🚀 go-pugleaf

"dechucka" <dechucka@vomithotmail.com> wrote in message 
news:46231e1e$0$25449$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au...
>I am looking for a digital camera that is good for the family/holiday snaps 
>( decent zoom and can blow up pictures to poster size) but that I can also 
>get a underwater housing to 40 metres or so for.
>
> Any suggestions?
>
> By the way what is the difference between an optical and digital zoom?
>
> I know a totally luddite question
>
Hi!
I would recommend the Canon 640:
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canona640/page16.asp
It has a great rating. It's not too expensive and Canon also has a 
underwater housing for it (I think it's 30m, but it's sufficient).
The camera has an excellent zoom and is a 10 MP.
I have a Canon XT, but wanted to go back to UW photog. Ikelite housings for 
the Xt as well as a strobe would have cost more than $2000 Cad.! No way! The 
460 is a great solution and can be used as a spare camera as well.
Cheers!
Marcel 

> I am looking for a digital camera that is good for the family/holiday
snaps
> ( decent zoom and can blow up pictures to poster size) but that I can also
> get a underwater housing to 40 metres or so for.
> Any suggestions?
> By the way what is the difference between an optical and digital zoom?


Most popular cameras have an underwater casing these days (check the
manufacturers' websites).

For poster prints 6 or 7 megapixels is enough.

The Canon mentioned is a good camera, but have a look at the Canon A710IS,
which has a 6x optical zoom and image stabiliser. The A570IS is similar but
with 4x opical zoom and cheaper.
There's also the Panasonic TZ1, TZ2 or TZ3, which have 10x optical zoom
(TZ2/TZ3 are wide angle, so better for group shots and interiors) but are
still compact. Not sure if the underwater housing is available yet though.
The Fuji F31fd is smaller and has only 3x zoom, but is a great camera,
especially for photos indoors and in dark conditions.

Have a look at some reviews on www.dpreview.com

Optical zoom is when the lens physically moves in and out. This gives the
best quality.

Digital zoom just enlarges the pixels of the image, so if you use it, you
might start to see jagged edges and a blocky look, especially if you zoom in
a lot or print at a large size, so be careful with it if you're printing
poster size. It could ruin your photos.

Androo

"dechucka" <dechucka@vomithotmail.com> wrote in message 
news:46231e1e$0$25449$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au...
>I am looking for a digital camera that is good for the family/holiday snaps 
>( decent zoom and can blow up pictures to poster size) but that I can also 
>get a underwater housing to 40 metres or so for.
>
> Any suggestions?
>
> By the way what is the difference between an optical and digital zoom?
>
> I know a totally luddite question
Our local paper had a short article about digital cameras in yesterday's 
paper.  The article concerned reliability and was attributed to Consumer 
Reports.  They said there was not a clear winner as to which brands/models 
were most reliable, but there were losers.  For P&S cameras they said 
Vivitar had the highest incidence of repair and Olympus held the same spot 
for DSLRs.

Ron 

"dechucka" <dechucka@vomithotmail.com> wrote in message 
news:46231e1e$0$25449$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au...
>I am looking for a digital camera that is good for the family/holiday snaps 
>( decent zoom and can blow up pictures to poster size) but that I can also 
>get a underwater housing to 40 metres or so for.
>
> Any suggestions?
>
> By the way what is the difference between an optical and digital zoom?
>
> I know a totally luddite question
What about a camera especially made for diving? 
http://www.scubatoys.com/store/Scuba_Cameras.asp

You may be a little limited as far as depth goes, but the tradeoff might be 
worth it. 

"dechucka" <dechucka@vomithotmail.com> pounded away at his keyboard
resulting in:
:I am looking for a digital camera that is good for the family/holiday snaps 
:( decent zoom and can blow up pictures to poster size) but that I can also 
:get a underwater housing to 40 metres or so for.

I use a Sony point and shoot.  If I knew then what I know now, I would
have got something else.  

From a photography perspective, I don't think there is much to choose
between Sony, Olympus, Fuji, Kodak, Nikon, Canon, etc.  There is a
difference in storage though.  Sony uses memory sticks which offer
less flexibility than flash cards.  

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

----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

"dechucka" <dechu...@vomithotmail.com> wrote:
> I am looking for a digital camera that is good for the family/holiday snaps
> ( decent zoom and can blow up pictures to poster size) but that I can also
> get a underwater housing to 40 metres or so for.
>
> Any suggestions?

Look through the various manufacturer's websites at what products they
have and what UW housings they sell for the same.  One you have some
idea of the offerings, go check out which of these cameras are new and
which are "old" (released a year ago) and consider leaning towards a
new one, so that the UW accessories will be available longer in the
marketplace (also, a housing that fits more than one camera can be
favored here too).

For specific camera features, look for one that the reviews say it
doesn't have significant shutter lag.  That had been a harder piece of
data to find, but do persevere.

For other camera attributes, consider your battery choices carefully,
as well as the type of memory card.

A camera with a proprietary battery design means you'll have to buy
their battery to have spares, but are generally more compact for
fitting in your pocket when its not in the housing - - IMO, go for one
that takes AA's.

For memory card type, Compact Flash is gone from the P&S, and looks to
be on the decline for (at least consumer) dSLRs too.  Avoid non-
mainstream formats such as the Sony Memory Stick, as you'll end up
paying a premium on each memory card, especially if you're looking at
getting one with a higher access speed.  The card that manufacturers
seems to be most standardized on today is the SD.


> By the way what is the difference between an optical and digital zoom?

Optical zoom is a real zoom (via actual magnification through
lenses).
Digital zoom is a "pretend" zoom (via cropping of an unmagnified
image).


-hh

"-hh" <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> wrote in message
> For specific camera features, look for one that the reviews say it
> doesn't have significant shutter lag.  That had been a harder piece of
> data to find, but do persevere.

This is an especially important feature I think. When something is swimming 
around you fast you need to take photos quickly.

> For other camera attributes, consider your battery choices carefully,
> as well as the type of memory card.
>
> A camera with a proprietary battery design means you'll have to buy
> their battery to have spares, but are generally more compact for
> fitting in your pocket when its not in the housing - - IMO, go for one
> that takes AA's.

Although AAs are preferable I would consider this to be a lower priority.

> For memory card type, Compact Flash is gone from the P&S, and looks to
> be on the decline for (at least consumer) dSLRs too.  Avoid non-
> mainstream formats such as the Sony Memory Stick, as you'll end up
> paying a premium on each memory card, especially if you're looking at
> getting one with a higher access speed.  The card that manufacturers
> seems to be most standardized on today is the SD.

I think you'd be mad to buy anything besides SD these days. PDAs take it, 
phones take it, car stereos take it, mp3 players take it and even some 
cameras use it :-) I would get a mini SD card though as these cost the same, 
are just as fast and come with an adaptor.

Michael 

I use an Olympus stylus 600 with a Olympus pt-29 housing..No problems yet

"dechucka" <dechucka@vomithotmail.com> wrote in message 
news:46231e1e$0$25449$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au...
>I am looking for a digital camera that is good for the family/holiday snaps 
>( decent zoom and can blow up pictures to poster size) but that I can also 
>get a underwater housing to 40 metres or so for.
>
> Any suggestions?
>
> By the way what is the difference between an optical and digital zoom?
>
> I know a totally luddite question
> 

On Apr 18, 8:33 am, "Michael C" <nos...@nospam.com> wrote:
>
> I think you'd be mad to buy anything besides SD these days. PDAs take it,
> phones take it, car stereos take it, mp3 players take it and even some
> cameras use it :-)

Agreed.

> I would get a mini SD card though as these cost the same,
> are just as fast and come with an adaptor.

I'm going to have to disagree here.

First off,  while the mini-SD isn't as bad as some of the others, the
new generation of "mini/micro" cards are a *bad* thing because they
are rapidly becoming too small to handle reliably from a human factors
design standpoint.

We need to ask ourselves how much more likely we are to drop & lose
one of these micro-cards versus other form factors while trying to
replenish our camera with damp fingertips on a rocking boat, or on a
cold day (probably while wearing gloves):

<http://podfeet.com/NosillaCast/NC_2006_08_27/micro_sd_card.jpg>

When components get this small, we're only going to dare to service
them under ideal, semi-"white room" conditions, which limits their
utility. For the application of a camera that we're going to take out
in the field, the problem is that we either can't reload "film", or we
have to take the risk taht if we drop it in the grass, we will never
find it and the money and photo investment on it is lost.

And while I agree that the mini-SD "isn't so bad", that's because it
really isn't all that different in overall size from the standard SD:

<http://x.msmobiles.com/portal/images/reviews/mobile-mate-plus-5-in-1-
reader/micro-sd-mini-sd-full-sd.jpg>

Overall, the reason why it should be skipped is because the size
change isn't significant and the need for an adaptor is simply because
the adaptor is one more thing that can go wrong.


-hh

"Michael C" <nospam@nospam.com> pounded away at his keyboard resulting
in:

:This is an especially important feature I think. When something is swimming 
:around you fast you need to take photos quickly.

If something is swimming around you fast, getting the photo is
strictly luck.

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

----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

"Dan Bracuk" <NOTbracuk@pathcom.com> wrote in message 
news:1p8d23dkr1i2r07mudielqhfe50i6nnade@4ax.com...
> "Michael C" <nospam@nospam.com> pounded away at his keyboard resulting
> in:
>
> :This is an especially important feature I think. When something is 
> swimming
> :around you fast you need to take photos quickly.
>
> If something is swimming around you fast, getting the photo is
> strictly luck.

Right, and when you do anything that requires luck, such as enter a lottery, 
what's the surefire way to increase your odds? :-)

Michael 

"-hh" <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> wrote in message
> I'm going to have to disagree here.
>
> First off,  while the mini-SD isn't as bad as some of the others, the
> new generation of "mini/micro" cards are a *bad* thing because they
> are rapidly becoming too small to handle reliably from a human factors
> design standpoint.
>
> We need to ask ourselves how much more likely we are to drop & lose
> one of these micro-cards versus other form factors while trying to
> replenish our camera with damp fingertips on a rocking boat, or on a
> cold day (probably while wearing gloves):

With a mini SD card you have no extra chance of dropping it because it's 
firmly placed in it's adaptor. They all come with adaptors so if dropping 
them is an issue keep them in their adaptor.

> <http://podfeet.com/NosillaCast/NC_2006_08_27/micro_sd_card.jpg>
>
> When components get this small, we're only going to dare to service
> them under ideal, semi-"white room" conditions, which limits their
> utility. For the application of a camera that we're going to take out
> in the field, the problem is that we either can't reload "film", or we
> have to take the risk taht if we drop it in the grass, we will never
> find it and the money and photo investment on it is lost.
>
> And while I agree that the mini-SD "isn't so bad", that's because it
> really isn't all that different in overall size from the standard SD:

The point isn't that it is smaller, the point is that it fits more devices.

> <http://x.msmobiles.com/portal/images/reviews/mobile-mate-plus-5-in-1-
> reader/micro-sd-mini-sd-full-sd.jpg>
>
> Overall, the reason why it should be skipped is because the size
> change isn't significant and the need for an adaptor is simply because
> the adaptor is one more thing that can go wrong.

That is a potential issue I agree. With twice as many contact points there 
is more potential for problems but so far I haven't had any issues.

Michael 

"Michael C" <nos...@nospam.com> wrote:
>
> With a mini SD card you have no extra chance of dropping it because it's
> firmly placed in it's adaptor. They all come with adaptors so if dropping
> them is an issue keep them in their adaptor.

So then the reason you're buying the mini-SD rather than a standard SD
is because ....?

Maybe I'm leaping here, but my assumption was that you're assuming
that the SD format will go away in the relatively near future and that
either mini-SD replaces it (which re-invokes this "too small" problem)
or that you're hoping that whatever the new standard is that emerges
will be suitable for having a mini-SD adaptor invented for it as
well.


> The point isn't that it is smaller, the point is that it fits more devices.

Ah, okay.   But this only applies if you are then willing to take the
mini- out of its SD adaptor, which then re-invokes the "too small"
concern, as well as adds the problem of lost / misplaced adaptors.


> > Overall, the reason why it should be skipped is because the size
> > change isn't significant and the need for an adaptor is simply because
> > the adaptor is one more thing that can go wrong.
>
> That is a potential issue I agree. With twice as many contact points there
> is more potential for problems but so far I haven't had any issues.

There's also horror stories about how evil Compact Flash is because of
its tendency for bent pins, even though it seems that 99.9% of us
never have any  problem there either.  The real bugaboo here is that
the failure mode may be significantly less obvious than with crude old
fashioned film technology and so forth...salt water and electricity
still aren't close buddies.


-hh

"Michael C" <nospam@nospam.com> wrote in message 
news:46276d06$0$28625$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au...
> "Dan Bracuk" <NOTbracuk@pathcom.com> wrote in message 
> news:1p8d23dkr1i2r07mudielqhfe50i6nnade@4ax.com...
>> "Michael C" <nospam@nospam.com> pounded away at his keyboard resulting
>> in:
>>
>> :This is an especially important feature I think. When something is 
>> swimming
>> :around you fast you need to take photos quickly.
>>
>> If something is swimming around you fast, getting the photo is
>> strictly luck.
>
> Right, and when you do anything that requires luck, such as enter a 
> lottery, what's the surefire way to increase your odds? :-)

that IMHO is the great advantage of a digital, blaze away and you may luck a 
great photo or 2 and just delete the rest. Fim cameras it is expensive to 
throw out the duds

"-hh" <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> wrote in message
> So then the reason you're buying the mini-SD rather than a standard SD
> is because ....?

Because it fits more devices. When I originally bought my camera the only 
thing the SD card fit was my camera. But since then I've used it in many 
other devices which I didn't have at the time. Same might apply to mini-SD 
in the future. Already my phone takes mini-sd although that's pretty much a 
novelty.

> Maybe I'm leaping here, but my assumption was that you're assuming
> that the SD format will go away in the relatively near future and that
> either mini-SD replaces it (which re-invokes this "too small" problem)
> or that you're hoping that whatever the new standard is that emerges
> will be suitable for having a mini-SD adaptor invented for it as
> well.

From my pov there are only 4 formats, PCMCIA, CF, SD and mini SD. Memory 
stick, MMC, SM and XD don't exist for me because I would never buy a device 
that used these. As PCMCIA is pretty much dead as a flash format and CF is 
going that way, that only leaves SD and mini-SD. By buying mini-SD with the 
adaptor you've got them both covered.

> Ah, okay.   But this only applies if you are then willing to take the
> mini- out of its SD adaptor, which then re-invokes the "too small"
> concern, as well as adds the problem of lost / misplaced adaptors.

That's true but in the case of a phone the mini-sd is an appropriate size I 
guess. What I think is a wank is micro-sd. While mini is easy enough to 
handle the micros are getting very fiddly.

Although I don't completely disagree with you, I would prefer it that mini 
and micro SD didn't exist, it just complicates things further when SD 
doesn't really need to be made smaller. But now that mini-sd does exist it's 
probably worth buying it.

Michael 

"dechucka" <dechucka@vomithotmail.com> wrote in message 
news:4627ee0e$0$25495$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader-
> that IMHO is the great advantage of a digital, blaze away and you may luck 
> a great photo or 2 and just delete the rest. Fim cameras it is expensive 
> to throw out the duds

That's exactly right.  Someone in another thread mentioned they throw away 
75% of their shots. They must be a brilliant photographer because on a 
recent holiday I took 2500 shots and threw away around 2450. The 
professionals seam to do the same thing with film.
>
> 

"dechucka" <dechucka@vomithotmail.com> wrote in message 
news:46231e1e$0$25449$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au...
>I am looking for a digital camera that is good for the family/holiday snaps ( decent 
>zoom and can blow up pictures to poster size) but that I can also get a underwater 
>housing to 40 metres or so for.
>
> Any suggestions?
>
> By the way what is the difference between an optical and digital zoom?
>
> I know a totally luddite question

The Fuji F30 with underwater housing is not bad and very compact.

Adam 

"Michael C" <nospam@nospam.com> wrote in message 
news:462840d6$0$5748$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au...
> "dechucka" <dechucka@vomithotmail.com> wrote in message 
> news:4627ee0e$0$25495$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader-
>> that IMHO is the great advantage of a digital, blaze away and you may 
>> luck a great photo or 2 and just delete the rest. Fim cameras it is 
>> expensive to throw out the duds
>
> That's exactly right.  Someone in another thread mentioned they throw away 
> 75% of their shots. They must be a brilliant photographer because on a 
> recent holiday I took 2500 shots and threw away around 2450. The 
> professionals seam to do the same thing with film.


as a wedding present I have have a fantsicly beaut photo of a sunrise over a 
beach that a mate of mine had surf and dived around for years.  A couple of 
years ofter I asked him about that photo and it had taken him 6 rolls of 36 
over 2 right days to get that one photo
>>
>>
>
> 

"dechucka" <dechucka@vomithotmail.com> wrote in message 
news:462b3103$0$25484$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader-
> as a wedding present I have have a fantsicly beaut photo of a sunrise over 
> a beach that a mate of mine had surf and dived around for years.  A couple 
> of years ofter I asked him about that photo and it had taken him 6 rolls 
> of 36 over 2 right days to get that one photo

That's dedication. :-)

Michael 

"Michael C" <nospam@nospam.com> wrote in message 
news:462b4a31$0$27221$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au...
> "dechucka" <dechucka@vomithotmail.com> wrote in message 
> news:462b3103$0$25484$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader-
>> as a wedding present I have have a fantsicly beaut photo of a sunrise 
>> over a beach that a mate of mine had surf and dived around for years.  A 
>> couple of years ofter I asked him about that photo and it had taken him 6 
>> rolls of 36 over 2 right days to get that one photo
>
> That's dedication. :-)
>
> Michael


Yup.

I used to have a camera like that, too.

--
Jeff R.

"Jeff R." <contact.me@this.ng> wrote in message 
news:462b6040$0$27221$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au...
>>> as a wedding present I have have a fantsicly beaut photo of a sunrise 
>>> over a beach that a mate of mine had surf and dived around for years.  A 
>>> couple of years ofter I asked him about that photo and it had taken him 
>>> 6 rolls of 36 over 2 right days to get that one photo
>>
>> That's dedication. :-)
>
>
> Yup.
>
> I used to have a camera like that, too.

Your camera was dedicated? ;-)

Michael