Page 1 of 1

Is a waterproof camera necessary?

PostPosted: Fri 22 Jul, 2016 8:04 am
by kneighbour
I do a lot of day bushwalking, and will soon be venturing into overnight/multi day trips. Currently if I want to take a photo (usually for Facebook), I use my fairly good Xiaomi chinese phone. The photos are usually adequate, but the failure rate (as in poor exposure, poor focus, etc) is pretty high. And of course it is not much good in poor light. I guess the latest iPhone 6S or Samsung S7 phones have pretty good cameras, but I am not in that league.

I also have a fairly good quality point and shoot camera. About $350 many years ago, probably equivalent to about $600 with a comparable model today. If I ever want 'real' photos, I always take this unit along. The problem is it is fairly bulky and is in no way waterproof (but then, neither is my phone). You have to hand it from a strap around your neck. It is also getting a bit old in the tooth and some problems are appearing.

I have been looking at getting a waterproof camera, something like the Nikon Coolpix AW130, Olympus Tough TG-4 or the Panasonic Lumix FT6. These are around $300-$400. No idea which one, so if anyone has any pointers in that direction, then good.

The problem is these are waterproof cameras (which I presume you need for bushwalking), so are not known for their sterling image quality. They are more about the waterproofing than the lens, etc. In fact, none have much of a zoom at all, naturally. While I do not expect professional quality images, I do want something that is point and shoot, and a lot better than a phone camera. And it is this last point that is the worry - are these cameras that much better than a phone? I ask this as my wife is pretty sure that we don't need a need camera :lol: , but I kind of think we do.

Re: Is a waterproof camera necessary?

PostPosted: Fri 22 Jul, 2016 8:24 am
by stepbystep
G'day...it's a slippery slope.

Trouble with a phone is the more you use it the higher the chance is you'll drop it and break it, or lose it. This is a modern day nightmare.

Years ago(8) I upgraded my P&S to a weather/shockproof model after dropping the old one in a creek. I got the first generation of the panasonic(TS1) it still works fine and once survived 2 months lost in the bush including weeks under snow before I found it again, so they work...if you can find one that shoots RAW files you will start to get images that standup really well for internet use and will also print up pretty well to A4 sort of size. Tell your wife you are investing in your own safety by protecting your phone :)

Re: Is a waterproof camera necessary?

PostPosted: Fri 22 Jul, 2016 8:25 am
by gayet
A fully waterproof camera isn't necessary, although a waterproof carry bag or cover is a good idea. There are any number of topics on here about cameras and water protection thereof, so it might be an idea to search and read through some of those to get an idea of what others use or do to avoid wet camera gear.

http://bushwalk.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=23&t=21617&p=283017&hilit=water+proof+camera#p283017

or
http://bushwalk.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=23&t=22873&p=296171&hilit=water+proof+camera#p296171

Re: Is a waterproof camera necessary?

PostPosted: Fri 22 Jul, 2016 9:03 am
by kneighbour
Thanks for the advice. I just discovered that there is a whole sub-forum for photography, so will scoot across there.

Re: Is a waterproof camera necessary?

PostPosted: Fri 22 Jul, 2016 10:24 am
by johnrs
Hi KN
Wonderful report for the Coolpix, amazing little camera,
Also have a much older Olympus Tough that has done lots of service,
I imagine the current model will also be a beauty.
The durable and compact nature of these items means they get a lot of use.
John

Re: Is a waterproof camera necessary?

PostPosted: Fri 22 Jul, 2016 10:38 am
by paul_gee
I've had an Olympus TG-3 for a couple of years. It's the best point-and-shoot I have ever owned.

I bought it to accommodate my heavy-handedness with gear. I had a Ricoh point-and-shoot prior, which I killed. I wanted something that could get dropped, wet, and dirty. The TG-3 eats this up.

Don't discount the image quality of waterproof cameras. My TG-3 produces images that are razor sharp and nicely exposed with little input. So, I would say, it's technically fine - the rest comes down to the user. Coming from a DSLR background (I use to have a Canon EOS10D, but got rid of it due to its weight and bulk) I wanted something with reasonable manual controls. It's not a Canon G9, but it does allow for some artistic and technical override, to get the images that you want.

The thing with waterproof cameras for me, is accessibility. I don't want to lock away my camera in a bag after each photo. That's why people tend to use their smartphones so much nowadays - they're there, in their pocket, ready to go. My TG can hang around my neck, sit in my hip belt pocket, and be at the ready.