Spend $ on Nauticam now or get less expensive housing

[ScubaJill]

I'm looking at a good deal on a Sony A5000. It comes with a 16-50mm lens and I would need to buy additional lenses. Available housings are either the Nauticam at $1350 plus additional ports for macro and WA lenses and the Meikon at about $200-250 with the option to buy a WA dome port lens but the housing only fits the 16-50mm lens.

I'm getting more serious about underwater photography so I want something I can grow into, but I do wonder if I would be satisfied for the next year or two with just the 16-50mm lens and thus the Meikon. Any thoughts?

 

[ColoDale]

I went with Nauticam over the less expensive plastic housing for durability and depth ratings. Though I don't intend on exceeding the max depth of the Nauticam housing I do want a safety margin (bumps, twists, etc) on the Nauticam housing. I also like being able to use the flat port for more than one lens. I can use the flat port for the macro and 12-50mm lens. The Wide angle lens I have is too big for the flat port. I do have options for other lenses both OEM and other manufacturers. Additional ports take up space and add weight for travelling. I did have a plastic housing on my first camera and I was always worried that the hinge would break or get torqued.
I choose technical options over budget. But that's me. Poorer but satisfied.

 

[BoltSnap]

The first question I'd ask, is the Sony A5000 camera a camera worth investing in and is a camera that will meet your needs for the next 3-4 years before deciding on the housing. Next will be the question which housing will have the features I'd need for the kind of U/W photo I'll be doing in the coming 3-4 years and will this housing have all of the ports required for the lens I will and may use in the same time period.

 

[stuartv]

I'm no expert, but I think that lens at 50mm (80mm equivalent for 35mm) should do pretty well for macro shooting. Not great (like with a serious macro lens on a good camera), but pretty decent. I mean, for subjects that are not simply too small for that setup, it should give fantastic results. The limitation will be not being able to focus on subjects that are as small as you could (and fill the frame) with a dedicated macro lens. But with a camera like that, if it only fills half the frame and you crop it, you should still be able to get great photos.

The 16mm (27mm equiv) end is not going to be great for wide angle, though. But, a WA wet lens should get you to "good" if you want to shoot WA. And, of course, with a wet WA lens, you would be able to take it off and shoot macro on the same dive, if you wanted.

For the cost of the Nauticam housing plus a lens port plus a lens, the $200-ish for a Meikon housing seems practically disposable. Plus you'll want to buy at least one strobe.

My budget dictated a phased approach to my spending. A good ILC (interchangeable lens camera) with a cheap housing (i.e. Meikon) to start. Then strobes. I feel like that will get me pretty good pictures with the kit lens. Even better when I add strobes. When my photography skills develop to the point where I need a different lens to achieve my goals, I'll know (better) what I want and why. At that point, I can decide whether to get a Nauticam housing and port and a better lens. Or keep my rig as-is and find a complete rig used. If I go for a lens and Nauticam housing, I'll already have the tray, strobes, and camera, so the additional cost won't be as painful. And the $200 Meikon housing that I retire will seem like chump change that was totally worth it.

I have seen pics from buddies that were using a compact camera (i.e. not changeable lens), with good strobes, and they get fantastic results. So, I feel like a better camera, with its kit lens, ought to be able to do at least as good. And if I can achieve results that are good as them and their compact cameras, I will be very happy.

ps. the NA housing is $1350 and then it's another $300 for the lens port for the 16-50mm lens. That would be a tough one for me to swallow. If/when I decide I need something better, I think I'll shop for a used housing with lens ports first, and then shop for the camera to fit in it (if it doesn't come with one).

 

[ScubaJill]

I'm no expert, but I think that lens at 50mm (80mm equivalent for 35mm) should do pretty well for macro shooting. Not great (like with a serious macro lens on a good camera), but pretty decent. I mean, for subjects that are not simply too small for that setup, it should give fantastic results. The limitation will be not being able to focus on subjects that are as small as you could (and fill the frame) with a dedicated macro lens. But with a camera like that, if it only fills half the frame and you crop it, you should still be able to get great photos.

The 16mm (27mm equiv) end is not going to be great for wide angle, though. But, a WA wet lens should get you to "good" if you want to shoot WA. And, of course, with a wet WA lens, you would be able to take it off and shoot macro on the same dive, if you wanted.

For the cost of the Nauticam housing plus a lens port plus a lens, the $200-ish for a Meikon housing seems practically disposable. Plus you'll want to buy at least one strobe.

That's my current thinking, too.

 

[KeithG]

this one is easy? how much $$ are you willing to pis$$ way for a "starter kit"? $250 or $1600?

I am cheap (really mean nasty cheap) and am willing to try something new, but I always make sure I fully understand my new world before I splash tons of money at it. i am also willing to write off small amounts as learning curve investments.

So my counsel is to always try something inexpensive until you better understand where you are going. But be prepared to toss your initial investment. So you should limit the initial investment.

It is better to discover things went wrong and you have to write off $250 as opposed to $1600. I see way too many ads for resale of new high end lightly used camera gear. i see way too many divers dragging around high end camera gear that they do not understand.

Buy the meikon. Use it. Abuse it. Learn from it. Then stay with it or toss it and move on to something better (if you need it)...

 

[mattia_v]

For what it's worth, I really like the results I can get with a large sensor compact (Sony RX100) and wet lenses with a strobe. These sensors have pretty great dynamic range and resolution, particularly shot at base ISO, and the flexibility of wide angle and macro on one dive is very hard to beat. I'm not entirely convinced my micro four thirds system (which is, IMO, close enough to aPS-C not to matter) brings enough advantages to the table relative to the size increase. I also own Sony's FF A7r, but size and cost stop me from housing that system.

I don't like choosing macro or wide angle. I think my personal 'size and price no option' would currently be a Sony A7 series, their 28/2.0 lens, and Nauticam's wet lenses (wide and macro) with strobes. But since that would be four times the weight and price and size of my current gear, and all my photography is done traveling, I'm sticking with the RX100.

Honestly, I think good lighting, and practicing good technique are far more important aspects. Even my 3 year old point and shoot is now no t the limiting factor; the big two are 1) me and 2) the fact I only have one strobe

 

[stuartv]

For what it's worth, I really like the results I can get with a large sensor compact (Sony RX100) and wet lenses with a strobe.

That's what one of my buddies has. RX100 Mk IV, WA wet lens, and 2 strobes. He gets GREAT wide angle photos with that rig. But, he spent $1000 on the camera and another $1000 on the Nauti housing. I've never seen him attempt a macro photo with it, so I don't know how good that is, but I would expect it does decently.

I got a good, used m43 camera with a kit lens for $400 and a new Meikon housing for $200. Skills aside, I think the rig is totally capable of getting just as good pics as his RX100. And I have the option to go to an expensive housing and other lenses later, if I want. But, after seeing his results, I'm not sure I'll ever bother. With a decent WA wet lens and an add-on diopter for macro, well, I think this rig will at least be way better than me for a pretty long time. If I do decide to replace the Meikon housing with an expensive housing and port(s), I really can't see regretting the Meikon purchase (unless it turns out to be crap and floods in the first few months - I've only dived it twice so far).

 

[sunnyboy]

While I would probably buy an expensive aluminum housing for an even more expensive professional camera, I would also expect to be using it for at least 10 years to get my moneys worth.

Anything else and I really can't justify the cost of an expensive housing for a camera that's obsolete in less than 5 years.

I guess I'm just allergic to spending my money on stuff that should last a long time but doesn't (who wants an empty housing and no camera). I know folks that had to ebay camera bodies simply to fill a housing that cost too much (in my opinion).

I'd rather pay a little less and be able to upgrade both housing and camera when enough new features come out to make me really want that new camera. Put another way, the camera should govern the transaction, not the housing (again, in my opinion).

 

[stuartv]

the camera should govern the transaction, not the housing (again, in my opinion).

When you're looking at spending $500 on a camera, and $1650 on a housing with 1 lens port, I'm not sure I would agree with your statement. Not when you could potentially choose a different housing that would cost $200 and work with a different, but equally capable, $500 camera.

Really, I think it only makes sense for the end goal and the total cost to get there to govern the transaction. No one single part should govern it. You shouldn't buy a housing just because of price, if it won't hold a camera you like or can afford. Neither should you buy a camera if you won't be able to afford a housing for it.

If there is only one camera made that will satisfy your requirements, then I suppose it will substantially govern your transaction. But I reckon you'd have to be a pretty serious, experienced professional photographer before that would happen.