Olympus 770SW Review

[Nemrod]

I am sorry, I did not mean to imply that I had assembled the entire ensemble as pictured. I have the 770 and the PT035 housing thus far. N

 

[Reef Man]

Gotcha.... If you get the rest I would be interested in a report on how you like it!!!

 

[conradb212]

I read your entry on scubadiverinfo.com about the tahoe dive and I wondered how the 770 fared at that depth. Now I know.

Yes, I pushed it a little too far. Mine was a preproduction model and thus perhaps not quite as well sealed as the final production model. I took it down to 67 feet at Catfish Sink at Manatee Springs State Park in Florida. There I noticed that water pressure pushes in some of the buttons so that below 40 or 50 feet, not all of them function anymore. Other than that it was fine with the exception of a tiny, tiny pearl of water inside the battery compartment. No other flooding occurred. We took a production 770 to 77 feet in a quarry and that one never had a problem with buttons at all. The LCD glass gets pushed in a bit so that part of the display temporarily goes black, but that goes away as you ascend.

At Tahoe I hadn't planned on going deeper than 50 or 60 feet and thus took the 770 along. But the scenery was so breathtaking and the viz so incredible (100+) that I just plain forgot, and at around 90 the 770 flooded. I felt really stupid. I mean, I review cameras and often push them, but I never willfully nuke them.

The SD Card, btw, didn't get destroyed and showed the 770's demise, with the final pics showing the water encroaching on the LCD. I took it apart (I had fully resurrected a flooded Pentax W10 that way). The 770 with its folded zoom is VERY complex inside. I inspected and dried every single part and reassembled it, but to no avail.

Moral of the story is, in my opinion, this: a camera rated 5 or ten feet is used for snorkeling; divers don't take it down. One rated for 33 feet is a different story; divers will take it with, and so it is much more likely to be taken deep. Based on experience, I'd say the engineering safety factor with the 770 is about 2x, i.e. you can take it to about 66 feet or so without much risk. But still, my guess is that some have flooded. So Olympus may well go back to shallower ratings. Which would be understandable. However, I must say that even with a housing, I really like a camera that can take some water and won't just die when exposed to a housing leak.

Incidentally, I often pontificate on my experiences with different cameras in my blog at scubadiverinfo.com.

 

[Nemrod]

Reefman, I am saving my allowance to get the whole rig. I just have to many fires going on at one time it seems and my lovely wife seems to have other priorities--imagine that.

N

 

[Reef Man]

How funny!!! But I certainly do understand that....Hey, do you know if they have that rig for the 720SW...and the PT-033 Under water case....That is what I have...I really like the pics but would like the added strobe with the camera...

 

[amajamar]

Get the UW case for it and you can do 130... I have the 720 with the UW case and have had it to 150 no problems... Takes good pictures and nice vids....

I have the 720SW myself and was contemplating the housing. Do you recommend it or would the additional couple of hundred bucks be best spent on an entirely new dedicated underwater camera?



amajamar

 

[Nemrod]

Reefman, I think the answer is YES. The base listed for the PT033 is the same as the PT035. The part is --AD Mount Base PT-033/035. The base holds the lens adapter and the strobe and therefore you should be able to build the same rig with the 720 and PT033.

http://www.inonamerica.com/news.php?news_id=86&newscat=0

N

 

[Reef Man]

That is cool...I will check it out....That would add more light at depth and give more color..... Very cool!!!! Thanks much!!!!

 

[scubadobadoo]

I love the idea of this camera but I think it is still a generation or two away from me buying it. The problem I always have with these smaller lens cameras is that they tend to take horribly blurry shots in less that ideal lighting situations and the red eye is an issue. For the money, I will still go with the Canon power shots(like an a710is) and a housing when solely talking about all around image quality vs price. Still, a small camera that doesn't require a housing is a NICE thing! A few more years and the price will go down and technology will go up enough in this small package to make it worth the almost 400 bucks. Getting closer....

One other issue...every time I ask sales people about this camera they say they get a lot of them returned with flooding issues. YMMV but that's enough to keep me away for now.

BTW, nice reviews folks! Thanks for taking the time to offer your detailed opinions! It is appreciated!!

 

[Nemrod]

I don't think I would take mine down 30 feet, I don't think I would intentionally dunk it in saltwater. The idea of a rugged, water proof, shock proof, temperature tolerent digi camera is way over due. I and my wife go through cell phones and digi cameras and even a lap top due to small drops of water geting on them. This little camera is a huge compromise in some areas but it is a huge leap forward in "electroniclivibility" to coin a word--it can live in the real world.

As to lens size I am not sure how far technology can compensate for physics. Small lenses are terribly inefficient. No lens can suck light into it, the light available to a lens is a function of the size of the glass and relation to the rear lens opening and CCD/film plane. Big glass has more area upon which for light to strike and thus reach the film/CCD. I may not be choosing the best words but there is no way that little lens can equal a 3 pound piece of Nikkor optics and it never will. N