Double-checking Before Purchase: S95 & Equipment

[Reef'd Up]

Hi all! Just want to see if this equipment list is ideal or if I should get something else:

Camera: Canon S95
Housing: Canon WP-DC38
Strobe: Inon S2000
28LD Mount Base
UWL-H100 28LD WA lens
Optical D Cable Type L
UCL-165AD Macro lens
AD-LD Mount Converter

Thoughts?

 

[cardog]

Hi all! Just want to see if this equipment list is ideal or if I should get something else:

Camera: Canon S95
Housing: Canon WP-DC38
Strobe: Inon S2000
28LD Mount Base
UWL-H100 28LD WA lens
Optical D Cable Type L
UCL-165AD Macro lens
AD-LD Mount Converter

Thoughts?

Olympus XZ-1?
Seriously, though. It looks like you have a nice kit put together and are only missing a focus light and another strobe.

 

[Reef'd Up]

Personally, I'd rather go the "tried & true" route with the S95. There are plenty of users around which means plenty of people to help (and photos to view before purchase). Cost is slightly less too. Any arguements for the XZ-1?

2nd strobe will have to come later...hubby is already hyperventilating.

 

[Nemrod]

Olympus XZ-1?
Seriously, though. It looks like you have a nice kit put together and are only missing a focus light and another strobe.

The Olympus XZ-1 is unproven with wide angle lenses or macro lenses or anything else at this time. The housing is nice but only has 67mm threads so it will not take the new Inon LD bayonet mount lens, the Canon OEM will.

I am not especially enthusiastic about Canon OEM housing but most have decent luck with them, I say go for it. The dome on the WAL100LD lens results in an $800 dollars combination, awful lot of weight and a little over the top on a $200 housing maybe but who knows. Without the dome more reasonable all around I suppose.

N

 

[Reef'd Up]

Yeah, I know the combo with the cheapo housing isn't the best, but I just can't bring myself to shell out $800+ on a housing for a $400 camera. I figure by the time I have any clue what I'm doing, I'll be able to afford the nice stuff.

Is the dome necessary? What does it provide?

Would it be better to just get the RecSea housing and skip the strobe (my guess is no, but figured I'd ask). Hubby wants me below $2000.

 

[ozziworld]

Your lens selections seem to be driven by the housing selection. Since your housing selection is already a compromise. Your lens selections sill be as well.

I mean, you already want a wider lens than the UWL100AD which is why you are eventually looking at the Dome lens. You want the UWL100AD because of the Canon Housing/mount.

If you choose the lenses you want first. Then you could choose the housing that will work with your selection. This will point you in the direction of the FIX95 or Recsea

Seems to me you would be close to $2,000 with the FIX or Recsea housing + ADmount + UFL165AD + UCL165AD + Inon S2000 + Arms and Tray. You can also look at the FIX UWL100 Lens if you are not that hot on a bayonet mount.

Valentine's Day is coming up so you can start dropping hints to add to your $2,000 budget.

 

[Reef'd Up]

Not trying to be snarky or anything, but what's the justification for spending twice as much on a housing as for the camera? That just seems like a waste. I realize there are better lenses for better housings, but is it worth it?

I'm a complete beginner to UW photography (and photography in general)...and am only a vacation diver. I'd like a nice setup, but just don't want to shell out tons of money on something I may not use often.

What about just getting the Canon housing without the lenses for now...see how much I like UW photography...and then decide if I want to drop the big bucks on the RecSea/lenses? I'd only be out the $175 or so for the Canon housing. I would still get the strobe as I see little point in having an UW camera w/o one.

Hummm... thanks for the opinions/advice!

 

[ghnouer]

Hi all! Just want to see if this equipment list is ideal or if I should get something else:

Camera: Canon S95
Housing: Canon WP-DC38
Strobe: Inon S2000
28LD Mount Base
UWL-H100 28LD WA lens
Optical D Cable Type L
UCL-165AD Macro lens
AD-LD Mount Converter

Thoughts?

In my opinion these is a fantastic setup for a begginer.

GHN

 

[ozziworld]

Not trying to be snarky or anything, but what's the justification for spending twice as much on a housing as for the camera? That just seems like a waste. I realize there are better lenses for better housings, but is it worth it?

I'm a complete beginner to UW photography (and photography in general)...and am only a vacation diver. I'd like a nice setup, but just don't want to shell out tons of money on something I may not use often.

What about just getting the Canon housing without the lenses for now...see how much I like UW photography...and then decide if I want to drop the big bucks on the RecSea/lenses? I'd only be out the $175 or so for the Canon housing. I would still get the strobe as I see little point in having an UW camera w/o one.

Hummm... thanks for the opinions/advice!

That would be a viable option to just buy the canon housing to get a feel or whether or not you want to invest more in U/W photography.

Your original list is actually pretty good. It is just I felt you were going to end up spending another $400 on the dome for the $400 UWL10028AD because that is the widest option on the Canon housing. That means you will be spending $800 on a lens for a $200 housing.

If you go Recsea or FIX, you would spend $800 for housing and $400 on either the Fisheye UWL04 or the Inon UFL165AD.

The controls on the FIX or Recsea are complete and all the buttons, front and rear wheels can be manipulated through the housing. On the Canon and Ikelite housings, the front wheel is not accessible and must be worked around. For some, this is a deal breaker.

You may just want to buy a housing for an existing camera you already own and give it a try. The S95 with Raw and Manual is a good starting point but it may or may not be the camera for your needs depending on how committed you are.

 

[Nemrod]

Not trying to be snarky or anything, but what's the justification for spending twice as much on a housing as for the camera? That just seems like a waste. I realize there are better lenses for better housings, but is it worth it?

I'm a complete beginner to UW photography (and photography in general)...and am only a vacation diver. I'd like a nice setup, but just don't want to shell out tons of money on something I may not use often.

What about just getting the Canon housing without the lenses for now...see how much I like UW photography...and then decide if I want to drop the big bucks on the RecSea/lenses? I'd only be out the $175 or so for the Canon housing. I would still get the strobe as I see little point in having an UW camera w/o one.

Hummm... thanks for the opinions/advice!

See your issue is that you are confused, most of the people who answer these questions are serious about their photography and you want an answer for somebody who isn't which is what you are indicating, not to be snarky.

The Canon housings have issues, are kinda cheapo as well as cheap, often leak, seep, weep, fog, leak, lack full controls, lack interchangeability with lenses, have sticky buttons, buttons that don't work below 60 feet and the housings, at best, are good to 130 feet, maybe once or twice, JMO.

The higher grade housings are made in small quantities, the companies that make them are small and have to recoup their money investment fast before Canon et al change their cameras again. It has been, always and always, that a good housing costs at least twice if not three times what the camera cost and maybe you have not priced strobes but strobes, good ones, that actually work, run 500 to 1,000 dollars each. The lenses typically run 200 dollars for a macro lens and upwards of 900 dollars for a fisheye.

Further, when it comes to underwater photography a camera is just a camera, the housing is the critical component, not the camera. The housing must support the strobes, tray, interface with the chosen lenses and accessories and provide FULL control, reliability and function to the depths expected, not once or twice but over and over again.

Camera housings, good ones, cost what they cost because you get what you pay for, cheap and chintzy or expensive and fully functional.

I once bought a telephoto for my Nikon that cost near 3,000 dollars, the camera body cost about 250 dollars. Why, I wanted to photograph grizzly bears. So do you think the 3,000 dollars lens was a waste, guess not because without it I would have been eaten and could not be typing this snarky () post.

My favorite saying applies, "Some people will go to any expense to save a dollar."

N