13 feet? That's more water-resistant than water-proof. This might be suitable for Bob and Betty tourist on their once-in-a-lifetime snorkeling adventure, but it's worthless for divers or other serious underwater hobbyists. How hard can it be to make a stock camera that can survive 60-80ft without an enclosure more expensive than the camera itself?
I think it's ment for a different audience. I saw this and thought it would be perfect for the new Jetski I bought yesterday. Something that can get splashed or in the water a bit a still work. However, even at that price I am not going to run out and get one. I think it would be really cost prohibitive to meet the requirements you are looking for. As it shows with just the price of the case for my SD8xx canon. I would rather spend $3xx on this and have a separate camera over $18x for just a case.
I've got the W30 and I think the target audience are outdoorsy people...
It's a tough little camera, I can take it with me anywhere without fear that if I fall off a log into a pond my camera will be wrecked, or that if I want to take some shots at the beach, lake, etc, that I will need to be extra careful. It's great if you're a boater or kayaker too because you don't have to be constantly worried about the camera.
It beats water-resistant designs, like the ones from Olympus, because it can actually stand up to being dunked or kept in the pocket of sopping wet clothes.
As for no lens cap... it sucks yes, BUT... if you're putting the camera into situations where the lens cap would save you, then you've got a lot bigger issue (LCD) that you should be worried about anyway.
@ $3xx this is not designed for divers... frankly considering the cost of other diving gear I would assume that is pretty obvious? :^)
“An engineer explained to us that hundreds of ear impressions were gathered in the name of research, and while each one obviously boasted its own unique shape and size, one single characteristic remained uniform across the board: the entrance into the ear canal is not a perfect circle, it's an oval.”
Now that we've thrown 'em off the trail, use the form below to get in touch with the people at Engadget. Please fill in all of the required fields because they're required.
13 feet? That's more water-resistant than water-proof. This might be suitable for Bob and Betty tourist on their once-in-a-lifetime snorkeling adventure, but it's worthless for divers or other serious underwater hobbyists. How hard can it be to make a stock camera that can survive 60-80ft without an enclosure more expensive than the camera itself?
I think it's ment for a different audience. I saw this and thought it would be perfect for the new Jetski I bought yesterday. Something that can get splashed or in the water a bit a still work. However, even at that price I am not going to run out and get one. I think it would be really cost prohibitive to meet the requirements you are looking for. As it shows with just the price of the case for my SD8xx canon. I would rather spend $3xx on this and have a separate camera over $18x for just a case.
I've got the W30 and I think the target audience are outdoorsy people...
It's a tough little camera, I can take it with me anywhere without fear that if I fall off a log into a pond my camera will be wrecked, or that if I want to take some shots at the beach, lake, etc, that I will need to be extra careful. It's great if you're a boater or kayaker too because you don't have to be constantly worried about the camera.
It beats water-resistant designs, like the ones from Olympus, because it can actually stand up to being dunked or kept in the pocket of sopping wet clothes.
As for no lens cap... it sucks yes, BUT... if you're putting the camera into situations where the lens cap would save you, then you've got a lot bigger issue (LCD) that you should be worried about anyway.
@ $3xx this is not designed for divers... frankly considering the cost of other diving gear I would assume that is pretty obvious? :^)