Trusted Review, a British photography site, has review of 6 waterproof cameras

Trusted Review is one of the many photography sites I have in my feed reader. Last week I received an update notice about its three-page review of six point-and-shoot waterproof cameras.  The first page reviews two budget priced cameras; the second page reviews two mid-priced cameras; and the third page reviews two "premium" cameras. 

My favorite is the Panasonic Lumix.  Though the review says image quality is "so so", both the Lumix and the Sony (both reviewed as "premium" cameras) were nevertheless the best of the group with image quality scores of 8 of 10.

On the other hand, if you already have a good camera and just want something to stuff in your vest to take pictures of the "fish that didn't get away", perhaps one of  the budget options would be worth considering.

If you are in the market for a waterproof camera to take fly fishing, here's the link:

http://www.trustedreviews.com/opinions/the-best-waterproof-shockproof-and-dustproof-tough-cameras-of-2011

I thought my flyfishing camera was broken, and why 3 megapixels is enough

The Souhegan River on Friday

On Friday I took my first outing of the season. (Yes, I did catch trout: two rather blah looking stocked rainbows, about 9 and 12 inches.)

But before starting out I had to get my gear together, never an easy task when it's your first time fishing in 6 or 7 months. Fortunately I keep (nearly) all of my gear in one huge duffel bag. Nevertheless I dumped everything and spread it out on a bed.

Like many others I am sure, the next step in getting organized is to go through a mental checklist of everything needed for a day on the water. I always start with my feet and work my way up my body. Boot, yes. Socks, yes. Long underwear, yes. Neoprene waders, yes. Wading belt (with staff attached), yes.... etc. When I get the vest, I look in each pocket to be sure everything is there. These pockets are filled with the same stuff for each outing whether it be for smallmouth bass or trout, so I have a high likelihood of having everything I need. The only exception is my old 3.2 megapixel Pentax digital water resistant camera... it needs two fresh AA batteries from time to time.

Well, I took two AA's out of my desk drawer. I knew they were new, as I had just bought a 20-pack at Staples. But, when I plunked the batteries correctly into the camera and I turned it on, nothing happened. My heart sank. I opened the battery compartment and reinserted the batteries in exactly the same manner. Thankfully, this time it lit up and made a couple of "I'm ready" beeps.

I realized how old this camera is when I went into the menu to input the correct date and time, and saw the date choices starting with the year 2003! And of course a 1.5" screen and "only" 3.2 megapixels also suggests its old age (for a digital camera).

About megapixels: Almost always 3 MEGAPIXELS IS ENOUGH.

Let me explain. Ninety-nine percent of all point and shoot cameras have a sensor about 4.5mm x 6mm in size. The sensor is the digital equivalent of film. It collects the light that enters the camera body through the lens. The light is channeled onto a honeycomb of pixels (except pixels are generally square and not hexagonal) that cover the surface of the sensor, and from there software uses the information collected in each pixel to create the image. This camera has a grid of pixels that measure 2048x1536 pixels = 3,145,728 pixels = 3.2 million pixels = 3.2 megapixels.

So, how many pixels do you need? Well, the marketing departments of the camera companies seem to think that answer is about 12-16 megapixels. But that's too many. Here' why.

For viewing images on your high def television (1920 x 1080 pixels) or 24" computer monitor (mine has a resolution of 1800 x 1200), 2 megapixels is enough. Just multiply those numbers and you will find that the area is about 2 million pixels.  If your original image has more than that, it has to be downsized to fit. With a 12mp image, for example, software will squish 6 pixels into 1 pixel (in other words 12mp squeezed into 2).

Here's another example. The pictures on this blog must fit into a box that measures 650 x 650 pixels. That is approximately 4/10th of 1mp! Again, any image bigger than that has to be downsized.

But what about prints? Anywhere between 200 and 300 dots per inch looks great. At 200 dots per inch an image of 2048 x 1536 will make an excellent 10" x7.5" print. The image below was made into a 9" x 12" print and submitted into my photo club's monthly competition.  The print was sharp and full of color.  The judge liked especially the orange reflection in the water. The fact that it scored a reasonable but not great 26 out of a possible 30 points had nothing to do with the camera.

Many experts believe that optimal for these small sensors is 6mp. Why not more? Because as you cram in more pixels they each must get smaller. And this makes collecting light more difficult. Technological advances have helped, but the result of cramming in so many pixels is that taking pictures in low light conditions becomes difficult and the result is grainy looking images. The image quality on many older cameras with fewer megapixels is better than the image quality on many newer cameras with more megapixels. Unfortunately, the older cameras lack many of the cool features we find on the newest models; such as, image stabilization, 3" monitors, better handling, GPS, high def video, and speedy performance.

On the other hand, if you make prints bigger than 12"x9" then more pixels will help.

Panasonic TS3 ups the ante over the new Fuji GPS-featured waterproof camera by throwing in GPS, barometer, altimeter and compass!

In my last post I was pretty excited about the new Fuji "tough" camera that included GPS.  But my favorite modern "tough" cameras are coming from Panasonic, and Pany has just upped the ante.  Their new model (there are actually two new models, but I view the one shown here as the better one) is the DMC-TS3.  I'd add a link to the panasonic Web site, but the camera is so new (and not yet available) that it is not yet on the panasonic USA Web site.



I don't know how the image quality will be but I like the fact that this has fewer pixels (12 megepixels) than the 14 megapixel Fuji.  Even 12 megapixels is way too many on a camera with such a small sensor.  But more pixels is what marketing departments want.  Image quality would be far better with 6 megapixels on sensors of the size of 99% of all pocket cameras.  Did you know that even on a 24" monitor that images are downsized to about 2 megapixels to fit?!  About 5 megapixels is all you need for an uncompromisingly sharp 8"x10" print.  I've even had some gorgeous 9"x12" prints from my old Pentax 3.3 megapixel waterproof camera.  The problem with more pixels is that the camera's ability to take low-light images is decreased and there is much more noise (grain) in the image... all else being equal.

...So, here are some of the main features of this new panasonic:

GPS

Altimeter

Barometer

Compass

Image stabilization

28-140mm (effective field of view) lens

Full HD movie capability

Waterproof to 12' (40m)

Shock proof for drop of 6.6' (2m)

Dustproof

Freeze proof down to 14F (-10C)

Pretty awesome, I would say.



Fuji builds first compact waterproof camera with GPS (Fujifilm XP30)

I've been a big fan of the waterproof point and shoot cameras since acquiring the now "old" pentax 33WR in 2003.  I still keep this camera in my fly vest, but am always following the newest cameras and dreaming that I might buy an "upgraded" replacement.  The Fujifilm XP40 XP30 was announced earlier this month as a "pre-CES 2011" announcement.  CES is the International Consumer Electronics Show held annually in Las Vegas.

[In the "for-what-it's-worth" department: So far, my choice would be the Panasonic, for it's useful 5x zoom with 28mm wide angle, effective image stabilization, and arguably the best image quality of the "tough" camera category.  I say this after reading perhaps every review available on the Internet. Panasonic will remain my choice until I can read reviews on the Fuji's image quality. Perhaps some meaningful reviews will be available before the spring fishing season begins!]

So far, I believe Panasonic has offered a better camera than has Fuji, which until now did not have image stabilization.  I find image stabilization to be very important for low light photos because it allows you to take shots at slower shutter speeds, and therefore get a good exposure without increasing the ISO.  (Higher ISO settings increase the sensor's sensitivity to light so you can get a good exposure using a higher shutter speed, but image quality is compromised.)

The new Fuji has included image stabilization, but more importantly (or perhaps just more interestingly) it has included GPS features.  I can see using this whenever I find a "hot" fishing spot on a remote stream.  Just take a picture of the location... perhaps, if you're lucky, a picture of one of the fish caught there.... and this will record the location.  It is my understanding that it will record the more exacting latitude and longitude and/or simply the place name (such as Yellowstone National Park).  According to the press release, the camera has an imbedded list of over one-half million place names around the world.

It is waterproof to 5 meters, shockproof up to 1.5 meters, dust and sandproof, and freezeproof to minus 10C.  These features are all pretty common on this category of cameras.

The screen shot below is from the Fuji Web site.  My daughter will be happy that it comes in her favorite color, orange.

Here's a link so you can read more about this new model:
http://www.fujifilmusa.com/products/digital_cameras/xp/finepix_xp30/





Panasonic announces its first waterproof compact camera

Panasonic entered the shockproof, waterproof, dustproof market this week with the new 12 megapixel DMC-TS1. I am a real fan of panasonic cameras, owning a Pany FZ8 ultrazoom and having given my son the well-regarded Pany TZ5.

Unfortunately (in my opinion), like the Olympus and Pentax water-proof offerings, there is no optical viewfinder. Nice big LCDs (this one is quite ample at 2.7") are nice, but in bright light on the water an optical viewfinder is always a nice option... especially since LCDs are often hard to see with polarized glasses.

What has promise with the TS1 is that the zoom is a very useable range of 28mm wide to 128mm. The Olympus has a similar zoom range. And, like the Olympus, the camera is equipped with image stabilization. The Pentax, however, has a less useful zoom and lack image stabilization.

A 60 second minimum shutter speed sounds pretty good. Perhaps it can get some good evening pictures, as the sun sets and the hatch emerges.

The bad news is that when available in April 2009, the price will start at $400, whereas the older Olympus (if you define "old" as being announced in August, 2008) sells currently for about $250. Though this may make purchasing the Olympus a "no brainer", I am personally looking forward to the online reviews on the TS1, as both the Olympus 1050 and Pentax W60 water-proof cameras scored a low 15 of 20 in image quality in recent reviews on cameralabs.com. That's pretty poor as it is pretty easy to find compact cameras (non-waterproof) scoring higher.