Best underwater camera, Fuji or the new Kodak?

[dclwdwlover]

After re-reading this thread, I have to say that my response about the Kodak camera & it's wonderful quality pics. was based mostly on 'land' pictures with high sunlight - not specifically underwater. I USE an underwater camera at the beach - but not necessarily for under-the-water. Maybe I should have kept my big trap shut??!!??

 

[GenieDana]

We used the Target underwater camera with excellent results. However, make sure your winding mechanism operates smoothly before you go. Our first camera was so tight that we broke a tooth on the gear used to advance the film (luckily we had taken 4 shots only in the pool, and were able to return it to Target before hand).

Also make sure the flash charges, and works (including the flash indicator light).

We used the camera down to about 10' to 12' with no leaks. The disposables say 17' but it would be unlikely that you would frequent that depth in ordinary snorkeling.

Also, pictures with flash are distinctly better than those without, but in each case our subject matter was about 4 feet or so. I wouldn't expect good flash results much further than that, and depending on the opacity of the water, results could be worse because it is, afterall, a land camera in a plastic case.

A note on film - we used 400 speed film (supplied) and extra rolls. You can shoot steady enough underwater not to warrant 800 speed, and get crisper pictures.

 

[GenieDana]

See the difference between the closer subjects and the background (more distant) where there was no artificial illumination:

 

[GenieDana]

Sorry about the double reply...

 

[CindyBeth]

I went out today too and bought the camera from Target!

GenieDana - I loved seeing the difference between flash and non-flash, very helpful to me!! Also, do you think using the 400 that came with the camera is good enough for underwater pictures, I don't need to go get 800?

 

[Grumbo]

Another thing to keep in mind is your processing. Photography having been a large part of my job including the processing it is remarkable what a crappy print can be made from what essentially is a great negative.
Look at your negs if you aren't happy with the print. You may find there is lots of detail that is NOT showing on your print. Alot of the automated processors and the kids they have operating them have the ability to do a good job but time and money constraints dictate they set them on auto and just spit out photos and hopefully they're OK. Oft times the colour is off and too dark/light.
Cheers,
Grumbo

 

[piglet33]

wow GenieDana those are great pictures. I can't wait to use my camera now. I used the Fuji disposable underwater camera on our last cruise and was very happy with the pictures. It looks like I will be happy with this purchase as well.

Thank you to everyone for their opinions, it makes things a lot easier when trying to decide on things.

 

[Favorite Auntie]

I used the Kodak and was very happy with it. Never used the Fugi.

 

[gometros]

Originally posted by tpseller
(If you don't beleive me - and you have a small cut, look at your blood underwater -it will be green)

You're name wouldn't be Bruce, by any chance?

We just got our pictures back from our cruise last week and all I can say is that the shallower thewater, the better the pictures. This makes sense, because there is more light. I don't know if any of the cameras come with a flash (our Fuji didn't), but if you can, make sure it has one.

We did get some great pictures of the stingrays.

 

[MrsPete]

I teach photography, though my experience is really limited to on-land photographs!

I'll second what several other people have said: Kodak is best for reds/yellows/browns. Fuji is stronger on greens/blues. Because I tend to take many outdoor pictures, I like Fuji.

I'll also second what others have said about lighting: it is essential. Save your film if you don't have good light.

I like disposable cameras for the beach; however, the quality of the pictures you'll get through these little plastic lenses will never equal what you'll get from a "real camera." Here are two hints for using disposable cameras: Don't unwrap them from the packaging until the last minute, and get them developed as soon as possible. Actually, the develop-them-as-soon-as-possible rule is important for all film! You'll almost certainly lose some quality if you allow your film to sit around.

Another thing to consider is the zoom lens -- it is an underestimated tool. We tend to like pictures that are close-up and focused on a certain subject. We don't tend to like pictures that are far away and include so much "stuff" that nothing stands out. Obviously, you're not going to get a zoom lens in a disposable, but if you're buying a "real" underwater camera, DO get a good zoom lens.

Finally, a note on film speed. Again, I'm an expert on land, not underwater, but I'm going to go out on a limb and say this: I'd stick to 400 speed film. When you use 800 speed film photographer shake (your own hand shanking and causing a less than perfect photograph) can be a problem; I often use a tripod or monopod when I'm shooting with 800 film -- I assume no one is using a tripod underwater! This problem is lessened with 400. I don't know if digital underwater cameras exist, but the photographer shake problem is exaggerated with digital cameras.

 

[jrabbit]

GenieDana - Were those pictures were take with a flash? Is this using a "non disposable" underwater camera? They are way better than the ones I took with the disposable. If my pic's turned out this way - I would continue to try to take underwater pictures.

FantasticDisFamily - I put all of my film into the clear film canisters. The opened every canister (20) and swabbed/wanded each and every one of them. We developed our pictures in Florida before returning home. When going through Orlanda we said the heck with it and ran our film through the x-ray machine in the lead film bag. That caused them to hand inspect and they just opened the film bag, took a quick peek and we were on our way as opposed to the anal retentive behavior we experience going to Florida.

 

[GenieDana]

Taken with Target underwater camera with flash. 400 speed Fugi film. Pictures processed by Snapfish.com

 

[AnnMorin]

Genie those pictures are AMAZING!!!
I looked at target on line and did not see any underwater camera.,. was it from a target store?

 

[GenieDana]

The camera is called a "Panaview" The packaging barcode number is 1964359989. It comes in a hanging package (clear plastic) .

It came with a roll of Kodak Max 400 speed film, 2 AA batteries, and a coupon for $2 off in processing and wrist strist strap (for use as a regular land camera) and rubber band for the plastic waterproof case.

See pics below:

 

[CindyBeth]

I said up above that I had bought one at Target. Mine looks just like GenieDana but says Mariner on it instead and only has one AA battery. I looked at my Target and didn't see any that said Panaview only this one named Mariner. It seemed like everything else was the same, so I guess I shall see when I use it!

 

[GenieDana]

Correction:

Our's only has one AA battery (my mistake - sorry).

 

[FantasticDisFamily]

jrabbit - what a pain! I had everything in the lead bags so I knew they'd hand inspect anyway when the machine hit on that and had been advised ahead of time to tell them. I think some of it depends on the inspector and how much of a pain they want to make it for you! Sorry they decided they had to do every canister!

MrsG. - you are SO right about the possibility of hand shake. And it can vary with "real" cameras. A friend of mine has one of the newer Canon Rebels and can not get rid of hand shake - even has problems with 400 speed when the light is starting to go, slowing shutter speeds even a tiny bit. My Pentax ZX-10 on the other hand gives me great results with very limited shake issues. I can and do shoot 800 regularly, often shooting 1600 in lower light settings with up to 300 mm lens hand held. I do have both a monopod and tripod but often in the situations I'm shooting they are more hassle than help! And some of it may be practice too. I've shot MANY rolls at high school football games over the last 3 years.

Deb

 

[musicgirl]

Great Pictures GenieDana, we had the same camera but our pictures were bad!!

Someone mentioned an underwater DIGITAL camera, and yes they do exist. My dh is the photographer in the the family and loves digital. Evidently, it is a Sony camera for around $250 on the internet. It can also take video without sound (due to the waterproof case). He says he must have this for our next trip!! We'll probably get it, but unfortunately our trip isn't until 6-04 so I won't be able to let you know how it works!!!

 

[musicgirl]

Update on the digital. My DH tells me it is model DSC-U60
www.sonystyle.com.

 

[Chris in Boise]

I'm the person who started this thread by asking if the Kodak or Fuji cameras are better.

Just to show you what I've been able to do with these cheap plastic wonders, here are some pictures that I took a few years ago with the Fuji underwater camera.

I was snorkeling in a bay when the turtle (who was two or three feet long) swam by, and the kids are in the hotel pool.

For both shots I was close to the surface, so there was plenty of sunlight to help keep the colors intact.

You can improve the images greatly (like I did) by scanning them into your computer and using a photo-editing program to adjust the color balance.

A long time ago someone here posted a wonderful tip for underwater shooting that helped me to improve my photos.

They said that you shouldn't focus all of your efforts on trying to take pictures of fish, because they're just fish and unless you have a great underwater camera with a close-focusing lens and an underwater flash, it probably won't look like much.

The underwater photos that you'll end up treasuring over the years will be the ones with your friends and family in them. (Yes, that turtle is my uncle.) So if it's possible, get your loved ones out in the water and get some shots of them. Ideally, you can have them swim WITH the fish and take some pictures of that!