Ikelite d80 bouyancy

Anybody using the Ikelite d80 with flat ports for macro work?. Im very curious about the bouyancy in the water when using dual strobes. I know the brand of strobe makes a difference,but would like a general idea of how it handles underwater with your particular strobe set up. Thanks in advance!

One Nikon D80 shooter I know when using his 8" dome port and Nikon 12-24mm with dual DS125 strobes says it's about 1 - 2 lbs. negative in salt water. Not really bad at all.....

Of course, which port and lens you have on will make a difference based on lens weight and port length equaling more air space as a trade off. The Nikon 60mm and 105mm, especially the new VR are bigger lenses....

The D80 is a bigger camera body, not as dense as a D200, but still a bit heavier. Just don't bother with the weight Ikelite supplies with the housing. I don't think you would need it, even in salt water.

If you are using smaller strobes, like the compact Ikelite DS51 units the rig may be close to neutral with a macro lens and appropriate port.

Good luck!

dhaas

I shoot the D70 which weighs about the same as the D80 in the Ikelite housing (which is from the same mold as the D80 housing). I use 2 DS125s and ultralight bouyancy arms (2 x 8" segments per side).

Its pretty close to neutral, a bit on the negative side. It definitely feels comfortable to hold. With the flat ports its still very light underwater. The dome 8" port makes it nearly neutral with only a slight tendency to rotate nose up. Don't use the weight and you'll love it.

If you want to tune it to be exactly neutral try the floats shown on the front page. You don't need them with ikelite (they are more needed for small compact aluminum housings) but if you are weak or you are a bouyancy control freak then it would be easy to make this rig exactly neutral.

I have used the Ikelite D80 with a single Ike DS125 - and it was fairly easy to handle in the water. With decent buoyancy and trim. Even my girlfriend - who displaces only a fraction of the water I do - found it very easy to handle.

Alex

HI,

reading this post it sounds like you may be new to using this type of housing

set up. I think that everyone goes though the same kind of situation & you think

the housing is very negative, heavy in the water. When you think that most of the

time when diving your hands are not doing any thing. Put a housing in your hands

then the drag starts, it may be you & your body have to adjust to the different demands

using this kind of equipment brings.

Andy

HI,

reading this post it sounds like you may be new to using this type of housing

set up. I think that everyone goes though the same kind of situation & you think

the housing is very negative, heavy in the water. When you think that most of the

time when diving your hands are not doing any thing. Put a housing in your hands

then the drag starts, it may be you & your body have to adjust to the different demands

using this kind of equipment brings.

Andy

I would suggest getting "actual" data on how negative or not the rig is. You can weigh it in the water with a fishing scale when all put together yourself.

Carrying around something that is too heavy in your hands on a long dive, constantly grasping it, maneuvering it, and having it affect your trim are bad things and should not be taken lightly (ha-ha....), if your rig is too heavy. Nitrogen bubbles tend to gather in stressed joints way more than more relaxed muscles and joints. Hand strength comes into play also, a person with less hand strength should carry less weight around in their hands.

I always am curious when I see my NOAA manuals that say that a lift-bag must be used for what I used to think of as ridiculously small total weights. Now I see they don't want muscle/joint strain at depth. In fact I know someone who many on this board have been out with his well-respected dive shop in the Keys. Anyway mostly because he lifted too much weight with his strong hands at depth in a cenote in Mexico - instead of using the line or a lift-bag (by his own admission)........, he suffered permanent debilitating injury and pain in both his hands and joints (DCS) and can't now dive below 80 feet. He admits that if he hadn't strained his hands so much at depth he probably wouldn't have suffered the DCS there. But then many other factors came into play also.

Upshot is, find out how negative or not your rig is and search this forum for solutions that work for you, I think about a pound or so negative is what is pretty much considered slightly negative but of course this changes for individual hand/arm strength, duration of dives, frequency of dives, etc.

I don't suggest ending up in hand-physical therapy like I did...... It was a real situation that my negative camera rig played a large part in, but then I dove with it on long dives a lot........ This was not an imagined situation. A rig that is too negative (or way too positive) is not good.

Best of Luck, Carol

Amigos,

I'll creep out on a limb here, and express my humble opinion.

As Carol mentions, fighting your system underwater is not only inconvenient and tiring, but can result in actual physical pain and possibly long term damage....

I have continually stated, as many who may have had to suffer my past posts know, that having any housing fit the camera tightly not only leave little to no room for possible emergency saving of a flood, but will greatly affect buoyancy and the handling of your rig underwater. This is, of course, a moving target depending on the actual camera model and its size, lens selected, dome or flat port, strobe(s) and arms, etc.

But reading about all the problems, and proposed solutions (a BC for your camera, EGADS!!!! I'm always perplexed....I have only seen one aluminum housed manufacturer who makes their wall thickness thinner, resulting in less weight of the actual housing. But they seem to always be trying to make the housing fit the camera "like a glove". This oft used advertising missive usually results in more negative buoyancy than anywher near optimum.....So how is this more efficient in use underwater? Plus seriously, how many people need a housing to go past 200'?

Now add your strobe(s) and you are swimming and trying to create images with a cinder block in your hands

I think the barely compressible foam as recently shown fitted to your strobe arms are the best, simplest idea if your rig is objectionally negative. I think the sealed strobe arms will never hold up, as I've read of a few failures, but I accept I could be way off on that one.....My opinion is they are just one more thing to get torqued in real world use and leak thus creating instant negative buoyancy.....

Big housings if balanced properly are easy to move "around", sometimes actually swimming around your housing in the case of IMAX ones and HD ones used by Howard Hall, Bob Cranston, Norbert Wu, Pete Romano, Bob Talbot and many others. Rent "Into the Blue" and watch the DVD extra scenes of Pete Romano swimming around the mammoth film systems they used. They are superbly balanced and thus enable him to get the fantastic Hollywood shots in the movie.

30 years ago I read of national Geographic photographer Bill Curtsinger swimming off Hawaii in the blue water shooting dolphins and whales, freediving. When the writer of one of my favorite UW photograhy insprirational books, Kenneth Brower asks Bill how he steadies himself to get his incredible shots, he states; " The housing is very slightly negative, so I basically swim around it!". This kind of proves my theory that buoyancy is more important than physical size for ease of handling underwater.

YMMV, but I'd always talk to someone who actually owns the type of housing you're considering buying. Find out what camera, lens, ports and arms they use. Are they diving in fresh or salt water? Who are they? A small compact person or Grizzly Adams size guy? Maybe even ask to see their photos

All just meant as food for thought.....

dhaas