Should I Get a Better Camera?

[CT Sean]

A new camera, especially a top-of-the-line model like the S100 SHOULD (should be the operative work) allow you to take technically better pictures. "technical" being things like sharpness, saturation, contrast - things the camera itself can actually contribute to. Now I don't know how much better technically the S100 is vs the A1000, you can look at the below links to a camera review site for that. I looked quick and the S100 at least has much better high ISO performance, which can help with lower light imaging.

Canon PowerShot A1000 IS Camera - Express Review

Canon PowerShot S100 Camera - Review

To be honest, your images look pretty decent to me. I can't speak to how they compare with the S95 images above, scaling hides an awful lot of image "problems".

If you do go with the S100 (which is a great camera, but mine hasn't been underwater yet - (3 weeks to go)) I would also recommend the Canon housing. The lens port on the Ikelite housing is huge and blocks much of the internal flash even when using the diffuser. You need to be both close to your subject AND zoomed in a bit to overcome it.

What you might want to do is pick a specific image or two and indicate what you are looking to improve and people here can give better insight as to how to improve it.

 

[archiebald]

Important points that have not been mentioned up to now are the second and third ones below...

The reasons for using external strobes are;
1. It gets more light on the subject for brighter colors, allows lower ISO setting, and longer range (though not much).
2. The curse of underwater photography (less so in macro shots) is backscatter caused by your internal flash bouncing off particles in the water and coming right back into the lens. A bit like driving at night in a snow storm. Having the ability to push the strobe off the axis of the lens will dramatically reduce this effect.
3. You can set up much more interesting lighting angles to pick out textures in coral and just about anything. Just like using bounce or off-camera flash on a land camera. There is nothing worse than those full-glare-in-the-face party shots of you and your friends. Getting the flash off camera improves a photo about 1000%.

Of course, if you can shoot without flash then 2 and 3 are less important. A large sensor camera with good low light performance like the Canon G1X might even be a better choice if you don't want to be hassled by external strobes while traveling.

 

[Buadhai]

First, thanks to all for the information and suggestions. (Sorry, I'm still balking at carrying an external light....)

To be honest, your images look pretty decent to me. I can't speak to how they compare with the S95 images above, scaling hides an awful lot of image "problems".

<snip>

What you might want to do is pick a specific image or two and indicate what you are looking to improve and people here can give better insight as to how to improve it.

I am actually pretty happy with many of the photos in the link in the OP. More telling would be the photos that were too awful to put in the blog!

For example: The first photo has been "fixed". The second is the original. In this particular instance, would a better camera have produced a photo that needed less fixing?

 

[archiebald]

I am assuming that the sample you have posted was shot in JPG. If it had been shot in RAW with exactly the same shutter, lighting etc, then you I believe could have made a much greater improvement. RAW gives about 3 times more scope on exposure and white balance than a JPG can give you.

I am still processing photos from my last trip and some of the "saves" that RAW allows me are amazing.

These are a couple of examples with the uncorrected original and some I also re-sized to 16:9 for my desktop. I have reduced the size to 25% of originals but you can judege the huge improvement in color balance and exposure.

 

[Buadhai]

I am assuming that the sample you have posted was shot in JPG. If it had been shot in RAW with exactly the same shutter, lighting etc, then you I believe could have made a much greater improvement. RAW gives about 3 times more scope on exposure and white balance than a JPG can give you.

I am still processing photos from my last trip and some of the "saves" that RAW allows me are amazing.

Sold.

Now, how do I explain this need for yet-another-gadget to Ms B?

 

[archiebald]

Not sure if you caught it but I modified my post with some images.

 

[Buadhai]

I looked quick and the S100 at least has much better high ISO performance, which can help with lower light imaging.

Canon PowerShot A1000 IS Camera - Express Review

Canon PowerShot S100 Camera - Review

I finally got a chance to study these extensive reviews. Now I'm less convinced....

Thank you for posting the links. Two problems I have with the A1000 are flash recharge and cycle time. The S100 is actually worse on cycle time (bigger files to write?), and not that much better on flash recharge.

Being presbyopic I do have some trouble with the A1000's LCD display. The S100's seems to be much better and bigger.

Both cameras seem to have only fair autofocus time; something that bothers me even with a slight current and the need to avoid hanging on.

 

[Aqua-Andy]

Your pictures you posted don't look half bad. Have you tried using CHDK to enable saving RAW photos? This would solve some of your issues and the best part is it is FREE.

 

[Buadhai]

Your pictures you posted don't look half bad. Have you tried using CHDK to enable saving RAW photos? This would solve some of your issues and the best part is it is FREE.

I'd never heard of CHDK until this moment. Looks like my sort of project. Thank you very much. I will definitely give it a shot.

 

[farsidefan1]

First, thanks to all for the information and suggestions. (Sorry, I'm still balking at carrying an external light....)



I am actually pretty happy with many of the photos in the link in the OP. More telling would be the photos that were too awful to put in the blog!

For example: The first photo has been "fixed". The second is the original. In this particular instance, would a better camera have produced a photo that needed less fixing?

Depends. The problem is white balance. If you decide to shoot in RAW then you don't need to pay attention to white balance because you do all that on the computer after you finish diving. But does your camera allow you to shoot RAW? On the other hand you can manually correct for white balance while diving. Just get a white card or even just use your hand to get a reading at a given depth (recheck every couple of meters of depth change). If you do that then you don't have to utilize RAW. For shots like this (Manta) your strobe is pretty much useless. A wide angle lens might help. Actually for shots like that the upgraded camera is less an advantage. No Strobe needed. No super fast ASA setting needed... Besides, look at your corrected picture. It came out very good with your current gear. That said I suggest you spend some time on Gilligans site. He has done excellent work with fairly simple gear. His photos make me realize it is the photographer, not the camera that is the biggest variable.
I spent some time with the professional photog guy at a resort and he was a big proponent of natural light or just using the built in flash. However some built in flashes leave a shadow in a corner of your shots. If you use your zoom a bit you can overcome it as it is primarily a problem with macro shots.