How many megapixels?
 

I need to buy a new camera (the G9 didn't like the swim in the reef). Considering all my cameras seem to meet their untimely demise in approximately 2-3 years, cost is a concern. :lol: I don't see the need to buy a 25 MP camera if I don't need one. The only reason I blow photos up is just to frame them and put them on my wall for a year or two. I will be buying another Canon camera.

So, simple question. If I never blow a picture up bigger than 16x20" (which is a rare occurrence anyway) and usually 8x10" is the biggest, what megapixels range should I be looking in?

Unless you want to print a billboard size photo, you really don't need to have 25 MP... Most cameras have way more than anyone would need, especially when consumers tend to print 4X6 prints, maybe the odd 5x7 or 8x10.

I would look at a camera with a better processor, focusing, etc. I myself have a 30D, at the time, more camera than what I needed, and even today still has more than what I need at 8mp... But it was the guts of the machine I wanted, the focusing, processor, and features.

Not sure what MP is offered in consumer line cameras of today, but 8-12MP is more than enough for image information.

Don't go over 10. You don't need it and the more megapixels you have, the worse the low light performance is

Thanks globaldesigns! Do you have any specific recommendations on features and "guts"? :D

Really? That is good to know! Do you have any comments on "the guts"? Maybe that is what I should look at more...

I think 10MP would be lots for 8x10 and 16x20. However I'm pretty sure when it comes to these compact cameras pixels means very little as the sensor size never increases and sometimes even gets smaller. Typically the density increases and from my understanding is that rarely means much more than a number used for marketing. It's why you can look at full frame cameras which have large sensors yet usually only around 12MP while the latest and greatest tiny compact has 25MP on a sensor a fraction of the size.

I also have a G9 and love it so if you're in the market I would consider something similar, maybe G10 or even the 11 or whatever number they are at now. Just be sure to check specs and compare, sometimes the new cameras are worse than the older ones.

Cannon also makes an underwater case for the G cameras, I'd highly recommend it :wink:

Do they still make cameras with less than ten?

Ya, thanks Steve! I didn't mind the G9 (I had a G7 before it)...I got some pixelation when trying to capture lower light photos. I'm not sure what specs would affect that.

I was looking at the Canon underwater cases, but was also considering the much cheaper DicaPac cases since I have to buy a whole new camera right now (trip to Kauai coming up in April). I'm thinking and underwater case would come in handy when taking macros of corals that are not near the glass and may prevent another swimming camera death!

You won't need over 10 meg, I still have 2 - Nikon D200's which are 10.2 meg cameras, that are from 2006, I have no choice but to keep them, I have 2 underwater housings for them. I also have a D700 12.2 meg, and just ordered the D800 36.3 meg. With the newer technology, you get faster focusing, lower light capabilities, faster processing times. If you are shooting underwater, make sure you get external flashes, it will reduce the scatter in your photos.

This is what scatter is:
http://www.uwphotographyguide.com/ba...ter-underwater

i dont think so... but i just shoot everything at 10mp. SRAW on 5d ii

I don't know how to deal with RAW photos...I should learn. I would like to get really good at photographing my tank. :)

Probably just high iso, typical with any compact, if you take slower slots with a tripod you could turn the iso down and probably reduce that quite a bit.

I wouldn't use one of those DicaPac cases except for maybe rain protection, definitely not submersible. Typically you can pick up a used G9 in good shape for $200 or less so check out kijiji or ebay. The Cannon case is only $200 so if you're planning on any diving or snorkeling then it's well worth it but if not then maybe the cheaper alternative is all you need.

:surprise: You had a G9 and didn't use RAW :question: :nono:

Haha, no I didn't know how to process RAW afterwards. :lol:

I thought the Canon waterproof case was $250? I do plan to use it for snorkeling and in my tank. The DicaPac has good reviews...?

i find light room is best for processing raw, especially if you have a whole bunch at a time.

and 250 for a waterproof case is nothing. some dslr underwater housings are over 5 grand

I got mine for $200 so probably depends where you buy it. Good reviews or not it's a ziplock bag with a glass lens attached to it.

Don't talk to me about underwater housing, I have a Sea&Sea D200 housing, with the fisheye dome port, and flat ports, focusing gears, etc
and a Light and Motion D200 housing with the Glass Fisheye dome ports, flat ports, Nikon underwater strobes, Ultralight arms.
Then an undervideo housing with HID lights, etc

That's why I didn't update my D200's, because then I have to buy a new housing at 4K or more. I would love to get a housing for my D700.

I still have an housing for my F100 (film camera), plus you need to service the housing every 3 years or so at a cost of 1K.

One day I may get one of these :)

http://reefbuilders.com/2012/03/14/l...um/#more-56033

Cheers,
Vic

still waiting for mine

Be careful of Canon waterproof housings. I had one that flooded on my last trip and it was found to be defective. Luckily it was replaced, along with a new camera (S100). After a bit of research, it appears there are issues with the mould lines from production. They don't allow the o-ring to seat properly and allows water to enter. This was my wife's camera and we thought we would go a little cheaper on the housing as it wasn't going to be a secondary camera. Needless to say, we have a new Ikelite housing ($350) arriving any day soon. I've had no problems with my Ikelite for my G11.

As for RAW, if you purchase a new Canon camera, the software that comes with it includes Digital Photo Professional that will handle RAW processing. Easy as pie. I now shoot nothing but RAW when diving. I've got a few pictures in my office that have been enlarged and they look pretty good.

With any housing it would be wise to test it prior to diving with it.

RAW is time consuming but worth it, and not that tough to learn. Just get out and start trying different stuff... only way to figure it out!:mrgreen:

Always watch for stray hairs and fibers on the seal.

I have a canon case for my A650IS, and its only been down to 20 feet or so snorkeling, but i highly recomend them over as others have said a zip lock bag.

My canon case has been down 100ft on some occasions but typically 60-80ft max on numerous dives. I also often lend it to friends and family who use it diving as well. Never had an issue, but I grease the o-ring every trip.

If you have the money

http://www.red.com/store/red-one/pro...35-mysterium-x

http://www.divephotoguide.com/underw...iew___round_1/

any example photo's? I'm trying to compare image quality.

I just dug out my old G7 camera that I should have taken to a camera shop to get looked at. One day it just quit turning on. Push the power button and nothing happens. Nothing happened to it. Anyone know if by chance there is an easy fix to this problem??? :lol:

Hmm, I didn't know Canon housings had any issues. I'm not aware of DicaPac having any issues either though. Hehe

I'm a cheap @$$, I've never bought a camera new. I always buy them off Kijiji because I'm also very good at killing them. I will look for the software.

raw can be no different than using jpeg if you buy a image program that can deal with it nativly. I use photo shop and it upens and edits raw the same way as it does a jpeg then you just save it as a jpeg. now I imagine if I did all manual corections it might be a little different but I find the auto corect is more than good enough for 99.9% of pictures.

Steve

Thanks Steve, I've heard Photoshop is good for RAW, but I don't have Photoshop. :(

I would choose adobe lightroom over the full version of photoshop. Lightroom has most of the "developing" capability that photoshop has (it's missing advanced photo-editing stuff) and has an incredibly powerful organisational feature.

Lightroom is also SIGNIFICANTLY cheaper than the full version of photoshop... you can try it free for a month if you download it through adobe's website.

Photoshop Elements also does RAW and can be found for under $100. Also has a free trial on the website.

I'm heading on a dive trip soon so I pulled out my A75 with Canon enclosure and lo and behold....the sensor had died while in storage (apparently, this is quite common). I've had my Canon enclosure down to over 100' with no problems. Always be sure to meticulously clean and lube the o-ring as well as inspect the seating surfaces in the enclosure. Even a spec of grit or a small hair can cause a flood under pressure.

For the casual user, the Canon enclosures are pretty good and work well for the price. I've got a refurb'd A85 I bought off eBay on the way to replace the A75 because I don't want to invest in a new enclosure yet. When I do though, it will most likely be an Ikelite (the next step up in quality and cost) and the camera will have to have a full manual mode, TTL capability and RAW. I may not make use of all those right off but given the cost to upgrade, you want as current as you can get !

Now....you never said anything about diving though so if you only want to use it in your tank and snorkeling (as far as aquatic uses), I'd suggest something like a Nikon Coolpix AW100 (https://www.thecamerastore.com/produ...pix-aw100-blue). You could use this in your tank, and snorkeling without worry and it has built-in GPS which is kinda neat. At about $300 it's a tad more than just a cheap UW enclosure so it's gonna save you $$

Thanks for the in put Mark! I'm definitely going to buy another Canon though because I have owned many of them and been very happy. Also, I have a converter fitting for the G9 so I can put 85mm(?) lenses on it (I have a few lenses and filters), so a point and shoot is out of the question. Although that does look like a great little camera!