FuryMe wrote in post #5441179
Not sure if any camera would work in "murky quarry water".
Probably not, but that's where the fish-eye lenses and dome ports come in. With those combined you can take head-to-toe shots from only a few feet away (and in u/w photography, THE CLOSER THE BETTER because of all the particles that can get between subject and lens).
Jon wrote in post #5441197
I'm sorry. I have a hard time seeing $1100 as "not much of a loss". Get an A650, Canon housing and an external slave with housing, new, for half that. Or pick up a film Nikonos.
I was joking because it's a noink
But yeah, I'll look into the A650. I'd prefer to stay away from film because of the time and money to process and because (as everybody keeps reminding me and I freely admit) I'm still an amatuer.
ghostrider_9 wrote in post #5441199
Honestly (I am not trying to be harsh here), I think your time would be better focused on honing your skills and learning about the art of photography. It's great that you are enthusiastic, but that needs to be tempered with a plan to improve your education on the subject and practice/improve your skills.
Hopefully this is taken in the same manner it is intended . . .
What better way to learn that to do? Everybody here keeps telling me to get out shooting, and remember each dive is only about 35-50 minutes and then I have the rest of the day to read about photography.
Jeff Allred wrote in post #5441222
Photographing ABOVE water can be challenging enough. I'd wait a few years before diving into the underwater photography. No pun intended

Oh heck no. I'm not jumping straigh to the pro set-ups but I do want something that I can grow with as my skills develope/improve. As I said, I'm goint to need to save up at least until after summer.
Anyways, thanks to everybody for your oppinions and input