Startup Housing Company Seeking Your Input

[BoltSnap]

.000001 of 6,000.000 divers is around 6 people. Hummmmmmm, if this is the case, I don't think that S&S, Nauticam, etc. can survive for a minute based on these numbers.

 

[mjh]

Put me in the "picture snapper" group along with the vast majority of our clients.

 

[dhaas]

I guess it's difficult to understand implied humor..........

I know many of the "high end" housing makers including NAUTICAM, Aquatica, SEACAM plus their dealers. All nice people and they DO provide a product for a certain "type" of UW shooter.

My comment was on the DEPTH feature........

I live in Ohio where the deepest quarry has about 145' of cold dark water SOME people go to play with their toys (doubles, stage bottles, rebreathers, etc.)

But in the WORLD of SPORT divers they are a tiny minority and even less are underwater photographers.

So my comment was simply telling a guy thinking of creating a housing for MASS market sales he likely doesn't NEED to make it usable to 300' was all.

Hope that explains it

David Haas
www.haasimages.com

 

[Kryssa]

Agreed David... I think that if the end product costs less buy only goes to 150 or 200' you'll find a wider customer base.

Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Tapatalk 2

 

[H2O Photo Project]

Great discussion. I am reading and learning. Some people have told me that divers like to have a rating that far exceeds the depth they actually plan to use it at, just in case. That makes sense in some ways but is problematic in others. I suspect we may have a more successful product if it is inexpensive and works very well down to maybe 150' max. If there are no compromises involved in achieving a deeper rating, then that's fine. However, i'm not sure i'd want to compromise the user experience for the majority of customers in order to make the product usable for a small minority. I've heard that only a small minority of divers spend much time under 100'. I'm not saying that any of these statements carry any more weight than the discussion here on the board, they're just data points.

We're seeing more results come in on the survey and that helps us out, thanks again.

We are also considering trying to make the product inexpensive enough that it can draw in photographers who have never been able to justify the high cost of existing housings. We're not certain yet if that will be possible, but it's definitely one of our goals.

 

[smellzlikefish]

If you need anything else, please don't hesitate to start another argument.

 

[BoltSnap]

If you are making a housing for a $500 camera, then the housing can't be that much more expensive. If you are making a housing for a camera setup that is more than $1000, then it will need to be much more "solid" and it is justifiable to be more expensive. A DSLR setup (or mirrorless) is going to cost several thousand dollars so having to spend more $$$ for a better housing with better depth rating isn't an issue for me.

 

[Akimbo]

…Most of the survey responses are indicating a 300' rating. It sounds like 150' may be sufficient for many of those, based on feedback here.

I prefer 100 meters/328' plus. 150' is a show-stopper for me. BTW, this is an international market so making the limit 300' instead of 100 meters will put you at a competitive disadvantage for a lousy 28'.

Your survey alluded to a “universal” housing that would fit many current and future similar size cameras (maybe I read too much into it). This was the norm in the film camera days where sand-cast tooling had to be amortized over a tiny market.

The advent of affordable 5-axis CNC machining has eliminated this restriction for the manufacturer. However, short digital camera model lives has made investing in a good underwater housing with different ports a nightmare for consumers. I believe using electronic camera controls via USB has the potential to dramatically extend the life of a housing investment and dramatically improve ergonomics.

Another huge personal gripe: There is no excuse in this day of solids modeling software that housings are negatively buoyant! It is easy, cheap, and compact to add a little lead — the exact opposite of adding syntactic foam.

 

[bvanant]

The picture snappers are using very low end cameras with plenty of cheap housings available for them including some big name companies. It is a niche market because it is VERY crowded market and is extremely price sensitive and a tiny startup company will have a very difficult time competing.

HUH? First you say that if a housing can't go to 300 feet it is only for picture snappers, then picture snappers only use very low end cameras. I repeat that there are quite a number of "underwater photographers" using very high end (5DMIII, D800) cameras that don't care to go much beyond 100 feet. Look again at almost any major underwater photo competition and show me a best in show or best in a category that was taken very deep, there may be one or two but not very many.

In any case, my point continues to be that if you are trying to build a housing company with novel technology then there is a market for serious photographers that don't need great depth. Of course if you build a housing well it can withstand any reasonable depth, but maybe all the buttons won't work at 100meters.

Bill

---------- Post added December 28th, 2012 at 05:48 PM ----------

.000001 of 6,000.000 divers is around 6 people. Hummmmmmm, if this is the case, I don't think that S&S, Nauticam, etc. can survive for a minute based on these numbers.

That is only true if you believe that only people who want to go very deep will buy the housings and that clearly isn't true.
Bill

---------- Post added December 28th, 2012 at 05:50 PM ----------

David: You should move to Los Angeles. We have green cold water here too but at least there's lots of stuff swimming in it.
And some nice stuff to take pictures of as well.

Happy Holidays to everyone and lets all dive safe in 2013

---------- Post added December 28th, 2012 at 05:53 PM ----------

"

Another huge personal gripe: There is no excuse in this day of solids modeling software that housings are negatively buoyant! It is easy, cheap, and compact to add a little lead — the exact opposite of adding syntactic foam."

But doesn't adding lead make it more negatively bouyant. ​

:blinking: I think the big problem is that folks want very compact camera/housing systems and adding air makes the housings way more bigger. Hence the availability of the mega flotation arms.

Bill

 

[Akimbo]

…But doesn't adding lead make it more negatively bouyant. :blinking: I think the big problem is that folks want very compact camera/housing systems and adding air makes the housings way more bigger. Hence the availability of the mega flotation arms…

You can add a small amount of internal airspace to increase buoyancy with virtually no added material weight. It can be as simple as modifying a curve. The idea is to make the housing including camera slightly buoyant in fresh water, which will be about 3% more buoyant is salt water.

It is inexpensive and compact to add a little lead if someone wants it heavier. The alternative is to gain equivalent buoyancy is much bulker, expensive, and prone to damage.