I thought that I was all set with my Panasonic TS4 (see post #3 in this thread), but on day one of a mid-October trip to St. John, my photos suddenly took on a weird shading. It turned out that the camera's front window had cracked in our checked bag during the flight. I suspect that TSA may have been complicit in separating the camera from the clothes I had rolled it in (I had also packed some large metal items), but a "tough" camera rated for a 6 foot drop onto concrete really shouldn't break inside a suitcase, no matter how poorly packed. Anyhow, I now need to replace my underwater camera, and in the course of web searches, I was reminded of the value of saving images in RAW format rather than JPEG. JPEG is very convenient, but it squeezes the camera's native 12 or 14 bit data into eight bits, and performs a lot of critical image processing in the camera that can be done much better later with a real computer. Given the inevitable loss of red light in sea water, white balance is a critical function of depth, and being able to deal with this afterwards, instead of letting your camera make this call, can be really valuable.
A great photography website (The Luminous Landscape) has a page devoted to explaining RAW files, and why you might want to shoot in RAW rather than JPEG format:
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/tutor ... iles.shtml
Quoting from their Conclusion:
"With a JPG file you are largely committing yourself at the time of exposure to several of the most important aspects of image quality, namely white balance, overall contrast, colour saturation and the like. With a raw file you are free to make decisions about these settings at your leisure.... Certainly anyone looking for the best possible image quality will want to shoot in raw mode whenever possible.... Some cameras can save both raw and JPG files simultaneously, and for many photographers this is an ideal solution. It provides a ready-to-use image for many applications, while a raw file is available for later and more comprehensive processing".
I was pretty blown away by the underwater photos recently posted by vav (Steve), in the threads "A couple of new pictures", and "Good morning from St. John (updated)". In the former thread, I asked him if he shot in RAW or JPEG format, and he replied that he always shot in RAW. Now, granted, I'm aware that its not all about technical choices; apparently, "skill", and "experience" somehow factor in as well, but I figured that I might as well stack the deck in my favor by choosing a camera that can shoot in RAW. An important takeaway, though, is that NONE of the waterproof point and shoot cameras currently on the market can save images in RAW format. The trade-off is that all cameras that can shoot RAW aren't waterproof, and so require a housing. Decisions, decisions!
I ended up deciding to go with the recently introduced Canon Powershot S110; it can save images in both RAW and JPEG at the same time, has a large sensor, a fast lens (at least in wide angle), and very good low light sensitivity. Its predecessor, the S95, has been a staple of underwater photographers, although housed DSLRs offer yet higher levels of performance (and bulk). Canon sells a broad line of underwater housings for its line of cameras, and while they are less convenient than a submersible point and shoot, they are also more compact than third party housings such as Ikelite. The Canon housing for the S110, the WP-DC47, has been announced, and retailers are taking orders, although it isn't quite shipping yet. FWIW, Sony has a new hit with their high-performance RX100 point and shoot, but while it is better than the S110, it's also significantly more expensive, and its third-party housings are considerably larger and heavier.
One plus of a housed camera is that I could also take it on Scuba dives, although I am so far resisting the urge to add strobe lights. A few years ago, I did a five-day live-aboard, diving the Great Barrier Reef and the Coral Sea, and I was the only diver unencumbered with camera gear; I felt a bit sorry for some of them, who mostly experienced the trip through their LCD screens and were lugging gargantuan, dual strobe DSLR rigs on every dive. I am willing, though, to put up with a little added bulk and cost to switch from a submersible point and shoot to a housed, somewhat better point and shoot, with both the convenience of JPEG, and the future flexibility of RAW, without having to do anything differently at the moment that I press the button.
If you are going to shoot RAW, you will need software to process the images; unlike JPEG's, RAW images lack native contrast, and aren't especially worth sharing as is. I have never found the time or energy to come up to speed on Photoshop, and it is also very pricey. Steve, in his reply, mentioned Adobe Lightroom, but he also mentioned a very interesting image editing package called Snapseed. Google bought the company a few months ago. I just downloaded the PC version of Snapseed, and haven't had a chance to use it yet, but at $19.95, it is dramatically cheaper than the traditional professional packages. It is available for a variety of tablet and smartphones, and for those, it offers the cool addition of touch interaction. The online reviews suggest that Snapseed will empower regular folks to add that "touch of magic" editing to their photos that was previously reserved for the Photoshop elite. Worth a look:
http://www.snapseed.com.
When this "Driving myself crazy researching cameras" thread first surfaced, I was well above the fray, and perfectly content with my TS4. Then things changed... I'm hopeful that the new combo will be the right fit, and look forward to getting back to St. John to give it a try. This was a long post, but I figured I would share my perspective.
All the best,
Kevin
Uhhh no.. He was not very convincing that the gopro was a good choice, evening saying that it didnt take good pictures, but was best for video. Not a great salesman in my opinion. 
) loop the camera strap through the band and off you go. 
