Are consumer digital cameras useless for diving?

[Michael C]

I've noticed a couple of questions regarding dive cameras so thought I'd
continue the trend. A friend spent $700 on a 6mp cannon camera with a dive
case. I've noticed most of the pictures suffered from a severe lack of light
and the camera automatically went to a long exposure causing many of them to
be blured. Those that weren't blurred were quite dull. Only closeup shots
were acceptable really. After having a look at the pics I'm kinda of the
opinion that only a high quality camera with a full size lense (to let more
light in) and a good external flash would be required to get acceptable
photos. Is this true? I'm not a camera zealot if anyone is wondering as I
quite happily take shots out of the water with a compact and reckon it is
pretty good. I usually dive around the 18 metre mark.

Here's some examples:
Loading Image...
Loading Image...

[Bryan Heit]

Post by Michael C
I've noticed a couple of questions regarding dive cameras so thought I'd
continue the trend. A friend spent $700 on a 6mp cannon camera with a dive
case. I've noticed most of the pictures suffered from a severe lack of light
and the camera automatically went to a long exposure causing many of them to
be blured. Those that weren't blurred were quite dull. Only closeup shots
were acceptable really. After having a look at the pics I'm kinda of the
opinion that only a high quality camera with a full size lense (to let more
light in) and a good external flash would be required to get acceptable
photos. Is this true? I'm not a camera zealot if anyone is wondering as I
quite happily take shots out of the water with a compact and reckon it is
pretty good. I usually dive around the 18 metre mark.
http://mikesdriveway.com/misc/dive2.jpg
http://mikesdriveway.com/misc/elizaramsden124.jpg

Common digital cameras (and film cameras) can work quite good under
water. However, some are better then others. That said, even the most
expensive camera will have difficulties if not setup properly. Some
general advice (others will probably expand on this a lot):

1) Get an external flash. The flash on cameras is too close to the lens
to be of use - instead of illuminating the subject, these flashes just
tend to light up the silt and floaties in front of the camera. An
external strobe can be placed to the side, which causes this backscatter
to occur away from the lens.

I suspect this may be a problem with your photos.

2) Get close to your subject. Water tends to scatter light, so the
farther away you are from your subject the less clear the picture will
appear. About the only way to get amazingly high-detailed shots is in
macro mode. Also, water tends to absorb red/yellow light, so getting
close will also help restore some colour (if you are using a flash).

3) Shallower subjects will generally image better, as less sun light
will be absorbed, giving you more light to work with.

4) Composition. Many divers will "hide" some of the problems underwater
photography has by making sure their subject(s) are against a colourful
background, etc. This'll help hide things like backscatter, and reduce
the "flat" appearance of blue-water shots (like your ray). The general
rule is "get close, get low, shoot up".

5) White balance. Most digital cameras give you some degree of control
over white balance. Try playing with it to see if you cannot get more
colourful images.

Lastly, although it's too late for you, when picking a digital camera
you want to look for one with good low-light capabilities. dpreview.com
does a good job of reviewing camera, and most of their tests involve a
low-light test.

Bryan

[a***@hotmail.com]

Post by Michael C
I've noticed a couple of questions regarding dive cameras so thought I'd
continue the trend. A friend spent $700 on a 6mp cannon camera with a dive
case. I've noticed most of the pictures suffered from a severe lack of light
and the camera automatically went to a long exposure causing many of them to
be blured. Those that weren't blurred were quite dull. Only closeup shots
were acceptable really. After having a look at the pics I'm kinda of the
opinion that only a high quality camera with a full size lense (to let more
light in) and a good external flash would be required to get acceptable
photos. Is this true? I'm not a camera zealot if anyone is wondering as I
quite happily take shots out of the water with a compact and reckon it is
pretty good. I usually dive around the 18 metre mark.
Here's some examples:Loading Image...

Well .. not really the case... you do have to make some changes to the
base settings. pics bellow were all shot on a Canon A95 5MP PnS. OK so
they aren't the best thing going but I can't afford 20+K I would need
for the camera I really want.

The biggest difference I found was to not use the cameras underwater
setting and make sure the flash is always on.


http://ca.pg.photos.yahoo.com/ph/cayman_0207/album?.dir=/c034re2&.src=ph&.tok=ph_HNnGBFoy.QH_z

[Elliott Goldstein]

for photos that are not macro, it is possible to get good pics without
the use of a strobe or internal flash (which i found to be really
poor) http://www.public.asu.edu/~elliotg/
is my web site. all the pics were taken with an old sony P7 (3MB)
camera, no flash but with a red filter. all the pics still had to
processed through photoshop (god's gift to underwater photography)
elliott

Post by a***@hotmail.com

Post by Michael C
I've noticed a couple of questions regarding dive cameras so thought I'd
continue the trend. A friend spent $700 on a 6mp cannon camera with a dive
case. I've noticed most of the pictures suffered from a severe lack of light
and the camera automatically went to a long exposure causing many of them to
be blured. Those that weren't blurred were quite dull. Only closeup shots
were acceptable really. After having a look at the pics I'm kinda of the
opinion that only a high quality camera with a full size lense (to let more
light in) and a good external flash would be required to get acceptable
photos. Is this true? I'm not a camera zealot if anyone is wondering as I
quite happily take shots out of the water with a compact and reckon it is
pretty good. I usually dive around the 18 metre mark.
Here's some examples:http://mikesdriveway.com/misc/dive2.jpghttp://mikesdriveway.com/misc/elizaramsden124.jpg

Well .. not really the case... you do have to make some changes to the
base settings. pics bellow were all shot on a Canon A95 5MP PnS. OK so
they aren't the best thing going but I can't afford 20+K I would need
for the camera I really want.
The biggest difference I found was to not use the cameras underwater
setting and make sure the flash is always on.
http://ca.pg.photos.yahoo.com/ph/cayman_0207/album?.dir=/c034re2&.src=ph&.tok=ph_HNnGBFoy.QH_z

[nanook]

The water in your examples seems pretty cloudy.

Here's some shot in Maui in 06 using a Canon SD500 with Canon's case

Max water depth was about 30 feet (turtle in hole shot)

Out of probably 150 to 200 shots, 20 or 30 were keepers of any
quality.

Some were shot within 5 feet of the surface

http:\\bshellenbaum.smugmug.com click on the Maui folder.

One thing the P&S do that the more expensive SLRs don't, is video and
it makes a real difference putting together a DVD of the vacation.

The year before my daughter and I were diving at Molokini crater and I
was shooting video with the canon elph, while capturing a shark
swimming below us, we heard whale song and it was captured as well.
Pretty darn cool.

[Dan Bracuk]

nanook <***@nowhere.com> pounded away at his keyboard resulting in:

:The water in your examples seems pretty cloudy.
:
:Here's some shot in Maui in 06 using a Canon SD500 with Canon's case
:
:Max water depth was about 30 feet (turtle in hole shot)
:
:Out of probably 150 to 200 shots, 20 or 30 were keepers of any
:quality.
:
:Some were shot within 5 feet of the surface
:
:http:\\bshellenbaum.smugmug.com click on the Maui folder.


Nice pics. You got a lot closer to a reef triggerfish than I was able
to in Kona last year.

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 =----

[Michael C]

Post by nanook
The water in your examples seems pretty cloudy.

I'm in Melbourne. The water is cold and cloudy here and I can't say the
dives are that brilliant. I was getting pretty bored of diving until I went
on a recent trip to WA. Now I'm itching to go again.

Post by nanook
Here's some shot in Maui in 06 using a Canon SD500 with Canon's case
Max water depth was about 30 feet (turtle in hole shot)

They just look awesome, that's the quality of photo I would like to be able
to take.

Post by nanook
Out of probably 150 to 200 shots, 20 or 30 were keepers of any
quality.

That's a pretty good ratio, I was throwing away around 98% although I guess
it depends on your criteria and the number of shots you take of each scene.

Post by nanook
One thing the P&S do that the more expensive SLRs don't, is video and
it makes a real difference putting together a DVD of the vacation.

That is one thing I've noticed is that the cheaper camera do take pretty
good quality video.

Michael

[nanook]

Post by Michael C

Post by nanook
The water in your examples seems pretty cloudy.

I'm in Melbourne. The water is cold and cloudy here and I can't say the
dives are that brilliant. I was getting pretty bored of diving until I went
on a recent trip to WA. Now I'm itching to go again.

I live in Alaska, my daughter and I did our cert dives up here a few
years back in February (height of winter in the North Hemi)

Water temp matched air temp at 35 degrees F, which was actually a warm
day. Best diving up here is winter, the kelp dies off and no runoff
from the land to cloud the water. Downside is freezing your butt off
when the dry suit isn't.

After diving in Hawaii she won't even consider diving up here again,
although for bragging rights she does want to dive Antarctica.

I've used several Canon P&S with their uw cases. The next one will
probably have image stabilization, which should help with the
inevitable movement quite a bit. They will never equal a pro sitting
there for 20minutes with $5000 worth of equipment but that's not what
I'm looking for anyway. If the water is cloudy there is nothing you
can do, a powerful flash will just illuminate all the crap suspended
in the water.

[Alan Meyer]

http://ca.pg.photos.yahoo.com/ph/cayman_0207/album?.dir=/c034re2&.src...

Those were pretty good photos. If you wanted to, you could probably
enhance the reds in them, possibly even in a batch process. But I
suspect your real interest is in the critters that posed for you more
than
the photos. Your ability to identify them is impressive. Are you a
marine biologist?

Alan

[Bill Funk]

Post by Michael C
I've noticed a couple of questions regarding dive cameras so thought I'd
continue the trend. A friend spent $700 on a 6mp cannon camera with a dive
case. I've noticed most of the pictures suffered from a severe lack of light
and the camera automatically went to a long exposure causing many of them to
be blured. Those that weren't blurred were quite dull. Only closeup shots
were acceptable really. After having a look at the pics I'm kinda of the
opinion that only a high quality camera with a full size lense (to let more
light in) and a good external flash would be required to get acceptable
photos. Is this true? I'm not a camera zealot if anyone is wondering as I
quite happily take shots out of the water with a compact and reckon it is
pretty good. I usually dive around the 18 metre mark.
http://mikesdriveway.com/misc/dive2.jpg
http://mikesdriveway.com/misc/elizaramsden124.jpg

I don't dive, but I stayed in a Motel 8 last night...

Underwater photography is always going to be a fight to get enough
light. A faster lens (smaller f/number) will help immensly, as will a
very good flash.
The less expensive dive cameras, and the housings for others, don't
have any special capabilities other than the ability to keep water
out, that would make them better able to somehow get around the lack
of light.
If you watch the Planet Earth series for the underwater episodes,
you'll see that they must pick their opportunities carefully to get
clear water, and they use some pretty pricey gear. Your samples show
pretty much what's normal for amateur divers with time and money
constraints.

[p***@gmail.com]

As one goes deeper (more than about 5 metres) the changes in light
cause a colour distortion. Red is lost and blues are slightly
intensified, thus the need to change settings. Take your digital pics
to a developer familiar with developing underwater pictures(or mail
them off to one). If they are knowledgeable, they will modify the
developer to compensate for the light changes, resulting in clear
pictures that more closely match the real colours underwater.

[Sheldon]

Post by Michael C
I've noticed a couple of questions regarding dive cameras so thought I'd
continue the trend. A friend spent $700 on a 6mp cannon camera with a dive
case. I've noticed most of the pictures suffered from a severe lack of
light and the camera automatically went to a long exposure causing many of
them to be blured. Those that weren't blurred were quite dull. Only
closeup shots were acceptable really. After having a look at the pics I'm
kinda of the opinion that only a high quality camera with a full size
lense (to let more light in) and a good external flash would be required
to get acceptable photos. Is this true? I'm not a camera zealot if anyone
is wondering as I quite happily take shots out of the water with a compact
and reckon it is pretty good. I usually dive around the 18 metre mark.
http://mikesdriveway.com/misc/dive2.jpg
http://mikesdriveway.com/misc/elizaramsden124.jpg

The problem with most inexpensive cameras is that they adjust the shutter
speed to set the proper exposure, so when the light drops the shutter speed
goes down causing blurred pictures. While a flash is best underwater for
good color and clear pictures, you can try raising the ISO speed on the
camera (if adjustable). The photos should look fine, and this will give the
camera a chance to raise the shutter speed so your photos aren't blurred
anymore.

[Dan Bracuk]

"Michael C" <***@nospam.com> pounded away at his keyboard resulting
in:
:I've noticed a couple of questions regarding dive cameras so thought I'd
:continue the trend. A friend spent $700 on a 6mp cannon camera with a dive
:case. I've noticed most of the pictures suffered from a severe lack of light
:and the camera automatically went to a long exposure causing many of them to
:be blured. Those that weren't blurred were quite dull. Only closeup shots
:were acceptable really. After having a look at the pics I'm kinda of the
:opinion that only a high quality camera with a full size lense (to let more
:light in) and a good external flash would be required to get acceptable
:photos. Is this true? I'm not a camera zealot if anyone is wondering as I
:quite happily take shots out of the water with a compact and reckon it is
:pretty good. I usually dive around the 18 metre mark.
:
:Here's some examples:
:http://mikesdriveway.com/misc/dive2.jpg
:http://mikesdriveway.com/misc/elizaramsden124.jpg

There are lots of good answers here already. Hopefully you read them.

<arrogance>
The most important part of any camera, either underwater or on land,
is the person holding it. I use a commercial digital camera with only
4 megapixels and I do ok. I don't use an external flash and have
recently started to attempt underwater photos with natural light only.
So it can be done.
</arrogance>

While I do ok, I still reject at least 75% of my shots for various
reasons. Sometimes they are duplicates (if you want good pictures
take lots) or sometimes they are sub-standard for one reason or
another.

If you are just getting started, thank your lucky stars that you are
not using film. And keep at it. Experience matters.


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 =----

[soxmax]

I bought the FujiFilm Finepix F30 and associated underwater case. The
F30 has an "underwater" setting. I think I paid a total of $480 for
the package but that was the weekend following Thanksgiving last year.
The quality is certainly not professional but it was worth $480 to me.
One nice thing about digital is that you can take a thousand poor
quality pictures (which I did) and it doesn't cost you a dime.

http://soxmax.myphotoalbum.com/

The photos are of diving in Tortola with a few of the Rhone wreck up
to 80 feet depth. I think there is also a surface picture.

Best Regards,
Derek

[Sheldon]

Post by soxmax
I bought the FujiFilm Finepix F30 and associated underwater case. The
F30 has an "underwater" setting. I think I paid a total of $480 for
the package but that was the weekend following Thanksgiving last year.
The quality is certainly not professional but it was worth $480 to me.
One nice thing about digital is that you can take a thousand poor
quality pictures (which I did) and it doesn't cost you a dime.
http://soxmax.myphotoalbum.com/
The photos are of diving in Tortola with a few of the Rhone wreck up
to 80 feet depth. I think there is also a surface picture.
Best Regards,
Derek

Looks pretty good for a point and shoot. I JUST ordered an Olympus FE-230
with the underwater housing that's supposed to be good for around 100 ft.
It's supposed to have some kind of brightening circuit and antishake.
Looking forward to finally getting certified and trying it out. Out of the
housing the camera is a very thin 7 megapixel point and shoot, something
I've been looking for to supplement my DSLR on land.

Good price point, too. Camera is about $200 and the housing is about $145.

[Dan L]

Post by soxmax
I bought the FujiFilm Finepix F30 and associated underwater case. The
F30 has an "underwater" setting. I think I paid a total of $480 for
the package but that was the weekend following Thanksgiving last year.
The quality is certainly not professional but it was worth $480 to me.
One nice thing about digital is that you can take a thousand poor
quality pictures (which I did) and it doesn't cost you a dime.
http://soxmax.myphotoalbum.com/
The photos are of diving in Tortola with a few of the Rhone wreck up
to 80 feet depth. I think there is also a surface picture.
Best Regards,
Derek

I'll second the F30 - I have one as a lightweight travel camera - it's
actually quite a decent fish camera as the focus is fast although it's
not too great with macro. If Fuji added RAW support to the F30 it could
be a truly spectacular camera.

I've used it as a survey camera on reef work and it produces very
useable images with minimal effort. I would still prefer to use my
C5050z (ikelite housing) or Nik 5 if I wanted the best quality images
but for a lightweight low(is) priced camera it's great. It also gives
me a land camera I can lend to my girlfriend so I can keep my others
safe...

If you want a camera that's also good for freediving then this is also
another good reason for this choice.

Dan.

[bugbear]

Post by Michael C
After having a look at the pics I'm kinda of the
opinion that only a high quality camera with a full size lense (to let more
light in) and a good external flash would be required to get acceptable
photos.

http://www.camerasunderwater.info/optics/lenscorrect.html

BugBear

[news]

Post by Michael C
I've noticed a couple of questions regarding dive cameras so thought I'd
continue the trend. A friend spent $700 on a 6mp cannon camera with a dive
case. I've noticed most of the pictures suffered from a severe lack of
light and the camera automatically went to a long exposure causing many of
them to be blured. Those that weren't blurred were quite dull. Only
closeup shots were acceptable really. After having a look at the pics I'm
kinda of the opinion that only a high quality camera with a full size
lense (to let more light in) and a good external flash would be required
to get acceptable photos. Is this true? I'm not a camera zealot if anyone
is wondering as I quite happily take shots out of the water with a compact
and reckon it is pretty good. I usually dive around the 18 metre mark.
http://mikesdriveway.com/misc/dive2.jpg
http://mikesdriveway.com/misc/elizaramsden124.jpg

Get an external flash, I have a canon A70 3.2 MP camera with a Sunpak G
Flash. It is triggered by the on camera flash. I found by putting some
opaq tape over the front of the on-camera flash it cuts down on the
backscatter yet still triggers the external flash ok from the side. You can
see some pics I took in Rhode Island here
http://www.divewithjay.com/cgi-bin/diveapp.pl?type=pic&picno=0&picgrp=ftwetherill
Some bahamas pics with the A70 are on the bottom of this page
http://www.divewithjay.com/gallery/bahamas_2005.htm

Others have already given you a list of great advice. In addition to that
I've found that you can often adjust the white balance after the fact using
photo software but it's best to adjust it before shooting.

Jay

[C J Campbell]

Post by Michael C
I've noticed a couple of questions regarding dive cameras so thought I'd
continue the trend. A friend spent $700 on a 6mp cannon camera with a dive
case. I've noticed most of the pictures suffered from a severe lack of light
and the camera automatically went to a long exposure causing many of them to
be blured. Those that weren't blurred were quite dull. Only closeup shots
were acceptable really. After having a look at the pics I'm kinda of the
opinion that only a high quality camera with a full size lense (to let more
light in) and a good external flash would be required to get acceptable
photos. Is this true? I'm not a camera zealot if anyone is wondering as I
quite happily take shots out of the water with a compact and reckon it is
pretty good. I usually dive around the 18 metre mark.
http://mikesdriveway.com/misc/dive2.jpg
http://mikesdriveway.com/misc/elizaramsden124.jpg

The weak built-in flash units on cameras are typically unusable below
three meters, no matter how fast the lens is. Good for snorkeling, but
not much beyond that. You need a better light if you are going deeper
than that.

Lens size has little to do with how fast the lens is. Some small point
and shoot consumer cameras have faster lenses than what you typically
see on DSLRs. An f/2.8 zoom lens on an SLR is usually more expensive
than a consumer camera with an f/2.8 zoom lens.

[Dan Bracuk]

C J Campbell <***@hotmail.com> pounded away at his
keyboard resulting in:
:The weak built-in flash units on cameras are typically unusable below
:three meters, no matter how fast the lens is.

Not by me they're not.

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 =----

[VK]

Post by Dan Bracuk
:The weak built-in flash units on cameras are typically unusable below
:three meters, no matter how fast the lens is.
Not by me they're not.

I'd venture to say that you're in the minority here.

There are certain instances where the onboard flash can suffice - eg,
shooting macro in good vis. However, adding an external strobe
greatly increases the effectiveness of the underwater rig.

I have sold a magazine cover taken with an S70 in the Canon box, along
with a Sunpak G-Flash. The latter is a good enough flash but suffers
a design flaw in the battery compartment which makes it prone to
leaking. Spending a little more on a Sea&Sea or an Inon unit is well
worth the price.

Vandit