D300 questions

I have a couple of years experience with a P&S (Olympus C-7070 in an Ikelite housing) and I've made the decision to go to a dSLR. Specifically a Nikon D300. I have less than $10k to put into my entire setup initially, so I have to make some trade-offs, like the choice of housings and lenses. I'd like some advice.

I live near Portland, OR, and haven't been able to put my hands on Aquatica, Sea & Sea, Subal, etc. housings to compare. However, I currently use an ikelite, and have found that for the size of the camera, it is quite a large setup and difficult to travel with. Given my budget, and the depth rating (I occasionally find myself near 200+ looking for 6-gills up North) I've concluded an Aquatica housing would be my best bet. However, are one of the more expensive housings smaller and easier to pack? Specifically, what is better about the Subal housings, over an aquatica, that make them worth the extra money?

Lenses. I currently plan on purchasing the Tokina 10-17mm, and an 18-200mm for above water. I don't know what to do about macro though. I'm so accustomed to a zoom lense on my P&S, that I find it difficult to consider a fixed focal length like a 60mm or 105mm (which appear to be the most popular ones). I've seen mention of the the 17-55mm f/2.8 Nikkor, but that lense runs about $1500, and I really need something a bit longer. What other zoom lenses, with a higher zoom would someone recommend I house?

I've been using a DS-125 strobe, and I've found I like the TTL. I'm a bit concerned about trying to carry 2 DS-125s, the housing, camera, lenses, ports, a laptop and other assorted items. If cost doesn't enter into the equation, which strobes would anyone advise? Stay with the DS-125s or move Inon 2000s, or?

Thank-you for the advice,

Greg

The weight of the Aquatica will not differ much from the Ikelite. As you are diving deep, the machined aluminum is the way to go. Aquatica will now put an Ikelite bulkhead on your housing so you can have TTL and not have to buy new strobes. That way you can tip the sherpa you will need, like I do to carry my gear. By the way, zooms are ok, but there is nothing like the sharpness of a prime lens. Buy the 60mm. You won't regret it. Hated it with film, love it with digital. I recently bought a 10-20 Sigma; the softness in the corners and lack of speed has made me go to a prime 15mm fisheye.

Cheers,

Marli

I've concluded an Aquatica housing would be my best bet. However, are one of the more expensive housings smaller and easier to pack? Specifically, what is better about the Subal housings, over an aquatica, that make them worth the extra money?

I do not think you can go wrong with the Aquatica; that said, I think my preference for Subal is purely one of ergonomics, quality of machining etc. The feel of the controls etc on the Subal is just smoother and more precise in my opinion. No difference in terms of size for packing really. Aquatica is excellent value for money and service is good. If size is very important, Sea Tool makes the most compact housings I have seen.

I have an Aquatica housing and it works fine, however, I wish it was ergonomically friendly. I would suggest that you should try the representative housings form Aquatica, Subal, light and motion, seacam, Nexus, hugyfot and seatool. See which one feels best to you before you buy one. (a d200 housing should give you a good idea what the d300 ones are like)

As stated my aquatica works fine, I was lucky, bought it without trying, looking at the Subal, (a friend of mine has one) it works a little better than the Aquatica but costs much more. Seatool looks interesting and small, lightweight??

Underwater you sometimes need 3 hands to change modes/settings.

Hey Greg

Yep, Subals just ooze quality. Everything works very smoothly - and they are just so well designed and built.

If budget is an issue (and when isn't it!) have you thought about going the D200 route rather than D300? There will be lots of D200 housings on the second hand market (mine included!) - and this would then give you more cash to spend on lenses and gear you are not going to need to upgrade as bodies are improved.

On lenses, I reckon you can't go far wrong with a 12-24mm Nikkor (or the 10-17 mm Tokina which I have bought but not got in the water yet) and the 60 mm macro for fish portraits. The 18-200mm is terrific above water.

After them I'd suggest looking at the 10.5mm Nikkor (if you don't buy the 10-17mm) and the 105mm macro.

Good luck with it all!

As Marli Mentionned, you can order the D300 with a Ikelite bulkhead, but as far as TTL goes, you can use either the 5 Pins Nikonos Type bulkhead, (Still the most wide spread type of connector on most housing found on the market) or the Ikelite type bulkhead (not as wide spread, but you have DS 125 anyway) Ikelite has a TTL converter for both type of bulkhead, #4301 for Ikelite & #4302 for Nikonos Type (must be 5 pins).

Our Housing are rated to 300 feets (and up to 450 feets on request), which is the reasons the push buttons feel softer on some other housings, the depth rating being shallower, they can get away with using lower tension springs on their buttons. Our experience in the deeper end as tought us a lot, and the lessons we learned while testing these depth show in our housing, things like our extension rings and ports flange are made of aluminum so as not to compress at depth etc.

Hello All and Merry Christmas!

Thank-you for all the quick answers (even on Christmas day!).

The feedback here, and all that I've found elsewhere suggests few, if any, are using zoom lenses much beyond 55mm. I suppose I'll start with the 10-17mm Tokina, and a 60mm and continue to read here, and save money for another lense(s) later.

As I've stated I'm leaning toward the Aquatica housing, but I'd love to actually get my hands on several housings to compare them. I'm not sure where, in the NW US I can do that though. Does anyone have any suggestions of places, say in Portland, OR or Seattle, WA?

I really appreciate all the advice!

Merry Christmas,

Greg

Regarding the connectors, if you can avoid the Nikonos Type it's more then recommended, its the most wide spread around as mentioned, but its sure not the best option.

Greg-

I know Spokane is a bit farther than Portland or Seattle, but if made the trek up here you'd be welcome to handle my Seacam housings to familiarize yourself with them. One is a d200 setup in immaculate condition (used on one dive trip only) which I'm considering selling.

If interested in taking a look, please contact me directly at 509-535-3489

Holiday Best,

brandon

Brandon Cole

MARINE PHOTOGRAPHY

www.brandoncole

tel: 509-535-3489

Hello Brandon,

It has been a few years since I was in Spokane. I went to school in Pullman, so I've made that drive many times. I appreciate the offer, and if I do get the time to drive up there I'll call to set up a time to meet.

Are any of the pictures on your website taken with the D200 you speak of? Very nice.

Thank-you!

Greg

Hello Brandon,

It has been a few years since I was in Spokane. I went to school in Pullman, so I've made that drive many times. I appreciate the offer, and if I do get the time to drive up there I'll call to set up a time to meet.

Are any of the pictures on your website taken with the D200 you speak of? Very nice.

Thank-you!

Greg

The 60mm and 105mm are the two best choices for macro. The sharpness and fast aperture for low-light focusing can't be beat. Its easier to frame by moving the camera than zooming for macro anyway.

The question is just which type of macro you prefer. If you like the little skittish stuff, blenys, and shrimp etc then you want the longer lens of the 105mm. Its a great lens but is harder to master and less flexible than the 60mm.

If you are after sharp fish portraits, from plate to saucer size with good flexibillity to get smaller static stuff like nudis, christmas trees or corals you want the 60mm. This is my favorite lens. Its easy and flexible to use and cheap too. Although as lenses go its as sharp as any lens Nikon has ever made.

There is a macro zoom, the 70-180mm. But its hard to house, has a slower aperture, isn't as sharp and doesn't by itself go to 1:1. I'd skip it. The 17-55mm f/2.8 Nikkor is not a macro lens but a mid-range zoom. Its a nice multi-purpose lens to keep on the camera but not for underwater. I also am skeptical about investing so much into a DX sensor lens. The 17-35mm might be a smarter choice if you need to spend that much. Otherwise, you have it covered with the 18-200mm. Add a cheap but stellar 50mm 1.8 (at $100) for low-light portraits.

You asked

However, are one of the more expensive housings smaller and easier to pack? Specifically, what is better about the Subal housings, over an aquatica, that make them worth the extra money?

Yes the subal is-as far as subal over the aquatica-I took both on a month long trip Sorong to Bali a few years back. The subal far away is a smaller easy to handle better made piece of metal. I like the answer of get a subal and d200 as guys will be dropping them like dead flies for the D300-as digital fever keeps folks always geting the latest and the latest is always a few months away in this market

You will never wish you had not gotten the subal-get theused d-200 and subal housing and when the day comes to change bodies and housings you just keep the ports and lens and sell all the rest. For 10 k d-200 -subal is in that buget range-keep those 125 stobes as well-if you are worried about all that stuff to pack get out of U/W photo as it comes with the terroritory. The controls and as well as the latches and bulkheads are all laid out better with subal. I own 2 of each brand(aquatica and subal) and have seen a zillion of them and throughout the years its still true-Get the used subal and you may as well get a used d200 so when it floods and its not if its when- you will feel better. Mark

However, I currently use an ikelite, and have found that for the size of the camera, it is quite a large setup and difficult to travel with. Given my budget, and the depth rating (I occasionally find myself near 200+ looking for 6-gills up North) I've concluded an Aquatica housing would be my best bet. However, are one of the more expensive housings smaller and easier to pack? Specifically, what is better about the Subal housings, over an aquatica, that make them worth the extra money?

Maybe stick with the Ikelite and just learn to pack it well. I can put my camera, Ike housing, arms, spotting light, 3-4 lenes, 1 DS-125, Flat port (good for both 60 & 105) in a single rolling carry-on camera case. Plus a 15" Notebook. (Currently using a ThinkTank Airport International bag). I put my 8' Dome port and 2nd DS-125 in a backpack plus a second camera body, turkey sandwich, and reading material.

So basically the entire UW setup is in my carry on luggage. I really doubt if replacing the Ike housing with a Subal or anything else would improve on the situation.

I've never taken my Ike housing much below 120 feet, but I believe they are rated for about 300.

Dave

I'd love to actually get my hands on several housings to compare them. I'm not sure where, in the NW US I can do that though. Does anyone have any suggestions of places, say in Portland, OR or Seattle, WA?

Hi Greg,

I'm in Portland, OR and bought a Subal housing within the past year. I was able to buy a used one for a great price from ReefPhoto. I'd be happy to let you get your hands on it to aid you in your search for the right housing. I've been on two trips since I bought the housing and I'm able to fit the housing, Dome Port, Macro Port and strobes into my carry on without any problems.

I've been very pleased with it. You might check with Ryan at Reef Photo as he might have some used Subals that you could get for less money than buying new.

I'll also send a PM with contact information.

Good luck in your search for the right housing.

Ellen

Hi Ellen,

I appreciate your offer of letting me look at your housing. I would like to set up a time and place, so I'll send you a PM.

Thank-you!

Greg