Sealife DC500

[ScubaLuuke]

I have some good experiences with this camera. The only flaw I could go with as of now is that the battery doesn't last very long, definately recommend getting an edditional chargeable battery and it's charger, total of like $50 or so. I am getting ready to purchase a strobe for it, I am debating whether to get the external or save up and buy the digital flash. Digital Flash the best way to go for those that have dove with it and enjoy using it?

 

[TN Traveler]

I have some good experiences with this camera. The only flaw I could go with as of now is that the battery doesn't last very long, definately recommend getting an edditional chargeable battery and it's charger, total of like $50 or so. I am getting ready to purchase a strobe for it, I am debating whether to get the external or save up and buy the digital flash. Digital Flash the best way to go for those that have dove with it and enjoy using it?

If you are going to get a strobe DEFINATELY go fo the Digital strobe - the flexibility it offers allows you to shoot both close-ups and distance (10ft) without having to add a diffuser.

Just take some time to practice with it, so you have a good idea of what setting to use based on how far you are from your subject. A little bit of a learning curve - but well worth it.

 

[diver 85]

Thanks for the thread........without having the time right now to read all 11 pages of responses, I was wondering about this camera a few weeks ago.......It is digital, right?, cuz I have the Sea & Sea MM II for 11 years+/- now... Figuring the new modern stuff out would be better, my question is Is it better than what I currently have ie MMII???...Would it pay me to 'upgrade' to this camera ie loading pictures faster, easier onto a computer, etc??...Have taken some very good shots in the past with my current one, just asking......thanks for any help........

 

[TN Traveler]

Yes, the DC500 is digital - and has just been "replaced" with the DC600 - which is a 6 mp vs 5 mp.

There is no comparison shooting digital vs film. First, you can instantly see if you got the shot - second, you can manipulate the images after downloading (amazing how many "bad" shots can be salvaged) - and that includes being able to crop images, so all the stuff you don't want to see is gone. Plus, if you want, you can digitally remove the small bits of "backscatter" from things floating in the water and make an almost perfect image.

No doubt about it - digital has made UW Photography much, much better.

 

[reeldive]

The defuser does help reduce backscatter as welas helping with over exposer. I also use my hand to help regulate the intensity. wish I could up grade to the DC600.
Check out thier website. They have a new mini camera coming out in March.

 

[Narcd_dvr]

I own a DC500 with an external strobe the SL960, overall I'm very happy with it. Its a good camera for someone starting out in UW photography or someone who wants an inexpensive point and shoot camera. If you decide to get the DC500, I recommend that you get the digital flash - SL960D. With the digital strobe, you can control the brightness thereby allowing you to get closer to the subject.
BTW, I have several pics in my gallery where I used the DC500. Hopefully, that gives you some idea.

 

[Narcd_dvr]

I am getting ready to purchase a strobe for it, I am debating whether to get the external or save up and buy the digital flash. Digital Flash the best way to go for those that have dove with it and enjoy using it?

Get the digital strobe, you'll be much happier with it, imo. LP is selling the SL960D $225

 

[Starboard Tack]

Yes, the DC500 is digital - and has just been "replaced" with the DC600 - which is a 6 mp vs 5 mp.

There is no comparison shooting digital vs film. First, you can instantly see if you got the shot - second, you can manipulate the images after downloading (amazing how many "bad" shots can be salvaged) - and that includes being able to crop images, so all the stuff you don't want to see is gone. Plus, if you want, you can digitally remove the small bits of "backscatter" from things floating in the water and make an almost perfect image.

No doubt about it - digital has made UW Photography much, much better.

I have to offer a different viewpoint here. I still shoot film in a Nikon N70 in an Ikelite housing with a Substrobe 225. I switched back to film after shooting digital for several years. I like digital, don't get me wrong, but there are some areas where film is more appropriate and even excels over digital.

One is blooming. When shooting upward in water towards the sun, a digital will bloom and white out an excessively large area whereas film simply records what it sees, so long as the settings are accurate and the lens is appropriate for the shooting you are doing.

Another is resolution. When shooting low speed film (ISO 100 or lower,) you would have to have an extremely high res digital to match the resolution. Hopefully I can attach a link to show a comparison. Here goes:
http://www.clarkvision.com/imagedetail/film.vs.digital.1.html

Hopefully that works.

Digital is nice, don't get me wrong. I like being able to take 400 shots in a single dive and see which came out and which didn't. I just wanted to throw a different side of things into the discussion. I enjoy the challenge of having to consider the shot I'm taking a bit more. It forces me to take my time and compose the shot, because if I miss, I won't know until later. I bracket, waste film, cuss when I haven't given the strobe enough time to cycle back up, etc., but when the pictures come out, it is a great feeling.

Incidentally, I save money by having them developed straight to disc. I have the negs for later and can view them on the computer without having to throw away 15 or 20 prints and then store the rest.

 

[TN Traveler]

I can't disagree that film still is a much better media for those "special" shots. I still shoot film on land on many occasions when I want those spectacular non-grainy shots (using both Minolta and Bronica) - but I also use digital for most of my shooting anymore because of the convenience.

I learned to shoot film (on a Speed Graphic and manual 35mm) when composition was important because you never knew if you would get a 2nd chance (I did sports photography - so imagine that challenge).

I also still shoot B&W - develop/print them myself - for a different perspective - but for the average picture taker above or below the water - digital is much more user friendly and allows lots of chances to get that one "special"(?) shot. Digital does not make for better photographers but it allows more "photographers" to capture better pictures - but then again so do electronic strobes, TTL metering/exposure control, motor drives and all the other improvements - and I'm not advocating a return to the good old days of flash bulbs, film holders, and 20 lb cameras ... LOL

 

[Starboard Tack]

I can't disagree that film still is a much better media for those "special" shots. I still shoot film on land on many occasions when I want those spectacular non-grainy shots (using both Minolta and Bronica) - but I also use digital for most of my shooting anymore because of the convenience.

I learned to shoot film (on a Speed Graphic and manual 35mm) when composition was important because you never knew if you would get a 2nd chance (I did sports photography - so imagine that challenge).

I also still shoot B&W - develop/print them myself - for a different perspective - but for the average picture taker above or below the water - digital is much more user friendly and allows lots of chances to get that one "special"(?) shot. Digital does not make for better photographers but it allows more "photographers" to capture better pictures - but then again so do electronic strobes, TTL metering/exposure control, motor drives and all the other improvements - and I'm not advocating a return to the good old days of flash bulbs, film holders, and 20 lb cameras ... LOL

I agree 100%. I'll still use digital on vacation or when scouting new turf as you get more shots and, like you said, the camera will either make it better or let you see what went wrong. I do like film when I want to portray something in a different way at a site I dive regularly.

Later,
Mike