Otter Box for Cheap DV Housing

"Rudy Benner" <bennerREMOVE@personainternet.com> wrote in message
news:1146kf1iobrhqdf@corp.supernews.com...
>
> "Ken" <ken@k1at.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:d1vcb1$qmk$1@newsg3.svr.pol.co.uk...
>>
>> "Keith Manning" <Nospam@tesco.net> wrote in message
>> news:0%F0e.6690$Ww.1800@newsfe3-win.ntli.net...
>>>
>>> "Marshall Karp" <marshallkarp@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>> news:RsF0e.13264$wL6.10354@trnddc03...
>>>> Since Otter Boxes are rated to 100 feet, couldn't one get a clear one,
>>>> turn
>>>> your digital video camera on, put it inside, and use it as a reliable,
>>>> but
>>>> inexpensive, underwater housing?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> I doubt that the material that the case is made of is optically perfect.
>>
>> Indeed not - but I've been toying with the idea of putting a flashgun in
>> one. Optical perfection is not necessary for THAT purpose. Sync can occur
>> by flash slave. The only disadvantage I can see is that it would not be
>> possible to vary the output of the flashgun once inside the box. OTOH a
>> thyristor-controlled flashgun ought to work in automatic mode while in
>> such a housing, unlike the majority of UW flashguns which are manual
>> only, unless you get cable-syncd which cost arms and legs. Like this you
>> could well end up with a fairly neat flash system which operates
>> automatically at a fraction of the cost of a factory solution, and can be
>> used without modification with a wide variety of cameras.
>>
>> I've been considering the Vivitar DX12 and the Sunpak Remote Lite II.
>> These are made for the increasing number of digicams without hot shoe or
>> cable sync - the precise (functional) state of most digicams once in
>> their housing. They have slaves built-in, and are made to ignore
>> pre-flashes.
>>
>> Any thoughts, anyone?
>>
>> Ken
>>
>
> Take a look at the INON D-2000.

In the words of John McEnroe, "You cannot be serious!" I have no doubt that
it works very well indeed - and so it should for £818!!! The sort of price I
have in mind is more like £80 (~$150)

Is there anything ready-made to compete with that?

Ken

"Rudy Benner" <bennerREMOVE@personainternet.com> wrote in message
news:1146kf1iobrhqdf@corp.supernews.com...
>
> "Ken" <ken@k1at.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:d1vcb1$qmk$1@newsg3.svr.pol.co.uk...
>>
>> "Keith Manning" <Nospam@tesco.net> wrote in message
>> news:0%F0e.6690$Ww.1800@newsfe3-win.ntli.net...
>>>
>>> "Marshall Karp" <marshallkarp@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>> news:RsF0e.13264$wL6.10354@trnddc03...
>>>> Since Otter Boxes are rated to 100 feet, couldn't one get a clear one,
>>>> turn
>>>> your digital video camera on, put it inside, and use it as a reliable,
>>>> but
>>>> inexpensive, underwater housing?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> I doubt that the material that the case is made of is optically perfect.
>>
>> Indeed not - but I've been toying with the idea of putting a flashgun in
>> one. Optical perfection is not necessary for THAT purpose. Sync can occur
>> by flash slave. The only disadvantage I can see is that it would not be
>> possible to vary the output of the flashgun once inside the box. OTOH a
>> thyristor-controlled flashgun ought to work in automatic mode while in
>> such a housing, unlike the majority of UW flashguns which are manual
>> only, unless you get cable-syncd which cost arms and legs. Like this you
>> could well end up with a fairly neat flash system which operates
>> automatically at a fraction of the cost of a factory solution, and can be
>> used without modification with a wide variety of cameras.
>>
>> I've been considering the Vivitar DX12 and the Sunpak Remote Lite II.
>> These are made for the increasing number of digicams without hot shoe or
>> cable sync - the precise (functional) state of most digicams once in
>> their housing. They have slaves built-in, and are made to ignore
>> pre-flashes.
>>
>> Any thoughts, anyone?
>>
>> Ken
>>
>
> Take a look at the INON D-2000.

In the words of John McEnroe, "You cannot be serious!" I have no doubt that
it works very well indeed - and so it should for £818!!! The sort of price I
have in mind is more like £80 (~$150)

Is there anything ready-made to compete with that?

Ken

"Rudy Benner" <bennerREMOVE@personainternet.com> wrote in message
news:1146kf1iobrhqdf@corp.supernews.com...
>
> "Ken" <ken@k1at.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:d1vcb1$qmk$1@newsg3.svr.pol.co.uk...
>>
>> "Keith Manning" <Nospam@tesco.net> wrote in message
>> news:0%F0e.6690$Ww.1800@newsfe3-win.ntli.net...
>>>
>>> "Marshall Karp" <marshallkarp@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>> news:RsF0e.13264$wL6.10354@trnddc03...
>>>> Since Otter Boxes are rated to 100 feet, couldn't one get a clear one,
>>>> turn
>>>> your digital video camera on, put it inside, and use it as a reliable,
>>>> but
>>>> inexpensive, underwater housing?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> I doubt that the material that the case is made of is optically perfect.
>>
>> Indeed not - but I've been toying with the idea of putting a flashgun in
>> one. Optical perfection is not necessary for THAT purpose. Sync can occur
>> by flash slave. The only disadvantage I can see is that it would not be
>> possible to vary the output of the flashgun once inside the box. OTOH a
>> thyristor-controlled flashgun ought to work in automatic mode while in
>> such a housing, unlike the majority of UW flashguns which are manual
>> only, unless you get cable-syncd which cost arms and legs. Like this you
>> could well end up with a fairly neat flash system which operates
>> automatically at a fraction of the cost of a factory solution, and can be
>> used without modification with a wide variety of cameras.
>>
>> I've been considering the Vivitar DX12 and the Sunpak Remote Lite II.
>> These are made for the increasing number of digicams without hot shoe or
>> cable sync - the precise (functional) state of most digicams once in
>> their housing. They have slaves built-in, and are made to ignore
>> pre-flashes.
>>
>> Any thoughts, anyone?
>>
>> Ken
>>
>
> Take a look at the INON D-2000.

In the words of John McEnroe, "You cannot be serious!" I have no doubt that
it works very well indeed - and so it should for £818!!! The sort of price I
have in mind is more like £80 (~$150)

Is there anything ready-made to compete with that?

Ken

"Rudy Benner" <bennerREMOVE@personainternet.com> wrote in message
news:1146kf1iobrhqdf@corp.supernews.com...
>
> "Ken" <ken@k1at.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:d1vcb1$qmk$1@newsg3.svr.pol.co.uk...
>>
>> "Keith Manning" <Nospam@tesco.net> wrote in message
>> news:0%F0e.6690$Ww.1800@newsfe3-win.ntli.net...
>>>
>>> "Marshall Karp" <marshallkarp@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>> news:RsF0e.13264$wL6.10354@trnddc03...
>>>> Since Otter Boxes are rated to 100 feet, couldn't one get a clear one,
>>>> turn
>>>> your digital video camera on, put it inside, and use it as a reliable,
>>>> but
>>>> inexpensive, underwater housing?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> I doubt that the material that the case is made of is optically perfect.
>>
>> Indeed not - but I've been toying with the idea of putting a flashgun in
>> one. Optical perfection is not necessary for THAT purpose. Sync can occur
>> by flash slave. The only disadvantage I can see is that it would not be
>> possible to vary the output of the flashgun once inside the box. OTOH a
>> thyristor-controlled flashgun ought to work in automatic mode while in
>> such a housing, unlike the majority of UW flashguns which are manual
>> only, unless you get cable-syncd which cost arms and legs. Like this you
>> could well end up with a fairly neat flash system which operates
>> automatically at a fraction of the cost of a factory solution, and can be
>> used without modification with a wide variety of cameras.
>>
>> I've been considering the Vivitar DX12 and the Sunpak Remote Lite II.
>> These are made for the increasing number of digicams without hot shoe or
>> cable sync - the precise (functional) state of most digicams once in
>> their housing. They have slaves built-in, and are made to ignore
>> pre-flashes.
>>
>> Any thoughts, anyone?
>>
>> Ken
>>
>
> Take a look at the INON D-2000.

In the words of John McEnroe, "You cannot be serious!" I have no doubt that
it works very well indeed - and so it should for £818!!! The sort of price I
have in mind is more like £80 (~$150)

Is there anything ready-made to compete with that?

Ken

Well, I take it that the flash is _in_ the box (from what you say)? If
that is the case backscatter is going to be a MAJOR problem. The reason
that you see strobes attached to long arms to the right, or left, or
both, sides of the camera is to avoid that problem, since the light
from particulate in the water (mostly) reflects back to the strobes
rather than the lens. If the strobe is immediately adjacent to the
lens, that's another story entirely.

I don't know anything about the box you are intending to house the
camera in but I suspect that it might not be that robust in the water
integrity department, in which case your (significantly more expensive
I would think) digicam is potential history.

There is a perfectly good reason why housings are expensive and this is
the first one of them.

The fact that it does not have a proper port, leave alone one designed
for the characteristics of your digicam's lens, is another problem
area. That's the second reason for expensive housings.

I'd test this out before I spend any sheckels. Put it into a bath, or
the swimming pool, just one metre underwater and film a grid perhaps
one metre away, then see how that comes out. If that's successful
(which I doubt but you could be lucky) I'd continue the testing using
more sophisticated techniques.

Christian

Well, I take it that the flash is _in_ the box (from what you say)? If
that is the case backscatter is going to be a MAJOR problem. The reason
that you see strobes attached to long arms to the right, or left, or
both, sides of the camera is to avoid that problem, since the light
from particulate in the water (mostly) reflects back to the strobes
rather than the lens. If the strobe is immediately adjacent to the
lens, that's another story entirely.

I don't know anything about the box you are intending to house the
camera in but I suspect that it might not be that robust in the water
integrity department, in which case your (significantly more expensive
I would think) digicam is potential history.

There is a perfectly good reason why housings are expensive and this is
the first one of them.

The fact that it does not have a proper port, leave alone one designed
for the characteristics of your digicam's lens, is another problem
area. That's the second reason for expensive housings.

I'd test this out before I spend any sheckels. Put it into a bath, or
the swimming pool, just one metre underwater and film a grid perhaps
one metre away, then see how that comes out. If that's successful
(which I doubt but you could be lucky) I'd continue the testing using
more sophisticated techniques.

Christian

Well, I take it that the flash is _in_ the box (from what you say)? If
that is the case backscatter is going to be a MAJOR problem. The reason
that you see strobes attached to long arms to the right, or left, or
both, sides of the camera is to avoid that problem, since the light
from particulate in the water (mostly) reflects back to the strobes
rather than the lens. If the strobe is immediately adjacent to the
lens, that's another story entirely.

I don't know anything about the box you are intending to house the
camera in but I suspect that it might not be that robust in the water
integrity department, in which case your (significantly more expensive
I would think) digicam is potential history.

There is a perfectly good reason why housings are expensive and this is
the first one of them.

The fact that it does not have a proper port, leave alone one designed
for the characteristics of your digicam's lens, is another problem
area. That's the second reason for expensive housings.

I'd test this out before I spend any sheckels. Put it into a bath, or
the swimming pool, just one metre underwater and film a grid perhaps
one metre away, then see how that comes out. If that's successful
(which I doubt but you could be lucky) I'd continue the testing using
more sophisticated techniques.

Christian

Well, I take it that the flash is _in_ the box (from what you say)? If
that is the case backscatter is going to be a MAJOR problem. The reason
that you see strobes attached to long arms to the right, or left, or
both, sides of the camera is to avoid that problem, since the light
from particulate in the water (mostly) reflects back to the strobes
rather than the lens. If the strobe is immediately adjacent to the
lens, that's another story entirely.

I don't know anything about the box you are intending to house the
camera in but I suspect that it might not be that robust in the water
integrity department, in which case your (significantly more expensive
I would think) digicam is potential history.

There is a perfectly good reason why housings are expensive and this is
the first one of them.

The fact that it does not have a proper port, leave alone one designed
for the characteristics of your digicam's lens, is another problem
area. That's the second reason for expensive housings.

I'd test this out before I spend any sheckels. Put it into a bath, or
the swimming pool, just one metre underwater and film a grid perhaps
one metre away, then see how that comes out. If that's successful
(which I doubt but you could be lucky) I'd continue the testing using
more sophisticated techniques.

Christian

Well, I take it that the flash is _in_ the box (from what you say)? If
that is the case backscatter is going to be a MAJOR problem. The reason
that you see strobes attached to long arms to the right, or left, or
both, sides of the camera is to avoid that problem, since the light
from particulate in the water (mostly) reflects back to the strobes
rather than the lens. If the strobe is immediately adjacent to the
lens, that's another story entirely.

I don't know anything about the box you are intending to house the
camera in but I suspect that it might not be that robust in the water
integrity department, in which case your (significantly more expensive
I would think) digicam is potential history.

There is a perfectly good reason why housings are expensive and this is
the first one of them.

The fact that it does not have a proper port, leave alone one designed
for the characteristics of your digicam's lens, is another problem
area. That's the second reason for expensive housings.

I'd test this out before I spend any sheckels. Put it into a bath, or
the swimming pool, just one metre underwater and film a grid perhaps
one metre away, then see how that comes out. If that's successful
(which I doubt but you could be lucky) I'd continue the testing using
more sophisticated techniques.

Christian

Well, I take it that the flash is _in_ the box (from what you say)? If
that is the case backscatter is going to be a MAJOR problem. The reason
that you see strobes attached to long arms to the right, or left, or
both, sides of the camera is to avoid that problem, since the light
from particulate in the water (mostly) reflects back to the strobes
rather than the lens. If the strobe is immediately adjacent to the
lens, that's another story entirely.

I don't know anything about the box you are intending to house the
camera in but I suspect that it might not be that robust in the water
integrity department, in which case your (significantly more expensive
I would think) digicam is potential history.

There is a perfectly good reason why housings are expensive and this is
the first one of them.

The fact that it does not have a proper port, leave alone one designed
for the characteristics of your digicam's lens, is another problem
area. That's the second reason for expensive housings.

I'd test this out before I spend any sheckels. Put it into a bath, or
the swimming pool, just one metre underwater and film a grid perhaps
one metre away, then see how that comes out. If that's successful
(which I doubt but you could be lucky) I'd continue the testing using
more sophisticated techniques.

Christian