WG issues with water droplets on lens???
24,241 posts
Link
Posted 26/05/2014 - 17:16
The front of the Pentax waterproof compacts are treated to repel water, but even so any droplets of running water will do what water does, and that is have a bending effect on light.
I just keep a microfibre cloth handy to keep it clear, or accept the water droplets will be there. It can add to the effect sometimes.
Best regards, John
I just keep a microfibre cloth handy to keep it clear, or accept the water droplets will be there. It can add to the effect sometimes.
Best regards, John
Link
Posted 27/05/2014 - 10:41
Thx guys.
The orange WG-3 for £139 on Amazon is too good to resist, so I will be going for it.
I'll make sure I do 'test dunking' within the 30 day no hassle returns period as a few reviews do seem to indicate the odd copy with waterproofing issues.
Sharon's: K-x, FA35/2, DA 18-250.Glen's: K10D, DA100 Macro, 55-300, Paragon 500, Silk Pro700 Tripod
The orange WG-3 for £139 on Amazon is too good to resist, so I will be going for it.
I'll make sure I do 'test dunking' within the 30 day no hassle returns period as a few reviews do seem to indicate the odd copy with waterproofing issues.
Sharon's: K-x, FA35/2, DA 18-250.Glen's: K10D, DA100 Macro, 55-300, Paragon 500, Silk Pro700 Tripod
Link
Posted 30/05/2014 - 15:28
I bought a WG-3 a few weeks ago, very good value at current prices. My initial impressions are that IQ is better than I expected, although distortion is severe. It is bulkier than most cameras of this type - I have had Olympus and Sony 'tough' cameras and they were both more pocketable than the WG-3. The biggest negative I've noticed so far is the poor battery life, I'll have to get myself a spare. I have not put the waterproofing to the test yet but the design, particularly of the battery compartment cover, looks very sensible and well sealed - which is more than can be said for some of the competition.
Regards, Philip
Regards, Philip
Link
Posted 30/05/2014 - 17:17
I've yet too take any decent pictures with any of the 3 WGs we've had in the family (keep loosing them!).
They're fine for holiday snaps and to let the children play with, but even on the kayak, I just use the K5.
Water on the lens is a major hassle, nearly always ruining surface shots - surfing, playing, getting arty at water level. DSLRs with housings have much bigger lenses so the odd drop doesn't have such a devastating effect.
Image quality under water is obviously dependent on water quality Stan, but in rock pools or the Caribbean it is fine when fully submerged. Macros are good.
Facebook Page
Plymouth Photographer
They're fine for holiday snaps and to let the children play with, but even on the kayak, I just use the K5.
Water on the lens is a major hassle, nearly always ruining surface shots - surfing, playing, getting arty at water level. DSLRs with housings have much bigger lenses so the odd drop doesn't have such a devastating effect.
Image quality under water is obviously dependent on water quality Stan, but in rock pools or the Caribbean it is fine when fully submerged. Macros are good.
Facebook Page
Plymouth Photographer
Link
Posted 30/05/2014 - 21:03
tyronet2000 wrote:
WG-10 has poor battery life and not impressed with image quality an inch or two underwater:
As taken and resized for forum
Enhanced in CC
WG-10 has poor battery life and not impressed with image quality an inch or two underwater:
As taken and resized for forum
Enhanced in CC
The battery life on my wg-2 and wg-3 isnt amazing but thats when U use it primarily for video, which drains the battery as it is on constant live view as well as constantly filming.
The issue with these photos seems to be water clarity. Its amazing how clear the water has to be for a totally clear image, even when it looks pretty clear above water, the actual viability below the surface is pretty low
UK Wildlife blog ----- UK Wildlife Facebook page ----- UK wildlife Twitter
Link
Posted 30/05/2014 - 22:35
It's Britain Stan. I think the Mediterraneans have a filter that empties on our coast line. Best sticking to fish tanks and swimming pools. In fact forget swimming pools, don't want to get you arrested 
Steve
Sometimes I'm serious and sometimes not, but I consider sarcasm an artform. Which is it today?
Steve
Sometimes I'm serious and sometimes not, but I consider sarcasm an artform. Which is it today?
Link
Posted 31/05/2014 - 05:36
tyronet2000 wrote:
.... not impressed with image quality an inch or two underwater:
.... not impressed with image quality an inch or two underwater:
RICOH describe it as Waterproof, shockproof, crushproof, coldproof, dustproof. And 'All-In-One, Ruggedized Cameras'
I see nothing that say's WGs are an underwater camera, why would you expect it to be fine shooting fully submerged??
Once you submerse a camera, water has a totally different effect on light entering the lens than does air.
Link
Posted 31/05/2014 - 06:56
Waterproof down to 14m (45 feet) - the WG range are certainly underwater cameras!
Best regards, John
Best regards, John
Link
Posted 31/05/2014 - 07:39
Waterproof yes, in case you drop the thing while in your Kyak, but is it really intended for underwater photography?
They are dustproof too, would you expect to take photos while buried in dust as well?
They are dustproof too, would you expect to take photos while buried in dust as well?
Link
Posted 31/05/2014 - 09:11
sledger wrote:
Waterproof yes, in case you drop the thing while in your Kyak, but is it really intended for underwater photography?
They are dustproof too, would you expect to take photos while buried in dust as well?
Waterproof yes, in case you drop the thing while in your Kyak, but is it really intended for underwater photography?
They are dustproof too, would you expect to take photos while buried in dust as well?
It's a Pentax, it'll take pics at ground and time zero at Hiroshima
[i]Bodies: 1x K-5IIs, 2x K-5, Sony TX-5, Nokia 808
Lenses: Pentax DA 10-17mm ED(IF) Fish Eye, Pentax DA 14mm f/2.8, Sigma 17-70mm f/2.8, Pentax-A 28mm f/2.8, Sigma 30mm F1.4 EX DC, Pentax-A 50mm f/1.2, Pentax-A 50mm f/1.4, Pentax-FA 50mm f/1.4, Pentax-A 50mm f/1.7, Pentax DA* 50-135mm f/2.8, Sigma 135-400mm APO DG, and more ..
Flash: AF-540FGZ, Vivitar 283
Link
Posted 31/05/2014 - 09:31
Well it's been in the sink, rain and yesterday the sea. Kept working and no sign of water ingress. The droplets that do get on the lens from the surf seem to run / shake off quite easily.
Haven't had a 'close up' look at the photo's for IQ yet, hopefully later today.
Sharon's: K-x, FA35/2, DA 18-250.Glen's: K10D, DA100 Macro, 55-300, Paragon 500, Silk Pro700 Tripod
Haven't had a 'close up' look at the photo's for IQ yet, hopefully later today.
Sharon's: K-x, FA35/2, DA 18-250.Glen's: K10D, DA100 Macro, 55-300, Paragon 500, Silk Pro700 Tripod
Add a Comment
You must be registered or logged-in to comment.
Eastridge
Member
Bideford, Devon
We are considering getting WG for use during watersports, maybe the wg3 whilst at run out prices. We bought a cheapo waterproof camera as test of concept and apart from poor IQ the main annoyance has been water droplets on the lens causing distortions. Is this something better cameras get around somehow (hydrophobic lens coatings??) Or just something you have to put up with? Done good few searches & read reviews but can't find anything specific on this, so wondered if anyone out there knew?
Thx
Sharon's: K-x, FA35/2, DA 18-250.Glen's: K10D, DA100 Macro, 55-300, Paragon 500, Silk Pro700 Tripod