Nikon D70

[HMan]

Ron, you make a lot of sense, especially to my ears.
Just for the Board readers to know, Fantasea Line is now working on a 12-24 mm lens port for their FD-70 housing so we hope to have all bases covered soon.
We are also getting excellent results using the 5" Dome port for the Nikon 16mm and Sigma 15 mm fisheye lens. You can see some of the test shots at this website
http://www.fantasea.com/d70_gallery/
and don't underestimate the value of a built in anti flooding protection program, I have personally fried at least 2 Nikon SLR cameras in Nexus housings due to my own stupdity!!

Howard from Fantasea Line

I would jump on the Fantesea (in fact I am considering it in the future) as it will support MOST of the lenses that one would use (the 12-24mm is the same size and configuration as the 18-70mm, so the port should work), it's about $400 less than the Ikelite with port, and looks like a good solution.

As for inflexibility, IMO the CAMERA body is the limiting factor. Let's face it, digital has changed the equipment landscape for SLR's, drastically!! There was a time when one would purchase an SLR body, and not even consider an upgrade for at LEAST 5 years, and more often a decade (I still shoot with my 15+ year old F4s).

Enter the digital world. The D70 was released last year and will likely be replaced within year, maybe 3 tops. Plopping down 2K on a housing, and then having a body that is out of production and not available new is something to consider. You can BET that the D70 replacement will NOT have the same configuration as the D70, and then one has a VERY expensive housing that while is still very usable, when/if the camera floods, it could become difficult to find a good replacement body.

So while lens ports and options is a VERY valid consideration for those that have glass on hand, I'd really not worry too much about the more limited selection of Fantasea ports as they will likely add more. I'd go for the least expensive option that provides good protection for the body, and allows for the use of lenses and flash equipment that you want.

ONE reason IMO to consider the Ikelite is that they will have TTL on the market later this year for the D70 (and I assume all iTTL camera's forward). If one is a manual strobe setting shooter by choice, than this is not a factor.

 

[dbh]

Ron, you make a lot of sense, especially to my ears.
Just for the Board readers to know, Fantasea Line is now working on a 12-24 mm lens port for their FD-70 housing so we hope to have all bases covered soon.
We are also getting excellent results using the 5" Dome port for the Nikon 16mm and Sigma 15 mm fisheye lens. You can see some of the test shots at this website
http://www.fantasea.com/d70_gallery/
and don't underestimate the value of a built in anti flooding protection program, I have personally fried at least 2 Nikon SLR cameras in Nexus housings due to my own stupdity!!

Howard from Fantasea Line

I am probably going to regret saying this (Jinx?), but my experience with the Nexus D70 is....you would have to TRY to flood it. It has one of the best port & rear latch systems that I have seen.

YMMV,
Dave

 

[HMan]

Like I said, it was my own stupidy, rushing to dive and not checking the seal properly.
No negative reflection on Nexus at all.
Howard

I am probably going to regret saying this (Jinx?), but my experience with the Nexus D70 is....you would have to TRY to flood it. It has one of the best port & rear latch systems that I have seen.

YMMV,
Dave

 

[ssra30]

I would jump on the Fantesea (in fact I am considering it in the future) as it will support MOST of the lenses that one would use (the 12-24mm is the same size and configuration as the 18-70mm, so the port should work), it's about $400 less than the Ikelite with port, and looks like a good solution.

As for inflexibility, IMO the CAMERA body is the limiting factor. Let's face it, digital has changed the equipment landscape for SLR's, drastically!! There was a time when one would purchase an SLR body, and not even consider an upgrade for at LEAST 5 years, and more often a decade (I still shoot with my 15+ year old F4s).

Enter the digital world. The D70 was released last year and will likely be replaced within year, maybe 3 tops. Plopping down 2K on a housing, and then having a body that is out of production and not available new is something to consider. You can BET that the D70 replacement will NOT have the same configuration as the D70, and then one has a VERY expensive housing that while is still very usable, when/if the camera floods, it could become difficult to find a good replacement body.

So while lens ports and options is a VERY valid consideration for those that have glass on hand, I'd really not worry too much about the more limited selection of Fantasea ports as they will likely add more. I'd go for the least expensive option that provides good protection for the body, and allows for the use of lenses and flash equipment that you want.

ONE reason IMO to consider the Ikelite is that they will have TTL on the market later this year for the D70 (and I assume all iTTL camera's forward). If one is a manual strobe setting shooter by choice, than this is not a factor.

I disagree a bit here. The body of dSLR may get obsolete sooner than film SLR body but it does not mean that you need to udgrade your camera every 18 months because your dSLR body suddenly become unusable. So you definitely need a system that will last as long as you want it to last.

Secondly, even if you want to upgrade to the latest body, you still need a housing systems that support all the lenses that you need to use as you will most likely upgrade the body and the housing but hopefully you can keep the ports and zoom gear. Generally if you have 3-4 different lenses, cost of the ports will cost just as much as the housing so ideally when you change the housing, hopefully you won't have to get all the new ports either.

When I got into dSLR, since I started from scratch, when thrown in the price of the strobes and all the lenses, cost of the housing is only a fraction of the system so saving a few hundreds dollars for a system that does not support all the lenses that I want to use does not make any sense. By the way, I also skipped Ikelite for exactly the same reason, it does not support the 70-180mm. Fantasea is working on the 12-24mm lens which is good news but for me, I want to make sure that they will support all the lenses that I need before I will consider them.

My divebuddy bought the 17-55mm after hearing that Nexus was working on a port for it (since it is a much better lens than the 18-70mm, it would be nice fish portrait lens) then out of nowhere, Nexus decided not to support it. So again, when spending this much money, you might as well go for something that's already available rather than something that may or may not become available.

 

[RonFrank]

I disagree a bit here. The body of dSLR may get obsolete sooner than film SLR body but it does not mean that you need to udgrade your camera every 18 months because your dSLR body suddenly become unusable. So you definitely need a system that will last as long as you want it to last..

My comment here is NOT one of usability, but rather one of requirement. The bottom line is that Nikon will VERY likely discontinue the D70 within two years, likely less. The fact is that once that happens, with digital, repairing that body will NOT be cost justified.

Insurance will instead replace the body (every policy I've looked at allows that option) but the reality is that if one owns a D70 housing, there is NO way to replace the body and continue with the current housing. Of course there are options, and those rely on using used equipment... However my point is that housing is MUCH less flexible vs. lens use.

Secondly, even if you want to upgrade to the latest body, you still need a housing systems that support all the lenses that you need to use as you will most likely upgrade the body and the housing but hopefully you can keep the ports and zoom gear. Generally if you have 3-4 different lenses, cost of the ports will cost just as much as the housing so ideally when you change the housing, hopefully you won't have to get all the new ports either.

That is a very good point, but one that you can not take to the bank. There is ZERO guarentee, and the real factor is NOT the housing manufacture, but rather the camera manufacture. With Nikon, the bet is good as they generally do NOT change things up for style.

Shooting non UW requires much more versitility then most UW photographers require. Let's face it, if you have a port for the 12-24/18-70, and a macro lens, that's about ALL any PRO UW would require. Maybe a fisheye would add to the mix. Compare that to a mix that can require a 400mm F2.8 for us land animals :11: What would they charge for that with a housing???

When I got into dSLR, since I started from scratch, when thrown in the price of the strobes and all the lenses, cost of the housing is only a fraction of the system so saving a few hundreds dollars for a system that does not support all the lenses that I want to use does not make any sense. By the way, I also skipped Ikelite for exactly the same reason, it does not support the 70-180mm. Fantasea is working on the 12-24mm lens which is good news but for me, I want to make sure that they will support all the lenses that I need before I will consider them.

Again, this depends on what you need as a photographer. It is difficult for me to judge UW lenses as I'm new to diving, but as a photographer, i can NOT see a huge advantage in such a slow and large lens on a DSLR (70-180mm). With the 1.5x factor, you are looking at a 105mm MINIMUM lens.. and did I say... IT IS SLOW?

As a clueless newbie, my setup would include the 12-24mm f4, the 17-35mm f2.8 (not the junky DX 17-70mm kit lens) and then maybe the 65mm macro, and 105mm macro. If you want to add class, then the fast f1.4 lenses may really add some speed for lower light situations. I can NOT imagine that a big zoom really adds much.

I own all these lenses, and they are awesome. However, I'm NOT an UW photographer.. YET, so feel free to pick apart my arguments as appropriate.

Ron

 

[Shaff]

I'm going for the D70 and the Nexus housing. And INON Strobes. Right now i'm using the Oly 5060...I've got some really good photos using that. Will let u guys know the website when it's ready. Thanks for all the info.

Come to the Maldives and let's go diving.....

 

[ssra30]

Ron, I agree with you that shelf life of dSLR is not nearly as long as SLR camera and in 3-4 years, if anything should happen to my D70, I may have hard time replacing it without resorting to Ebay. After saying that though, going back to the original post regarding Fantasea housing, saving $400 (over the Ikelite) for me is not worth the sacrifice of not being able to use all the lenses that I want. In fact, Fantasea is about $800 less than what I spent on my Sea and Sea housing but is it worth the saving of $800 when I am going on a liveaboard trip when I can't use the 12-24mm, 10.5mm (never know when those whalesharks are coming by ) or my favourite lens, the 70-180mm. I already have almost 40 dives with my D70 and plan to do another 40-50 dives in the next 6-8 months. Fantasea is planning on supporting the 12-24mm in the future. Once they support most of the popular underwater lenses then I think they will become a very worthwhile option but as of today, they are not quite there yet, in my opinion.
On the macro side, many people are happy with just the 60mm and 105mm but I prefer the 70-180mm as it is very useful in helping to compose the picture. Underwater, you don't always have the luxury of moving the camera in and out, sometimes even just a few inches to get the exact composition that you need with the prime lens. Personally I think the flexibility of variable working space of the zoom lens is worth the sacrifice of some quality loss in comparison to the prime lens. It is a slow lens but coming from Oly C5050, the 70-180 still focus faster and more accurately than my old setup so I am happy with it. Many people also like to add 1.4x or 2x teleconverter to their 105mm for those pgymy seahorses or other supermacro stuff, I don't see any mentioning on Fantasea site about that.
Our priority may be a bit different but I figure that since I already spent $4000-$5000 for the camera, strobes, lenses, I might as well spend a bit more on the housing to make sure that it does not become the limiting factor for my setup for however long my D70 may last (or until I win a lottery!). Does that make any sense?

 

[camerabugged]

Hey Ron, Thanks for your advice, my husband read it too and definitely agrees with you. He says that the 16mm Nikon wide angle is a wonderful wide angle lens and is fine for what we need to do. What is really selling us is the Anti Flooding insurance unique to Fantasea, this is all built into the already most reasonable price. My husband dropped Fantasea a line and was told that they just may be releasing a 12-24 mm port by summer. So all in all it looks like a good buy.

 

[RonFrank]

Hey Ron, Thanks for your advice, my husband read it too and definitely agrees with you. He says that the 16mm Nikon wide angle is a wonderful wide angle lens and is fine for what we need to do. What is really selling us is the Anti Flooding insurance unique to Fantasea, this is all built into the already most reasonable price. My husband dropped Fantasea a line and was told that they just may be releasing a 12-24 mm port by summer. So all in all it looks like a good buy.

The Fantasea insurance seems to be them making the statement, we back our housings, and believe they will NOT leak.

But as for insurance as a major selling point, IMO it is not. You can add complete UW insurance to a homeowner policy for $5-$10 per thousand. So if you have 3k workth of gear, you are talking maybe $30 a year, and that includes theft protection, loss protection, and any type of damage. So sure, cool idea on the part of Fantisea (they are NOT the only ones doing it BTW), but that insurance may NOT protect against loss, or theft, so chack that out as well.

Ron

 

[dbh]

My comment here is NOT one of usability, but rather one of requirement. The bottom line is that Nikon will VERY likely discontinue the D70 within two years, likely less. The fact is that once that happens, with digital, repairing that body will NOT be cost justified.

Insurance will instead replace the body (every policy I've looked at allows that option) but the reality is that if one owns a D70 housing, there is NO way to replace the body and continue with the current housing. Of course there are options, and those rely on using used equipment... However my point is that housing is MUCH less flexible vs. lens use.



That is a very good point, but one that you can not take to the bank. There is ZERO guarentee, and the real factor is NOT the housing manufacture, but rather the camera manufacture. With Nikon, the bet is good as they generally do NOT change things up for style.

Shooting non UW requires much more versitility then most UW photographers require. Let's face it, if you have a port for the 12-24/18-70, and a macro lens, that's about ALL any PRO UW would require. Maybe a fisheye would add to the mix. Compare that to a mix that can require a 400mm F2.8 for us land animals :11: What would they charge for that with a housing???



Again, this depends on what you need as a photographer. It is difficult for me to judge UW lenses as I'm new to diving, but as a photographer, i can NOT see a huge advantage in such a slow and large lens on a DSLR (70-180mm). With the 1.5x factor, you are looking at a 105mm MINIMUM lens.. and did I say... IT IS SLOW?

As a clueless newbie, my setup would include the 12-24mm f4, the 17-35mm f2.8 (not the junky DX 17-70mm kit lens) and then maybe the 65mm macro, and 105mm macro. If you want to add class, then the fast f1.4 lenses may really add some speed for lower light situations. I can NOT imagine that a big zoom really adds much.

I own all these lenses, and they are awesome. However, I'm NOT an UW photographer.. YET, so feel free to pick apart my arguments as appropriate.

Ron

The bottom line is one housing does not satisfy everybody....thus all the ones on the market.

I have found in u/w gear (as well as life)....you get what you pay for.

Good luck!

Dave