Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

sea and sea ports


  • Please log in to reply
3 replies to this topic

#1 writepic

writepic

    Wolf Eel

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 146 posts
  • Location:planet earth
  • Interests:diving, taking photos and making films, my family, my friends, chocolate icecream.......

Posted 03 February 2008 - 11:16 AM

hi all,

i'm going back to film for stills for a while whilst the megapixel rediculousness settles down and i can buy a housing i don't need to change every six months, and also to free up funds allowing me to concentrate on video work.

i'm probably going for a sea and sea housing for my old F90x, and my question is whether the port opening is the same dimension as in the digital housings and that ports are readily available for it?

thanks in advance.

regards,

mark
[font=Lucida Console]http://eyemocean.blogspot.com

#2 MikeO

MikeO

    Great White

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1023 posts
  • Location:Fairfax, VA, USA

Posted 03 February 2008 - 11:30 AM

hi all,

i'm going back to film for stills for a while whilst the megapixel rediculousness settles down and i can buy a housing i don't need to change every six months, and also to free up funds allowing me to concentrate on video work.

i'm probably going for a sea and sea housing for my old F90x, and my question is whether the port opening is the same dimension as in the digital housings and that ports are readily available for it?

thanks in advance.

regards,

mark


Though I don't necessarily agree with all your reasoning (I've had the same digital setup for almost five years and am just now upgrading -- anyone want to buy a S&S 10D housing :) ), I do believe that the ports are the same. You can go to the Sea&Sea Website and confirm this. They still have the info for many of their old film housings there.

Mike

Mike Oelrich
Canon EOS 40D in Seatool housing, 100mm macro, Tokina 10-17, INON Z-240s.


#3 writepic

writepic

    Wolf Eel

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 146 posts
  • Location:planet earth
  • Interests:diving, taking photos and making films, my family, my friends, chocolate icecream.......

Posted 03 February 2008 - 11:52 AM

thanks mike...they are the same ports according to the site. ok so i exaggerated..i don't need to change every six months, it's just that there seem to be some imminent upgrades with the nikon range, and the recent ones haven't really warranted upgrades (for me), but i think the next big release from nikon will be quite a jump up in MP to stay with canon, and so an upgrade would be necessary to stay in the stock image game.

regards,

mark
[font=Lucida Console]http://eyemocean.blogspot.com

#4 ColinMunro

ColinMunro

    Lionfish

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 68 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:U.K.
  • Interests:Marine Biology, conservation, temperate water diving.

Posted 17 February 2008 - 03:55 PM

thanks mike...they are the same ports according to the site. ok so i exaggerated..i don't need to change every six months, it's just that there seem to be some imminent upgrades with the nikon range, and the recent ones haven't really warranted upgrades (for me), but i think the next big release from nikon will be quite a jump up in MP to stay with canon, and so an upgrade would be necessary to stay in the stock image game.

regards,

mark


Hi Mark

I kinda endorse your view. I was planning to (finally) start using a DSLR underwater, but at the last moment bought myself another F4 and couple of F4 and F5 housings - at considerably less than the cost of a DLSR housing alone. HD and HDV have all but effectively killed off film for uw cinematography (unless you're Howard Hall and can work in IMAX) due to the comparative cost of buying and processing film. But for stills, a top of the range 35mm system, capable of 29MP, 100+Mb 48bit images still provides a fair degree of futureproofing compared to the current raft of DSLRs, and at a fraction of the capital investment. Okay, it doesn't provide the ease, the immediate feedback and the speed of workflow, but I'm not supplying newsmedia where images need to be available within hours of being taken to compete. In terms of image quality, film is still very much in the running. It also has the beauty that i can rescan images over 15 years old at a resolution and bit-depth not available when they were taken (they're also in an accesible format, unlike many of my old electronic documents now corrupted or in an obsolete format). Digital imaging definately has opened up possibilities, but film still has something to offer.

On a different topic, I notice you supply video to Splashdown Direct. Would you recommend them - in terms of ease of supply, communication, sales?

Cheers

Colin