February 4, 2001


Which waterproof camera should I get?

I just read your response about the Minolta Weathermatic and I want to know why a zoom is not better than a fixed lens. I am in the market for a waterproof camera and am undecided between the Minolta or the Canon. What would you suggest? Thanks,

— Kerry Benson St. James, Missouri

I certainly concede that a zoom lens has some advantages. I mean, what could possibly be all bad about having a single lens (or camera with a single lens) that lets you zoom in on the action or a friend's face, yet also can pull bag to capture all your buddies sitting around the camp AND Mount Rainier in the background? I have an 80-200mm, f/2.8 zoom lens myself. It's a foot long, weighs about four pounds, and cost close to four figures.

I say that not to brag, but to make a point: What is it, compared with my lens, that you are giving up to get a roughly equivalent zoom ratio (2.5-1 or so) in a lens that fits on a pocket-sized camera that costs one-third of my lens alone? The answer, in my view, is plenty. The problem is that zoom lenses on point-and-shoot cameras are quite primitive. They're what serious photographers call "slow," meaning not much light passes through them. Your film needs that light for proper exposure, and if it can't get it through the lens, your camera will compensate by leaving the shutter open longer. And that may mean the picture will be blurry if you shake the camera even a little when taking the picture, or if the subject moves. Other drawbacks include less sharpness than a non-zoom lens, and less ability to capture deep, natural colors. Truthfully, a lot of folks may not see much difference. For the snapshots that are most often taken with these cameras, that is certainly the case. But if you want to enlarge a really nice picture, you'll begin to notice.

For that reason, my favorite weather-resistant point-and-shoot is neither the Canon Elph Sport ($250, street price), nor the Minolta Vectis Weathermatic ($350). Rather, it's the relatively humble Yashica T4 ($160). The reason is that the Yashica has a 35mm f/3.5 lens (the lower-case "f" refers to the ability of a lens to transmit light —- a lower number is better) that is not only faster, but much sharper than any lens found on a point-and-shoot camera under $500. It's a wonderful little camera, easy to use, reliable and capable of taking sharp, rich photos. Now, it's not capable of actually going underwater to take pictures —- an interesting feat both the Canon and Minolta can pull of. But unless that ability is a firm prerequisite, then the Yashica is the camera I suggest.