Lightweight Housings For DSLR Cameras

Hi All,

There was a thread here a few months ago about if another underwater housing manufacturer could enter the market. I read it with interested but didn't really think about it to much. But I think there is a market for lightweight polycarbonate resin housings for DSLR cameras.

Now I love my Ikelite housing, but the bulk of the housing when travelling can be annoying. I recently worked overseas for 4 months, and lugged all the camera gear over for one week of diving during that time, and will soon be off for another 3 months and will be lucky to fit in a weekend of diving. I would love to have a lightweight housing, even as a backup, to take with me in these situations.

I know Olympus make these housings for their DSLR camera (if anyone has used one feedback would be appreciated), but I feel there is a market to house Nikon and Canon cameras as well.

Benefits would be lightweight, cheap (should be less than $500) and compact in size. For ports the housings could be made to be compatible with all the Ikelite ports. Depth rating to 40m would be fine. The cheap cost would mean you could afford to upgrade with each new camera.

Having used a PS polycarbonate resin housing I can't see why this wouldn't work well with a DSLR system.

Any comments would be most welcome.

Regards

Nigel

I doubt theres the demand for it to be worthwhile to sell at that low a pricepoint. The nearest thing I can think of is the Fantasea housings.

Otara

Of course you could make a Polycarbonate resin housing for dSLRs. The problem is that the market it too small. The molds to make such housing are very expensive to create. Once you have the mold the per unit cost is quite modest. Unless you have a big market to sell to, you never recover the mold investmentt. The economics work for P&S cameras since the market is MUCH larger than the dSLR market.

The other issue is reliability (or perceived reliability). If a P&S housing floods, you are out a few hundred dollars. If at DSLR housing floods, you are out a few thousand dollars. For this reason, many people will stay with the beefier housings, even if a low cost, light-weight polycarbonate housing were available

I use the Olympus OEM housing for my OLY E410. The housing seems sound to me although its only rated to 40M. The ergonomics are good and the housing isn't that much bigger than my old P&S housing. The only way I could see you carving a niche in the market is by providing low-cost housings for entry level DSLR's. You might then entice some P&S owners to switch.

As someone who hasn't picked up a housing yet for his entry-level dSLR, and still waffles between the OEM (Olympus) and 3rd party (Ike) options...I admit I wouldn't mind another choice. But I have to agree with Dr. Steve that there's unfortunately insufficient market.

On the one hand, the custom-fitted housings can be smaller and perhaps a bit lighter and less bulky - but the model refresh happens too fast to make many of them. Oly's actually I think almost unique even among OEMs for bothering...does Canon and Nikon offer dSLR housings at all? If so, I haven't seen them. (But haven't looked, either, to be sure.) It's even weirder to consider that alongside the fact that Oly dSLRs don't really cost (street price) much more than their PnS's, with the exception of the E3, unless you want to get away from the kit lenses. In fact when I think about it, every PnS I've owned a housing for, the manufacturer's housing cost well under what the camera did. Entry level dSLR's on the other hand, the OEM housing costs way MORE than the camera does, usually excluding lens ports! (Or on par if you look at "list" vs. "street" price). That right there has got to be an indication of the production costs being passed on for lower volumes.

On the other hand, going with a 'generic' housing shape and just moving controls cuts cost and adds bulk, but since there's more room for a slow/partial leak to not immediately drown the camera, it also has some legitimate use. Not to mention being a bit more neutrally buoyant, perhaps?

Besides, in either case, the housing size is almost immaterial compared to the tray, handles, strobe arms, etc in use. So that boils it down to nothing more than (as the original poster said) a travel bulk advantage one way or another. If that's the only market discriminator...why not use some sort of 'bag' system for the light travel days?

There are compact housings out there that are pretty small. I just got a Seatool housing for the Canon Rebel xti from Ryan at Reef Photo - it's awesome. I was looking for a compact housing for while leading snorkel tours, when i need to be able to assist people. I was thinking of an Ike housing for a Canon G9, or a Sea & Sea compact, but was not happy with the wide-angle options. Ryan showed me the Seatool housing, and I was very impressed, so I bought it. I can shoot with a Tokina 10-17 behind the glass dome, and the results are excellent. I will try and post a review in the next few days.

My wife has an Olympus housing for the E-330. Coupled with an INON Z-240 strobe, this setup is only marginally heavier than my old c5050 setup the same way. She uses a zoom lens in a flat port almost exclusively so the entire setup mimics her trusty c5050 but with zero shutter lag even using live view (which she uses extensively) I don't think I'll ever be able to pry this setup out of her hands.

I have an Ikelite D-200 housing. It works perfectly but, coupled with a DS-125 strobe, is a load to walk into the water with. This is no big deal boat diving but our favorite place to dive is Bonaire -- off the shore.

My current thinking is than ANY dual strobe, dome port setup is proably too much for either of us to carry into the water.

My plan is to purchase a Seatool housing (if Ryan/Richard says they are OK) for a D300 and set it up only for macro with a Z-240 strobe and keep the Ikelite d-200 setup with dual Ds-125's for wide angle.

All it takes is money! And, since my wife is very happy with her current camera........

Ah, so you did go with the E330 after all? I remember that other discussion. Glad to hear its working out for her! (And sorry to others for the semi-hijack.)