Looking for photographers' reviews of the Oceanic Datamask

I'm thinking of getting the Oceanic Datamask. I've found several reasons why I need one in my life, although I think the truth of the matter is simple gear lust for a new gadget!

A couple of reviews I found on the net say they're great for photographers because you can still see your computer whilst looking through the viewfinder, and that you don't need to keep checking your wrist whilst ascending and holding your camera at the same time as hanging onto a line in a current, which sounds useful. But I haven't read anything about other issues which might concern photographers, such as mask volume obscuring the viewfinder, or the bulk of the computer element getting in the way, etc.

So does anyone have any experience with this mask?

I have tried it as I had a few people on the boat with them a few weeks ago. Personally I would not buy one, it's big and bulky to start with, second way to expensive, masks break and this one would be a nightmare to get fixed. I think that you would be better getting a nice mask, top of the line computer, even another you could attach to your camera housing, if you really wanted to and still have enough money left to go out and have a good meal and a few drinks But that's just my view, I to like the gadgets.

My worry is that they only come in one size, and as we know "One size fits everybody"...yeh right!

Seriously, you fork out $1.5K for a mask, and in all likelyhood it won't fit. There is no way I would even spend $50 for a mask without trying it on first, but I have never seen a retailer that actually sells one (but of course that may be because there are only two dive equipment retailers on the island)

Cheers

Hal

My primary concern is that I have seen several of these on flea-bay lately and the depreciation has not been flattering- I saw one go for $750 or so and there are several on there at any point in time which leads me to believe that they are not that great. My secondary concern is that after getting used to and liking low volume masks- these would be a step away from that and might prove to be hard to deal with from a vision and viewing standpoint.

I tried one on in the local shop this week, a friend was showing me his new toy. He had borrowed one on a trip to Fiji and had loved it. He not a photographer by the way. It wasn't as bulky as I had imagined. It did seem to drastically reduce the view out of one eye more than I would be comfortable with. You could probably get used to it but I would rather put one of the newer watch type computers on the inside of my wrist. My son just picked up the Suunto D4, I was impressed. Guess it's what ever floats your boat.

Steve

I have dove with one. At the time I was more concerned with scootering, which I thought the mask might be good for.

Visibility downwards is terrible, I could not look down and easily confirm gas on a deco bottle without making a big production of lifting it.

Sideways vision to the left ain't bad because of the window. To the right, the computer is there, so that's obstructed too. This is a high volume mask, although not as high as the 1980's 3-window US Divers monstrosity.

I remember thinking this would be a PITA to install reader lenses into. There's no place for them.

The apparent distance for the computer display is great (it wasn't a huge focus shift to bring my gaze from infinity into the mask), and provided there's adequate light, the digits are crisp and legible. I did not dive it in the dark. The computer is pretty standard Oceanic/Aeris, so if you're used to those displays it is plenty intuitive.

It is easy to update your status regarding depth and time, but for me (and others, in conversation later) I felt that it wasn't as if I had this data superimposed on the world - I had attention either outside or inside.

I didn't have a camera along, but my impression was that if I had my face to the back of a housing, it would be a big focus jump from viewfinder to depth, bigger than infinity (outside) to depth.

Coming from an Atomic Frameless, I felt that I was moving my head around a lot just to keep track of my surroundings. Because the mask was so restrictive to vision on the right side, I felt it was not a good tool for scootering.

I didn't really consider the price/value ratio, but given the results for me, and the price, I'd rather get a couple of Atomic masks and a X1 computer.

Hope this helps!

All the best, James

Hey! who's knocking my 1976 USD "Pro Wrap-Around" 3 window mask?

That thing was great in its day! It only took 5-6 breaths of air from a regulator to clear it.

And it had so much volume, that if used today, I suppose it could qualify

as an alternate air source...

I simply don't understand the obsession with 'low volume' masks (for scuba, not freediving, obviously). It's not like we don't have plenty of exhalation volume in our lungs to fill even the larger ones, even during fast descents. There's a slight added risk of fogging perhaps, but otherwise, I don't get it.

Disclaimer: I wear a Hydrooptix, which is clearly higher volume, but designed such that my FOV is far less limited than with most low volume flat masks. (And yes, I'm right in the right nearsightedness category to use it, which is what got me interested about it the first time.)

I think the loss of FOV would be the kicker for me with anything like the datamask, not the volume. Well, that and ludicrous price. Now when they can get a wireless HUD that's truly superposed over the view thru the lens and lets me port whatever data I want to it - computer data, buddy data, digital compass marks, camera settings - then I might start getting curious.

Thanks for the link to your review of the mask, John - and also to everyone else for their input! Very good point about the cost of losing it; I've lost 2 masks in the past 2 years! I like to think I'd be less careless with such a pricey bit of kit but you never know.

With regards to the obsession with having a low-volume mask, I would have thought anyone with an SLR would prefer one, since the closer the viewfinder is from to your eye, the more of your frame can be seen through it. Unless your housing will support one of those sportsfinder viewers, which look very useful. Unfortunately mine won't

I simply don't understand the obsession with 'low volume' masks (for scuba, not freediving, obviously).

 

I think the loss of FOV would be the kicker for me with anything like the datamask, not the volume.

Volume and FOV are not unrelated. If I had a mask with the lens 5 inches from my eyes, I would have a very narrow FOV. That's why frameless masks can have their lenses placed closer to your face, providing a wider FOV.

I've tried the mask, sans camera. The FOV is far less. I didn't like it. I thought it would be really cool, but it wasn't.

I've had a $100 mask "disappear" from a gear crate at a dive op. If I had this mask, I would have to keep it on my person at all times.