Info on Still versus Video wanted

As a total novice in any type of photography, I would like to purchase
some underwater equipment. My problem is, that on my recent dive trip
I was told by an "experienced" photographer that still photography is a lot
more difficult than video and should not be tried by someone without
some basic knowledge. ( I also read this in an Underwater Photography
book ) I hired a still camera in Sharm about 12 years ago, out of 6 rolls
of film I got about 6 half decent shots. That was my first and last attempt
at photography.
Apart from price considerations, the housing for camcorder equipment is
quite large and whilst diving mainly off RIB's it can be a problem storing
it
In a boat full of divers and their gear. Also as our dives are normally led
by a dive leader, it would seem it is quite easy to loose the group whilst
filming
some interesting subject, for a couple of minutes in limited vis. My other
concern
is, pulling or pushing this equipment around on a 60 min. dive, I assume it
would
increase drag somewhat and therefore have a negative effect on gas
consumption.
The conditions I dive in now are always warm 20 to 28 C but sometimes
in extreme currents with limited vis +/- 5m (drift dives)
So I would think consumption shouldn't really be effected too badly.
With a small still camera you can stick it in your pocket when not in use.
I was looking at buying a Sony P9 off the internet but I don't want to waste
money,
so my question is just how difficult is still photography. I only want to
keep the pics
for my own enjoyment and maybe to show some friends
Any recommendations on "starter equipment" will be gratefully received.
Thanks
Richard.

"richard b" <bonnage@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:mNidnd41iKXX2ZvdRVn-uQ@is.co.za

> As a total novice in any type of photography, I would like to purchase
> some underwater equipment. My problem is, that on my recent dive trip
> I was told by an "experienced" photographer that still photography is a lot
> more difficult than video and should not be tried by someone without
> some basic knowledge.

He he he...

See the link below

These were taken with a S&S Mx5 bought at the airport on the way
out.

Photographic technique used : Point, Click and Hope!

http://www.angelfire.com/wi3/dave_ap...lta_photos.htm

If this bandwidths out try back in about an hour

Note to Jason: I will be changing hosting soon!!!

HTH

DaveA




--
Posted via Mailgate.ORG Server - http://www.Mailgate.ORG

I also started with a very basic point&shoot - the Vivitar Cruisecam - 35mm
film camera + housing for now less than £20. Results can be seen on
http://homepage.ntlworld.com/cmquinn/Egypt.htm

10 rolls of film during the week gave me about 30-40% decent(ish) prints
that are certainly good enough as souveniers of the trip, with maybe 10-15
that I would be happy to have enlarged and display.

I have now moved up to digital (much more expensive to kit up) and probably
do not have that much better success rate, though you can just delete the
duff ones. Hopefully, with practice, my rate will improve.
Friends I have dived with lug around big video kits and I dont fancy that,
but most digicams these days (mine included) will let you shoot short video
sequences anyway - I got about 12 seconds of my first ever shark last year -
it's watchable, but not what you would call broadcast quality!

Good luck

Chris


"richard b" <bonnage@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:mNidnd41iKXX2ZvdRVn-uQ@is.co.za...
> As a total novice in any type of photography, I would like to purchase
> some underwater equipment. My problem is, that on my recent dive trip
> I was told by an "experienced" photographer that still photography is a
lot
> more difficult than video and should not be tried by someone without
> some basic knowledge. ( I also read this in an Underwater Photography
> book ) I hired a still camera in Sharm about 12 years ago, out of 6 rolls
> of film I got about 6 half decent shots. That was my first and last
attempt
> at photography.
> Apart from price considerations, the housing for camcorder equipment is
> quite large and whilst diving mainly off RIB's it can be a problem storing
> it
> In a boat full of divers and their gear. Also as our dives are normally
led
> by a dive leader, it would seem it is quite easy to loose the group whilst
> filming
> some interesting subject, for a couple of minutes in limited vis. My other
> concern
> is, pulling or pushing this equipment around on a 60 min. dive, I assume
it
> would
> increase drag somewhat and therefore have a negative effect on gas
> consumption.
> The conditions I dive in now are always warm 20 to 28 C but sometimes
> in extreme currents with limited vis +/- 5m (drift dives)
> So I would think consumption shouldn't really be effected too badly.
> With a small still camera you can stick it in your pocket when not in use.
> I was looking at buying a Sony P9 off the internet but I don't want to
waste
> money,
> so my question is just how difficult is still photography. I only want to
> keep the pics
> for my own enjoyment and maybe to show some friends
> Any recommendations on "starter equipment" will be gratefully received.
> Thanks
> Richard.
>
>
>

In article <mNidnd41iKXX2ZvdRVn-uQ@is.co.za>, bonnage@hotmail.com (richard
b) wrote:

> out of 6 rolls
> of film I got about 6 half decent shots.

I think this is what happens with pro's as well, they are quite prepared
(so i am told) to push of a roll to get that "one" shot.

I started with a S & S and strobe, got fed up with shitty shots and bought
a video camera with Gates housing.

Video is much easier, it is just point and shoot, and if you want the end
result just for yourself (as i do) to record your dives and look back on
them, then video is fine, you can use the photo function or capture a
single frame, i print of some of those frames for my dive log book, a
pictorial history rather than text from a dive.
The photo's are not going to win any competitions and lack sharpness but
they do record the dive and are very rewarding.
I put some of my "shots" onto a web site for me and my wife, that site is
currently unavailable (i think) www.morg.net as i have been forced to
change hosting company which has not been successful as yet.

Video and housing can be expensive, i went for a 3 ccd (3 chip) and a
manual Gates housing www.gatesunderwaterhousings.com (i think)...

good luck with what you decide.

Dave in uk

"richard b" <bonnage@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:mNidnd41iKXX2ZvdRVn-uQ@is.co.za...
....
> With a small still camera you can stick it in your pocket when not in use.
> I was looking at buying a Sony P9 off the internet but I don't want to
waste
> money,

I'm also a novice at underwater photography but here you go.

The most odvious thing you can't do underwater with a camera is change the
memory card/memory stick.
Most of the pictures I take will be rubbish so I compensate by taking lots
and lots of pictures and looking though them later.

I use burst mode and video as much as I possibly can, which uses a LOT of
space on my flash card.
I use a 512Meg flash card. They cost about a hundred pounds.
A 512Meg Memory Stick costs twice that.

Consequently, if you're considering a Sony camera I think you should bear in
mind that effectively it's £100 more than you would expect.

I don't think that the P9 is very good value for money. Reviews I read on it
said it can't autofocus in low light (which could be a bit of a pain).
Personally, I went for a Canon S50 with Canon's housing. The only major
limitations are that it can only take 3 minutes of video before it has to
write it from the buffer to the memory card (you have to wait about 15
seconds before you can start taking video again) and that the video mode
drains the batteries quite a lot.

I like it a lot (and I suspect that although the camera is more expensive,
the housing and memory are cheaper and may well make it less expensive than
the Sony too).

Alun Harford

"Alun Harford" <alunharford@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:bu75aa$2em$1@pegasus.csx.cam.ac.uk...
> "richard b" <bonnage@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:mNidnd41iKXX2ZvdRVn-uQ@is.co.za...
> > I use a 512Meg flash card. They cost about a hundred pounds.
> A 512Meg Memory Stick costs twice that.
>
You're quite correct I had not thought about that, the cheapest 512Meg
I could find was 233GBP about the same cost as the camera.
Thanks for the advice I'm now pricing the Sony P10 the Cannon S50
and the Olympus C5050Z the housings are much of a muchness between
129 to 154 GBP but the Sony memory price is crazy
Thanks again for the advice, I will now do some more comparisons and
hopefully
come up with something reasonable, and takes decent pic's.
Richard
> Consequently, if you're considering a Sony camera I think you should bear
in
> mind that effectively it's £100 more than you would expect.
>
> I don't think that the P9 is very good value for money. Reviews I read on
it
> said it can't autofocus in low light (which could be a bit of a pain).
> Personally, I went for a Canon S50 with Canon's housing. The only major
> limitations are that it can only take 3 minutes of video before it has to
> write it from the buffer to the memory card (you have to wait about 15
> seconds before you can start taking video again) and that the video mode
> drains the batteries quite a lot.
>
> I like it a lot (and I suspect that although the camera is more expensive,
> the housing and memory are cheaper and may well make it less expensive
than
> the Sony too).
>
> Alun Harford
>
>