Know what really Grinds my Gears?

I posted the following yesterday, 06/03/06, at scubadiving.com, only to get "it can't be done" and "I don't see the problem" type responses. I'm wondering what the response might be here. (Note: Despite the basic "economies of scale" argument offered at scubadiving.com, I still believe the housing makers can do a lot better. Am I all alone in this belief? Please voice your opinions if you've a mind to. I may argue with you, but strictly on friendly terms. You may want to read what's been written at scubadiving.com to avoid arguments previously made and answered.)

But here's how it started (with a few modifications):

06/03/06

Those amazingly fabulous digital cameras we have today. Autofocus is like a miracle to me. How is that possible? Starting from scratch, it'd take me 1,000,000 lifetimes to figure that out. And getting the lighting right. I'm flabbergasted that, at least in a lot of situations, the camera gets it right. How can it know? What an incredible amount of research, testing, experimentation, and money must have been expended to produce these marvels.

So what grinds my gears?

That the modified waterproof box we put them in usually costs at least twice the price of the camera itself!!!

The disparity between the price of the camera and the infinitesimally less complicated housing is, to me, uncalled for and a sharp gouge. The price that Canon charges for it's housings suggest that housing makers can do better. Canon amazed us with the steep drop in price of an amazing dSLR in the form of the Rebel and Rebel XT, making it affordable to many who otherwise would not and could not have bought. Now I would like to see at least one of the housing manufacturers do the same in their industry.

Now I know I'm gonna be stepping on some toes to say this, but if the housing companies insist on continuing to charge outrageous prices for their housings, my hope is that the companies like Canon who produce the actual amazing camera to begin with, get more and more into housings, a direction that they have already breached, following that up with strobes, and thus force the housing manufacturers to drop their prices or get out of the business! (I know that statement is harsh, but if the housing makers want to know the truth, if some company offered housings in the "reasonable" range similar to the prices Canon has on it's housings and if those housings are found to do basically the same things that housings do now, there would be a mass exodus to the new provder.)

Without having all the facts, I tend to think that, to some extent, we continue to pay these outrageous prices for housings and strobes because they can be status symbols or symbols of self-worth. And I am pointing the finger at myself here too.

Still, I basically, probably like the majority of people here, just want to be able to take some nice pictures of the underwater world we all love, and still be able to eat. $1300.00 to house my brand new $650.00 Canon digital rebel XT ain't helpin'.

I'd like to know other's thoughts on the matter, including anyone associated with the housing industry if indeed they read what is written here.

At any rate, thanks for listening to my frustration,

Stew

Stew, sorry can't agree with you.

Simple supply and demand. What percentage of those cameras that are purchased are housed? WE divers account for a tiny percentage of cameras sold.

But yes... i would love to have a cheaper housing too! Unfortunately R&D not cheap

Stew,

Mike is exactly right on the main reason.....Camera mfrs. couldn't give a horse's patooty you want to take photos with the great Canon Rebel XT (I have two of these) or other digital cameras underwater....We underwater photogs are a fly on the back of an elephant in mid-Tanzania on the continent of Africa

Your take on the "reasonably priced" housings Canon, Olympus and Nikon offer for their little point and shot models? Junk......A few with decent metal buttons for certain cameras that don't fog up the housing have allowed people to get decent photos. Most are made for snap shooting and have numerous problems in real world use....When they flood none of the camera mfrs. just GIVE you a replacement camera and housing.....This is one reason housing manufacturers in a very low volume business charge more for a decently designed "box" with controls just recently developed in the last 5-6 years (Did you see spring loaded small push buttons on anything prior to about 2000, did you?)

A mold for a dSLR, even a low cost one like yours (and mine) probably costs more than $50K. How many actual dSLR shooters do you run into at dive resorts? Again, a smaller number of UW shooters using this level of camera. Although this is becoming more common as prices on the dSLR cameras drop. Still a drop in the bucket. Canon STARTED worldwide production of the Rebel XT at 130,000 units A MONTH! compared to the original Digital Rebel at 1/2 that....Still, how many are divers and UW shooters? Not very many.....

I used to hear a similar argument when I worked for Orca Dive Computer at trade shows. A diver would come up and ask me "Why don't you make a computer that can uses 3 different gasses, do this, do that, blah, blah and only cost $100.00? " We'd tell them sure, we could design and produce a computer like that. Give me $50K and call me in a year. And it'll likely have to sell for $2K to recoup engineering, liability insurance, low sales volume, etc. Do I need to describe his reaction?

So IMHO I think what we can purchase to go make beautiful images below the waves is really quite reasonably priced. Strobes dedicated to UNDERWATER shooting conditions have advanced significantly in the last 15 years. Housings with increasingly numerous buttons to hit all those features most UW photogs will never use anyway since they're usually trying to "survive the dive" versus creating photos....

Don't take this wrong, I'm not trying to be a smart ass, just showing a side many don't think about when only looking at prices. You can buy brake shoes at any auto parts store. Does that mean you buy the cheapest produced one, know how to put them on and trust your family will be safe driving your car? Price and value are not always synonomous.....

Feel free to ask more questions as I know a bit about manufacturing things spending most of my working life in several industries....

YMMV!

dhaas

Hi Stew, Interesting question! If Seacam housings were made in a huge factory in Thailand with a million unti run at a time (Like the Nikon D200), I bet they would cost less. But they are made by a master craftsman in Austria.

See my point?

Cheers

James

Oh man, this is scary.....

James and I AGREEING !!!!!

LOL

Buy desired very specialized gizmos, practice, and go make images!

dhaas

If cheaper is what you're into, Fantasea has a housing for the Rebel including the port for $900. I went cheap with my point and shoot because total replacement dollars is around $230. I'm not sure I'd have the same philosophy with a DSLR. BTW...specialized/proprietary industry items like this are normally more expensive than traditional stuff. Its just the nature of the beast. Let's say housings with the port were $500. Would that increase sales by %500 ... I'd argue no. There has to be something in it for the manufacturers other than goodwill.

Gary,

I hear ya Lloyd , your theory is understandable but like all the others pointed out it comes down to mass production and demand. I always pic the expensive hobbies. We have the cost of the cameras, the housings, the lenses, strobes, strobe arms, cords, filters, diopters, ports, shades, cases, memory cards (film). Then all the dive gear, destinations, expenses and to top it all off there are almost no true professional U.W.photographers out there. Most suppliment their income with shops, trips etc. We are a drop in the bucket regarding the camera industry but we can hardly give away our photos. It is a personal thing I guess you have to pay a lot for the personal satisfaction of a nice print on your wall , winning a contest, getting a rare published bone once and a while or at least the accolades from fellow wetpixel members.

On a more positive note I think we are lucky to have the choices we have for such a small segment of the photography industry. I think it will be interesting to see who remains in business in the comming years. It is getting to the point where the used digital market for cameras and housings will be highly available with good quality. Many buyers may be buying used instead of new. Assuming the setups they buy from are being replaced new stuff it will still have an impact on sales and the selection of housings to make for specific cameras. Then the HD video will be taking really good quality stills at just the point in the action you want the picture? Will still be obsolete and frame grabs be the distant future of photography?

-Steve

Stew:

I think most of the posters pointed out that the demand curve is so small that the supply folks are just filling a very low demand. I think it is also more complicated than simply supply and demand. Making stuff waterproof is not trivial, we make medical devices and folks flood them all the time in spite of our best efforts. You could make a polycarbonate molded housing for a DSLR, like the point and shoot ones with not too much trouble but the mold will not cost $50K but more like $300K and will need significant post molding finishing. With the rate of change in the camera business, I am amazed at how fast the housing guys can catch up and in fact at how cheap they really are in terms of the amount of work that goes in to them. I am pretty sure that the housing/strobe/gear guys aren't making tons of money but rather just trying to stay in business. If you think you can make money in this business, go talk to some venture capitalist guys and see what they say.

Bill

Thanks for your responses.

As for the suggestion that if I think I can do it, then go do it:

Now, wouldn't I be a fool to have limited technical knowledge of an industry and then go down to the bank and try and scare up a loan for such an enterprise. Now if I am already in the business, then it becomes more feasible. I ain't.

But does that mean that I cannot sense when I am being overcharged? I know little about the selling of jewels, but if someone introduces a ring similar to my wife's wedding ring and is charging $10K for it, I sense that something is not right.

I simply just sense that housings are overpriced. True my "sense" is based on tangential information. I really don't have any hard data to prove it. Neither has anyone presented any hard data to prove otherwise. I could be wrong. So could you. So far, no one has produced anything much but the definition of "economies of scale" to prove otherwise. I already know that definition. I can even look it up or reread it as it has been explained to me numerous times. But does the fact that housing companies have to charge a certain price, by definition, mean that somehow it is impossible that they are overcharging or that it is impossible to build a quality housing at a cheaper price?

Further, am I in the wrong to even question those prices? Many are acting like I am trampling on hallowed ground. That in itself nudges me to continue the inquiry.

Let me repeat my point:

It's not that "economies of scale" doesn't come into play. It most certainly does!! Plus, the housing companies DESERVE to make a reasonable profit. But does the fact that they have to charge a certain amount, by definition, mean that it is impossible that they are in fact overcharging or that it is impossible to produce a less expensive quality housing, especially one for a dSLR?

Would just one person step forward and say, "Oh, now I see what you are saying. The stuff may indeed have to cost a pretty penny, but it may not need to be as high as it now is. In fact, just maybe it could be a lot less."

Perhaps it's just a wish and a dream because I don't have the kind of money that those of you who do own the nice housings have. But I don't think so. In fact, I tend to believe that a lot (not everything, but a lot) of what I'm reading is defensive posturing. You know, if one pays for a thing, he tends to want to defend his purchase. It's the same principle that drives many of the "readers reviews" of different pieces of equipment that one often reads.

In my initial post, I wanted it to be challenging, even confrontational, because I have never read of anyone challenging the pricing in this field. I had a hopeful vision of the right person or company, with the right knowledge, means, and vision stepping forward and taking on the challenge to produce a quality housing at an affordable price for select cameras.

Without having done the needed research, I'd tend to think that choosing maybe 1 or 2 of Canon's big sellers and 1 or 2 Nikon's and producing only those housings would be most cost effective. Then a lot of us would buy only those cameras, 'cause that's what would be affordable. That'd make for a much improved "economies of scale". Perhaps even Canon and Nikon could be encouraged to fill the niche by continuing with the same basic outer design for a certain camera to where a new housing didn't have to be produced every few months. Perhaps instructors could be encouraged to point out to students that some folks get bored with scuba diving unless they find something to do while down there. Photography could be encouraged as one of the most fulfilling ways to enjoy the underwater world. How do you get into it in an affordable way? By buying one of these select cameras for which this enterprising housing maker makes an affordable housing (and strobe, I might add). Then perhaps a search for a "yet to be considered", but more affordable housing material would be in order.

But those are just thoughts, musings that I came up with off the top of my head. I'm sure someone will try and tell me why it can't be done.

But, you know, many situations have been brought under control that were once thought to be uncontrollable or impossible. If I had the know how, means, youth, and the necessary facts indicating possible success, I'd plunge myself, because I sense an incongruity that can be overcome.

But perhaps I am just a foolish dreamer.

Lloyd (Stew)

PS: Again, thanks for the responses. At the very least, the responders have helped me adjust and focus my thinking.

And to many of the companies I see just to the right of this post: Why not accept the challenge and produce a more afforable dSLR housing for the more "middle class" of us. Good to 150 feet is fine. Talk to Canon and Nikon. Maybe something can be arranged. It costs precious little to talk. Negotiate. Do your homework. Maybe there is a solution that would benefit everyone. Already tried? Well then, try again. Your first housing wasn't perfect, was it? Look, a ton of us bought the Rebel XT when the price went down. Make us a housing we can afford and we'll buy that too. Mostly, those of us who are priced out of the market look to you for a solution.

Lloyd,

No one's reply is the least bit defensive of your questioning what you think is "over priced". Just honest answers.....

You admit to not having any knowledge, data, marketing numbers of UW users or anything else other than your opinion that a dSLR housing is too expensive. But when people who KNOW what housing molds, machine time, etc. cost tell you a company CAN"T make one for what you perceive is a "FAIR" price you push back still insisting it CAN and SHOULD be done! Based on Zero, nada', zilch.....

You also have no idea of what housing manufacturers have already gone through to try and partner with camera companies. Yes, the big boys....They've tried, over and over and over.....And they don't care if you (or me) want to use your Canon Rebel XT underwater. Maybe if you promised them they'd sell a million more caeras. But you can't promise that, can you?

The cheapest molded housings for the least expensive dSLRcameras usually are a compromise in features, too. Plus a dSLR needs interchangable ports for brand name and after market lenses, even the ones some bozo photographer thinks saved him a few bucks (even it's crappy optically) and then whines why a mfr. doesn't accommodate every lens on the market. So again, more cost for the mfr. with little return by volume.

Your argument about every diver wanting to be a photographer? NO WAY!!!!! I know WAY more divers who want to learn DEEP TECHNICAL DIVING than UW photography. No matter how cheap you think it would (or SHOULD) be most folks won't commit themselves to even a basic discipline of getting UW photo gear, learning the features, practicing in a pool and then spending a fair part of their vacations trying to get good photos...About 50% of customers on my trips with photo gear show up NEVER having assembled the housing / strobe / etc. !!! So cheap prices didn't seem to convince them to get into the hobby and learn. Cheap won't improve the "economies of scale" you refer to one iota....

As I've said in mine and other poster's replies, if you THINK and KNOW it can be done cheaper then go do it I've owned businesses and know what's worth my time and energy. To expect someone to do something for less than what THEY feel is a fair profit is certainly unfair....I have a buddy who thinks he saves moey drilling holes in old boxes and putting a few controls in. He's pretty inventive, and even has a pressure pot to test his "home made" housings to 150' . But he never factors in his time, plus runs into problems, etc. While he's fiddling we're out taking pictures.

So maybe that's your answer. Find an old "box" housing, start drilling and see what comes of it. I'm not trying to be snotty, just looking for ideas to help you enjoy what all of here do...Capturing images underwater. The other idea about selling crap you'll likely never use on Ebay to fund your UW gear is fact. I do it all the time....

Finally, most shooters here are not mega-millionaires or likely even well heeled...They just accept that what is on the market is fair and are grateful somebody DID start a business providing products to a small niche market.

Hope we all gave you some ideas and honest feedback...

dhaas

Lots of good answers already, but there are really only a couple of key issues here, and they all have to do with capitalism, and Adam Smith's "invisible hand."

Supply, Demand, and Price (market value).

In capitalist systems, barring government interference (which I don't really see much of in the case of uw photography), these three factors are inextricably linked, and they ultimately DO tell the story. If there is more demand for a given product (e.g., uw housing) relative to supply, sellers will tend to raise/keep prices high (more specifically, they are ABLE to raise/keep prices high).

If/when sellers' prices get high enough that they are really "making a killing," that will attract capital and other producers/sellers will make competing products (housings) to take advantage of the "easy money" from high prices buyers are willing to pay. It really IS pretty straightforward economics.

I actually agree that many housings are "over-priced." But nothing compared to the extent to which I think professional athletes are overpriced relative to their "worth." Why is an old fart like Roger Clemens able to come out of retirement (again!) and get paid something like $20myn?! Because the supply of Roger Clemenses (precisely ONE) relative to the demand for Roger Clemenses is skewed heavily in his favor. In a capitalist economic system, he will be paid EXACTLY the "market value" of one Roger Clemens. It doesn't matter that we can argue (justifiably) that the $20myn Clemens will make would be far better spent hiring hundreds of school teachers...or policemen...or, well you get the idea. The fact of the matter is that capitalism allows "suppliers" to charge whatever the market will bear (i.e., whatever "demanders" are willing to pay).

The point is that if we (as buyers) weren't willing to pay the price for a given uw housing--or (via ticket prices) baseball player--their price wouldn't be/remain that high.

Barrier to Entry

Another economic principle that other people have alluded to is the high cost of producing uw housings, which creates a "barrier to entry" into that market by would-be competitors. This is in part what allows uw housing makers to keep their prices as high as they do.

A related issue is the necessity of limited production runs. Since there is such a limited number of buyers for any given camera model housing, manufacturers don't dare produce very many housings for a particular camera until they actually have orders. That precludes mass production, and makes the design of each model a precarious speculation on the likelihood of sufficient demand to make it worth the trouble.

Despite these financial barriers, if there was REALLY a lot of money to be made by producing a new housing, someone would do it. And if existing manufacturers/sellers needed to reduce prices to sell the housings they do make, they would do so.

As I said earlier, you can (and obviously do) argue that current uw housing prices are unreasonable (just as you might not think drug companies have any right to charge so much for medicine, and might not think Roger Clemens is worth $20myn), but that doesn't really matter. As long as capitalism is the governing economic system in countries where housings are produced and sold, you can expect housing manufacturers to continue charging whatever the market (that's US) will bear...

Hi DHaas:

How many of the reply's explaining "economies of scale" to me really know how well or how poorly the housing manufacturers are doing?

Do you really know?

Maybe I missed it, but has there been a reply from anyone actually in the housing industry or from anyone trustworthy who also is really well acquainted, on a close friendship level, with the person who reaps the profit or losses at a housing manufacturer? I'm not talking about folks who might know a rep, but someone who knows "the guy" well, personally, AND to whom it has been disclosed how well or how poorly the company is doing.

If someone really does meet that criteria, let them step forward and just tell us straight out that they know for an absolute fact that these guys are truly doing the best possible job one could reasonably expect and that they are doing their best at holding prices at a reasonable level, and I'll gladly back off because THEN, unless someone is fibbing, I will really know.

I'm an accountant. Give me "the numbers" and you convince me. Just telling me "everything's fine" cause in theory it should be, won't do it. (I don't need to explain that I'm not actually wanting to see their financial records, do I?) But I'm quite open to the idea that they may be doing a fantastic job. That could well be the case. But I just haven't heard it yet from someone who sounds like they are really "in the know", according to the criteria I listed in par. 3 above. If I hear it, I'll say "Thank you so much for caring about us and producing what you produce. Please keep up the good work because I hope that, before I die, I can afford to purchase one of your excellent products."

But virtually everything I've read has sounded like theory and guesswork. Possibly excellent theory and guesswork. But at least I say up front that I really don't know for sure and that I only suspect. You've stuck my feet in the fire over that. Mercy, man I just would like to know for sure. Is that wrong?

But more important than that, and what is astounding to me, is that no one agrees that it might be in the realm of possibility for housing makers to do a better job.

What? Is this the best of all possible worlds?

I think a huge proportion of divers have been priced out of the underwater dSLR photography fun, not because of the price of the camera, but because of the price of housings, and that's a shame. Perhaps it's simply unavoidable. And if that's the case, I'll get back in line and shut my mouth. But if there is a chance for us, well, at least I had to try and find out if there is hope or if there is none.

Would you (or anyone else) mind copying this post into your reply (if you care to give one) and answer my questions one by one? I've tried to be brief to make that feasible.

Thanks!

Lloyd (Stew)

Nice reply Yates. I think that was the clearest explainantion of the economic situation. And it was really nice to find that at least one other person believes that housings are overpriced.

If that truly is the case, the question becomes, how does one go about influencing a manufacturer to decrease his price?

What does economic theory say about that, that might apply in our case at hand?

Lloyd (Stew)

...the question becomes, how does one go about influencing a manufacturer to decrease his price?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Unfortunately, economics would suggest that the only thing we can really do is "vote with our wallets" -- which means that no one of us individually has much real influence, but that collectively we exert pressure on one company's prices by buying a competing (less expensive) product. In the long run, that will have an impact on prices...

Then again, I'm afraid I'm not really helping that effort...I paid full price for a Seacam housing...

How many of the reply's explaining "economies of scale" to me really know how well or how poorly the housing manufacturers are doing?

 

Do you really know?

 

Maybe I missed it, but has there been a reply from anyone actually in the housing industry or from anyone trustworthy who also is really well acquainted, on a close friendship level, with the person who reaps the profit or losses at a housing manufacturer? I'm not talking about folks who might know a rep, but someone who knows "the guy" well, personally, AND to whom it has been disclosed how well or how poorly the company is doing.

LLoyd ( Stew ),

It is interesting that you start this thread.

I have just returned from a trip to the US & Canada ( via the Bahama's)

While there I visited with both Blake & Norma at Aquatica, and Barrett & Eric at Light & Motion Industries.

I didn't see too many grand offices or fancy vehicles in the parking lots - what I did see was an amazing amount of R&D & support staff ( engineers , design types etc ) aside from all the machinery and bits and pieces.

I did get previews of new products that are in the works, and also was shown a few that didn't make it to production for various reasons.

I was also reminded that while we enjoy the advantages of CAD design, rapid prototyping and CNC machines that housing blanks and the various components that go to make a complete assembly are finished and finally assembled by hand.

Pricing was a key point in my discussions given the poor value of the AUD against the USD.

As an accountant I'm sure that you have an appreciation of the need for a healthy return on investment.

And yes - I do have a commercial interest in these brands as the authorised distributor for Australia & South Pacific.

Best

Peter

Lloyd

"But more important than that, and what is astounding to me, is that no one agrees that it might be in the realm of possibility for housing makers to do a better job." - Well looks like you think that here is an opportunity for someone to try - a willing, diving obsessed entrepeneur perhaps!

That said, I've personally looked into building housings in the past and talked to many engineering companies about design and production and came to the conclusion that to build anything worth producing involves both very substantial investment and, more importantly, truly horrifying amounts of R&D. If you look at the history of underwater housing production you will see that many of the good builders of housings in the past have disappeared despite producing marketable equipment.

Although digital cameras have changed the amount of housings which can and are being sold, one of the biggest problems faced by a housing manufacturer today is the rapid change of cameras. As soon as one model has been announced and produced it may be a mere matter of months before a newer model is on its way, at the lower P&S end of the market anyway where larger production runs are more possible.

It might not be a palatable fact, but I suspect that we are seeing viable market prices on housings at the moment - if they are substantially overpriced, then perhaps we will see new players enter the game, but I very much doubt it. I too am an importer and seller of high end housings - a small but very demanding part of the market.

Lloyd,

I also think they are overpriced ! I started UWP only two years ago with a small P&S kit that cost me around 600$ (that was the max limit I was willing to spend...) and my diving friends were even surprised at how expensive that hobby was!! Now I have a D200 with a Hugyfot that costs 3000+$... I am an engineer too (but an ocean works civil one...) and I have also looked at the housing building process with jealous eyes.

In the end I think Bmyates is perfectly right and the manufacturers will set the price as high as some crazy people like us are willing to pay. If you have a good that could be sold for 3000$ why would you sell it for 2000$? Is that fair? I think it is because no one is making me spend that money so I don´t think there is such a thing as a "fair profit", there is a profit or there is a loss.

I tend to look to the housings as precious watches. Why people buy a Rolex when a Casio does the job?

Lloyd,

I apologize if you think my posts were too direct. This forum (and others out there) is a direct product of digital photography's popularity and people willing to share insights, tips, and of course strong opinions

On the financial issues, I haven't seen any mfrs. actual books. Nor would I want to. No one in any company is going to give you their "numbers" so you can pass judgement on whether they are making what you would deem a fair or unfair profit margin based on all the factors everyone has described. No more than anyone needs to share THEIR private income to anyone else. Mfrs. have to assume they will have some hot sellers for a short period of time and make profits to carry them through the next product cycle. All while paying payroll, insurance, benefits, etc., etc., etc.

I for one think the current housing manufacturers do a great job in design, R&D and of course final pricing. You disagree and that's fine. I guess I also wonder if you really want to take photos underwater? If so, then do it! Find a way to deal with the current costs, sacrifice something as we ALL do to some extent No one says don't pay your mortgage, don't eat, spend the kiddie's college fund, etc.

As to your continued idea of more divers taking pictures if something was lower priced....I disagree strongly after 36 years in this crazy business....An analogy.....

My first EDGE dive computer in late 1980s cost like $799.00. Today a cheap low end but full enough featured computer can be had for less than $300.00. Yet I still see people refuse to pay for something that has revolutionized diving making their dives safer and more productive. I see new divers who went through training show up on a boat WITH THEIR FAMILIES (you'd think they would want junior to survive childhood and become an adult) with NO TIMING OR DEPTH DEVICE! When you ask them why couldn't they buy an inexpensive Casio G-Shock watch for each member and a manual depth gauge they STILL won't spend the money. So in my experience it ain't about price, it's about attitude....

In closing, I sincerely hope you DO house your Canon Rebel XT and go have a ball on your next dive trip. That's what everyone here is doing, shooting pictures! We're here to help you once you jump into the pool

Best regards,

David Haas

Good post David, one comment though:

"idea (of) more divers taking pictures if something was lower priced" - do you remember that stuff called film, wow, was it expensive!!! I reckon more divers DO take more underwater photos these days, because, of course, it IS cheaper now. In the 25 years I've been shooting underwater I've seen a lot of changes but with digital there is no doubt that the 'price per underwater photo taken' has gone down dramatically, and the 'acceptable yield' has gone up so taking images is cheaper.

Whether it is as cheap as it could be is the theme of this thread. But being a cynical Brit, I'm of the belief that if you started giving away a product, you'd probably find someone who'd ask you how much you'd pay to have the lot removed!!! No, only joking.

It is a crazy business and we never had it so good in many ways.

Paul (and Lloyd),

Paul is right, compared to the days of film, digital imaging HAS caused a "bump" in divers taking photos underwater. But Lloyd keeps referring to finding a dSLR housing for an econobox price. A decidely lower volume product worldwide.

So I should amend my post saying more small P&S cameras are being taken underwater.

But I stilll many, many traveling divers who keep their $$$$ for their cigarettes, beer, NASCAR tickets, etc. instead of getting into UW photography gear. To each his own!

No harm intended on people's personal vices or other interests

dhaas