I'm only asking out of interest. There is no way I would go back to the inferior image quality of velvia!
Alex
Has anyone heard about any housings for the Nikon F6?
I'm only asking out of interest. There is no way I would go back to the inferior image quality of velvia!
Alex
I'm only asking out of interest. There is no way I would go back to the inferior image quality of velvia!
Alex
thats just cruel....my Nik V just had its feelings hurt
I wonder if it will fit in some F100 housing, it looks only slightly bigger. Not that I will switch, the F100 is my last film camera, and the F6 won't give me better resolution since it has the same sensor (film).
It'll probably be tough for a housing mfr to assign development energy to this camera. If it is the last nikon film camera, it might not be a bad idea. But to my knowledge, the F5/F100 have not been discontinued yet, and the f6 doesn't offer much more for uw purposes. I would be tempted to house this camera, however, for the new autofocus system. It is tough to shoot fish and turtles emerging from the sun with the F100, and I suspect that the F6 would handle such contrast situations better.
Now, if Nikon doesn't announce a new digital for a while, and Seacam gets caught up on the D2x housings, perhaps they will become interested in this camera. Realistically, though, it is already clear that there will be no rush to design housings.
Now, if Nikon doesn't announce a new digital for a while, and Seacam gets caught up on the D2x housings, perhaps they will become interested in this camera. Realistically, though, it is already clear that there will be no rush to design housings.
Call me crazy, but I'd rather use an f5 w/ a DA-30 and manually focus fish and turtles in the sunball...
crazy 
QUOTE (Ryan @ Mar 25 2005, 04:33 PM)
Call me crazy, but I'd rather use an f5 w/ a DA-30 and manually focus fish and turtles in the sunball...
Don't you think the seacam/subal viewfinders are as good?
The F6 appears to share a number of components with the D2 series such as the top plate. Some of the controls may be in the same position. Accordingly, it may be possible to put an F6 in a D2. Is the height with the vertical grip the same as a D2 and is the tripod mount in the same spot? If not possibly a spacer block could be used instead. The joystick on the back appears to be shifted in the F6 so it would not be accessible in a D2 housing should it otherwise fit.
Maybe the most compelling reason for adapting an F6 would be to use film in the same housing one might already be using. If one already has legacy film equipment, an F6 is otherwise difficult to justify.
Maybe the most compelling reason for adapting an F6 would be to use film in the same housing one might already be using. If one already has legacy film equipment, an F6 is otherwise difficult to justify.
QUOTE (Ryan @ Mar 25 2005, 08:33 AM)
Call me crazy, but I'd rather use an f5 w/ a DA-30 and manually focus fish and turtles in the sunball...
No removable finder...exactly why I passed on the F6...not crazy...
All the best, James
Alex I have yet to switch to the inferior quality of digital over film so it cuts both ways. as far as a housing for the f6 without a sportfinder whats the point??. My f3's with sportfinders in aquatica's have worked well since 1984 and now f5s in subals . I can say without hesitation that most digital bodies are used less than 5 years before the new kid on the block takes over. The f5 light meters are super. The huge finder makes for viewing from afar easy. All others are a step down.The new generation of DX2 and the like look to be as good as film but the jury is out or at least mine. Yes film has some drawbacks but still has its place. Mark
How much time have you spent actually shooting digital? I like the convenience of film - computer processing is a chore and I'd rather be diving. The quality argument is obsolete for me because scanning levels the playing field. I gotta admit I love the look of my fujichromes. On the other hand, I've lost dozens of GREAT shots to insufficient depth of field that digital would've caught. Don't discount digital quality - we all have our preferences, but the differences aren't black and white as you imply. Even the D2x falls short of velvia in some regards...
Oh, and where can I buy a digital camera that will keep me happy for 5 years???
Kasey
Oh, and where can I buy a digital camera that will keep me happy for 5 years???
Kasey
My initial comment was tongue in cheek!
But seriously I am convinced that my D2X out resolves E6 slide film. They only way I can quantify this is by looking at scanned slides - so E6 is having to play an away fixture - against digital files. But I think that this fair because nearly all image usage these days is via computers.
Scanned slides are about 20Mpixels (55MB TIFF). So you have to uprezz the digital film to the same size. Doing this in one step in Photoshop Image Size and a quick USM on a D2X basic JPG (worse case scenario) the D2X file is sharper, cleaner and shows more detail than scanned velvia when viewed at 100%.
It is easy to check yourself and you don't need a D2X - open a 4000dpi slide scan and view at 100%. Detail is not perfect. The D2X is darn close to being.
This image shows 100% crops from the D2X basic jpg (top) and a slide scanned to TIFF (bottom), with full images shown for comparison. Sorry they are not the same subject, but both taken with the same lens. D2X uprezzed, so file size is same as 4000dpi scan. Slide film is Velvia.
OK my scanner is only a Nikon Coolscan 5000 (which is damn fine) and it is not as good as industrial ones. But I have checked the D2X against some scitex scans too.
As Kasey implies there is far more to image quality than resolution but few now doubt that cameras like the D2X and 1DS Mk2 sit somewhere between 35mm and medium format film when it comes to useable resolution. Its easy to say a 4000dpi scan is 20Mpixels and thats more than the Canon and Nikon. But that doesn't account for the quality of the pixels.
That said there is far more to a good images - than camera image quality/resolution. And clearly film and digital are capable of excellent results way exceeding resolution for most applications - Doug Perrine won the BBC Wildlife comp last year with a 6MP D60 image which is definitely sub-transparency in quality!
Alex
p.s. I am sorry for this post. It is very much one of those "I'm not going to argue, but..." ones!
But seriously I am convinced that my D2X out resolves E6 slide film. They only way I can quantify this is by looking at scanned slides - so E6 is having to play an away fixture - against digital files. But I think that this fair because nearly all image usage these days is via computers.
Scanned slides are about 20Mpixels (55MB TIFF). So you have to uprezz the digital film to the same size. Doing this in one step in Photoshop Image Size and a quick USM on a D2X basic JPG (worse case scenario) the D2X file is sharper, cleaner and shows more detail than scanned velvia when viewed at 100%.
It is easy to check yourself and you don't need a D2X - open a 4000dpi slide scan and view at 100%. Detail is not perfect. The D2X is darn close to being.
This image shows 100% crops from the D2X basic jpg (top) and a slide scanned to TIFF (bottom), with full images shown for comparison. Sorry they are not the same subject, but both taken with the same lens. D2X uprezzed, so file size is same as 4000dpi scan. Slide film is Velvia.
OK my scanner is only a Nikon Coolscan 5000 (which is damn fine) and it is not as good as industrial ones. But I have checked the D2X against some scitex scans too.
As Kasey implies there is far more to image quality than resolution but few now doubt that cameras like the D2X and 1DS Mk2 sit somewhere between 35mm and medium format film when it comes to useable resolution. Its easy to say a 4000dpi scan is 20Mpixels and thats more than the Canon and Nikon. But that doesn't account for the quality of the pixels.
That said there is far more to a good images - than camera image quality/resolution. And clearly film and digital are capable of excellent results way exceeding resolution for most applications - Doug Perrine won the BBC Wildlife comp last year with a 6MP D60 image which is definitely sub-transparency in quality!
Alex
p.s. I am sorry for this post. It is very much one of those "I'm not going to argue, but..." ones!
No agument here either Alex. I agree with you on the quaily of the d2x. From what I have read this newer breed of cameras are as good if not better than film cameras. That has not been the case before now. I will switch to dig when this generation ( D2x) hits the used market most likely- when the latest dx4 or the like make the current one obsolete i'll pick one up. After over 20 years working with film one gets the details down. Yes there are more throw aways per roll but thats film. As I have shot manual since the mid 80's switching to manual in dig will be a smoother transition.
How is the viewer on the D2X compared sizewise to a sportfinder?? on say a f/5 ??.
As computer time is not what I like to do and slide shows with 2 projectors + dissolve unit are what I like dig has taken a back burner until the other issues are worked out ( quality- viewfinders- not magnifiers- speed delays ect.)These other issues are now being addressed with the newer cameras.
Kaseys comment (Oh, and where can I buy a digital camera that will keep me happy for 5 years???
That hits home as my two f/3 in aquatica housings have been working as well as when they were new -thats over 20 years of shooting..That is I have been happy with them for 20 years- anyone out there with a digital camera who can say this??
The newer f/5 in the subal should work for as long also..I like getting new stuff as much as the next guy but replacing whole cameras and housings ever 1-2 years seems abit much. That said I have 2 boats that seem to take a bit of $ to keep up. so I want my gear to last awhile.
Film has its place and for me its in a housing underwater shooting for now and has been since 1982. I'll move into digital when this newer d2x and the like are around awhile.
Did not mean to ruffel so many feathers. Mark
How is the viewer on the D2X compared sizewise to a sportfinder?? on say a f/5 ??.
As computer time is not what I like to do and slide shows with 2 projectors + dissolve unit are what I like dig has taken a back burner until the other issues are worked out ( quality- viewfinders- not magnifiers- speed delays ect.)These other issues are now being addressed with the newer cameras.
Kaseys comment (Oh, and where can I buy a digital camera that will keep me happy for 5 years???
That hits home as my two f/3 in aquatica housings have been working as well as when they were new -thats over 20 years of shooting..That is I have been happy with them for 20 years- anyone out there with a digital camera who can say this??
The newer f/5 in the subal should work for as long also..I like getting new stuff as much as the next guy but replacing whole cameras and housings ever 1-2 years seems abit much. That said I have 2 boats that seem to take a bit of $ to keep up. so I want my gear to last awhile.
Film has its place and for me its in a housing underwater shooting for now and has been since 1982. I'll move into digital when this newer d2x and the like are around awhile.
Did not mean to ruffel so many feathers. Mark
I still think there are areas where the look of a film shot is special and looking at a digital shot on a monitor is never as nice as seeing a tranny on a lightbox. Even if digital is slightly out resolving film nobody is going to say that a film shot is not good enough in quality terms. So my argument above is academic.
What has surprised me is that I have lost motivation to shoot film. When I was in Cayman shooting the freedivers I had both my D2X and F100 on the boat with 10.5mm and 16mm lens on. Both in Subal housings with domeports, both ready to go.
But despite being in the water for about 3-4hours I never wanted to take the F100 in. I returned to the boat several times and could have easily grabbed the F100. But I didn't. I took about 300 shots that day with the D2X. That roll of slide film is still sitting in my F100!
Freediving Pix
I think that the D2X is too expensive unless you are shooting a lot. But with luck Nikon will bring out that sensor in a cheaper body within 12 months.
Alex
What has surprised me is that I have lost motivation to shoot film. When I was in Cayman shooting the freedivers I had both my D2X and F100 on the boat with 10.5mm and 16mm lens on. Both in Subal housings with domeports, both ready to go.
But despite being in the water for about 3-4hours I never wanted to take the F100 in. I returned to the boat several times and could have easily grabbed the F100. But I didn't. I took about 300 shots that day with the D2X. That roll of slide film is still sitting in my F100!
Freediving Pix
I think that the D2X is too expensive unless you are shooting a lot. But with luck Nikon will bring out that sensor in a cheaper body within 12 months.
Alex
I have used film for 10 years and until recently prefered film to digital. After planning my next trip with my friends I pointed out to the dive shop owner (who is a film freak) that Palau Aggressor will no longer be processing slides. Representatives at Aggressor said the will continue unsure unsure until the processing unit goes down but will not replace it. We came to the understanding that the writing is on the wall and both of us are now moving to digital. It would be a disappointment to go on an expensive dive trip and find out that my light meter was playing games with me all week. While there may be some questions about the quality difference, I have trouble distinguishing between the two unless the print is over 11X14. I feel if I want to continue improving im my photography digital is the way to go.
Tom
Tom
My favorite size print is a 14x20.
I will slowly make the change.
When the d2x is the old kid on the block.
And the many have moved on to the latest greatest
meanwhile Im headed off to the banda sea- sorong to bali for 26 nights on the sea safari 111
with 150 + rolls of velvia 50 -provia 100- velvia 100 and kodak vs100. @ f/5's subal and aquatic f/5 housing and a topside body. I'll take a dig for land shots as well.. This boat still does e-6 process.. to check results now and then as boat processing is always subpar.Mark
I will slowly make the change.
When the d2x is the old kid on the block.
And the many have moved on to the latest greatest
meanwhile Im headed off to the banda sea- sorong to bali for 26 nights on the sea safari 111
with 150 + rolls of velvia 50 -provia 100- velvia 100 and kodak vs100. @ f/5's subal and aquatic f/5 housing and a topside body. I'll take a dig for land shots as well.. This boat still does e-6 process.. to check results now and then as boat processing is always subpar.Mark
I handled the F6 yesterday - what a nice camera to hold!!! Lighter and smaller than an F5, but a little bigger and more contoured than my F100. Very nice camera.
Hi Guys,
At the PMA show in Orlando last February I handled both the D2X and the F6. They are extremely similar in their position of shooting controls, but the one control I really couldn't check adequately was the exact position of the focus point selector. However, my impression then was that if some housing manufacturer were really enterprising. He could make a housing which shared the same front, and if necessary had two possible backs, so that you could choose which camera you wanted to use on which dive. If my impressions were correct about the controls, any difference in total camera heights could probably be easily compensated for with two camera saddles. There is also the possibility that the add-on AA battery pack for the F6 might even the height difference. And with a second addition to that battery pack you can also sue the same battery that the D2X uses.
I am hoping that maybe I can encourage Harald at Seacam in this direction. Seacam's optical finders, the 45 degree and 90 degree, are the best I've seen yet and even if you had to have two different backs, you'd be able to switch fairly easily and have the best of both worlds.
I continued on this idea further and the Nikon Tech reps told me that the F6 functioned fully with both the older (like underwater strobes) TTL and the new i-TTL. I then asked the tech reps if I used two different lenses on each camera (say a 12-24mm on a D2X and a 17-35mm on an F6) to get virtually identical framing and set up an i-TTL multiple strobe shot, would the F6 and D2X give me the very same result. The tech reps said they had never done that test, but by Nikon's specifications, the answer should be yes. To which I then asked, "So in that kind of circumstance you could use a D2X to provide a really good "polaroid" for the F6?" And again they said yes.
Why would you want to use a D2X as a polaroid for a film camera? Alex Mustard claims that the D2X has higher resolution than even Velvia. And he then goes on to say you can even compare the Velvia scanned at 4000 dpi (I'm guessing he means on a Nikon Coolscan) to the D2X. Let's get serious about the comparison. If you want to do a really fair comparison, why limit the film scan to the results from a cheap consumer scanner. why not compare the absolute best results you can get from the identical lens from each? I think that if Alex compared his D2X to a really top quality scan, like those produced by an Imacon, or even better, by a drum scanner, at 8,000 dpi, it would be a "no comparison" contest in favor of the film.
All this is not to say I am against digital. I'm not, and just picked up a D2X last week. I also just ordered and F6 today so that I'll also be able to take advantage of the similarities between the two cameras. And will soon get rid of the last F100 I have. But I'll certainly be hanging on to my F5's and action finders in their Seacam housings, because for now, the F5 + TTL strobe combination is something I'm not willing to give up.
divegypsy
At the PMA show in Orlando last February I handled both the D2X and the F6. They are extremely similar in their position of shooting controls, but the one control I really couldn't check adequately was the exact position of the focus point selector. However, my impression then was that if some housing manufacturer were really enterprising. He could make a housing which shared the same front, and if necessary had two possible backs, so that you could choose which camera you wanted to use on which dive. If my impressions were correct about the controls, any difference in total camera heights could probably be easily compensated for with two camera saddles. There is also the possibility that the add-on AA battery pack for the F6 might even the height difference. And with a second addition to that battery pack you can also sue the same battery that the D2X uses.
I am hoping that maybe I can encourage Harald at Seacam in this direction. Seacam's optical finders, the 45 degree and 90 degree, are the best I've seen yet and even if you had to have two different backs, you'd be able to switch fairly easily and have the best of both worlds.
I continued on this idea further and the Nikon Tech reps told me that the F6 functioned fully with both the older (like underwater strobes) TTL and the new i-TTL. I then asked the tech reps if I used two different lenses on each camera (say a 12-24mm on a D2X and a 17-35mm on an F6) to get virtually identical framing and set up an i-TTL multiple strobe shot, would the F6 and D2X give me the very same result. The tech reps said they had never done that test, but by Nikon's specifications, the answer should be yes. To which I then asked, "So in that kind of circumstance you could use a D2X to provide a really good "polaroid" for the F6?" And again they said yes.
Why would you want to use a D2X as a polaroid for a film camera? Alex Mustard claims that the D2X has higher resolution than even Velvia. And he then goes on to say you can even compare the Velvia scanned at 4000 dpi (I'm guessing he means on a Nikon Coolscan) to the D2X. Let's get serious about the comparison. If you want to do a really fair comparison, why limit the film scan to the results from a cheap consumer scanner. why not compare the absolute best results you can get from the identical lens from each? I think that if Alex compared his D2X to a really top quality scan, like those produced by an Imacon, or even better, by a drum scanner, at 8,000 dpi, it would be a "no comparison" contest in favor of the film.
All this is not to say I am against digital. I'm not, and just picked up a D2X last week. I also just ordered and F6 today so that I'll also be able to take advantage of the similarities between the two cameras. And will soon get rid of the last F100 I have. But I'll certainly be hanging on to my F5's and action finders in their Seacam housings, because for now, the F5 + TTL strobe combination is something I'm not willing to give up.
divegypsy
Wow....is good idea & hope manufacturers listen to this. You can order custom made housing to company like DIV or Zillion in Japan but, just no one ever ordered one.
I will be also, interested to see the result of film/digital competition . I love my Seacam F100 & will keep it for a long time & also love my new D70/Nexus setup ....
Sam
I will be also, interested to see the result of film/digital competition . I love my Seacam F100 & will keep it for a long time & also love my new D70/Nexus setup ....
Sam
Unfortunately, I don't think that the manufacturers share your enthusiasm (although it is up to underwater photographers to lobby them). Despite the fact that the F6 is pretty unanimously regarded as the best film camera ever made, I doubt we will ever see a new underwater housing for a film camera, again.
Alex
Alex
Agreed. 1) It would be tough to sell an alternative back for a D2x housing when a complete F100 and housing can be had for under 3k. 2)Any future film housings would be chasing a very specialized market.. Expect the price to reflect that low volume! Would you be willing to spend 50% more to house an F6? 3)I've never done any drum scans with my slides, but they would have to be FAR better than my Coolscan results to match my D2x. So far in my experience the D2x has been tough to shoot on land - many have commented that the small pixels make it succeptible to hand shake. This all goes away under water - especially with flash only exposures. The detail and color are better than a projected slide, and no scan can better that! Once you've dived your 2x you'll agree!!!
Re-D2X: its no surprise that Signore Skerry has been using two for National Geographic UW assignments this year.
p.s. Its great to read your enthusiasm for this camera, Kasey. Glad you are so happy.
Re F6: The alternative for housings is to go to a manufacturer like UK-Germany who accept commissions.
Alex
p.s. Its great to read your enthusiasm for this camera, Kasey. Glad you are so happy.
Re F6: The alternative for housings is to go to a manufacturer like UK-Germany who accept commissions.
Alex
Hi guys,
I think absolute statements (e.g., better, far superior, film is dead, digital rules, etc. etc.) from both digital and film camps just reflect personal preferences.
Some people like Toyota and others Honda. Both make good cars and get you to your destination. The same can be said about photography. When you see an outstanding photograph, who cares if the shooter used film, digital, Nikon, Canon, or a disposable camera? As long as the image is not a fraud, the technology behind it is irrelevant. Comparisons between digital and film files have so many variables that it's hard to make an apples to apples analysis.
The F6 looks like an amazing machine, another tool like the D2X. If somone makes a housing for this film camera, I can see myself buying it. The F6 raises eyebrows because the momentum of the digital wave is huge, and the launch of a top end film camera today counters this momentum. The digital adoption rate is enormous, but apparently not suffocating.
regards,
mpo
www.mpostock.com
www.batfishbooks.com
I think absolute statements (e.g., better, far superior, film is dead, digital rules, etc. etc.) from both digital and film camps just reflect personal preferences.
Some people like Toyota and others Honda. Both make good cars and get you to your destination. The same can be said about photography. When you see an outstanding photograph, who cares if the shooter used film, digital, Nikon, Canon, or a disposable camera? As long as the image is not a fraud, the technology behind it is irrelevant. Comparisons between digital and film files have so many variables that it's hard to make an apples to apples analysis.
The F6 looks like an amazing machine, another tool like the D2X. If somone makes a housing for this film camera, I can see myself buying it. The F6 raises eyebrows because the momentum of the digital wave is huge, and the launch of a top end film camera today counters this momentum. The digital adoption rate is enormous, but apparently not suffocating.
regards,
mpo
www.mpostock.com
www.batfishbooks.com
Michael, i couldn't agree more. I still love film and would shoot it more if i had some access to E6. But i don't so my Nik V and 15mm is gathering dust at the moment...
I still have a half roll in it too!!! oops
Quick question, mostly for Divegypsy i guess. You state you are getting the F6 even though you have two F5s. What are the advantages for you over the F5 which you already have? If i recall correctly the autofocus is faster? Obviously it is smaller as well. What other advantages does it have in your opinion over the F5? I haven't looked into it myself so am being lazy and asking questions instead
Thanks
Mike
I still have a half roll in it too!!! oopsQuick question, mostly for Divegypsy i guess. You state you are getting the F6 even though you have two F5s. What are the advantages for you over the F5 which you already have? If i recall correctly the autofocus is faster? Obviously it is smaller as well. What other advantages does it have in your opinion over the F5? I haven't looked into it myself so am being lazy and asking questions instead
Thanks
Mike
Dear Mike Veitch,
I'm still shooting three N90s in Aquatica housings - I'm not using F5s. Looking to upgrade/update in the near future (next 12 months or so).
E6 processing is readily available here in Florida. All my images are then professionally scanned and submitted digitally.
Best regards,
mpo
www.mpostock.com
www.batfishbooks.com
I'm still shooting three N90s in Aquatica housings - I'm not using F5s. Looking to upgrade/update in the near future (next 12 months or so).
E6 processing is readily available here in Florida. All my images are then professionally scanned and submitted digitally.
Best regards,
mpo
www.mpostock.com
www.batfishbooks.com
Sorry for the misunderstanding Michael, there was a poster on the previous page who owns F5s and stated he just purchased an F6.
However, i have a nice N90s sitting in a closet back in my parents house if you are interested in a 4th?!
Mike
However, i have a nice N90s sitting in a closet back in my parents house if you are interested in a 4th?!
Mike
I also have an n90s + Aquatica housing + lots of Aquatica extensions/ports/etc. I'll never use them again and they can be had for a bargain.
kaseycanton@mac.com
kaseycanton@mac.com
Hello Again,
Mike has asked what I might hope to gain from an F6 that I'm not getting from the F5.
The actual fact is that I own three (not two) F5's and Seacam housing outfits. And doubles or sometimes even triples of the lenses and seacam ports and extension rings I use most. Why three? I usually travel with only two, but the third set is there in reserve in case one system disappears in transit (read about one guy's loss of stuff on trip to and from Bonaire) or is lost in some kind of boating or diving mishaps. I feel that if you are trying to do underwater photography professionally, you have to have back-up for your gear that are immediately, or nearly immediately available. (Ever ordered a housing, or port, or strobe, or lens and had to wait and wait for it to come? As a pro I don't feel you can just make excuses to a client)
This "reserve back-up" is all the more necessary because I often work with one or two machine shop guys to make special parts for or modifications to my housings. My F5 housings have all been modified to all the following capabilities and features: (1) a double o-ring seal system on all my ports and extension rings, (2) a modified focus point selection control that I like better than Seacam's own, (3) a port lock so that certain ports and extension rings cannot "twist" off accidentally causing a leak or flood, (4) a modified SCM auto-focus mode control that automatically disengages from the manual focus gear on the lens when I switch to S or C. (This means I don't have to try to pull the manual focus knob outward against water pressure, which becomes difficult to impossible as you go deeper, (5) and a simple lever that pushes on the lens release button so that I can easily change lenses, whether or no they have large, complex gears, just by taking the port off and without taking the camera body out of the housing. It would be impossible to have all these things added economically on a "rush" basis. So the "reserve" housing is the best solution for me.
What would I hope to gain with an F6?
One - the F6 does (as confirmed by my handling it at PMA) have better auto-focus which would make it a better camera to use under low contrast situations where the F5 still sometimes has trouble, such as near night and night conditons. Or very large subjects without much contrast. And on faster moving subjects and groups of subjects. And the extra auto-focus points and multiple-point capability would also allow me to try different things.
Two - if both cameras can be make to fit into the same housing, it would allow a choice on cameras on each dive without having to have travel with totally different housing for each camera type. Imagine traveling with just two housings, into which you could put either a pair of F6's if a particular client preferred film, or a pair of D2X's if he preferred digital, or one of each (see also Three). The best of both worlds.
Three - And if there ever is a good i-TTL underwater strobe, the D2X could then be the "perfect polaroid" for the F6 if I bought two of those housings. And would let me try to put together more complex lighting on special occasions. And "pre-test" unusual new optical rigs more quickly. I will still be able to pre-test many combinations with a housed D2X and shooting the strobes on manual. One example of that is the rig I use for higher magnifications (larger than 1:1 and up to 4.4x lifesize) which consists of camera, Nikon AF-S converters (1.4x or 2x), Kenko auto extension tubes, and the Nikon 105mm micro-nikkor. I use the Nikon AF-S converters because my tests indicated they give me better sharpness than di the Kenko converters. But it took a few days of testing to prove this to my satisfaction when I had to shoot a roll of film and wait for processing to see results before shooting another. I could have gotten much of the testing done in a single day with the D2X. And I fully expect to use the D2X for many initial tests in the future, despite the fact that it is not full frame and thus not totally equivalent.
divegypsy
Mike has asked what I might hope to gain from an F6 that I'm not getting from the F5.
The actual fact is that I own three (not two) F5's and Seacam housing outfits. And doubles or sometimes even triples of the lenses and seacam ports and extension rings I use most. Why three? I usually travel with only two, but the third set is there in reserve in case one system disappears in transit (read about one guy's loss of stuff on trip to and from Bonaire) or is lost in some kind of boating or diving mishaps. I feel that if you are trying to do underwater photography professionally, you have to have back-up for your gear that are immediately, or nearly immediately available. (Ever ordered a housing, or port, or strobe, or lens and had to wait and wait for it to come? As a pro I don't feel you can just make excuses to a client)
This "reserve back-up" is all the more necessary because I often work with one or two machine shop guys to make special parts for or modifications to my housings. My F5 housings have all been modified to all the following capabilities and features: (1) a double o-ring seal system on all my ports and extension rings, (2) a modified focus point selection control that I like better than Seacam's own, (3) a port lock so that certain ports and extension rings cannot "twist" off accidentally causing a leak or flood, (4) a modified SCM auto-focus mode control that automatically disengages from the manual focus gear on the lens when I switch to S or C. (This means I don't have to try to pull the manual focus knob outward against water pressure, which becomes difficult to impossible as you go deeper, (5) and a simple lever that pushes on the lens release button so that I can easily change lenses, whether or no they have large, complex gears, just by taking the port off and without taking the camera body out of the housing. It would be impossible to have all these things added economically on a "rush" basis. So the "reserve" housing is the best solution for me.
What would I hope to gain with an F6?
One - the F6 does (as confirmed by my handling it at PMA) have better auto-focus which would make it a better camera to use under low contrast situations where the F5 still sometimes has trouble, such as near night and night conditons. Or very large subjects without much contrast. And on faster moving subjects and groups of subjects. And the extra auto-focus points and multiple-point capability would also allow me to try different things.
Two - if both cameras can be make to fit into the same housing, it would allow a choice on cameras on each dive without having to have travel with totally different housing for each camera type. Imagine traveling with just two housings, into which you could put either a pair of F6's if a particular client preferred film, or a pair of D2X's if he preferred digital, or one of each (see also Three). The best of both worlds.
Three - And if there ever is a good i-TTL underwater strobe, the D2X could then be the "perfect polaroid" for the F6 if I bought two of those housings. And would let me try to put together more complex lighting on special occasions. And "pre-test" unusual new optical rigs more quickly. I will still be able to pre-test many combinations with a housed D2X and shooting the strobes on manual. One example of that is the rig I use for higher magnifications (larger than 1:1 and up to 4.4x lifesize) which consists of camera, Nikon AF-S converters (1.4x or 2x), Kenko auto extension tubes, and the Nikon 105mm micro-nikkor. I use the Nikon AF-S converters because my tests indicated they give me better sharpness than di the Kenko converters. But it took a few days of testing to prove this to my satisfaction when I had to shoot a roll of film and wait for processing to see results before shooting another. I could have gotten much of the testing done in a single day with the D2X. And I fully expect to use the D2X for many initial tests in the future, despite the fact that it is not full frame and thus not totally equivalent.
divegypsy
Hi Guys,
A few more thoughts on the various film cameras and digital. I'm the guy using primarily F5's and wrote that I had just ordered an F6. F6 still on order, but the D2X has arrived. I feel that digital has finally come to the point where it offers some advantages over film - mainly the immediate feedback and more shots on a big CF card. Alex's contention that the D2X has better resolution than film is unshared by any magazine I have been in touch with over the last two years, which included National Geographic, German Geo, Terre Sauvage in France, and the publications of the National Wildlife Federation. However, virtually all of them are willing to accept digital images (but rarely Nikon Coolscan 5000 scans) if they are from a top quality digital camera. The Canon 1Ds was most mentioned and to be expected as the Nikon D2x had not yet appeared. When its been around a while I would expect it to be also acceptable. I think the choice between film and digital still comes down to the use you want to put the final images to and which camera offers the most chance of successful image shooting of the subject(s) you are hoping to shoot on that particular dive. Pick the best tool for each job!!
Film camera thoughts related to underwater. Short of a Seacam optical finder, nothing comes close to Nikon's own action finder. The action finder also has the advantage of NOT being 3D Color matrix. Why advantage? Because according to Nikon's own literature the color matrix applies different exposure values to different colors, and different algorithms. I want whatever I point the spot meter at and center at 0.0 exposure to be rendered the same density value on the film. I don't want someone else's feelins about how much lighter blue ought to be rendered, because its usually a sky (not blue water) reading, to be factored in. And this is why I would buy the action finder for the F5 rather than use even Seacam's optical finder. But why I will miss an action finder with the F6. A reasonable second choice to the Seacam 45 and 90 degree finders is Subal's new optical finder, which despite not giving quite as much magnification, is considerably more compact and much less expensive.
F5 vs other Nikon film cameras. The F90. F100, and F5 share virtually identical TTL technology and in my tests, primarily on land, I could find no significant differences. What was significant to me is that the F5 has an action finder, the F5 (and also F100) has multiple focus points, and the F5 has custom functions that allow me to shoot differently than I would be able to do with the F100 or F90. On the plus for the F100, that camera is much less expensive and with a good housing is smaller and lighter. A good optical finder reduces the money difference to almost nil though. And although the F100 is significantly smaller and lighter in its housing alone, that in my opinion diminishes in significance when you add a large dome port (such as Seacam's superdome), and a pair of big, strong strobes (such as Ikelite 400's, or my preferred Hartenberger 625's) at the end of extended strobe arms. Given big strobes on long arms, sometimes a larger housing mass at the center makes for a more stable and easier handling total package, especially in stronger currents or surge.
If the weight underwater of a more compact macro rig is too negative underwater, make and add a custom block of marine styrofoam, with which you can easily achieve true neutrality if that is what you want. You don't HAVE to use any of these housing just as they come from the box. I believe you should make any changes you feel will make the housing easier to use and get good pictures with.
Years ago Ike looked at the multiple changes I'd made to an Ikelite housing and said, "What did you do to my housing?"
I replied, "I did nothing to YOUR housing. The moment you took my money, it became MY housing and mine to do whatever I liked to!"
divegypsy
A few more thoughts on the various film cameras and digital. I'm the guy using primarily F5's and wrote that I had just ordered an F6. F6 still on order, but the D2X has arrived. I feel that digital has finally come to the point where it offers some advantages over film - mainly the immediate feedback and more shots on a big CF card. Alex's contention that the D2X has better resolution than film is unshared by any magazine I have been in touch with over the last two years, which included National Geographic, German Geo, Terre Sauvage in France, and the publications of the National Wildlife Federation. However, virtually all of them are willing to accept digital images (but rarely Nikon Coolscan 5000 scans) if they are from a top quality digital camera. The Canon 1Ds was most mentioned and to be expected as the Nikon D2x had not yet appeared. When its been around a while I would expect it to be also acceptable. I think the choice between film and digital still comes down to the use you want to put the final images to and which camera offers the most chance of successful image shooting of the subject(s) you are hoping to shoot on that particular dive. Pick the best tool for each job!!
Film camera thoughts related to underwater. Short of a Seacam optical finder, nothing comes close to Nikon's own action finder. The action finder also has the advantage of NOT being 3D Color matrix. Why advantage? Because according to Nikon's own literature the color matrix applies different exposure values to different colors, and different algorithms. I want whatever I point the spot meter at and center at 0.0 exposure to be rendered the same density value on the film. I don't want someone else's feelins about how much lighter blue ought to be rendered, because its usually a sky (not blue water) reading, to be factored in. And this is why I would buy the action finder for the F5 rather than use even Seacam's optical finder. But why I will miss an action finder with the F6. A reasonable second choice to the Seacam 45 and 90 degree finders is Subal's new optical finder, which despite not giving quite as much magnification, is considerably more compact and much less expensive.
F5 vs other Nikon film cameras. The F90. F100, and F5 share virtually identical TTL technology and in my tests, primarily on land, I could find no significant differences. What was significant to me is that the F5 has an action finder, the F5 (and also F100) has multiple focus points, and the F5 has custom functions that allow me to shoot differently than I would be able to do with the F100 or F90. On the plus for the F100, that camera is much less expensive and with a good housing is smaller and lighter. A good optical finder reduces the money difference to almost nil though. And although the F100 is significantly smaller and lighter in its housing alone, that in my opinion diminishes in significance when you add a large dome port (such as Seacam's superdome), and a pair of big, strong strobes (such as Ikelite 400's, or my preferred Hartenberger 625's) at the end of extended strobe arms. Given big strobes on long arms, sometimes a larger housing mass at the center makes for a more stable and easier handling total package, especially in stronger currents or surge.
If the weight underwater of a more compact macro rig is too negative underwater, make and add a custom block of marine styrofoam, with which you can easily achieve true neutrality if that is what you want. You don't HAVE to use any of these housing just as they come from the box. I believe you should make any changes you feel will make the housing easier to use and get good pictures with.
Years ago Ike looked at the multiple changes I'd made to an Ikelite housing and said, "What did you do to my housing?"
I replied, "I did nothing to YOUR housing. The moment you took my money, it became MY housing and mine to do whatever I liked to!"
divegypsy
QUOTE (divegypsy @ Jul 27 2005, 02:23 PM)
I think the choice between film and digital still comes down to the use you want to put the final images to and which camera offers the most chance of successful image shooting of the subject(s) you are hoping to shoot on that particular dive. Pick the best tool for each job!
Thanks for taking the time to share you experience, Fred.
I think just about everyone would agree with your central argument (that I have quoted above). And I think many differences of opinion over equipment come from why people take pictures, what they photograph and who they sell them too.
I look forward to hearing what you make of the D2X once you have take it on a serious shoot UW.
Alex
Hi again Guys,
Talked with Harald at Seacam the other day about the F6 and his D2X housing. Harald told me that he hadn't really looked at the F6 because although he had about 80 D2X housings on order, I was the first person who had ever even asked about the F6. He also said that even though the D2H and D2X are built almost identically, the D2H doesn't match up really well with the D2X control linkages. So he wasn't too optimistic about an F6 working in the housing as is.
I'm willing to buy the housing if it works perfectly for the D2X and I can change a few minor things when I change to an F6. An continue to hope that with the assistance of a good machine shop guy that will be possible.
Another reason for wanting this possibility is that I read carefully my new warranty with the D2X and cleearly Nikon is not willing to give any of their digital cameras the same kind of support they do the film cameras. (D2X has a one year regionally-limited warranty vs three year world-wide warranty on the F6) See the new topic on this subject in the digital SLR forum.
divegypsy
Talked with Harald at Seacam the other day about the F6 and his D2X housing. Harald told me that he hadn't really looked at the F6 because although he had about 80 D2X housings on order, I was the first person who had ever even asked about the F6. He also said that even though the D2H and D2X are built almost identically, the D2H doesn't match up really well with the D2X control linkages. So he wasn't too optimistic about an F6 working in the housing as is.
I'm willing to buy the housing if it works perfectly for the D2X and I can change a few minor things when I change to an F6. An continue to hope that with the assistance of a good machine shop guy that will be possible.
Another reason for wanting this possibility is that I read carefully my new warranty with the D2X and cleearly Nikon is not willing to give any of their digital cameras the same kind of support they do the film cameras. (D2X has a one year regionally-limited warranty vs three year world-wide warranty on the F6) See the new topic on this subject in the digital SLR forum.
divegypsy
That sounds like a good move Fred. I haven't tried to fit a smaller alternative Canon in my 1Ds housing, but now I'm thinking about it.
Cheers
James
Cheers
James
Just a few comments. Firstly on digital vs. film capture. I find that one of the biggest problems is in the printing stage. Many designers and printers do not seem to want to understand digitally derived images are now better than scans (could this be to do with a loss in scanning fees???) if shot on the lkies of the EOS1DSI/II or D2X. Regardless of the arguments (and I for one would argue that the cleaner, smoother image quality of these digital cameras outclasses 35mm film) digital is very much here to stay and magazines will undoubtedly start accepting files or find their image options ever decreasing from now on. (On the scanner note, I scan on a Coolscan 8000 when I need to and haven't had any problems provided the printer doesn't know).
Secondly, fitting an F6 inside a D2X housing may well be possible but bear in mind that Seacam will realign an EOS1DS housing to allow a 1DSMkII to fit - although the cameras are close, they are not identical - and the rotating on/off switch won't work if this isn't carried out - from my observations we are probably talking in fractions of a millimetre here. The adjustments required are small and must require a high degree of accuracy, so I would say that such a conversion may be fraught with irritation!
Lastly, I suspect that the warranty situation is more to do with a policy of ensuring that significant price differentials don't occur worldwide. In the UK it was actually possible to extend the EOS1DS's warranty for an additional 2 years at a cost of around £700 ($1000+) which I haven't bothered to do, so there clearly is a risk of failure. Given the decreasing value of any digital gear (EOS1DS cameras are roughly half their new price now) I'm not convinced that this is as important as it might be with a lower volume unit like the F6 which after all uses very tried and tested technology and so should be expected to be very reliable.
Secondly, fitting an F6 inside a D2X housing may well be possible but bear in mind that Seacam will realign an EOS1DS housing to allow a 1DSMkII to fit - although the cameras are close, they are not identical - and the rotating on/off switch won't work if this isn't carried out - from my observations we are probably talking in fractions of a millimetre here. The adjustments required are small and must require a high degree of accuracy, so I would say that such a conversion may be fraught with irritation!
Lastly, I suspect that the warranty situation is more to do with a policy of ensuring that significant price differentials don't occur worldwide. In the UK it was actually possible to extend the EOS1DS's warranty for an additional 2 years at a cost of around £700 ($1000+) which I haven't bothered to do, so there clearly is a risk of failure. Given the decreasing value of any digital gear (EOS1DS cameras are roughly half their new price now) I'm not convinced that this is as important as it might be with a lower volume unit like the F6 which after all uses very tried and tested technology and so should be expected to be very reliable.
Divegypsy said
(
Film camera thoughts related to underwater. Short of a Seacam optical finder, nothing comes close to Nikon's own action finder. The action finder also has the advantage of NOT being 3D Color matrix. Why advantage? Because according to Nikon's own literature the color matrix applies different exposure values to different colors, and different algorithms. I want whatever I point the spot meter at and center at 0.0 exposure to be rendered the same density value on the film. I don't want someone else's feelins about how much lighter blue ought to be rendered, because its usually a sky (not blue water) reading, to be factored in. And this is why I would buy the action finder for the F5 rather than use even Seacam's optical finder. But why I will miss an action finder with the F6. A reasonable second choice to the Seacam 45 and 90 degree finders is Subal's new optical finder, which despite not giving quite as much magnification, is considerably more compact and much less expensive.)
I knew there was a reason I loved these finders so much.
Is that true that the nikon D2x does not have a Full Frame finder (LCD)??
Mark
(
Film camera thoughts related to underwater. Short of a Seacam optical finder, nothing comes close to Nikon's own action finder. The action finder also has the advantage of NOT being 3D Color matrix. Why advantage? Because according to Nikon's own literature the color matrix applies different exposure values to different colors, and different algorithms. I want whatever I point the spot meter at and center at 0.0 exposure to be rendered the same density value on the film. I don't want someone else's feelins about how much lighter blue ought to be rendered, because its usually a sky (not blue water) reading, to be factored in. And this is why I would buy the action finder for the F5 rather than use even Seacam's optical finder. But why I will miss an action finder with the F6. A reasonable second choice to the Seacam 45 and 90 degree finders is Subal's new optical finder, which despite not giving quite as much magnification, is considerably more compact and much less expensive.)
I knew there was a reason I loved these finders so much.
Is that true that the nikon D2x does not have a Full Frame finder (LCD)??
Mark
I am sorry Alex but comparing a digitally captured image on your D2x with one from film scanned on a 4000dpi scanner is simply not fair (I know because I have a 4000dpi scanner) because film scanned properly on a drum-scanner, in my opinion, beats it well into second place.
If you want to see what I mean, take a close look at the main image used on the Dive 2005 Show Guide. Chris Boardman's face represented a minute area of film yet it is so sharp the hairs on his chin are obscene!
However, when all is said and done, the quality either way is good enough.
If you want to see what I mean, take a close look at the main image used on the Dive 2005 Show Guide. Chris Boardman's face represented a minute area of film yet it is so sharp the hairs on his chin are obscene!
However, when all is said and done, the quality either way is good enough.
Sorry John but I've just had a series of prints made from immages off both the EOS1DS and a Contax 645 (shot tripod mounted on Velvia) which are printed to A0! The digital files from the Canon are marginally better than those of the high quality scans from the Contax (which is a cracking camera and has stunningly sharp Zeiss glass). The images are landscapes for use in a foyer and have to look good, and have been printed on a digital solvent based printer. Today's 10MPixel+ digital SLRs deliver cleaner, tonally better and far more versatile image files than 35mm film does.
You might be right Paul. I speak only as I find - but then there are a lot of professional advertising photographers (earning in excess of £3000 per day) in London getting it wrong!
How are you making those prints from film? Are you making an interneg with unsharp mask or are you using notoriosly unsharp reversal paper? Both methods are fraught with disappointment.
You might well get a better print direct from your digitally recorded image but if you had the film properly drum-scanned (and I stress the word properly) you might have been surprised!
If your sole aim is to make prints yourself, then digital imagery keeps you in control. If your stuff is going off to be reproduced elsewhere, the story is very different. It is not just sharpness either. I have got some vary variable repro from digital files in this months mag (see green dolphins and a disappearing whaleshark) from digital shots that looked perfect at my end when I am always happy with what they get from film.
How are you making those prints from film? Are you making an interneg with unsharp mask or are you using notoriosly unsharp reversal paper? Both methods are fraught with disappointment.
You might well get a better print direct from your digitally recorded image but if you had the film properly drum-scanned (and I stress the word properly) you might have been surprised!
If your sole aim is to make prints yourself, then digital imagery keeps you in control. If your stuff is going off to be reproduced elsewhere, the story is very different. It is not just sharpness either. I have got some vary variable repro from digital files in this months mag (see green dolphins and a disappearing whaleshark) from digital shots that looked perfect at my end when I am always happy with what they get from film.
Hi John
The problem is twofold. First is that GOOD digital photographers produce stunningly good digital files but poor photographers produce files which are all over the place. For most of us there has been and incredibly long learning curve (most of us are still at the bottom of it) BUT we are probably far beyond most other sectors in the image handling industry because we're at the sharp end. The quality issue when it comes to publication is a very significant one. There is a real belief that all digital files are the same and they most certainly are not. I have a friend who runs a graphic design and print business - he can produce superb prints from scans (he has a high end scanner) or digital files, but has to explain that poor files/scans simply won't print up well!
Second is that printers SHOULD treat every individual image differently and adjust the files (including unsharp masking) before using their conversions which are taylored to their own print system. Many do not and this is a cause of some problems. But it is always easier to blame a poor scan or digital file than it is to admit that you didn't spend enough time adjusting them.
Of couse, since printers no longer make money from scanning, are usually working to a cost and deadline and won't admit to shortcomings the result is usually less than perfect.
In the past I've never been totally satisfied with prints from transparencies but today's prints from digital files are getting far closer to what I want to see.
The problem is twofold. First is that GOOD digital photographers produce stunningly good digital files but poor photographers produce files which are all over the place. For most of us there has been and incredibly long learning curve (most of us are still at the bottom of it) BUT we are probably far beyond most other sectors in the image handling industry because we're at the sharp end. The quality issue when it comes to publication is a very significant one. There is a real belief that all digital files are the same and they most certainly are not. I have a friend who runs a graphic design and print business - he can produce superb prints from scans (he has a high end scanner) or digital files, but has to explain that poor files/scans simply won't print up well!
Second is that printers SHOULD treat every individual image differently and adjust the files (including unsharp masking) before using their conversions which are taylored to their own print system. Many do not and this is a cause of some problems. But it is always easier to blame a poor scan or digital file than it is to admit that you didn't spend enough time adjusting them.
Of couse, since printers no longer make money from scanning, are usually working to a cost and deadline and won't admit to shortcomings the result is usually less than perfect.
In the past I've never been totally satisfied with prints from transparencies but today's prints from digital files are getting far closer to what I want to see.
I agree that John is right about many studio pros still shooting film. Many have bought and tried nearly all the digital camera (and a good number have switched) but some have stuck with film. One of the reasons for this is that they have a workflow (with film) that works for them, plus the look of their favoured film stock and printing is important in defining the look of their images.
Heck if you are earning 3000 quid a day, it certainly ain't broke, so why fix it. Except for the fact that the film companies are slowly abandoning more and more of their products. I guess they don't appreciate these guys' business!
The problem I see with scuba magazine printing is a lack budget and time and therefore a lack of proofing. AFAIK most dive mags are pretty small productions and don't have money to waste at repro-houses colour proofing the whole mag before going to press. They may do the cover and a few important DPSs, but most stuff is batch converted to CMYK and is not colour corrected file by file and certainly not after viewing printed proofs of each file. All diving mags run on limited budgets and wasting this sort of money on their production costs would not be a sound management decision (despite the fact that as photographers we would like them too). As a result there is no lack of examples of poor printing of both slides and digital files in scuba magazines around the world. But most of the time decent files = decent results.
Anyway, these publications have been used to working with scans for many years and their batch CMYK conversions must surely be tailored to scanned slide characteristics? Digital camera files have slightly different characteristics, but slowly CMYK conversions will be adapting to suit them as digital files already dominate editorial submissions. In a few years it will be the scans that are printing badly and the digital reliably well.
I agree with Paul, that the failure to print digital files well (whether scans or camera files) is often a failure in the RGB-CMYK conversion stage. This failure is often determined by budget and time, rather than an inherent problem with the original files.
One example I have from my own work is the goatfish that is on Rob Galbraith at the moment. I took this shot with the D2X and it was used on the cover of the Divequest brochure (UK readers may well have one knocking about). The CMYK conversion used there was not nice at all and the image looks flat and washed out. The blue water printed so badly that they actually painted in a cyan background instead (that still doesn't look great). This picture is also in my book, and when properly converted into CMYK at a good repro-house it prints wonderfully and looks better in the proofs than the screen version does on Galbraith! In fact I didn't ask for any adjustments on that image from their standard conversion. Anyway both were exactly the same RGB - TIFF file!
Alex
Heck if you are earning 3000 quid a day, it certainly ain't broke, so why fix it. Except for the fact that the film companies are slowly abandoning more and more of their products. I guess they don't appreciate these guys' business!
The problem I see with scuba magazine printing is a lack budget and time and therefore a lack of proofing. AFAIK most dive mags are pretty small productions and don't have money to waste at repro-houses colour proofing the whole mag before going to press. They may do the cover and a few important DPSs, but most stuff is batch converted to CMYK and is not colour corrected file by file and certainly not after viewing printed proofs of each file. All diving mags run on limited budgets and wasting this sort of money on their production costs would not be a sound management decision (despite the fact that as photographers we would like them too). As a result there is no lack of examples of poor printing of both slides and digital files in scuba magazines around the world. But most of the time decent files = decent results.
Anyway, these publications have been used to working with scans for many years and their batch CMYK conversions must surely be tailored to scanned slide characteristics? Digital camera files have slightly different characteristics, but slowly CMYK conversions will be adapting to suit them as digital files already dominate editorial submissions. In a few years it will be the scans that are printing badly and the digital reliably well.
I agree with Paul, that the failure to print digital files well (whether scans or camera files) is often a failure in the RGB-CMYK conversion stage. This failure is often determined by budget and time, rather than an inherent problem with the original files.
One example I have from my own work is the goatfish that is on Rob Galbraith at the moment. I took this shot with the D2X and it was used on the cover of the Divequest brochure (UK readers may well have one knocking about). The CMYK conversion used there was not nice at all and the image looks flat and washed out. The blue water printed so badly that they actually painted in a cyan background instead (that still doesn't look great). This picture is also in my book, and when properly converted into CMYK at a good repro-house it prints wonderfully and looks better in the proofs than the screen version does on Galbraith! In fact I didn't ask for any adjustments on that image from their standard conversion. Anyway both were exactly the same RGB - TIFF file!
Alex
Getting back to the F6. Why did the Nikon company bother to spend the money developing and manufacturing it? Because they think it has a market. Now I am just a poor working class lad who certainly cannot afford to flood such expensive hardware (film or digital), and I guess that no underwater photographers are going to think otherwise about the F6 either. But someone obviously is going to buy it so there must be a reason to make it - or have the guys at Nikon simply got their sales projections wrong?
You all may find this article useful and interesting:
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/essays/Cramer.shtml
Compares the P45 Digital Back to drum scanned 4x5
Cheers
James
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/essays/Cramer.shtml
Compares the P45 Digital Back to drum scanned 4x5
Cheers
James
John
I have a friend who owns 2 x F6s and a D2X - he remains unconvinced about digital, but I suspect that this is because he can extract every last nuance of quality out of fine grained film and probably does not want to undertake the severe learning curve to enable him to do the same with digital. Switching to digital is not an easy option and many photographers I know are loath to do so BUT this does not mean that 10MPixel cameras cannot produce images that surpass 35mm film in terms of sharpness, smoothness of tone and nuance of detail. Problem for film users is that digital is not merely not going to go away but is forecast to thoroughly dominate photography in a very short time. Sticking to film will, as Alex says, reduce options. Printers MUST sort their workflows out, and hopefully will. If they don't then we will see a reduction in quality of imagery just as we have a better image taking system.
I have a friend who owns 2 x F6s and a D2X - he remains unconvinced about digital, but I suspect that this is because he can extract every last nuance of quality out of fine grained film and probably does not want to undertake the severe learning curve to enable him to do the same with digital. Switching to digital is not an easy option and many photographers I know are loath to do so BUT this does not mean that 10MPixel cameras cannot produce images that surpass 35mm film in terms of sharpness, smoothness of tone and nuance of detail. Problem for film users is that digital is not merely not going to go away but is forecast to thoroughly dominate photography in a very short time. Sticking to film will, as Alex says, reduce options. Printers MUST sort their workflows out, and hopefully will. If they don't then we will see a reduction in quality of imagery just as we have a better image taking system.
By the way, in case you think I am a Luddite who wants to stick with film at all costs, I gave up shooting film some time ago! But that was more to do with working practises than final results. Yes, digital underwater is very easy!
Hi Guys,
Once again I feel compelled to rebut Alex Mustards contentions concerning his digital D2X vs film. As I posted quite a while back, I went to the 2005 PMA photo show where Nikon showed both the D2X and F6. And subsequently bought one of each. And took comparison shots taken with both cameras of the same subject - tripoded, on land, identical framing with 105 micro-nikkor @ f16 - with D2X and Velvia 100.
If I "settle" for a Nikon Coolscan 5000 full resolution scan of the Velvia shot, the D2X image does look a little bit sharper on my Sony Artisan monitor. BUT if I go to a higher dpi quality scan such as that made by an Imacon scanner or a drum scanner the film image is now rendered sharper. One also has to consider that the raw image from the D2X camera when processed by most programs like Nikon's own software is sharpened digitally to look sharper than the actual sharpness captured by the sensor. And the image scanned by a scanner like the 5000ED can also be sharpened to equal that of the D2X.
But there are other issues than sharpness, like color. A quality scan of the velvia film image has better color because the D2X has only 10-bit color capture which is then interpolated up to 16-bit by photoshop or nikon's software.
And interpolated data, whether sharpness or color, is not as good as true original data.
But believe whatever you want. I have made my living ONLY from underwater still photography for the last 20 years. Not from teaching workshop, not from leading trips, not from selling underwater camera equipment. ONLY from the pictures I shoot and sell. And in my opinion the single most important issue is pleasing the client. And among mine have been magazines like National Geographic, National Wildlife, GEO Germany, GEO France, Terre Sauvage, and many others.
John Nuhn, the picture editor at National Wildlife, in a discussion we had last year, said it best. Digital images are fine for the magazine to use. BUT they can only be used to a size where the camera provides 300 uninterpolated pixels per inch of the image size as printed in the magazine. And if you take the size of a double page spread - 17" wide - none of the regularly housed digital SLR's, not the Nikon D2X nor the Canon 1DsMkII provides enough pixels to do this. This means that National Wildlife will not use images from either of those cameras for a double page spread under normal circumstances. And most double page images need to be even bigger to allow some cropping, bleeding and trimming. So you would probably need a digital image of about 24 megapixels to be really satisfactory for most of their double page uses.
Sharp 35mm film images, drum scanned, are regularly. And used even when cropped to about 75-60% of full-frame size if hte original is really sharp on the film. NWF insists that their images look sharp on the printed page. And whether you can add enough sharpening to make it look OK or even great on a computer monitor is not a viable solution.
And if you are in business you have to live with a philosophy similar to, "The customer is always right." Especially if you want to keep that customer and stay in business.
Divegypsy
Once again I feel compelled to rebut Alex Mustards contentions concerning his digital D2X vs film. As I posted quite a while back, I went to the 2005 PMA photo show where Nikon showed both the D2X and F6. And subsequently bought one of each. And took comparison shots taken with both cameras of the same subject - tripoded, on land, identical framing with 105 micro-nikkor @ f16 - with D2X and Velvia 100.
If I "settle" for a Nikon Coolscan 5000 full resolution scan of the Velvia shot, the D2X image does look a little bit sharper on my Sony Artisan monitor. BUT if I go to a higher dpi quality scan such as that made by an Imacon scanner or a drum scanner the film image is now rendered sharper. One also has to consider that the raw image from the D2X camera when processed by most programs like Nikon's own software is sharpened digitally to look sharper than the actual sharpness captured by the sensor. And the image scanned by a scanner like the 5000ED can also be sharpened to equal that of the D2X.
But there are other issues than sharpness, like color. A quality scan of the velvia film image has better color because the D2X has only 10-bit color capture which is then interpolated up to 16-bit by photoshop or nikon's software.
And interpolated data, whether sharpness or color, is not as good as true original data.
But believe whatever you want. I have made my living ONLY from underwater still photography for the last 20 years. Not from teaching workshop, not from leading trips, not from selling underwater camera equipment. ONLY from the pictures I shoot and sell. And in my opinion the single most important issue is pleasing the client. And among mine have been magazines like National Geographic, National Wildlife, GEO Germany, GEO France, Terre Sauvage, and many others.
John Nuhn, the picture editor at National Wildlife, in a discussion we had last year, said it best. Digital images are fine for the magazine to use. BUT they can only be used to a size where the camera provides 300 uninterpolated pixels per inch of the image size as printed in the magazine. And if you take the size of a double page spread - 17" wide - none of the regularly housed digital SLR's, not the Nikon D2X nor the Canon 1DsMkII provides enough pixels to do this. This means that National Wildlife will not use images from either of those cameras for a double page spread under normal circumstances. And most double page images need to be even bigger to allow some cropping, bleeding and trimming. So you would probably need a digital image of about 24 megapixels to be really satisfactory for most of their double page uses.
Sharp 35mm film images, drum scanned, are regularly. And used even when cropped to about 75-60% of full-frame size if hte original is really sharp on the film. NWF insists that their images look sharp on the printed page. And whether you can add enough sharpening to make it look OK or even great on a computer monitor is not a viable solution.
And if you are in business you have to live with a philosophy similar to, "The customer is always right." Especially if you want to keep that customer and stay in business.
Divegypsy
A good pro will always beat a good amateur and quite frankly there is not enough financial reward in the world of underwater photography to attract many good pros. What am I saying? Nikon quite rightly have decided that the amateur market has gone entirely digital, but the REAL professional market (Not ordinary wedding photographers for whom speed is an important criterion!) still uses film. Check with AFAEP members in London if you do not believe me!
Quote "a good pro will always beat a good amateur" - depends what you mean by beat John. I have amateur friends who can spend far more time getting a shot than I can afford to! And some are very, very good - but they don't have the same pressure to work to.
As for 35mm vs digital well quite frankly I can get BETTER images out of my Canon EOS1DS than 35mm - END. The raw conversion process is simply far more versatile and can produce better corrected images than 35mm film can when scanned. If we are discussing differences then there are some. But qualitywise then digital cameras over 10MPixel quite simply produce better images. Extrapolation of a digital image whilst not ideal IS possible to a surprising degree simply because the image is digitally originated.
As an example, I recently had an underwater shot printed at 36" x 24" - it was made from an EOS1DS file - excellent quality! It would rival a 50 ISO Velvia scan BUT it was shot at ISO 400 equivalence and I would not have been able to shoot it on Velvia 50!
As another example, look into the corners of an underwater macro shot which contains bright hard edged detail in them. Almost certainly you will see some chromatic fringing (due to shooting through a thick bit of glass/plastic) which you cannot correct. This fringing can be minimised and sometimes virtually eliminated during the raw conversion of the digital file.
Problem is that we - DIGITAL photographers - are at the cutting edge - until the other links in the chain catch up (editors, designers, resizers, seperators, printers, and more) then older, traditional methods will still be considered to be 'better'.
You can rebut contentions but you can't argue against actuality.
As for 35mm vs digital well quite frankly I can get BETTER images out of my Canon EOS1DS than 35mm - END. The raw conversion process is simply far more versatile and can produce better corrected images than 35mm film can when scanned. If we are discussing differences then there are some. But qualitywise then digital cameras over 10MPixel quite simply produce better images. Extrapolation of a digital image whilst not ideal IS possible to a surprising degree simply because the image is digitally originated.
As an example, I recently had an underwater shot printed at 36" x 24" - it was made from an EOS1DS file - excellent quality! It would rival a 50 ISO Velvia scan BUT it was shot at ISO 400 equivalence and I would not have been able to shoot it on Velvia 50!
As another example, look into the corners of an underwater macro shot which contains bright hard edged detail in them. Almost certainly you will see some chromatic fringing (due to shooting through a thick bit of glass/plastic) which you cannot correct. This fringing can be minimised and sometimes virtually eliminated during the raw conversion of the digital file.
Problem is that we - DIGITAL photographers - are at the cutting edge - until the other links in the chain catch up (editors, designers, resizers, seperators, printers, and more) then older, traditional methods will still be considered to be 'better'.
You can rebut contentions but you can't argue against actuality.
I'll see your 36x24 prints and raise you a twenty or more 64-sheet posters!
Of course, underwater photography has one enormously limiting factor and that is water.
So we are like two stupid old men swimming under the surface of a bowl of minestroni arguing who can see the furthest!
Of course, underwater photography has one enormously limiting factor and that is water.
So we are like two stupid old men swimming under the surface of a bowl of minestroni arguing who can see the furthest!
Film is better than digital!
LOL!
LOL!
Cleese you are wrong!
Paul, I admit it. You made me laugh!
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.