| | |||||||
|
Welcome to the YD Scuba forums. You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions, articles and access our other FREE features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), respond to polls, upload your own photos and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join our community today! If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact contact support. |
| Underwater Video & Photography: Discuss Advice needed (again!!) in the General Diving Forums forums: Hey YDers, I've recently passed my DUP instructor spec and want to get a reasonably swanky new camera and housing. ... |
| | LinkBack | Thread Tools | Display Modes |
| ||||
| Quote:
Answer those and we might able to help. Do not use the onboard flash for UK diving as you will get too much back scatter. 40m in the UK is normally pretty dark so you need external strobes like the DS-125 at around £600-800 each (including sync cords/arms/etc). 40m in blue water is a different game but strobes are still needed to give fill light and you might get away with onboard flash.
__________________ Gareth Images of Life Photography DIR Team Foxturd Son, you're going to have to make up your mind about growing up and becoming aircrew. You can't do both. The aircraft limits are only there in case there is another flight by that particular aircraft. If subsequent flights do not appear likely, there are no limits. |
| ||||
| Have you looked at the Canon offer on the PADI pro site yet ? |
| ||||
| Quote:
|
| ||||
| Quote:
|
| ||||
| Don't know how this compares but Brett has this Fuji F50fd on offer at the moment. Last edited by Fiona : 08-12-07 at 02:35 PM. |
| ||||
| Quote:
__________________ "No one is more effectively enslaved than those who think they are free" - Charles Sullivan |
| ||||
| Quote:
Given the monetary constraints I would prefer the F31 to the above, you don't really need all those extra "pixels" (they aren't actually) crammed onto the same size sensor - that's not a good idea at all. More pixels, today, is not at all necessarily better than less pixels but I'll qualify that: all camera manufacturers today call photocells pixels when they aren't. In the case of conventional cameras (currently all but Sigma) 4 x photocells make a (proper) pixel so if you divide by four you'll get to a more correct pixel count. I recently wrote on another Forum: "The amount of processing power required to resolve an A4 (210 x 297mm) image to print (trust me, I'm a retired printer) is 1,600 by 2,400 pixels (proper, real pixels - as described above) or 3.8 megapixels - again, proper megapixels, a far cry from what the camera manufacturers would have you believe and most of you wouldn't want to go beyond that size - if you did you'd be a contender for a decent dSLR which will almost inevitably have a bigger sensor than those described above." Maybe I should copy the whole of what I wrote here? Anyone want to persuade me to do so? Seems to me that there are not a few who really don't properly understand proper pixels and printing in real terms - particularly when one includes the limitations of the human eye - and the human eye has many limitations.
__________________ Cheers, Christian There is nothing more certain in life than taxes, decompression theory and death - CG |
| ||||
| Quote:
|
| ||||
| Quote:
|
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | |
| |
| | ||