I am curious to know what the Pro Underwater Photog set are shooting with? Looks like Stephen Frink is using EOS 1Ds in a Seacam. I know Christopher Newbert use to shoot a Canon F1n in an Aquatica A3. How about Howard Hall (maybe now he is primarily shooting video), David Doubilet, Ed Robinson, Mike Severns, etc...?

I would be curious to know how many are on their way or have migrated completely to digital.

Keith

Have a look at Michael AW's article on a Digital Evolution in the current issue of UwP Magazine

Michael shot a recent trip to the Galapagos entirely on digital.

He had a D1x in a Seacam housing, and a D100 in an Aquatica.

We also know that Mauricio Handler uses the D100 Aquatica combo, as does Tim Rock.

I think a lot of the pros are going digitial now due to the needs of their clients, and the timeframes allocated

JIm Watt and Dave Fleetham were using Canon D30/60's last trip I saw them and that was a year ago.

I have been reading somewhere that Doubilet travels with more than 200kg of equipment, has a dozen of cameras, drop everything on the bottom somewhere and go look around while always carrying a 15mm in addition of his pick-of-the-moment. Ah, and he's got an assistant that carry a few handy cameras.

Believe me, what the pros use is not necessarily what is the best. As professionals who make a living off of photography, they use products that will make them the most money with the least amount of fuss.

Cheers
James

Maybe you could explain what makes an image "make the most money", because I'd think it is the quality of the image, which is directly attributed to the photographer and his equipment.

Otherwise, I'm pretty sure I like "the least amount of fuss". So I guess I'm looking for an answer as to why equipment that provides results easily isn't the best?

Maybe its because not too many pros shoot the best underwater camera ever built according to James Wiseman, the S2 Pro?

Hi Ryan,

You're looking for fault where there is none my friend. I mean in the simplest possible terms that pros use what makes them the most money, not what is technically a superior product. Make sense?

I wasn't even thinking about the S2 when I wrote my reply. What do you mean by your comment? I was actually thinking back to when pros started adopting digital, and the S2 wasn't even available yet.

The first widely available housing was the Seacam D1. But at $5k for the housing and 5K for the camera, it wasn't widely adopted (in my opinion). When the D30 came out at ~$2,200 with the UK-Germany housing for ~$2,500, that's when the pros mentioned in this post started buying.

The camera was 3 vs 5 megapixels, with a far inferior autofocus system, but that didn't matter. It produced files that would sell - that was what was important to them.

Cheers
James

PS, are you mad at me Ryan? I hope not. It's the Holiday season, can't we all be friends?

Yikes, stand back folks I think we have a gun fight!

I certainly would not try and pick one set up as the best for underwater photography, there are way too many variables and if one could afford an assitant(s) one might want to have several systems on hand to cover all possible situations.

I started this thread as more of a curiosity. Though when I got serious into UWP I did buy an Aquatica A3 and Canon F1n after finding out that thiswas what Chris Newbert used. No, I did not think that this would make me as good as Chris, but I figured this way at least I could not blame the equipment. If fuss were a factor in choosing equipment, you could argue that a Nikonos V with a couple of TTL strobes would be the way to go. Less fuss than a housed system in my experience.

Keith

If you take the Doubilet example, you can imagine that parts interchangability and service in the field rate very highly to them. I don't think they're going to be willing to switch brands of cameras, housings, or lenses at the drop of a hat. Same goes with strobes. The sheer scale of that production limits how cutting edge they can be on hardware. Whether they consider the S2, for example, depends on what housing supplier they use.

It is my understanding that Doubilet wants a housed camera with every conceivable prime lens that might be useful on the dive, so he brings one of each and lets the dive sherpas carry them. That sort of diving doesn't translate well to the sport photographer. He probably values durability, a big viewfinder, and the right film. That would be my guess.

In 1990 I got to spend 5 days with David Doubilet through a course at the West Palm Beach Photographic center. I was one of 7 folks, 3 of who showed up with housed cameras and everyone else strictly Nikonos Vs. He brought a couple of Nikon F3s in Aquatica housings, showed us how he did several articles and basically challenged us to think underwater. Back then Over/Under shots were a Rube Goldberg type of cutting Cokin filter holders and gluing a mess of crap together to balance out the above/below optical differences. I actually shot an over/under photo of David and the whole gang poolside that appeared with my article in the defunct Underwater USA.

When he went on assignment many times he would make a single 2-3.5 hour dive taking down 14 cameras with 28 strobes via the sherpas....Max depth on AIR about 150' working his way up through decompression. Even switching sets of doubles if necessary. Everything from a 200mm Micro-Nikkor to 8mm Fisheye lens. At 36 shots per roll each dive equaled 504 images to edit.

And there I was with my new Canon EOS 630, Ikelite MD sized housing and TTL strobes.... He declared "this is NOT a TTL or Auto-Focus course!" While practicing in the deep pool at The Scuba Club (formerly Norine Rouse's Scuba Club) where the class was hosted I shot a pre-locked photo of one of our female participants diving in......Her face frozen with bubbles streaming behind her. When Doubilet saw the photo, and liking the effect he had to admit that AF might be an asset So even "low budget" equipment can make good photos....Now with computers and basically unlimited shooting potential it's a whole new world.

The lesson is, buy what you can afford, go dive and shoot, and shoot, and shoot......Even if it's with one lens wide or macro, just shoot, review and shoot some more!

I'm sorry James, I just though that best equipment available would be most likely to produce the most saleable images.

Such is the case with the S. Frink example used previously here.

We just see the issue in different ways. I think the market is drastically different now than when those same pros bought 3mp slrs. Now, the market is far more competitive, and I espect to see a lot of 1ds cameras in the hands of pros, even considering its price tag.

The S2Pro quip was just sarcasm, should have been followed with a smiley. I'm not mad at you James, I just didn't see your point.

For generalities regarding tools and techniques of professional photography, I found this interesting:

http://www.photomediagroup.com/archive/2003-fall/trends.html

Hi James,

Just curious of the type of housing and strobes you use. Can you share why you choose these equipment?

I have a S2 as well, considering diving into U/W photography.

Louis:

See my post at 11:15am in this thread:

http://wetpixel.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=4035&st=0

And use the SEARCH feature in this forum to find more info. Good luck!

Cheers
James

What interests me is that I had allways assumed that Pros would have gotten free gear from the "manufacturers" but this thread has made me realize that if this is the case then the manufacturers are definitely not using the advertising potential.

After all we all know from advertising what who "owns" a rolex, who uses a mont blanc, drives a ferrari, uses a certain hotel or a certain airline but there seems to be virtually no - well known - advertising of cameras and housings based on the photographers using the product in UW photography. What do you think?

Thanks James for pointing out...I was browsing through the forum in a hurry and posted the question without thinking about doing a search. Sorry to bug you!

Speaking as a UK based professional photographer (above and below water!), I use a D1x above water and now an S2Pro below (in a Seacam). There appears very little difference in final image quality if the images are processed effectively through photoshop and for the last year I have only shot digital and medium format above water and 35mm below - this has now changed. To be quite blunt about it, the quality of both cameras is well up to my client'e requirements (magazines, books and display material) but I still have problems with inadequately knowledgable people utilising digitally dreived images. This causes far more problems than anything else.