Bill Tuthill wrote:

Main problem with the Optio WPi is that you get blurry results
(due to slow shutter speeds) when lighting is poor. This is because
it maxes out at ISO 200 or something.

Actually 400, but even ISO 200 is noisy.

The WP10 is a new model that I hadn't heard about. It weighs a bit more
but goes up to 800 ISO, so I would recommend it over the older WPi.

Dpreview.com has 3.7 stars for the Olympus 720SW, 4.5 stars for the WP10.

Bill Tuthill wrote:

The WP10 is a new model that I hadn't heard about.

WP10 may have been the name in development, but when I looked for it, the only
thing I find is W10. They seem to be the same camera based on what dpreview
and the Pentax web sites (Canada, US and Japan) have to say.

W10 and Olympus 720 SW are both JIS8 (1.5m depth for 30min). The 720 is listed
as shockproof and is 7.1Mp, while the W10 is not and is "only" 6 Mp (only... I'm
still using a 2Mp camera). I know someone with a 720 and shockproof + metal
body or not, it's so small and light it doesn't _feel_ like it would handle
paddling. That's obviously a bad bias based on the naive sensation that heavy
and bulky = tough. The 720 photos are good. The Pentax W10 does get a better
rating on dpreview, but those are buyer ratings, so take them with a grain of
salt. If I had to buy tomorrow, it would be a tossup between the two. I'd
probably fuss and worry and then think I bought the wrong one - at this time,
they look that close to me. MHO, of course.

Mike

Thanks for the insights, everyone.

I got the Pentax Optio WP10, with a 2 gig storage chip (good for 700
fotos at max -- 6mp -- resilution.

I'll let you know how it works out.


-Richard, His Kanubic Travesty
--

================================================== ====================
Richard Hopley Winston-Salem, NC, USA
rhopley[at]earthlink[dot]net
Nothing really matters except Boats, Sex, and Rock'n'Roll
rhopley[at]wfubmc[dot]edu
OK, OK; computer programming for scientific research also matters
================================================== ====================

wrote:
Aren't there other options for making cameras water resistant? Doesn't
someone make something like a tough ziplock bag for cameras?

There are a couple. Aquapac makes one of the better ones. Personally, I'd
rather a waterproof camera. At the higher end of prices, the difference between
waterproof and non-waterproof isn't that much and you don't have to deal with a
silly and potentially leaky camera baggie. However, if you want to waterproof a
cheap camera, those baggies are the only option.

Mike

Michael Daly wrote:
wrote:
Aren't there other options for making cameras water resistant? Doesn't
someone make something like a tough ziplock bag for cameras?

There are a couple. Aquapac makes one of the better ones. Personally, I'd
rather a waterproof camera. At the higher end of prices, the difference between
waterproof and non-waterproof isn't that much and you don't have to deal with a
silly and potentially leaky camera baggie. However, if you want to waterproof a
cheap camera, those baggies are the only option.

Can you offer an example? It seems to me that if you want a waterproof
camera the choices are very limited.

wrote:

Can you offer an example? It seems to me that if you want a waterproof
camera the choices are very limited.

Pentax, Olympus, Sony, Sea&Sea, Sealife and others all make waterproof digital
cameras.

Michael Daly wrote:
wrote:

Can you offer an example? It seems to me that if you want a waterproof
camera the choices are very limited.

Pentax, Olympus, Sony, Sea&Sea, Sealife and others all make waterproof digital
cameras.

Yes but basically you have a handful of cameras to choose from rather
than hundreds.

wrote:

Yes but basically you have a handful of cameras to choose from rather
than hundreds.

There have never been hundreds of any good camera type, film or digital. In
35mm film there was Pentax, Nikon, Canon, Minolta, Konica, Olympus and a few
others. Now Minolta-Konica is out of the camera business, Nikon has cut back
and others are looking to trim down. In the digital world, there are only a few
companies that _don't_ make waterproof - e.g. Nikon, Canon - but both can be
used in housings. Lots of cheap cameras out there, but not quality. And
certainly not hundreds.

Mike

Michael Daly wrote:
wrote:

Yes but basically you have a handful of cameras to choose from rather
than hundreds.

There have never been hundreds of any good camera type, film or digital. In
35mm film there was Pentax, Nikon, Canon, Minolta, Konica, Olympus and a few
others. Now Minolta-Konica is out of the camera business, Nikon has cut back
and others are looking to trim down. In the digital world, there are only a few
companies that _don't_ make waterproof - e.g. Nikon, Canon - but both can be
used in housings. Lots of cheap cameras out there, but not quality. And
certainly not hundreds.

Well, I'd guess that someone buying a camera has only about a 2% - 5%
chance of buying a waterproof camera by pure chance if waterproofness
is not part of their shopping criteria. Otherwise you'll be out of luck
or need an expensive waterproof housing.

wrote:

Well, I'd guess that someone buying a camera has only about a 2% - 5%
chance of buying a waterproof camera by pure chance if waterproofness
is not part of their shopping criteria. Otherwise you'll be out of luck
or need an expensive waterproof housing.

And they'll have a 100% chance of buying one if they're not stupid.

Mike