Economics of Current camera/housing systems

[wetman]

I was just looking at some web sites and saw the tetra 5050.

The price on that is 1500 US. Thinking about that, i thought, given the rapid advancement in digital technology and incredible price drops every year on such things, why would you spend so much on a housing. To me spending that much implies a long term investment in that technology which locks you into that technology for a while. I could see it for film cameras because you buy one of those and they'll last you decades if you treat them well - my dads camera from the early 80s is as good today as it was then. However, i cant even imagine using my 5050 in 5 years let alone 10 or more. If you looks at cutting edge digitals now they're up in the 10-15 megapixel ranges. Soon enough they'll be down to consumer prices and the cycle will repeat itself. I loved the fact that the C5050 had a relatively cheap housing and dont feel that that price level "locks" me in to that technology unreasonably.

Now i understand a better housing for deeper dives, but beyond that really what benefits might there be that justify such an expense? And if you're only keeping to 130 feet or above, does it matter.

This was just an example with items i'm familiar with - i'm sure the same could be said for other cameras with other housings etc.

Just some thoughts - anyone care to comment?

steve

 

[Dee]

wetman once bubbled...
I was just looking at some web sites and saw the tetra 5050.

I could see it for film cameras because you buy one of those and they'll last you decades if you treat them well - my dads camera from the early 80s is as good today as it was then. However, i cant even imagine using my 5050 in 5 years let alone 10 or more.

If you looks at cutting edge digitals now they're up in the 10-15 megapixel ranges. Soon enough they'll be down to consumer prices and the cycle will repeat itself. I loved the fact that the C5050 had a relatively cheap housing and dont feel that that price level "locks" me in to that technology unreasonably.

Why shouldn't you still be using your 5050 in 5 years, or more? Just because new models with more mp are released it doesn't mean your old camera mysteriously quits working! Unless you're one of those who has to have the latest and greatest, I wouldn't let the fast pase of technology deter me.

On the other hand, I can see your argument. If I knew for sure I was going to upgrade on a regular basis, and I didn't need the strength of the metal housing, I'd stick to the cheaper ones.

Now i understand a better housing for deeper dives, but beyond that really what benefits might there be that justify such an expense? And if you're only keeping to 130 feet or above, does it matter.

Diving in extremely cold water, divers who may do alot of shore diving and needs the strength of a metal housing for the surf zone are only two reasons given for choosing the Tetra over the cheaper Oly or Ikelite plastic housings.

 

[norcaldiver]

I agree....with both sides, heh.

I have a 1.3 MP Sony Mavica that I use daily for stuff, birthday parties, walking around in SF and Santa Cruz. It takes great pics, but Im not a pro, so I'm not trying to get 8x10s of everything, just enough to look good on the screen.

OTOH, I have a friend that has the 4040 and tetra housing. He flooded the case bad - it looked like the battery pooped in the housing, all kinds of brown goop in there when he opened it up. Now he has an awesome housing, but they don't make the 4040 any more. He was able to get a refurb, but he's wondering about 3-4 years down the road. What if it floods again, will his only option be to mount the housing in the museum? Maybe he should have gone the cheap route and got the Oly housing instead of the super-duper-expensive Tetra....shrug

 

[wetman]

Why shouldn't you still be using your 5050 in 5 years, or more? Just because new models with more mp are released it doesn't mean your old camera mysteriously quits working! Unless you're one of those who has to have the latest and greatest, I wouldn't let the fast pase of technology deter me.

I think this is one of the cases where technology improvements make sense to keep up with - they're relatively inexpensive, they make huge leaps and bounds and since what you're doing is taking snapshots of memories, wouldnt you want your memories to be as vivid as possible? I think though that we're close to a point where 4-5 megapixels might be decent enough, but wouldnt you prefer to be able to have 10 or even 20 megapixels if you could? In 20 years, when a 5 megapixel image is the size of a stamp on your computer screen looking back might not be so clear. Thats an exageration for sure, but look back 5 years now - cameras of 320x200, 640x480 were available - how useful would those images be now for anything but snapshot amusement?

Diving in extremely cold water, divers who may do alot of shore diving and needs the strength of a metal housing for the surf zone are only two reasons given for choosing the Tetra over the cheaper Oly or Ikelite plastic housings.

Yes, i certainly wouldn't want the plastic housing anywhere in a rough environment for sure. I baby mine completely. What is the limitation on the plastic housing for temperature? Anyone know this?

steve

 

[Dee]

Who knows what will be available in 20 years? But in the foreseeable future, I would think if you felt the need to upgrade after say 5 yrs., that you would have gotten your monies worth.

I guess it depends, too, on your outlook at your own photography. If you are looking for the perfect resolution to make postersize prints or plan to sell your prints, you'll be looking for those 10 or 20 MP cameras. I think the majority of us just want good 11x14 or smaller prints for our own use and will be satisfied with much less.

For me...I'm happy with my 4040. In fact I still have lots to learn about it. So until I outgrow it, I'm happy with the results so far.

 

[mdr231]

That was one factor that deterred me from going digital using my Nikon 5700. It's a very recent model camera with 5mp. The housing cost over $800. I had my last digital camera, an Olympus C-2100 (2.1mp), for 2 years before it felt like an antique. I suspect I'll feel that way about the Nikon in 2 years. There's the added issue of digital format changes over time to keep up with. Things change, and you're right about gool ol' 35mm being something you can count on. On the other hand, it's really nice to have a digital darkroom on your desktop! I recently got an Epson 2200 printer. It prints archival quality prints and really kicks a**!
I'd love to be able to use it for UW, too, without having to digitize 35mm prints. Maybe I'll win the lottery tonight!

Michael

 

[mdr231]

mdr231 once bubbled...
That was one factor that deterred me from going digital using my Nikon 5700. It's a very recent model camera with 5mp. The housing cost over $800. I had my last digital camera, an Olympus C-2100 (2.1mp), for 2 years before it felt like an antique. I suspect I'll feel that way about the Nikon in 2 years. There's the added issue of digital format changes over time to keep up with. Things change, and you're right about gool ol' 35mm being something you can count on. On the other hand, it's really nice to have a digital darkroom on your desktop! I recently got an Epson 2200 printer. It prints archival quality prints and really kicks a**!
I'd love to be able to use it for UW, too, without having to digitize 35mm prints. Maybe I'll win the lottery tonight!

Michael

I just re-read my post (above) and realized it wasn't all that clear that I decided not to buy the $800 housing. One major reason was concern over feeling it was obsolete in a couple of years. I got a S&S MM-IIX instead on e-bay.

Michael

 

[wetman]

Ya, this < 1 year product cycle is quite troubling i'm sure if you've flooded and cant replace the camera - another great reason for a housing thats ~10-20% of the price of the camera instead of > 100%.

steve