Re: Underwater Digital Camera recommendations

Thus spake bob <bobengr@hotmail.com> :

>I want to purchase an underwater digital camera, and I am looking for
>reviews/opinions on what is available and what is a better choice. I Want
>to keep it in the $600 range. Is it better to go with a dedicated
>underwater set-up like the Sealife D310 (good underwater (supposedly), fair
>land camera) or go with a better land camera and get a housing for it.
>
>Thanks

My personal opinion is that the D310 is a fair camera. You'll be
happiest if you buy something with a high MP and a housing. But a
housing is going to set you back $400 or more.

--
dillon

"When the French are against it, you know we can't
be far wrong." - Adm. Bobbie Ray Inman

bob <bobengr@hotmail.com> pounded away at his keyboard resulting in:
:I want to purchase an underwater digital camera, and I am looking for
:reviews/opinions on what is available and what is a better choice. I Want
:to keep it in the $600 range. Is it better to go with a dedicated
:underwater set-up like the Sealife D310 (good underwater (supposedly), fair
:land camera) or go with a better land camera and get a housing for it.

I've done both. The Sealife is the 1.3 megapixel model, no longer
being sold and not as good as what they are currently selling. The
other camera is a Sony Cybershot (4 megapixels) with a Sony housing
and no strobe.

I was happy with the Reefmaster and am even happier with the Sony.
But, once again, the current Reefmaster is better than what I have.

If you do decide to go with a normal camera, both Canon and Sony make
housings for their cameras. Other companies may do the same, I simply
don't know.

Pictures taken with both cameras can be viewed at
http://www.pathcom.com/~bracuk/underwater/index.htm. All the ones
marked new were taken with the Sony. Many, but not all the others
were taken with the Reefmaster. Most pages will say what type of
camera was used. Pay attention to the ones that say Reefmaster. If
it does not say digital, it is a scanned print and the photo was taken
with a Sealife's film Reefmaster.

Dan Bracuk
If we don't succeed, we run the risk of failure.

Dillon Pyron <dmpyronINVALID@austin.rr.com> pounded away at his
keyboard resulting in:
: But a
:housing is going to set you back $400 or more.

Depends on the housing. Mine was not nearly that much. This website
http://www.henrys.com/webapp/wcs/sto...nrys/index.jsp, will show
you some typical prices for Canon, Sony, and Pentax. They are a lot
less than $400.

Dan Bracuk
If we don't succeed, we run the risk of failure.

In article <Xns95DAD04ED365Abobengrhotmailcom@207.115.63.158> ,
bob <bobengr@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>I want to purchase an underwater digital camera, and I am looking for
>reviews/opinions on what is available and what is a better choice. I Want
>to keep it in the $600 range. Is it better to go with a dedicated
>underwater set-up like the Sealife D310 (good underwater (supposedly), fair
>land camera) or go with a better land camera and get a housing for it.
>
>Thanks

Get the Sony 7MP (DSC-P150) and their housing. The total should be right
in the $600 range if you buy right.

Its a fantastic camera and will work for you on land too. Takes nice macro
shots underwater, has a movie mode, and is reasonable.

One nice thing about the P150 is that it has very low shutter and start-up
lag, making it entirely reasonable to carry shut off and power it up when
you want to shoot.

--
--
Karl Denninger (karl@denninger.net) Internet Consultant & Kids Rights Activist
http://www.denninger.net My home on the net - links to everything I do!
http://scubaforum.org Your UNCENSORED place to talk about DIVING!
http://www.spamcuda.net SPAM FREE mailboxes - FREE FOR A LIMITED TIME!
http://genesis3.blogspot.com Musings Of A Sentient Mind

Dillon Pyron wrote:

>>I want to purchase an underwater digital camera, and I am looking for
>>reviews/opinions on what is available and what is a better choice. I Want
>>to keep it in the $600 range. Is it better to go with a dedicated
>>underwater set-up like the Sealife D310 (good underwater (supposedly), fair
>>land camera) or go with a better land camera and get a housing for it.

>
> My personal opinion is that the D310 is a fair camera. You'll be
> happiest if you buy something with a high MP and a housing. But a
> housing is going to set you back $400 or more.

I got the cheaper sealife as a gift and I've been thoroughly unimpressed.

Personally I want full manual capability and decent cameras that offer it aren't at
the low end of the price scale. For those willing to accept the camera's ideas on
exposure there are plenty of (relatively) inexpensive options, and full auto cameras
can take some very good shots, especially if it has (and you know how to use)
exposure compensation. I'd look for that and aperture or shutter priority as the
minimum requirement for control, which probably means entry level is $200 or so. The
abilty to add wide angle capability is a serious plus, but you could also consider
that you're getting a starter set that you'll pass on when you trade up.

Ikelite has a few housings for compact cameras with list prices of about $300. Canon
and Olympus make housings for several of their cameras that retail for about $150 to
$200. That lets you get a decent starter set for not much more than the Sealife. I
have heard, but not confirmed, rumors that the Olympus housings tend to leak after 50
dives or so.

Of course an external strobe is extremely desirable, so that ups the admission
charge. An Ikelite DS-50 with arm and slave or manual controller will run about $500
or so, but is worth it if you're at all serious about things. The strobe can come
along when you upgrade. It should be noted that some of the Ikelite housings block
the onboard strobe, making an external mandatory. Blocking the strobe may seem like a
bad idea, but if it's so close to the lens that the housing's port blocks it you're
going to get alot of backscatter, anyway.

--
Steve

The above can be construed as personal opinion in the absence of a reasonable
belief that it was intended as a statement of fact.

If you want a reply to reach me, remove the SPAMTRAP from the address.

I've had both 35mm (Subal & Aquatica housed Nikon SLR's) and digital
underwater cameras for several years. The choices are wide and complicated,
so make up a checklist and try before you buy (if possible).

IMHO, the price of the dedicated UW cameras from people like Sea Life and
Sea&Sea is not as competitive as buying a good digital camera and the
appropriate housing.

You have to make your choice based upon several issues:

1. Functionality of camera, including resolution (I would not recommend
less than 4Mp), manual control of shutter, focus & aperture, lens type,
memory card type, and many other factors.

2. Physical camera size & weight, I.E compact (such as the Sony PC150), or
the mid-sized (Olympus C5050/5060) which offers greater control and
functionality, and the top of the range Digital SLR's such as the Nikon D70.

3. Depth rating required for the housing. AFAIK all of the manufacturer
badged housings (which are mostly made by a Japanese company called UN) are
rated for 40m and are reasonably inexpensive (£125 to £175), however if you
need a greater depth rating and functionality then a much more expensive
housing from one of the may specialist manufacturers will be required, such
as Ikelite, Sea&Sea, Subal, Sealux, Nexus etc. These range in price from
£700 to over £2000 for the housing alone, let alone the lens ports and
strobe (flash). These expensive housings offer depth ratings from 60 to
100m and the ability to fit many different lenses (with appropriate lens
ports and gears).

4. Cost.

The least expensive option would be something like a Olympus mU 410 with
housing for £350, Olympus C5060 or Sony P150 and matching housing (40m)
which can be bought for about £500 complete (probably cheaper in the US).

The next level option would be the Olympus C5060 or C8080 with a Ikelite
housing, which then can be used to 60m and is far more rugged and allows for
a cable connected flash rather than slave connection., this would cost about
£800.

Finally, and most expensive are the digital SLR's in dedicated housings.
These offer netter quality and functionality, and the complete removal of
the shutter delay which is the problem with al of the compact digital
cameras. The least expensive of these cameras and housings would probably
be the Nikon D70 and matching Ikelite housing, at a cost of about £2000,
including #6807 Ikelite housing, Nikon D-70 camera with Nikkor 18-70mm lens,
#5503.55 port, #5509.28 clamp/sleeve and 67mm Hoya +4 Close-up lens; however
the Subal, Nexus and Sealux housings cost this much (and more) WITHOUT the
camera, lens, lens ports and lens gears.

You pay's your money and makes your choice!

"Dan Bracuk" <NOTbracuk@pathcom.com> wrote in message
news:afk6u0h3apdi0npukhheukq34uec53i6c5@4ax.com...
> bob <bobengr@hotmail.com> pounded away at his keyboard resulting in:
> Pictures taken with both cameras can be viewed at
> http://www.pathcom.com/~bracuk/underwater/index.htm. All the ones
> marked new were taken with the Sony. Many, but not all the others
> were taken with the Reefmaster. Most pages will say what type of
> camera was used. Pay attention to the ones that say Reefmaster. If
> it does not say digital, it is a scanned print and the photo was taken
> with a Sealife's film Reefmaster.

You have nice pictures Dan. The Sony pictures exhibit an eerie clarity. Is
that from reducing the file size? What file did you use for the web? The
pictures load instantly.

I picked up a 4MP Nikon Coolpix 4300 on Ebay for $180. Should be good
land camera.

I ordered the Fantasea case for it from B&H Photo in NY for $144.
I don't need the camera but this seemed to be the cheapest way.

"ben bradlee" <up2u2figr@NoWay.zip> pounded away at his keyboard
resulting in:
:You have nice pictures Dan. The Sony pictures exhibit an eerie clarity. Is
:that from reducing the file size? What file did you use for the web? The
ictures load instantly.

Thank you for the compliment. Since many people I know, Mom for
instance, still have dial up connections, I try to minimize
downloading time. I try to send images no larger than 60 KBytes to
the web.

To achieve a 60 Kbyte file, I do this. With my new 4 MPixel camera,
files go from the camera to computer as jpg's roughly 1.7 Mbytes in
size. I immediately save them to tiff, which expands them to about 15
Mbytes. Subsequent editing results in a tiff file anywhere from 5 to
16 Mbytes large, depending on what I did. These are the files I
print.

Note that with my 1.3 Reefmaster, the files are roughly one quarter
the size.

If I want to put one of these images on the web, I save back to jpg.
I give it a width of 600 pixels and compress it by a factor ranging
from 20 to 50, whatever it takes to produce a file of about 60 Kbytes.

Sometimes this last step results in image deterioration. For example,
look at the background water in this shot.
http://www.pathcom.com/~bracuk/under...llowSponge.htm. Notice
how the colour sort of changes. That only happens after the final
conversion of tiff back to jpg, and only when I really compress the
image.

Dan Bracuk
If we don't succeed, we run the risk of failure.

"Dan Bracuk" <NOTbracuk@pathcom.com> wrote in message
news:3c79u0dc06kon52fvjrv2r0t8nt2t7cihk@4ax.com...
> Thank you for the compliment. Since many people I know, Mom for
> instance, still have dial up connections, I try to minimize
> downloading time. I try to send images no larger than 60 KBytes to
> the web.
>
> To achieve a 60 Kbyte file, I do this. With my new 4 MPixel camera,
> files go from the camera to computer as jpg's roughly 1.7 Mbytes in
> size. I immediately save them to tiff, which expands them to about 15
> Mbytes. Subsequent editing results in a tiff file anywhere from 5 to
> 16 Mbytes large, depending on what I did. These are the files I
> print.
>
> Note that with my 1.3 Reefmaster, the files are roughly one quarter
> the size.
>
> If I want to put one of these images on the web, I save back to jpg.
> I give it a width of 600 pixels and compress it by a factor ranging
> from 20 to 50, whatever it takes to produce a file of about 60 Kbytes.
>
> Sometimes this last step results in image deterioration. For example,
> look at the background water in this shot.
> http://www.pathcom.com/~bracuk/under...llowSponge.htm. Notice
> how the colour sort of changes. That only happens after the final
> conversion of tiff back to jpg, and only when I really compress the
> image.

When you point out the degradation in the picture it becomes apparent. I'm
not so sure I would have noticed, though, quickly viewing the photo since my
eye focuses on the yellow sponge and not the background. I've used
Photoshop to change pixel colors and fill areas winding up with the same
effect, but more pronounced.

I realized from looking at your photos that I've incorrectly named fish. I
guess no matter how many Friday night fish fry's you go to you never really
get to know the fish.