17 replies to this topic

[tdpriest]

Is John Bantin right? Am I wrong? Is the vacuum check on a Hugyfot housing a good idea?

Are versions available for other housings?

[Drew]

There are quite a few manufacturers for different housing brands. Housing Sentry, Scubacam Singapore makes one as well. Of course, if one forgets to seal off the valve properly, it can still flood. So it's good but it's not perfect since it can be still beaten by human error!

[tdpriest]

... it's not perfect since it can be still beaten by human error!

I'm doomed, then...

[Drew]

You make it sound like you flood a camera every other day!

[AndyBarker]

Hi
surely anything that requires manual assembly, their is a area for human error. Vacuum check or not, concentration is the key when assembling
your kit, weather it is dive kit or your housing.

Andy

[andy_deitsch]

I like my vacuum system from Housing Sentry. I usually pull a vacuum about 30 minutes before my dive and then check to see that the vacuum is still there just before I gear up. If the pressure inside in the housing is still there, I have some comfort knowing that the housing won't leak when I get in the water. While I agree with Andy B. that concentration is key, having a little piece of mind is nice to have.

[Stitchercaroline]

I have a Hugyfot with the hugy check system and I absolutly love it. I always set my kit up the night before and never had a problem ......................... green is good

Edited by Stitchercaroline, 07 November 2012 - 10:55 AM.

[Autopsea]

Stupid question maybe, BUT...


would it not be more logical to actually CREATE pressure in the housing ? (assuming it closes well)
so any leak would make a lot of buble out before water can enter in ?

what about a system where the housing comes with a small pressured bottle that start blowing air in if leaks ? : )

[John Bantin]

These check systems are there to check that the user assembled the housing correctly. Every housing will be watertight if assembled correctly. They have been designed to be so. If you feel you never are likely to make a mistake, you don't need them.
In twenty years and maybe 230 trips abroad, I only completely flooded three cameras. That's not a bad average - but it still hurt at the time. You see, I believe I am extremely fallible especially after some long connected flights to a destination. As for putting in the plugs, I do that for ALL the unused bulkhead (strobe) connections!
In the last couple of years, the red check light has saved my camera only twice. Was it worth it? You tell me!

Edited by John Bantin, 08 November 2012 - 01:04 AM.

[Cerianthus]

housings are designed to withstand pressure from the outside... something odd might happen to orings if there was pressure from the inside...

Stupid question maybe, BUT...


would it not be more logical to actually CREATE pressure in the housing ? (assuming it closes well)
so any leak would make a lot of buble out before water can enter in ?

what about a system where the housing comes with a small pressured bottle that start blowing air in if leaks ? : )

[John Bantin]

About 30 years ago, there was a camera housing that you pumped up. It leaked.

[Autopsea]

I know, but I just like to think about new different design that would make it good : )
the main problem coming from the fact we want small housing, so there is not so much space left inside when the camera is in, and so "inside-when-open" door system (that would make the oring in the right position when more pressure in than out) are hard, unless using some geometric properties.

What about a simple cristal ball with two waterproof entrance for hands (gloves-like) that would be kept under pressure ? haha, I have to stop having stupid ideas ^^

[John Bantin]

Someone rightly pointed out to me that it meant another through-body connection that might possibly leak one day. I have observed that my last film camera housing had 13 through-body connections whereas my latest digital camera housing has 44 !

When I first reviewed a digital camera housing (the Sea & Sea for the Nikon D100) for a magazine, I commented on the fact that the huge number of controls looked like a recipe for a flood. Thankfully, so far I've been proved wrong but maybe the pace of development of digital cameras means we never keep a housing long enough to find out!

Edited by John Bantin, 08 November 2012 - 03:01 AM.

[tdpriest]

You make it sound like you flood a camera every other day!

It just feels that way...

... in fact, one user-error flood in 15 years and an exploding dome that wiped out my D300.

Insurance is a problem, though, because I've lost a housing. Because of that, I'm exploring ways to increase the security of my once-shiny new system.

[Autopsea]

Because of that, I'm exploring ways to increase the security of my once-shiny new system.

Decide for rules and stick to it ; )
never let anyone else touch it.

[tdpriest]

Decide for rules and stick to it ; )
never let anyone else touch it.

Yes, my Granny did teach me to suck eggs, you know...

[John Bantin]

TDP, if you've fallen under the spell of the Wizard Tattersall, you will just have to wait until a princess comes along to kiss you.

[Drew]

It just feels that way...

... in fact, one user-error flood in 15 years and an exploding dome that wiped out my D300.

Insurance is a problem, though, because I've lost a housing. Because of that, I'm exploring ways to increase the security of my once-shiny new system.

I'd forgotten you suffered from a pop-a-dome too. That was a Nauticam design flaw and I doubt a vacuum system would've detected it.
The.best way to prevent accidents is to take up golf. . Otherise, to err is human and to be uw photography human, you accept crap is gonna happen. Just saw a C300 go glub glub and the insurance is contesting the claim because he stupidly put experimental housing.