Fantasea polycarbonate housing vs aluminum

[Butterball]

Howdy,

I am a novice in search of a housing for a compact point and shoot. I plan to use the housing 12 to 14 days out of a year, I will also invest in a YS-01 strobe, tray/arm, and a compact dedicated video light.
My budget is < $3k for the entire set up. The camera is around $800. Therefore, I am wondering if I should opt for an aluminum housing that cost twice as much as a Fantasea or save the money towards strobe and video light. Also, I may use the housing for an occasional kayak trip.

From my research, the Fantasea housing is somewhat bulkier but lighter in weight and has a positive buoyancy, double o ring seal, built in moisture alarm. The aluminum hosing is twice the weight (2 lbs), slightly lower profile, and allows a 14 degree tilt for my lcd camera display (not sure if this feature even matters).

I appreciate if the someone can chime in regarding my purchase plan.

Regards,

 

[mozaik]

Hi Butterball,

I assume you are talking about the Sony RX100 III. A 2,000$ budget for a housing and accessories is pretty good.

You can either get a Fantasea housing and 2 strobes or get a Nauticam housing with one strobe but squeezing in a video light will be a bit challenging if you want to get good video.

Here are the options I would consider (prices from our store):
1) Fantasea housing + 2 x YS-D1 strobes + Dual Uni-tray - $2,099
2) Nauticam housing + 1 x YS-D1 strobe + Nauticam flexitray - $2,119
3) Fantasea housing + 1 x YS-01 + Big Blue VTL2800p Video Light +Red filter + Macro Lens+ Wide Angle Dome + Blueray Tray/arm - $2,219

I can tell you that many people prefer the Nauticam housing + ball and joint arms for a more sturdy setup. If it was me to choose , I would go for the setup that will give me the best possible outcome in terms of image quality.

Many customers get option number 2 and a year later add another $1,000 for a second strobe. Of course you can customize any package with a strobe and video light of your choice.

Hope I have helped and not confused you even more.

 

[PatW]

I have used an Ikelite point and shoot polycarbonate housing for a point and shoot. I now use a Nauticam housing for a DSLR.

The Ike housing was functional and effective. The controls could get out of whack and needed readjusting which Ike did for no charge. The housing was essentially a box so it was a bit large.

The Nauticam housing I use has excellent ergonomics. The control of camera settings is superb. The housing is designed for the camera body so it is pretty compact. Also, I have the vacuum system on this housing which lets me know that I have a good seal and the light changes if I start to lose the seal, which in 50 dives has never happened.

If you plan to stick with this system for awhile, I would suggest that you give the metal housing serious consideration?

 

[Interceptor121]

Howdy,

I am a novice in search of a housing for a compact point and shoot. I plan to use the housing 12 to 14 days out of a year, I will also invest in a YS-01 strobe, tray/arm, and a compact dedicated video light.
My budget is < $3k for the entire set up. The camera is around $800. Therefore, I am wondering if I should opt for an aluminum housing that cost twice as much as a Fantasea or save the money towards strobe and video light. Also, I may use the housing for an occasional kayak trip.

From my research, the Fantasea housing is somewhat bulkier but lighter in weight and has a positive buoyancy, double o ring seal, built in moisture alarm. The aluminum hosing is twice the weight (2 lbs), slightly lower profile, and allows a 14 degree tilt for my lcd camera display (not sure if this feature even matters).

I appreciate if the someone can chime in regarding my purchase plan.

Regards,

How about saving yourself $200 on the camera for the Mark II as the Mark III is not really that much of an option and putting the $200 towards an aluminum housing?

The RX100 Mark III lens is too short to do any good close up and too wide to work with wet lenses so really limiting

 

[PHIL RUDIN]

I just finished testing the Fantasea housing with the Sony RX 100 MK III. The housing is made by the same company that makes the Olympus housings and is of excellent quality for the price, of course the Nauticam housings are in a different class with a higher price tag.

The sony camera has a 35mm equivalent 24mm to 70 mm zoom lens (which is 8.8 to 25.7 for the sensor size). As Interceptor has said the long (70mm) end of the lens is quite short compared to many other compacts and the 24 mm is wider compared to many compacts that are 28 mm on the wide end. As a result macro beyond about 1:3 or three times life size suffers. Interceptor is wrong regarding the wide end of the lens, I found it worked quite well with the Fantasea BigEye II wide angle adapter which takes the lens from 24 mm to around 18 mm a big difference.

I am not sure that the Sony camera would be my first choice among the compacts but it did preform well if you except its limitations on the macro end. If you are a wide angle shooter I think you would be quite happy with this camera.

My review should post around 1 March 2015 in the Underwater Photography magazine which can be found on line at uwpmag.com, this is a free PDF download.

Lens at 70 mm for the fish shot and 24 mm with the BigEye II W/A adapter, BigEye around $220.00US

 

[Interceptor121]

View attachment 202574View attachment 202575View attachment 202576

I just finished testing the Fantasea housing with the Sony RX 100 MK III. The housing is made by the same company that makes the Olympus housings and is of excellent quality for the price, of course the Nauticam housings are in a different class with a higher price tag.

The sony camera has a 35mm equivalent 24mm to 70 mm zoom lens (which is 8.8 to 25.7 for the sensor size). As Interceptor has said the long (70mm) end of the lens is quite short compared to many other compacts and the 24 mm is wider compared to many compacts that are 28 mm on the wide end. As a result macro beyond about 1:3 or three times life size suffers. Interceptor is wrong regarding the wide end of the lens, I found it worked quite well with the Fantasea BigEye II wide angle adapter which takes the lens from 24 mm to around 18 mm a big difference.

I am not sure that the Sony camera would be my first choice among the compacts but it did preform well if you except its limitations on the macro end. If you are a wide angle shooter I think you would be quite happy with this camera.

My review should post around 1 March 2015 in the Underwater Photography magazine which can be found on line at uwpmag.com, this is a free PDF download.

Lens at 70 mm for the fish shot and 24 mm with the BigEye II W/A adapter, BigEye around $220.00US

Phil actually you are wrong on this one the bigeye two exactly like the wet mate is just an air dome and will restore the lens air field of view of 24mm or 84 degrees. The 24mm lens will work with the Inon lens UWL-H100 but not with the dome.
I had the RX100 mark III for a short time before returning it and I tested pretty much everything there was to test

 

[Butterball]

If it was me to choose , I would go for the setup that will give me the best possible outcome in terms of image quality.

Mozaik, I appreciate your suggestion. "Best image quality" within my limited budget (housing + strobe + video light at $2k) would be have to a Fantasea housing.

How about saving yourself $200 on the camera for the Mark II as the Mark III is not really that much of an option and putting the $200 towards an aluminum housing?
The RX100 Mark III lens is too short to do any good close up and too wide to work with wet lenses so really limiting

Interceptor, I am stuck with the RX100 III. I have had it for four months now. I've read your post where you recommended the II over the III.

I just finished testing the Fantasea housing with the Sony RX 100 MK III. The housing is made by the same company that makes the Olympus housings and is of excellent quality for the price, of course the Nauticam housings are in a different class with a higher price tag.
The sony camera has a 35mm equivalent 24mm to 70 mm zoom lens (which is 8.8 to 25.7 for the sensor size). As Interceptor has said the long (70mm) end of the lens is quite short compared to many other compacts and the 24 mm is wider compared to many compacts that are 28 mm on the wide end. As a result macro beyond about 1:3 or three times life size suffers. Interceptor is wrong regarding the wide end of the lens, I found it worked quite well with the Fantasea BigEye II wide angle adapter which takes the lens from 24 mm to around 18 mm a big difference.
I am not sure that the Sony camera would be my first choice among the compacts but it did preform well if you except its limitations on the macro end. If you are a wide angle shooter I think you would be quite happy with this camera.
My review should post around 1 March 2015 in the Underwater Photography magazine which can be found on line at uwpmag.com, this is a free PDF download.
Lens at 70 mm for the fish shot and 24 mm with the BigEye II W/A adapter, BigEye around $220.00US

Phil, interesting observation on the Olympus housing. I compared an Olympus PT-EP12 side by side with a Fantasea RX100 III housing, and they both exhibit similar characteristics. The black polycarbonate material, lettering/marking stickers on the push buttons all appear to be from the same OEM. Even the "Made in China" stamp found at the bottom of both case appear to be the same size and font. I read a several positives review on the Fantasea RX100 housing. However, one reviewer had mentioned the "ports for the fiber optic cables were a little loose with their Sea & Sea cables". Did you find this to be the case? I am swaying towards towards the Fantasea as this would provide the most bang for the $.

 

[Interceptor121]

If you plan to use this rig for video fantasea may be fine but for stills 84 degrees fov is really too little. I would look at the Recsea plastic housing that has a 67mm thread so you can get at least a flat wide angle lens. Not a fisheye but 110 degrees fov is ok for many situations

 

[Butterball]

If you plan to use this rig for video fantasea may be fine but for stills 84 degrees fov is really too little. I would look at the Recsea plastic housing that has a 67mm thread so you can get at least a flat wide angle lens. Not a fisheye but 110 degrees fov is ok for many situations

I will shoot mostly stills and occasional videos. I like to add a UWL-H100 lens but didn't factor it into my budget. A polycarbonate housing seems more practical as this will allow me to put money towards a strobe, light, and a lens in the future. I've narrowed my strobe choices to the YS-01 or YS-D1. I am wondering if the extra $250 on the YS-D1 is a good investment given I don't ever plan on adding a second strobe.

 

[Interceptor121]

On a positive side if you buy the fantasea with only 84 degree field of view you can cover with one strobe [emoji1]
Jokes aside with 110 degrees you might get away with one strobe but better be wide and fairly strong