Printable View
Does anybody have any suggestions or experiance with underwater digital cameras? I netted a huge fish for some guy on Sat. and the next thing I know the guy whips out a digital camera sticks it underwater and starts taking pics. It was very cool.
------------------
Born to fish forced to work.
Alan
Optio WP. I bought one over a year ago and love it!
Pentax Optio WP!--Small and compact so goes in the vest or shirt pocket. I bought it last June and it is outstanding for a fly fisher.
It's a Pentax Optio probably. I bought the Optio WPi and have never looked back. Love it.6.36 mp will get you as large a print as you like.
Mark
------------------
I'd rather be in Wyoming!
I use an Optio WP as well. Works decently, fits great in a pocket (about the size of an original iPod...roughly). I keep it attached to a retractable tether just in case I drop it.
Here's a picture taken underwater with it earlier this year on the Kings River near Fresno, CA:
http://thwack.smugmug.com/photos/61985212-S.jpg
I just stuck it below the surface, aimed, and fired. Cropped the resulting pic a wee bit to reduce needless bits being downloaded.
For tight shots like that or somebody near you holding a fish, it makes a great fishing camera.
For scenery shots, it lacks the detail to make them really work. Here are a couple examples:
[url=http://thwack.smugmug.com/photos/40540219-L.jpg:bcb61]http://thwack.smugmug.com/photos/40540219-L.jpg[/url:bcb61]
[url=http://thwack.smugmug.com/photos/40561352-L.jpg:bcb61]http://thwack.smugmug.com/photos/40561352-L.jpg[/url:bcb61]
If I lost it, I'd buy a new one. Perfect for fishing and I love stuffing it under water to take weird shots.
I like the Pentax Optio WP also. It's small and perfect to take fishing and paddling. Macro feature is good for fly tying shots, too. But it's really lightweight so you may want/need a tripod and use the self-timer for slower shots.
Thwack, LACKS DETAIL???? those look preety darn good to me!
------------------
Wyo-blizzard aka Bloody Tom Bonney
Byron - which one(s) look detailed? The underwater shot (the posted image) is one of my favorites. Macro mode, flash active, great detail! That's the smallest size posted there (to save bandwidth for anybody on a slow connection). There's a much more detailed (bigger) version available if anybody wants to see those nymphs up close and personal.
The barn shot and the early morning shot don't do either scene justice. That barn was taken at a bad time of day (very harsh light) because that's when we passed it on the river. The fog shot was way too early in the morning (sun wasn't really up yet) and only a fraction of the fog got captured.
For the fog shot, I put the camera on a railing that was on one side of a narrow dock over the water so the camera could handle the low light better. Maybe I'm being overly critical but all the shots I've seen from the WP that are "large scale" (the subject and background are spread far apart) aren't as crisp as I expect.
Given that they had to cram the optics inside the camera's frame to keep it water tight (very cool way to do it!), I'm sure they couldn't put high end optics on there (cost also plays a part and the WP is a perfect price for a fishing camera).
I just wouldn't want to rely on it as my only source for scenery shots given the results I've encountered so far (some of which are no doubt my own fault for not being a great photographer of course but I've played with better cameras and have seen a difference).
As I mentioned, I would buy this one again if I lost mine. It's the perfect pocket or vest companion. In my kayak, it oftens sits in one of the molded-in drink holders so I can grab it quickly if needed.
It has very good battery life especially for being so small. Even if I use the screen a bunch for reviewing pics in the field, the battery holds up very respectably.
The barn and the fog picture were both taken on the Fall River in northern California. I have a version of the barn picture where I removed the power lines, the dock, and that truck then cleaned up the barn a bit (and created new background where the truck used to be). Studying that barn picture at that level of detail showed me that the picture is just a little lacking when distance is involved.
Maybe this one is a better example since it's full size (caution, long download if you're on a slow connection):
[url=http://thwack.smugmug.com/photos/40540187-O.jpg:528be]http://thwack.smugmug.com/photos/40540187-O.jpg[/url:528be]
That's me holding my personal best trout caught on a fly last fall. The fish is 16 1/4" according to the guide (the guy in the background).
The camera did a great job of capturing the fish's exposed gill (an old injury) but the texture of my mustache (for example) is soft and the leaves in the background are also a tad weak. I think the texture/detail of my hat should be crisper though I am impressed that the net in the guide's hand is reasonably detailed.
I think that shot was taken using the camera's "green mode" where it should be doing its best automatic work.
I handed it to the other guy in the boat (who I met that morning) and he took a very good shot for having never used that camera before.
Here's another example (this time in macro mode, evening light):
[url=http://thwack.smugmug.com/photos/66655912-S.jpg:528be]http://thwack.smugmug.com/photos/66655912-S.jpg[/url:528be]
At that small size, it looks crisp, but if you change the "S" near the end of that URL to "O" (capital oh for 'original') you'll see the softness I mentioned. There was plenty of light and the camera could've fired the flash if it felt it needed to but didn't.
Focusing in macro mode is tricky, especially if the camera is underwater and you're not. It doesn't necessarily focus on the center of the image (I'll have to check the manual to see if I can force it to next time). As long as the camera is shallow enough that you can tell where on the screen the focus confirmation box went, you're OK.
But if you stick the camera underwater at an angle or depth that doesn't let you see the screen, it's much harder to get what you wanted. To be fair, I don't think any camera in its price range would come close to doing better though (which is part of why I say I'd buy it again if it vanished).
Thwack (or others who've used the Pentax Optio) have you used this camera for any action type shots, especially in low light? I need to replace my Canon Elph, which was stolen a while back. I like the thought of having a waterproof camera. I also use the camera for taking photos while out mountain biking, though. I need something that handles faster shutter speeds at least decently.
Off to go read some reviews on this camera now....
~Matt
Hey there Thwack,
YOU NEED HELP!. Those are GREAT shots even without factoring in the price of the camera. Of course, you're apparently NOT a rank amateur photographer. Composing the scene is 96% of photography and you get an "A" from me on that.
Mark
------------------
I'd rather be in Wyoming!
You may also want to check out the Olympus Stylus 720. Fairly expensive but seems to have a few more features than the Optio WP.........
Awesome pics Thwack.... Thanks for all the info everyone.
------------------
Born to fish forced to work.
Alan
[url=http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B000ARIV7M/ref=olp_product_details/102-7212064-8156954?s=photo&v=glance&n=502394:ab6c3]http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B000ARIV7M/ref=olp_product_details/102-7212064-8156954?s=photo&v=glance&n=502394[/url:ab6c3]
------------------
John G.
Colorado Springs, CO
I would shop around for a better price.
I paid US$ 201 for a Pentax WPi about 3 weeks ago at Prestige camera ( on the Net )
------------------
Knowledge is power ? Nam et ipsa scientia potestas est.
? Sir Francis Bacon (1561-1626)
*************************
The_Sib
I too bought my WPi for &214 + 14.95 shp., on the web thru Broadway Photo and took a bunch of grief for posting their site here. Apparently SOME had read some unfavorable opinions of that vendor but as for me, THEY DELIVERED as promised and FAST.
Mark
------------------
I'd rather be in Wyoming!
I just checked
Prestige $239 w/rebate
Broadway $245 W/rebate
Still sounds well worth it.
------------------
Born to fish forced to work.
Alan
Marco - thanks for the kind words on my pics. I'd try to lighten up on myself a bit but that never seems to work for me. http://www.flyanglersonline.com/bb/icons/icon7.gif
atomic_dog - I've used it for low light shots but never action shots in low light. I've used it in a museum (it has a built in profile for the crummy light typically found in museums) and I've used it after dark.
Here are some sample shots I've taken:
[url=http://thwack.smugmug.com/photos/30483792-M.jpg:b4ff8]Mayan carving[/url:b4ff8]
[url=http://thwack.smugmug.com/photos/30483629-M.jpg:b4ff8]Another Mayan carving[/url:b4ff8]
Those were taken inside the Chicago Field Museum last summer I think. Those pieces are in a display case with a glass front and are maybe an inch or two long.
One cool thing you can do with the WP is press it right up against the glass for shots like this. Since the optics are internal, you're not putting any pressure on the lens this way and focusing works fine.
You don't need to lug along a tripod for shots like that since pressing it against the glass is much more stable than a light weight tripod.
With the camera held super steady like that, you can let the camera go with whatever super long exposure time it wants in order to cope with the crummy light.
I have some night shots taken outside that I can post if you want to see more examples. They're big scenery shots taken from the USS Hornet well after dark (we slept over on it with my son's scout troop). The shots are looking across the bay at the lights of the city.
They're a little grainy/noisy but given how dark it was, I think the camera did well. I set it on the ship's railing for most of the shots and held it against a window rom the bridge I think for one of the others.
[This message has been edited by Thwack (edited 04 May 2006).]
Here's a link to one of my night shots taken with the WP pressed against a window on the bridge of an aircraft carrier at night.
[url=http://thwack.smugmug.com/photos/67804140-L.jpg:5292a]http://thwack.smugmug.com/photos/67804140-L.jpg[/url:5292a]
It's not an action shot but it's probably the best night shot I've taken with that camera.
I agree the price on the link I posted is high. I bought mine for $239 about 4 weeks ago.....since then I have seen this camera being recommended on several fly fishing websites and also watch the price increase to where it is now. The purpose of the link was to show all the data, details, and info regarding the camera. Also don't forget to purchase a SD card for the camera....so you can max out the details, take lot's of pictures and not worry about memory space.
------------------
John G.
Colorado Springs, CO
[This message has been edited by Fishnfool (edited 05 May 2006).]
I have the original "WP". I noticed there's a newer "WPi" now available. The difference is that the newer one is 6 megapixels vs. 5 for the original WP. There are other small differences of course.
Depending on your needs, you might be able to get a better price on the WP...
Gentlemen,
Regarding the WPi, purchased through either of the vendors mentioned, DO NOT buy any of the "upgrades ", SD cards or batteries from them. They WILL try to pad your order with what some consider HIGH pressure. THAT's where they'll get ya. JUst say NO.
Mark
------------------
I'd rather be in Wyoming!