The future of SLR cameras in dive photography?

[Splint]

Hi all,

I'm interested to hear people opinions on the general consumer trends relating to SLR and similar sized cameras in dive photography. Given the continuous improvements in compacts and phones is it reasonable to think that the larger style cameras may in general become much less popular over time? To put the question in perspective, I'm a mechanical engineer and I would eventually like to get into manufacturing camera housings. At this stage I'm in two minds as to whether I should primarily focus on phone housing which would appeal to a different consumer group or to focus on SLR and 4/3 and compact style.

 

[Cthippo]

True SLRs are a dead end technology with the advent of mirrorless, but I don't think that is what you are asking. The SLR form factor will probably stick around more or less indefinately just because of the need to collect more light than what a phone lens can do. There are only so many photons and cramming more pixels onto a sensor doesn't change that. There will still be a place for big glass for a long time to come.

 

[davehicks]

You can't make good camera housings if you are not using them. You should invest in a housing for a proper camera. Look and Nauticam and Ikelite for two ends of the spectrum. Also get a few Phone housings and experiment with them. There is only so much you can learn without being an enthusiastic UW photographer.

 

[Bigbella]

To quote Twain, "The report of my death was an exaggeration,” so, too, that of the demise of still cameras in housings -- whether they be mirrorless or SLRs; and with most SLRs at a tiny fraction of the cost of mirrorless, they'll still be around for a while.

I occasionally shoot an old Nikonos III, the best of that series (a friend hand-rolls film for me); fully-mechanical and capable of resurrection after a flood, after just hosing it and drying in a kitchen sink. I also shot a Nikon F2S in an Aquatica housing for years; so too, a D2X in a Subal housing, which is still among my favorites -- though nearly an antique, by today's standard of reinventing the wheel, every season.

It's not so much the construction of the cameras, so much as it is the glass . . .

 

[Doc Harry]

The image quality of a compact cannot compare (yet) to the image quality of a dSLR. For professional photographers the dSLR still reigns king.

That being said, as someone who switched from a huge $$$$ dSLR to a $$ compact, the ability to take "memory" images and video is so much easier with a compact. I am no longer carrying around a separate suitcase of camera equipment.

The biggest problem with some compacts is the lack of manual white balance and green/blue images.

 

[Barmaglot]

I think it's important to use proper terminology here - SLR stands for Single Lens Reflex, a style of camera that uses a swinging (or, sometimes, translucent) mirror and a pentaprism to project its image into the viewfinder. Meanwhile, ILC stands for Interchangeable Lens Camera - a camera where you can fit different lenses onto a certain body. Most SLRs are ILCs, although not all - for example, Olympus E-10 and E-20 were DSLRs with a fixed zoom lens - but there are many ILCs that are not SLRs. Even in film days, rangefinder cameras were quite popular, and view cameras (those big bellows boxes) had their niches, and at present, most ILCs are digital mirrorless cameras, with DSLRs being at the end of their lifecycle. Both Canon and Nikon have no more DSLRs on their roadmap, Sony discontinued their A-mount SLTs years ago, and I think Pentax is still doing something with theirs, but nobody really cares. The system of mirrors and prisms was a useful crutch when you couldn't read out the sensor in real time, but now that electronics development has caught up, it is no longer needed.

Now, as for for interchangeable lens cameras in underwater photography, I don't think they're going away anytime soon. Underwater photography is typically done with extreme lenses - either ultrawide/fisheye, or macro/supermacro. Neither of those ends is served well with typical lenses found on fixed-lens cameras, and water-contact conversion optics only go so far. That said, the market for underwater camera housings is quite small, and the field of existing manufacturers is quite crowded. At a glance, you have:

• Nauticam
• Marelux
• Aquatica
• Isotta
• Easydive
• Subal
• Seacam
• Sealux (defunct)
• Sea & Sea
• Inon
• Acquapazza (defunct, I think)
• Ikelite
• Recsea
• AOI
• Nimar (I think they went out of business recently)
• SeaFrogs

...and possibly others. I'm not listing SeaLife or the various phone housings or soft/semi-rigid bags manufacturers, as it isn't really the same market. What part of the market, in your opinion, is currently unserved by all of these companies to provide an opportunity for a new entrant?

 

[David Haas]

While I agree dSLR / Mirrorless ILC cameras aren't going away I do think they'll continue to be a small part of photography overall and especially underwater.

This is coming from a guy who still oohs and ahas over the newest housings, strobes, etc. I have many friends in the high end shooting arena and I enjoy discussing new developments with them. I find it fascinating but I'm done with anything physically large both for travel and diving. Just my personal choice.......

I think those who dismiss compact cameras have barely ever used one. Just like any system you have to put the time in to learn the quirks and tricks to squeeze the best out of them no matter what your final intent is with still images or videos.

As to developing a new housing I think there's plenty already from budget to the uber expensive choices !!!!!

There's no shortage of tools to make images underwater these days

David Haas

 

[Splint]

You can't make good camera housings if you are not using them. You should invest in a housing for a proper camera. Look and Nauticam and Ikelite for two ends of the spectrum.

Thanks, that's exactly what I have done. I've used an Ikelite with a compact for many years and I bought a used Nauticam as an engineering reference. I have a furnace so I can cast aluminium housing and I also have a light duty CNC machine. Roll that in with outsourcing where required and I should be able to produce a professional quality housing at a price point consumers should be comfortable with.

The responses here are pretty much what I expected but it's always good to get the unbiased opinions of end users and general people in that sector. Thanks for your input, much appreciated.

 

[Barmaglot]

I have a furnace so I can cast aluminium housing and I also have a light duty CNC machine. Roll that in with outsourcing where required and I should be able to produce a professional quality housing at a price point consumers should be comfortable with.

Keep in mind that a housing alone is not particularly useful. At the very minimum you need a port system capable of supporting a variety of lenses - i.e. a flat port with 67mm threading and a range of extension rings to accommodate different lengths of macro lenses, and a range of dome ports, from a mini-dome for CFWA with fisheye lenses, to medium-size domes for rectilinear lenses, to very large ones for over/under split shots. Then there's vacuum systems, flash triggers, add-on viewfinders, monitors, etc, etc.

 

[Nemrod]

I am pretty sure "phone" and photography do not belong in the same sentence. No, a phone in a plastic case even if it had a way to trigger strobes is like comparing a HotWheels car to the real thing.

Interchangeable lens cameras are far superior to a phone but I would settle for a compact with a one inch or larger sensor with knobs and wheels for controls, fast X-sync and ability to utilize accessory lenses. Range finder cameras of yore did have interchangeable lenses and high speed X-sync.