kelpdiver wrote:
bartjeej wrote:
Snort... I think you havent been paying attention. "31mm is hardly versatile above water" lol... Fun challenge: name me one fixed focal length camera which is not an action camera or made by Sigma, with a focal length other than 28mm equivalent, 35mm equivalent, or inbetween.
And all of them are narrow niche markets, populated with a lot of nostalgia for times when you had no choice, and some zealotry around the superiority of the fixed lens.
If you had to be restricted to a fixed lens, then yes, in the 30s is where you'd likely want to be. But YOU DON'T HAVE TO BE RESTRICTED. That's the point! (If you really prefer fixed lenses, that's what ILCs are for)
If the focal length / sensor size / aperture combination you want exists in a compact camera, i dont see the need to go for an ILC. I did plenty of holidays with just my X100, and was happy with the single focal length. Also very happy with it fitting in my jacket or cargo pants pocket, unlike most ILCs to tue extent that they even have a comparable lens (only Canons 22mm f/2 for the EOS M system comes close).
I am only a novice scuba diver with open water license so the 18m rating suits me to a T. The 5 second delay is what has kept me from buying the SeaLife - everything else strikes me as exactly what I need. Although I'd like it even better if they added OIS, and went the Sigma route and did a range of cameras with different focal lengths.
when you see devices that claim to be waterproof* (with the usual legal weasel language) to 20, 30, 50 ft, you probably shouldn't be going to that depth. Those ratings are for static pressure, and a diver or snorkel imposes dynamic pressure. 50m rated watches are useless for divers as a consequence, even though well beyond the recreational limit.
Well, I know from experience that my Suunto Core does just fine at 18m depth... Nowhere newr 50, obviously, but it was a nice confirmation nonetheless
I wouldn't presume that you would hold to that 18m rating when a manta swims by and drifts down another 6m very casually. Photogs find themselves pushing their nitrox limits without intent all the time when pursuing subjects in the open blue. There's also nothing scary about the difference between 60 and 100ft - I just encourage you to gradually explore the deeper depths so you get a good feel for what this does to your air consumption and the impacts of narcosis. The latter shows itself as you shift from 30-40+m - tunnel vision develops and your brain has trouble with multitasking.
So far I've only been on dives with instructor or guide present so I've stuck to the 18m limit fastidiously, but yes, i can see that happening when you see something cool, especially since by 18m you're indeed beyond the point where a few meters makes a massive difference to your body... But isn't the same true for cameras?
I would use the DC2000 or the TG to 30ft, otherwise I'll put them in true housings. I've seen more than a few of this class of camera sitting on the sandy bottoms, flooded. Tiny elongated doors make for fiddly orings. Clamshell cases with one big oring are nearly bulletproof.
OIS, btw, is really unnecessary for a 31mm focal length. Rare that there would be a case for 1/10th or 1/15th shutter speeds.
For showing flowing water (not underwater obviously, more in the canyoning scenario) or very low light (cave with headtorch), I will take all the stabilisation i can get
One of the other 1" sensor camera manufacturers making a natively waterproof version of their fast lens zooms would float my boat as well, though... Just keep it more compact than the hideously clumsy housings that exist for them now. Yes, underwater it is fine, but when canyoning or spelunking I'd also appreciate a high quality waterproof camera, that is actually compact
Do you find yourself spelunking or canyoning often? Or is this like Americans buying SUVs and never leaving the pavement, but always wanting to be able to? But both of those are environments where a versatile focal length is essential. You're bound to the ropes or the path.
Depending on the fragility and risks, some less frequented caves have a lot of room for roaming about, i follow the guide's advice. But yes, flexibility is nice. If, for a given size, I have to choose between a well judged fixed focal length with a larger sensor or a zoom lens with smaller sensor, i do prefer the former.
Regarding frequency: not regularly, for sure, but these are the kind of trips i save up for - and that i try to orient my gear towards. Caves, jungles with frequent river crossings, deserts... All environments where a small water- and dustproof camera with high quality comes in handier than a large housing, or a more delicate camera (even an Olympus OM-D or similar) that needs to be taken out of a protective bag first when an opportunity presents itself.
You want wider than 30some mm to get the shots of the participants, and you want the length to capture scenes not right next to you. But if you want very compact and you want zoom, you give up the larger sensor. It's not that big a set back - billions are getting by with cell phone cameras.
For $200, the DC2000 is a decent buy. Especially if you are just starting UW, or only expect to use it 10 dives a year, like so many. My first big rig was a Canon 20D at a time when the 50D was current. I got it quite cheap (relatively speaking) and got 7 years use of it before wanting live view and a bigger, sharper LCD. Most people use the Hero as a cheap entry point.
But for list price (700), the DC2000 is a terrible decision when so many better, newer ones are out there. The Hero7 is the cheaper, more compact, more versatile answer. The TG-6 is still slightly cheaper, does much better macro and video, and can actually take a decent lighting system. The other 1" models will cost more to house, but will perform significantly better, and the ceiling on what they can deliver is substantially higher. If you decide that there is a max heft you're willing to carry, you could stay with one of these models for a decade. (Finding someone's consignment sale for a 2018 model could be the best middle ground)
Regarding the gopro type cameras: my reason for bringing something other than a phone in the first place is to get shots that I'd like to print Big. Gopro is too distorted and difficult to compose with, small sensor compacts only deliver nice quality in good light. I find 1" sensors the lower limit for the kind of dependable image quality I'm after. Phones, so far, don't cut it yet for large prints, but do fine for web sharing. A Sony RX0 with a faster lens would start to get close: I wouldn't mind it being a bit bigger and having a usable screen to compose with, though.
Or SeaLife could just get its processing power / firmware in order and speed up the DC2000. As it is, indeed, not worth the MSRP for me.
Yes, I am difficult. But i dont think i am unique in my wishes...
