Reading mode: Light Dark

Waterproof Camera Test?

Go to last post
J

joslocum

Senior Member
Messages
2,372
Solutions
2
Reaction score
1,281
Location
US
I generally enjoy all the reviews of cameras on this website but I have to take offense in the most recent "Waterproof Camera Test." The main reason people would purchase a waterproof camera vs. a water resistant camera, and spend the extra bucks, is that they probably want to use it for snorkeling and possibly some scuba diving. The entire extent of the underwater testing was to submerge each camera approx. 2 feet under water in a well lit pool and take a photo of a non-moving person. The rest of the testing was done above ground using their standard tests.

As someone who is a master diver and underwater photographer for many years, this type of testing does not even come close to actual underwater conditions. How they could possibly announce a "winner" in this group is beyond me. Also, the importance of a strobe cannot be overstated when shooting underwater. Once below about 10 feet a flash is required on nearly every shot, particularly if it is a cloudy day or the sun is not directly above the subject.
--
http://www.pbase.com/craigstarn



'You pays your price and you takes your chance.'
 
Starnie said:
I generally enjoy all the reviews of cameras on this website but I have to take offense in the most recent "Waterproof Camera Test." The main reason people would purchase a waterproof camera vs. a water resistant camera, and spend the extra bucks, is that they probably want to use it for snorkeling and possibly some scuba diving. The entire extent of the underwater testing was to submerge each camera approx. 2 feet under water in a well lit pool and take a photo of a non-moving person. The rest of the testing was done above ground using their standard tests.

As someone who is a master diver and underwater photographer for many years, this type of testing does not even come close to actual underwater conditions. How they could possibly announce a "winner" in this group is beyond me. Also, the importance of a strobe cannot be overstated when shooting underwater. Once below about 10 feet a flash is required on nearly every shot, particularly if it is a cloudy day or the sun is not directly above the subject.
--
http://www.pbase.com/craigstarn



'You pays your price and you takes your chance.'
Click to expand...
Don put in for a ticket to the Maldives to do more extensive testing, but I turned him down. If you want a scuba diver's test of cameras I'm sure you can find one, but most of the testing for this review was done in late spring, in London, which doesn't give us much beach opportunity.
SJ

--
Simon Joinson, dpreview.com
 
The testing was appropriate.These are beach cameras. No point in doing a deep dive test, you will never get a decent picture below 10 feet with any of these. The built in flash is useless and they have no facility to use external flash.
--
Did you photoshop that?
 
I think of these cameras as "waterproof" not "underwater." Some are only rated to 10 feet. At best they might be used for shallow snorkeling in clear water and bright sun above. I have the D10 and use it for shooting from the boat while kayaing in whitewater. It does great for this. For real underwater use you probably need a fats lens, wide angle, external flash, and bigger sensor.
 
These are beach cameras, not scuba diving cameras. They are for people who want to take a camera to the beach or pool and not have to worry about it getting wet.

You could take the Canon D10 snorkeling as it is good to 33 ft, but the others at 10 ft max depth would not be appropriate for anything but swimming.

If you want a camera for diving go buy a Nikonos (I have two I can sell you) or buy a housing for your DSLR.

As for flash, I think none are any good underwater as all have the flash mounted too close to the lens.

--

The greatest of mankind's criminals are those who delude themselves into thinking they have done 'the right thing.'
  • Rayna Butler
 
The Canon D10 just came out.

--

The greatest of mankind's criminals are those who delude themselves into thinking they have done 'the right thing.'
  • Rayna Butler
 
I wouldn't be so harsh in my criticism... if anything, perhaps the test put too much emphasis on underwater. For many, like me, the real purpose of these cameras (in my case, the Pentax W60) is the weather/waterproof nature. Not so much to dive underwater, but to enjoy water sports with a camera that can come along for the ride, be available when needed, and not locked away in a dry bag and inaccessible when needed, or in challenging conditions.

I take mine sea kayaking. It fits nicely in a PFD pocket, secured with a cord and carabiner, so it's available all the time without fear of water. It's wonderful for this purpose, and I've created images that would otherwise be impossible, and where (even if I wanted one), a full size camera in a housing just wouldn't work and couldn't reasonably be used.

The W60 is also simply a great, pocketable camera to have along at any time. This also makes it handy for many other adventure sports, where even my usual 'everyday' camera, the wonderful Nikon Coolpix 8400, is too big or inconvenient to have easy access.

Lee
 
I disagree. If these cameras weren't designed to go underwater, and just get wet (from spray or rain) they wouldn't list them as having a depth rating in feet underwater. 2 of the 5 cameras are "rated" to 2 atmospheres (33 ft.). In addition, the Canon D10, according to their own website, suggests that this camera is perfect for scuba diving, snorkeling and surfing. And in my opinion, if the camera is rated for 2 atmospheres it is probably safe for 3 or even 4 atmospheres of depth in water.

But we're getting off topic as usual. My main comment was that more testing in a wet environment should have been undertaken in a "waterproof" test, not just more pictures of the bridge in bright sunlight.

In any case, the point and shoot Canon wins again!

--
http://www.pbase.com/craigstarn



'You pays your price and you takes your chance.'
 
I've read some posts of users that were VERY annoyed because of condensation on the inside of their lens.

A proper test should take care of this phenomenon, because it renders a cam totally useless if it happens.
 
Starnie said:
I disagree. If these cameras weren't designed to go underwater, and just get wet (from spray or rain) they wouldn't list them as having a depth rating in feet underwater. 2 of the 5 cameras are "rated" to 2 atmospheres (33 ft.). In addition, the Canon D10, according to their own website, suggests that this camera is perfect for scuba diving, snorkeling and surfing. And in my opinion, if the camera is rated for 2 atmospheres it is probably safe for 3 or even 4 atmospheres of depth in water.
Click to expand...
I have to disagree with you, despite what the Canon marketing machine may say. These are mainly beach cameras that can get wet. The Canon is just rated deeper than most (the main reason I choose it). But it is not good enough for scuba diving (I was a PADI scuba instructor in the 80's and an avid Nikonos user).

As for surviving 3 or even 4 atmospheres, I would have serious doubts. I suspect the rated 33 ft is close to the limits (another reason I avoided the 10 ft rated cameras).

The ones I looked at do not use O ring seals on the compartment doors, but a press fit flat bit of rubber against the flat surface around the bottom (not side) of the compartment.

Why oh why has Nikon not given us a digital Nikonos?

--

The greatest of mankind's criminals are those who delude themselves into thinking they have done 'the right thing.'
  • Rayna Butler
 
Are you sure it wasn't due to the transition from an air conditioned hotel room to the hot and humid conditions at a beach resort?

--

The greatest of mankind's criminals are those who delude themselves into thinking they have done 'the right thing.'
  • Rayna Butler
 
pianopix said:
I wouldn't be so harsh in my criticism... if anything, perhaps the test put too much emphasis on underwater. For many, like me, the real purpose of these cameras (in my case, the Pentax W60) is the weather/waterproof nature. Not so much to dive underwater, but to enjoy water sports with a camera that can come along for the ride, be available when needed, and not locked away in a dry bag and inaccessible when needed, or in challenging conditions.
Click to expand...
I think this sums up the intended use of these cameras perfectly.

They are not digital Nikonos' regardless of what people may wish. Now if only Nikon will wake up and issue a digital Nikonos for the scuba crowd.

--

The greatest of mankind's criminals are those who delude themselves into thinking they have done 'the right thing.'
  • Rayna Butler
 
J1000 said:
Please, HD video makes other cameras obsolete? These are billed as cameras, not video cameras.
Click to expand...
Please. These are point-n-shoots. You want to get snobby about "cameras" go hang out in the 5DII forum. The value of HD video in a point-n-shoot is immeasurable if you have kids. If you need 10 meters depth, sure, get the Canon.
 
Based upon that thread, it would appear to be AC related.

My solution to such things is to NOT keep the camera in an AC'ed space. In miost hotels the bathroom is not AC'ed. So storing the camera in the bathroom at all times will reduce the chances of condesation, especially in tropical climates.

--

The greatest of mankind's criminals are those who delude themselves into thinking they have done 'the right thing.'
  • Rayna Butler
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top