If you drop your camera in the water
Posted 12 June 2008 - 06:28 PM
Don't turn the camera on, it could short out. Remove the battery, leave the battery door open, take off the lens cap and let it dry out thoroughly (at least a week) before you try to turn it on. You can put the camera in a sealed plastic bag with rice or the desiccant found in the little bags when you buy electronics. The desiccant can also be found at craft stores. It's used to dry flowers. Leave it in the bag for a week.
I turned my camera on shortly afterwards, and I think I fried it. I decided to replace it with a waterproof camera. I found a nice Olympus point & shoot for $300 that I'm pretty happy with. So far it only has a couple of drawbacks. One is that it doesn't have a viewfinder, which can come in handy in bright sunlight when you can't see the screen. I always forget to use the viewfinder any way, so that was okay. The other thing is that it doesn't use an SD memory card. It takes an XD, or it can use a micro SD with an adapter. I had to buy a card reader for my computer to use the XD card. My computer already has a built in SD reader.
I haven't had the chance to dunk it yet, but hopefully soon!
Posted 12 June 2008 - 09:17 PM
I think we are using the same cameras at work now and I've noticed something else odd. If there is alot of sun glare, like the water surface in the background, the viewfinder flips out and you get some crazy vertical static lines.
Posted 13 June 2008 - 10:57 AM
I'm not sure about lenses, but with other electronics if the the thing gets thoroughly wet with lake/river water, the best thing to do is disconnect any power source, rinse it *very* thoroughly with distilled water several times, then let it dry completely. The distilled water removes any residues which would otherwise dry on the circuit boards and potentially create shorts.
I did this with my cellphone after dropping it in a river twice. I put it in a tupperware container of distilled water, shook it around gently, and repeated several times. Once it dried it came back to life just fine each time.
I wonder about lenses. If *distilled* water gets in, will it still ruin them? I'd tend to assume that you couldn't get water clean enough not to leave water marks, but it still would be better than nothing if the camera got *really* wet with lake/river water.
Posted 13 June 2008 - 12:26 PM
It takes putting it in a fume hood to get the moisture out of there. The heat of the camera will cause even the slightest amount of humidity to fog up the lense. I had this problem (after shorting out my shutter) in Kentucky. It's extremely frustrating to deal with.
And yeah, I'm really thinking the Pentax or Olympus waterproof are the way to go. The macro is good enough and the assurance for a drop in the drink is priceless.
Posted 13 June 2008 - 01:19 PM
He's even used it for shallow underwater pics.
My opinion is that his pics are nowhere near as good as they were with his old camera, but for someone who spends lots of time on, in or under water, it's hard to beat for the money.
Posted 16 June 2008 - 12:55 AM
I would definitely recommend one of the Olympus. After drowning a couple of Canons I decided to breakdown and get one. My son Shawn and I have shared an Olympus 720SW for about 2 years now. We have taken 100's of underwater pictures and probably an hour of video with it. The camera has been dropped(not on purpose) and submerged to about 2 feet and still keeps going. Even if you are not planning on using it underwater, the peace of mind in the outdoors is worth it. I see now one of the Olympus cameras is rated to 14 degrees farenheit, for those people that like to be out in the snow. I am hoping to get another one soon so we both can take pictures of fish in there natural settings. Of course we need the rain in Indiana to stop for awhile too.
Posted 16 June 2008 - 10:10 PM
Unless of course you're in Arizona or Nevada, where its a dry wet.
Edited by jdclarksc, 16 June 2008 - 10:57 PM.
Posted 16 September 2008 - 05:56 AM
Should make a great camera. Well it would for me that has fallen in the water more than once. Ruined two cell phones and one camera. You think one would learn to either not fall which is probably not going to happen but at least to leave the electronics on shore and bring the fish to it.
They do have some pelican cases that I suppose would be good for cameras and cells but you still run the risk of dropping the camera or phone. With my record I should stick to the leave them on shore trick.
Edited by nativecajun, 16 September 2008 - 05:57 AM.
Posted 16 September 2008 - 01:15 PM
Posted 03 February 2009 - 10:53 AM
Nice to see that it s not only me that has a good camera. No offense to canon and nikon users I just said that as a pun. Canon and Nikon have very good cameras but they are much more costly. I have found that the bang for the buck the E1 was hard to beat a few years back. Even now I look at cameras and I just say naa I still believe the E1 is superior for what I use it for. By the way if you did not know it Olan mills uses this camera for iits on the road shoots. IE church directories. They found in their research that the four thirds system matched very closely the 35mm format only scaled down. That means they did not have to do a lot of cropping because it match very closely all the machines for processing they already had. Plus the camera is very rugged and cost efective. They decided to use it for those reasons. The E1 could be had with its magnesum frame and all the sealing you mentioned for around eleven hundred give or take a little back then. It is a very rugged camera and any thing that even came close to its quality back then was hundreds of dollars more.
But I have to admit I am very picky of where I take it. I would never use it for taking photos of fish near or on the water. I still think that little olympus that goes down to 33 feet is the best bet for that purpose.
I would like a newer camera. Who wouldnt. But when I see the prices I decide my old rugged E1 is still a great camera. My main reason is not for speed or better quality photos or anything like that but I really like the larger monitors. And I also have a lot invested in olympus equipment to go with it. Three lenses. flash, and camera plus the software I bought to shoot graduations. I could have one person at the computer and all I had to do was shoot. I had another person set up the poses. I could tether my E1 to my computer and instantly like olan mills the parents could look and decide which ones they wanted. That was like a paid hobby for me and I have since given that up. It became work and I enjoy photography to much to make it work. Trying to replace that with another camera system or even the uper end olympus ( E3 ) is very costly. I may just buy one of the low end olympus small DSLR's like the 420 or what ever the bottom of the line is. I saw one for just 350.00 that is an inexpensive way to get a larger monitor and more resolution not that one needs more that 5mp's At the lab I use I have asked how big do they make prints from five megapixal cameras and he took me back and showed me a 20 x thirty print that looked beautiful. The E1's sensor is a full frame transfer. Not a full framed sensor but full frame transfer. Meaning there is not a lot of hardware on the sensor itself. The larger the pixels are on the sensor the better the quality photos it will take. The E1 actually shoots to a quality of most other six or seven megapixal cameras.
Sorry I get long winded about cameras. photgraphy is my first love as far as a hobby. I have had camers in my hand since I was about thirteen years old or less.
My short answer would have been to buy the olympus point and shoot that goes down to 33 feet.
Edited by nativecajun, 03 February 2009 - 10:59 AM.
0 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users