Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunter's Campfire Photography question, Zoom important?

The specifics, need to decide between the Sealife DC 2000 or the discontinued 1400,

Both are underwater cameras that can be removed from the waterproof case and then slipped into the back pocket for use on land, family vacation for example.

Both these cameras are likely way more advanced than any thing I'm up to speed on,

here's the dilemma, the 1400 has 5x optical zoom and 14 mp.

the 2000 has 20 mp and no zoom,

If I'm looking for a land and sea camera, what am I giving up with no zoom?

At 20mp, are we simply cropping and enlarging as needed with editing?

Would you buy a camera with no Zoom?

Whats the focal length of the fixed lens...?

I'm looking at the website and also the brochure, but I'm still not sure of the focal length,

How might that be stated in the brochure, other than the obvious?

I guess maybe there is zoom but digital?

Quote from the web,,,,

"Zoom: 1X optical and 3X digital ; Focal Length:11.6mm (31mm Film equivalent and 19mm with SL975 Fisheye lens accessory) ; 7 leaf iris
Focus Type Auto Focus from 4” (10cm) to infinity"

Digital zoom isn't a tru zoom, it just reduces the resolution of the picture.

Personally I'd keep the underwater camera in the case (any time you open the case you're just asking for a leak the next time) and get a Cannon G-16 powershot for above the water use.

I don't know anything about underwater cameras, but I do know that digital zoom is worthless. It simply waters down the image.

the spec sheet for the 1400 zoom reads different to me.
says 5x optical and 5x digital...total 25x

typically digital zoom takes over when optical zoom has reached its max.

http://www.frontgate.com/wcsstore/images/Frontgate/moreinfo/47804.html

Yes, I stated upfront the 1400 has 5x optical,

and now it appears the 2000 has 1x optical, I haven't mentioned digital zoom as I've always been told to avoid it.


Is not having optical zoom on a general use camera a handicap?

A film equivalent of 31mm is a wide angle lens, but not an extreme wide angle. That's a good choice for underwater photography. Things underwater appear closer.

Digital zoom is not that bad if you start with a lot of pixels and keep it below maybe 2-3X. In a 6 Mpixel camera, digital zoom does not work well at all.

It's very much a handicap. My pocket camera has a 30x optical zoom. It's impossible to hold it steady without a tripod at 30 but at 20 I get some great shots. It's also a 20mp so with the clear, high resolution, I can get great quality.
It's also very useful as a telescope. I zoom way out and take the pic. Then open it on the camera and enlarge it. That tiny elk way over on the next ridge suddenly is right in front of you.

Yes, not having an optical zoom is a handicap, IMHO. I won't buy a camera without an optical zoom.

As Denton said..with enough megapix and refrain from abusing the feature, it can at times still serve you well.

bump.

If it fits in your back pocket I assume it's a compact camera and has a small sensor. The MegaPixel resolution numbers can be misleading with smaller sensors, more is not always much better and therefore, were me, I'd go for the zoom.
Given decent image quality a compact camera with a good zoom lens is a wonderful little device. You will get shots you wouldn't get any other way, unless you carry your big sensor, big DSLR with the big Zoomar lens everywhere you go.

An old Navy photographer here (old, as in film and chemicals): just my opinion, and not exactly what you asked, but I would prefer a dedicated U/W camera and not try to make it serve two purposes. It's kind of like the "all around shotgun" idea, if you know what I mean.

A little bit of expansion on my earlier post....

More often than not, you can't see very far underwater. Now if you're diving in Lake Tahoe (Be sure to wear your wet suit!), that's a different story. But don't plan to be diving in water that clear in most cases.

Add to that the fact that something that is a foot away in air will appear to be 9" away in water. Things appear closer and larger. So a "standard" lens makes it more difficult to get your whole subject in frame.

Between the two of those factors, a mild wide angle lens is called for in underwater photography. The 31mm equivalent sounds like a good fit.

Now, do you need a zoom? It depends. Spoiler alert: Often, I prefer a fixed magnification rifle scope. They are simpler, lighter, more rugged, and don't shift POI when you zoom. That preference puts me in a minority.

I have a little pocket camera with good optical zoom and 18 Mpixels. In that setting, the zoom is very nice. The camera was well designed for its intended purpose.

I also have a pretty nice DSLR. The previous owner liked zoom lenses, so that's what I have on it. But I find myself wishing I had the fixed focal length f1.4 Samyang for it. Reviews say it is brilliantly sharp from f1.4 on up. It's lighter, smaller, sharper, and 3 f stops faster than anything I have. You can practically shoot available light in coal mines at midnight with it. Well, you can shoot available light on a well lighted street at night, anyway.

A good 3 Mpixel camera can give you nice looking 4x6 prints, or even 5x7. So if you want to do an 8x10, a 20 Mpixel camera is quite fine, even after 2-3X digital zoom, assuming the lens is up to it.

If you're going to display your pictures on a computer monitor, the sharpness will be limited by the monitor, which is 72 dpi.

There is no right or wrong answer. You'd probably enjoy either camera. It boils down to personal preference and technique.

Why???

You are just limiting your choices to two big compromizes.

Digital zooming is simply the process of clipping off the edges or moving into the center portion of ones digital data. One is simply tossing out the data that makes up the outer realms of ones picture. That can always be accomplished with post processing of ones images via Paint or any other image handling software. Digital zooming is of absolutely no value in any camera.

If one is interested in zooming, deal solely with optical abilities.

An example:


Think of a digital image as a brick wall with each brick being the color needed to compose the image.

By zooming in digitally, one is simply moving in and taking a closer look at fewer bricks. Resolution or detail is not enhanced at all.



Keep going in far enough and one essentially has junk. There are no gains in detail with digital zooming. In the image below one can actually see individual pixels or bricks. Those same pixels are present in the uppermost image, but one has not moved in close enough for them to be visible.

1 minute,

how much digital zoom equivalent would it take to get to those two zoomed images ?
I doubt the digital zoom range on the camera Kenneth is looking at,
is that capable...I don't think he would encounter that kind of noticeable drop in resolution with 1x optical/3x digital.

I know, I'm just too stubborn to accept the truth in this matter.