Tentative gear selection...how am I doing?

Hi everyone-

First of all, thanks in advance for any and all help you can offer. I'm a relatively experienced photographer (no professional experience but plenty of my own shooting) and diver who is now looking to combine the two. A great opportunity for doing a lot of underwater photography has fallen in my lap, and I want to jump on it, so I've been doing research on the equipment that I'll need. I've done a decent amount of educating myself on how shooting will be different (white balance, low light, etc.), but I also need to really nail down the gear that I will need. Below is a list of what I have (camera and lenses but no underwater stuff), followed by a tentative list of what I'm considering getting for adapting what I have for underwater. Any suggestions regarding different things to go with would be very helpful, as well as things I'm leaving out. Here goes:

What I own:

Camera:

-Nikon D5100: I've been shooting with this camera for about 5 years now. I've enjoyed this camera quite a bit. I find myself using landscape mode a lot. I take it with me hiking all the time, so we've been through some spats together. I'm somewhat artistic with it and tend to shoot landscapes and macro (so many bee photos). However, I'm about due for an upgrade.

Lenses:

-Nikon AF-S Micro 40mm 2.8G lens. I think that this lens is often used for portraits and document photography but I use it for insects, plants, etc. The thing focuses from like an inch away, which is wonderful for pulling out details.

-18-55mm Kit lens. I won't be needing that for underwater.

-55-300mm telephoto. Also won't be needing that for underwater.

-Tokina SD 11-20 F2.8 (IF) DX. From what I read, this will be quite useful for underwater.

What I'm thinking I need:

-Nikon D500: It's about time for me to upgrade my camera, so I'm thinking I will replace my D5100 with a Nikon D500.

-Ikelite 200DL housing for Nikon D500: http://www.ikelite.com/housings/nikon/71005-nikon-d500.html. I would love to get a pricier housing but they are simply out of my price range.

-Port for the Micro 40mm 2.8 lens: http://www.ikelite.com/accessories/75301-dl-flat-port.html

-Port for the Tokina 11-20 lens. Ikelite does not explicitly state which port will be best for this; apparently I need to measure the lens to figure it out. I'll probably email them and make sure once I've determined the port that I think I will need.

-Strobe: Sea & Sea YS-01: http://www.seaandsea.jp/products/strobe/ys01/. I think I will start with 1 strobe and see how I do.

-Arm for the strobe: http://www.ikelite.com/accessories/4087.21-flex-arm.html.

-I will also need a cable from the camera to the strobe, as the D500 does not have its own flash (and indeed it looks like the housing wouldn't let the flash work anyway).

If anyone has any suggestions for other things that I will need that I don't yet know about, or can tell me how well the above items will work together, please let me know! I'll be doing photography in cenotes/caves (low light), as well as the reef. Thank you so much!

Thomas

I think you are doing fine, with a few exceptions. Since strobes are forever, I would get either a YSD2 from S&S or the Inon Z240 from Inon.

Bill

Yep, I agree with Bill. Some very sensible decisons you've made, I'd say.

Like Bill, I'd say go for the Inon Z240 strobe. I've had then for years and they have been terrific.

You don't say what kind of photos you want to shoot, but I infer from the lenses that you want to do both macro and wide angle. I personally would not like the 40mm lens for macro work, or for that matter for general use, as it seems an awkward focal length for UW lighting, too long for WA and too short for macro. I would go for more reach and/or magnification plus easier lighting (if you're within an inch of your subject, it's tough to get the strobe right). Depending on where you're going and what you hope to shoot, a 60 or 105 lens is likely to make your macro work more productive, and if you're after really tiny critters, maybe even a wet diopter like the SubSee or others.

More importantly, tell us about this "great opportunity" that has fallen in your lap and where we can find ours - good luck!

Thank you, bvanant and TimG! Ok, I'll look into the Z240.

troporobo - Yes, in the long run I'm thinking both macro and wide angle, although for my first trip out I'm starting to lean toward just focusing on wide angle to simplify the learning curve and because the people that I'm shooting for have the greatest need for that. So I think I'll wait to get a macro lens port. I've really enjoyed macro work previously, and I'd love to get more into that at some point. I'm sure that I will end up getting interested in the really tiny critters, so a wet diopter will probably be in order! Which focal length do you tend to prefer for UW macro?

I've ordered the D500 and will probably order the housing pretty soon. I'm going to do some testing around home and then maybe in a pool somewhere. If you have any suggestions for testing out gear, I'm all ears.

Thanks again! Really appreciate the help. I know absolutely 0 people with UW shooting experience.

If you're going with a D500 (sounds a great choice), I'd suggest a Nikkor 60mm to start with for macro. It's a great fish portrait lens, very versatile and easier to start with than the 105mm

I shoot with a m4/3 system so my macro lens is a 60mm which is equivalent to 90mm on a DX system. It's a great lens for really small stuff and has the reach to keep back a little from skittish critters.

The right diopter was a challenging choice. I found it very hard to choose as there are not many comparisons on line. In the end i was able to borrow the Subsee +5 and +10 and test them on my camera, you can see the results at the link. i use the +5 most of the time, as it gives a little more working distance and makes lighting easier. But this is specific to my lens/camera, so advice from someone with your combo would be a lot more useful!

http://wetpixel.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=56141

Thanks a bunch for the help. The D500 came in the mail the other day and I'm getting excited.

Now I'm thinking that I might get the Ikelite DS160 strobe to have TTL flash and minimize the number of things that I have to juggle while I'm shooting. Anything wrong with that idea?

Thanks a bunch for the help. The D500 came in the mail the other day and I'm getting excited.

 

Now I'm thinking that I might get the Ikelite DS160 strobe to have TTL flash and minimize the number of things that I have to juggle while I'm shooting. Anything wrong with that idea?

Digital TTL shooting underwater does not always give you the most creative lighting. And in time, i would guess most photographers switch to manual mode. Here are two articles that may help, one written by one of the best underwater photographers today (in moi opinion :-)

http://wetpixel.com/articles/the-trouble-with-ttl

http://www.divephotoguide.com/underwater-photography-techniques/article/underwater-photography-ttl/

Hope this helps in clearing your mind.

Cheers

That makes complete sense. Thanks, diggy.

Perhaps the most useful general lens underwater is a fisheye. I would recommend you get hold of a Tokina 10-17mm as soon as possible! Once you have, you probably won't use the 11-20mm much.

It will also work with a small dome (which the 11-20mm will not).

Adam

Thanks, Adam. I'm starting to lean in the direction of getting the 10-17. It also makes sense economically because the Ikelite housing requires a $250 extension for the 11-20 wide angle but not for the 10-17 fisheye, so I might as well just put that $250 toward getting the 10-17 fisheye. I did notice that Ikelite uses the same dome port for both the Tokina 10-17 fisheye and Tokina 11-20 wide angle: http://www.ikelite.com/accessories/75340-dl-dome-port.html. I will be focusing on getting scenic/atmospheric shots of cenotes, which have both a 'cave' feel to them as well as brighter, wider views with rays of sunlight. Would you still recommend the 10-17 fisheye over the 11-20 for these types of shots? I've read that fisheyes can bend rays of light to make them look slightly unnatural, but I've also read that you can position the rays in the center of the photo to pretty much eliminate this. Thanks again so much for the help!

Thomas