Aquapix: love it or hate it?

[jagfish]

As a buddy observer to several amatuer photographers, I am getting ready to buy my first camera. I would generally be for using images for computer viewing and don't envision any need to print, though I suppose I may want to now and then.

I have been looking at the Aquapix Amphibious digital. Looks convenient and easy to use, though I don't know anyone who has it. The pixel count (3.3MP?) is low compared to many if not most recent land cameras on the market, but I am thinking that may not be important if I do not plan on printing.

Two questions for those in the know..
1. Any experience or general impressions about this camera?
2. With my intended use, should I have concerns about the somewhat limited pixel count?
3. If that pixel count is low, why would Sea and Sea introduce a rather new model with such a low count anyway?

Many thanks in advance...

JAG

 

[Omaha Beach]

I would not worry about the pixel count, especially if you are not planning on printing. You could easily print a very nice 4x6, 5x7, and 8x10. I have a 2.1 mega pixel Olympus and would put it up against a lot of the 3MP and 4MP cameras on the market. I am also considering the AquaPix because of its underwater functionality. Bottom line find a camera that you are comfortable using. I think the draw back with other camera setups is having to add all the underwater accessorries ($$$).

 

[ShoalDiverSA]

There are some opinions and info on the following threads:

http://www.scubaboard.com/t44816.html
http://www.scubaboard.com/t46386.html
http://www.scubaboard.com/t45279.html

Cheers,

Andrew

 

[jagfish]

Wow
Thanks for the enlightenment. The Pix seems to be pretty disappoinitng in image quality. What a pity, the features look so trick!

JAG

 

[ShoalDiverSA]

It is so sad that this camera is flawed. The interest in it has been huge, so there must be a big market for a point-n-click amphibious digital. It's a pity that this camera can't fill that gap...

Speaking of features, the red filter that is built into the camera is pretty dark. I found that it only works on shallow dives with lots of light, otherwise the pictures were dark enough to be unusable. The reason for the red filter is to adjust for the loss of red in the spectrum at depth, so this "feature" is pretty much useless most of the time. I can't comment on the macro lense, because I did not play with it. The bottom line, however, is still that the image quality is very poor.

Glad to be of assistance (before you bought it!).

Cheers,

Andrew

 

[alcina]

Jag -

Not sure what kind of $$ you are looking at but the Canon A70 is a wonderful 3.2 MP. buydig has them for $229 and the housings are about $160ish.

I have used this camera and the images turn out fab. Easy to use, but also offers manual control if you want it.

This is not the best shot for illustrating - but it might give you some idea...when I get a minute I can try to find others (mostly I used an external strobe, so want to show you pics without that as they are good, too) if you want me to...

 

[jagfish]

I'm not really up on the finer points of photography, but that looks like a pretty nice shot for no artificial lighting. Thanks for the camera choice tip...

JAG

 

[jagfish]

Thanks Andrew
You'r right...I feel lucky to be asking about this camera befre I bought it as oppposed to after like some of the other threads!

JAG