[FISHN50]

I'm in the market for a Digital Waterproof Camera in the $200 price range.
Mainly I'll be just using it as a snapshot camera & when I go fishing it'll be in my vest. I like the idea of being able to hold it underwater to take a picture of fish before I release them. I've submerged 2 cameras in the past & ruined them. I just watched a buddy drop a $350, camera in the water so I think my next one will be waterproof so I can relax a little when I'm carrying it in the water. Who knows maybe I can get it on my Christmas list in time.

Thanks & Merry Christmas & Happy New Year To All of You

Neil

[Fish Bones]

I use the Pentax Optio Waterproof Digital Camera...

It is very compact and easily fits into my vest pocket or chest pack. Its waterproof to 10 feet and takes excellent pics above and under water. It almost made the 2007 NAFFF Top Ten Christmas Gift List.

Take a look at Pentax Waterproof Camera

[Roughrider]

It did not make the top 10 list? I demand a recount!! I love my Optio, it is WP10 I believe, still have not sunk it yet, but it takes great pics and really nice macro shots as well.

[Fly2Fish]

Has anyone had any experience with the Olympus Stylus 770 SW? It seems to be slightly smaller than the Pentax Optio, and in the same general price range.

[BigCliff]

Outside Magazine did a little feature on the 790 SW here recently. Its a little cheaper and seems to be quite popular amongst us outdoorsy types. The Cnet review says the image quality isn't quite top-notch, but they also said that about one I just bought my wife and it seems to be fine to me.

My mom is still getting good use from an Olympus Stylus that's gotta be 15 years old by now, and has taken LOTS of shots.

[Jackster]

I just bought my wife one for Christmas (as if SHE'S gonna be the one getting it wet!)
I've used and really liked the old Pentax WR-33 I've had for years, and would have got her one of the newer models in a heartbeat but they're rare at big box stores.
The biggest downside I can see to the Olympus is the poor macro capability when compared to the Pentax units. A good macro makes it nice to capture pictures of flies, alive or man-made!

[Joni]

Popular topic, or the same person asking the same question on another forum LOL.
I had the Pentax Si which was not waterproof, but very small and took GREAT macro pictures. I also bought the 43wr which had a lot of the same features and the same price tag. However, the minute they make them waterproof, you give up some of the really neat features. At least in the same price range. The Si was twice the camera the 43 wr is. I say was, cause it did go swimming and is no longer with us.
I got the Olympus Stylus 730 which is the pre new waterproof model. It was under $200. and has 7.1 Megapixel, 3X zoom, 3.0" LCD, weather resistant and Image Stabilizing.
Very kewl camera for the price plus a few phot editing features in the camera.
The only down side I see is there is NO view finder (hich I notice a lot of cameras are going that way). I will have to wait for a bright sunny day to see if I can see the screen.
I still have the 43wr for those under water shots but I very seldom use that feature. Most the stillwaters I fish are full of food and you would see anything but green puffs. The rivers, I would have to have a fish on to get a picture and I am a little busy at that point LOL
Here is one of the in camera editing effects.

[Fly2Fish]

As a radical thought, has anyone considered a small cellphone with photo capabilities in lieu of a camera? These cameras are expensive enough, and cellphones can be bought in a lower price range with some minimal camera features (not, perhaps, as good as pure digital cameras, but for taking a picture of a trout, probably good enough). Of course, the cellphone would not be waterproof as is the digital cameras we are talking about, but could be stored in a waterproof pocket - and they can be pretty small.

[Joni]

Originally Posted by Fly2Fish

As a radical thought, has anyone considered a small cellphone with photo capabilities in lieu of a camera? These cameras are expensive enough, and cellphones can be bought in a lower price range with some minimal camera features (not, perhaps, as good as pure digital cameras, but for taking a picture of a trout, probably good enough). Of course, the cellphone would not be waterproof as is the digital cameras we are talking about, but could be stored in a waterproof pocket - and they can be pretty small.

But don't you have to have special phone features to down load them to a computer or pay extra for it?
Plus I have the Razor and PICTURES are OKAY at best.

[BigCliff]

Alot of the new cell phones out have 3.2 mgapixel cameras built in. I'm not saying that's become the standard, but there are quite a few out there equipped with them.

I think a camera phone can be set up to where the pictures are saved onto a supplemental memory card that can be removed from the phone and placed in a PC/printer. Most phones are now using MicroSD cards which can easily do this with the adapter they are generally sold with.

On the memory card note, I picked up a 2GB SD card at circuit city for $15 the other day, seemed to be widely available for the holidays at their stores. Its amazing how much cheaper those have gotten in recent years.