New Sea&Sea AquaPix DX-3100 Underwater Camera - POOR QUALITY PICTURES

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by Dan, Nov 23, 2003.

  1. Dan

    Dan Guest

    I just bought the new Sea&Sea AquaPix DX-3100 3-megapixel underwater camera.
    I have a MX-10 that I have used for years and greatly enjoyed, but was
    excited to move to digital. I took a number of simple pictures with the
    camera and they all turned out horrible. Very fuzzy and pixelated. The
    3-mega pixel captures on highest quality (lowest compression) setting look
    worse than pictures taken with highest compression (lowest quality) on a 6
    year old 1-megapixel fuji we have laying around the house.

    Everything else worked fine (including the connection to the YS-25Auto
    flash), but that doesn't matter if the pictures look lousy. My guess is
    there are 3 possible problems (or combinations of the 3) (i) cheap CCD for
    picture capture, (ii) electrical interference with CCD, (iii) bad
    compression algorithm.

    Has anyone else looked at this camera? I this representative of this model
    or do I have a defective one that could be replaced?

    Does anyone have a recommendation for an alternative digital camera solution
    (including lighting) that would be in the $1000-$1500 range?

    Thanks,
    Dan

    [Emailing me directly requires a switch from '.spam' to '.com' in my
    address]
     
    Dan, Nov 23, 2003
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Dan

    Peter Lombar Guest

    Hi Dan,
    in $1000-$1500 range budget you have many possibility.
    try here http://www.uwdigitalcamera.com/English/euwdigitalindex.htm
    You can also find a lot of useful information from experienced guys
    here http://www.wetpixel.com/forums/ or http://www.digideep.com.

    Good luck

    /peter

    "Dan" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > I just bought the new Sea&Sea AquaPix DX-3100 3-megapixel underwater

    camera.
    > I have a MX-10 that I have used for years and greatly enjoyed, but was
    > excited to move to digital. I took a number of simple pictures with the
    > camera and they all turned out horrible. Very fuzzy and pixelated. The
    > 3-mega pixel captures on highest quality (lowest compression) setting look
    > worse than pictures taken with highest compression (lowest quality) on a 6
    > year old 1-megapixel fuji we have laying around the house.
    >
    > Everything else worked fine (including the connection to the YS-25Auto
    > flash), but that doesn't matter if the pictures look lousy. My guess is
    > there are 3 possible problems (or combinations of the 3) (i) cheap CCD for
    > picture capture, (ii) electrical interference with CCD, (iii) bad
    > compression algorithm.
    >
    > Has anyone else looked at this camera? I this representative of this

    model
    > or do I have a defective one that could be replaced?
    >
    > Does anyone have a recommendation for an alternative digital camera

    solution
    > (including lighting) that would be in the $1000-$1500 range?
    >
    > Thanks,
    > Dan
    >
    > [Emailing me directly requires a switch from '.spam' to '.com' in my
    > address]
    >
    >
     
    Peter Lombar, Nov 23, 2003
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Dan

    DrYak Guest

    Re: New Sea&Sea AquaPix DX-3100 Underwater Camera - POOR QUALITYPICTURES

    Certainly a 3-megapixel should deliver better results than a
    1-megapixel. I would take it back and see if there was somehting wrong.
    Otherwise, get a refund.
     
    DrYak, Nov 24, 2003
    #3
  4. On Sun, 23 Nov 2003 09:33:10 -0600, Dan hath writ:
    > I just bought the new Sea&Sea AquaPix DX-3100 3-megapixel underwater camera.
    > I have a MX-10 that I have used for years and greatly enjoyed, but was
    > excited to move to digital. I took a number of simple pictures with the
    > camera and they all turned out horrible. Very fuzzy and pixelated.


    Was this "wet" or "dry" that delivered such lousy results?

    Jonesy
    --
    | Marvin L Jones | jonz | W3DHJ | OS/2
    | Gunnison, Colorado | @ | Jonesy | linux __
    | 7,703' -- 2,345m | config.com | DM68mn SK
     
    Allodoxaphobia, Nov 24, 2003
    #4
  5. Dan <> wrote:
    >I just bought the new Sea&Sea AquaPix DX-3100 3-megapixel underwater camera.
    >I have a MX-10 that I have used for years and greatly enjoyed, but was
    >excited to move to digital. I took a number of simple pictures with the
    >camera and they all turned out horrible. Very fuzzy and pixelated. The
    >3-mega pixel captures on highest quality (lowest compression) setting look
    >worse than pictures taken with highest compression (lowest quality) on a 6
    >year old 1-megapixel fuji we have laying around the house.


    I wouldn't expect S&S to use crappy parts, so I'd first look elsewhere.
    Bad unit. Bad user (!). Bad conditions? In very low light levels, the
    noise level gets cranked up and digital doesn't do it as well.

    Were you in clear waters? Murky ones?

    Only a few runs in, I've been plenty happy with the S400 setup from
    Canon. Still haven't picked up the strobe, but have been able to do
    well enough in the warmer waters. I might even give it a try in LA
    this week. If you can't get the S&S to work, Canon and Olympus have
    lots of decent compact setups.

    --
    Jason O'Rourke www.jor.com
     
    Jason O'Rourke, Nov 25, 2003
    #5
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. N.E.1.
    Replies:
    4
    Views:
    934
    Phil Stripling
    Sep 23, 2003
  2. Dan
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    2,625
    Jason O'Rourke
    Dec 9, 2003
  3. bwphototwo

    Sea & Sea YS-90 Auto

    bwphototwo, Dec 9, 2003, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    503
    bwphototwo
    Dec 9, 2003
  4. Mario

    sealife dc310 or sea&sea dx-3100 ?

    Mario, Jan 27, 2005, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    413
    Dan Bracuk
    Jan 28, 2005
  5. Luke Brennan
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    675
    Bill M
    Oct 30, 2006
Loading...

Share This Page