DSLR Housing Advice? polycarbonate vs. alum?

[RonFrank]

I'm purchasing a D200... sometime

There is going to be a few options available for it. So I'd like to hear from those using Ikelite, Aquatica (or anyone with an opinion)

I'm especially interested in hearing about the merits of aluminum vs. polycarbonate housings? Alum is certainly more expensive. I'm sure it can take more abuse, but I generally don't abuse my equipment :11doh:

Thoughts?

 

[ScubaLuke]

I'm purchasing a D200... sometime

There is going to be a few options available for it. So I'd like to hear from those using Ikelite, Aquatica (or anyone with an opinion)

I'm especially interested in hearing about the merits of aluminum vs. polycarbonate housings? Alum is certainly more expensive. I'm sure it can take more abuse, but I generally don't abuse my equipment :11doh:

Thoughts?

I've used Ikelite, Subal (aluminium), and Light and Motion (aluminium with many cool buttons). For what it costs, Ikelite makes a damn good housing. But they're bulky, heavy, and hard to transport. I was pretty happy with my Subal housing for my N90. Most of the stuff in my gallery was shot with that setup.

But then I got the D100 and the L&M Housing. It's the best housing I've ever used -and the most expensive. But hey, you can't take it with you and living indoors is overrated.
Luke

 

[fdog]

Ron, here's my experiences with the two flavors:

Ike:
The good:Fast off the line in availability, and you can see through it. The see-through is kinda nice to ease your mind about floods. And less expensive.
The bad: all mine were floaty enough that it took lead in the handles to keep them down. And big for what they contain. And the polycarbonate isn't as strong (I cracked one) which also translates to depth.

Aluminum:
The good: usually thinner walls and more form-fitting, which is smaller and less floaty. More positive port connection.
The bad: More expensive and not as fast to market. A long lifespan housing can get really chipped up, which looks bad. Corrosion on said chipped surface if you don't rinse well. You have to have a leak alarm.

Misconceptions:
>I have seen no difference between the two regarding condensation, from ice to tropics.
>Plastic still needs as much rinsing and semi-annual overhauls as aluminum.
>Aluminum is neccesarily better made.

Hope this helps! Personally, I really like a dense, more compact housing, so I use Aquatica.

All the best, James

 

[Warren_L]

Ron, here's my experiences with the two flavors:

Ike:
The good:Fast off the line in availability, and you can see through it. The see-through is kinda nice to ease your mind about floods. And less expensive.
The bad: all mine were floaty enough that it took lead in the handles to keep them down. And big for what they contain. And the polycarbonate isn't as strong (I cracked one) which also translates to depth.

My experience with the Ike housing is for the D70 only, and will probably go the same for my D200. I've found that with the 6" port, the housing with camera and dual strobes is negative in the water. I've even purchased a set of four ULCS buoyancy arms to make the rig less negative, so being floaty is definitely not an issue with the D70/Ike setup. I cannot say for other cameras. I have heard, however, that with the 8" port (I do not have one but plan on getting one shortly) that the camera tends to turn port up due to the larger volume of air in the 8" port.

 

[ssra30]

I think the most important factor will be port system rather than type of housing as I think they all will prevent water from getting in and allow more or less most camera function. Size is really not a big different but Ikelite tray/handle system will make it appears bigger. After all the ports, strobes etc, I think the weight of the housing will make very little different when traveling.

My main concern with Ikelite currently is the lack of support for 70-180mm macro and 17-55mm DX. No information on the new 105mm VR AF-S yet but since the lens size is similar to the 17-55mm, Ikelite may have problem with it. There is already some information that current Subal port is too small the new 105mm and Subal will need to do something about it. I imagine that other manufacturers may run into similar problems so if you are not in a big hurry, it may be worthwhile waiting a little while longer.

 

[mjh]

First I would stick with a mechanical housing, they are eaiser to repair in the field. Nobody has mentioned budget; that is a big factor. All housings mentioned will do the job and all have their pro's and con's. When considering cost I would factor in having 2xD200 bodies. If the horrific happens, nothing worse than being on a trip and not having a back up.

 

[RonFrank]

My main concern with Ikelite currently is the lack of support for 70-180mm macro and 17-55mm DX. No information on the new 105mm VR AF-S yet but since the lens size is similar to the 17-55mm, Ikelite may have problem with it. There is already some information that current Subal port is too small the new 105mm and Subal will need to do something about it. I imagine that other manufacturers may run into similar problems so if you are not in a big hurry, it may be worthwhile waiting a little while longer.

Good point. Is the limitation the diameter of the port opening? If so that's going to be a difficult nut to crack for any manufacture. So the 105mm VR must be a beast if it's larger then the 70-180mm macro in dia. However that 105mm VR although limited in focal length could be one heck of a lens with VR feature, and macro capabilities 1:1.

 

[RonFrank]

First I would stick with a mechanical housing, they are eaiser to repair in the field. Nobody has mentioned budget; that is a big factor. All housings mentioned will do the job and all have their pro's and con's. When considering cost I would factor in having 2xD200 bodies. If the horrific happens, nothing worse than being on a trip and not having a back up.

Define Mechanical housing? Everyone I've seen is mechanical as I'd define machanical, or do you mean that the Ikelite has the TTL stuff built into the housing? Anyone know if the STUFF inside the Ikelite TTL housings is waterproof?

Budget is really not the biggest factor, however more so as I'm currently not in a place where I would be using this thing as much as I'd like. I won't be in Colorado forever, so I'm thinking towards the future. If the Aquatica was the same price as the D70 housing (unfortunately I don't think it would be) that would seem to be a good choice. However the Ikelite is attractively priced, and would definatley do the job. Subal maybe a bit rich for my blood, at least at the time. I'm not going to be generating income from the UW setup, so that factors into the mix.

A backup D200 may happen, but I'm having trouble just finding ONE right now. :11doh: I think that is about to change, and I'm not in a rush. Right now I have a D1x, and plan on keeping it as a backup as it's a great camera, and selling it is almost pointless. I'd have a topside backup, which for me is more important then an UW backup. I also have the S70 UW which while not a DSLR is far better than nothing.

 

[dbh]

The L&M housings (which is not even an issue with the D200) I believe are "electrical" housings. You can control aperture, shutter speed, strobes, etc. from buttons on the handles. Everyone I know that had / has one carried a spare ROC board because the are notorious for going "dead".

I can't see spending the $$$ for a spare D200 body (and I can afford it). I bought a Fuji E900 and an Ikelite housing for about 1/3 of the cost. I recommend having some kind of backup.

With the Ike, you can get true TTL with Ike strobes if this is important to you.

3 weeks from today I leave for North Sulawesi and will be using a preproduction Subal ND20. I will do a short review when I return.

BTW, Subal & Nexus would be my top 2 choices. Their fit, finish and quality are heads above the others readily available in the US.

Dave

 

[Warren_L]

Good point. Is the limitation the diameter of the port opening? If so that's going to be a difficult nut to crack for any manufacture. So the 105mm VR must be a beast if it's larger then the 70-180mm macro in dia. However that 105mm VR although limited in focal length could be one heck of a lens with VR feature, and macro capabilities 1:1.

It's usually the length of the lens barrel that is the issue. I've not had a look at the 105 VR, but I suspect it's the length that is the issue.