Subal, Seacam, Aquatica VS Ikelite

[Alex_Mustard 0]

I think when it comes to posing with cameras on dive boats - the average diver really can't tell one rig from another. And certainly the difference between DSLR brands is non-existant in the eyes of the average compact carrying diver.

 

Most people think my camera is a video (the shame of it)!

 

I think by far the best posing comes from a real old school setup. A Calypsophot has much higher posing kudos than the latest DSLR. Maybe I should take my Nikonos 111 on my next trip.

 

Alex

[John Bantin 101]

If I was going to pose, I'd get a better body - and I am not talking about cameras either!

[cor 0]

Every time a discussion comes up about Ikelite housings, people that favor Ikelite mention the fact that you can look inside the housing and see a leak. For two reasons I think this is not a good argument.

 

First, I trust my leak alarm way more than I trust my eyes. It goes off with even a single drop and i would surely not have seen that. Im not saying a leak alarm is necessarily better, but I think being able to see offers no benefit besides some mental 'assurance' or 'distrust' of electronics.

 

Second, during my trips ive seen several housings flood. It doesnt seem to matter if its a seethrough housing or not. Most of the time a flood is operator error and/or carelessness. If you dont actually look at your housing, you dont see water entering.

 

Im not at all against ikelite housings, because they offer a cheap way to enter into underwater photography, but this whole 'being able to see' thing is just silly when it comes to more expensive cameras. Imho a leak alarm is the only way to go.

 

Cor

[xtremediver 0]

I think what Cor has said makes the point perfectly. People can buy any housing that they "think" is right, but if you don't use your basic tool (your eyes) to check your equipment before you enter the water and you don't properly mantain your gear, then no matter what you use it will flood. I use Ikelite because it allows me the opportunity to spend the money on the better lenses which is really what helps to make better pictures, not the housings. I would love the Seacam housing for my cameras (both film and digital) but at that price, I couldn't afford the camera gear to go in it. If money is not your consideration, then by all means spend it looks and not on function, IMHO.

[Paul Kay 46]

"If I was going to pose, I'd get a ......." in my case a drysuit that didn't have patches on it a different sized sals, and the knee pads hanging off and..... you get the drift.

 

Paradoxically shooting in poor conditions around the western coasts of Britain and Ireland is a hard place for a housing. Since that is what I do I use equipment which I believe will stand up to the conditions its used in reliably, and which will yield the images I want. Simple really.

 

'O' rings are a tried and tested technology. In my experience disasterous floods and almost invariably down to a substantial user mistake in prep or maintainence or equipment damage. If you look after gear well (methodically and spending substantial time checking and cleaning it) then flooding should be a very rare event.

 

As for leak detectors, they are insurance. I'd recommend an audio/visual one for ANY housing. After all you can bet that if a flood happens, it will start when you aren't actually looking at the housing, clear or otherwise!

[Tom_Kline 137]

In addition to those superb viewfinders, Seacam also makes a superb remote control!

 

BTW, pressure will compress any housing and is taken into consideration in housing design. Recall that Nikonos lenses essentially floated in their mount, the registration of the optical axis was a separate fitting (F-like inner mount on the RS, lugs or inner mount on earlier Nikonos lenses). This assured optical alignment as pressure increased with depth.

Tom

[paquito 1]

Good points all around, thank you.

 

And thank you for the reminder that a good viewfinder is an important part of what will make the housing more user-friendly.

 

You all have made good points that usefulness overall is only judged by how good your ability is to turn your skills into quality results. I don't plan to pose with my housing anytime soon, my goal is to always become a better photographer each and every dive and simply desire to have equipment that lasts through all my misgivings. Responsiveness, durability, and a housing that doesn't frustrate your objectives and does not feel like its working against you are all important to me.

 

Unfortunately, floods do happen, that is what insurance is for, and for me, it shouldnt be the end of the world. I am very particular with all my equipment and it maintenance and I do sincerely hope a flood never happens, but I also understand that nothing is guaranteed. Regardless of what housing you own, if you just think that you can slap it together and it is going to be a push and play automatic winner every time, then you dont deserve to be suprised in the least when your housing floods. Now, manufacturer's shortcomings, that is a whole different matter.

 

When I naively started this thread, I didnt know if housings were like diving in cold water -you can dive in colder water with a wetsuit comfortably, and it will get the job done. But choosing a dry suit heightens the your ability to enjoy the dive more and get more out of it. Their cost varies a lot, but there are some noticeable differences. From this discussion, what I gather most is that when you chose a housing, regardless of price or material, you should choose it based upon what tools it provides for you to enjoy your photography and grow more comfortable with it. Now, I don't think there are a lot of justisfication to be placed on how the housings differ in price. It is all determinate of what you want in a housing. Do you want a leak alarm, a particular viewfinder, certain port options and controls? Do you want to use a particular brand of strobes, do you want it to be a certain weight or buoyancy. Knowing how you will use your camera and what you will need for it determines which housing you get, regardless of price or material. If a particular housing has all of these things and costs a small investment or a large one, then that should be what you "settle" for.

[UWphotoNewbie 1]

I agree with Cor, I think it might be hard to spot a leak even with a transparent housing until its too late. I myself have added a LEEK detector to my housing. Have your cake and eat it too.

 

For me the benifit of transparent housings is that you can see the buttons inside. In setting up the camera and operating it its very easy to tell if all the controls are working properly and if not why not. Slight adjustments underwater are possible. I think I'd be very frustrated with an aluminum housing if something wasn't aligned properly.

 

But the main argument is price. For the price of the more expensive housings, I can keep up with two or three generations of digital cameras. Even with Ikelite, the main reason for me not to upgrade to the D200 this round is the cost of the housing not the camera.

[Rocha 0]

When I naively started this thread, I didnt know if housings were like diving in cold water -you can dive in colder water with a wetsuit comfortably, and it will get the job done.  But choosing a dry suit heightens the your ability to enjoy the dive more and get more out of it.  Their cost varies a lot, but there are some noticeable differences. From this discussion, what I gather most is that when you chose a housing, regardless of price or material, you should choose it based upon what tools it provides for you to enjoy your photography and grow more comfortable with it. 

 

Now, I don't think there are a lot of justisfication to be placed on how the housings differ in price.  It is all determinate of what you want in a housing.  Do you want a leak alarm, a particular viewfinder, certain port options and controls?  Do you want to use a particular brand of strobes, do you want it to be a certain weight or buoyancy.  Knowing how you will use your camera and what you will need for it determines which housing you get, regardless of price or material.  If a particular housing has all of these things and costs a small investment or a large one, then that should be what you "settle" for.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

You got it! Nice summary...

[scorpio_fish 5]

Gee, I love reading the answers to questions like these. Let's face it, it's like buying a car. Is Brand/Model B 1.2 times better than Brand/Model A? B costs 1.2x more than A, yet they both have the same acceleration, gas mileage, etc. Is Brand/Model C 3x better than Brand/Model A?

 

No matter how you value the features, the mathematical answer is that it is not worth the extra cost of any of these more expensive housings. We should all be diving Ikelite housings.

 

We don't because we convince ourselves that the marginal features are required, not a value added and at an appropriate cost.

 

"I spent an extra $5k on Seacam because the viewfinder is better than Ikelite."

 

"I spent an extra $1k on Aquatica because the shutter release lever has better action than the Ikelite."

 

Write them all down and you start thinking about your own sanity. The reality is that I want extra nice features and I paid for them and it didn't make economic sense. I've "progressed" from an Ikelite to an Aquatica to a Subal. Each has been an improvement, but I would be hard pressed to justify the incremental cost, especially Aquatica to Subal.

 

I split my time between a Chevy pickup and a Lexus GS. When I'm driving the Lexus, I wonder why I wasted my money on a Lexus. When I'm driving the truck, I can't wait to gather up all the fallen and broken plastic parts, glue them back on and hop back in the Lexus.

[bmyates 3]

Every time a discussion comes up about Ikelite housings, people that favor Ikelite mention the fact that you can look inside the housing and see a leak...I trust my leak alarm way more than I trust my eyes. It goes off with even a single drop and i would surely not have seen that. ..

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I have to agree. Although Ike makes great housings, "seeing leaks" is not a valid reason to choose them. I remember years ago when I was diving with an SLR in an Ikelite housing, and during a safety stop, I noticed a fellow diver pointing at my camera and clearly laughing through his reg (yes, laughing! :glare: ). When I looked down, sure enough I could see through the clear housing that there was about two inches of water sloshing around inside (more than enough to make it too late to save the camera, which was fried).

 

I have to say that I much prefer an electronic leak alarm (that screams at the first hint of moisture) to the ol' "laughing buddy" alarm...

[UWphotoNewbie 1]

noticed a fellow diver pointing at my camera and clearly laughing  through his reg (yes, laughing!  ).

 

Oh that's cruel. I wouldn't dive with that guy again.

 

 

The LEEK detector flashes. Are there any add on detectors that beep too?

[cor 0]

Ive been on the other end of that. Seeing people's housing flood and seeing them stare at it without acting. Ive had to basically push people back to the surface (safely ofcourse) because they were frozen in shock or something. I think it has to do with being too unfamiliar with your housing and not instinctively know what to do or whats right and whats not.

 

Ive always wondered what the markups are for underwater housings and other UW photo gear, and especially if the markup percentages differ between manufacturers like Ikelite and Subal. I do believe Subal/Seacam etc are quite a bit more expensive to make. But are they twice as expensive to make? Or are they just marked up more than others because crazy people like myself will pay for it.

 

Cor

[bmyates 3]

Oh that's cruel.  I wouldn't dive with that guy again.

The LEEK detector flashes. Are there any add on detectors that beep too?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Yes, it was cruel, but it was a good friend, and since it was already too late to do anything about it, all you can do is laugh, right?

 

The Seacam moisture alarm has a red light that flashes, but it also beeps in a shrill and obnoxious way that lets every diver and undersea animal in sight know there's a problem. I've never had mine go off because of an actual flood, but it goes off if it even just comes in contact with a bit of sea water (e.g., if your hands are wet and you get a drop around the sensor), and that has happened to me a couple of times.

 

Hell, if I ever actually had a leak, it would probably go off like a car alarm!

[Alex_Mustard 0]

Ive always wondered what the markups are for underwater housings and other UW photo gear, and especially if the markup percentages differ between manufacturers like Ikelite and Subal. I do believe Subal/Seacam etc are quite a bit more expensive to make. But are they twice as expensive to make?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I am not aware that anyone who makes UW housings is getting very rich as a result. Most of them turn up to the dive shows in the same T shirts every year!

 

So I think we can rest assured that they charge a reasonable mark-up so that they can afford to stay in business (it is a low volume business afterall). But I think prices are fairly proportional to production costs.

 

Alex

[ikelite 0]

"Ol' ike doesn't want to make money, he just loves to sell housings."

 

www.ikelite.com

[SilvioMarchena 0]

But the days of a lifetime camera and a gold plated housing to go with it are over I'm afraid.

In my view the past never presented us with a "lifetime camera and gold plated housing", there was way to far to go with both cameras and housings. It is only recently that this possibility has come to pass.

 

I think there are 2 or 3 Canons and 2 or 3 Nikons that rise to the level of lifetime cameras, and if matched with an equal housing, in my mind Subal and Seacam measure up, then you have a photo rig that will please most of us for the remainder of our diving lives. Some of these 10-12 mp Canons and 10 mp Nikons are really nice cameras. In some ways they render the d2x and 1dsmkII silly and unecessary given the expense.

 

I think the only thing that would make me move from my current rig is if someone developed products with the same capabilities in a much much lighter housing package. Well, maybe if someone developed a sensor or resolving engine that eliminated bloom I'd be interested, but even then I am not certain I'd neccesarily jump.

[bandit 0]

I think there are 2 or 3 Canons and 2 or 3 Nikons that rise to the level of lifetime cameras, and if matched with an equal housing, in my mind Subal and Seacam measure up

And I feel the same way about Ikelite. That extra $2000 is two trips to Bonaire for me, and two more chances to take pictures. Edited September 4, 2006 by bandit

[SilvioMarchena 0]

And I feel the same way about Ikelite. That extra $2000 is two trips to Bonaire for me, and two more chances to take pictures.

I think maybe you misunderstand my comment. It wasn't about maker, or cost or even our respective ability to spend, but rather about about the notion that only recently have we had cameras and housings offered that enable a kind of "end of the road" ownership possibility. I only mentioned the makes I did because they are at the forefront of quality and capability and therefore represent the best opportunity for lifelong use.

 

If one thinks back to how fast we went from 6006 to 8008 to N90 to F100/F5 (each being a significant jump in capabilty) it's easy to see that we won't see those kinds of jumps in dslrs. At this point it's basically become an issue of mp and refining engines. I just don't see where these makers are going to come up with the same legitmately great stride in performance in digital cameras as they did in film cameras.

 

If one considers just how good the top 3 cameras from each Nikon and Canon are, it makes you wonder how good the new cameras are going to have to be to entice people to move to another setup.