need a uw photo kit suggestion

We need UW photograph for promotional material, so many options for equipements I need suggestions.

 

We have a Nikon N65 with all the trimming for topside photography, I could get a housing and port for it. It could get very expensive very fast going that route it seems, and frankly, I don't like that camera at all to begin with (got it to replace a minolta X370 when all the lens for it got stolen; I whish now I had just replaced the lens and kept the Minolta). Still, would that be a good option?

 

Another option is to go the Nikonos road. Those seems to be a dime a dozen on ebay nowadays, anything wrong with them?

 

Digital...Do I really need digital? If so, where would I go, and why is it better than film and scanner? Would something like the Canon digital rebel housed in an Ikelite housing make a nice kit?

 

Appreciate all suggestion, thanks.

Hi,

 

Since this is a digital photography forum, my guess is you'll get a lot of suggestions to ditch your film system...:-)

 

Personally, I'd recommend a digital system for the ease of use, and "getting ths shot." Most digital systems have plenty of megapixels for print and web use.

 

A 6 megapixel digital rebel would make a great kit, and they can be purchased used as many users are upgrading.

 

Cheers

James

Since this is a digital photography forum, my guess is you'll get a lot of suggestions to ditch your film system... :-)

That's ok, if people who switched to digital could tell me why they switched over that'll be great also, especially those who ditched Nikonos.

 

 

I'm an experienced amateur photographer, but topside, never took a shot below; when I started wanting to "take pictures" below, I immediately went to video.

 

Back when I started checking digital camera, digital camera were extremely expensive, something like $15 000 for a simple kit, they were then very slow for taking bracket shot and dynamic range was very bad when compared to film. Also, what you saved on film expenditure, you had to pay on batteries and getting prints from digital was also 3 times more expensive than from negative or slides.

 

I'm guessing all this has changed by now?

 

I didn't see this question as "film versus digital", more like "what's the most cost efficient way to get the job done", but now it kind of make sense to start with that...

 

So, should I go digital or film, and why?

I was a Nikonos shooter. I went to digital mainly for (1) the ability to review difficult-to-expose strobe and strobe-fill shots and reset in real time; (2) the improved technique that comes from that feedback; and (3) the ability to rattle off more than 36 shots per dive. Having easy integration with photo-editing software is also a plus, but wasn't decisive for me.

 

That said, I sometimes still miss the compactness of the Nikonos rig.

 

Best of luck,

Chris

I sold two Nikonos' after using a compact Nikon Coolpix 5000 for 18 months, carrying the Nikonos' around, but never using them. The number of images/dive is so much better: I shoot RAW with a Nikon D70 now, use 1Gb cards, and save a small jpeg with the RAW file: 160 images/dive, v. 39 with film. AND you can review each shot and try again if it's critical AND see them in the evening on a TV. Nikonos needs transparency stock to get the best results, but with digital I have a whole pro darkroom on this laptop....

 

..... see this site, UWP web-magazine, Alex Mustard's website, most of the pros.....

 

The optical quality of the Nikonos system was great, TTL strobes are pretty good except for wideangle, but everything else is so much more productive of good images with digital (tho' ngear lust is a problem: my upgrade to a D200 is already on my mind!).

 

 

Digital has revolutionised my passion for photography. An enthusiast? Certainly!!

 

Tim

 

B)