Help Choosing Housing for Nikon D3100

My husband and I are going on a Great White Shark dive trip next summer and I want to buy a housing and strobe for my Nikon D3100. I have the 18-55 AF-S lens. I've seen a Nimar and an Ikelite housing and was hoping for some advice as to which one o buy? Also, the Ikelite housing/port/strobe choices are SUPER confusing so any help on which pieces I'd need would be greatly appreciated.

Lastly, should I be using a different lens? If so what? I've seen talk about using a wide angle or fisheye lens, would that be better than the 18-55 AF-S I have? Which ones are recommended for my camera?

I don't really have a budget ... last year we saw a Tiger shark in Fiji and while our SeaLife camera/strobe got decent video, the pictures were less than I'd hoped for. I don't want to come back from another dive trip disappointed in my photos!

Thanks!!

The D3100 does not have a focus drive so it is stuck using only AFS lenses. It is better to get a camera with a focus drive like the D90, D300s or D7000. The cost of an Ike housing is $1500 and the ports add to the cost. The camera body is a relatively small part of the system cost. So going with a more capable body is a good way to go for not much more expense.

You mentioned not liking the photos. Unless you were in really shallow water, you would need a couple of strobes to get decent shots. Strobes are not cheap.

The Ikelite web site has information on the port options of the 18-55 AFS lens. Now I understand that mid range zooms have problems. To use the "wide" end, you need a dome either a 6" or an 8" according to Ikelite. To use the "long" end, a flat port is better. The problem is that the port you put on can not change as you go from 18 to 55. That being said, people do use lenses like this and do fine. You can use a limited lens and get good results as long as you don't ask it to perform outside of its limits.

Now the generally suggested lens set up is the Tokina 10-17 fisheye with a 60 mm macro. Some people go with a rectilinear lens for longer shots than the 10-17 which would mean the Nikon 10-24 or something similar.


Getting decent shots of a large sea critter like a shark is not easy. You need to be close to get good shots. The closer the better. The problem with that is on large pelagics, often they are too wary to be approached that closely.

Also, there is a learning curve to underwater photography. The Ike housing is not a bad housing. It is a good housing but it is large and kind of awkward to handle. The aluminum housings are far more compact making them for more wieldly. Of course, that comes at a price.


You might even consider thinking about a 4/3 system. Olympus has nice compact cameras with housing options that offer decent wide angle and macro options. Nikon has just come out with a 4/3 system also.

I know of 2 retailers of underwater camera systems. They are both excellent. One is Backscatter with shops in CA and NY and the other is Reef Photo in Fort Lauderdale. They both have decent web sites which you might want to look at. The best thing to do would be to visit so you can look at the options available.

Thanks for responding!! The D3100 is fairly new so I probably won't be replacing that any time soon. The photos I took in Fiji of the Tiger shark were with a SeaLife camera that did have a strobe, there was just way too much debris in the water and the camera was only 8 megapixels so there's not enough info to photoshop. With the Nikon I can shoot raw and edit to my hearts content

I looked at the Ikelite housing/ports/strobes and figured out what would work for my current camera and lens. The Tokina won't work for my camera body so I looked at the Nikon 12-24 but this Sigma 10-20 got much better reviews. Thoughts? If budget permits, I'm debating buying this instead of using the 18-55 I have, will it make a huge difference?

Do you know anything about the Nimar setup? I looked at the Backscatter website and the Ikelite was the only option for my camera but I have seen a housing made by Nimar, I just can't find any reviews on them.

I'm certainly not a pro photographer, I would just hate to come back from this trip without some good pictures. I plan to buy the housing soon and then I'll have the summer to dive in SD and practice.

Thanks for your help and patience, I'm a newbie when it comes to cameras!

Here's a test review of the Sigma lens:
Sigma Lens: Zooms - Sigma 10-20mm f/3.5 EX DC HSM (Tested) - SLRgear.com!

The Sigma specs look very good.

And the Nikon 18-55 lens:
Nikon Lens: Zooms - Nikon 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6G AF-S DX VR Nikkor (Tested) - SLRgear.com!

There was another 18-55 Nikon lens which was not tested, but there are some positive reviews:
Nikon Lens: Zooms - Nikon 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6G ED II AF-S DX Nikkor - SLRgear.com!

IMHO Those extra 8mm of zoom, to the wide end, would be most valuable underwater.

Here's a Nimar housing from a US/Canada vendor:

Nimar Underwater Camera Housing for Nikon D3100 w/ 18-55mm Lens Port

I own an Ikelite housing, but the Nimar looks interesting. There certainly isn't much so far as reviews go of the Nimar housings.

I have the Tokina 10-17 mm lens but have found the Nikon 18-55 mm to be so good optically and so versatile that I now use it most of the time in clear tropical waters. With a +4 diopter and Ikelite's dedicated port (#5503.50) you can use it for everything from moderate wide angle to almost macro and get very nice results. A pity you can't use it with your camera.
I would definitely go for the Ikelite housing. There are lots of reports of leaking Nimar housings on the web. Also, an Ikelite housing with Ikelite strobes will give you TTL. You don't need to buy the most expensive Ikelite strobes. A couple of DS 51's works perfectly with all but the wdest fisheye lenses and often works fine even with those, e.g. the Tokina 10-17mm.

I'm confused, I have the Nikon AFS 18-55 and it works with my camera. Do you mean the Tokina? Yeah bummed that won't work. But aren't you saying you're happy with the 18-55 underwater? I'm just debating using that or getting the sigma 10-20 and wondering how much difference it'd really make ...

Yes, I like the 18-55mm lens and use it most of the while underwater in clear tropical waters, but I have the D80, which has a built-in motor, whereas the D3100 doesn't. I'm not sure whether you can use the 18-55mm AF-S lens with your camera. Check with your local camra shop. Ken Rockwell writes as follows:

On reflection, as you say you have the 18-55 mm AF-S lens, I assume you can use it with your D3100 on land, in which case you can of course also use it underwater, with a +4 diopter and the appropriate Ikelite dome port (see my first post in this thread) and the zoom gear and sleeve.

Where are you going for the shark trip? Assuming cage diving, basically at the surface, strobes may not be really necessary, depending on direction of ambient light. Besides, they make it more difficult to move around in the cage.
I would suggest that you visit the boat to check out the cages to be used if possible. Some cages are more user friendly than others in terms of space, mobility, size & placement of camera windows, etc. I had some cage issues on a Sep trip to Guadalupe. Had I known the cage configuration before hand I would have changed boats.

The problem with underwater photography is it is very complex and challenging. With a DSLR, you have ports and strobes and housings all of which are expensive. Also, getting good photos underwater is not that easy. You have to know your equipment, photography and scuba diving to do all of it at once. It is not something that you can just grab the photography gear and jump into the water and do at least not very successfully unless you have a low bar for your results.

I do not know the situation you will be diving in. In underwater photography, you want to be as close to your subject AS POSSIBLE. The water has junk in it and that degrades your photo at any kind of range. For sharp photos, you want to be really close. Most underwater photographers like the Tokina 10-17 fisheye or a good rectilinear lens like the Nikon 10-24 for large critters. The problem with that is I don't know how close you are going to be to said shark. Also, I don't know how deep you are going to be. For whale sharks, a good wide angle lens should be enough because most of the time, they are at or near the surface and they often allow a pretty close approach. If you are deep, you would probably want strobes.

If this is a one off deal, you will probably want to go with the Ikelite housing. If you plan to photography routinely, you might want to get an aluminum housing. They cost more but are more compact and ergonomic. Either way, the Ike housing costs $1500 and that is before you get the ports and the strobes. The camera body is not much of the price of the system. Most people go with a pretty capable camera body. For Nikon that would be at least a D90, D300s or the D7000.

If this is really a situation where you want photos of this trip and this trip only, you might consider one of the mirrorless systems like the Olympus Pen series or a high performance point and shoot system like the Canon G12.

There are various retail stores that specialize in underwater photography. Both Backscatter (stores in NY and CA) and Reefphoto (Fort Lauderdale) are good. You can call them toll free and they can help you. You can also read up on some aspects of underwater photography on their web sites.

Good luck.