Underwater digital camera quality?

[ScubaDipper]

I have used a number of normal digital cameras and have been very impressed with the image quality as the pixels continue to increase.

With this in mind I am concerned with the quality of the underwater digital cameras as of yet. I know a regular digital camera losses a lot of quality in low light with less pixels. How do the underwater digital cameras (they are only being offered as of yet with low pixels) handel with the low light in water?

My first reaction is to wait for the technology to get better before investing? If you have experience with these cameras - please tell me your thoughts!

 

[King Kong Matt]

I'm not sure what you mean by "underwater" digital cameras. Most people are simply using standard digital cameras with underwater housings that allow them to be taken underwater - in other words, you can use the normal digital cameras that you are already used to!

ScubaDipper once bubbled...
I know a regular digital camera losses a lot of quality in low light with less pixels.

The amount of light has nothing to do with the number of pixels used to digitally record an image...that is a feature of the camera. You're correct in that image quality typically declines with loss of light...this is true of all cameras. Most underwater photographers will attach strobes or other lights to compensate for this.

There are a number of accomplished underwater photographers on this board. If you take a look in the Underwater Photography forum, you will find a number of good samples of what can be accomplished in terms of quality. In addition, most people have/will publish the details of their setup. You can take a look for yourself whether an investment in current technologies makes sense for the kind of quality which you can likely expect.

Hope this helps.
Dive safely,

Matt

 

[ScubaDipper]

King Kong Matt once bubbled...
I'm not sure what you mean by "underwater" digital cameras.

What I meant by "underwater" digital cameras were the camers specifically designed and marketed for diving/snorkeling cameras. An example of this is the ReefMaster Digital DC200 that only has 1.3 megapixels - pretty low megapixels for todays standards and being sold for about $600. I haven't looked at all the features yet, but I assumed it was specifically designed for diving purposes. I am glad to here they make underwater cases for normal digital cameras!

King Kong Matt once bubbled...
The amount of light has nothing to do with the number of pixels used to digitally record an image...that is a feature of the camera. You're correct in that image quality typically declines with loss of light...this is true of all cameras. Most underwater photographers will attach strobes or other lights to compensate for this..

In my uses of different megapixel cameras, I have noticed that the higher megapixel cameras handel darker situations better. This is probably just because a 1.3 megapixel camera loses quality all together compared to a 4 megapixel camera and when it is dark the loss of quality is noticed more. It seems though that a higher megapixel will actually collect more light in the recording of the image, but that coul just be my imagination.

Back to my main point, I was concerned about how a 1.3 megapixel camera could handel in the poor lighting conditions of underwater. I will definitely have to check out the underwater flashes - I am sure that helps quite a bit.

I am new at underwater photography, but love to do nature photography. It only makes sense that I would slide into a hobby like this.

Thank you for your helpful information!

 

[King Kong Matt]

ScubaDipper once bubbled...
What I meant by "underwater" digital cameras were the camers specifically designed and marketed for diving/snorkeling cameras. An example of this is the ReefMaster Digital DC200 that only has 1.3 megapixels

OK...I get you. My bad.

In general, my impression is that above 3 MP, the picture is yours to screw up...in other words, while I am sure the 4 and 5 MP cameras are great, I have seen some of the board members results using an Olympus 3030 and have been simply amazed...really just outstanding work.

Also, I am not sure what kind of camera you are using on land, but you may be able to just buy a housing for it...you need to take a look at http://www.digideep.com/ - there is a list of cameras on the right hand side. If you click your camera (assuming it is present in the list), the profile will have a section stating which housings support that model camera.

In general, its fun a website to poke around...if you don't have a digital camera, take a look at some of the photos to give you an idea of what cameras can do what.

Enjoy!

Matt

 

[Dee]

ScubaDipper once bubbled...


In my uses of different megapixel cameras, I have noticed that the higher megapixel cameras handel darker situations better. This is probably just because a 1.3 megapixel camera loses quality all together compared to a 4 megapixel camera and when it is dark the loss of quality is noticed more. It seems though that a higher megapixel will actually collect more light in the recording of the image, but that coul just be my imagination.

Back to my main point, I was concerned about how a 1.3 megapixel camera could handel in the poor lighting conditions of underwater. I will definitely have to check out the underwater flashes - I am sure that helps quite a bit.

Megapixel count has nothing to do with the cameras ability to handle low light situations. You want to look at the lens. For instance, the C-4040 has a 1.8 lens which is considered a 'bright' lens. It absorbs more ambient light, making it possible to take some photos with no internal or external flash. Compare this to a 2.8 or lower lens, and you'd have to use a flash for the same photo.

Clear polycarbonate housing allow you to utilize the cameras internal flash, either alone or as a trigger for and external slave strobe, thus providing the light you need at any depth for good photos.

 

[raxafarian]

I wouldn't put any money into a 1.3 mp system. I don't know why they used something a couple of years old.

I went with the nikon 995. Was the only camera that did most things that I wanted. The nikon 5000 is supposed to be good u/w too.... I looked at one when they first came out, and there were not too many reasons for me to upgrade. The nikon 5700 is supposed to NOT be as good for underwater use... they chopped off some of the wide angle. The only drawback to using the nikons u/w is the housing cost.

People seem happy with the canons and olympus. I camera shopped before considering u/w photography, so I preferred the nikon. If cost is a factor, then you can disregard the nikon and go with an olympus or canon.

I consider all of the consumer/prosumer digitals to be a steppingstone until I/you get a digital-SLR. The digitals (almost) all have sensors that are a fraction the size of a 35mm negative. If you can't change lenses, you are handicapped. Shutter lag is nonexistant in a SLR digital.


Dee: I can see a slight advantage of a faster lens above water, but don't see it coming into play u/w. If you're shooting without a strobe, and at a point you need the 1.8, everything is gonna be blue anyways.... the colors aren't there no matter how fast the lens is. Do you have many pics taken at f1.8?

 

[MikeS]

While I haven’t done any underwater photography (yet), I’ve done quite a bit of digital photography. The amount of pixels and hence the resolution has much less of an effect on the quality of the pictures than the quality of the optics. A high-resolution 5-mega-pixel picture taken with poor optics results in a high-resolution fuzzy picture.

As Dee pointed out the aperture (i.e. 1.8, 2.8) of the optics determines how well the camera will work in low light. It also effects the depth of field, see http://www.ted.photographer.org.uk/photoscience_control.htm#depthof for a good description. Generally speaking the lower the f-stop number the larger the aperture, for a given focal length, the more expensive the optics are.

If you look at the pictures posted on the board, most of them have a resolution of 400 x 600 or less than a quarter of a mega-pixel. The difference in quality is from optics and lighting. Where more pixels are better is if you want to make large prints of a picture. I have a Sony MVC-CD1000 camera that only has 2.1 Mega pixel but it has great optics. There are several others that work here that have new fangled 5 mega pixel cameras but up to 4” x 6” prints I consistently get better prints, why, because the optics are better. At 8” x 10” my camera shooting at the maximum resolution of 1600 x 1200 pixels, starts to loose ground as compared to pictures taken at 2560 x 1920 pixels.

Shopping for a camera solely based on the number of pixels is like shopping for a car based solely on engine size. The reason digital cameras are advertised that way is because it is an easily measurable characteristic. The quality of the optics is much more subjective and harder to quantify but more important to the quality of the pictures.

 

[raxafarian]

the optics on most consumer cameras are of good quality. Some better than others, and the lower end cameras suffer more. The cameras in question (olympus, canon, nikon, sony) are probably all comparable... I'm too lazy to go look at resolution charts and reviews for all of them. I think you'd be hard pressed to show that your sony is better than the above cameras.

If you're gonna sink money into an u/w setup, I'm just recommending to stop and think for a moment. Are you going to use the camera once or twice a year? Are you going to be using it every weekend? Do you want to just be able to post the pics? Do you want to print some, most, all? Do you want to be able to print 4x6, 5x7, 8x10, beyond? Can you afford to replace the entire setup in a year or 2? What housing choices are there? What strobe choices are there?

You should pick your setup using the answers to these questions.

You will need a strobe to take most pics u/w, so I don't consider a fast lens a necessity.

Until a digital SLR with a fullsized sensor comes out (the new Canon) and drops in price a little , I consider the above setups to be a transitional setup.

No matter how good the optics are stuffed into those tiny lenses, using a regular 35mm prime lens will blow them away.

 

[MikeS]

raxafarian once bubbled...
the optics on most consumer cameras are of good quality. Some better than others, and the lower end cameras suffer more. The cameras in question (olympus, canon, nikon, sony) are probably all comparable... I'm too lazy to go look at resolution charts and reviews for all of them. I think you'd be hard pressed to show that your sony is better than the above cameras.

This is far from reality! Just as in film cameras the optics are the single most important factor. It would be very easy to demonstrate to you the difference between optics between different models from the same manufacturer. Every thing else being the same, including resolution and lighting, pictures taken with a Sony MVC-FD200 will be of noticeably lower quality than those taken with a DSCF717. Just as pictures taken with Nikon Lite Touch Zoom 150 will not be of the same quality as those taken with a N80 using the same film. The difference in quality is due to the optics.


Until a digital SLR with a fullsized sensor comes out (the new Canon) and drops in price a little , I consider the above setups to be a transitional setup.


If by fullsized sensor you are referring to a CCD sensor the same size as 35 mm film they have been out for years, for example the Nikon D100. They are still expensive, I think that the body alone is about $4K and then you have to buy lenses.


No matter how good the optics are stuffed into those tiny lenses, using a regular 35mm prime lens will blow them away.


The laws of physics do not allow you to “stuff” optics. While larger lens are not necessarily an indication of quality they are a requirement for good optics as more elements of the lens are required. The lens on my Sony camera, not that it is necessarily the best, is as almost as large as an entire Nikon Lite Touch Zoom 150.

Mike

 

[Scubaroo]

MikeS once bubbled...
If by fullsized sensor you are referring to a CCD sensor the same size as 35 mm film they have been out for years, for example the Nikon D100. They are still expensive, I think that the body alone is about $4K and then you have to buy lenses.

The sensor on a Nikon D100 is 23.7 x 15.6 mm, a 1.5 field of view crop factor. Nikon has just this week announced a new DX 12-24mm (18-35mm 35mm film equivalent) wide angle zoom lens to compensate for the smaller sensor and resulting loss of field of view.

See story at Digitial Camera Review

I believe the first full size sensor is in the upcoming Kodak DCS 14n SLR, which is a 14 megapixel camera.