camera for diving ?
Antonio Huerta
What waterproofed camera should I get ? I do not want an expensive
one, because it is first of all for experimenting. And I would not be
sorry if I did not do much diving (thus would not be sorry for the
sunken cost... gee, pun not intended).
I am aware that there are Olympus mu kind of cameras which are
waterproofed, but I am not sure about their suitability for diving and
their image quality. I am also aware that there are housings for
"land" cameras. But I do not know about their suitability...
1hogrider
$10,000 and more. What I gather from you is you are leaning more
towards the "hundreds of dollars" range.
What depth are you planning on taking it? There are some very
inexpensive "snorkling depth" type cameras (15 ft or so). SeaLife makes
some fairly good yet relatively inexpensive camera systems.
I have a SeaLife DC310 and get fairly good results for a 3.1 MP camera.
They no longer make this camera but you may be able to get one on Ebay
from someone who is upgrading. I would recommend whatever camera you
get, also get an external strobe. Makes all the difference in the world
in color and detail.
You are correct that housings are made for regular land cameras so they
can be used underwater but you can be talking at least $1000 or more.
Ikelite makes such housings.
I dive with a friend who I think has an Olympus with the underwater
housing. He is happy with it but does not use an external strobe.
If you are interested, I can direct you to pictures I took with my
system and pictures he took.
Antonio Huerta
> Antonio Huerta wrote:
> > I would like to dive and take casual pictures of the rocks and fishes.
> > What waterproofed camera should I get ? I do not want an expensive
> > one, because it is first of all for experimenting. And I would not be
> > sorry if I did not do much diving (thus would not be sorry for the
> > sunken cost... gee, pun not intended).
>
> > I am aware that there are Olympus mu kind of cameras which are
> > waterproofed, but I am not sure about their suitability for diving and
> > their image quality. I am also aware that there are housings for
> > "land" cameras. But I do not know about their suitability...
>
> Underwater cameras can be had for several hundred dollars all the way to
> $10,000 and more. What I gather from you is you are leaning more
> towards the "hundreds of dollars" range.
>
> What depth are you planning on taking it? There are some very
> inexpensive "snorkling depth" type cameras (15 ft or so). SeaLife makes
> some fairly good yet relatively inexpensive camera systems.
Thanks for your reply. I am planning on snorkelling. As such, I am
looking at the depth of diving of up to 3 m, and a range of camera of
1-5 m (greater if possible).
I was thinking about an inexpensive camera. I did a search on
dpreview, and found Ricoh G600, which was watreproofed according to
JIS grade 7. This means that the camera can stand 30 minutes at a
depth of 1 m, http://www.opticsplanet.net/water-proof.html . Perhaps,
it could withstand larger depth ? It probably could do it, at a
stretch. Or not ?
Here is the camera Olympus Stylus Tough 8000, which is rated JIS grade
8. This means that it can be continiously immersed into the water at
the conditions more severe than the camera above, JIS grade 7. The
description of Olympus says that the camera is waterproofed up to the
depth 33 ft, or 10 m, http://www.digicamera.com/reviews/olympus_stylus_8000/
. This is what I need !
(Interestingly, its younger sibling model 6000, which has 10 MP
resolution instead of 12 MP, is rated only to a depth of 10 ft, or 3
m.)
On the whole, I'd prefer Ricoh G600 because of its better image
quality, if it was waterproof enough.
A.H.
muffinnman
I have a Canon Powershot SD850 8.1 Megapixel camera. It's a land
camera that costs around $200.00. I also use an underwater housing
made for this camera that cost about $200.00 also. The housing is
"rated" for a depth up to 165 feet, although I've taken mine to 200
feet without any issues. There are other Canon models that also have
housings available as well. My camera uses an SD card which allows
you to take thousands of Super High Quality pictures on one card. (An
8 Gig card allows about 2300 pictures at the highest level). I love
the camera because it also takes great quicktime movies too. I find
that the deeper I go or the further away something is, I use the movie
option as the quality of the image is better. And outside of the
water, the camera is just as good and very compact for your tourist
needs. Hope that helps!
Grumman-581
news:b8efe03b-ec2d-430f...@u18g2000pro.googlegroups.com:
> I was thinking about an inexpensive camera. I did a search on
> dpreview, and found Ricoh G600, which was watreproofed according to
> JIS grade 7. This means that the camera can stand 30 minutes at a
> depth of 1 m, http://www.opticsplanet.net/water-proof.html . Perhaps,
> it could withstand larger depth ? It probably could do it, at a
> stretch. Or not ?
What this means in real world is that you can probably take the camera
out in the rain... If you're lucky, maybe even a heavy rainstorm...
> Here is the camera Olympus Stylus Tough 8000, which is rated JIS grade
> 8. This means that it can be continiously immersed into the water at
> the conditions more severe than the camera above, JIS grade 7. The
> description of Olympus says that the camera is waterproofed up to the
> depth 33 ft, or 10 m,
> http://www.digicamera.com/reviews/olympus_stylus_8000/ . This is what
> I need !
Which means that you can take it in the bathtub with you...
If you are only going to be taking a few photos, you might want to
consider an older film camera and housing... Some underwater
photographers are switching over from film to digital and you can
sometimes get really good deals on the old cameras and housings...
If you're willing to settle for the point-and-shoot type of digital
cameras, your best bet is to just look for housings that are acceptable
in price and then buy the camera that goes with it... Otherwise, you
might get a camera that no one makes a housing for or if they do, it is
overly expensive...
As far as megapixels go, you don't necessarily need 10+mp unless you are
going to be doing significant cropping or enlarging the photos to poster
size or better... If you are just going to post them on a web page, even
a 2mp camera will produce images larger than most monitor resolutions...
--
See NNTP header field "X-Real-Email-Address" to reply by email.
Lee Bell
> looking at the depth of diving of up to 3 m, and a range of camera of
> 1-5 m (greater if possible).
> I was thinking about an inexpensive camera. I did a search on
> dpreview, and found Ricoh G600, which was watreproofed according to
> JIS grade 7. This means that the camera can stand 30 minutes at a
> depth of 1 m, http://www.opticsplanet.net/water-proof.html . Perhaps,
> it could withstand larger depth ? It probably could do it, at a
> stretch. Or not ?
Not a chance. Don't even think about it.
> Here is the camera Olympus Stylus Tough 8000, which is rated JIS grade
> 8. This means that it can be continiously immersed into the water at
> the conditions more severe than the camera above, JIS grade 7. The
> description of Olympus says that the camera is waterproofed up to the
> depth 33 ft, or 10 m,
> http://www.digicamera.com/reviews/olympus_stylus_8000/
> This is what I need !
Probably. I have the Olympus Stylus 1030 SW. It's shock and waterproof to
the depths you're talking about. It's a 10.1 mp camera with some very nice
featues both for underwater and land use. I particularly like it's panorama
feature and its setting specifically for balancing colors underwater.
> On the whole, I'd prefer Ricoh G600 because of its better image
> quality, if it was waterproof enough.
If you're a good enough photographer to tell the difference, you're good
enough to buy a high end camera.
Lee
Lee Bell
>> dpreview, and found Ricoh G600, which was watreproofed according to
>> JIS grade 7. This means that the camera can stand 30 minutes at a
>> depth of 1 m, http://www.opticsplanet.net/water-proof.html . Perhaps,
>> it could withstand larger depth ? It probably could do it, at a
>> stretch. Or not ?
>
> What this means in real world is that you can probably take the camera
> out in the rain... If you're lucky, maybe even a heavy rainstorm...
Correct
>> Here is the camera Olympus Stylus Tough 8000, which is rated JIS grade
>> 8. This means that it can be continiously immersed into the water at
>> the conditions more severe than the camera above, JIS grade 7. The
>> description of Olympus says that the camera is waterproofed up to the
>> depth 33 ft, or 10 m,
>> http://www.digicamera.com/reviews/olympus_stylus_8000/ . This is what
>> I need !
>
> Which means that you can take it in the bathtub with you...
I don't know about the Tough 8000, but my Olympus Stylus 1050 SW is
specifically designed for snorkeling. It's particularly good for taking
underwater shots of those bathing beauties you're so fond of watching in
North Florida springs.
> If you are only going to be taking a few photos, you might want to
> consider an older film camera and housing... Some underwater
> photographers are switching over from film to digital and you can
> sometimes get really good deals on the old cameras and housings...
I really, really, really recommend against a film camera for someone just
starting underwater photography. For the first year or so, the ration
between keeper and garbage pictures is quite low. Developing and printing
are not cheap. The high cost for a low return has turned many a photographer
away from taking underwater shots. With digital, the shots you don't like,
don't cost you anything.
> If you're willing to settle for the point-and-shoot type of digital
> cameras, your best bet is to just look for housings that are acceptable
> in price and then buy the camera that goes with it... Otherwise, you
> might get a camera that no one makes a housing for or if they do, it is
> overly expensive...
A pretty good idea, actually. In most cases, the housing will be good to
greater depths than snorkeling cameras like mine. Those that may consider
diving one day should consider this option carefully. The downside is that
the combination of camera and housing, even for the point and shoot models,
is likely to be more than the better quality waterproof options. If all
you're going to do is snorkel, you get more bang for your buck with a
snorkeling camera.
> As far as megapixels go, you don't necessarily need 10+mp unless you are
> going to be doing significant cropping or enlarging the photos to poster
> size or better... If you are just going to post them on a web page, even
> a 2mp camera will produce images larger than most monitor resolutions...
Correct.
Lee
Dan Bracuk
resulting in:
:I would like to dive and take casual pictures of the rocks and fishes.
:
Take a look at SeaLife. Their camera's are ok and reasonably
inexpensive.
Or, visit your local camera merchants and ask about housings. Canon,
Sony, Fuji, and others make housings and cameras that go with them.
You could probably kit yourself out for less than $600.
Someone said you need an external strobe. That is less true now than
it was with film. I don't use one. You can look at some of my photos
here. http://s275.photobucket.com/albums/jj291/DanBracuk/
Someone else mentioned eBay. Take a look, and if you need opinions on
any offerings, post the links here.
Dan Bracuk
Never use a big word when a diminutive one will do.
Dan Bracuk
resulting in:
:I really, really, really recommend against a film camera for someone just
:starting underwater photography. For the first year or so, the ration
:between keeper and garbage pictures is quite low. Developing and printing
:are not cheap. The high cost for a low return has turned many a photographer
:away from taking underwater shots. With digital, the shots you don't like,
:don't cost you anything.
Two other reasons.
The back display makes getting good shots so much easier because you
don't need to put the camera against your mask to take a photo.
Digital cameras need less light than film cameras making external
strobes less necessary.
Joerg Hahn
Antonio Huerta wrote:
> I would like to dive and take casual pictures of the rocks and fishes.
> What waterproofed camera should I get ? I do not want an expensive
Olympus c5000z with Oly PT-19 housing
No external flash 2years ago kitprice 265,-- Euros
Tested 80m no problems
Albums beneath, you see see good and bad eexamples of casual
photos.
Joerg
--
Meine Erinnerungs-Knips-Fotos
http://www.notabstieg.de/egypt-7-2006/index.html
http://www.notabstieg.de/egypt-2-2007/index.html
http://www.notabstieg.de/egypt-2-2008/index.html
tony cooper
<ahu...@inbox.com> wrote:
>
>I was thinking about an inexpensive camera. I did a search on
>dpreview, and found Ricoh G600, which was watreproofed according to
>JIS grade 7. This means that the camera can stand 30 minutes at a
>depth of 1 m, http://www.opticsplanet.net/water-proof.html . Perhaps,
>it could withstand larger depth ? It probably could do it, at a
>stretch. Or not ?
There is no appreciable difference of effect of immersing a camera in
water that is 1 meter deep compared to the maximum depth that a
snorkler will use it. The seals will remain water-tight at the depths
a snorkler reaches if the seals remain water-tight at all. That's the
normal snorkler, not a free-diver.
All the tests reveal is that the camera remained water-tight at given
depths and times in the testing protocol.
My dive camera is film, but if I was purchasing a digital I would
purchase a standard digital and a separate underwater housing. The
long-term effects of using a camera in water is in the corrosion that
results from inadequate rinsing and drying. The underwater housings
are easier to rinse and dry, and are less affected by corrosion. A
good underwater housing will out-last the camera.
--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
Caesar Romano
<muffi...@aol.com> wrote Re Re: camera for diving ?:
>On Jan 31, 6:46 am, Antonio Huerta <ahue...@inbox.com> wrote:
>> I would like to dive and take casual pictures of the rocks and fishes.
>> What waterproofed camera should I get ? I do not want an expensive
>> one, because it is first of all for experimenting. And I would not be
>> sorry if I did not do much diving (thus would not be sorry for the
>> sunken cost... gee, pun not intended).
>>
>> I am aware that there are Olympus mu kind of cameras which are
>> waterproofed, but I am not sure about their suitability for diving and
>> their image quality. I am also aware that there are housings for
>> "land" cameras. But I do not know about their suitability...
>
>I have a Canon Powershot SD850 8.1 Megapixel camera. It's a land
>camera that costs around $200.00. I also use an underwater housing
>made for this camera that cost about $200.00 also.
That's a nice combo.
Here's one rated to 100' that can costs a little less..
http://www.adorama.com/ICAWPDC15.html?sid=1233143326515887
John McWilliams
> Hi Antonio,
>
> Antonio Huerta wrote:
>> I would like to dive and take casual pictures of the rocks and fishes.
>> What waterproofed camera should I get ? I do not want an expensive
>
> Olympus c5000z with Oly PT-19 housing
> No external flash 2years ago kitprice 265,-- Euros
>
> Tested 80m no problems
>
> Albums beneath, you see see good and bad eexamples of casual photos.
Another option is the cheapo disposable, such as
$14.00 US.
--
john mcwilliams
Fred Lotte
<b8efe03b-ec2d-430f...@u18g2000pro.googlegroups.co
m>,
Antonio Huerta <ahu...@inbox.com> wrote:
> I am planning on snorkelling. As such, I am
> looking at the depth of diving of up to 3 m, and a range of camera of
> 1-5 m (greater if possible).
You may be able to rent a camera to see if you really want to get
into underwater photography.
When I was first certified for SCUBA, I rented an Instamatic
(equivalent to a P&S) from my instructor. My buddy and I used it
on a vacation in the Florida Keys where we learned that flash
bulbs float really good, don't go off about 2/3's of the time and
have to be about 3 feet from the camera in order to not
illuminate all the stuff floating in the water.
For the next vacation, I bought an Ikelite housing for my F2 and
strobe which I used for about 20 years taking many hundreds of
shots underwater at depths up to 140 ft.
--
Fred Lotte
flo...@nospam.stratos.net
ray
Since this is to be experimental, I suggest you try a zip loc bag on
whatever camera you already have.
ben bradlee
"Antonio Huerta" <ahu...@inbox.com> wrote in message
news:f1451300-14ee-4ae6...@i20g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
You can buy cheap film cameras at most any dive shop. The last one I
purchased was under $40 and I think I've seen single use cameras for about
half that price. If you want to experiment that is the way to do it at the
lowest cost. Film is a good way to start because it shows you how hard it
is to get good quality shots.
The next cheapest way to go is to rent a camera at your destination or from
a local dive shop. This option will enable you to experiment at low cost
unless you flood the camera or otherwise destroy it in the process. Then
you will probably be liable for the damage.
J. Clarke
Trouble with that is that (a) single ziplocs are prone to leakage--you
should at least double, and (b) ziplocs don't give you a flat window
in front of the lens.
--
--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)
Paul Furman
Lee Bell wrote:
>>> I was thinking about an inexpensive camera. I did a search on
>>> dpreview, and found Ricoh G600,
28-140mm equivalent lens
http://www.dpreview.com/news/0804/08042201ricohg600.asp
> which was watreproofed according to
>>> JIS grade 7. This means that the camera can stand 30 minutes at a
>>> depth of 1 m, http://www.opticsplanet.net/water-proof.html . Perhaps,
>>> it could withstand larger depth ? It probably could do it, at a
>>> stretch. Or not ?
>> What this means in real world is that you can probably take the camera
>> out in the rain... If you're lucky, maybe even a heavy rainstorm...
>
> Correct
>
>>> Here is the camera Olympus Stylus Tough 8000,
38-114mm equivalent lens
--
Paul Furman
www.edgehill.net
www.baynatives.com
all google groups messages filtered due to spam
Don
> Any high-end DSLR with a 10+ megapixel count of should suit your
> purposes. You have to read teh fine print, but trust me, they are
> all guaranteed to be completley waterproof to 100m, straight out of
> the box.
WTF??? I'll have some of what you're smoking, mate... After
the diving's finished for the day. ;-)
Don't even think about trying this. Actually, you may want to
be cautious about Olympus housings. My personal experience with
a housing for a C-5050 was less than stellar. I've managed to total
2 cameras in my housing. It's a sickening feeling to pull your camera
up to go for a shot and see the housing half=full of sea water.
I'm personally sticking to Ikelite at the moment. Just got a
Canon G-10 , Ikelite housing, and substrobe 160. Truly amazing how
much difference having a TTL cable connected strobe makes to
image quality.
The final factor in the Olympus or Canon versus Ikelite housing
discussion as far as I am concerned is that 130 ft is not deep
enough for some of the diving that I'm doing. (But if you can get
somewhere to compare housings, check the difference in how solid
the manufacturers housings feel compared to a housing from a company
that specialises in building housings.
Don't know about the USA, but here in Oz, you can hire housings
and cameras at popular dive destinations. It would give you
a chance to try first. The, if you like it, get the best kit you
can afford the first time out. Otherwise, you just make the shops
rich paying for a series of upgrades along the way, many of which
may wind up collecting dust somewhere.
-Don
-hh
> Nervous Nick wrote:
> >
> >
> > Any high-end DSLR with a 10+ megapixel count of should suit your
> > purposes. You have to read teh fine print, but trust me, they are
> > all guaranteed to be completley waterproof to 100m, straight out of
> > the box.
>
> WTF??? I'll have some of what you're smoking, mate... After
> the diving's finished for the day. ;-)
>
> Don't even think about trying this.
I'm not personally aware of any dSLRs that are waterproof in the scuba
diving sense of the word ... doesn't matter if we're talking 100m or
100cm. As such, my question for Nervous Nick would be to seek
clarification of if he's referring to a dSLR that has been put into a
housing (Ikelite is only rated to 200ft (60m), for but one example).
Similarly, there's not really all that many dSLRs & lenses that even
have o-rings to make them *rainproof*: with a few recent exceptions,
you're mostly looking at the professional level of gear where the body
alone starts for over US$2000.
> I'm personally sticking to Ikelite at the moment. Just got a
> Canon G-10 , Ikelite housing, and substrobe 160. Truly amazing how
> much difference having a TTL cable connected strobe makes to
> image quality.
Agreed, and most people probably don't really realize just how much
power an underwater strobe packs. The size of the battery pack should
be enough of a clue: on the Ikelite SS-200 / DS-200 strobes, you're
basically looking at six (6) C-Cells. And it doesn't necessarily have
an impressive looking guide number because the reflector array is set
up for extremely wide (~100 degrees) field of coverage.
> The final factor in the Olympus or Canon versus Ikelite housing
> discussion as far as I am concerned is that 130 ft is not deep
> enough for some of the diving that I'm doing...
That's one good point. Another one to consider is that back in the
days of film with Nikonos V bodies, the standard policy was to send
the camera out for service roughly annually ($125) because of salt
crystal accumulation on what was referred to as "Non-User Serviceable"
O-rings.
As such, those "amphibious" digital cameras that advertise themselves
as being snorkel-rated without any housing (or even if dSLRs existed
that claimed this) aren't going to be waterproof forever... salt water
+ leak = fried electronics = dead camera.
-hh
Antonio Huerta
"Vivitar Waterproof Digital Camera 5188, 5.1 Megapixels, (5cm)2" LCD
Display", http://www.oo.com.au/Vivitar_Waterproof_Digital_Cam_P5774.cfm?afid=18&gclid=CKmWxNa5upgCFQE_gwodfUxeZg
.
It is inexpensive, but what about the image quality ? How is the
quality of optics ? What would you compare it with -- e.g. Canon
A610 ? Better or worse ?
Dan Bracuk
resulting in:
:Thanks everyone for answering. What do you think about this camera,
It's better than my camera and my image quality is good enough for me.
The fact that the housing is only rated for 15 meters is a cause for
concern. But, for 129 bucks, it's worth the risk.
Sheldon
"Antonio Huerta" <ahu...@inbox.com> wrote in message
news:f1451300-14ee-4ae6...@i20g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
diving as an option. It works great. You can use the camera topside as a
pocket size digital camera, or seal it up in the enclosure and take it
underwater, I think to 100 feet. The enclosure was only about $100 and we
got some pretty good shots underwater in Belize with it. Nice shots of our
vacation, too. I actually use the camera a lot, and leave the enclosure in
my dive bag.
I thought about getting an enclosure for my Nikon DSLR, but it costs way
more than the camera.