Just got this in an email. Wonder if it's any good. No flash, and all the
sample images on the site were taken in a pool.
http://www.liquidimageco.com/home/specs.html
Sheldon
Dan Bracuk - 08 Jan 2008 04:48 GMT
"Sheldon" <sheldon@XXXXXXXXsopris.net> pounded away at his keyboard
resulting in:
:Just got this in an email. Wonder if it's any good. No flash, and all the
:sample images on the site were taken in a pool.
:
:http://www.liquidimageco.com/home/specs.html
:
:Sheldon
Well isn't that something? Hopefully the 5 ft is a maximum distance
and not a minimum. I'd want a remote control though.
Not too sure what the purpose of the the lcd screen is though, unless
it's for viewing the photos after they have been taken.
Dan Bracuk
Never use a big word when a diminutive one will do.
Grumman-581 - 08 Jan 2008 08:10 GMT
> Just got this in an email. Wonder if it's any good. No flash, and all the
> sample images on the site were taken in a pool.
>
> http://www.liquidimageco.com/home/specs.html
I see a couple of problems with it...
1. No flash.
2. Unacceptable depth rating -- 30 meters might be good enough for
snorkeling, but not for diving.
3. Fit -- it's difficult enough to find a mask that doesn't leak, but the
odds of one that has a camera on it also being the one that doesn't leak
on you seems rather slim to me.
4. Quality -- it looks like a toy, not a real dive mask
5. Cost -- it's got to cost more than a regular mask and if you lose your
mask, you're out more money than if you just have a regular mask.

Signature
See NNTP header field "X-Real-Email-Address" to reply by email.
ben bradlee - 08 Jan 2008 12:46 GMT
> Just got this in an email. Wonder if it's any good. No flash, and all the
> sample images on the site were taken in a pool.
>
> http://www.liquidimageco.com/home/specs.html
Interesting concept. I'm not sure it's a practical combination, the mask
and camera. While it saves carrying a camera in your hand it limits the
potential positions for shooting and eliminates the LCD preview, apparently.
I wonder how you get a picture of yourself with your mask on. Oh I know, a
mirror.
Lee Bell - 08 Jan 2008 13:24 GMT
> Just got this in an email. Wonder if it's any good. No flash, and all the
> sample images on the site were taken in a pool.
>
> http://www.liquidimageco.com/home/specs.html
>
> Sheldon
Pretty cool. I quite carrying an underwater camera and flash equipment years
ago when I found I was spending my entire dive taking pictures rather than
enjoying the dive. That was not the right mix for me, so I quit taking
pictures. I briefly considered using a video camera to record everything and
then capturing screen shots after the dive of anything I wanted to share.
That idea went away when I realized I had spent more than a thousand dollars
for a video camera for which there was no housing. It was not my best
executed plan ever.
It's a shame this mask does not have a flash, but it still might be
interesting enough to get me back into at least basic photography. As
Grumman noted, it's not rated deep enough for the dives many of us do, but
without a flash, it's not really that good for deep stuff anyway. It would
also be nice if it were Blue Tooth so that you don't have to open anything
up to transfer your photos.
Lee
Dan Bracuk - 09 Jan 2008 00:11 GMT
"Lee Bell" <pleebell@bellsouth.net> pounded away at his keyboard
resulting in:
:It's a shame this mask does not have a flash, but it still might be
:interesting enough to get me back into at least basic photography. As
:Grumman noted, it's not rated deep enough for the dives many of us do, but
:without a flash, it's not really that good for deep stuff anyway. It would
:also be nice if it were Blue Tooth so that you don't have to open anything
:up to transfer your photos.
It would do quite nicely in the Keys on a summer day. Needs a remote
though.
Dan Bracuk
Never use a big word when a diminutive one will do.
Lee Bell - 09 Jan 2008 03:19 GMT
> :It's a shame this mask does not have a flash, but it still might be
> :interesting enough to get me back into at least basic photography. As
[quoted text clipped - 8 lines]
> It would do quite nicely in the Keys on a summer day. Needs a remote
> though.
I might work well for you. It wouldn't work all that well for me. The dives
I did in the Keys with you and Pat were the shallowest dives I've done in
years. By far, the majority of my dives are in the 60 to 120 foot range.
More are at depths beyond that than at depths less than that.
Lee
Sheldon - 09 Jan 2008 03:38 GMT
>> Just got this in an email. Wonder if it's any good. No flash, and all
>> the sample images on the site were taken in a pool.
[quoted text clipped - 7 lines]
> rather than enjoying the dive. That was not the right mix for me, so I
> quit taking pictures.
I hear you. I used to shoot professionally until I found myself on
vacations taking more photos than enjoying the vacation. I do have an
underwater camera, but will probably use it sparingly, mostly to prove to my
friends that I actually went diving. :-) I'll be very pissed the day I see
a shark and left the camera topside.
john - 08 Jan 2008 14:13 GMT
> Just got this in an email. Wonder if it's any good. No flash, and all the
> sample images on the site were taken in a pool.
>
> http://www.liquidimageco.com/home/specs.html
>
> Sheldon
Thats an early April Fool, shurely?
Do you stick the batteries up your nose?
Likewise, "External Mermory Card" - gets wet?
Comes in any colour you like - as long as its yellow!
Sorry, bad idea. You may as well stick on in your req and the purge
button could double as the shutter release!
And all from a company that also makes "3D pool tables" - great!
What other 2 in one products can we dream up - I know - the snorkel that
doubles as a periscope so you can keep an eye on the boat to make sure
its not doing an "Open Water" on you!
Paulf Foley - 09 Jan 2008 00:57 GMT
Even simpler: cement one of those waterproof disposable cameras to your
forehead...
>