Using a cheap camera

[nickjb]

I know that to take good photos you need a good camera and a remote flash (or two) will make a big difference but my scuba budget this year only just managed to include a simple, cheap camera for taking a few snapshots.

Can any suggest a few tips for trying to get some reasonable pics when I'm in the Red Sea (Good viz, lots of light). I don't think I'll bother taking into the seas around the UK.

What film (400?), using the built in flash or not, etc.

 

[Cecil]

Nick, you might want to look at the disposables. If you buy a cheap UW camera, which are not cheap ($300), you wouldn't like it after a very short time. If you do want to take this route buy one second hand. There's always plenty availible which should tell you something right there. Save your money for a good digital.

As far as the disposables, they take very good pictures. The two big issues are depth rating and flash availiblity. You might not be able to get both in the same camera. The Fujis will take the depth but no flash, the Kodaks have a flash but will not work at depth. This may have changed

 

[Dee]

If you've already bought a camera, let us know what you have and we can give you specific answers.

 

[DazedAndConfuzed]

You could get a OK underwater camera & strobe for less than $300 like the Ikelite Auto 35. If you want anything digital that could approach it in terms of picture quality, you would have to get at least a 4 megapixel (20 megapixel would be the equivalent of 35mm film.) Whatever that cost, its underwater housing, plus the cheapest digital ready strobe is at least $500.

You could wait a few years for the price of the digital cameras to come down, but the strobes does not seem that it ever will.

 

[scorpionfish]

nickjb once bubbled...

my scuba budget this year only just managed to include a simple, cheap camera for taking a few snapshots.

Can any suggest a few tips for trying to get some reasonable pics when I'm in the Red Sea (Good viz, lots of light).

What film (400?.

Hi!

Just how much in Pounds Sterling (or Dollars Paper) qualifies as "cheap"? We can go from there!

A few suggestions follow. With inexpensive cameras, ambient light is the lynchpin: deeper than ca. 8 meters on a sunny day will result in very blue photos with a distinct lack of detail. So, to turn a phrase, keep it shallow! The deeper you go, the worse it gets. Get very close to whatever you are photographing, too.

Now for some filmy thoughts.


ISO 400 is fine if your camera can accommodate it(Some cannot.) and you are not going to make massive enlargements (Which, with a "cheap" camera is probably not the best idea, anyhow.). There will be no additional light entering your lens with ISO 400, but it will allow you to stop down the aperature and get greater depth of field (I.e., more things will be in focus.). Alternatively, it will also let you stop action if your camera will let you change shutter speeds (I.e., take photos of moving fish that are not blurred. This is probably less important than depth of field considerations.).

Hope this helps--if you get back with the state of your exchequer, maybe we can make a specific suggestion.

Scorpionfish

 

[nickjb]

Thanks for the tips. Photography is only really a secondary activity for me so I can't really spend hundred of pounds (or even dollars) on kit. I do quite fancy getting a snazzy digital one day but there are a lot of other things on my shopping list before that. My plan is just to take a few snapshots.

This is the camera:
http://www.7dayshop.com/catalog/product_info.php?cPath=777_1_102&products_id=7916

Far too cheap to be any good but it is usable to 30m and cost the same as two and a half disposables

The only variables I have are film (100 or 400), flash (built in. on or off) and where I point it. Any tips, technical or artistic, would be appreciated.

 

[Dee]

nickjb once bubbled...
The only variables I have are film (100 or 400), flash (built in. on or off) and where I point it. Any tips, technical or artistic, would be appreciated.

I'd stay with 100 speed film. The 400 is faster but it is also grainier when printed. Unless you plan to shoot a whole lot of fast action, there's more reasons not to use it than in favor of it.

With a built-in flash your biggest problem is going to be backscatter, this white spots you see on some photos. When the flash is close to the lens and pointed straight away from the camera, the light reflects of any particles in the water and bounces back directly to the lens, causing all those little bits to show as fuzzy spots on your photos. To avoid that, get close to your subject to eliminate as much water between it and the camera.

 

[DazedAndConfuzed]

That camera goes down to 15m, not 30m.

It might go down deeper without leaking, but the shutter might trigger automatically due to the external pressue. And with its build in winder, you might end up with a whole roll of film being shot on its own.

To prevent that, you might want a manual wind camera or one that goes down deeper. But if you insist on that camera, you might be able beef up the shutter button's spring so that it won't get depressed by the water pressure.

 

[Bob3]

That's a good alternative to the throw-aways, you'll save that much on your first few rolls of film.

There's another style of camera/housing somewhat similar that has a greater depth rating, here's a sample from ebay:
http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=1393805910

It's a fairly common type that's available in many dive shops.
It's a bit bulkier than the Vivitar, won't fit in a BC pocket unless you have a big one.

 

[SSIdiver02]

Has anyone had experience with the minolta weathermatic?