Why the dearth of medium format housings?!

[Dan Schwartz 0]

This housing just might do the trick for my Mamiya 645AFd & smaller lenses... Of course, within my 30 foot depth limits as a "resort" diver!

 

I'm going to B&H tomorrow; and since they have the U-BXP in stock, I'll take my camera & a couple lenses to see if it fits; then report back.

 

Helge's warning on Ewe-Marine housings was duly noted, too -- Thanks!

[Christian K 0]

This housing just might do the trick for my Mamiya 645AFd & smaller lenses... Of course, within my 30 foot depth limits as a "resort" diver!

 

I'm going to B&H tomorrow; and since they have the U-BXP in stock, I'll take my camera & a couple lenses to see if it fits; then report back.

 

Helge's warning on Ewe-Marine housings was duly noted, too -- Thanks!

 

My advice: Before even thinking about bringing a camera under water, crank up your diving skills. Take a few courses... Do a couple of liveaboards. Being a competent diver is critical to succesful UW-photography. I bet the guy who exhibited in NY, the one you got inspired by, is a tremendous diver. There are very, very few great UW-images taken by novice divers.

 

Then also for the sake of the coral reefs in the world. The last thing they need is beginner divers running havoc on them with heavy camera rigs.

 

good luck

 

Christian

Edited October 23, 2007 by Christian K

[Troy Aitken 0]

Hello Dan,

 

Please do yourself a favor and do not get that housing. You will frustrate yourself. It's a gloified zip-lock bag. No dome port available and very easy to tear where they join the plastic sides together. It would put a bad taste in your mouth for even considering to purchase something else in the future for your camera. I don't think it's worth the risk.

 

All the best,

Troy Aitken

[Dan Schwartz 0]

Hello Dan,

 

Please do yourself a favor and do not get that housing. You will frustrate yourself. It's a gloified zip-lock bag. No dome port available and very easy to tear where they join the plastic sides together. It would put a bad taste in your mouth for even considering to purchase something else in the future for your camera. I don't think it's worth the risk.

 

Troy,

 

Yes, I have seen these overpriced Zip-Lok housings; but if all I plan to do is go a few feet underwater (not much more than snorkel depth!) then it should be OK.

 

Incidentally, the way I would test my rig, besides in the pool, is to submerse it in my huge 23 quart Mirro pressure cooker and hook the air hose up to it to take it to 15 PSIG (35 feet water column).

 

Cheers!

Dan

 

PS: We have a 2hp 2 stage compressor in the (sprint car) hauler in our driveway.

[Dan Schwartz 0]

Christian,

 

Your admonition is well noted! Fortunately, the divemasters on Grand Cayman are quite good.

 

And, since my object is to get great pictures, I may even be able to find subject matter in chest-deep water!

 

I'm sure it would be fun to go 130 feet down on "The Wall" with a camera... And perhaps some day I will capture images as good as Dr. Mustard and others on this site do...

 

But!

 

There are plenty of images I can capture just under the surface, too... Just like I took this snapshot just 3 feet outside our bedroom window a couple weeks ago:

 

 

In other words, I'm not Jacques Cousteau looking to take a camera down 300 feet for snapshots... I'm more looking to take my big cameras a few feet under the surface, and rely on my eye as a photographer(!) to capture great images.

 

Take a look again at Dr. Mustard's award-winning over/under shot of the reef and mangrove trees... Then picture it shot on a 4x5 Velvia chrome... That is where I'm looking to go.

 

And, that particular shot didn't require much more than a zip-lok bag, either!

 

My advice: Before even thinking about bringing a camera under water, crank up your diving skills. Take a few courses... Do a couple of liveaboards. Being a competent diver is critical to succesful UW-photography. I bet the guy who exhibited in NY, the one you got inspired by, is a tremendous diver. There are very, very few great UW-images taken by novice divers.

 

Then also for the sake of the coral reefs in the world. The last thing they need is beginner divers running havoc on them with heavy camera rigs.

 

good luck

 

Christian

[Christian K 0]

Actually, inmo, there's no point in or more fun going deep with a camera, unless you're shooting a wreck or some specific animal only found at depth. But is doesn't matter. Either you're on scuba or you're not. If you chose to be on scuba, even in 15 feet of water, you will need the skills. But I agree that great images can be captured almost anywhere. Perhaps it is better for you to snorkel?

 

good luck

 

/christian

 

Christian,

 

Your admonition is well noted! Fortunately, the divemasters on Grand Cayman are quite good.

 

And, since my object is to get great pictures, I may even be able to find subject matter in chest-deep water!

 

I'm sure it would be fun to go 130 feet down on "The Wall" with a camera... And perhaps some day I will capture images as good as Dr. Mustard and others on this site do...

 

But!

 

There are plenty of images I can capture just under the surface, too... Just like I took this snapshot just 3 feet outside our bedroom window a couple weeks ago:

 

 

In other words, I'm not Jacques Cousteau looking to take a camera down 300 feet for snapshots... I'm more looking to take my big cameras a few feet under the surface, and rely on my eye as a photographer(!) to capture great images.

 

Take a look again at Dr. Mustard's award-winning over/under shot of the reef and mangrove trees... Then picture it shot on a 4x5 Velvia chrome... That is where I'm looking to go.

 

And, that particular shot didn't require much more than a zip-lok bag, either!

[mexwell 0]

Hi Dan,

 

what are you trying to prove with a little birdie in the frontyard (which is btw slightly out of focus)?

 

Go and get yourself an EWAmarine bag, stay shallow and get some pictures.

Those bags are on the market for years and many people have them.

For the first tests its just fine!

[Dan Schwartz 0]

Hi Dan,

 

what are you trying to prove with a little birdie in the frontyard (which is btw slightly out of focus)?

 

Firstly, it shows that you can get a great shot right outside your bedroom window -- You don't have to travel thousands of miles.

 

And Yes, he was a bit out of focus on that image; but

A) I only got 4 shots on my digicam before switching to medium format;

 

B) I was excited as hell at first seeing a red-tailed hawk outside our bedroom window, just a few miles from NYC!

 

Go and get yourself an EWAmarine bag, stay shallow and get some pictures.

Those bags are on the market for years and many people have them.

For the first tests its just fine!

 

Helge's and Troy's admonitions well heeded, I think that's the way to start out crawling (submerging?) before walking.

 

In any case, the U-BXP will easily hold my Fuji GA645 rangefinder and a big flash.

[alvinjamur 0]

I re-read this thread in the beginning and have this to say :

 

- with respect to hasselblad, new releases of computer software has tended to upgrade

the firmware on the back.

 

- with respect to noise handling, newer generation cmos devices have better tolerances

than the older ones. for instance, if you take the same picture with (decent shadow detail

in it) using a hasselblad cfh39 back and the new h3d2 back (2 years of separation) you

will notice that the shadow thresholds within flexcolor have come down significantly to

get comparable images. and this is a controlled test i've done using the same version

of the software! cfh39 back needed 180, dark limit of 20, 1 as opposed to the new

back back that needed 180, dark limit of 12, 1

 

....u can read test results soon. will tell u where it'll be.

 

FRANKLY, what surprises me more is why many u/w types do not use Prophoto as their

default color-tag to process their raw images.

 

- aLV

[craig 0]

I use ProPhoto for everything. It's the only common profile that fully contains what a digital sensor is capable of recording. There was a thread on Wetpixel a while back regarding this.

 

Lightroom uses a modified version of ProPhoto (gamma 1.0) internally so all Lightroom users get the benefit whether they know it or not.