Waterproof camera options for diving

[jeremy h]

As compuwar says if you're relatively inexperienced take it very steady. Do some dives initially without the camera (or leave it in a bc pocket and forget about it) - get used to the group and the pace they dive with to start with.

Also don't whatever you do get fixated on taking pictures rather than diving - you can miss so much that way particularly if you can only go every couple of years!

But do make sure you take it if you go snorkeling between dives - you'll probably get better pictures than when diving!

 

[mmoto]

Note there is a very current thread on wetpixel.com titled "Canon D10 deepest depth?"

There is quite a bit of info to be found in the Consumer Digicams/Housings section.

-Brad

 

[Jaro65]

Sorry, but the physics just don't work that way. Losing color has nothing to do with plankton or anything else- particulate in the water will affect backscatter with a flash and to some extent visibility but overall, you lose the same wavelengths of color at the same depths in any water with visibility greater than the depth at which you lose the color- that is to say you lose red at the same depth in water with 30' of visibility as you do in water with 120' of visibility despite being able to see 4x as far- Go down 15' and you'll have no red in either case. If you want to see the effect, take a look at any professional dive video shot on any reef system- you'll see the colors appear as the underwater lights hit elements of the reef or fish- anything in the background will be a blue-ish haze until it's hit by the light where it regains the colors and contrast you'd expect to see.

In two more months, my C-card will be old enough to drink.

Paul

Paul, I hope OP doesn't mind us diverting the topic of his thread a bit here. I enjoyed reading your post and appreciate and respect your opinion. You mention how the red color is the first one that starts to disappear with depth, and it is true. In the years that I've spent in commercial diving, I always wore a red drysuit. It was a common knowledge among my colleagues that once you worked in a specific type of water (anywhere north of Washington and south of Alaska, in this case), you would actually be able to tell relatively accurately how deep you are based on the colors. After many hundreds of dives in the area, I knew almost exactly what hue of red my drysuit will be at 30ft, as compared to 50 or 80ft. In fact, when working on slopes, I frequently estimated my depth based on a quick glance at my sleeves.

If you have also done some diving in the tropics, then you will simply know that the color doesn't disappear nearly as quickly there. You can be deeper than 30ft in tropical waters and still have basically a full color palette and plenty of vibrant colors around you, which is simply not going to happen in the waters that are more rich in plankton. As you probably know, the biggest culprit here is the phytoplankton, which is very effective in filtering the reds (zooplankton will mostly only affect the visibility). The tropical waters, which are nutritionally very poor and essentially plankton free, will retain their colors to a greater depth as compared to waters containing the plankton.


Plan you dive; dive your plan!


Cheers,
Jerry

 

[Jaro65]

As an avid underwater photographer who shoots housed SLR's I'd say that the advice you've received on this thread is comprehensive and correct. I will add a couple suggestions however:
1) If you don't intend to spend $500+ on a strobe+arm setup than you should avoid flash most of the time. The on board flash will only add backscatter due to its proximity to the lens. Try to find some way to add red/orange filter and shoot only between 10 and 30 feet deep.
see www.magic-filters.com
2) The forum for underwater photo is www.wetpixel.com
Take a look at Backscatter.com (no affiliation). They have a housing finder function on their site in case you decide to go that route. They also rent underwater cameras.

Have fun in Hawaii. Turtles and Whitetip Reef Sharks are my favorite subjects there. Of course Manta's are exciting if you are on the big island.

-Brad

You can also sometimes see Manta Rays off Molokini. They look absolutely stunning coming out of the deep blue. They're such graceful animals.

 

[Grimace]

I fully endorse diverging topics, as this is an area that isn't discussed very frequently here -- we're all learning.

The Panasonic Lumix DMC-TS2 was released a couple of weeks ago (shipping just before I leave in March and may provide an additional option. Still 10M of depth, but HD video and a slimmer form factor.

There have been a slew of consumer cameras released at trade shows in the past month so I'll see what pans out in the next few weeks and then make a purchase. My goal is to dive, and maybe take a few shots along the way - snorkeling is also on the agenda with the gf who may not want to be submerged as long as me!

 

[mmoto]

I fully endorse diverging topics, as this is an area that isn't discussed very frequently here -- we're all learning.

By the way- I know you are not going this route but...
The Canon 5DMII + 16-35/f2.8 lens mentioned in your sig is great underwater. Late last year I spent a couple weeks in the Maldives shooting Manta's from a liveaboard boat. Roughly half the guests were shooting that setup. The wide-angle video of 100+ Mantas circling was something to behold.

-Brad

 

[compuwar]

Paul, I hope OP doesn't mind us diverting the topic of his thread a bit here. I enjoyed reading your post and appreciate and respect your opinion. You mention how the red color is the first one that starts to disappear with depth, and it is true. In the years that I've spent in commercial diving, I always wore a red drysuit. It was a common knowledge among my colleagues that once you worked in a specific type of water (anywhere north of Washington and south of Alaska, in this case), you would actually be able to tell relatively accurately how deep you are based on the colors. After many hundreds of dives in the area, I knew almost exactly what hue of red my drysuit will be at 30ft, as compared to 50 or 80ft. In fact, when working on slopes, I frequently estimated my depth based on a quick glance at my sleeves.

Interesting/cool use of the light!

If you have also done some diving in the tropics, then you will simply know that the color doesn't disappear nearly as quickly there. You can be deeper than 30ft in tropical waters and still have basically a full color palette and plenty of vibrant colors around you, which is simply not going to happen in the waters that are more rich in plankton.

You still lose red at 15', even in clear tropical waters. I've seen it mostly diving off of Bonaire, which is one of the best dive destinations I can think of- you can shore dive for weeks and never get bored and never get on a boat- around most of the island the shore leads to about 35' of reef slope in less than 100', then it goes down to a wall with a ledges in places at about 45, 60, and 120- that's as far down as I went.

If you remember the old "Sea Fans" video magazine (you know, on those big funky tape things?) they dove some of the clearest waters in the world, and you could still see the colors "appear" as the video lights got closer and closer to the objects. I wish I still had my collection of tapes...

Your eyes are much more adaptive to color than you think- which is why white balance is important in photography/videography- take a camera down to 15' and shoot a red coral or sponge and you'll see what I mean. Or take a picture of your red drysuit at 10, 15 and 30 feet from the camera or at 10, 15 and 30 feet from the surface with no extra light. At 15' away, your red dry suit is going to look brown, even in 5' of seawater.

The physics are that the water acts as a cyan filter- that's why it doesn't matter if it's horizontal or vertical- it's not the light's penetration, it's the physics of the color changes due to filtration at 15 feet you're going to lose red, at 30 orange, at 60 yellow at 80 green... You can counter some of the loss with a camera that will let you manually white balance and a clean slate- I'm pretty sure the Sea & Sea cameras allow this.

[Edit: I worded that poorly- it's penetration due to filtration, not really the intensity- as the effects of the intensity are miniscule in terms of change.]
Here's a good article:

http://www.ephotozine.com/article/Underwater-photography---absorbing-colours-4625

Sure, you'll get a little difference based on the color of the water- but once you're at 15' it really doesn't matter except in a clear spring AFAIK.

Paul

 

[Jaro65]

The most important thing, as was already wisely advised to you, is for you to be safe. It is easy to get distracted with photography even if you're pretty experienced. Your Dive Masters will undoubtedly point you in the right direction though.

The Lumix doesn't look bad. You can only take it down to 10m, so be careful with it when diving with tanks.

 

[compuwar]

You can only take it down to 10m, so be careful with it when diving with tanks.

Diving with tanks looks cool...

http://www.bbscuba.com/divesites/maui-dive-sites/dive-sites/tank-and-landing-craft


Paul

 

[ChrisA]

Hi gang.

I am going to Hawaii in a few weeks and want to take some underwater photos and possible some videos. ?

You will need a "REAL" diving camera. And even then by complely paranoid about getting even a spec of sand or hair in the o-ring. One hair can flood a camera. Never open the housing excep in a clean and dry environment with good light.

Buy yher camera weeks or months before your trip and drive with it in local waters. It takes quite a bit of dive, at aleast a dozen dives to become famiar with U/W photography. First off it is very surprizing how close yu have to get to the subject.

The other thing you find is that other non-photographer divers hate diving with photographers. Photographers tend to dilly nally around and not move much and spend 5 minutes on one little fish. Those without cameras tend to like to move around more.
Also you kind of have the problem of "buddy what buddy?" because you haed is in the view finder. When both have camera you are risk of having two solo dives.

So what I'm saying is to get used to the camera and diving with one and photo-tyle buddy comminication is you own ultra-famiar waters.

But of course YOU don't think there is anything worth shooting near your home. But no, I'm sure I've not seen whatever is there (unless you happen to live near me In california.

If yu can't buy a good housed U/W camera month or so before the trip, just rent a very simple point and shoot. But don't expect great results untill you've had time to learn just how close you have to be, arms length at most for most subjects.

How to buy? That is easy FIND THE HOUSING FIRST then buy whatever camera fits i thehousing you happen to like. Sounds backwards untill you see that (1) yu interact only with the housing and (2) Housing are expensive and not made for every camera.

 

[Grimace]

You will need a "REAL" diving camera. And even then by complely paranoid about getting even a spec of sand or hair in the o-ring. One hair can flood a camera. Never open the housing excep in a clean and dry environment with good light.

Buy yher camera weeks or months before your trip and drive with it in local waters. It takes quite a bit of dive, at aleast a dozen dives to become famiar with U/W photography. First off it is very surprizing how close yu have to get to the subject.

The other thing you find is that other non-photographer divers hate diving with photographers. Photographers tend to dilly nally around and not move much and spend 5 minutes on one little fish. Those without cameras tend to like to move around more.
Also you kind of have the problem of "buddy what buddy?" because you haed is in the view finder. When both have camera you are risk of having two solo dives.

So what I'm saying is to get used to the camera and diving with one and photo-tyle buddy comminication is you own ultra-famiar waters.

But of course YOU don't think there is anything worth shooting near your home. But no, I'm sure I've not seen whatever is there (unless you happen to live near me In california.

If yu can't buy a good housed U/W camera month or so before the trip, just rent a very simple point and shoot. But don't expect great results untill you've had time to learn just how close you have to be, arms length at most for most subjects.

How to buy? That is easy FIND THE HOUSING FIRST then buy whatever camera fits i thehousing you happen to like. Sounds backwards untill you see that (1) yu interact only with the housing and (2) Housing are expensive and not made for every camera.

Hey ChrisA, maybe you didn't read my other posts, so I'll recap:

1. I have done enough dives before to be safe; and I'm diving with a group of 6-8 people
2. I have used under water cameras on those dives, down to 50ft
3. While I am experienced with pro gear, that isn't what I want/need.

To make an [un]clear analogy, I'm like the guy looking for a Canon G11 that people try to convince into buying a 50D. I don't need a throwaway underwater camera, but I also don't need bulk, complexity, or have it be pricey (above $400). If it's above that, I'm not interested -- it really is just a novelty thing, even coming from a guy who has shot with pro glass.

I'm very content to see how the next few weeks of releases plays out (every Feb/March has a lot of fun new stuff in this category) and then assess my options. It looks like the new Panasonic Lumix DMC-TS2 or the Canon D10. Both do exactly what I need with minimum fuss. I don't want to mess with housings etc. The only downside is lighting, but that correlates to depth, which is also limited to 33 feet. That is totally fine with me. I will take it snorkeling with my gf, and on shallow dives to see some turtles -- I'm a happy camper otherwise!

Thanks everyone for all your help and resource suggestions -- this has been a fantastic thread for learning about underwater photography!!

 

[Jaro65]

Diving with tanks looks cool...

http://www.bbscuba.com/divesites/maui-dive-sites/dive-sites/tank-and-landing-craft


Paul

Well, what an active thread we have here! It almost keeps me from doing something productive.

And thanks for the link. I actually didn't think of interpreting it in that way! Funny how it works.

You're absolutely right Paul about the fact that water will impact the color profile of your photographs. I don't see how one could argue that. At pretty much any depth (other than just snorkeling) the use of an artificial light source will produce superior colors. From the OPs perspective though, the photos that he will be able to take with his camera should contain plenty of color. Will the white balance be set right? That's unlikely, but looking at his gear, I have no doubt that he also owns some good post-processing s/w. Adjusting the white balance and or individual colors shouldn't be an issue for him. I just love what you can do now with all the technology that is available to us, don't you? When I compare that to what I was starting with (see attached), it pretty much leaves me speechless.

 

[jeremy h]

Blimey! Is that a Nikonos Calypso? You'll be telling us you still use an Orca Skinny Dipper computer next... I took a Nikonos with me to the red sea quite a long time ago and came back with around 100 slides of well, just reef and blue water - by the time I'd finished fiddling around consulting the slate, guessing the exposure and setting the strobe etc the fish had long since moved out of the frame... I'm always amazed at how good the results are from modern housed compacts in comparison!

 

[ChrisA]

1. I have done enough dives before to be safe; and I'm diving with a group of 6-8 people
2. I have used under water cameras on those dives, down to 50ft
3. While I am experienced with pro gear, that isn't what I want/need.

To make an [un]clear analogy, I'm like the guy looking for a Canon G11 that people try to convince into buying a 50D. I don't need a throwaway underwater camera, but I also don't need bulk, complexity, or have it be pricey (above $400). If it's above that, I'm not interested -- it really is just a novelty thing, even coming from a guy who has shot with pro glass.

"enough dives before to be safe". I wonder what that means? three dozen or three thousand. I was always trained to ask "How many drives in the last six months?" But I'll take your word for it. But when I hear abut someone buying equipment just before a vacation I just assume it's a "vaction diver" who only dives a couple times a year.
I've been at it a while too, got a big stack of cards from nuai, padi and some others. At one time for over a year straight I was diving three days a week, then I cut back to two.

I've got a bunch of cameras. I think for what you want, what I said still applies. Find a housing you like. Sony and Canon both make very nice housing for theeeir respective P&S cameras that work very well to about 100 feet or 130 (they make both ratings) They cost about $150 to $180 and then you put a $250 camera inside. Quality is OK and can even handle getting pounded when the own makes an un-skilled entry or exist in the california surf. The next thing to concider, a spet up un price and quality is an Ikelite housing.

If you buy a housing for a P&S camera that has been on the market a while then you have a good supply of eBay cameras for when the housing floods. Some ofthe low cost Canon housing can even be fitted with wet mount lens attachmnets, but then there goes the "low cost part"

 

[John.B]

For underwater photography, I'm currently using a Canon G10 and the WP-DC28 housing. I'll be "upgrading" to either the G11 and WP-DC34 housing or maybe the S90 and the WP-DC35 housing. If I wasn't using an external underwater strobe I might be more tempted with the G11, using the S90's built-in flash I'm not sure the battery would last a double-dip dive.

Speaking of which, in clear waters the diffusers on the Canon housings are good enough for close-up shooting (between 1 and 3 feet) with the on-camera flash and, in that case, you can generally get away with auto WB because there isn't enough water between the camera and subject to affect the shot.

For ambient light shots beyond about three feet (from you to the subject) the on-camera flash is worthless, maybe even less than worthless, as it just lights up the particulate matter. Also, white balance becomes a critical issue. PADI makes a cheap white balance slate (just a flexible plastic-y card) with known values of red/green/blue/yellow bars down the side. If you are shooting JPEG with ambient light it is critical to evaluate the white balance for every time you change depth or lighting. Too much detail gets thrown out converting to an in-camera JPEG to make large corrections later in PP.

For as much as Canon offers underwater housings for a number of P&S cameras (N.B. but not all!), the button-pressing process of going back and forth from ambient light (turn off flash, set camera mode to normal, evaluate white balance) to close up (turn on flash, set white balance to auto or pick a temperature, and turn on macro mode) is a frustrating experience; you'll be setup to shoot a seahorse right when an eagle ray swims past.

Even shooting raw, evaluating white balance will give you a better starting point, but instead I just take pictures of the slate periodically so I can have good white/red/green/blue/yellow values to work from inside Lightroom or Aperture. And the cheaper cameras (like ones you might rent) may not shoot raw.

OBTW, the Ikelite housings are probably better than the Canon's (they certainly they have better depth ratings) but the Ikelites are much bulkier and also more expensive. The Ikelite 6146.11 housing for the G11 costs more than the camera (not unheard of with underwater photography) but you get eTTL control of external strobes right on the camera housing. If I'm shooting with strobes I'm more likely to be in manual and just adjust the strobe power manually as well. But a housing and two strobes wind up being a lot of bulk to deal with on a dive; a lot of times I'll leave the strobes behind esp. if I'm somewhere with small critters vs. larger marine animals or diving a wreck.

Lastly, unless your buoyancy is spot on (and even then) you'll find that you'll be all over the water column when you concentrate on the camera. Make sure you are aware of what's around you and esp. under you. No shot is worth killing a marine creature and that especially applies to coral. For this reason I'd prefer to see someone wait until sometime around their 100th dive before they start underwater photography.

Edit: Also another great resource would be the underwater photography forums on Scubaboard.

 

[Maxxamillian]

Diver here--some thoughts (bear with me): Dove with some friends off of Cayman Brac and Little Cayman. The gal that brought the camera was so engrossed in getting pictures that she missed a ton of stuff going on around her and ended up ignoring her gauges (luckily she had us).

On two of the dives, we paid for the dive shop to send a diver down with a video cam to capture the group and the scenery. The DVD we got from this is priceless. The only still shots from the trip that I absolutely cherish are the ones from our dives on the Captain Tibbets (sunk cold war era Russian frigate). Even then, the memories I carry while swimming through and around that wreck far outshine those still shots.

My point? Unless you are a frequent diver, skip the camera. Pay the dive shop that little extra to do it. Enjoy the experience.

My wife and I will be diving off of Turks and Ciacos mid-March

 

[compuwar]

When I compare that to what I was starting with (see attached), it pretty much leaves me speechless.

Ok, give up the goods- post some pics!

Paul

 

[Grimace]

Assume that I know enough about diving and safety and general photography. I don't toot my own horn for any of these categories, so just go on faith.

While for most people, a P&S plus housing would make sense to allow the flexibility to go down past 10 meters, I really don't care about that. My gf is diving for the first time and I will want to get a few shots of her breathing under water - she'll only be down 15-20 feet. On my own group dives with other experienced people, I may snap a shot or three at a turtle or shark at 20-30 feet. My main goal is the dive, not photography. For most of my dives, I won't even take the camera, as I want to experience everything going on around me through my mask, not my viewfinder.

Snorkeling will also be a big part of it - and my gf will likely use the camera then too. Something that is simple and easy for her (ie. not a housing) is optimal. It's really just novelty for the trip.

If I ever want to get more serious, I'll try a P&S housing or maybe even a case for my 5D or 1Ds. When I go serious, I'm all in -- but there are some things that are just for the occasional fun shot.

 

[Jaro65]

Assume that I know enough about diving and safety and general photography. I don't toot my own horn for any of these categories, so just go on faith.

While for most people, a P&S plus housing would make sense to allow the flexibility to go down past 10 meters, I really don't care about that. My gf is diving for the first time and I will want to get a few shots of her breathing under water - she'll only be down 15-20 feet. On my own group dives with other experienced people, I may snap a shot or three at a turtle or shark at 20-30 feet. My main goal is the dive, not photography. For most of my dives, I won't even take the camera, as I want to experience everything going on around me through my mask, not my viewfinder.

Snorkeling will also be a big part of it - and my gf will likely use the camera then too. Something that is simple and easy for her (ie. not a housing) is optimal. It's really just novelty for the trip.

If I ever want to get more serious, I'll try a P&S housing or maybe even a case for my 5D or 1Ds. When I go serious, I'm all in -- but there are some things that are just for the occasional fun shot.

I know exactly what you mean, and you will be just fine with the camera you're getting. I never got into any serious underwater photography, most likely because I always balked at the expense associated with it. When you do dive, make sure you have camera safely secured. I'm not sure about the buoyancy of that Lumix camera, but people lose their gear all the time.

Ok, give up the goods- post some pics!

Paul

I don't mind posting some photos, but they're not terribly exciting. I see people here using all kind of dedicated equipment and strobes, so clearly they took their interest into a whole different level compared to me. My biggest underwater camera equipment purchase was a Canon camera akin to what the OP is getting.

Blimey! Is that a Nikonos Calypso? You'll be telling us you still use an Orca Skinny Dipper computer next...

I know that Nikon eventually took over Cousteau's design and marketed it as part of their Nikonos brand. The camera was actually given to me by the owner of one of the commercial diving vessels I worked on and I was told it is the original French-manufactured model. ...And no, I don't use the Orca dive computer. It was interesting when the computers first started appearing on the scene. For the commercial work we were all using the original PADI dive tables (which were based on US Navy data). The tables specified that you were to use the next dive level if you were: 1) doing a physical work underwater, or 2) diving in the cold waters. We were doing both, but that would have meant that while diving at 50ft, you were to consider your dive to be at 70ft. The computers were also way too conservative (as well as the updated PADI dive tables) and trying to make a buck, we simply had to ignore all of the above. The guys generally learned to know their bodies and were careful pushing them too far beyond the tables. If you did and you ended up with a skin bend, you knew that you need to pull back a bit. In some instances the guys just pushed their luck too far and I saw some crews having to call in the rescue crews on their marine radios. The chopper would then come in, and take the guy to a hyperbaric chamber. I only saw that happen a couple of times though over the years. The dive computers did eventually become more flexible and so now basically everybody uses them. But I do remember using mine for the first few years as nothing more than a fancy depth gauge. And it was also good for showing me just how much surface time I accumulated, so that helped me plan my second dive. LOL, I also remember how we had to keep some of them in the buckets with water after our first dive, because as soon as the contacts became dry, the computers would go into the surface mode and they wouldn't let us do our second dive 2-4 hours later. They would actually turn themselves off if we tried jumping in the water and so we wouldn't even be able to use them as depth gauges. That would have been a total waste for us, but the bucket with water solved all that. Those were the days. I hope you're not all too horrified.

I do apologize to the OP for straying way off from his thread's topic. And I dedicate the above contribution to Grand Marnier and ice.

 

[compuwar]

My biggest underwater camera equipment purchase was a Canon camera akin to what the OP is getting.

Then that'll help the OP! But me, I wanna see what that Calypso does!

Paul

 

[Jaro65]

Then that'll help the OP! But me, I wanna see what that Calypso does!

Paul

Wow! Paul, you're totally up to speed with this thread. Listen, asking for any shots with Calypso means for me going 25 years back in time. I may have some up in Vancouver, which is where I lived before moving to the States, so give me some time until I go there next time. I'll see what I can find. I do have a pretty cool video though that one of the diving buddies shot a number of years ago. If you think you would be interested in seeing it, send me a private message and I'll be happy to burn it and mail it to you.


Cheers,
Jerry

 

[codymac]

When I compare that to what I was starting with (see attached), it pretty much leaves me speechless.

Interesting as I've got a Nikonos I (Calypso copy) and have been biting my tongue a bit since this is a "digital" forum.


For the price the OP was initially talking about, it looks like a more modern used Nikonos can be picked up on ebay. I think I'd either go that route (and scan after the fact) or rent.

 

[compuwar]

Interesting as I've got a Nikonos I (Calypso copy) and have been biting my tongue a bit since this is a "digital" forum.


For the price the OP was initially talking about, it looks like a more modern used Nikonos can be picked up on ebay. I think I'd either go that route (and scan after the fact) or rent.

Not with a strobe- so they'd either have to hope they can WB after the scan or deal with the color loss- if the cheap digitals have a manual WB function they're probably a win for someone who does one trip a year.

Paul

 

[mmoto]

Not with a strobe-
Paul

Perhaps he could get one of the those very early Nikonos strobes/flashes that took the buoyant one-time-use bulbs that floated in a bag over your head as you swam

My old Nikonos V is gathering dust while the Sea&Sea YS-60strobe I bought for it 15 years ago is still a functional backup. The old strobe certainly has more value than the old camera.

-Brad

 

[MattSepeta]

Op

OP- Where in Hawaii are you diving, what island? Are you going out with a dive shop?