Michael Daly wrote:

On 6-May-2004, (Eric) wrote:

I have already stated I will wait for the 'essentially impossible'. I
don't consider not spending money on a product I really don't want to be
a bad thing.

This tells me that you're not interested in the photographs, you're only
interested in the gadget. Otherwise, Brian's advice is what most folks
would accept.

Noted and previously rejected.

Michael Daly wrote:

On 6-May-2004, (Eric) wrote:

I can't help but to think that our increasing ability to manipulate
individual atoms will offer significant improvements in all
manufacturing processes.

You watch too much Star Trek.

Indeed I do.

We can only manipulate individual atoms on an extremely small scale.
Manipulating atoms on the scale of something like a camera lens is not
possible now or in the immediate future.

I will agree, but with the caveat that I am not familiar with what is
happening behind all of the tightly closed doors where such research is
going on.

Have you got any idea how many atoms there are in a single
lens element, let alone an entire assembly?

Yep. Doesn't concern me.

I am willing to wait until the camera I want to purchase is made
available to me. I have no desire to own a camera just for the sake of
owning a camera. If this means I won't be able to take pictures, that's
fine...I have gotten along without one up to now and will continue to do
so.

I am curious, why are people so invested in my immediate purchase of a
waterproof, digital camera?

I have made it perfectly clear what I am willing to purchase and that I
will not settle for anything less then what I am looking for...yet,
people keep on telling me that I am wrong and I should follow their
advice instead.

You're welcome to continue to tell me I am wrong, but keep in mind that
one nifty definition of insanity is to perform the same action over and
over and over again, expecting a different result.

"Eric" wrote in message
.. .
Bill Tuthill wrote:

Eric wrote:

Yes, this is what my research has turned up as well. Unfortunately,
a 3x optical zoom isn't really worth it, imho.

It is very difficult to design a 10x zoom, especially one with good
optical performance.

I have no cause to doubt that.

However, I would doubt that it will remain true indefinitely.

I was mostly just wondering if technological advancement and consumer
demand had made it possible to design a 10x zoom, waterproof digital
camera at a price I am willing to pay (= $500). It would appear the
answer is 'no' for the moment.

My take is that the market is going in the opposite direction. First, as
others have pointed out, there's optical degradation (or high price - think
about how much you had to pay for anything more than a 3- or 4-x SLR zoom
lens) associated with the high-numeric zoom lenses. Then, with the collapse
in memory and CCD chip costs, more and more megapixels are making the zoom
less critical. Where the 10x zoom in my floppy-equipped Sony was critical
to its usefulness, I'll just take the output of my next 3x zoom, 4 megapixel
camera and crop it. Better control, better picture.

I think the days of the hign-zoom lenses are past. Megapixels are cheaper,
and they don't share the same kinds of aberations that come with optical
extremes.

Fred

On 6-May-2004, (Eric) wrote:

I am willing to wait until the camera I want to purchase is made
available to me. I have no desire to own a camera just for the sake of
owning a camera. If this means I won't be able to take pictures, that's
fine...I have gotten along without one up to now and will continue to do
so.

Then you clearly don't want a camera and we're wasting our time trying to
help you.

people keep on telling me that I am wrong and I should follow their
advice instead.

Let me put it this way. You're not wrong, you're a fool.

Mike

Michael Daly wrote:

On 6-May-2004, (Eric) wrote:

I am willing to wait until the camera I want to purchase is made
available to me. I have no desire to own a camera just for the sake of
owning a camera. If this means I won't be able to take pictures, that's
fine...I have gotten along without one up to now and will continue to do
so.

Then you clearly don't want a camera

Message-ID: t
Date: Wed, 05 May 2004 00:31:08 GMT
No. I have one [a waterproof bag] for my current digital camera
and find it rather annoying.

I'm curious, how could I not want a camera when I already own one with a
waterproof bag for it?

What I don't want is to waste my money on something I essentially
already have. I am only willing to purchase another digital camera when
my current one either can no longer be used or someone makes a
waterproof, digital camera with a good 10x zoom.

My original post was clearly and solely asking if a waterproof, digital
camera with a 10x zoom existed.


and we're wasting our time trying to help you.

Yes, that is quite clear since in order to help me you would have to be
aware of the product I am seeking. Since you are not (because it does
not exist yet), there hasn't been any point to your posts.

Eric wrote:

Brian Nystrom wrote:


So you have a choice; you can have a 10X zoom in semi-bulky,
semi-expensive, not waterproof package, or you can have a lower zoom in
a small, inexpensive waterproof package. Or you can wait for your "Holy
Grail".


I have already stated I will wait for the 'essentially impossible'. I
don't consider not spending money on a product I really don't want to be
a bad thing.

If you know that what you want doesn't exist, why are you wasting our
time? Trolling will not ingratiate you with people here or anywhere else
on the web. Why don't you email camera manufacturers instead of wasting
bandwidth here?

Michael Daly wrote:

We can only manipulate individual atoms on an extremely small scale.

Uh...that kind of goes without saying, doesn't it? ;-)

Michael Daly wrote:

Let me put it this way. You're not wrong, you're a fool.

Actually, he's a troll. It's time we stopped feeding him. Let the
schmuck wander off and play elsewhere.

hey yall if you go to Ritz camera and look for the sealife reefmaster dc-300
,3.3 megapixel camera it can take snap on sealife lenses . i dont have any
idea what magnification said lens is but it might be worth checking out .
"Michael Daly" wrote in message
...
On 3-May-2004, (Eric) wrote:

Anyone aware of a waterproof digital camera with at least a 10x zoom?

What pixel count are you looking for? For example, I know of several
(not waterproof) 2Mp cameras with 10x lenses. However, if you upgrade
to 5Mp, 4x zoom, you get roughly the same effective resolution if you
use digital zoom. You'll still end up with a housing though.

Mike

here is a link to the reefmaster
website.http://www.reefmaster.com/accessories/index.html
looks like a good camera to me.
"tom" wrote in message
. ..
hey yall if you go to Ritz camera and look for the sealife reefmaster
dc-300
,3.3 megapixel camera it can take snap on sealife lenses . i dont have any
idea what magnification said lens is but it might be worth checking out .
"Michael Daly" wrote in message
...
On 3-May-2004, (Eric) wrote:

Anyone aware of a waterproof digital camera with at least a 10x zoom?

What pixel count are you looking for? For example, I know of several
(not waterproof) 2Mp cameras with 10x lenses. However, if you upgrade
to 5Mp, 4x zoom, you get roughly the same effective resolution if you
use digital zoom. You'll still end up with a housing though.

Mike