Choosing any camera, waterproof or not, is a series of compromises. Just like buying a new boat. If you want "memory" pictures, most anything from a disposable to a reusable waterproof will jog your memory. If you want good quality photos, ie, suitable for enlargement, you will need a quality 35 mm and a Pelican case or watertight housing. The difference between these two extremes is not the camera body, but the lens. In between them, there are not really any good choices I am aware of this, because I looked long and hard for a waterproof with a quality lens. If you opt for the memory photos, the other thing to consider is the best quality photos generally have the least in them. Too much is too distracting. That favors the telephoto. On the other hand, if it is only memory, very little emphasis on quality, a wide angle lens will put more in the photo for you to remember. JKL *************************************************************************** PaddleWise Paddling Mailing List - Any opinions or suggestions expressed here are solely those of the writer(s). You must assume the entire responsibility for reliance upon them. All postings copyright the author. Submissions: PaddleWise_at_PaddleWise.net Subscriptions: PaddleWise-request_at_PaddleWise.net Website: http://www.paddlewise.net/ ***************************************************************************
> > Choosing any camera, waterproof or not, is a series of compromises. Just like > buying a new boat. Absolutely true. > > If you want "memory" pictures, most anything from a disposable to a > reusable waterproof will jog your memory. If you want good quality photos, > ie, suitable for enlargement, you will need a quality 35 mm and a Pelican case > or watertight housing. The difference between these two extremes is not the > camera body, but the lens. In between them, there are not really any good > choices I am aware of this, because I looked long and hard for a waterproof > with a quality lens. In my experience(qualification: I have no interest in looking at photograph of a resolution chart, especially with a magnifying glass), lens quality has little bearing on the sharpness of an image. The anchoring of the camera by the photographer and the mechanics of the equipment has a greater impact. I shoot the street with a pair of leicas (m3 and cl) which produce excellent images, not because of the lenses but rather the weight and ergonomics of the camera and the lack of mirror mechanism (+ and wide lenses). My honeywell pentax sp1000 does just as fine on a tripod as a studio camera to shoot my work. I used to print 11x14 (full frame) tri-x. I had a Rollei 35s that was a tiny bit contrastier, so it had a bit more apparent sharpness in my diffusion enlarger (focomat). All in all though, sharpness wasn't that important anyway unless it was distracting to the image. As to quality, sharpness has little to do with the quality of an image. The early pictorialists would kick the tripod of their large format view cameras during long exposures to get a soft look to their prints. Robert Frank made potent images across America and published the seminal book called "The Americans" with little concern to sharpness (or rinsing fixer from the prints). Linda Connors used a pinhole camera to make rather soft and beautiful images (a couple in the show "Mirrors and Windows" at MOMA in the 80's). There was a rage for a very low rez digital camera toy in the early 90's by graphic designers for its soft focus, blocky image abilities. Those little disposable waterproof cameras have great potential if you look at it's capabilities and work with it's nature. > > If you opt for the memory photos, the other thing to consider is the best > quality photos generally have the least in them. Too much is too distracting. > That favors the telephoto. On the other hand, if it is only memory, very > little emphasis on quality, a wide angle lens will put more in the photo for > you to remember. Wow, sounds like this came out of a 'take better pictures' photo book of the 30's Wide is more inclusive. There are implications of proximity issues with a subject, can be confrontational because of having to get in closer for framing. It's abilities of a greater depth of field makes for equal consideration to the background and foreground, associations not generally made with natural vision because of selective focus. It has been the favorite of a documentary or journalistic attitude toward photography (big generality). tending toward a content driven approach (also a big generality and could be debated) A long lens is more selective. It is generally harder to conceal, pretty obvious to subject. It collapses perceived depth perspective, tends to 'flatten' images. MOre selective focus. Very useful for satellite imagery and research. A shorter zoom tends render a more visually comfortable perspective for portraits and three dimensional geometric shapes such as furniture. Adopted by many formalists (nature, landscape) with more of a a reductionist attitude (also slippery big generality). Both are very different, both can be used for 'quality' photography. There is something quite lyrical about your analysis however. -- Gabriel L Romeu http://studiofurniture.com İİİİİ furniture from the workshop http://studiofurniture.com/diary İİİİİ life as a tourist, daily journal http://studiofurniture.com/paint İİİİİ paintings, photographs, etchings, objects *************************************************************************** PaddleWise Paddling Mailing List - Any opinions or suggestions expressed here are solely those of the writer(s). You must assume the entire responsibility for reliance upon them. All postings copyright the author. Submissions: PaddleWise_at_PaddleWise.net Subscriptions: PaddleWise-request_at_PaddleWise.net Website: http://www.paddlewise.net/ ***************************************************************************
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Thu Aug 21 2025 - 16:33:20 PDT