why can't they get it right??

[riccati 0]

There's been several threads recently looking for a decent point and shoot underwater camera.

 

For me, this means:

 

1) fast low light autofocus

 

2) Raw format

 

3) Good battery life

 

4) Reasonable time between shots.

 

5) Preferrably not xD based (slow, expensive, limit of 1gb)

 

What is so hard about that?

There is plenty of cameras on the market that fulfill all but one of these, at good prices (A620, E900, SP-350, S-80 to name but four). I don't want 9 megapixel. 5 is plenty. Heck, even 4 good clean megapixels would be okay.

 

I know its still a tiny part of the overall camera business, but in the last year or so it seems every diver has an underwater camera, and underwater housings are taking prominent shelf space at regular camera stores. Seems like if anyone got it right, they could capture a sizeable niche market without too much effort, much like the 5050 did a few years ago.

 

Sorry to have a big whinge, but really, I'm perplexed! It shouldn't be that hard!

(why oh why did the S-80 add Digic II, but take out raw????)

[Alex_Mustard 0]

Just to be annoying, there are lots of DSLRs that fit your wish list.

 

Alex

[Arnon_Ayal 1]

Your list of desired points are not exclusive for u/w photography, its true for any one that want a good P&S camera so it’s not 'our' problem only.

[Giles 1]

Just to be annoying, there are lots of DSLRs that fit your wish list. ;)Alex

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I don't think that is an annoying comment at all .. I thnk it is spot on ... I mean .. when you bought a compact film camera in the past what did you expect to get with it ? flash on off .. maybe a few diff photo modes and a zoom ? did i miss anything ?

 

So why just because the cameras are digital do people expect to have everything that all digital cameras have on them !!

 

I bought my compact because it is small ... like alex i wanted a pocket camera .... uw or land doesn't matter I have a dslr and a compact both for different reasons.

 

We are spoilt in the digital day and age but theres no need to get greedy and expect the world and then say it's not enough. We have point and shoots, compacts (have some control), prosumer, and dslrs, and pro body dslrs. Thats a LOT of choice right there i'd say the problem is people not knowing what they want and what they need .. not in the lack of the perfect camera

[dhaas 38]

While everyone preaches using RAW, P&S users in general are very happy with Fine / Large JPEG files, especially above water shooters who will buy 99% of cameras.....Could be price of on board electronics needed for RAW fast processing, programming the chip or whatever that makes the mfrs. decide to leave this off.

 

The compression of the newest cameras in the highest resolution JPEG is so minimal that I think if divers worked on getting a decent exposure in AWB or Daylight settings (or whatever they like color balance wise) this RAW obsession would become moot.

 

Finally, I'd bet the mfrs. believe most buyers of a $200-$400 P&S camera aren't the type to sit in front a computer and tweek RAW files for extended times. Versus doing a simple regimen of crop, color adjustments, maybe sharpen and then send to their online friends and family.

 

YMMV

 

dhaas

[MikeO 5]

While everyone preaches using RAW, P&S users in general are very happy with Fine / Large JPEG files, especially above water shooters who will buy 99% of cameras.

 

The compression of the newest cameras in the highest resolution JPEG is so minimal that I think if divers worked on getting a decent exposure in AWB or Daylight settings (or whatever they like color balance wise) this RAW obsession would become moot.

 

I'd bet the mfrs. believe most buyers of a $200-$400 P&S camera aren't the type to sit in front a computer and tweek RAW files for extended times.

 

YMMV

 

dhaas

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Dave,

 

Your sentiments on what the "average" consumer wants are probably correct. The camera companies aren't run by total morons. They sell what they think most people will want to buy. Any feature that costs something to implement (remember, they are also paying people to develop these features and write code, not just factory people assembling these things) and isn't perceived to increase the bottom line in a measureable way is likely not to be offered unless the company has some other motivation (for example, when I worked for Honda, the company focused on environmental issues and safety issues despite a lack of immediate customer demand because they believed that this helped their image and the overall customer perception of the brand name (and, to some extent, they also believed it was the right thing to do (and, customers believing that Honda wanted to do the right thing was part of the image . . . well you get the idea))).

 

If one ignores the "debate" in the mostly "professional" realm between Nikon and Canon shooters, the average digicam customer doesn't really care about the brand name so much anymore (within certain bounds) as much as how many megapixels there are, what the price is, how much zoom it has (and most people don't even do enough research to understand that "digital zoom" doesn't count), and how idiot-proof it is to ge the pictures back out of it. The only saving grace sometimes is that the internet has made it very easy for the average buyer to read reviews posted by people who do claim to care so the industry does improve things like noise response in order to be viewed positively, get the four or five stars, and protect their market share.

 

Now, as for RAW. You can pry my RAW from my cold, dead, carpal-tunnel-ridden fingers (actually now that I think about it, on most dives I'm two-thirds of the way there already). Sure, .jpg works well for most things and the issue has not, for quite a while, been compression. My camera (and it is an outdated, orphaned, poor old EOS 10D, so maybe upgrading will solve all my problems, right guys?) does a pretty decent job in AWB, but I almost always end up adjusting it in the RAW converter. Also, I try to get the proper exposure but if I don't, then what? Adjusting WB, exposure, shadows and highlights in the RAW converter is relatively straightforward. I've never been able to do that stuff easily with a .jpg with the "regular" Photoshop controls. Of course, this is probably due, in no small part, to my own ineptitude, but hey, why drive a nail with my fist if I can use a hammer? With this hobby (and for me it is, admittedly, just that) I do not claim to be so proud as to toss something into Ansel Adams' most valuable darkroom accessory just because I happened to get the exposure slightly wrong, when I could instead make it serviceable with a little TLCS2 . . .

 

Mike

[riccati 0]

Alex - you're quite right, and I've sometimes thought about making the jump. But it is quite a jump when it's just a hobby (and I'm a student).

 

Giles - I agree it's incredible what we are blessed with in digital compacts these days. What I was really frustrated by was that so many cameras come so close, but none quite make it. And it doesn't seem to me there's any good reason why not.

 

it would not be hard to add raw format to the A620. Even if they charged an extra 50 bucks just for that, I'd still buy it, and I think that setup would keep me happy for many years.

 

When Canon remove raw from the S80, it just starts looking like a big conspiracy to make us all buy DSLRs!!

[dhaas 38]

After a LOT of soul searching I will likely be buying a Canon A620 for the wife and myself to use in Australia's Coral Sea Jan. 2006. Will see what I can produce with it, even with the lame Fine / Large JPEG format

 

I like Canon color and the 4 AA NiMH power source will run this puppy for quite a while before needing recharging and opening the housing. Plus with DIGIC II resulting in faster low light AF I'm hoping for some macro shots to compete with Dr. Bob Whorton, the Fuji F810 and now Fuji E900 master !

 

Only time and practice will tell.....

 

dhaas

[tie 1]

We just picked up several A620's, so hopefully they will work out. Someone mentioned in another thread that the housing has an oval lens port which might not accept attachment lenses. I hadn't even considered this — does anyone know for sure?

[DesertEagle 2]

I had a chance to play with the A620 today. Very nice little camera. It's much faster than the A95. One thing I liked was that the front of the lens barrel is flat. That would make it easy to tape a Magic Filter to the front.

[ce4jesus 1]

When Canon remove raw from the S80, it just starts looking like a big conspiracy to make us all buy DSLRs!!

 

Bingo!...we have a Bingo! Actually manufacturers face this problem everyday in many different areas not just cameras. The technology is available to make a good, cheap item that acts just like its professional cousin. The problem is they will eat into the sales of the higher end product if they make the mid-range product too good. I've seen this at the company I work for where the little brother product is kicking butt and taking market share from the more expensve larger item. The problem? Not enough bang for the buck between the two.

[dhaas 38]

Tie,

 

Ikelite housing will have port like on their other new thick walled 200' capable housings. Usable with accessory lenses with the right adapter....Plus a bit of room around the camera making fogging and the chance to save your electronic wonder if you goof up sealing it

 

All in a nice compact package for traveling.....

 

Speaking of, off to FLA at 6:10 a.m tomorrow (Yikes!) Maybe I'll see some of you at the West Palm Beach dive show

 

dhaas