The photo was taken in Roatan, Honduras on a shore dive in front of CoCo View Resort.
Underwater digital camera quality?
- Thread starter ScubaDipper
- Start date
Please register or login
Welcome to ScubaBoard, the world's largest scuba diving community. Registration is not required to read the forums, but we encourage you to join. Joining has its benefits and enables you to participate in the discussions.
Benefits of registering include
- Ability to post and comment on topics and discussions.
- A Free photo gallery to share your dive photos with the world.
- You can make this box go away
Newhampster
Contributor
Yes, and I'd guess, from the beautiful (and appropriately out of focus) dappled light patterns in the background, you were probably no deeper than 30 feet, maybe 20.
I've gotten a lot of photos that I love with only a 2mp camera (Nikon 950 and Canon Digital Elph II [330]). Without supplemental light.
King Kong Matt
Contributor
Most of the papers (at least in the Boston area) do so as well. I was at the Patriots game last weekend with front-row seats. All the photographers that came and went (at least a dozen or so) had nice digital equipment.
Go Pats!
Matt
Yes, in the shallows just before the shipwreck, about 20ft deep!
raxafarian
Contributor
Dee... did you right click on that file?
right click. select properties. then select summary. That will give you all the camera settings.
right click. select properties. then select summary. That will give you all the camera settings.
Yes I did and like I said before, there's no information recorded.
raxafarian
Contributor
you can turn on and off the recording of info?? all my .jpg's have the info recorded... am I missing something?
anyway... the point I was trying to make is: if it's light enough to maintain colors, then you'll have enough light to not have to shoot wide open. If it's deep enough/dark enough to HAVE to shoot wide open, then everything's gonna be blue.
a faster lens does have certain benefits... the only ones I can think of are all above water... in a church ... concerts .... indoor sports (ie.. boxing).... anyplace a flash isn't allowed.
anyway... the point I was trying to make is: if it's light enough to maintain colors, then you'll have enough light to not have to shoot wide open. If it's deep enough/dark enough to HAVE to shoot wide open, then everything's gonna be blue.
a faster lens does have certain benefits... the only ones I can think of are all above water... in a church ... concerts .... indoor sports (ie.. boxing).... anyplace a flash isn't allowed.
No, I was confused. I had to go get my camera and check! I can turn it off so it doesn't show on the monitor but the info stays attached to the photos. I'll have to dig up the original CD to get the particulars. The photo I posted has been re-sized, uploaded to the web, etc. and isn't showing the info.
I'm not so sure that the 1.8 on the lens exactly means f1.8. It's a way of rating how much ambient light the lens lets through. I'll have to find a better explanation for you....
Newhampster
Contributor
Having a faster lens does matter!
How fast a lens is good enough to support the notion that "...if it's light enough to maintain colors, then you'll have enough light to not have to shoot wide open..." f16? f8? f5.6? f4?
A faster lens means you can shoot under lower light conditions. For example, with enough speed, you can shoot with an orange filter at 60 feet ...
It means you can go for a shallower depth of field and depth of focus, letting distracting details go out of focus while retaining the subject of the photo in focus
It means you can use a faster shutter (or your camera's computer can go with a faster shutter speed), freezing motion in conditions where otherwise the subject would be a blur.
(Lens) SPEED MATTERS!
The 'only' issues on increased lens speed are size, weight and cost. All other things being equal, a faster lens (e.g., f1.8 vs f2.0 or f3.5 vs 5.6) will be physically bigger, weigh more and cost more. The cost is not only associated with size but also with quality, i.e., a faster lens has to be better constructed (optically and mechanically) than a slower lens with otherwise similar specifications.
raxafarian
Contributor
let's see some pics that you took at 1.8.
let's see some of those pics taken with an orange filter.
I'll agree that there are a few situations underwater where that could apply.
not enough that I would worry about it, or disregard any camera without the fastest lens.
let's see some of those pics taken with an orange filter.
I'll agree that there are a few situations underwater where that could apply.
not enough that I would worry about it, or disregard any camera without the fastest lens.
Similar threads
