What is better: Underwater camera or an underwater camera case?

Question

My Situation: I'm going to a family reunion in Hawaii in a couple of weeks, and was thinking taking pictures while snorkeling may be fun. I could buy one of those $10 disposable underwater film cameras, but since I go into caves a lot which are wet, I thought getting something not disposable could be useful there also. I don't want to spend too much money, but am exploring my options.

What I've tried so far: I went to REI the other day, and bought a $30 heavy duty underwater plastic baggie with a hard lens opening that goes over the camera lens part. I tried it out with the digital camera I already have and noticed the pictures are okay if I don't use the flash, but once I use the flash the pictures come out very cloudy. That was the AquaPac brand, and I'm not sure if the DiCaPac brand name underwater baggie would be any better or not. As an alternative, I'm not sure if those "hard case" underwater housings take care of this "flash problem", although with how much they cost for my particular snapshot camera model, it may be cheaper just to buy a real underwater camera. I'd also be worried that a hard case housing wouldn't be useful if I decide to upgrade cameras later on, since they're specific to the camera model?

So, moving the story forward, at Costco there's an underwater camera usually $300, but I just bought it on sale for $150, trying to figure out if I should open it or return it. It's a Nikon Coolpix AW100. It's waterproof to 33 ft, drop proof to 5 ft, and has "underwater mode" (although the camera I already have has an "aquarium mode", not sure if that would help or not).

My Question: I'm not sure if it would be best to go with the Nikon AW100, or get a better underwater heavy duty baggie case with the hard lens to go with my existing digital camera (so that I can always upgrade my digital camera later on), or some other option?



IT'S NOT NEEDED TO READ BELOW UNLESS MORE DETAILS ARE NEEDED:

The underwater camera I found at Costco is http://www.amazon.com/Nikon-COOLPIX-Waterproof-Digital-Camouflage/dp/B008JI0R8U/ref=sr_1_4?s=electronics&ie=UTF8&qid=1365876725&sr=1-4&keywords=Nikon+AW100

If I do get some underwater housing, the digital camera I have now is a Canon Powershot A720 IS that I got in 2007 http://www.amazon.com/Canon-PowerShot-A720IS-Digital-Stabilized/dp/B000V1VG2E/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1365875483&sr=8-1&keywords=Canon+Powershot+A720+IS

The type of underwater housing which gave me foggy pictures when using the flash was http://www.amazon.com/Aquapac-Small-Camera-Case-Shown/dp/B0012BRAFY/ref=sr_1_24?s=electronics&ie=UTF8&qid=1365875732&sr=1-24&keywords=aquapac+underwater+case

The housing which I haven't tried but don't know if it would be better is http://www.amazon.com/Dicapac-WP-ONE-Digital-Camera-Waterproof/dp/B005IAXVMG/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1365875559&sr=8-1&keywords=dicapac+waterproof+case

Answer 1

Forget the disposables, they're pretty much useless for anything.



If you only want to take pictures at or just below the surface, the 'baggies' are OK. At anything more than a couple of metres (~6 ft) below the surface, though, they will tend to shrinkwrap the camera and jam the controls -- which makes them useless for diving (scuba or free).



Although housed cameras tend to have more scope for adjusting settings, the housing doubles the camera volume, making it unwieldy out of the water, and if the housing leaks, the camera's toast. Also, as you pointed out, housings are (and have to be) specific for particular camera model, and usually double the effective price of the camera.



For a camera you can use with minimal fuss both above the surface and just under it, an amphibious camera like the Nikon you've bought is probably the best way to go. One caveat: Even though it's 'rated' to 33 ft, don't expect to be able to take it that deep -- for that you need a camera rated to at least 100 ft (and 150 ft would be better).



Finally, the reason you notice a difference between flash and non-flash photos is likely what is known as 'backscatter', where the on-board flash lights up particulates in the water between you and your subject.



This has nothing to do with the 'waterproofing' method used (bagged, housed or amphibious), it happens because the on-board flash is positioned (too) close to the lens, so the lens picks up all the particulate reflections. The only ways to eliminate backscatter are either to take photos without the flash (may be a practical option in clear shallow water), or use an off-board 'slaved' flash unit(s), positioned so as to light the subject from ~45° to the side(s) (so that the lens doesn't see the backscatter).



Bear in mind that use of external strobes is very much dependent on the camera design. You can't attach strobe arms to a 'bagged' camera, nor can you attach them to all unhoused 'amphibious' camera units, either. And even a basic strobe will cost at least as much as the camera.

Answer 2

I haven't done much with underwater photography myself, but do really like the ruggedized cameras that are coming out. I guess I'd be more apt to go with that Nikon, for a couple reasons:



1. ) Your other camera is 6 years old. Even if the Nikon isn't built for the same role as your Canon, it is bound to have some advantages over your PowerShot considering how fast technology is moving. It's hard to say whether the image quality is better or not (beyond the megapixel numbers, but those really don't mean that much), but after 6 years it is likely. Sounds like you got a really good deal on it too, so kudos.



2.) The Nikon is designed to go underwater (shallow), whereas you need an extra container for your Canon. I'd always be worried about the bag leaking, or that I forgot to seal it right. Presumably you'd be taking your camera out of the bag or putting it back in as you transitioned between land and water. The Nikon will just work in both settings without any fuss. Also, the Nikon will be able to take pictures through its own lens, while the PowerShot will have to look through an extra layer of glass when you are in the water, which might introduce extra glare or reflections (a minor point, but I'm picky).



Do read up reviews on the Nikon though and see if it will do what you want. The crowd on Amazon seems generally happy with, while the few reviews on DPReview.com were really hard on it (though are a much tougher crowd, though).

Answer 3

Whether it is still in operating , the A720 is still a great compact digicam. Nevertheless, I think that you just found out that one-dimension-matches-many housings are disappointments. A committed housing for the A720 would more often than not be unimaginable to seek out. It's in most cases invaluable to get the Nikon AW100 or might be an Olympus TG1 on your snorkeling and other wet condition camera. The Olympus could have an skills for the reason that of the broader aperture. There may be reductions on it because the TG-2 comes out. Bring along the A720 to your pics in instances where it's not uncovered to water injury. It's going to ordinarily give you sharper pictures than your water-resistant camera. Scene modes like aquarium are simply to right the white steadiness. It does not give the non-water-resistant digital camera a bodily safety from water.

Answer 4

I have used a few underwater point and shoot cameras similar to the Nikon you mentioned. They generally take excellent underwater photos and mediocre regular photos. Underwater cameras tend to be more rugged and you can take them anywhere. I personally like the idea of them for their purpose. I would go with the dedicated camera if you can afford it. You will have much better control of the camera underwater.