Camera questions

unita@my-deja.com pounded away at his keyboard resulting in:
:1. Is being able to change lenses underwater that important? How many
eople shooting with a housing or nikonos system find themselves saying
:"!@#$& I wish had my XXXXX instead"? Those with Sea & Sea cameras who
:go down with extra lenses how often do you actualy switch during your
:dive?.

It's in the nice to have category. The two equivalents to changeable
lenses that I have had are:

1. The snap on macro attachment for the SeaLife Reefmaster, and
2. The ability to operate the zoom on my Sony Cybershot.

I have used both features, but not very often.

Dan Bracuk
If we don't succeed, we run the risk of failure.

----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

<unita@my-deja.com> wrote

> 1. Find a housing for my Canon A1. (No I do not want to buy a newer
> camera).

> Cons - may be hard to find a housing, expensive. Can not change lenses
> underwater.

Should not be hard to find a housing. I'm sure there's more than one
option. It probably will be expensive, but not as expensive as a custom
housing would be.

> Pros - I have lots of lenses for it including several wide angle
> lenses. SLR

Cons - You may not be able to use them in a housing.

Cons - You may also not be able to use auto focus if it's infrared,
assuming, of course, that your camera has autofocus.

> 2. Buy a Nikonos V, 20mm lens. Seems like there are lots on the used
> market under $1000 for a set up with a 20mm lens.

> Cons - Dedicated UW camera. Can not change lenses underwater. TTL
> though most use a viewer adapter.

It's not a TTL camera. The metering is TTL, nothing else is. It's also not
a range finder. It is, as you said, a viewfinder.

> Pros - Dedicated UW camera, Manual like my A1, High quality

Depending on the lens, it may or may not be only a dedicated underwater
camera. As I recall, mine has a 28mm lens, which is not amphibious. It's
designed for underwater use only.

Cons - The camera is not made anymore. I don't know if Nikon provides any
support for them at all. Better check on the availability of parts and
service before you decide.

> 1. Is being able to change lenses underwater that important? How many
> people shooting with a housing or nikonos system find themselves saying
> "!@#$& I wish had my XXXXX instead"? Those with Sea & Sea cameras who
> go down with extra lenses how often do you actualy switch during your
> dive?.

Everybody says that now and then, above or below the surface. Before you
get excited about the ability to change lenses underwater, give some thought
to how you're going to carry them.

An option you have not considered is a zoom lens. There are surely housings
that will allow them to be used.

Lee

unita@my-deja.com wrote:

> We have finally decided to jump into the underwater camera game and
> looking for some thoughts from folks.

Congratulations...now hold on to your wallet


> We have been doing some research and have come to the following:
>
> A. Get a strobe

Refinement: get a *GOOD* strobe. Make sure to do the research and math
on UW Guide Numbers and find out who "pads" their performance claims.
If you buy a strobe that's underpowered for your needs, you will
inevitably end up buying another strobe, and they ain't cheap.


> B. If you are serious you really need a 20mm lens as your standard
> lens.

Or a 15mm. However, this does kind of make the assumption that you're
going to preferentially want to shoot wide angle more so than macro.

And FWIW, the wider you go, the greater your depth of field, so a 20mm
is easier to shoot than a 28mm, which is similarly easier than the
standard 35mm that most Nikonos V's were sold with. A common complaint
of beginning UW photographers have to do with range estimation, which
can be offset if the lens has a generous depth of field (the 35mm
doesn't).



> Given that I have the following options:
>
> 1. Find a housing for my Canon A1. (No I do not want to buy a newer
> camera).

Personally, I'd not house an old FD camera no matter what my existing
lens investments are. If nothing else, the AF cameras from a decade ago
very often got replaced as newer stuff came out because their AF systems
weren't up to the task of the UW environment: the environment is
generally "dark" and low contrast, so AF's were slow and often spoofed,
causing excessive seeking and missed shots.


> Cons - may be hard to find a housing, expensive. Can not change lenses
> underwater.

Custom housings are possible. However, its additional cost may easily
exceed the cost of replacing the old A1 body with a new(er) body that
doesn't need a custom housing. Maybe even the UW lens you need, too.


> Pros - I have lots of lenses for it including several wide angle
> lenses. SLR

Translation: you don't want to give up your A1 because of a pile of FD
lenses. Understandable, but if the lenses you have aren't suitable to
being housed for using UW, then the existing lens investment is mostly
irrelevant.


> 2. Buy a Nikonos V, 20mm lens. Seems like there are lots on the used
> market under $1000 for a set up with a 20mm lens.

Only $1000? You might want to check that this is indeed a 20mm lens and
not the significantly less costly 28mm lens.



> Cons - Dedicated UW camera. Can not change lenses underwater. TTL
> though most use a viewer adapter.

Correction: there are (at least two) "change underwater" options for
the Nikonos:

a) The Nikkor "Close-Up" kit (fits over the 28mm, 35mm, or 80mm lens)

b) Sea&Sea WCL-16 16mm Super Wide Conversion Lens (fits over the 35mm)

However, as Lee mentioned, you do need to plan ahead for how you're
going to plan on carrying all 'removable' items. Plus, any "add on"
lens simply doesn't have the optical alignment precision of a fixed
lens, so the optical quality potential can never be as good. Its a
trade-off.



> Pros - Dedicated UW camera, Manual like my A1, High quality


Lee> Cons - The camera is not made anymore...

This is a reasonable concern. Personally, I expect 3rd party support to
continue to exist for another 10 years from guys like Southern Nikonos
(Bob W) and UW Photo Tech (Fred D), as they've sorted out their O-ring
suppliers. I'd expect that the lens market will dry up first, but I
expect this to remain reasonably okay in the used market for at least
the next 5 years...aferall, when you're shopping for a Nikkor 15mm, you
still have to make sure its not an "old style" version made before circa
1977.



> 3. Buy a Sea & Sea MMII, lens, and a strobe. Seem like there are lots
> on the used market about $500 for a set up with a 20mm adapter lens.
>
> Cons - Dedicated UW camera. Not as high of quality as compared to 1 and
> 2. Need to buy/use an adapter 20mm lens.
>
> Pros - Dedicated UW camera, Can add lenses underwater, less expensive


Cons:
- UW addable lenses are always of lower optical quality (see above).

- fewer manual controls, such as manual ISO adjustment. This item gets
important when you cannot shoot in any mode other than TTL, as the
system tries to make black fish 18% grey as well as bright silver
fish 18% grey too...Its harder to bracket exposures on a MM.

- fewer film ISO choices. If you want to have the option of shooting
Fuji Velvia, make sure it supports ISO 50. I forget which MM model
it is, but some of them have had an incomplete Auto-DX coding sensor
package, so it couldn't tell the difference between the DX code for
ISO 50 and ISO 200...so it assumed ISO 200 (probably because this is
the more common color negative film ISO).

- this system's limitations generally results in the owner shooting
with print film so as to get more post-production exposure latitude
out of it to improve yield.

- YMMV on how limited its growth path is. Since you've been shooting
with a SLR for years, I'd be concerned with you potentially outgrowing
the capabilities of this system and replacing it in a few years: the
money saved up front can thus be lost.


> 3. Buy a Sea & Sea MMIII and a strobe. Quite new.
>
> Cons - Dedicated UW camera. Expensive
>
> Pros - Dedicated UW camera, the 20mm is built in. Can add lenses
> underwater.


Personally, I'm not familiar with the camera. My first step would be to
take a fine-tooth comb through its specifications to determine if all
camera controls has full manual override or not.


> So here are my questions
>
> 1. Is being able to change lenses underwater that important?

Not really. Its a "nice to have" that comes with image quality
trade-offs. Plus, don't forget that with film, we only have 36
exposures on any dive anyway.


> How many
> people shooting with a housing or nikonos system find themselves saying
> "!@#$& I wish had my XXXXX instead"?

If you're diving someplace "good", IMO, its fairly common to see
something that your lens isn't optimal for. However, you can either
curse, or you can look at it as an opportunity as a new/unexpected
challenge...which attitude you take is up to you.

For example, when in the "make lemonaid from these lemons" attitude,
here's a "I shoulda had my WA lens today" photograph:

http://www.webspan.net/~hummer/pic/geye.jpg

....and here's a "I shoulda had my Close-Up Kit today" photo:

http://www.webspan.net/~hummer/pic/puffer3.jpg

....and a "dang, my strobe flooded on yesterday's dive, now what to do?":

http://www.webspan.net/~hummer/pic/356in2b.jpg



> Those with Sea & Sea cameras who go down with extra lenses how often
> do you actualy switch during your dive?.

I'll sometimes do a dive with my Nikkor Close-Up kit with the intent of
potentially swapping it off to use just my 28mm. Maybe on 1/3rd of such
dives, I'll actually do so. Given the generally large size of the CUK
with its framer, my general strategy is to drop it to the sand someplace
where I'll be able to easily find and retrieve it after getting whatever
shot.

FWIW, as Lee also mentioned, a Zoom lens inside of a housing can cover
some of the desired focal length range and provide compositional
flexibility.


-hh

" H. Huntzinger" wrote

> Personally, I'd not house an old FD camera no matter what my existing
> lens investments are. If nothing else, the AF cameras from a decade ago
> very often got replaced as newer stuff came out because their AF systems
> weren't up to the task of the UW environment: the environment is
> generally "dark" and low contrast, so AF's were slow and often spoofed,
> causing excessive seeking and missed shots.

Not to mention that IR focusing systems tend to focus on the reflected IR
from the inside of the housing.

>> 2. Buy a Nikonos V, 20mm lens. Seems like there are lots on the used
>> market under $1000 for a set up with a 20mm lens.
>
> Only $1000? You might want to check that this is indeed a 20mm lens and
> not the significantly less costly 28mm lens.

Not that the 28 isn't a nice lens. On the other hand, if I had it to do
over, I would have gone with a standard lens that works well above and below
the water and which is the lens that the standard extension tubes and
framers were designed. There's accessories for other lenses, but those that
work with the standard lens are more common and more likely to be available
used.

Come to think of it, if I had it to do over again, I'd do some real research
(this time) and buy digital. It's much better suited to my current
photographic preferences, above and below the surface. More on this at the
end of this message.

> This is a reasonable concern. Personally, I expect 3rd party support to
> continue to exist for another 10 years from guys like Southern Nikonos
> (Bob W) and UW Photo Tech (Fred D), as they've sorted out their O-ring
> suppliers. I'd expect that the lens market will dry up first, but I
> expect this to remain reasonably okay in the used market for at least
> the next 5 years...aferall, when you're shopping for a Nikkor 15mm, you
> still have to make sure its not an "old style" version made before circa
> 1977.

I expect you're right, but it's worth keeping in mind anyway.

OK, here's the more.
I got tired of spending my hold dive taking a few photographs. My wife got
even more tired of it and my friends all decided solo diving was better than
the buddy system. I was spending so much time getting a few good pictures,
that I was not enjoying the dives. BTW, the same thing happened to my above
ground photography. I'll discuss that a bit too.

Since I still liked to have underwater pictures to show, I figured I would
get a digital video camera that I could turn on at the beginning of the dive
and turn off at the end. All that I considered, had the ability to extract
a reasonably decent (for screen viewing and modest sized prints) still from
the video. As I've advised others to do, I shopped housings first and,
armed with knowledge of what housings were available, decided on the small
Sony digital video. I forget the number. I was doing great until I got to
the camera shop. They brought out the Sony and then showed me why the
similarly priced (it was more, but I'm not telling Jayna), similarly sized
(it's larger) Canon was far superior. It really is superior and, being a
gadget freak of the highest degree, I bought the Canon. Unfortunately, I
forgot my own advice. I failed to confirm that there was a standard housing
for the camera I bought. There wasn't and a custom one would have cost as
much or more than the camera. That camera has still not been under water.

On land, I found that carrying a full sized camera was annoying and that
leaving it in the car was a good way to ensure damage to the car and loss of
everything in it. Since everything in it often includes a firearm, that
possibility is even more undesirable than it would be otherwise. I stopped
carrying a camera everywhere, but didn't stop finding things I wanted a
picture of. I did a better job of solving this problem. I bought one of
the ultra small Casio digital cameras. Problem solved. The upside is
pretty obvious. I can carry this camera everyplace without bother. It
lives in my car and takes trips on the boats. The downside is not a big
deal for me, but it's worth knowing. It is much harder to hold a small
camera steady than it is to hold a big one steady. Practice makes perfect,
but with a camera this size, you really have to concentrate on squeezing
that shutter release instead of punching it.

Lee

"Lee Bell" <leebell@ix.remove.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:CQYZd.6194$qf2.2776@newsread2.news.atl.earthl ink.net...
>" H. Huntzinger" wrote
>
>> Personally, I'd not house an old FD camera no matter what my existing
>> lens investments are. If nothing else, the AF cameras from a decade ago
>> very often got replaced as newer stuff came out because their AF systems
>> weren't up to the task of the UW environment: the environment is
>> generally "dark" and low contrast, so AF's were slow and often spoofed,
>> causing excessive seeking and missed shots.
>
> Not to mention that IR focusing systems tend to focus on the reflected IR from the
> inside of the housing.
>
>>> 2. Buy a Nikonos V, 20mm lens. Seems like there are lots on the used
>>> market under $1000 for a set up with a 20mm lens.
>>
>> Only $1000? You might want to check that this is indeed a 20mm lens and
>> not the significantly less costly 28mm lens.
>
> Not that the 28 isn't a nice lens. On the other hand, if I had it to do over, I
> would have gone with a standard lens that works well above and below the water and
> which is the lens that the standard extension tubes and framers were designed.
> There's accessories for other lenses, but those that work with the standard lens
> are more common and more likely to be available used.
>
> Come to think of it, if I had it to do over again, I'd do some real research (this
> time) and buy digital. It's much better suited to my current photographic
> preferences, above and below the surface. More on this at the end of this message.
>
>> This is a reasonable concern. Personally, I expect 3rd party support to
>> continue to exist for another 10 years from guys like Southern Nikonos
>> (Bob W) and UW Photo Tech (Fred D), as they've sorted out their O-ring
>> suppliers. I'd expect that the lens market will dry up first, but I
>> expect this to remain reasonably okay in the used market for at least
>> the next 5 years...aferall, when you're shopping for a Nikkor 15mm, you
>> still have to make sure its not an "old style" version made before circa
>> 1977.
>
> I expect you're right, but it's worth keeping in mind anyway.
>
> OK, here's the more.
> I got tired of spending my hold dive taking a few photographs. My wife got even
> more tired of it and my friends all decided solo diving was better than the buddy
> system. I was spending so much time getting a few good pictures, that I was not
> enjoying the dives. BTW, the same thing happened to my above ground photography.
> I'll discuss that a bit too.
>
> Since I still liked to have underwater pictures to show, I figured I would get a
> digital video camera that I could turn on at the beginning of the dive and turn off
> at the end. All that I considered, had the ability to extract a reasonably decent
> (for screen viewing and modest sized prints) still from the video. As I've advised
> others to do, I shopped housings first and, armed with knowledge of what housings
> were available, decided on the small Sony digital video. I forget the number. I
> was doing great until I got to the camera shop. They brought out the Sony and then
> showed me why the similarly priced (it was more, but I'm not telling Jayna),
> similarly sized (it's larger) Canon was far superior. It really is superior and,
> being a gadget freak of the highest degree, I bought the Canon. Unfortunately, I
> forgot my own advice. I failed to confirm that there was a standard housing for
> the camera I bought. There wasn't and a custom one would have cost as much or more
> than the camera. That camera has still not been under water.
>
> On land, I found that carrying a full sized camera was annoying and that leaving it
> in the car was a good way to ensure damage to the car and loss of everything in it.
> Since everything in it often includes a firearm, that possibility is even more
> undesirable than it would be otherwise. I stopped carrying a camera everywhere,
> but didn't stop finding things I wanted a picture of. I did a better job of
> solving this problem. I bought one of the ultra small Casio digital cameras.
> Problem solved. The upside is pretty obvious. I can carry this camera everyplace
> without bother. It lives in my car and takes trips on the boats. The downside is
> not a big deal for me, but it's worth knowing. It is much harder to hold a small
> camera steady than it is to hold a big one steady. Practice makes perfect, but
> with a camera this size, you really have to concentrate on squeezing that shutter
> release instead of punching it.

I also changed from a SLR camera to a compact light weight Olympus Stylus zoom for
land photography and never looked back. I can't imagine lugging a full size heavy
camera around any more, and the pictures I got from the Stylus were very good.

Now I too am looking for a digital camera that will work on land and underwater.

Adam

<unita@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:1110928902.965769.198320@o13g2000cwo.googlegr oups.com...
> We have finally decided to jump into the underwater camera game and
> looking for some thoughts from folks. We have been doing some research
> and have come to the following:
>

Better still why not buy my complete ready to use kit?

I have the following for sale (all in VERY good condition).

Nikon F90x (F90s) camera body
Nikon 20mm f2.8 lens
Nikon 105mm f2.8 Micro Nikkor Macro lens
Nikon 24-50mm f3.8 zoom

Aquatica F90 Professional housing (the latest bayonet fit model)
Aquatica 8" dome port, will accept all wide-angle and fisheye lenses
Flat lens port for Macro lens
Sea&Sea YS50TTLn Strobe with new sync cord & recent service
All required focus, aperture and zoom gears for the above lenses
Ikelite hard foam lined equipment case.

I might even sell my Nikon Speedlight SB80, which is only about a year old,
in mint condition with original box, diffuser and pouch bag.

Make me a sensible offer!

"Lee Bell" <leebell@ix.remove.netcom.com> wrote:

> " H. Huntzinger" wrote
>
> > Personally, I'd not house an old FD camera no matter what my existing
> > lens investments are. If nothing else, the AF cameras from a decade ago
> > very often got replaced as newer stuff came out because their AF systems
> > weren't up to the task of the UW environment: the environment is
> > generally "dark" and low contrast, so AF's were slow and often spoofed,
> > causing excessive seeking and missed shots.
>
> Not to mention that IR focusing systems tend to focus on the reflected IR
> from the inside of the housing.

Does the A1 have IR focusing? I'm not sure.


> >> 2. Buy a Nikonos V, 20mm lens. Seems like there are lots on the used
> >> market under $1000 for a set up with a 20mm lens.
> >
> > Only $1000? You might want to check that this is indeed a 20mm lens and
> > not the significantly less costly 28mm lens.
>
> Not that the 28 isn't a nice lens.


True. Its just that the Nikkor 20mm used to sell for around $800 by
itself, so if $1000 can get a 20mm and a V body, I'd like to get one for
myself.



> On the other hand, if I had it to do over, I would have gone with
> a standard lens that works well above and below the water and which
> is the lens that the standard extension tubes and framers were designed.
> There's accessories for other lenses, but those that work with the
> standard lens are more common and more likely to be available used.

The 35mm is the cheapest lens Nikon made...go for it. On Ebay, its
around $100 for a used one; new is a bit more (try B&H).


> Come to think of it, if I had it to do over again, I'd do some real
> research (this time) and buy digital. It's much better suited to
> my current photographic preferences, above and below the surface.

I'd probably be very tempted to go digital at this time too. As you
pointed out, its nice to have a tiny land camera that generates nice
images. And for UW, the housed cameras are getting downright tiny, plus
if you come across a great subject, you can get more than 36 photos/dive.


-hh

Hi Hugh, Lee, and others who have chimed in,

Thanks for your long thoughts. This is helpful.

My A1 system is completely manual. In general, it does not accept any
auto focus lenses. (I will skip the exceptions to this). You have
complete control over, the lighting, aperture priority, shutter
priority, completely auto, or fully manual. I typically shot with
aperture priority or auto. So, given that there is no auto focus would
you still not house the camera?

I talked to Ikelite yesterday regarding their housings. He said there
are housing still out there for it and gave me some pointers of what to
look for since some of the early models are not really compatable with
today's strobes. After talking to him I did see a Ikelite housing that
recently sold on ebay for ~$300 that was the correct one. Bummer
because it also came with correct port.
I might keep looking looking for a housing.

Both Hugh and Lee mentioned going digital. Are you talking about a
point & shoot or a body with interchangable lenses? I have a point and
shoot digital. Very nice high end but no housings are available - I did
not really think about that when I bought it. Kinda like the video
camera that was mentioned. It would seem that even if I did find a
housing for my point and shoot digital that I would be limited since it
can not do macro and has a limited aperture.

The pricing I gave on the Nikonos system was with a 20mm lens. You have
to look around but they are out there. Also many of the macro and close
ups lens work both with the 28mm and 35mm.

BTW Lee and Hugh what are shooting?

Thanks again for your thoughts.

Cheers,

Allen









H. Huntzinger wrote:
> "Lee Bell" <leebell@ix.remove.netcom.com> wrote:
>
> > " H. Huntzinger" wrote
> >
> > > Personally, I'd not house an old FD camera no matter what my
existing
> > > lens investments are. If nothing else, the AF cameras from a
decade ago
> > > very often got replaced as newer stuff came out because their AF
systems
> > > weren't up to the task of the UW environment: the environment is
> > > generally "dark" and low contrast, so AF's were slow and often
spoofed,
> > > causing excessive seeking and missed shots.
> >
> > Not to mention that IR focusing systems tend to focus on the
reflected IR
> > from the inside of the housing.
>
> Does the A1 have IR focusing? I'm not sure.
>
>
> > >> 2. Buy a Nikonos V, 20mm lens. Seems like there are lots on the
used
> > >> market under $1000 for a set up with a 20mm lens.
> > >
> > > Only $1000? You might want to check that this is indeed a 20mm
lens and
> > > not the significantly less costly 28mm lens.
> >
> > Not that the 28 isn't a nice lens.
>
>
> True. Its just that the Nikkor 20mm used to sell for around $800 by
> itself, so if $1000 can get a 20mm and a V body, I'd like to get one
for
> myself.
>
>
>
> > On the other hand, if I had it to do over, I would have gone with
> > a standard lens that works well above and below the water and which
> > is the lens that the standard extension tubes and framers were
designed.
> > There's accessories for other lenses, but those that work with the
> > standard lens are more common and more likely to be available used.
>
> The 35mm is the cheapest lens Nikon made...go for it. On Ebay, its
> around $100 for a used one; new is a bit more (try B&H).
>
>
> > Come to think of it, if I had it to do over again, I'd do some real

> > research (this time) and buy digital. It's much better suited to
> > my current photographic preferences, above and below the surface.
>
> I'd probably be very tempted to go digital at this time too. As you
> pointed out, its nice to have a tiny land camera that generates nice
> images. And for UW, the housed cameras are getting downright tiny,
plus
> if you come across a great subject, you can get more than 36
photos/dive.
>
>
> -hh

Allen <unita@my-deja.com> wrote:


> Hi Hugh, Lee, and others who have chimed in,
>
> Thanks for your long thoughts. This is helpful.
>
> My A1 system is completely manual...given that there is no
> auto focus would you still not house the camera?

No, and this is despite the fact that I'm currently shooting a similarly
"all manual" Nikonos V: I'd probably not house a non-AF SLR.

My basic rationale for this is that the classical rule of thumb is that
a Nikonos is the best system for wide angle (WA), and this is partially
due to optics, plus the observation that WA's Depth-of-Field (DOF)
minimizes focus issues...whereas a Housed SLR is best for Macro (no
framers), and focus here is much more critical requirement.

Needless to say, most of my UW photography is WA.



> Both Hugh and Lee mentioned going digital. Are you talking about a
> point & shoot or a body with interchangable lenses? I have a point and
> shoot digital. Very nice high end but no housings are available - I did
> not really think about that when I bought it. Kinda like the video
> camera that was mentioned. It would seem that even if I did find a
> housing for my point and shoot digital that I would be limited since it
> can not do macro and has a limited aperture.

That's the harder call. My very generic temptation would be to go with
one of the often inexpensive OEM housings on a digital Point-n-Shoot,
but I'd have to look into strobes before deciding...the primary feature
that's gleaning my interest here is their small size, but I do know that
there's trades in shutter response speed, strobes, etc.

At present, I think I'm probably going to pick up a Canon 20D dSLR
fairly soon, so housing that camera would also become a potential
temptation...er, option


> The pricing I gave on the Nikonos system was with a 20mm lens. You have
> to look around but they are out there.

Wow. Was this Ebay?



> BTW Lee and Hugh what are shooting?

At present, I'm shooting a Nikonos V body, usually with a Sea&Sea 15mm
WA, although I also have the Nikkor 28mm, 35mm, CUK and Macro Tubes.
Lighting is provided by two Ikelite SS-200 strobes on Ikelite arms. The
one strobe is hardwired in, the other is using Ike's slave sensor and is
also mounted on a quick-release arm, so it can be still used even when
completely taken off the camera.

All of it gets packed into a softsided Tamrack Bag...a 610 or 620, I
think. Its around 10"x10"x24"L, but nevertheless passes the eyeball
test for legal carry-on size because the end pockets that push it beyond
legal length are quite small and unnoticable. Packed out, it weighs
around 27lbs, and there's no longer room in it to also pack my film, so
that travels in my wife's carry-on bag.


-hh

unita@my-deja.com wrote:
> Hi Hugh, Lee, and others who have chimed in,
>
> Thanks for your long thoughts. This is helpful.
>
> My A1 system is completely manual. In general, it does not accept any
> auto focus lenses. (I will skip the exceptions to this). You have
> complete control over, the lighting, aperture priority, shutter
> priority, completely auto, or fully manual. I typically shot with
> aperture priority or auto. So, given that there is no auto focus would
> you still not house the camera?
>
> I talked to Ikelite yesterday regarding their housings. He said there
> are housing still out there for it and gave me some pointers of what to
> look for since some of the early models are not really compatable with
> today's strobes. After talking to him I did see a Ikelite housing that
> recently sold on ebay for ~$300 that was the correct one. Bummer
> because it also came with correct port.
> I might keep looking looking for a housing.
>
> Both Hugh and Lee mentioned going digital. Are you talking about a
> point & shoot or a body with interchangable lenses? I have a point and
> shoot digital. Very nice high end but no housings are available - I did
> not really think about that when I bought it. Kinda like the video
> camera that was mentioned. It would seem that even if I did find a
> housing for my point and shoot digital that I would be limited since it
> can not do macro and has a limited aperture.
>
> The pricing I gave on the Nikonos system was with a 20mm lens. You have
> to look around but they are out there. Also many of the macro and close
> ups lens work both with the 28mm and 35mm.
>
> BTW Lee and Hugh what are shooting?
>
> Thanks again for your thoughts.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Allen
>
>

unless you wish to shot 15mm WA avoid the nikonos like the plague
( RUN away from the nikonos 4a ).

go ahead and house that A1. you can find ikelite houseings on Ebay for
that camera for ~ $100 - $250 with port ( ike ports alone run $130).
It's going to be hard to find a sync cord for this however ( if you want
to use a ike strobe ) so the best bet is get an Ike housing for a
vivitar 285, they are pretty cheap.

there are some problems with going digital - most invoving getting a
strobe that works with the digital preflash. there are a number of small
digitals that are easily housed available with the Olympus 5050 or 5060
a good example/choice.

Are you sure you can't get an ike housing for your digital? It's a rare
camera Ikelite can't house.