Samsung Digimax V4 and SPH-V3/V4 Underwater Housing

Anyone familiar with these products? I am looking at the Samsung Digimax V4
digital camera and their SPH-V3/V4
Underwater Housing.

I do a lot of diving, both in Ontario and the Caribbean, and its time to go
digital! Any info/advice would be appreciated.

<> Rick <>
(or reply off line: bumper308@<remove_this>hotmail.com )

I've had excellent results with my Under Sea Video Housing and a Cannon
ZR-10.


In article <%eF_a.8661$Z03.654971@news20.bellglobal.com>,
"Diver Rick" <bumper308@nospam_hotmail.com> wrote:

> Anyone familiar with these products? I am looking at the Samsung Digimax V4
> digital camera and their SPH-V3/V4
> Underwater Housing.
>
> I do a lot of diving, both in Ontario and the Caribbean, and its time to go
> digital! Any info/advice would be appreciated.
>
> <> Rick <>
> (or reply off line: bumper308@<remove_this>hotmail.com )
>
>

Diver Rick <bumper308@nospam_hotmail.com> wrote:
>Anyone familiar with these products? I am looking at the Samsung Digimax V4
>digital camera and their SPH-V3/V4
>Underwater Housing.

Why use them rather than Canon or Olympus? Both are established camera
makers and have been putting out housings for them for years.

--
Jason O'Rourke www.jor.com

Paul Smith <sendmejunk101@hotmail.com> wrote:
>Why wouldn't you use it?
>
>- It's got a double O ring housing, good to 70m - OK, you may not be going
>to 70m but it's nice to have the safety margin regardless.
>- It uses the same clone electronics that the majority of manufacturers use,
>the major differentiator in quality being the lens - and Samsung have bought
>in one from Schneider.
>- It's got some excellent reviews.
>- Where I come from, it's about 50% cheaper than the equivalent 'major name'
>equipment.

What pricing is it? Short look showed the V4 at $369 and $460, which is
about the same as the S400 or the S45. Tad cheaper perhaps. Canon's
housing to 130' runs a bit under $200.

Samsung has proven to be a solid player, but they aren't a camera maker,
and I don't think I've ever seen their UW housings in use. So I'd
need a compelling reason to use them instead of what I have (S400+DC800)
or Olympus and their PT series housings.
--
Jason O'Rourke www.jor.com

"Where I come from" happens to be the UK! The V4 + housing tends to be
around 125GBP (about $200) less than the S45 & housing (which is only rated
to 30m)

I have to agree with your comments about Canon & Olympus - they are both
safe bets, but I'm not going to ignore the V4 until I've tried it (unlike
the Sony DSC which I borrowed! Ugh! Press the shutter, wait, wait some more,
keep waiting, subject swims away, do a bit more waiting, flash!)

"Jason O'Rourke" <jor@soda.csua.berkeley.edu> wrote in message
news:bhh2cb$1bqj$1@agate.berkeley.edu...
> Paul Smith <sendmejunk101@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >Why wouldn't you use it?
> >
> >- It's got a double O ring housing, good to 70m - OK, you may not be
going
> >to 70m but it's nice to have the safety margin regardless.
> >- It uses the same clone electronics that the majority of manufacturers
use,
> >the major differentiator in quality being the lens - and Samsung have
bought
> >in one from Schneider.
> >- It's got some excellent reviews.
> >- Where I come from, it's about 50% cheaper than the equivalent 'major
name'
> >equipment.
>
> What pricing is it? Short look showed the V4 at $369 and $460, which is
> about the same as the S400 or the S45. Tad cheaper perhaps. Canon's
> housing to 130' runs a bit under $200.
>
> Samsung has proven to be a solid player, but they aren't a camera maker,
> and I don't think I've ever seen their UW housings in use. So I'd
> need a compelling reason to use them instead of what I have (S400+DC800)
> or Olympus and their PT series housings.
> --
> Jason O'Rourke www.jor.com

In other words, a piece of crap.

"Phil" <Phil_Anderer@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1egsjv86m5qt02o4hiv5g4gf3id6a1mti8@4ax.com...
> On Fri, 15 Aug 2003 00:54:54 +0100, "Paul Smith"
> <sendmejunk101@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > but I'm not going to ignore the V4 until I've tried it
> Ditto!
>
> The Samsung Digimax 4 has an impressive specification and appears to
> be excellent value for money. I have read several reviews of this
> camera, 2 of which criticised its definition.
>
> The first was in PC-Pro (British) - 'Image quality was not incredible
> and the auto white balance left a greenish cast in our indoor shot
> without flash and a blue cast when using flash. [paraphrased]:The
> auto-focus was not as we'd hoped'
>
> PCWorld (US) stated:
> '...but our cropped and magnified shot looked a little fuzzy, and a
> shot taken with the flash looked dark. A couple of other shots looked
> flat. We're fairly sure that's a true representation of what the
> camera can do; we tried three earlier samples of the Digimax V4, all
> of which had egregious* color problems. Samsung says it mistakenly
> sent us preproduction units on the first two occasions and a
> malfunctioning unit the third time around.
> [* according to my dictionary this means: 'conspicuously bad or
> offensive or reprehensible' why could the reviewer use a simple word
> like 'undesirable'?]
>
> .....but some similarly priced cameras take better pictures.'
>
> Other reviews were more favourable.
>
> Comments from Digimax 4 users on this group would be welcomed.

On Sat, 16 Aug 2003 11:28:16 -0400, "This is your Mother speaking !"
<bogus@email.com> wrote:

>In other words, a piece of crap.
Not necessarily. The cameras used for the tests could have been pre
general release. Many manufacturers of many kinds of hardware fall
into this trap.

Phil

"Phil" <Phil_Anderer@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:rocujvs0bmr1ul1fh8sq05110ounpmmpvk@4ax.com...
> On Sat, 16 Aug 2003 11:28:16 -0400, "This is your Mother speaking !"
> <bogus@email.com> wrote:
>
> >In other words, a piece of crap.
> Not necessarily. The cameras used for the tests could have been pre
> general release. Many manufacturers of many kinds of hardware fall
> into this trap.
>
> Phil

I've got the V4 and I'm perfectly happy with it. First digital so nothing to
compare it with directly but quality of pictures have been very good so far.
I've had a couple of indoor flash shots in natural light where there's been
a bluish cast but easily fixed by runnung through Levels on Photoshop
Elements.

The pictures are a bit softer than some straight out of the camera (using
the standard sharpness setting) but I prefer them like that. I've sharpened
some in software but left others as they are.

If you haven't already seen them, there are good reviews on Steve's
Digicams, Megapixel and ePhotoZine.

http://www.steves-digicams.com/2003_...igimax_v4.html

http://www.megapixel.net/cgi-bin/fs_...egapixel.net/r
eviews/samsung-v4/v4-review.html

http://www.ephotozine.com/equipment/...fm?test_id=181


Gerry

On Sun, 17 Aug 2003 22:48:25 +0100, "Gerry H"
<gerryhughes@removetheobvious.blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:

>http://www.steves-digicams.com/2003_...igimax_v4.html
>
>http://www.megapixel.net/cgi-bin/fs_...egapixel.net/r
>eviews/samsung-v4/v4-review.html
>
>http://www.ephotozine.com/equipment/...fm?test_id=181

Gerry,

Now that I have looked at these, you are due another 'thank you'!
Steves-digicam I knew but not the other two. Ephotozine is
particularly helpful.

Phil

"Phil" <Phil_Anderer@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:ef71kvocbrm6915824hu0c1jpo5v3lr4o2@4ax.com...
> On Sun, 17 Aug 2003 22:48:25 +0100, "Gerry H"
> <gerryhughes@removetheobvious.blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
>
> >http://www.steves-digicams.com/2003_...igimax_v4.html
> >
>
>http://www.megapixel.net/cgi-bin/fs_...megapixel.net/
r
> >eviews/samsung-v4/v4-review.html
> >
> >http://www.ephotozine.com/equipment/...fm?test_id=181
>
> Gerry,
>
> Now that I have looked at these, you are due another 'thank you'!
> Steves-digicam I knew but not the other two. Ephotozine is
> particularly helpful.
>
> Phil

Glad to be of some help Phil.

Gerry