If i both have d90 and d40, which is more "cost effective" to set up??
Welcome to ScubaBoard, an online scuba diving forum community where you can join over 205,000 divers from around the world discussing all things related to Scuba Diving. To gain full access to ScubaBoard (and make this large box go away) you must register for a free account. As a registered member you will be able to:
Participate in over 500 dive topic forums and browse from over 5,500,000 posts.
Communicate privately with other divers from around the world.
Post your own photos or view from well over 100,000 user submitted images.
Gain access to our free classifieds marketplace to buy, sell and trade gear, travel and services.
Use the calendar to organize your events and enroll in other members' events.
All this and much more is available to you absolutely free when you register for an account, so sign up today!
If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact the ScubaBoard Support Team.
If i both have d90 and d40, which is more "cost effective" to set up??
As the title goes, a friend can't decide on which housing to order on ikelite though its both i think around roughly $1400.
I said go with the D90 for the HD video but he said he's kinda afraid to flood it vs the D40 which is alot cheaper but I told him that its gonna get much more expensive if he chooses d40 and decides to upgrade in the future.
I would recommend housing the d90. Because housings are more expensive than bodies, I think it usually makes sense to house the latest body so the effective lifespan of the housing is as long as possible. Plus, the d40 doesn't have a focus motor in the camera, so that is a limitation on what lenses you can use with it.
The only reason I would house a D40 is if I got a really inexpensive used housing.
The D40 can give quite nice results underwater. My GF, Adm. Linda, recently won first place in
the Advanced California Cold Water category of the Northern California Underwater Photographic
Society's SEA 2009 International Photo Competition with a shot with a D40. The present crop
of lenses is quite adequate for the D40.
That said, I'd house the D90.
Do not assume a priori that Ikelite is the least cost option. Linda went with an Aquatica housing
because it would take Nikonos synch cords, and we have a drawer full. Investigate total cost
of ownership.
I would recommend housing the d90. Because housings are more expensive than bodies, I think it usually makes sense to house the latest body so the effective lifespan of the housing is as long as possible. Plus, the d40 doesn't have a focus motor in the camera, so that is a limitation on what lenses you can use with it.
The only reason I would house a D40 is if I got a really inexpensive used housing.
You have not bought a housing for a D700 or D3x huh
I'd opt for the D90 due to previously mentioned focus motor plus much better high iso capability. That plus cheaper (due to no need for AFS) fast glass = winner. Plus it's just a better camera
About the only advantage the D40 has is it's cheaper to replace if (when?) the housing floods. Based on that logic everyone should be driving a Kia
You have not bought a housing for a D700 or D3x huh
Okay, housings are more expensive than camera bodies...except when they're not. But for the cameras in the original question, a new housing is definitely more expensive than the body.
House the D90 & insure your system against flood, thief, loss, eaten by shark, everything. I have this type of coverage on homeower's policy - personal articles rider. You do have a Platinum Card - right??? Don't forget that getting a new system has a snowball effect - spares (anything electronic), bigger faster computer (larger files), external drives for backup, etc. You probably have a laptop that will work for a trip, but it also needs a backup hd or similar. Its only $$$$$$$$. Have fun!
LinkBack URL
About LinkBacks
Reply With Quote
Originally Posted by marcaumarc
