as large as 40x50 inches.

 

Due to the nature of the fine art market, digital reproductions (like from a Lambda) are a no-no: A few were Ilfochrome; the rest of them were either enlarged directly (for the few negs) or had a 4x5 interneg made first, and then put in the enlarger.

 

[At this point, Stephen Frinks' comments just arrived; so I'm going to break here to address it.]

Edited October 20, 2007 by Dan Schwartz