A different angle on the ever-popular DSLR v. P&S questions

[Draq 118]

As I continue to research and fret over my desire to upgrade my underwater photography equipment, I have come upon a couple of articles and posts that raised an issue that I don't see mentioned very often. It goes like something like this: Using a DSLR for underwater photography changes the experience from taking photos while diving to one of diving to take photos.

 

In other words, the suggestion is that someone who does not want to expend significant time and energy on pre-dive inspection and preparation and post dive maintenance is probably better off with a P&S because the care and feeding of the DSLR being significantly greater than a P&S. It has been suggested that this has to do with the number of o-rings, ports, cables, arms, etc that one has to carry and maintain and the amount of space required to pack all of this stuff. Perhaps if one uses only one port and lens and one strobe this is not an issue? I know I have read comments about pre-dive camera setup checklists and that some DSLR people spend significant time readying their gear for a dive, while I probably spend 5 minutes checking settings and making a quick check of the o-ring. I also note that I have seen some extensive discussions about rinse tanks. Franky, with my P&S, if there isn't a rinse tank handy (and there often isn't) I pour a small bottle of water over the camera housing before putting it away for a better rinse later.

 

I suppose the P&S / DSLR maintenance difference could go further. On the dive boats that I am on most often, there is no camera table or even a reliably dry or clean area in which one could safely change lenses or replace memory cards and batteries. Those activities often have to wait until after the the dive day. Similarly, I dive one location where one has to climb down about a 10' ladder to enter the water. As I think about it, I don't know how a diver could descend the ladder without clipping the camera to a BC. Is this even feasible with a large DSLR?

 

Additionally, the argument is that a typical DSLR user doesn't take the camera on a dive, swimming around and taking a few shots of something of interest and then moving on, rather he is likely going to find a subject and experiment with flash settings, strobe placement, positioning, and may spend much or all of a dive and dozens of images of that subject.

 

The last the argument is that lugging around a large and somewhat cumbersome DSLR setup alters the diving experience sufficiently that it really becomes a photo session underwater, rather than a dive on which you have brought a camera. Does the DSLR have a significant effect on how one dives, including air consumption, buoyancy, trim, and so on? I know I have read threads about which fins are best to propel a diver with a DSLR in their hands.

 

What do you think? On land this isn't necessarily true. Using a DSLR or point & Shoot is different, but the preparation, use and care after use is not really different. For example, one might take a body and 2-3 lenses in a camera bag to some sort of event or location, but the next day want to take a camera to a family gathering to grab a few shots of the family. Using the DSLR is not substantially different from a weight or bulk standpoint.

 

To put this in context, I am fairly sure that no matter what gear I have, my main focus on most dives will continue to be enjoyment of the dive. I certainly am happy to spend several minutes trying to get a nice shot of some interesting subject, but I'm talking about maybe a couple to 10 minutes or so shooting several shots of something before moving on, and a lot of photographs are quick fish portraits or an interesting crab or worm or coral head as I pass by.

 

How much does the "type" of photography dictate gear? This actually reminds me of the large & medium format vs. 35mm debates. The large and medium format cameras traditionally did well when used on tripods for landscapes and static subjects, but the 35mm became the preferred choice for "street" photography, casual portraiture, sports, etc. Maybe type of use even influences the live view vs. viewfinder discussions I have read.

 

On the other hand, maybe it is silliness. I certainly don't have the experience to say. I just thought it was an interesting issue, and one that my influence a future buying decision.

[ce4jesus 1]

I just switched to a DSLR. So far, no real difference in care. I was pretty meticulous with my P&S. Both had dual strobes, arms and a tray. The DSLR housing is larger (I own a compact DSLR housing). It is actually just as, or more, neutral than my old SP350 was underwater. I don't notice much of a difference. Space wise I only own 1 port and 1 lens right now so I'm sure when I get that 8" dome with a nice WA lens that'll change things a little. As for enjoying the dive that's a tough question. I'm at that point where I'm not sure I could enjoy the dive as much without a camera. The quest for that awesome underwater shot that drops some jaws is still what excites me every time I dive. With that said, I can still tie my DSLR rig off to 2 Drings and cruise hands free if I want to.

The type of photography you do can determine your gear underwater. Most P&S with some wet lenses do extremely well at Macro. Some prosumer models are really good and include full manual modes. My enjoyment level hasn't changed any going from my P&S to a DSLR. But I did miss a few opportunities over the last year due to the limitation of the P&S.

Edited December 8, 2007 by ce4jesus

[Steve Williams 0]

Using a DSLR for underwater photography changes the experience from taking photos while diving to one of diving to take photos.

 

 

the DSLR setup alters the diving experience sufficiently that it really becomes a photo session underwater, rather than a dive on which you have brought a camera. Does the DSLR have a significant effect on how one dives, including air consumption, buoyancy, trim, and so on?

 

 

 

Draq,

 

Just one guys opinion.

 

I think you're close to something. I know that if I don't have a camera I feel like I'm just going for a swim, not diving. So first of all it is definitly not "silliness" If you can define for yourself what you want a camera setup to do for you you've gone along way to defining the right rig. The rub comes when you discover that there is a continum. I would suggest that how you feel this month won't be how you feel next year. It starts for each of us differently. Maybe someone loans you a point & shoot or your dive buddy or instuctor has a camera and shows you how to take a couple quick snaps. You get your pictures back and look at them and say I wish I had gotten closer. Your interest is peaked and you start up the curve, (or off the deep end depending on how you look at it). The next big trip you decide you should take a camera because it is so unbelievable gorgeous off the reef at __________(fill in the blank) that you want to share the beauty with your friends. Amazingly that trip goes OK, you bring back a couple of pictures to show, most not so hot but one might even go on the wall in your den. Somewhere along in here you realize that the pictures don't really capture the beauty you see in your mind's eye when you go there in your dreams. Maybe if you had a strobe. It's about this time that you find wetpixel or a book by ___________(fill in the blank) and think Wow! I want to do that! That's the way I see it in my mind. The blue was just like that, the sun's rays filtered and dappled the water just like in my dream. I better get some instruction. Somewhere along in here you stop taking pictures and start producing "images". You might even get asked by someone at the dive shop if you would sell one. Eventually you find yourself doing whole dives in the same 20 sq ft area with your dive buddy freezing and bored. Now you are thinking, my setup really can't get the image I want, If I had a DSLR with a housing, then I could get the image I see in my mind. My images would be better if I had that lens, or this strobe or .................

 

When you get to this place, after a while it is unthinkable to go near an ocean without a housed camera.

 

You asked; Does the DSLR have a significant effect on how one dives? My answer is you bet it does. It becomes why one dives, You'd be surprised how many folks go with two housings and bodies just in case one fails. It would be unthinkable to be in _______(fill in the blank) and not be able to dive.

 

I would offer that everyone goes through this process at different rates. Some might take two dive trips, other like myself, 20 years or more. If your lucky, you find the equipment that allows to capture the images you want without spending a fortune and clearly not everyone needs or should get a DSLR. At least not yet. In truth they are a pain in the ass, heavy, awkward, not to mention ridiculously expensive, except....some of us believe they give us the best chance to capture the images we see in our mind.

 

IMHO Wetpixel exists for these poor tortured souls (myself included) in search of the treasure they may glimpse but never fully embrace. I guarantee you that what you think of today as some of your best work won't look so good to you in a couple of years. The possible is constantly moving. Digital has only made it move faster. Can we ever really capture our dreams?

 

 

So what should you do? Ah hell, go for it.

 

Steve

Edited December 9, 2007 by williamshs

[TomR1 5]

You are definitely on to something but I believe it is a bit more complicated than P&S versus dSLR.

 

From your standard P&S, internal strobe, .jpg photo, there are two significent steps. One is to shoot in RAW and the other is an external strobe. Adding the strobe will change the camera from something that you bring along to something you always pay attention to while shooting in RAW will change your topside tome from viewing your shots while having a few drinks to adjusting your shots and occasionally sipping your drink. In my opinion IF you take EITHER step you will ultimately take the other step and will thus be doomed.

 

Once there the quality of pictures you take will become super importent. You will hate the shutter lag and realize that a point and shoot simply can't usually get that critical eye focus that marks a "sharp" image. You will always be "a little soft" Nevertheless you will keep striving to take that perfect pic with your, now, very complicated P&S, but you can't. Your a dSLR shooter waithing to happen.

 

Finally you pony up for the ultimate DSLR paying what a decent car costs and you find......you still can't take that perfect picture. Then you are like me....a tortured soul.

[Christian K 0]

You are definitely on to something but I believe it is a bit more complicated than P&S versus dSLR.

 

From your standard P&S, internal strobe, .jpg photo, there are two significent steps. One is to shoot in RAW and the other is an external strobe. Adding the strobe will change the camera from something that you bring along to something you always pay attention to while shooting in RAW will change your topside tome from viewing your shots while having a few drinks to adjusting your shots and occasionally sipping your drink. In my opinion IF you take EITHER step you will ultimately take the other step and will thus be doomed.

 

Once there the quality of pictures you take will become super importent. You will hate the shutter lag and realize that a point and shoot simply can't usually get that critical eye focus that marks a "sharp" image. You will always be "a little soft" Nevertheless you will keep striving to take that perfect pic with your, now, very complicated P&S, but you can't. Your a dSLR shooter waithing to happen.

 

Finally you pony up for the ultimate DSLR paying what a decent car costs and you find......you still can't take that perfect picture. Then you are like me....a tortured soul.

 

And 8 months later those bloody camera manufacturers realease new models...

 

 

cheers

[Draq 118]

Actually I have been surprised by the few complaints that I have seen about someone spending $2,000-$5,000 on a housing only to have a new body out in a few months or a year wish some spectacular new feature or improvement. I think Canon has some sort of corporate goal to replace at least two bodies per year.

[Steve Williams 0]

For me it feels a lot like the early days of computer development. When the technology curve was very steep, the guidance then was find the system that does what you want to do, then buy it and don't worry about it. If you wait for the next thing you'll never leave the couch.

 

Steve

[ce4jesus 1]

Exactly. The only equipment comfort you can take with you is there are some on here that can take a P&S and show you just how far you have to go with your technique long before you out-grow any new DLSR.

[TomR1 5]

Well, there are SOME who can go farther with a P&S than I can with a dSLR but their comes a point when the equipment is limiting YOUR technique.

 

I am of the opinion that equipment DOES make a huge difference. For example, I get macro shots with my D200 and 105 lens I couldn't get with my trusty 5050 simply because I don't need to get so close and the Nikon focuses much more accurately. Now there are some who can creep within millimeters of the most skittish fish and take awesome shots with a 5050 using stacked INON diopters but I AM NOT one of them.

 

I switched to the d200 and INSTANTLY took better macro shots.

 

A good frend of mine, Rand, told me that I would know when to switch to a dSLR. I did!

 

Tom

[Christian K 0]

Actually I have been surprised by the few complaints that I have seen about someone spending $2,000-$5,000 on a housing only to have a new body out in a few months or a year wish some spectacular new feature or improvement. I think Canon has some sort of corporate goal to replace at least two bodies per year.

 

I guess it is sort of hard to complain about technical development. And also think that if we are serious about it, most people know that the dslr:s of todays generation (and one or two generations back) have sufficient quality for magazines, books, exhibitions considered you use them right. Many shots taken with a Nikon D70, D100 or Canon 20D still look bloody good, and will do so forever. This shot was taken with a D200:

 

http://www.nhm.ac.uk/visit-us/whats-on/tem...y=6&group=1

 

I feel in no hurry to upgrade to a D300. I'll sit this generation out, and then let's see what will happen. Everybody seem certain that the next Nikons will all be FX? Perhaps in the near future, but after that, who knows? I'm not that convinced sensors have to grow physically bigger as technical development progresses.

 

cheers

[ce4jesus 1]

Well, there are SOME who can go farther with a P&S than I can with a dSLR but their comes a point when the equipment is limiting YOUR technique.

 

I am of the opinion that equipment DOES make a huge difference. For example, I get macro shots with my D200 and 105 lens I couldn't get with my trusty 5050 simply because I don't need to get so close and the Nikon focuses much more accurately. Now there are some who can creep within millimeters of the most skittish fish and take awesome shots with a 5050 using stacked INON diopters but I AM NOT one of them.

 

I switched to the d200 and INSTANTLY took better macro shots.

 

A good frend of mine, Rand, told me that I would know when to switch to a dSLR. I did!

 

Tom

 

I agree with your post. My P&S made me a better, more patient photographer because I had to get it right the first time. There weren't many shots it couldn't capture with the right approach. Stack lenses for macro were great but had a paper thin margin of error. As you stated, getting close and not scaring your subject seemed to always be a problem. I made the change a little fast (I've been doing this just under 2 years) The change to DSLR made capturing a few shots a whole lot easier for me, so I'd recommend the change to anyone who asks. My point in my post was to say that any DSLR would be an upgrade and would make a person coming from a P&S very happy. I also think it would be tough to out-grow a DSLR from a pure technique perspective. That is why I carefully inserted the phrase "equipment comfort".

[herbko 0]

The biggest difference in going with a DSLR is that you're limited to one lens on a dive. There aren't any good zooms that'll let you shoot both wide and macro with one setup. You have to make a choice before jumping in. That's also the source of much of the increased camera maintenance. Battery life and memory capacity are usually enough for three to four dives. It's changing lenses that takes work. When I was at Lembeh and only shot with the 100mm lens, I usually only open the housing once a day.

 

I think cameras have reached a point that the motivation for upgrades is much less than a couple of years ago. I've been shooting with my Canon 5D for a couple of years, and I have no plans for upgrading. I really doubt that Canon can tempt me with it's replacement.

[ce4jesus 1]

There aren't any good zooms that'll let you shoot both wide and macro with one setup

 

Olympus just came out with a 12-60mm lens that may just solve that problem. After diving with the kit lens 2 weeks ago, 14-42mm I was very impressed with its versatility. I found it just slightly not wide enough and slightly not tight enough on macro. However, it did focus down to around 12inches. This allowed for a steady shot to be cropped down nicely.

[scottyb 0]

I used SLR's for many years (since 70's) above water and Nikonos for underwater. I made the commitment to house an SLR by purchasing a N90 and several lenses. I changed my mind when the S2 and D100 came out and made the switch to a DSLR. I was among the first to house the S2 in an Ikelite (2002), the only available housing at the time. On the 1st dive of the 1st dive trip, I knew this was what I was looking for. Although there have been some tremendous photos taken with them, a P&S was never really an option for me.

 

I am still using the S2 with an Aquatica. I loved the Ikelite but it was the 1st generation without the improved back and didn't allow access to some very important functions. I also didn't like the 6" dome that was the only thing available at the time. If they had the improved back and the 8" dome, I probably would still be using it.

 

The D300 is looking pretty sweet. I may make the switch in the next year or so. Or I may wait until the D400 comes out and buy somebody's D300 rig.

[tdpriest 115]

I think that there must be something that to this discussion.

 

For a number of years I've been diving to take photographs, and my digital experience began with a sort of point-and-shoot (though with external strobes and wide-angle converters), a Nikon Coolpix 5000. I changed it because of shutter-lag, and a few more pixels, but I find that some of my more successful images were shot with that old system.

 

I can't really explain why, but it has made me think: was I able to concentrate more on the image, and less on the camera?

 

Or, is there something about the optical properties of the P&S that favours a dramatic image: the lens can get very close to the subject, the system is smaller and less intimidating to wildlife, and you can achieve a close focus with a large, close subject but a good depth of field. I found an article on reproducing this effect (by Alex Mustard, who else?) with a fisheye lens and a teleconverter on a DSLR, and now I need to try it in the sea.

 

P&S:

 

 

 

Tim

 

B)