| Author | Thread |
|
|
09/15/2005 09:59:07 PM · #1 |
|
|
|
09/15/2005 10:07:06 PM · #2 |
|
|
|
09/16/2005 10:10:50 AM · #3 |
I had a really nice UW housing for my F3, then my N8008s, and then my n90s. But with digital the camera models change too quickly for me to justify the expense of a hard housing. I'm currently using the ewa-marine U-AXP100, and for less than $400 it was a great deal. Yes, there are quite a few compromises, but it is also a lot less bulkly so its easier to grab just to go out in the rain.
My dream would be for Nikon to come out with a digital version of the Nikonos V, but I'm not holding my breath. |
|
|
|
09/16/2005 11:46:49 AM · #4 |
Jeez, at that price you almost can't afford not to buy one.
Would be good at the beach. |
|
|
|
09/16/2005 11:56:01 AM · #5 |
That's a sweet, sweet housing for sure. But it looks as if you also have to shell out for a different port for each length of lens you use...
They'd add up fast, LOL.
Robt.
|
|
|
|
09/16/2005 12:04:46 PM · #6 |
I think the main problem is that once you get below even a mild depth (10-15 feet) you need a poweful light source to bring out the colors of your subject, otherwise they are quite shifted from the spectrum of light available. This brings up a second problem, the dust-sized debris, living or not, in the water which shows up well when you use a flash.
I'm not sure how National Geographic or that type get such great pictures, but I bet it costs a pretty penny more than even a $1200 housing.
But on the bright side you could shoot in the rain with impunity... |
|
|
|
09/16/2005 12:07:55 PM · #7 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
I'm not sure how National Geographic or that type get such great pictures, but I bet it costs a pretty penny more than even a $1200 housing. |
About 2000 watts of (waterproof) floodlights? And an assistant to hold them .... |
|
|
|
09/16/2005 12:09:40 PM · #8 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
I think the main problem is that once you get below even a mild depth (10-15 feet) you need a poweful light source to bring out the colors of your subject, otherwise they are quite shifted from the spectrum of light available. This brings up a second problem, the dust-sized debris, living or not, in the water which shows up well when you use a flash.
I'm not sure how National Geographic or that type get such great pictures, but I bet it costs a pretty penny more than even a $1200 housing.
But on the bright side you could shoot in the rain with impunity... |
I had a friend who was an underwater photographer for Nat Geo; rather, he was an "assistant" to one, LOL. He carried the lights :-) They light their "sets" from off-camera so you don't get the reflections straight back at the lens.
Robt.
Added note: good deduction, General :-)
Message edited by author 2005-09-16 12:10:18.
|
|
|
|
09/16/2005 12:15:11 PM · #9 |
Originally posted by bear_music:
Added note: good deduction, General :-) |
Thanks, but I'm pretty sure I've seen pictures of the set-up and/or read about it somewhere. Deduction has to wait until my second cup of coffee, or maybe I'm getting confused with the tax-evasion debate in the other thread ... : ) |
|
|
|
09/16/2005 12:47:35 PM · #10 |
don't think i could quite get my 100-400mm in there :|
|
|
|
|
09/16/2005 12:54:06 PM · #11 |
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 08/25/2025 04:33:09 PM EDT.
