WalMart and Fuji water cameras

[clh2]

My Walmart had the Fuji waterproof disposable cameras today for $5.00. I bought mine a month ago for $7.54.

 

[Timon]

Just a tiny little piece of advice. You might want to consider buying Kodak instead of Fuji. We just got back from our Western Caribbean cruise and we took 2 Fuji cameras and ended up buying a Kodak in Grand Cayman and almost ALL the pics from the two Fuji cameras came out terrible! They couldn't handle the humidity and they got all foggy. Out of 2 cameras, only 5 or 6 pictures were good enough, the rest are going in the garbage! All the kodak pics came out perfectly. I was so sad when I got them developed as I took some great photos of our ship but not one turned out and all of our Dunns River Falls pictures came out blurry

Here's an example...
This one was taken with our underwater Fuji camera:

This was with our Kodak:

Now that I know, I would never risk our wonderful memories ever again, I will always buy Kodak, even if it's more expensive!

 

[bffttsiu]

It seems from past reports that the Fuji has been recommended more often than Kodak.

 

[mcnuss]

I'd like to make the suggestion that rather than buying disposable cameras, you consider a "real" underwater camera. We got ours at Target, it cost $14.95 and came with a roll of 36 exp. film - so basically the camera cost me about $10. This way you don't carry multiple cameras, don't have to figure out ahead of time how many to buy. Also, in both the long & short run it is more economical. Finally, it's more environmentally friendly - less waste.

As to the Fuji/Kodak discussion. It's not necessarily the Fuji camera that's recommended, it's the film. Fuji tends to do better with blues & greens, Kodak with reds & blues. I used Fuji in the underwater camera and they photos are stunning. I used Kodak in my regular camera and they came out great. The ship's predominant colors are very favorable to Kodak film!

 

[Bev J]

We too used fugi water camera and our pics came out great.

As to the water camera from target, what brand was it? Is it reusable??

 

[GenieDana]

Hmmm,

Did you take any pool pictures with your Fugi cameras or touch the lens area with ANY sunscreen on you fingers, clothing in you bags, etc??

Sunscreen fogs polycarbonate plastic, even the vapor from it does. Was the fog you noticed on the inside of the plastic case or outside?

Next, you said you bought the replacement cameras in Grand Cayman (so they were at air temperature already???). How long did you try to take pictures (in the heat) with the Fugi's, after taking them out of the air conditioning?

Unless the cameras leaked, they wouldn't pick up additional moisture and fog. The only other explanation is condensation, or the external plastic on the lens was compromised in some way (that's why I asked about sunscreen and pool use (pools are loaded with 2nd hand sunscreen).

Then you still have the possibility of a defective camera (batch?).

We use the Target camera mcnuss mentioned with excellent results. You can put your own film in it.

There have been numerous other posts with success with the Fugi, so I doubt a systematic problem with the camera.

As for the comments on "which film is best" the color (blues / greens vs reds / yellows) - if true, the Kodak could do worse underwater if it favors the warmer (longer) wavelenghts. As these are filtered out by the water first, red is completely gone at a suprising shallow depth/distance (15 to 20 feet depending on water conditions). Either way your snorkeling at relatively shallow depths and it probably doesn't matter - IF you get close enough.

Progressive color loss is not a function of depth but is dependent on the distance light travels through water in any direction. So even if you a 1" deep shooting a red critter 15 feet away, also at 1" deep, the light has to travel a total distance of 15 feet. As a result, most of the warm colors will be filtered out. A vivid colored fish will look a dull green or brown color. Similarly, if you are shooting at a depth of 10 feet and the critter you are aiming at is five feet away, the light has to travel a total distance of 15 feet.

To avoid this - artificial illumination (and the flashes on these disposables are very short ranged, especially underwater).

Is the dynamic range of the films for these underwater cameras published anywhere that someone can quote, or is the Fugi / Kodak color speculation an urban myth?

 

[mcnuss]

As to the water camera from target, what brand was it? Is it reusable??

I could not get you an image or description from Target.com, but here it is.

http://porterscamerastore.com/Merch...n=PROD&Product_Code=02-0340&Category_Code=C3I

 

[Timon]

Did you take any pool pictures with your Fugi cameras or touch the lens area with ANY sunscreen on you fingers, clothing in you bags, etc??

We were not in a pool but yes we obviously were wearing sunscreen. But that was also the case when we were using the kodak and no, we did not touch the lens area with my fingers etc.

Sunscreen fogs polycarbonate plastic, even the vapor from it does. Was the fog you noticed on the inside of the plastic case or outside?

There was no noticeable fog while we were using the camera. I only noticed the fog when the photos had been developed.

Next, you said you bought the replacement cameras in Grand Cayman (so they were at air temperature already???). How long did you try to take pictures (in the heat) with the Fugi's, after taking them out of the air conditioning?

The camera I bought in G.C. was in a sealed package from an air conditioned store, no different from taking my sealed FuJi from our air conditioned stateroom. We only took photos with our Fuji's on or near water, which took anywhere from 1 hour to 3 hours from A/C to using them.

Unless the cameras leaked, they wouldn't pick up additional moisture and fog. The only other explanation is condensation, or the external plastic on the lens was compromised in some way (that's why I asked about sunscreen and pool use (pools are loaded with 2nd hand sunscreen).

They all seemed fine while I was taking the pictures. No cracks etc and the photofinisher never remarked about anything unusual. I was quite particular about not getting anything on the camera.


I am a scrapbooker and an avid photographer and my photos are very important to me. If ONE set of pics from the Fuji's came out badly, I wouldn't have posted about not using Fuji, and perhaps maybe even would have chalked it up to user error, however, both of my Fuji cameras turned out badly. They were used in different places at different times and locations. There were a few pictures that came out but most of them were terrible. I posted a good shot from my Fuji, if you like, I could post the really bad ones too!

If there was something on my lens, it would have shown on all my developed pictures and NONE of them would have turned out.

The kodak was used in the same conditions as the Fuji, in fact, when you speak of sunscreen effects, the Kodak was a lot more exposed to people using sunscreen (I was on a boat for 3 hours with 17 crammed people reapplying the stuff over and over) and other things such as bags, snorkel equipment etc. Every single one of my shots from the Kodak turned out beautifully.

I was just sharing my experience with my cameras with others on this board. I was not telling people to run and buy Kodak, simply that I had a bad experience with Fuji. That is what this board is all about, sharing information. I have read tons of cruise reports from DCL and have read about people not enjoying their Beef Tenderloin at dinner, I would never post a reply stating that perhaps they didn't like it because they ate it too quickly or maybe they weren't in the mood for beef or whatnot. Perhaps they got a bad batch, as you mentioned. I would not make small of the fact that they had a bad meal and didn't enjoy it. These were my pictures, something I treasure and hold dear as wonderful memories that I will have for a lifetime. More than likely I will never be back to Haiti and Jamaica and I am upset that my pictures of these places and memories did not turn out.

Perhaps if I had bought Kodak cameras they might have turned out. Perhaps not. But I will never again try to save $4 by buying Fuji instead of Kodak.

And maybe if I had read this post from someone else on this board before I left, maybe I wouldn't have bought Fuji. I am sure there will be people who buy Fuji cameras who have great pictures just as I am sure someone, somewhere will always dislike the Beef Tenderloin.

Personally, I loved the Beef Tenderloin!

 

[justmestace]

I just plced a post about this exact subject a week or so ago. We just got back from Jamaica and Bonaire, Netherlands Antilles. On purpose, I took 3 underwater cameras, in order to test this myself. I took a Fuji, Kodak, and the Target re-usable. Basically, they all stunk. Some pictures were good, some bad, some had the same problem that Timon ran in to....foggy, etc.
The biggest determining factor in good underwater pictures is the amount of sunlight, or a strobe flash, and the background (white sand as opposed to dark coral).
I threw away the Target re-usable and went online when I returned and ordered a good underwater camera with a strobe, and a macro lens for close-ups. Now, I admit, it was about $325, which is too much if you're doing a once in a life time cruise, but we go often, and my pics are precious to me also, so it will be well worth it.
The problem with the re-usable Target camera was that it didn't always wind correctly, so we have a lot of double exposures, it did get water in it ( a small leak), and the flash was too weak. I've been taking pictures (amateur) for a long time, so I know I wasn't doing anything wrong, it's just exactly what it is...a cheap camera.
Of the disposables, I seemed to have better pictures above water and below, with the Kodak also. JMO.

 

[GenieDana]

Thanks for the subsequent explanation. It brings things more into perspective, although we have had great success with both the Fugi and Target (cheap cameras and have used Kodak too). Perhaps we were lucky?

I questioned the prognosis because when an indictment is posted without a complete explanation, it could lead the reader to perhaps, the wrong conclusion.

Last question - curiosity: Was the film processing done at the same location, and at the same time (since we have ruled everthing else out)?

In retrospect, I’m sorry that your pictures did not turn out and hope the ones you did get are wonderful.

 

[mmouse37]

I took these last year with a Fuji disposabl bought at Wal-mart

http://community.webshots.com/photo/48196942/48731982ojyNxN

http://community.webshots.com/photo/48196942/48732013Vsgszl

http://community.webshots.com/photo/48196942/48732141PeVoTW

We were lucky...we also brought along a non Disposable Minolta Underwater Camera that uses advantix film and I would say the pics came out about the same. I guess with everything in life not everyone is going to have the same results with the same products. Sorry your pics did not come out. I also treasure my pics to relive those wonderful memories so I know how you feel.

MJ

 

[mcnuss]

Originally posted by justmestace
I took a Fuji, Kodak, and the Target re-usable. Basically, they all stunk....
I threw away the Target re-usable and went online when I returned and ordered a good underwater camera with a strobe, and a macro lens for close-ups. Now, I admit, it was about $325, which is too much if you're doing a once in a life time cruise, but we go often, and my pics are precious to me also, so it will be well worth it.
The problem with the re-usable Target camera was that it didn't always wind correctly, so we have a lot of double exposures, it did get water in it ( a small leak), and the flash was too weak. I've been taking pictures (amateur) for a long time, so I know I wasn't doing anything wrong, it's just exactly what it is...a cheap camera.

You really cannot compare a $325 camera to either a disposable or one that cost under 20 bucks. It simply is an unfair comparison.

We had NO problems with the Vivitar I got from Target. I am very opposed to disposable cameras as they create an inordinate amount of waste. But I think it is more appropriate, if someone is deciding between taking disposables or buying an inexpensive reusable, to make that comparison.

 

[BAKAROMA]

GenieDana,

I am impressed with your knowledge of photography what do you do or how did you come to know so much?

Timon,

Where was that first picture from in Cayman? I want to go there! Is it an excursion, I assume yes?

 

[justmestace]

mcnuss....please look over the posts again...I haven't gotten my new camera yet. I said I used the disposable Fuji, disposable Kodak, and the 19.99 Target re-usable, and none was any better than the other. I had a lot of trouble with the winding movement of the Target, so I threw it away. It is very true that maybe the one I bought was a "lemon". And, again, I am only buying the expensive camera because we go all the time. My recommendaton for those who are only going a time or two is the Kodak (or the Fuji), but make sure that it is a sunny day, and that your background is light, such as white sand.
I'm sure there are some other cameras that can go underwater and have a flash...those would be ideal.
Is your Vivitar an underwater camera, or do you have a case to use it underwater (because we were talking about underwater usage) ? I had a 35mm Vivitar for dry land pictures and I loved it.
GenieDana...excellent question! I had a lot of my film developed in Bonaire, as I didn't want to risk bringing the film canisters home through xray...even though they had a place that had all of the latest developing equiptment, I made a big mistake having them done there. The color, contrast, resolution, etc was all bad. I took my negatives to the drug store whe I got home and had them all redone. They came out much better here. So, yes, it can make a difference where you have them developed. I'm certain that if I had taken the negs to the local photo shop (very expensive tho) they might have been even better.
I was also told once that if your film gets too hot, you will lose a lot of color and the pictures will come out looking faded.

 

[Timon]

GenieDana,

All three cameras were developed at the same place at the same time.

BAKAROMA ,

That first pic I posted is from Ocho Rios in Jamaica at Dunn's River Falls, the second one is from Grand Cayman. You can see more pics from these two places on my website. Just click on Cassworld link below then click on Trip Reports then click on Explorer of the Seas Cruise.

 

[justmestace]

Timon: I totally loved your trip report from your western cruise!! You write the way I do...like talking. And your pictures are fantastic, especially the sundown shots. I had a few of those from Bonaire that looked good....used my 35mm for those.
We were at Dunns River Falls on Oct 31st..Halloween. That water was COLD! We had a blast, tho. Alot of my pictures came out looking exactly like yours, with the cloudiness, etc. Still wondering why. Guess we'll never know. To top off lousy pics and bad developing in Bonaire, they get $20 U.S. for 24 exp!! When I gave them a Kodak disposable with 39 exposures, they couldn't figure out how much to charge me, so they just said $25. Guess I got a bargain on that roll! Ha.
Great pictures (yours) again, thanks!

 

[mcnuss]

mcnuss....please look over the posts again...I haven't gotten my new camera yet.

When you said you had ordered it, I assumed that you had gotten it. Since most peope can't justify buying that kind of gear, I'll just focus on my experience with the camera I used.

What you are calling the "Target" reusable is not branded Target, so if yours was, they are not the same. Mine is a Vivitar, it has a flash, and it had a very easy to operate winder. Yes, it's in a casing. Is it a great camera? No! My film camera is an Olympus SLR and there's no comparing. But since I can't take that underwater, I had to choose something, and I wanted a) not to create so much waste as the disposables do, b) have an underwater camera for any subsequent trips we take (sure wish I had remembered to take it to Typhoon Lagoon in Oct. ) and c) have my choice of film depending on light conditions etc... I am very particular about my film. It took terrific pictures, if I do say so myself. I cannot speak at all to the quality of the disposables, but I have seen nice pictures from them, too.

And for those who mentioned it, where you have it developed makes an ENORMOUS difference. I use Ritz bc in my area they are the best. They are about $2 more than CVS or KMart, but IMHO, well worth it for my precious pix. They use state of the art equipment (in fact, got a new machine just in time for my Disney trip, wasn't that nice of them?!!).

There are so many reasons why pictures turn out poorly, it's hard to speculate what happened to Timon's.

 

[MarkRG]

I guess I'll jump in with my advice on the matter. Brand is not so much important as film speed and the amount of light you have when taking pictures.

First about film speed. Fuji and Kodak both make 2 different underwater cameras. You need to watch this! One uses 400 speed film and one 800 speed film. With 400 speed film unless the light is incredible you will probably get a lot of fuzzy pictures underwater. Go for the slightly more expensive one that says on it that it uses 800 speed film. With Kodak, don't get fooled by that 'max' stuff, that is not film speed, just a cute name, still look for it to say on it that it is 800 speed film or you'll probably get 400 for sure.

About light, underwater is much more picky about this than on land. You need a good clear, bright day to take good underwater pics, or a camera with a flash. If it's intermittant clouds, try to wait for that cloud to get out from in front of the sun before snapping the pic, if you can. If it's overcast, you might just need a lfash to get any really sharp ones.

Now as to bad, pics, there is always that chance for a camera to be defective. A number of them all at once is where you get into a lower chance of such happening, but it is still possible.

One thing about taking cameras from the room outside in the tropics, you need to warm them up somehow. put it in a pocket onyour person, use the hair dryer in the stateroom, something, as you'll get the cold glass effect and they will fog up/sweat till they acclimate temperature wise to the warmer air around them.

 

[justmestace]

Thanks, MarkRG....maybe my hunch about the outside temperature was correct. As for the film speed, I had thought that I read in a dive magazine NOT to use the higher speed films underwater for some reason....the reflectiveness, particles in the water, or whatever. Anyway, I'll take your advice and use the higher speed. It's so frustrating to see such incredible things under there and not get good pictures of them. I was swimming with a sea turtle (Hawksbill) in Bonaire, close enough to touch it, and guess who's fault it was that I didn't get a picture of it?? MINE! I ran out of film!! I try to console myself by saying it is forever etched in my memory......right....I can't remember yesterday half the time!

 

[Chris in Boise]

Just my 2 cents worth.

Higher speed films are naturally grainier than lower speed films. That's a fact.

However, with the cheap plastic lenses that are used in disposables, who-knows-what-particles floating in the water, unstable holding of cameras because you're bobbing around like a bouy, the loss of light at underwater depths, maybe the sun's out - maybe it's not, etc., there are a lot of variables that can wreck your underwater pictures taken with an el cheapo camera, no matter what the speed.

I'd recommend using the 800 speed film, myself, because it gives you a better chance of getting a good exposure underwater.

As for fogging up cameras due to temperature changes, bring along a plastic ziplock bag and put your camera in it and seal it up before you leave the ship to go outside for your excursion. By the time you want to use the camera, it will have warmed up and will be safe from condensation.

And in a related topic, if you're going through an airport NEVER put unprocessed film (unexposed or exposed) in a checked suitcase. ALWAYS keep your unprocessed film with your carry-on luggage and ALWAYS request a hand-inspection of your film before you go through the x-ray machine. It's your right to request a hand inspection of any speed film, and their obligation to provide. The security folks might say their x-ray machine is safe for film, but it isn't...especially 400 or 800 speed film.

Good luck!