Housings - prices - quality

[Hector1959]

There is plenty of discussions and posts about the quality of housings and their prices
I would like to share my point of view.

There is some kind of rule of thumbs that a higher price should mean a higher quality. I mostly agree but the point is how much expensive would make sense.

I may agree that a Nauticam or Isotta housings are better than Fantasea's or Seafrog's. They may be more sturdy, more ergonomic, more compact, less bouyant,..... etc. If someone can afford it and want to pay for those "extra virtues" it's ok. But the main function of a housing is to protect the camera when underwater and all housings do it to some extent.

I like to view the housing like and insurance policy against accidents, so I don't find reasonable to pay more for the insurance than the value of the goods insured, mainly if almost every accident is diver/human's fault and not housing's.

Personally, I am satisfied with Seafrogs, one of the cheapest housings in the market. I have a Salted Line A6XXX for A6300 and recently bought another for a new TG-6. Both have electronic moisture detector and Vacuum Port which, with an also inexpensive Vacuum pump, give me additional assurance and confidence.

What else to ask for the price?

Regards

 

[hilljo88]

I agree with you that some of the lower priced housings give good value. I got a lot of mileage out of a Fantasea housing and have no hesitation in recommending it. However, when I started diving more frequently, I appreciated the sturdy, seemingly indestructible build quality of my aluminum Sea and Sea housing. We are fortunate to have good choices at several different price points.

 

[Hector1959]

I agree with you that some of the lower priced housings give good value. I got a lot of mileage out of a Fantasea housing and have no hesitation in recommending it. However, when I started diving more frequently, I appreciated the sturdy, seemingly indestructible build quality of my aluminum Sea and Sea housing. We are fortunate to have good choices at several different price points.

No doubt.
As long as housings offer more easiness of use or assurances some extra money is justified.
But when it comes to protect the camera from accidents ( what I compare to Buy an insurance) I find unreasonable to pay 900 bucks for a Sony A6400 and them pay 1800 for a Nauticam housing.
Why should I pay 1800 to reduce (not avoid) the risk of loosing a camera valued at 900?
It is even worst if after a few years the housing is flooded by human fault and You find yourself with the dilema of re-buying the old model camera or discard your expensive housing.

 

[jgttrey]

Why should I pay 1800 to reduce (not avoid) the risk of loosing a camera valued at 900?

You left out the $800 lens. Plus if it happens on Day 1 of a $5000 trip to Socorro or Truk, or $10k trip to bikini atoll, I'd be pretty bummed. The consequences of a flood are more than just finding a used camera body.

I don't disagree with your logic that most expensive is not always best and I'm not criticizing any particular housing. Just pointing out that it's an expensive sport and if there are real quality differences and your budget allows, there are good reasons not to skimp. Plus, port and accessory options are usually much better with Nauticam, Sea & Sea, Subal, Aquatica, etc.

 

[stuartv]

I used a Meikon housing for my Olympus E-M10 for several years. It never leaked. But, I had consistent trouble with the back button AF button sticking in the pressed down position. I also found that at 135' of depth, some of the buttons would press themselves and make the camera unusable (because it thought I was pressing multiple buttons at once) until I ascended to a shallower depth.

A friend recently bought an RX100 and a SeaFrogs housing. She has reported that she has also now had several occasions where the buttons on the housing do not always work correctly to operate the camera.

I upgraded to a full frame Sony camera last year with a Nauticam housing. So far, I have not had a single problem with a button sticking or working incorrectly.

In addition, the Nauticam housing has provided me these additional benefits:

- It is rated for much deeper than the 40m/130' rating of the Meikon housing for my Olympus camera. I have taken it to 200', so far, with no issues.

- The Nauticam housing allowed for me to replace the standard viewfinder port with a 45 degree angled viewfinder. I have done that and I find that I much prefer shooting with that 45 degree viewfinder than shooting using the LCD screen on the back (or the standard viewfinder).

- As far as I know, the absolute best image quality one can obtain for Wide Angle shooting underwater is by using an optics setup that includes the Nauticam WACP. I want to eventually get a WACP. No other brand of housing would give me the ability to use a WACP.

- Not quite as good image quality, but possibly second best in the market for wide angle is the Nauticam WWL-1. It is not quite as good optically as using a WACP, but it does offer the flexibility of being able to remove it underwater and even to swap in a CMC for switching from wide angle to macro during a dive. The new Sony 28-60 lens is inexpensive and has full zoom-through capability with the WWL-1, as well as giving good macro capability when using the CMC. You CAN use the WWL-1 with a Meikon or SeaFrogs housing. I used my WWL-1 on my Meikon housing before I upgraded my camera. But, the Nauticam housing offers more flexibility and capability to use different lenses than SeaFrogs does. Nauticam simply has a broader, more complete suite of products.


When I was shooting an inexpensive camera (the E-M10) it made sense (to me) to go with an inexpensive housing. I knew that I was never going to invest in a lot of different lenses for the Olympus. I just needed a housing that worked with the kit lens and gave me some ability to use a wide angle dome. The Meikon did that and served me well.

But, once I plunked down the big bucks for a top of the line camera, it only made sense (to me) to also spend for a housing that would allow me to take full advantage of all the different capabilities of my camera. For the shooting I do now and the different kinds of shooting I may branch out to in the future.

 

[j0rd1]

Hello @stuartv ,

Can you share some samples taken with the 28-60 and the CMC diopter? I am curious about the macro capabilities of that combination.

thanks !

 

[stuartv]

Hello @stuartv ,

Can you share some samples taken with the 28-60 and the CMC diopter? I am curious about the macro capabilities of that combination.

thanks !

Someday... I don’t have the port for my housing to let me use the 28-60 yet. Nauticam hasn’t released it yet, apparently.

 

[Hoag]

Keep in mind that this is nothing more than my opinion.

I think that like most things, there is an optimal case scenario. I believe that to a large degree, you do get what you pay for and that a higher priced, better engineered housing will tend to offer not only better protection, but also better usability. There will be a point, however, in which the "Law of Diminishing Returns" will come into play. Once you reach that point, you will only get a marginal improvement for a significant increase in price.

I also think that the threshold for where a housing starts to be affected by the Law of Diminishing Returns is also affected by the individual. For a Sony A6xxx series camera for instance, one person might see the cost of a Nauticam Housing/Port system to be worth every penny while another might be totally happy with a Fantasea or Ikelite product, and a third might see no value added by spending more than a basic Sea Frog system.

It all comes down to Risk vs Reward and I don't think that there is a single right answer.

Salt water is devastating to a camera & lens. (A lesson which I have learned the hard way unfortunately more than once.) The decision of what housing you choose in many cases comes down to what features do you want? What lenses are supported in a given system? And how much risk are you ready to assume that your housing will adequately protect your camera and lens investment.

 

[jmark18]

Something else to consider is ease of service. A while ago I was using a Hugyfot housing that I loved for it's ergonomics. It needed service for a loose wire connection for the strobes and I sent it to Hugyfot from Canada. It took almost 8 weeks and I only got it back because my brother-in-law arranged for fast shipping through his logistics company. The actual service only took them 2 days but even though I sent it by expedited service( very expensive) customs kept it for several weeks and didn't inform us they had it at all. I am now using Aquatica because aside from being a quality product they are 1 day shipping away and in a pinch I can drive there.

 

[bvanant]

this is an interesting discussion, but I think that the idea of housing as insurance is not typically the way that most photographers think of their housings; I certainly don't. If you dive a lot (we try to get 250+ dives/year, sadly not this year) then having a bullet proof housing makes sense. I have a Nauticam for OM-D EM-1 Mark II. It cost like $1800 or so. The strobes cost another $1000 or so, and all the other stuff (focus lights, arms, clamps, flip adapters etc. probably cost another $500+. I have been using the system for at least 4 years and have about 1100 dives on it. So it has cost me about $3/dive, less than an air fill here in Los Angeles. If you don't dive much then of course your price/dive goes up. For most people you have to trade off price for function, but what housing would you pick if they were all the same price?
Bill