best waterproof camera saltwater image
Q. i'm looking for a really good cybershot camera of atleast 10mp or even more which is also waterproof. OR has a water proof casin that goes with it :D could someone pls help me with this?..
Answer
Cybershot = Sony, I don't believe they make a camera like this.
First of all, there's no such thing as "waterproof"... if you go deep enough, your camera will get wet. So you have to have an idea of just how water resistant you're looking for.
Some cameras, including most every high end pro DSLR, is what you'd call "splashproof"... you can get it wet, it can take a bit of rain, but don't immerse it.
Then there are bunch of immersible cameras, but they can only go so deep. The pressure that you get at sea level, from the whole atmosphere, is doubled at 33 ft saltwater, 34 ft freshwater... so you can't expect it not to leak at any depth.
A bunch of major camera makers do make the type that are submersible, but not too deeply. Look at the Olympus Stylus 1050 SW... this one's good for about 10ft underwater, and it's shock resist too (survives a 5ft drop). Another option is the Olympus Stylus 1030, which, despite the lower number, has higher specs: underwater to 33ft, shock resistant for a fall of 6.6ft, and crush resistant to 220lbs. These are both 10.1Mpixel.
Pentax (now a division of Hoya) makes the Optio W60, which is water resistant to 13ft, and offers a 5x zoom. This is a 10 Mpixel model as well.
If you really like the Sony Cybershots, you can get the Sony APK-THA case for any T-series Cybershot. This runs around $70, and lets you use the camera under water to 5ft... and obviously adds some protection against damage from scratching and dropping it in an active environment. See here:
http://www.amazon.com/Sony-APK-THA-DSC-T-Digital-Cameras/dp/B001EO0XW6/ref=sr_1_34?ie=UTF8&s=electronics&qid=1234919397&sr=8-34
Some more serious cases, from Sony and other companies, let you take various Sonys much deeper... here's a select at B&H Photo:
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?O=search&A=search&Q=&ci=0&sb=bs%2Cupper(ds)&sq=asc&sortDrop=Brand%3A+A+to+Z&ac=&bsi=&bhs=t&ci=5237&shs=&at=To+Fit_Sony&basicSubmit=Submit+Query
Sealife is a company that specialized in underwater cameras.. they tend to be a bit behind the major brands on features, but they're ahead on the underwater factor. The SL320 is only a 6 Mpixel camera, but it's good to about 130ft underwater, and runs in the same price range as these others. The Sealife DC800 is an 8 Mpixel camera (really a compact camera and separate ergonomic case) which runs around $400, and is good to 200ft.
Canon and Panasonic make underwater cases for a number of their cameras, too, which go much deeper, but also cost much more. I have a Panasonic DMC-TZ5, which can take a case which is good to over 130ft.. but it costs nearly as much as the camera did. If you're interested in really deep water stuff, you should shop around on http://www.bhphoto.com, which has an underwater camera department.
Cybershot = Sony, I don't believe they make a camera like this.
First of all, there's no such thing as "waterproof"... if you go deep enough, your camera will get wet. So you have to have an idea of just how water resistant you're looking for.
Some cameras, including most every high end pro DSLR, is what you'd call "splashproof"... you can get it wet, it can take a bit of rain, but don't immerse it.
Then there are bunch of immersible cameras, but they can only go so deep. The pressure that you get at sea level, from the whole atmosphere, is doubled at 33 ft saltwater, 34 ft freshwater... so you can't expect it not to leak at any depth.
A bunch of major camera makers do make the type that are submersible, but not too deeply. Look at the Olympus Stylus 1050 SW... this one's good for about 10ft underwater, and it's shock resist too (survives a 5ft drop). Another option is the Olympus Stylus 1030, which, despite the lower number, has higher specs: underwater to 33ft, shock resistant for a fall of 6.6ft, and crush resistant to 220lbs. These are both 10.1Mpixel.
Pentax (now a division of Hoya) makes the Optio W60, which is water resistant to 13ft, and offers a 5x zoom. This is a 10 Mpixel model as well.
If you really like the Sony Cybershots, you can get the Sony APK-THA case for any T-series Cybershot. This runs around $70, and lets you use the camera under water to 5ft... and obviously adds some protection against damage from scratching and dropping it in an active environment. See here:
http://www.amazon.com/Sony-APK-THA-DSC-T-Digital-Cameras/dp/B001EO0XW6/ref=sr_1_34?ie=UTF8&s=electronics&qid=1234919397&sr=8-34
Some more serious cases, from Sony and other companies, let you take various Sonys much deeper... here's a select at B&H Photo:
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?O=search&A=search&Q=&ci=0&sb=bs%2Cupper(ds)&sq=asc&sortDrop=Brand%3A+A+to+Z&ac=&bsi=&bhs=t&ci=5237&shs=&at=To+Fit_Sony&basicSubmit=Submit+Query
Sealife is a company that specialized in underwater cameras.. they tend to be a bit behind the major brands on features, but they're ahead on the underwater factor. The SL320 is only a 6 Mpixel camera, but it's good to about 130ft underwater, and runs in the same price range as these others. The Sealife DC800 is an 8 Mpixel camera (really a compact camera and separate ergonomic case) which runs around $400, and is good to 200ft.
Canon and Panasonic make underwater cases for a number of their cameras, too, which go much deeper, but also cost much more. I have a Panasonic DMC-TZ5, which can take a case which is good to over 130ft.. but it costs nearly as much as the camera did. If you're interested in really deep water stuff, you should shop around on http://www.bhphoto.com, which has an underwater camera department.
Flurocarbon fishing line?
Adam Singe
I know some people believe in mono verses flurocarbon, because it has the better strength. But what i would like to know what your opinion is on a mono verse a fluro leader? I dont know what to beliebe about fluro. Does it actually apphear in visible to fish or is it a myth that when it hits water it has the same light index. Iv never found a video proving it, nor used fluro.
Answer
In a past life I was a writer for a fishing magazine. When fluorocarbon first came to market, as usual there were all the fantastic claims. I waited a couple years, let others try it, then decided I would write an article about the difference. So exactly what your question is, is what I wanted to check out. And I wanted ACTUAL photographs to include. So I got a 50 gallon fish tank, both clean fresh water from the tap, and real water right from our bay. I call the magazines photography department and got a photographer out there. I made a rig to hold the two types of line right next to each other in the water. Asked the photographer to also bring a waterproof camera for underwater shots.
OK, so here we go :
I set up photo shots from all different angles around the line in the water. Then we repeated the process with the water from our bay. Did all over again.
GUESS WHAT ? Fluorocarbon is NOT invisible in water. Just as it is not invisible when you hold it and look at it in the air. You could say it is " less visible ". But that is only in some cases, when viewed from a fishes point of view, being below the line and looking up with back lighting, the fluorocarbon is actually MORE visible. While mono line looks like mono like a line in the water, the Fluorocarbon makes two parallel more distinct lines due to reflection off the edges of the line.
So Actual tests showed fluorocarbon line you could say is less visible when viewed from some angles, it can also be more viable when viewed from other angles. My summation was that yes, we could say less visible, but to say invisible is simply incorrect. A funny thing, shortly after the article was published both myself and the editor noticed the manufactures changed their marketing, now says less visible.
Please think for yourself, in fishing products marketing is huge, the old snake oil show tactics. For many years we all used mono line and mono leaders and caught fish just fine. All we wanted. So, now some uppity type will come along and explain fish are smarter in these modern days. They have evolved through the years. And may even say, well, they catch more fish with fluorocarbon. To that my response has always been, " show me ". Personally I owned three tackle shops in south Florida all at the same time period. I had fluorocarbon in stock for those who wanted to buy the expensive stuff, BUT I personally have never used fluorocarbon in my life. I can go to fish Wild Trout, or land locked Salmon, and all the saltwater fishes, and catch as many fish as I like. You know what, the very wary fish, I just use lighter size mono. No problem. so many times, As many here have, I walked over to where a guy had just been fishing, and started catching fish right where he was standing. Fishing is more technique, and what you are using as bait, then anything else, and that is the TRUTH sir.
Edit : @SZ is a spool of fluorocarbon really only your good luck charm ? You know us fishermen do often count on luck.
( I hope you do realize I am teasing sir ) We know your one of the best we find in this section, UNDISPUTED.
In a past life I was a writer for a fishing magazine. When fluorocarbon first came to market, as usual there were all the fantastic claims. I waited a couple years, let others try it, then decided I would write an article about the difference. So exactly what your question is, is what I wanted to check out. And I wanted ACTUAL photographs to include. So I got a 50 gallon fish tank, both clean fresh water from the tap, and real water right from our bay. I call the magazines photography department and got a photographer out there. I made a rig to hold the two types of line right next to each other in the water. Asked the photographer to also bring a waterproof camera for underwater shots.
OK, so here we go :
I set up photo shots from all different angles around the line in the water. Then we repeated the process with the water from our bay. Did all over again.
GUESS WHAT ? Fluorocarbon is NOT invisible in water. Just as it is not invisible when you hold it and look at it in the air. You could say it is " less visible ". But that is only in some cases, when viewed from a fishes point of view, being below the line and looking up with back lighting, the fluorocarbon is actually MORE visible. While mono line looks like mono like a line in the water, the Fluorocarbon makes two parallel more distinct lines due to reflection off the edges of the line.
So Actual tests showed fluorocarbon line you could say is less visible when viewed from some angles, it can also be more viable when viewed from other angles. My summation was that yes, we could say less visible, but to say invisible is simply incorrect. A funny thing, shortly after the article was published both myself and the editor noticed the manufactures changed their marketing, now says less visible.
Please think for yourself, in fishing products marketing is huge, the old snake oil show tactics. For many years we all used mono line and mono leaders and caught fish just fine. All we wanted. So, now some uppity type will come along and explain fish are smarter in these modern days. They have evolved through the years. And may even say, well, they catch more fish with fluorocarbon. To that my response has always been, " show me ". Personally I owned three tackle shops in south Florida all at the same time period. I had fluorocarbon in stock for those who wanted to buy the expensive stuff, BUT I personally have never used fluorocarbon in my life. I can go to fish Wild Trout, or land locked Salmon, and all the saltwater fishes, and catch as many fish as I like. You know what, the very wary fish, I just use lighter size mono. No problem. so many times, As many here have, I walked over to where a guy had just been fishing, and started catching fish right where he was standing. Fishing is more technique, and what you are using as bait, then anything else, and that is the TRUTH sir.
Edit : @SZ is a spool of fluorocarbon really only your good luck charm ? You know us fishermen do often count on luck.
( I hope you do realize I am teasing sir ) We know your one of the best we find in this section, UNDISPUTED.
Powered by Yahoo! Answers
Title Post: whats a good camera.?
Rating: 100% based on 99998 ratings. 5 user reviews.
Author: Unknown
Thanks For Coming To My Blog
Rating: 100% based on 99998 ratings. 5 user reviews.
Author: Unknown
Thanks For Coming To My Blog
No comments:
Post a Comment