pooley 54 Posted June 24, 2012 HI guys, I'm about to get a dslr system and was after opinions on combo's. Basically my budget will allow for a newer model such as a D7000 in a new Ike housing or going second hand and getting something like a D200 in a subal / aquatica / sea & sea type housing. I can read reviews all day long (and have done!) but am after real world opinions on any significant differences, ie does the AF and DR of the newer models make enough of a difference underwater to not get a high level housing. I currently shoot canon but am not bothered which camera system I buy for UW. Cheers Mike Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
newmanl 15 Posted June 24, 2012 (edited) Hi Mike, I've recently gone from an Ikelite housing (Canon 30D) to an Aquatica for a new 7D. First off, the reason for the change was mostly driven by working depth (I tech dive) and the ability to have the shooting info displayed on the back of the camera. As my skills develop, I also wanted enough MPs to hang large-ish prints in our house. So, given my investment in Canon (lenses and flashes) I went with a 7D. As far as I can see... so far, there doesn't appear to be any great improvement in DR in the 7D over the 30D - the AF, however, is an entirely different matter. The 7D and the 100mm macro actually appear to like each other as opposed to the strained relationship the 30D had with it! Shooting macro has never been easier - at least to get focus. I have no experience with Nikon, but I imagine their newer offerings will have improved AF over older models. As far as the actual housings go, I have to admit the Aquatica is way easier to handle - it was a little heavy at first, but I've since added floats to take care of that. The other benefit is that the arms on the Aquatica housing come out of the side, and not across the bottom, which makes it easier to get the housing low to the substrate when shooting critters on the bottom. Handling-wise, the Aquatica wins, in my mind. Photo-wise, the 7D's files take a bit more work, but they really sing if shot and processed properly. In the end, my budget allowed for both a new camera and a new housing. I think regardless of what route you go, there are options and availablity. Good luck! Lee Edited June 24, 2012 by newmanl Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
gina 9 Posted June 25, 2012 A few years ago I also went from an Ikelite housing (with a Canon 5D) to an Aquatica (with a 5D MkII) and couldn't believe the difference. I was running up against the limitations of the Ikelite housing, plus it just seemed, well, cheap. The Aquatica is a strong workhorse and I love it. The only thing I gave up in the move was the ability to use TTL metering so I had to go to manual exposure, but I'm glad I did as my photos really improved as a result. My only caveat is make sure to do a few dives with the new housing before taking it on any big trips as you may need to make some minor adjustments. Have fun! -Gina Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
johnspierce 25 Posted June 25, 2012 (edited) A few years ago I also went from an Ikelite housing (with a Canon 5D) to an Aquatica (with a 5D MkII) and couldn't believe the difference. I was running up against the limitations of the Ikelite housing, plus it just seemed, well, cheap. The Aquatica is a strong workhorse and I love it. The only thing I gave up in the move was the ability to use TTL metering so I had to go to manual exposure, but I'm glad I did as my photos really improved as a result. My only caveat is make sure to do a few dives with the new housing before taking it on any big trips as you may need to make some minor adjustments. Have fun! -Gina I agree with Gina the Aquatica is a much superior housing to Ikelite (I went from Ikelite to Aquatica myself) and of course Subals are marvelous too, however, the D7000 is a vastly superior camera over a D200. If it was a D300 the difference would be less, but you are talking two generations apart with the D200 and in my opinion the difference between cameras is much more than the difference between the two housings you are discussing. You can get pretty much the same photo in 95% of the situations with either housing and a D7000, but the D200 just will not get the same photo with the same dynamic range and low noise as the D7000. There's a whole raft of reasons why the D7000 is that much better, but if I may make a computer metaphor, it's kind of like an old single-core PC running Windows 98 with 1 gb RAM vs. a new quad-core I7 with 8 gb RAM running Windows 7. Just my humble opinion JP Edited June 25, 2012 by johnspierce Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Otara 0 Posted June 25, 2012 I found having an external viewfinder made a far bigger difference to my photography than having a Nauticam housing over an Ikelite. The other big thing was having the option for optical strobe firing, which you might not get with a D200 housing, or want to have anyhow. I used to find the 10-17mm port for the Ikelite a bit scary, but with the extra port locks its not what it was. There are also more dome options for that lens than there used to be. Finally, its also a question of build - large hands vs small can make one housing or the other more comfortable for instance, so try and get your hands on each if you can. Otara Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
John Bantin 101 Posted June 25, 2012 I alternate D200 with D700 on trips. My pictures get published. I find that the latest RAW converter makes a bigger difference. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TomR1 5 Posted June 27, 2012 I would try to get a D-300, not a D-200. I went from Ike to a metal housing and like it much better partly due to fibre optic cords and partly due to the controls. I am not sure but I believe that a 40D is also a possibility. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
pooley 54 Posted June 27, 2012 Thanks for the advice everyone. Its a tough one for me, but at the moment the D200 option looks favourite as it frees up a bit more of a tight budget. But you never know...! Mike Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
john70490 3 Posted June 27, 2012 Thanks for the advice everyone. Its a tough one for me, but at the moment the D200 option looks favourite as it frees up a bit more of a tight budget. But you never know...! Mike As you're on a tight budget, have you considered a D80. It's essentially the same camera as the D80 in a plastic body. I recently picked up alittle-used one (only 1000 shutter activations) with an 18-55 mm VR lens as a back up for only about £235. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
decosnapper 37 Posted June 27, 2012 (edited) With minor housing mods, a D300 body will fit into and can be made to work in a Subal D200 housing...mine had a mid-life overhaul last year...ND20 housings are out there and available... Edited June 27, 2012 by decosnapper Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
derway 2 Posted June 27, 2012 For me, there is no reason to spend more for a housing, than an ikelite, unless you are traveling many weeks or months per year. If you a diving locally, weekends, and traveling 2-3 weeks per year, someplace nice, an ikelite will suit you fine. The d7000 is hugely better, in DR than the older cameras. And the great thing about ike, is their all wired strobe connections, allowing you to use TTL or finely adjusted manual, to your heart's content. You can use most of the fancy view finders on ike housings as well, if you feel the urge. The clear plastic housing, which allows me to see the orings AFTER assembly, is a huge boon, to peace of mind! No worries, about hidden invisible bad seating seals, when you change ports, or the main door. Sure, the ergonomics are better, on fancy alu housings, but shooting with an ikelite is pretty much like shooting with the camera itself. Not so bad at all, considering the enormous price difference! Good luck. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
davehicks 123 Posted June 28, 2012 This is a no brainer. Get a NEW model camera with the Ikelite housing. If you have a limited budget make the MOST use of it an get a camera that is not already obsolete. It's only going to get older and further behind the state of the art. Buy the best you can afford now. The Ikelite housing are GREAT. I don't have really have any budget constraints for my camera gear, but I still buy Ikelite. I just don't see the value in the in buying a more expensive watertight box than is needed. Arguably, you lose valuable functionality (TTL) with every other option. The more expensive housing are not any more watertight (priority #1) and they don't take better pictures (priority #2). Buying the newest, best camera you can afford will at least move the needle a bit on one of these two priorities. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
pooley 54 Posted June 28, 2012 Thanks for all the replies everyone, its been an intersting read. There is clearly opinion on both sides, which I've taken note of but as it happens, I've decided to take up an offer of a subal with D200. This was heavily influenced by what I saw as a very good deal, and as decosnapper has mentioned, I can upgrade this to a D300 at some point if I feel the need. Also, I'll have a quality set of ports etc for the future. I fully accept the arguement for the D7000, but after seeing John Bantins shots in Diver, and joining the D200 underwater flickr page I feel that the quality is good enough for my current needs and will leave budget for a decent topside lens (I'm selling my topside canon gear). Thanks again for the interest in the thread. Mike Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
tdpriest 115 Posted June 28, 2012 This is a no brainer. Get a NEW model camera with the Ikelite housing. If you have a limited budget make the MOST use of it an get a camera that is not already obsolete.. It is a no-brainer, but Ikelite housings are awkward and relatively fragile. If you are going to hang on to your new camera for a while, think about looking for a used Subal or Nauticam in a while when the "early-adopters" and the "measurebators" have moved on. If you're not in a great hurry that could be as soon as the end of the year, then you might be able to miss out the Ikelite step. I place more importance on the ergonomics than on having absolutely the most up-to-date camera (just ignore the observation that an argument with the abyss has resulted in me receiving a brand-new D800...). Tim Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
tdpriest 115 Posted June 28, 2012 I've decided to take up an offer of a subal with D200. This was heavily influenced by what I saw as a very good deal, and as decosnapper has mentioned, I can upgrade this to a D300 at some point if I feel the need. The D200 is quite limiting compared to the D7000, it is, ridiculously, obsolete in comparison to the latest cameras. Decosnapper is a little disingenuous in implying that is easy to fit a D300 into a D200 housing... Tim Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
john70490 3 Posted June 29, 2012 The D200 is quite limiting compared to the D7000, it is, ridiculously, obsolete in comparison to the latest cameras. Decosnapper is a little disingenuous in implying that is easy to fit a D300 into a D200 housing... Tim Okey, the D200 is obsolescent (not obsolete) but we can agree that John Bantin has taken some wonderful images with his D200? And a friend of mine has won prizes in big international competitions (winner of the Wildlife Phortographer of the Year In Praise of Plants class three years ago and runner up two years ago with superb waterlilly images, best individual image in the Epson Eilat shoot-out two years ago and prizes in other prestigious competitions last year and this year), all with images taken with a D200. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
tdpriest 115 Posted June 29, 2012 And a friend of mine has won prizes in big international competitions... I didn't do quite so well (second to Keri Wilk at BUIF) with my D200, but that's not the point... ... the goalposts and the fashions in underwater photography are changing all the time. The low-light performance, pixel count, AF and dynamic range of the D200 make it limited in comparison to the D300, already itself obsolescent in comparison to the D7000. I won't say that a D200 should be junked, but given a choice I wouldn't suggest it being a sensible upgrade path. Obsolescence-squared = obsolete? Tim Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
johnspierce 25 Posted June 29, 2012 Yeah, I think Tim makes a very valid point in how the "goalposts have moved". I have some photos from my old D70 that I still think are some of my best stuff, but I get 10 times as many good photos now because of the superior technology in the later bodies. And as Tim points out, it's not just the D7000 is much better than the D200, the D300 is also significantly better. Where you will really notice this is when you are shooting at ISO 800, existing light,on a wreck at 90 ft. The photos will be respectively - D7000/pretty clean, D300/slightly noisy, D200/very noisy. You can somewhat clean up ISO noise in the post-prod tools available today, but it does make a huge difference. Can you win a photo competition and/or take some great photos with a D200? Of course. Is it hugely obsolete in comparison to the D7000? Yes, it is. Now, having said all this, investing in the right ports and housing is very important too. You don't want to buy a bunch of equipment and then sell it all a year later to get a totally different brand - that's very expensive. I think the sweet spot in used equipment right now is the D300 - I see them pop up on the classifieds here almost daily. JP Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
