Canon Powershot Waterproof Case

I Probably know the awnser to this one, but hey ....

I have been given a Canon waterproof case by somebody who lost
the Powershot A40 it held and has since moved on.

Searching on the net it seems that this case (WP-DC200s)
only takes A10 A20 A30 A40.

The A40 is the highest with 2 mill pixels, but I'd like to go better
with A75 or A80.

Is this possible? What is the actual difference in the case as they
seem to be exactly the same size in the pics.

Any advice apreciated.

TerryH

PS: Failing that can anybody point me in the direction of a s/h
A40.

>I Probably know the awnser to this one, but hey ....
>
>I have been given a Canon waterproof case by somebody who lost
>the Powershot A40 it held and has since moved on.
>
>Searching on the net it seems that this case (WP-DC200s)
>only takes A10 A20 A30 A40.
>
>The A40 is the highest with 2 mill pixels, but I'd like to go better
>with A75 or A80.
>
>Is this possible? What is the actual difference in the case as they
>seem to be exactly the same size in the pics.
>
>Any advice apreciated.
>
>TerryH
>
>PS: Failing that can anybody point me in the direction of a s/h
>A40.
>
I got a brand new, still in the box A40 from SRS Microsystems for 75
quid. I don't think you can put any other type of Canon in the case
though. I have looked at the A80 and it's a different shpe with more
importantly the controls in a slightly different position.
www.srsmicrosystems.co.uk

Cheers.

Woz.

I own an A40 and i'd be interested in a waterproof case
is this one any good? anyone know where i can get one from?

Tim Webbert

"TerryH" <terry@maxgsd.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
news:ci74ss$ffo$1@news5.svr.pol.co.uk...
> I Probably know the awnser to this one, but hey ....
>
> I have been given a Canon waterproof case by somebody who lost
> the Powershot A40 it held and has since moved on.
>
> Searching on the net it seems that this case (WP-DC200s)
> only takes A10 A20 A30 A40.
>
> The A40 is the highest with 2 mill pixels, but I'd like to go better
> with A75 or A80.
>
> Is this possible? What is the actual difference in the case as they
> seem to be exactly the same size in the pics.
>
> Any advice apreciated.
>
> TerryH
>
> PS: Failing that can anybody point me in the direction of a s/h
> A40.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

"TerryH" <terry@maxgsd.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
news:ci74ss$ffo$1@news5.svr.pol.co.uk...
>I Probably know the awnser to this one, but hey ....
>
> I have been given a Canon waterproof case by somebody who lost
> the Powershot A40 it held and has since moved on.
>
> Searching on the net it seems that this case (WP-DC200s)
> only takes A10 A20 A30 A40.
>
> The A40 is the highest with 2 mill pixels, but I'd like to go better
> with A75 or A80.
>
> Is this possible? What is the actual difference in the case as they
> seem to be exactly the same size in the pics.
>
> Any advice apreciated.
>
> TerryH
>
> PS: Failing that can anybody point me in the direction of a s/h
> A40.
>

Ive got the A40 and case, the A70 is a different shape/size with buttons in
different place, you wont get higher than an A40 in this case.

The A40 itself is under £100 new these days.

The case is rated to 30m, ive taken it to 40 several times without incident
but i will say the camera is better for warm clear waters as you cant use
the flash due to backscatter and it has issues with ttl.

> The case is rated to 30m, ive taken it to 40 several times without
incident
> but i will say the camera is better for warm clear waters as you cant use
> the flash due to backscatter and it has issues with ttl.
>
Backscatter is a problem with any on-camera flash, that's why I've got an
external S&S YS90TTL on my Olympus 5050.

"Tim Webber" <tim@ccls.sppppaaaammm.co.uk> wrote in message
news:0ME1d.417$m_2.4841676@news-text.cableinet.net...
>I own an A40 and i'd be interested in a waterproof case
> is this one any good? anyone know where i can get one from?
>
> Tim Webbert
>
> "TerryH" <terry@maxgsd.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:ci74ss$ffo$1@news5.svr.pol.co.uk...
>> I Probably know the awnser to this one, but hey ....
>>
>> I have been given a Canon waterproof case by somebody who lost
>> the Powershot A40 it held and has since moved on.
>>
>> Searching on the net it seems that this case (WP-DC200s)
>> only takes A10 A20 A30 A40.
>>
>> The A40 is the highest with 2 mill pixels, but I'd like to go better
>> with A75 or A80.
>>
>> Is this possible? What is the actual difference in the case as they
>> seem to be exactly the same size in the pics.
>>
>> Any advice apreciated.
>>
>> TerryH
>>
>> PS: Failing that can anybody point me in the direction of a s/h
>> A40.
>>

Hi,

I bought mine from amazon:
http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos/...623188-9031859

Works well for me but I'm no expert. It seems a well engineered piece of
kit.
It will only work with the models listed because the others have controls in
different places.

In article <ci7j16$7ul$1@sparta.btinternet.com>,
TonyH <tony@samesamediving.com> wrote:
>> The case is rated to 30m, ive taken it to 40 several times without
>incident
>> but i will say the camera is better for warm clear waters as you cant use
>> the flash due to backscatter and it has issues with ttl.
>>
>Backscatter is a problem with any on-camera flash, that's why I've got an
>external S&S YS90TTL on my Olympus 5050.

It's even a problem with off-camera strobes too, unless you position
it right..

http://www.drogon.net/urch.jpg

)-:

Gordon

> It's even a problem with off-camera strobes too, unless you position
> it right..
>
> http://www.drogon.net/urch.jpg

Nowt wrong with that - bit of stuff in the water, but its a good picture,
its obvious what you're taking a picture of, the image is clear, why worry
about a few little dots?

Maybe I don't understand photographers... as long as it looks like what it
should look like then i'd be happy. :O)
We only have one keen photographer in my club, and from a week in Egypt last
Christmas, the best photos were taken by someone who'd never used a camera
underwater before and didn't spend ages lining things up - the pictures were
much more 'real', more interesting. There were some lovely views for
example coming down onto wrecks I'd love to have a photo of, but because he
thought they wouldn't come out with perfect clarity etc he wouldn't even
take a picture (and this is on a digital camera). Got him to do one, and it
wasn't perfect clarity, but it was a lovely scene, much more atmospheric,
much more reflective of what you'll see on a dive, rather than a few
centimetres of a reef.

And no, I don't take photo's myself (except once, and wouldn't do it again -
spend so long looking at tiny bits of reef I missed the big picture)...
anyway, I'd just bash the camera along the sea bed and get it caught on bits
of wreck or lose it in a hole somewhere.

David

> It's even a problem with off-camera strobes too, unless you position
> it right..
>
> http://www.drogon.net/urch.jpg
>
> )-:
>
> Gordon

Yup, practice makes perfect!

On Tue, 14 Sep 2004 22:40:11 +0100, "David Walker"
<wbsdavenews@hotmail.com> wrote:

>> It's even a problem with off-camera strobes too, unless you position
>> it right..
>>
>> http://www.drogon.net/urch.jpg
>
>Nowt wrong with that - bit of stuff in the water, but its a good picture,
>its obvious what you're taking a picture of, the image is clear, why worry
>about a few little dots?

If you looked at some "good" pictures you'd see why we don't like a
few little dots. No backscatter is one of the things that takes a
picture from ok to very nice. Just one of the things......

>Maybe I don't understand photographers... as long as it looks like what it
>should look like then i'd be happy. :O)
>We only have one keen photographer in my club, and from a week in Egypt last
>Christmas, the best photos were taken by someone who'd never used a camera
>underwater before and didn't spend ages lining things up - the pictures were
>much more 'real', more interesting. There were some lovely views for
>example coming down onto wrecks I'd love to have a photo of, but because he
>thought they wouldn't come out with perfect clarity etc he wouldn't even
>take a picture (and this is on a digital camera). Got him to do one, and it
>wasn't perfect clarity, but it was a lovely scene, much more atmospheric,
>much more reflective of what you'll see on a dive, rather than a few
>centimetres of a reef.

Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. And maybe, just maybe, your
photographer friend knows what works and what doesn't. For him,
anyway. Panoramic scenes may be ok as a holiday snap, but they do tend
to come out very blue. Not much colour in them.

Look in a dive magazine at the pictures you like. The chances are they
will have clarity, colour, composition.

>And no, I don't take photo's myself (except once, and wouldn't do it again -
>spend so long looking at tiny bits of reef I missed the big picture)...
>anyway, I'd just bash the camera along the sea bed and get it caught on bits
>of wreck or lose it in a hole somewhere.

Do you have to see the big picture? Maybe looking at little things IS
the big picture. There is a lot more "little" activity on a reef than
"big" activity.

Pete S.