davids8560: Just curious. What kind of rigs did Jacques Costeau use? Anybody else around here old enough to remember him? Would you say that he was just a "celebrity oceanographer" or a true, actual innovative underwater photographer, too? Or both, of course, if it's so. I imagine he had a team of photographers and cinematographers working for him. Maybe they deserve the real credit. But I dunno. Just wonderin'!
The very first Nikonos was called Calypsophot, so you know who conceived the thing. It was made in 1960, and had all sorts of problems with film transport, but none with the sealing. When the Japanese bought the patent, they named the next model Nikonos (1963). And so on. To this day they have made five models:Nikonos II, very similar to Calypsophot, but with film transport solved...Nikonos III, IMHO the very best among all the mechanical models...Nikonos IVa, with built-in light metering and dedicated flash unit, but with o-ring on the main door stupidized beyond imagination...Nikonos V, with corrected seal system...Nikonos RS, a TTL camera which was an attempt to bring SLR underwater without a housing. Outrageously overpriced, nigh impossible to mantain in the field, and without any chance to see through the lens (considering the dark ambient), did nothing to better the underwater photography.And after all the experience, they still can't produce a proper u/w camera again.
MarkByland: They just released the Df. Why not release a Digital Nikonos or Dn?
With due respect, none of the above. All the construction problems have been solved long ago, and millions of divers were very happy with what Nikon was then able to do. Besides, as the mechanical cameras are much costlier to produce than the electronic ones, there really is no excuse for Nikon... other than an idea that they can perhaps push contemporary half-products with risky sealings to more people.They can easily make Nikonos III and/or V in the digital version, and use the casings of four existing lenses to house more modern glass, but someone there simply does not want to do it.Maybe it is because they'd last too long, who can tell?
Dave Ingraham: @Jeff: Do you think that putting a very tiny bit of the included silicon grease around the edges of the 2 port doors would be a good idea, or not? I purchased the AW1 primarily for outdoor rugged use (mountain biking/snowboarding) but the family is going to Cabo for Christmas, and while I'm not a diver, but I'm sure it will see some underwater use while we're there.
Check very carefully whether Nikon allows the use of grease with contact / battery hatch seals! These are sometimes made of another material, and unlike usual o-rings, can't stand the grease. At least not for long, before deforming, and staying that way (no more elasticity).Greasing the o-rings does not help with the actual sealing, it merely aids o-rings to move within their groove and so symmetrically adapt to pressure difference. Since the gaskets used in most of today's amphibious cameras do not seal by o-ring principle, the grease will more likely be a problem than the solution.
OldArrow: In short, it's a half-job again. While it is hard to imagine anything but an o-ring seal on the lens mount, the compartments (two, to double the risk) still close via funny gummy gaskets which are unreliable by default, since these depend upon hatch locking mechanism. For less money and easier construction, Nikon could have used a single access hatch sealed by another o-ring.This, along with some body shape thinking, and using command elements other than sealed push pins (reed switches / magnets would be best) could have set the camera a bit higher toward Nikonos which cost about the same but offered a lot more depth autonomy and water-resistance reliability.Nikon could also have used the Nikonos lens mount with this model, and used the elements housing for more modern glass. Having the o-ring exposed with dry-land lenses is also wrong, and whenever the camera is used with such optics I'd suggest the removal of the ring.
@How... Even the Nikonos III casing would be good for the purpose! The only thing needed would be making the outer shell in Perspex, so as to be able to see the monitor inside. The upper part could have an IR strobe sync instead of cable plug which was on the underside, and even the old lens tubes could be equipped with new AF glass.But Nik V would be really the model to convert, since only the back door should be redesigned; the rest of the case is excellent, has more than sufficient place for all the electronics, and a huge battery as well.The most difficult part is seemingly in making Nikon (and others) realise there is actually a HUGE market waiting for such a camera. That is something that ordinary dry-land-only photographers do not see, but I wonder how come Nikon forgot it.As I see it, using Nik V tools and knowlege would be the simplest solution, production-wise. But then again, who would listen to me? :) Somehow, it's easier to re-invent the invented... Weird...
Nuno Souto: Macro is one of my passions for underwater photography. Used to take a Nikonos for that, now I take a TG1.Is there a way to produce/take underwater macro shots with this camera and available lenses?
@mrc4nl... There is no problem with water entering the space between lens port and the add-on lens, actually. It will somewhat change the optical characteristics, since air and water indexes differ, but generally you might just notice slightly lesser effect than nominal. As a natter of fact, water SHOULD be allowed there, so as to avoid pressure-related problems, and all water add-on lenses are made to allow it.I was thinking of one-element add-on lens, of course, not a converter constructed in lens groups with air-filled gaps. Such lenses I have used extesively with various Nikonos lenses, and never had any problems. These needed proper washing and cleaning after sea-water use, but their (aluminum) frames never showed any corrosion whatsoever.
As long as you can find any among its UW lenses with a filter thread, the simplest thing would be to add on 10x lens to the front. But there is no data anywhere that those lenses are filter-threaded.Something can be improvised with such lenses, though, by arranging the lens position by means of some L-shaped piece fixed to the tripod bush...
@HowAboutRaw... I read about the cover ring, of course, and that I see as an afterthought, since they decided to put the ring with the casing. Had Nikon put the o-ring over the lens mount, it would be protected by every lens cap, the way it was with Nikonos.Anyway, the short and long story, there is still no diving camera to have, merely another snorkeling camera with wrong sealing on all the other places. In the meantime, the Nikonos V casing is screaming at them to build the digital innards within, and then add whatever new lens they please - plus all the old, excellently made glass. Since electronics are so much cheaper than mechanical parts, this solution should not cost a cent over the prior Nikonos V... and that, then, would be exactly what the market lacks.As for sailing, snorkeling etc...I agree, it is good, better than many other amphibious camera.
Kuvasauna: PA-N1000 O-Ring protector WAS in the box
Any camera or casing that uses o-ring (which has to be greased) is better off with o-rings removed when not using the u/w setup, since the grease is magnet for dust, sand, or other kind of dirt.Anyway, if the o-ring gets dirty, it can't be merely wiped clean in its position. The procedure requires taking it out of its groove, and then proper cleaning of both, along with re-greasing. O-rings move and adapt to pressure changes, and if any kind of dirt is moved with it, it will eventually end up breaking the seal. There is no way to avoid proper cleaning / lubricating before setting the camera under pressure, otherwise disasters get invited...
groucher: Good review but please DPR stop referring to this camera as an 'underwater camera'. It is far more than that. Anyone with an interest in outdoor activities from caving to mountaineering and everything in between could be interested in this camera whilst 60 fps makes it the ideal camera for ball game photography and birding, particularly in the soggy UK. Wish I had one to photograph today's storm.
The AW1 desperately needs a viewfinder though. Using a rear display in harsh conditions is difficult.
I'd kind of agree with that. An "underwater camera" would be the one that divers could use, thus able to operate at much greater pressures.These types of cameras are better named "amphibious" or "submersible", to distinguish them from "water-protected", which can merely withstand getting wet in normal use, but mustn't be immersed.As for the lens, battery, card change... the usual procedure with all sealed casings to dry them as well as one can before breaking any seal, and always open the hatch (or lens mount) pointing downwards, to evade drops seeping inside. With o-rings, since it comprises pulling the removable part out of the sealing space, it should be done slowly and carefully, as the maneuver creates a slight under-pressure in the case, and it can suck in some water droplets. It's a routine everyone easily adopts, it just takes some concentration and care.
In short, it's a half-job again. While it is hard to imagine anything but an o-ring seal on the lens mount, the compartments (two, to double the risk) still close via funny gummy gaskets which are unreliable by default, since these depend upon hatch locking mechanism. For less money and easier construction, Nikon could have used a single access hatch sealed by another o-ring.This, along with some body shape thinking, and using command elements other than sealed push pins (reed switches / magnets would be best) could have set the camera a bit higher toward Nikonos which cost about the same but offered a lot more depth autonomy and water-resistance reliability.Nikon could also have used the Nikonos lens mount with this model, and used the elements housing for more modern glass. Having the o-ring exposed with dry-land lenses is also wrong, and whenever the camera is used with such optics I'd suggest the removal of the ring.
There are so many people unable to snap off a sensible street photo even with the latest tech available, and here we see what can be done with old glass and a bit of duct tape. One can rarely see a better example of the basic truth in photography: it was, it is, and alway will be 90% author and 10% equipment.
sebastian huvenaars: Imagine this scenario in 1983.
Photographer has a dark room at his house but needs to pay every month to get access to it.
Sound too unrealistic to be true, but here we are in 2013...
Some of us have adapted the bathroom corner for this purpose, and it was quite practical. Also, free.Thus, try GIMP...
snegron2: I truly hope some other editing program with similar features comes out quick. I never updated from CS2 and now I'm stuck with it as upgrading will mean having to go to Windows 7 (at least) from XP.
When Adobe announced it was going their cloud plan I purchased ACDSee Pro 6 and ACDSee Photo Editor 6. In theory ACDSee was a good choice, but I have had nothing but problems with it (XP freezes up constantly to the point that I can barely edit one picture before total freeze up). Of course, ACDSee now wants me to pay to upgrade to their "7" version, but I am disappointed with them.
I'm holding out for something better. A stand alone photo editing program with at least the features I have with my old CS2.
Actually, a v.7 works smoother that v.6, and also noticeably quicker both with XP and Win 7.And if you want a good alternative to PS, try GIMP (v.2.8.#) but take care to download from their site http://www.gimp.org/ , since many other sites, including SourceForge, repack it in manipulated installers. Read the warning about this on their page.
GaryJP: They are not reducing their prices or expanding this offer out of kindness. Think, people.
I am not renting my software.
Nice future indeed. Car Hackers is going to be quite a lucrative field... :(
ThePhilips: Judging by the mix of cameras on the list, the "enthusiast camera" moniker meaning less and less.
Inclusion of the Pentax on the list is rather unexpected. Sad to see system sliding into obsolescence. But IMO in 2013 and forward, with such limited lens catalog, having just lost 3rd party lens manuf support, and no video, the Pentax simply has no place on the list among the mainstream cameras today. Sad, but true.
NEX-7 and Fuji X-Pro1 are also oddballs on the list. IMO they are not proper "enthusiast cameras", but "enthusiast's second cameras". And that deserves its own category. Many own two systems this days, and choice of second system is important too. I think "Best enthusiast cam to go with your Canon/Nikon DSLR" might be two interesting topics (one for Canon, one for Nikon).
So who is exactly "enthusiast"? Someone interested in photography, happy making photos, and willing to invest in bettering the results, and not only gear? I'd say anyone who isn't enthusiast is not a photographer. That would include those who think the cameras make photos, and there is no need to expand their knowlege. For those, amateurs or pros, photography will always be the wrong activity.As regards gear, the choice is (as it always was) dependent upon the kind of photos one wants to make, and within that, one's personal financial reach. But enthusiasm will always be the "spiritus movens", or there will be no results worth seeing, whatever the camera.
APenza: I think it's a great deal for anyone that has never bought and owned older or no versions of PS or LR before. For $9.99 a month, or the cost of a sandwich in NY, I'll take it.
A sandwich in NY really costs ten bucks? Earlier, someone compared $9.99 with the price of three beers... It's a kind of relief on a small scale. Where I live, $10 is what we'd pay for a complete lunch for two, and 1 liter of best local beer would be a tad less than $1.5...The point is, it is perhaps not so much the question of affordability, rather the sense of paying it, considering all the other programs, and also not forgetting the constant morphing of manufacturer's attitude...
TwoMetreBill: By pumeco "Yes indeed, alternatives, paid or free - just alternatives"
What alternative is there to Lightroom? Nothing compares at any price. Though Aperture is almost there, Apple's approach to removing features from their photo and video apps with each new release makes that a silly option.
I'd say, take a good look at ACDSee Pro, and especially the Family pricing offer. If you want a capable, fast, stable, and adaptable photo editor with plenty of useful tools, you might find it reliably replaces much bigger and more expensive programs.
When the transistor radios first became available, they cost an arm and a leg, as their portability and size pushed away those stationary 20-pound wooden boxes and lamps. Not too many years after that, you could find tiny, cheap portable radios inside detergent boxes... Manufacturers of "white powder" attempting to make sure you'd go and buy their product again.So, seeing that trend repeated with cheap P&S cameras, and also some glorified software included on their memory cards wouldn't surprise me much...In the meantime, many freeware photo editors are getting ever better, and many people are ready to forget a grand name if they can do equally well with something cheaper or even entirely free. Of course, they'll still call the process "photoshopping" for no additional cost.
Septuagent2: Anyone who can understand the menu of a digital camera is a genius - ego - Allison Johnson is a genius. Do they make a digital version of a box brownie ?
Yes. Any camera set to "A".
This is, in short, one very nice camera. Disregarding die-hard DSLR users, and also those which offer critical views without experience, I think we can agree that the best camera is the one that doesn't stay home. And big system cameras often stay home for various reasons: weather, weight, risk of theft, or something similar.Considering a compact camera size, the term "pocketability" should undergo some closer definition. Which pocket is meant? Jeans coin/lighter or back pocket? Shirt pocket? All those cameras will surely fit windbreaker pocket, and any army-style jacket can partly accomodate even smaller DSLRs, not to speak of many a superzoom bridge model. Same goes for belt pokes.So what's in the pocketability? Not much. Real photographers will take good photos with any camera (knowing their limitations), and others will botch with just about any size models anyway. A camera is, and always will remain, just a tool. The photos are the purpose.
Get a weekly update of all that's new in the digital
photography world by subscribing to the Digital Photography Review