Are consumer digital cameras useless for diving?

"Michael C" <nospam@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:462617c1$0$16555$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.a u...
> I've noticed a couple of questions regarding dive cameras so thought I'd
> continue the trend. A friend spent $700 on a 6mp cannon camera with a dive
> case. I've noticed most of the pictures suffered from a severe lack of
> light and the camera automatically went to a long exposure causing many of
> them to be blured. Those that weren't blurred were quite dull. Only
> closeup shots were acceptable really. After having a look at the pics I'm
> kinda of the opinion that only a high quality camera with a full size
> lense (to let more light in) and a good external flash would be required
> to get acceptable photos. Is this true? I'm not a camera zealot if anyone
> is wondering as I quite happily take shots out of the water with a compact
> and reckon it is pretty good. I usually dive around the 18 metre mark.
>
> Here's some examples:
> http://mikesdriveway.com/misc/dive2.jpg
> http://mikesdriveway.com/misc/elizaramsden124.jpg
>
The problem with most inexpensive cameras is that they adjust the shutter
speed to set the proper exposure, so when the light drops the shutter speed
goes down causing blurred pictures. While a flash is best underwater for
good color and clear pictures, you can try raising the ISO speed on the
camera (if adjustable). The photos should look fine, and this will give the
camera a chance to raise the shutter speed so your photos aren't blurred
anymore.

"Michael C" <nospam@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:462617c1$0$16555$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.a u...
> I've noticed a couple of questions regarding dive cameras so thought I'd
> continue the trend. A friend spent $700 on a 6mp cannon camera with a dive
> case. I've noticed most of the pictures suffered from a severe lack of
> light and the camera automatically went to a long exposure causing many of
> them to be blured. Those that weren't blurred were quite dull. Only
> closeup shots were acceptable really. After having a look at the pics I'm
> kinda of the opinion that only a high quality camera with a full size
> lense (to let more light in) and a good external flash would be required
> to get acceptable photos. Is this true? I'm not a camera zealot if anyone
> is wondering as I quite happily take shots out of the water with a compact
> and reckon it is pretty good. I usually dive around the 18 metre mark.
>
> Here's some examples:
> http://mikesdriveway.com/misc/dive2.jpg
> http://mikesdriveway.com/misc/elizaramsden124.jpg
>
The problem with most inexpensive cameras is that they adjust the shutter
speed to set the proper exposure, so when the light drops the shutter speed
goes down causing blurred pictures. While a flash is best underwater for
good color and clear pictures, you can try raising the ISO speed on the
camera (if adjustable). The photos should look fine, and this will give the
camera a chance to raise the shutter speed so your photos aren't blurred
anymore.

On Wed, 18 Apr 2007 23:06:27 +1000, "Michael C" <nospam@nospam.com>
wrote:

>I've noticed a couple of questions regarding dive cameras so thought I'd
>continue the trend. A friend spent $700 on a 6mp cannon camera with a dive
>case. I've noticed most of the pictures suffered from a severe lack of light
>and the camera automatically went to a long exposure causing many of them to
>be blured. Those that weren't blurred were quite dull. Only closeup shots
>were acceptable really. After having a look at the pics I'm kinda of the
>opinion that only a high quality camera with a full size lense (to let more
>light in) and a good external flash would be required to get acceptable
>photos. Is this true? I'm not a camera zealot if anyone is wondering as I
>quite happily take shots out of the water with a compact and reckon it is
>pretty good. I usually dive around the 18 metre mark.
>
>Here's some examples:
>http://mikesdriveway.com/misc/dive2.jpg
>http://mikesdriveway.com/misc/elizaramsden124.jpg
>

I don't dive, but I stayed in a Motel 8 last night...

Underwater photography is always going to be a fight to get enough
light. A faster lens (smaller f/number) will help immensly, as will a
very good flash.
The less expensive dive cameras, and the housings for others, don't
have any special capabilities other than the ability to keep water
out, that would make them better able to somehow get around the lack
of light.
If you watch the Planet Earth series for the underwater episodes,
you'll see that they must pick their opportunities carefully to get
clear water, and they use some pretty pricey gear. Your samples show
pretty much what's normal for amateur divers with time and money
constraints.

--
THIS IS A SIG LINE; NOT TO BE TAKEN SERIOUSLY!

Hillary Clinton postponed her meeting with
the Rutgers women's basketball team Monday
due to weather. The team forgave a middle-aged
white guy for humiliating them in front of the
entire world. Hillary wanted to go there to
collect her royalty check.

On Wed, 18 Apr 2007 23:06:27 +1000, "Michael C" <nospam@nospam.com>
wrote:

>I've noticed a couple of questions regarding dive cameras so thought I'd
>continue the trend. A friend spent $700 on a 6mp cannon camera with a dive
>case. I've noticed most of the pictures suffered from a severe lack of light
>and the camera automatically went to a long exposure causing many of them to
>be blured. Those that weren't blurred were quite dull. Only closeup shots
>were acceptable really. After having a look at the pics I'm kinda of the
>opinion that only a high quality camera with a full size lense (to let more
>light in) and a good external flash would be required to get acceptable
>photos. Is this true? I'm not a camera zealot if anyone is wondering as I
>quite happily take shots out of the water with a compact and reckon it is
>pretty good. I usually dive around the 18 metre mark.
>
>Here's some examples:
>http://mikesdriveway.com/misc/dive2.jpg
>http://mikesdriveway.com/misc/elizaramsden124.jpg
>

I don't dive, but I stayed in a Motel 8 last night...

Underwater photography is always going to be a fight to get enough
light. A faster lens (smaller f/number) will help immensly, as will a
very good flash.
The less expensive dive cameras, and the housings for others, don't
have any special capabilities other than the ability to keep water
out, that would make them better able to somehow get around the lack
of light.
If you watch the Planet Earth series for the underwater episodes,
you'll see that they must pick their opportunities carefully to get
clear water, and they use some pretty pricey gear. Your samples show
pretty much what's normal for amateur divers with time and money
constraints.

--
THIS IS A SIG LINE; NOT TO BE TAKEN SERIOUSLY!

Hillary Clinton postponed her meeting with
the Rutgers women's basketball team Monday
due to weather. The team forgave a middle-aged
white guy for humiliating them in front of the
entire world. Hillary wanted to go there to
collect her royalty check.

On Wed, 18 Apr 2007 23:06:27 +1000, "Michael C" <nospam@nospam.com>
wrote:

>I've noticed a couple of questions regarding dive cameras so thought I'd
>continue the trend. A friend spent $700 on a 6mp cannon camera with a dive
>case. I've noticed most of the pictures suffered from a severe lack of light
>and the camera automatically went to a long exposure causing many of them to
>be blured. Those that weren't blurred were quite dull. Only closeup shots
>were acceptable really. After having a look at the pics I'm kinda of the
>opinion that only a high quality camera with a full size lense (to let more
>light in) and a good external flash would be required to get acceptable
>photos. Is this true? I'm not a camera zealot if anyone is wondering as I
>quite happily take shots out of the water with a compact and reckon it is
>pretty good. I usually dive around the 18 metre mark.
>
>Here's some examples:
>http://mikesdriveway.com/misc/dive2.jpg
>http://mikesdriveway.com/misc/elizaramsden124.jpg
>

I don't dive, but I stayed in a Motel 8 last night...

Underwater photography is always going to be a fight to get enough
light. A faster lens (smaller f/number) will help immensly, as will a
very good flash.
The less expensive dive cameras, and the housings for others, don't
have any special capabilities other than the ability to keep water
out, that would make them better able to somehow get around the lack
of light.
If you watch the Planet Earth series for the underwater episodes,
you'll see that they must pick their opportunities carefully to get
clear water, and they use some pretty pricey gear. Your samples show
pretty much what's normal for amateur divers with time and money
constraints.

--
THIS IS A SIG LINE; NOT TO BE TAKEN SERIOUSLY!

Hillary Clinton postponed her meeting with
the Rutgers women's basketball team Monday
due to weather. The team forgave a middle-aged
white guy for humiliating them in front of the
entire world. Hillary wanted to go there to
collect her royalty check.

On Wed, 18 Apr 2007 23:06:27 +1000, "Michael C" <nospam@nospam.com>
wrote:

>I've noticed a couple of questions regarding dive cameras so thought I'd
>continue the trend. A friend spent $700 on a 6mp cannon camera with a dive
>case. I've noticed most of the pictures suffered from a severe lack of light
>and the camera automatically went to a long exposure causing many of them to
>be blured. Those that weren't blurred were quite dull. Only closeup shots
>were acceptable really. After having a look at the pics I'm kinda of the
>opinion that only a high quality camera with a full size lense (to let more
>light in) and a good external flash would be required to get acceptable
>photos. Is this true? I'm not a camera zealot if anyone is wondering as I
>quite happily take shots out of the water with a compact and reckon it is
>pretty good. I usually dive around the 18 metre mark.
>
>Here's some examples:
>http://mikesdriveway.com/misc/dive2.jpg
>http://mikesdriveway.com/misc/elizaramsden124.jpg
>

I don't dive, but I stayed in a Motel 8 last night...

Underwater photography is always going to be a fight to get enough
light. A faster lens (smaller f/number) will help immensly, as will a
very good flash.
The less expensive dive cameras, and the housings for others, don't
have any special capabilities other than the ability to keep water
out, that would make them better able to somehow get around the lack
of light.
If you watch the Planet Earth series for the underwater episodes,
you'll see that they must pick their opportunities carefully to get
clear water, and they use some pretty pricey gear. Your samples show
pretty much what's normal for amateur divers with time and money
constraints.

--
THIS IS A SIG LINE; NOT TO BE TAKEN SERIOUSLY!

Hillary Clinton postponed her meeting with
the Rutgers women's basketball team Monday
due to weather. The team forgave a middle-aged
white guy for humiliating them in front of the
entire world. Hillary wanted to go there to
collect her royalty check.

for photos that are not macro, it is possible to get good pics without
the use of a strobe or internal flash (which i found to be really
poor) http://www.public.asu.edu/~elliotg/
is my web site. all the pics were taken with an old sony P7 (3MB)
camera, no flash but with a red filter. all the pics still had to
processed through photoshop (god's gift to underwater photography)
elliott

ajames54@hotmail.com wrote:

>On Apr 18, 9:06 am, "Michael C" <nos...@nospam.com> wrote:
>
>
>>I've noticed a couple of questions regarding dive cameras so thought I'd
>>continue the trend. A friend spent $700 on a 6mp cannon camera with a dive
>>case. I've noticed most of the pictures suffered from a severe lack of light
>>and the camera automatically went to a long exposure causing many of them to
>>be blured. Those that weren't blurred were quite dull. Only closeup shots
>>were acceptable really. After having a look at the pics I'm kinda of the
>>opinion that only a high quality camera with a full size lense (to let more
>>light in) and a good external flash would be required to get acceptable
>>photos. Is this true? I'm not a camera zealot if anyone is wondering as I
>>quite happily take shots out of the water with a compact and reckon it is
>>pretty good. I usually dive around the 18 metre mark.
>>
>>Here's some examples:http://mikesdriveway.com/misc/dive2....ramsden124.jpg
>>
>>
>
>Well .. not really the case... you do have to make some changes to the
>base settings. pics bellow were all shot on a Canon A95 5MP PnS. OK so
>they aren't the best thing going but I can't afford 20+K I would need
>for the camera I really want.
>
>The biggest difference I found was to not use the cameras underwater
>setting and make sure the flash is always on.
>
>
>http://ca.pg.photos.yahoo.com/ph/cay..._HNnGBFoy.QH_z
>
>
>

for photos that are not macro, it is possible to get good pics without
the use of a strobe or internal flash (which i found to be really
poor) http://www.public.asu.edu/~elliotg/
is my web site. all the pics were taken with an old sony P7 (3MB)
camera, no flash but with a red filter. all the pics still had to
processed through photoshop (god's gift to underwater photography)
elliott

ajames54@hotmail.com wrote:

>On Apr 18, 9:06 am, "Michael C" <nos...@nospam.com> wrote:
>
>
>>I've noticed a couple of questions regarding dive cameras so thought I'd
>>continue the trend. A friend spent $700 on a 6mp cannon camera with a dive
>>case. I've noticed most of the pictures suffered from a severe lack of light
>>and the camera automatically went to a long exposure causing many of them to
>>be blured. Those that weren't blurred were quite dull. Only closeup shots
>>were acceptable really. After having a look at the pics I'm kinda of the
>>opinion that only a high quality camera with a full size lense (to let more
>>light in) and a good external flash would be required to get acceptable
>>photos. Is this true? I'm not a camera zealot if anyone is wondering as I
>>quite happily take shots out of the water with a compact and reckon it is
>>pretty good. I usually dive around the 18 metre mark.
>>
>>Here's some examples:http://mikesdriveway.com/misc/dive2....ramsden124.jpg
>>
>>
>
>Well .. not really the case... you do have to make some changes to the
>base settings. pics bellow were all shot on a Canon A95 5MP PnS. OK so
>they aren't the best thing going but I can't afford 20+K I would need
>for the camera I really want.
>
>The biggest difference I found was to not use the cameras underwater
>setting and make sure the flash is always on.
>
>
>http://ca.pg.photos.yahoo.com/ph/cay..._HNnGBFoy.QH_z
>
>
>

for photos that are not macro, it is possible to get good pics without
the use of a strobe or internal flash (which i found to be really
poor) http://www.public.asu.edu/~elliotg/
is my web site. all the pics were taken with an old sony P7 (3MB)
camera, no flash but with a red filter. all the pics still had to
processed through photoshop (god's gift to underwater photography)
elliott

ajames54@hotmail.com wrote:

>On Apr 18, 9:06 am, "Michael C" <nos...@nospam.com> wrote:
>
>
>>I've noticed a couple of questions regarding dive cameras so thought I'd
>>continue the trend. A friend spent $700 on a 6mp cannon camera with a dive
>>case. I've noticed most of the pictures suffered from a severe lack of light
>>and the camera automatically went to a long exposure causing many of them to
>>be blured. Those that weren't blurred were quite dull. Only closeup shots
>>were acceptable really. After having a look at the pics I'm kinda of the
>>opinion that only a high quality camera with a full size lense (to let more
>>light in) and a good external flash would be required to get acceptable
>>photos. Is this true? I'm not a camera zealot if anyone is wondering as I
>>quite happily take shots out of the water with a compact and reckon it is
>>pretty good. I usually dive around the 18 metre mark.
>>
>>Here's some examples:http://mikesdriveway.com/misc/dive2....ramsden124.jpg
>>
>>
>
>Well .. not really the case... you do have to make some changes to the
>base settings. pics bellow were all shot on a Canon A95 5MP PnS. OK so
>they aren't the best thing going but I can't afford 20+K I would need
>for the camera I really want.
>
>The biggest difference I found was to not use the cameras underwater
>setting and make sure the flash is always on.
>
>
>http://ca.pg.photos.yahoo.com/ph/cay..._HNnGBFoy.QH_z
>
>
>

for photos that are not macro, it is possible to get good pics without
the use of a strobe or internal flash (which i found to be really
poor) http://www.public.asu.edu/~elliotg/
is my web site. all the pics were taken with an old sony P7 (3MB)
camera, no flash but with a red filter. all the pics still had to
processed through photoshop (god's gift to underwater photography)
elliott

ajames54@hotmail.com wrote:

>On Apr 18, 9:06 am, "Michael C" <nos...@nospam.com> wrote:
>
>
>>I've noticed a couple of questions regarding dive cameras so thought I'd
>>continue the trend. A friend spent $700 on a 6mp cannon camera with a dive
>>case. I've noticed most of the pictures suffered from a severe lack of light
>>and the camera automatically went to a long exposure causing many of them to
>>be blured. Those that weren't blurred were quite dull. Only closeup shots
>>were acceptable really. After having a look at the pics I'm kinda of the
>>opinion that only a high quality camera with a full size lense (to let more
>>light in) and a good external flash would be required to get acceptable
>>photos. Is this true? I'm not a camera zealot if anyone is wondering as I
>>quite happily take shots out of the water with a compact and reckon it is
>>pretty good. I usually dive around the 18 metre mark.
>>
>>Here's some examples:http://mikesdriveway.com/misc/dive2....ramsden124.jpg
>>
>>
>
>Well .. not really the case... you do have to make some changes to the
>base settings. pics bellow were all shot on a Canon A95 5MP PnS. OK so
>they aren't the best thing going but I can't afford 20+K I would need
>for the camera I really want.
>
>The biggest difference I found was to not use the cameras underwater
>setting and make sure the flash is always on.
>
>
>http://ca.pg.photos.yahoo.com/ph/cay..._HNnGBFoy.QH_z
>
>
>