Second Thoughts !?!

[rtrski 20]

Very fair responses, Craig. I appreciate you clarifying your views, and I think that should help the OP as well. Sorry if I sounded like I was 'trolling' you. (Well, I was, but mostly because I know when challenged you actually do give good answers vs. what might seem to be toss-off initial comments.)

 

Thanks again.

 

With respect to lenses, Oly does offer a 7-14 rectilinear wide angle (14-28 in FF equiv, vs. ~15 - 25 equiv for the Tokina). Clearly not 'equivalent' as rectilinear vs. FE although covering very similar focal ranges, for similar uses. And it does have an 8mm fixed FE. Neither is cheap, the former much more expensive than the Tokina no less, so I'm not trying to claim both equivalent coverage and less expense. Just offering the info for the OP's consideration. The missing 100mm macro (aside from Sigma) is clearly a remaining sore void in the Oly world.

Edited May 19, 2009 by rtrski

[ardy01 0]

Craig so I get it. What you are saying is that I could have bought a D90 and Seatool housing used my current Nikon 60mm macro or my 105 macro with my 20mm WA and the weight difference would have been insignificant and the costs would have been similar.

 

I looked for that solution as it seemed to me to be the cheapest solution to my purchase ie no lenses to buy. You must have some amazing buying power as my total system including the 50mm macro I have just bought has cost me $AUS2.5k (approx 2k US). I could not find a new complete system for less than $AUS5k excluding lenses when you add up the camera ports, gears etc. and as I said that was for a D80 not a D90.

 

It was much cheaper for me to sell my Nikon gear and totally move to Olympus than to just buy a camera and housing + ports.

 

I do know what the OP is feeling as I was in the same situation when I bought my F4 and Aquatica. It is a buy the perceived best v what will do. It becomes a little unreal for a hobbyist where you want the approval of the other photographers. Well mate I am past that I want quality shots at the minimum cost and I dont want a 3' x 2' blow up and I dont want to crop a close up from a mass of blue water.

 

I am delighted with what I have and I belive it will last me at least 5 years most probably ten.

 

Lets not argue about too much detail in only serves to confuse, I did that for 6 months before I bought at Christmas. Go and have a look at Gary's site and tell me how much better a D300 would produce his shots?

 

Let's get real about evaluations - they are engineering not beauty/marketing parades.

[Drew 0]

Ok fine, I spent an extra 3 min to find the the PT-E05 weight which is 1.37kg/3.02lbs. So that Amazon weight is so wrong. But let's play fair and bring in a light aluminum housing for a comparable camera, the Canon Xsi, which is the Seatool 450Xsi, which weighs in at 1.6kg/ 3.53lbs. It's actually the most direct comparison since both are designed for use without tray handles, whereas the Ikes aren't.

 

Let's also not confuse camera brand and types with ability to shoot. Obviously having the right equipment for the right shot is key but seriously... The best uw pic I've ever seen was shot on an "ancient" D60 canon. It still kicks butt as the best action wide angle shot ever to me because the photog put himself in the position to take the shot, regardless of camera.

 

Ardy, costs is obviously a big factor in any purchase. I do want to add that people should also consider 2nd hand options for camera gear (esp the D300 and 50D since it seems the shift to ff is pretty popular).

[ce4jesus 1]

No, I am not an Oly fan. It's main claim is its reduced size but that is hardly realized at all underwater. Everything else about it is a loser compared to the competition except, perhaps, its price. No doubt they are capable of good quality results. So are digicams and even a used D100. If someone wants a new system with interchangable lenses at the lowest price, a 4/3 may appeal to them and it wouldn't bother me. I just don't like specious arguments and we've seen a lot of them here regarding Oly 4/3. Right now it's weight savings but in the past it's been other things like superior macro lenses.

 

Oly wins on price, size and weight with its selection of underwater DSLRs. The only place oly loses with Canon and Nikon is in ISO's past 800 which isn't useful underwater in most cases. Lenses? There are plenty of selections for an olympus user.

 

WA

7-14mm Professional lens and expensive. 14-28mm equivalent

8mm - Fisheye lens. The lens and port for jaround $1400 16mm equivalent

9-18mm - Port and lens for around $1100 18-36mm equivalent

11-22mm - 22 to 44mm equivalent

 

Zoom

14-42mm - kit lens with port 28mm-84mm equivalent

12-60mm - 24mm-120mm equivalent

14-54mm - 28mm-108mm equivalent

 

Macro

35mm 1:1 macro - 2:1 equivalent macro

50mm 1:2 macro - 1:1 equivalent macro

Sigma 105mm macro 1:1 macro - 2:1 equivalent macro

 

***These are all digital lenses designed for the 4/3 sensor and all have ports designed for them.

 

 

I'll must make a comment on macro. Anyone that shoots great macro, IMO, is using either TC's or external wet diopters to accomplish greater than 1:1 equivalent. I prefer wet diopters because they allow you some versatility underwater versus a TC. Given the above complement of lenses, I think its being misinformed to say Oly doesn't offer a complete line of underwater lenses. As someone stated above, the Sigma isn't a great solution due to focus speed and there's been rumors for years about Oly coming out with a 100mm, 1:1 lens.

Edited May 19, 2009 by ce4jesus

[ce4jesus 1]

Ok fine, I spent an extra 3 min to find the the PT-E05 weight which is 1.37kg/3.02lbs. So that Amazon weight is so wrong. But let's play fair and bring in a light aluminum housing for a comparable camera, the Canon Xsi, which is the Seatool 450Xsi, which weighs in at 1.6kg/ 3.53lbs. It's actually the most direct comparison since both are designed for use without tray handles, whereas the Ikes aren't.

 

Let's also not confuse camera brand and types with ability to shoot. Obviously having the right equipment for the right shot is key but seriously... The best uw pic I've ever seen was shot on an "ancient" D60 canon. It still kicks butt as the best action wide angle shot ever to me because the photog put himself in the position to take the shot, regardless of camera.

 

Ardy, costs is obviously a big factor in any purchase. I do want to add that people should also consider 2nd hand options for camera gear (esp the D300 and 50D since it seems the shift to ff is pretty popular).

 

Well said. I strongly considered the Canon and Nikon when I chose to purchase the E410. To me, both were excellent cameras. However, in order to get the price in the range of the Oly OEM housing, I had to go with Fantasea who had just released a plastic housing similar to the ikelite. The nice aluminum housings you sited are nice in size but take photon torpedos to the wallet. The Fantasea was slightly more money and a little larger than the PT-E03 and E410. The other "big" issue for me was the use of fiber optics over cables. I'd been using cables with my old SP350 wired to an olympus housed strobe but ended up ruining an entire mini vacation due to an expensive cable having issues. I switched to fiber optics on the SP350 and never looked back. The Fantasea wouldn't allow the flash in the housing to be raised so optics were not an option. Since image quality and performance in low ISO ranges were similar, the Olympus option became a clear winner for me. I've since upgraded my camera body, housing and added Inon strobes and the system has worked well for me both in use and in transit.

 

Dislikes about the Oly

1/180 sync speed with the internal strobe. I need a wired cable to my inons in order to go above that.

140ft limitation on the housing - Although this isn't a real big deal for me, for wreck divers it should be a big consideration.

Expense of the pro glass. - There's some excellent topside glass but it comes at a huge price. Even the Sigma options are expensive.

Housing seems somewhat fragile to me (although other than feel I have no empirical data to support my fear) - I treat it like I'm carrying a Ming Vase.

Edited May 19, 2009 by ce4jesus

[Deep6 7]

I have been following the Micro Four Thirds (MFT) development. It seems Panasonic, not Olympus has the money for development. The G1 (Sept 08) and the GH1 (Mar 09) are getting favorable reviews. The Panasonic MFT has two more pins than the current Four Thirds (FT) lens mount which seems to be utilized for faster phase AF.

 

Another pleasant surprise is the improved shutter lag times for the GH1 (0.4 sec.) and Canon G 10 (0.4 s.). The Nikon D90 is 0.2 sec. All are about twice that in dim light. I am wondering why Panasonic uses a mechanical shutter.

 

While an adaptor can be used for FT lenses on the MFT mount, I think the success of this system will rest on the quality and options of the MTF lenses. Can we hope for some Leicas? Given good camera performance, hoped for quality lenses, and some first rate housings, I think the MFT could be a winner.

 

Bob

Edited May 19, 2009 by Deep6

[ardy01 0]

Gary -

 

'Housing seems somewhat fragile to me (although other than feel I have no empirical data to support my fear) - I treat it like I'm carrying a Ming Vase.'

 

After the Aquatica everything feels fragile to me, I dropped the Aquatica in the bottom of a dive boat a couple of years ago and apart from some paint - nothing. A few years ago I put it into that stupid stowage they have in small dive boats and it came loose and wandered around a bit on the floor before I noticed it. Still nothing apart from scratches. Didnt do that again, prefered to carry it, contrary to what Craig thinks it hurts like buggery when the 50th wave jars 10+kgs it into your thighs. Diving with the Olympus is a stroll in the park compared to where I have been for the last 20 years.

 

I did speak to Phil Rudin (I think) re 40m as I sneak below that from time to time and he said that he had taken his down to 45m without problems.

 

It is a guarantee that I will not treat mine like a ming vase and it will go below 40m occsionally so if it fails I will let you know. Anyway it will be my fault and unlikely to be the housing, that appears well made.

 

If Aquatica made a RDX style housing I would have given that some serious thought. 20 years without a single drop of water in is excellent when I look at the dive buddies I have seen with floods over the years.

 

PS hope you dont mind me using your pics as an example?

[ardy01 0]

In answer to a post earlier about retained value of a Canon/Nikon system, it seems that it all depends on when you upgrade.

 

There was a D70 with an Aquatica claimed 8-9 dives only with flat and dome port on ebay today that couldnt raise $2k in fact didnt raise a bid, now I am not sure how old that system is but it would work well enough as an entry system. So my take on this is this digital market is moving so fast that if you dont upgrade within 2 years, expect your 5k system to be worth 1.5k after 4 years.

 

Will have a look at finished sales at some stage to see if this stacks up.

[GoinDown 0]

The only place oly loses with Canon and Nikon is in ISO's past 800 which isn't useful underwater in most cases. Lenses? There are plenty of selections for an olympus user.

 

I'm intrigued by this statement, I've seen it stated that high ISO is 'not as useful underwater' a few times on wetpixel. I would have thought that for WA scenics, wrecks and divers (some of my favourite shots) that higher ISO/lower noise capability would be an absolute bonus to available light photography underwater, opening this area up for great creativity. Maybe not so much for macro, but why do people discount this aspect as fairly worthless underwater?

 

As an example, I tested a 5D2 in a dimly lit tourist cave recently, I was able to capture images that showed more detail than I could see with my naked eye !! With very little degradation in image quality, I can imagine that ISO 6400 would work very well in the UW environment.

Edited May 19, 2009 by GoinDown

[james 0]

High ISO performance is extremely useful actually. If it looks decent on your camera, you can use the ISO setting as just another control - like Aperture, Shutter Speed, and now ISO too. It's a great thing to have when you need to eek out a little faster shutter speed or DOF.

 

RE the Panasonic Micro 4/3s cameras, will Panasonic make a low-cost housing? If not, then I think they are irrelevant to this discussion. If Ike makes one that's great for Panasonic fans, but it will be the same size as all of the other Ike housings - so not much size/weight savings, right?

 

Cheers

James

[rtrski 20]

I believe Ike did show off a new general housing mold recently, like year before last?? - they do 'reuse' the same box for almost all their current DSLR housings, but for the future if there's a new body class they could similarly standardize on across at least a few makes and models, I'm sure they'd take advantage of it. They've got the new "ultracompact" boxes for the smaller scale PnS cameras already.

 

But they'll always remain bigger - and thicker walled - than milled housings to specific models.

[craig 0]

With respect to lenses, Oly does offer a 7-14 rectilinear wide angle (14-28 in FF equiv, vs. ~15 - 25 equiv for the Tokina). Clearly not 'equivalent' as rectilinear vs. FE although covering very similar focal ranges, for similar uses. And it does have an 8mm fixed FE. Neither is cheap, the former much more expensive than the Tokina no less, so I'm not trying to claim both equivalent coverage and less expense. Just offering the info for the OP's consideration. The missing 100mm macro (aside from Sigma) is clearly a remaining sore void in the Oly world.

Oly has a prime fisheye and the 7-14. I would think their wide options are fine given no personal experience with them. It's the macro that bothers me. A 100mm would be very long on the 4/3 sensor but the Sigma exists for it though I've never seen anyone house the Sigma 105. The midrange zoom could substitute for the short macro. I believe the 50, the 7-14 and the 8mm FE could make a good set if you added the 1.4x for macro and possibly the 14-42 for portraits. It's just that Canon/Nikon offer more options.

 

It was much cheaper for me to sell my Nikon gear and totally move to Olympus than to just buy a camera and housing + ports.

I've never made any comparisons regarding Nikon vs. Oly prices but, Ardy, you continue to insist that Oly is cheapest while assuming that nothing less than Oly can meet your arbitrary and vague quality standards. If you don't need "the best" then who's to say that a digicam at far less size and cost wouldn't be good enough?

 

Oly wins on price, size and weight with its selection of underwater DSLRs. The only place oly loses with Canon and Nikon is in ISO's past 800 which isn't useful underwater in most cases. Lenses? There are plenty of selections for an olympus user.

You are entitled to your opinion on lens selection, but Nikon and Canon win on more than just high ISO. Nikon and Canon offer better IQ at base ISO as well.

 

Given the above complement of lenses, I think its being misinformed to say Oly doesn't offer a complete line of underwater lenses.

As I said, you are entitled to your opinion on lens choices but if you think adding a Sigma 105mm (a lens too long for most on 4/3) and a 35mm f/3.5 (that's still a bit long and is slow focusing) is going to sway people into thinking 4/3 is a competitive macro solution I don't agree. The Oly 50mm and 35mm both have received complaints for their slow focusing and the Sigma 105mm extends massively making it difficult to house (and it is a slow focuser as well). I believe a 4/3 user would want manual focus with the 105mm and that lens does not switch between MF and AF easily. Regarding wide angle, rectilinear shooters may be quite happy with the Oly choices but DX shooters have comparable options plus a far superior fisheye choice. It all boils down to what you mean by a "complete line".

 

Expense of the pro glass. - There's some excellent topside glass but it comes at a huge price. Even the Sigma options are expensive.

The expense, size, and weight of the entire system needs to be considered as one component is rather meaningless unless it is optional. Once you add the size, weight, and cost of everything together the differences aren't nearly what's being represented here. If Oly pro glass is required to get the lens options necessary for underwater, then it's not really optional is it?

 

contrary to what Craig thinks it hurts like buggery when the 50th wave jars 10+kgs it into your thighs

When have I said otherwise? This kind of cheap-shot arguing is unwelcome. The whole suggestion that the Oly is radically lighter than all other DSLRs has already been debunked. Sorry you had such a hard time managing your Aquatica F4 but it isn't relevant. Not all Canon and Nikon DSLRs are as massive as an Aquatica F4.

[ardy01 0]

Craig- dont know what Rtski is suggesting maybe the 12-60 lens at about $900 but I have just bought a S/H 50mm Zuiko macro lens which will do 100mm 1:1, as this is what I use mainly, for $US350 + post. Now to me that is not an expensive lens, yet the results I have seen with it dont make me feel I am making a compromise in IQ.

 

To me it all comes down to the actual end photo's, it is what I looked at most when making my decision. I could not percieve any IQ difference between a D80, 60mm macro lens and an Oly with a 50mm macro lens. The early shots I have taken seem to back this up. The lenses are very sharp and although I was concerned about focus speed in low light this is not as big an issue as I expected it to be. I will add a cheap focus light to ensure it is not an issue further on down the track.

 

Regarding Panasonic, dont think they have any real interest in the UW world pity as their lenses are great.

 

This discussion has been boiling here for the year or so I have been on the site. There seems to be a general view here that only Canon and Nikon offer a quality solution to UW DSLR photography and that is just not so, at least from the output of other non professionals, I have seen across the web.

[ce4jesus 1]

I'm intrigued by this statement, I've seen it stated that high ISO is 'not as useful underwater' a few times on wetpixel. I would have thought that for WA scenics, wrecks and divers (some of my favourite shots) that higher ISO/lower noise capability would be an absolute bonus to available light photography underwater, opening this area up for great creativity. Maybe not so much for macro, but why do people discount this aspect as fairly worthless underwater?

 

As an example, I tested a 5D2 in a dimly lit tourist cave recently, I was able to capture images that showed more detail than I could see with my naked eye !! With very little degradation in image quality, I can imagine that ISO 6400 would work very well in the UW environment.

 

Simply due to the fact you have very little red light after 40ft and therefore would require strobes on most underwater photography. High ISO has its nitch and might give the user greater creativity with deep water wrecks, shallow water and available light photography with filters. This area is just now being approached by some pros on here using the D700 but I've yet to ever move my camera off of base ISO. In any case, any shot without the need of strobe would benefit from high ISO.

[ce4jesus 1]

The expense, size, and weight of the entire system needs to be considered as one component is rather meaningless unless it is optional. Once you add the size, weight, and cost of everything together the differences aren't nearly what's being represented here. If Oly pro glass is required to get the lens options necessary for underwater, then it's not really optional is it?

That's why I stated topside glass. The lenses OLY has available to dive with are all well within the price range of its competitors.

 

You are entitled to your opinion on lens selection, but Nikon and Canon win on more than just high ISO. Nikon and Canon offer better IQ at base ISO as well.

...and I know a well respected site which claims the Canon 10d outperforms many of the newer Canons and Nikons in this regard however, this is minutia and indistinguishable by the human eye.

[rtrski 20]

Craig- dont know what Rtski is suggesting maybe the 12-60 lens at about $900 but I have just bought a S/H 50mm Zuiko macro lens which will do 100mm 1:1, as this is what I use mainly, for $US350 + post. Now to me that is not an expensive lens, yet the results I have seen with it dont make me feel I am making a compromise in IQ....

 

Expense-wise, the 7-14mm is more than the 10-17mm Tokina. It's also a much more versatile lens overall*, although for UW use the rectilinear correction isn't as necessary. I could have brought the 9-18mm up as well, as a much cheaper wide angle offering, but it isn't nearly as wide as the 10-17 with the conversions. Anyway, seems WA wasn't craigs main beef after all from his response.

 

On the macro side I was talking about the supposed 100mm F2 macro that's been "releasing soon" from Olympus for about two years now. Personally I don't shoot macro, so I don't have any real experience (I did buy the 35mm but have only played with it topside). I think 100mm with the 2:1 factor is a bit tight, but some people really do love the Sigma 105mm on the 4:3 mount anyway.

 

I wasn't really trying to specifically agree or disagree with craig about the lens availability except to offer the 7-14mm as a wide-angle (albeit not a fisheye like the 10-17 Tokina for the CaNi mounts) and to admit there wasn't anything 'above' a 50mm macro yet, just to flesh out the info for others reading this thread like the OP.

 

On your point, I guess the close-focus ability of the 12-60mm would be nice enough to use for 'macro' in some cases (10 inches or so in air) but at an f4 at the long end, and considering it would be behind a dome, that's hardly optimum. If I really wanted to shoot macro and 50mm wasn't "enough", I guess I'd add the 1.4 TC to the 50mm and be shooting at 70mm, effectively up to f2.8, behind a flat port. With lighting the more open f-stop isn't "necessary" except if you want to play games with selective DOF, and Oly lenses do tend to maintain sharpness corner-to-corner even wide-open. Not to say others can't in all cases, not trying to re-open that bag of worms.

 

{* with some downsides too - domed front element meaning no ability to filter...I'd love to put an ND4 on this puppy!!}

Edited May 20, 2009 by rtrski

[Stewart L. Sy 12]

Can't be that well respected a site, I've owned the 10D and while my 10D images are much cleaner than say a D100, (my wedding photos were shot with a D100, D1h and 2x 10Ds, you can pick out which is which just by looking at noise) there is absolutely no way a 10D high ISO image will be cleaner than say the 5dmk1 (I own), 40D (owned...sold) and not even close to the 5Dmk2. I'd say that the 5Dmk2 images at 400ISO are as clean if not better than the 10D was at 100.

 

I'm talking about a substantial $$ amount in image sales and while my 10D images still sell, they do not hold a candle to what the 5D (let alone the 5D2) can produce.

 

Stu

 

p.s. Just verified my claims, lower ISO, the 10D is very clean, there is more shadow noise vs the 5Dmk2 but not bad. Go to 400 ISO and then the shadow noise gets really offensive on the 10D and on the 5D2...well it looks like the ISO 100 shot....to get the 5D2 to look like a 400ISO 10D image, you'll need to hit 3200 ISO on the 5D2.

 

 

...and I know a well respected site which claims the Canon 10d outperforms many of the newer Canons and Nikons in this regard however, this is minutia and indistinguishable by the human eye.

Edited May 20, 2009 by scubastu

[ardy01 0]

Can't be that well respected a site, I've owned the 10D and while my 10D images are much cleaner than say a D100, (my wedding photos were shot with a D100, D1h and 2x 10Ds, you can pick out which is which just by looking at noise) there is absolutely no way a 10D high ISO image will be cleaner than say the 5dmk1 (I own), 40D (owned...sold) and not even close to the 5Dmk2. I'd say that the 5Dmk2 images at 400ISO are as clean if not better than the 10D was at 100.

 

I'm talking about a substantial $$ amount in image sales and while my 10D images still sell, they do not hold a candle to what the 5D (let alone the 5D2) can produce.

 

Stu

 

p.s. Just verified my claims, lower ISO, the 10D is very clean, there is more shadow noise vs the 5Dmk2 but not bad. Go to 400 ISO and then the shadow noise gets really offensive on the 10D and on the 5D2...well it looks like the ISO 100 shot....to get the 5D2 to look like a 400ISO 10D image, you'll need to hit 3200 ISO on the 5D2.

 

Hi Stu

 

Gary was answering a statement from Craig regarding low ISO performance.

 

 

Generally - I just rechecked by looking closer at Craigs site and Garys and if anything Garys DOF and sharpness seems better. Check this out yourselves. I particularly looked at the shot of the glass shrimp portrait. I dont think this is compromised IQ. http://www.flickr.com/photos/25230308@N07/ this is Garys site.What do you think?

 

You have to allow for the fact that I have little, if any, interest in WA shots and have not looked at too much of that. My interests are macro and fish etc portraits.

[Stewart L. Sy 12]

Hi Ardy

 

As I mentioned at the end of my post, Low ISO on the 10D is very good. I'm sure that's a fact for any current or even prior generation DSLR. I have images from the 10D that are now 20x30 blow ups and I'll dare anyone to say it's got noise or is lacking in decent detail, those images were shot at base ISO of 100.. I'm just responding to the fact that based on first hand experience, the comment "...and I know a well respected site which claims the Canon 10d outperforms many of the newer Canons and Nikons in this regard however, this is minutia and indistinguishable by the human eye" is simply inaccurate.

 

While you may only be interested in macro or fish portraits, horses for courses and all that...I can say for a fact that the 10D cannot even come close to the dynamic range that the 5D (Mk1 & 2) have and as one who loves to shoot wide angle with sunballs....that is a MAJOR consideration...and that is a fact regardless of ISO setting.

 

As for choice of housings, ergonomics must also come to play here, if the housing has awkward controls, then it'll be more difficult for the photographer to access. As a former Subal owner who's now switched (well, switching, haven't ordered yet Jean...soon!) to Aquatica, if a housing's controls doesn't feel good to you...say you need to pull out a button then rotate to change your shutter speed, then it'll be a hassle to access quickly...and if that housing happens to flex at depth, and locking out some more controls...it's time to definitely consider other choices.

 

S.

Edited May 21, 2009 by scubastu

[ardy01 0]

While you may only be interested in macro or fish portraits, horses for courses and all that...I can say for a fact that the 10D cannot even come close to the dynamic range that the 5D (Mk1 & 2) have and as one who loves to shoot wide angle with sunballs....that is a MAJOR consideration...and that is a fact regardless of ISO setting.

 

As for choice of housings, ergonomics must also come to play here, if the housing has awkward controls, then it'll be more difficult for the photographer to access. As a former Subal owner who's now switched (well, switching, haven't ordered yet Jean...soon!) to Aquatica, if a housing's controls doesn't feel good to you...say you need to pull out a button then rotate to change your shutter speed, then it'll be a hassle to access quickly...and if that housing happens to flex at depth, and locking out some more controls...it's time to definitely consider other choices.

 

S.

 

Hi Stu - Interesting what you say about sunballs never put that into my consideration as its not that important to me. The performance and the feel of the housing is critical I agree. It should become second nature or you miss fast moving stuff down there. Luckily the Olympus housing feels good and all the controls are where I expected/hoped they would be. Phil Rudin explained how to change the standard setting from shutter speed to f stop and that makes it very easy to use in manual or A mode.

 

I have heard of this locking out issue with some housings but not from any of the majors inc Ike or Olympus in the non metalic world.

[ce4jesus 1]

Can't be that well respected a site, I've owned the 10D and while my 10D images are much cleaner than say a D100, (my wedding photos were shot with a D100, D1h and 2x 10Ds, you can pick out which is which just by looking at noise) there is absolutely no way a 10D high ISO image will be cleaner than say the 5dmk1 (I own), 40D (owned...sold) and not even close to the 5Dmk2. I'd say that the 5Dmk2 images at 400ISO are as clean if not better than the 10D was at 100.

 

I'm talking about a substantial $$ amount in image sales and while my 10D images still sell, they do not hold a candle to what the 5D (let alone the 5D2) can produce.

 

Stu

 

p.s. Just verified my claims, lower ISO, the 10D is very clean, there is more shadow noise vs the 5Dmk2 but not bad. Go to 400 ISO and then the shadow noise gets really offensive on the 10D and on the 5D2...well it looks like the ISO 100 shot....to get the 5D2 to look like a 400ISO 10D image, you'll need to hit 3200 ISO on the 5D2.

 

Maybe I was a bit generous toward the 10D but it does perform well given its age. My point is that at base ISO it is almost impossible to tell the difference between any camera today unless you're cropping in over 100%. Since cropping is almost as favorable as the English Prime Minister these days, what's the point?

http://www.dxomark.com/index.php/eng/DxOMark-Sensor

 

As I mentioned at the end of my post, Low ISO on the 10D is very good. I'm sure that's a fact for any current or even prior generation DSLR. I have images from the 10D that are now 20x30 blow ups and I'll dare anyone to say it's got noise or is lacking in decent detail, those images were shot at base ISO of 100.. I'm just responding to the fact that based on first hand experience, the comment "...and I know a well respected site which claims the Canon 10d outperforms many of the newer Canons and Nikons in this regard however, this is minutia and indistinguishable by the human eye" is simply inaccurate.

Okay semantics out of the way, my statement was accurate. IQ as you stated above is better with better, larger, more expensive cameras but they're not football fields apart. The best sunburst image I ever saw was from a Canon A640 digicam. Furthermore, if you read the entire thread, I don't think anyone on here is trying to say that the Olympus Entry DSLR's are going to compete with a 5D. The opening question was is the 5D worth the extra money, weight, size etc over a smaller, lighter, less expensive camera like the 620. The original question contained parameters and probing questions about IQ versus other considerations. In a nutshell here's my stance:

I golf about once a month and am fairly adept. I might be able to shave a few strokes off my game by dropping a grand on new clubs. But I'm not going to. Saving those few strokes would be nothing but an ego fix and the oohs and aahs I might get from owning the latest greatest gear. If I were able to make some money by saving those strokes, yeah then it might make sense. To a point, great clubs don't make great golfers. I take the same stance with Photography. Would I be thrilled with D700, you bet and it might even improve my game a little with its advanced focus system. But in light of expense, weight, size, the amount of times I dive a year it doesn't make sense. There are people in that same boat. It will be quite awhile before I reach the skill level that will outgrow my E520. That may not be true with other folks on here and as always, one size doesn't fit all.

Edited May 21, 2009 by ce4jesus

[Stewart L. Sy 12]

The best sunburst image I ever saw was from a Canon A640 digicam.

 

I'd be very interested in seeing that image. There are a few folks on this forum who are after the perfect sunball and if the samples shown here by some notable shooters are overshadowed by the A640...then lets see it.

 

BTW, DXO has been faulted by quite a few experts about their rating system, even by one of the founding contributors, Michael Reichmann of Luminous Landscape, I believe Mike Johnson of The Online Photog as well as Jeff Schewe has commented against DXO Labs

 

Stu

Edited May 21, 2009 by scubastu

[Drew 0]

Wow talk about the thread that won't die. C'mon guys, the debate has gone into the realm of subjectiveness and personal choice, whereby it will never end in agreement.

 

The OP wants to know if he can get away with a Oly E620 instead of a 5D2. I don't think anyone's answer has got him closer to enlightenment, but it sure has provided entertainment. I'll try to concisely put an answer out for him:

 

In general, cropped sensors have better corner performance in UWA, easier macro and costs less. 5D2 has resolution (thus crop-ability), ISO, upgradeability (when you feel 35mp is a good thing in 5 years time) and of course HD in 40mbps mov files, which actually are easier to playback than AVCHD. Funny thing is you actually knew most of this already when you posted the question. So to make it easier, flip a coin and write the check either way... or consider other systems just to convolute it some more!

[GoinDown 0]

Wow talk about the thread that won't die. C'mon guys, the debate has gone into the realm of subjectiveness and personal choice, whereby it will never end in agreement.

 

The OP wants to know if he can get away with a Oly E620 instead of a 5D2. I don't think anyone's answer has got him closer to enlightenment, but it sure has provided entertainment. I'll try to concisely put an answer out for him:

 

In general, cropped sensors have better corner performance in UWA, easier macro and costs less. 5D2 has resolution (thus crop-ability), ISO, upgradeability (when you feel 35mp is a good thing in 5 years time) and of course HD in 40mbps mov files, which actually are easier to playback than AVCHD. Funny thing is you actually knew most of this already when you posted the question. So to make it easier, flip a coin and write the check either way... or consider other systems just to convolute it some more!

 

Haha, nicely put Drew, yes I knew a lot about the systems in question when I made the OP, but I didn't know what the educated collective thought about it all (I've not been on Wetpixel long). At least it's pretty friendly on here as well as being informative!

 

So far this thread has not made me spend my cash on a new system and housng, although I have nearly reached for my wallet a couple of times before my calculator once more told me that I won't be able to upgrade my car or my house or go on 3 or 4 liveaboards if I do spend the cash, so for the moment I'm hanging onto my 20D and Ikelite and suffering with one of the seven deadly sins of envy of those that have upgraded.

 

I think that Canon have set the camera world alight with the 5D2 and video (not sure why Nikon didn't with the D90) for the first time since the dawn of digital. The next couple of years will prove very interesting for all systems as the manufacturers' marketing machines try to convince us that their cameras have the best quality/lenses/gadgets/farkles and video.

 

What will Oly produce later this year? Will Panasonic provide a full set of movie compatible lenses? Why have Canon brought out the 500D with HD video at a much lower price? Will decent housing manufacturers develop housings for all these cameras (including Oly)? Why is it that Oly won't go below 40m (unsupported)? What will Nikon do next ? When will the credit crunch hit the housing manufacturers and they bring their prices down to acceptable levels? Or when will exchange rates move in favour of the GBP ? Or when will rip-off Britain becone less rip-off?

 

Still alot of outstanding questions, I'm a lot wiser, but no closer to an answer, thankyou all (so far)........

[ardy01 0]

When will the credit crunch hit the housing manufacturers and they bring their prices down to acceptable levels?

 

Still alot of outstanding questions, I'm a lot wiser, but no closer to an answer, thankyou all (so far)........

 

I was thinking the same thing about housing manufacturers during my evaluation. How is it when $1500 buys you a lot these days, a waterproof box with some buttons and a couple of screw or plug in glass/plastic front plates cost so much? I think it must be that there are too many manufacturers and no gorilla to take this fringe market and dominate it. Just look at a base plate which is a bit of metal or plastic with some holes in it $120 it is a form of madness then goes on into cables, gears, wet lenses etc etc.

 

These manufacturers seem to be geared around the professional market requirements and pricing, yet offer housings for the hobbyist with pretensions (ie me) as long as they have deep pockets.

 

Following my own evalutation and purchase I was surprised how little was known about housings in Australia outside of a couple of specialists and we have a large diving population. I wonder how many housings are sold a year? Not that many I suspect.

 

BTW goingdown - you will buy and soon "From the Thought comes the Action" to quote Buddha (I think)