D7000 housing - ikelite or aluminium

The s2000 strobe will be OK for macro. You'll need two strobes for wide angle. My advice, specialize on the 60mm for at least a year. I have no opinion nauticam vs quatica.

Your D-700 will NOT be obsolete EVER. It may be obsolescent meaning that it is not the latest and greatest but the differences between it and the new product will be small.

I had a D-200 in an Ikelite case. I did NOT like the Ikelite so I decided to upgrade to a metal housing. Not wanting to house an obsolescent housing I upgraded to a D-300. I LOVE my new housing. While it essentially does the same job as the Ikelite, it is much easier to assemble and to handle underwater. However, the DIFFERENCE between the d-200 and d-300 for underwater was small.

Regards and Merry New year

Your D-700 will NOT be obsolete EVER. It may be obsolescent meaning that it is not the latest and greatest but the differences between it and the new product will be small.

I think you make a great point here. I think the main reason we have witnessed 'obsolescence' in digital cameras, is that it has taken 10 years or so for the 'film' component of the cameras, in other words the sensors, to become equivalent in quality to film. Many would argue we have now gone beyond the quality and versatility of film. I do think we are now back where we were with film cameras in terms of cameras becoming obsolete - in terms of taking extremely high quality images, in almost any reasonable light, and being able to enlarge them for almost any purpose, the D7000 will never be obsolete. Cameras will add 'must have' features, merge video with stills etc, but otherwise not become obsolete until for some reason one is no longer able to transfer the images from the SD card, or when SD cards go the way of Kodachrome. Yes, only now are film cameras starting to become truly obsolete.

I think you make a great point here. I think the main reason we have witnessed 'obsolescence' in digital cameras, is that it has taken 10 years or so for the 'film' component of the cameras, in other words the sensors, to become equivalent in quality to film. Many would argue we have now gone beyond the quality and versatility of film. I do think we are now back where we were with film cameras in terms of cameras becoming obsolete - in terms of taking extremely high quality images, in almost any reasonable light, and being able to enlarge them for almost any purpose, the D7000 will never be obsolete. Cameras will add 'must have' features, merge video with stills etc, but otherwise not become obsolete until for some reason one is no longer able to transfer the images from the SD card, or when SD cards go the way of Kodachrome. Yes, only now are film cameras starting to become truly obsolete.

Just because I want to be "contrary" I have to disagree with that statement. One common definition of obsolescence is: Outmoded in design, style, or construction. Another is:out of use or practice; not current. Cameras being mostly computers these days are still very much subject to "Moore's Law" - The number of transistors that can be placed inexpensively on an integrated circuit has doubled approximately every two years. The camera you will be buying 5 years from now will be DRASTICALLY different than the one you have today. There's a good chance it won't have a mirror. It will probably have 250,000 ISO capability. It might be 48mp. It will have 120fps video and 32bit color. It will communicate wirelessly with your new Macbook Pro (the one you have now will be obsolete, yes?) You want to keep your old camera when that one is available?

I'm not saying you won't enjoy shooting an older camera. My wife uses my old D70 and occasionally confounds me with the excellent photos she takes, but is it "obsolete"? Yes, it is. I have a photography friend who told me two years ago 12mp was the upper end for DX and there was no way it could go any further. Well, here we are...

Loftus, We'll come back to this discussion in 5 years and I'll check your Sig out and see what equipment you are using. I am certain it isn't going to say D-700 and D-7000 anymore because there will be two bodies that are radically better than what you are using now and there is no way you won't upgrade because you obviously enjoy the "latest" technology. What you have right now, will be in your mind -- "obsolete". However, that 60mm and 105mm Nikon macro lens will likely still be not only viable, but desirable.

Heh.

JP

Just because I want to be "contrary" I have to disagree with that statement. One common definition of obsolescence is: Outmoded in design, style, or construction. Another is:out of use or practice; not current. Cameras being mostly computers these days are still very much subject to "Moore's Law" - The number of transistors that can be placed inexpensively on an integrated circuit has doubled approximately every two years. The camera you will be buying 5 years from now will be DRASTICALLY different than the one you have today. There's a good chance it won't have a mirror. It will probably have 250,000 ISO capability. It might be 48mp. It will have 120fps video and 32bit color. It will communicate wirelessly with your new Macbook Pro (the one you have now will be obsolete, yes?) You want to keep your old camera when that one is available?

 

I'm not saying you won't enjoy shooting an older camera. My wife uses my old D70 and occasionally confounds me with the excellent photos she takes, but is it "obsolete"? Yes, it is. I have a photography friend who told me two years ago 12mp was the upper end for DX and there was no way it could go any further. Well, here we are...

 

Loftus, We'll come back to this discussion in 5 years and I'll check your Sig out and see what equipment you are using. I am certain it isn't going to say D-700 and D-7000 anymore because there will be two bodies that are radically better than what you are using now and there is no way you won't upgrade because you obviously enjoy the "latest" technology. What you have right now, will be in your mind -- "obsolete". However, that 60mm and 105mm Nikon macro lens will likely still be not only viable, but desirable.

 

Heh.

 

JP

It all depends on how you define obsolete. From the perspective of taking high quality images that can be shown on a screen or enlarged as needed, even film cameras are not yet obsolete. They are simply becoming obsolete as film(s) become unavailable, film scanners are taken off the market etc.

Until my D700, I found the sensor, actually the 'film' of my digital camera, to be the limiting factor. Under some circumstances I could not coax the type of image quality I wanted out of my D200. That is no longer the case except for the rare occurrence where a few more pixels would be desirable for some very large enlargements. So yes I will upgrade from the perspective of having more features, dabble in video etc, but not because I have any pretense that I will be able to take better pictures.

Moores law is no longer current - physics has taken over - the brick wall is coming....

Having said that I agree with you both - but that may just be due to marketing rather than reality...

Paul C

For me the last frontier is still high dynamic range; which is presently limited as much by our ability to display the images in print and commercially practical monitors as it is by presently available sensors.

In other respects such as resolution and low light ability present cameras now equal or exceed the average eye's ability to see. So from a quality perspective true HDR is the only 'quality' issue that gives me any reason to upgrade. Everything else is just more toys with more features, which is reason enough itself.

It all depends on how you define obsolete. From the perspective of taking high quality images that can be shown on a screen or enlarged as needed, even film cameras are not yet obsolete. They are simply becoming obsolete as film(s) become unavailable, film scanners are taken off the market etc.

Until my D700, I found the sensor, actually the 'film' of my digital camera, to be the limiting factor. Under some circumstances I could not coax the type of image quality I wanted out of my D200. That is no longer the case except for the rare occurrence where a few more pixels would be desirable for some very large enlargements. So yes I will upgrade from the perspective of having more features, dabble in video etc, but not because I have any pretense that I will be able to take better pictures.

We are in agreement on the point you can now get an image off of digital cameras which will rival pro film cameras of days' past. I also agree that all this technology doesn't make me a better photographer

I think the next evolution of the DSLR will be the elimination of the viewfinder. The day Nikon or Canon produces a Pro-level camera with a high-resolution IPS back display, no mirror and no shutter lag will be the day the viewfinder-based DSLR camera becomes obsolete. I can think of no greater benefit to the Underwater photographer than to be able to "see" your subject better for composition. I think we will see this in the next five years. The Sony NEX-5 is quite frankly a wonder of development and shows us the future. Is it as good as the D7000 which has a similar DX sensor? No. But it's getting closer and closer.

None of this will keep me from upgrading to either the D7000 or the the successor to the D300s or D700. But I just know whatever body I buy in the next year will be available on Ebay for $300 or less in five years. As I've said before, camera bodies become obsolete faster than any other piece of kit, so I plan accordingly.

cheers,

JP

For me the last frontier is still high dynamic range; which is presently limited as much by our ability to display the images in print and commercially practical monitors as it is by presently available sensors.

In other respects such as resolution and low light ability present cameras now equal or exceed the average eye's ability to see. So from a quality perspective true HDR is the only 'quality' issue that gives me any reason to upgrade. Everything else is just more toys with more features, which is reason enough itself.

Agreed. High Dynamic Range is the big bullseye for now. One minor evolution I wish would pick up steam is the ability for wireless communication/control to and from cameras. Yes, I can tether it with a cable to Lightroom. Yes, I can use eye-fi to get a primitive communication to my iPad or Laptop, but in my mind every single high-end DSLR could be much more "connected" than it is. How about a camera running iOS or Android and a wifi hotspot? That would be cool. How about a sensor at the surface communicating with your camera via RF for geo-tagging?

Moores law is no longer current - physics has taken over - the brick wall is coming....

 

Having said that I agree with you both - but that may just be due to marketing rather than reality...

 

Paul C

People have been forecasting the demise of Moore's Law for at least a decade -- but they are wrong. As the advances in CPU speed have slowed down a bit, the advances in GPU are doubling just about every year. This is why a computer from two years ago can't play a 1080p video stream without stuttering. Moore's Law is alive and well

I think the next evolution of the DSLR will be the elimination of the viewfinder.

For me a viewfinder is critical. having a black frame surrounding my image is the way I like to take pictures. I hate taking pictures on an LCD screen. So when the viewfinder does go away you will see me swimming around underwater with a big black cloth draped over me and my camera.

For me a viewfinder is critical. having a black frame surrounding my image is the way I like to take pictures. I hate taking pictures on an LCD screen. So when the viewfinder does go away you will see me swimming around underwater with a big black cloth draped over me and my camera.

I'm thinking manufacturers will figure out a way to "emulate" the viewfinder with a miniature screen inside a traditional viewfinder or something because viewing a LCD in bright sunlight above water will never work too well. It will be interesting to see what they come up with...

Hi, I'm back again.

I've looked around a while, and somebody told me that there is a way to put a LCD screen on your housing to replace the viewfinder.

And what do i see today on wetpixel, that sony makes a screen for on dslr camera's.

Anyone has experience with this ?

I think it would be better then a viewfinder to see it.

Gives it a delay like the live view on the d7000 ?

Anyone who can help me or give me advice ?

The Sony screen has not been released yet, but I do think it will be a great benefit.

Of course someone will also have to make a housing for it, which I'm sure will happen quickly. I expect it will behave just like the LCD screen of the camera, just larger.

Hi, I'm back again.

 

 

I've looked around a while, and somebody told me that there is a way to put a LCD screen on your housing to replace the viewfinder.

And what do i see today on wetpixel, that sony makes a screen for on dslr camera's.

Anyone has experience with this ?

 

I think it would be better then a viewfinder to see it.

 

Gives it a delay like the live view on the d7000 ?

 

Anyone who can help me or give me advice ?

I've looked around a while, and somebody told me that there is a way to put a LCD screen on your housing to replace the viewfinder.

 

I think it would be better then a viewfinder to see it.

 

Gives it a delay like the live view on the d7000 ?

 

Anyone who can help me or give me advice ?

To clarify this for you :

External LCD screens are an accessory designed to improve on the rear screen of the camera when it is being used in Video Mode.

They are great help for framing and focus.

They do not replace the cameras viewfinder in any way at all.

To clarify this for you :

 

External LCD screens are an accessory designed to improve on the rear screen of the camera when it is being used in Video Mode.

They are great help for framing and focus.

They do not replace the cameras viewfinder in any way at all.

But as Blind diver has told us he has severely impaired vision and has problems using an ordinary viewfinder, perhaps an LCD screen would replace the camera's viewfinder in his case, don't you think.

Hi,

 

I dont have a lot of budget.

If i buy the nauticam hausing + 1 flash my buget is gone.

I then have to wait for 1.5 years for second flash and lenses.

 

Some advice please....

I understood that blind diver was looking for advise that would fit into his budget.

The cost of a large LCD and housing will far exceed the cost of an accessory viewfinder while increasing the amount of additional components he has to deal with.

My view ( and it is only my view ) is that he would be best advised to try a housing that is setup with a large accessory viewfinder.

If he was in Cairns getting a unit into his hands for a try out would be no issue but he's not.

Hi Blinddiver,

I agree totally agree with PMOONEY. You have to look trough vieuwfinders and feel housings yourself.

Next week the "Boot" in Düsseldorf will start. http://www.boot.de/

This is europes biggest exhibtion regarding divegear and underwater photo/video gear. Here you can see, touch every major housing brand. You can also compare a videoscreen against the big vieuwfinder.

I think a trip to Düsseldorf will not dissapoint you.

I think the screen may turn out to be very cool, particularly if a nice shaded housing is built for it. Being able to use it remotely will be an added bonus;

but I agree it's jumping the gun a little to choose it over a good magnified viewfinder as the gold standard. It's going to add significantly to price and bulk of the setup. (I think it is attached to a battery pack) Rather look at is a potential add on down the road.

Just my 2 cents from a manufacturing POV, the plug on the side of the camera is HUGE

Just my 2 cents from a manufacturing POV, the plug on the side of the camera is HUGE

Party pooper! We have faith in you.