How to start UWP - Buy housing for my regular mirrorless or swap for a compact?

[stuartv]

Well, I'm going to disagree with everyone else....

The Fuji X-T10 is a nice camera! Use it!

There is definitely no advantage to going with the Sony RX100 (of any "Mark"). It's a non-interchangeable lens camera. With the Meikon housing for your Fuji, you probably won't be able to use any lens except the kit lens that comes with it. But, you'll still be just as well off (better, actually, I think) with the Fuji in the Meikon housing as the RX100 in any housing.

The Meikon housing is only around $250. Their wet wide angle lens is less than $200.*

I have an Olympus OM-D E-M10, which is a micro Four Thirds mirrorless. A slightly smaller sensor than the X-T10, but reasonably comparable, overall (as compared to an RX100 or a TG4). I use the Meikon housing with the Meikon wet wide angle (and 2 strobes). Here are some pictures I took with my setup:

WSS2017 by Stuart Vernon

I don't see any advantage to you to be gained by going with an RX100 or a TG4. Other than, if you want to shoot macro, the TG4 MIGHT do a slightly better job for that one specific thing.

Otherwise, I think you'd be flushing money to do anything but just get the Meikon housing and start shooting! The Meikon housing is cheap enough (in the grand scheme of underwater photography gear) to be almost considered a throwaway item. It will let you develop a lot of really good experience, and then you can decide from there what you want in your next u/w rig. Plus, you'll have more money to spend on strobes. Good strobes will serve you well with your current camera and transfer directly over to your next rig.

*Disclaimer: The X-T10 housing would require their square wet wide angle dome port. You would NEED to check with Meikon to verify they have some wide angle dome that will work with the X-T10 housing. If they don't have a wide angle port for the X-T10 housing, then never mind. You probably don't want that housing if you can't get a wet wide angle for it. I.e. no wide angle == ignore all that junk I just posted. In which case, I'd suggest either the TG4 (cheapest option) or an RX100 Mk II (good and still inexpensive) and a Meikon housing for that. The Mk II + a Meikon housing shouldn't be more than around $750, total. And you can definitely get some dang awesome photos with that rig (and the right strobes).

 

[Hoag]

Well, I'm going to disagree with everyone else....

The Fuji X-T10 is a nice camera! Use it!

There is definitely no advantage to going with the Sony RX100 (of any "Mark"). It's a non-interchangeable lens camera. With the Meikon housing for your Fuji, you probably won't be able to use any lens except the kit lens that comes with it. But, you'll still be just as well off (better, actually, I think) with the Fuji in the Meikon housing as the RX100 in any housing.

The Meikon housing is only around $250. Their wet wide angle lens is less than $200.*

I have an Olympus OM-D E-M10, which is a micro Four Thirds mirrorless. A slightly smaller sensor than the X-T10, but reasonably comparable, overall (as compared to an RX100 or a TG4). I use the Meikon housing with the Meikon wet wide angle (and 2 strobes). Here are some pictures I took with my setup:

WSS2017 by Stuart Vernon

I don't see any advantage to you to be gained by going with an RX100 or a TG4. Other than, if you want to shoot macro, the TG4 MIGHT do a slightly better job for that one specific thing.

Otherwise, I think you'd be flushing money to do anything but just get the Meikon housing and start shooting! The Meikon housing is cheap enough (in the grand scheme of underwater photography gear) to be almost considered a throwaway item. It will let you develop a lot of really good experience, and then you can decide from there what you want in your next u/w rig. Plus, you'll have more money to spend on strobes. Good strobes will serve you well with your current camera and transfer directly over to your next rig.

*Disclaimer: The X-T10 housing would require their square wet wide angle dome port. You would NEED to check with Meikon to verify they have some wide angle dome that will work with the X-T10 housing. If they don't have a wide angle port for the X-T10 housing, then never mind. You probably don't want that housing if you can't get a wet wide angle for it. I.e. no wide angle == ignore all that junk I just posted. In which case, I'd suggest either the TG4 (cheapest option) or an RX100 Mk II (good and still inexpensive) and a Meikon housing for that. The Mk II + a Meikon housing shouldn't be more than around $750, total. And you can definitely get some dang awesome photos with that rig (and the right strobes).

@stuartv my recommendation for not using the X-T10 has little to do with it not being capable, but more to not putting the OP's only camera at risk. Above ground, I shoot a full frame DSLR. I am very proficient with it. It stays at home nice and dry however when I do a dive trip. When I dive, I always use a camera that if there is an accident, I can afford (both financially and at a gut check level) to lose it. That is in no way to imply that I am complacent in my prep, but only that I believe firmly in redundancy and I won't expose the camera that I have a serious financial and time investment in to such a potentially hostile environment.

I for one would rather learn of something that won't cost me as much if (when) something goes wrong.

 

[stuartv]

@stuartv my recommendation for not using the X-T10 has little to do with it not being capable, but more to not putting the OP's only camera at risk. Above ground, I shoot a full frame DSLR. I am very proficient with it. It stays at home nice and dry however when I do a dive trip. When I dive, I always use a camera that if there is an accident, I can afford (both financially and at a gut check level) to lose it. That is in no way to imply that I am complacent in my prep, but only that I believe firmly in redundancy and I won't expose the camera that I have a serious financial and time investment in to such a potentially hostile environment.

I for one would rather learn of something that won't cost me as much if (when) something goes wrong.

If I thought that the learning curve would change the risk level, I would use the same approach that you recommend. I.e. if I thought a novice u/w photographer was more likely to flood their camera, then I would say "start with something cheap". But, I don't feel like that is the case. It doesn't seem to me that the OP is any more likely to flood their camera today than 2 years from now.

So, it boils down (to me) to whether you want to use a really good camera (X-T10), or a somewhat decent camera (TG-4) for your u/w photos.

Rather than worry about flooding, I would suggest looking into the dive gear insurance you can get (extra cost) as a DAN membership benefit. IIRC, the OP could get insurance for his/her camera that would cover it being lost, stolen, or even ruined by flooding. Or even check your homeowners or renters insurance to see if it would cover it. My g/f is an insurance agent and I am often surprised at the things that are and are not covered.

 

[Skeptic14]

It doesn't seem to me that the OP is any more likely to flood their camera today than 2 years from now.

Idk, I think familiarity with uw housing, oring lubing and assembly and care are part of the learning curve and with practice will become more second nature.

I fogged my housing on first dive trip and caused a leak by not being careful enough with desiccant placement a few trips later until I got more familiar with assembly/prep before dives.

 

[KeithG]

If I thought that the learning curve would change the risk level, I would use the same approach that you recommend. I.e. if I thought a novice u/w photographer was more likely to flood their camera, then I would say "start with something cheap". But, I don't feel like that is the case. It doesn't seem to me that the OP is any more likely to flood their camera today than 2 years from now.

So, it boils down (to me) to whether you want to use a really good camera (X-T10), or a somewhat decent camera (TG-4) for your u/w photos.

Rather than worry about flooding, I would suggest looking into the dive gear insurance you can get (extra cost) as a DAN membership benefit. IIRC, the OP could get insurance for his/her camera that would cover it being lost, stolen, or even ruined by flooding. Or even check your homeowners or renters insurance to see if it would cover it. My g/f is an insurance agent and I am often surprised at the things that are and are not covered.

Agreed. Check your home owners insurance. Everything I own is covered. I do not require any special extra cost rider.

BUT: I still recommend that rookies start out with rookie gear just in case they discover that they hate it, or even worse, can not do it.

Way too many divers see great pictures and blindly assume that they have the ability to capture the same types of stunning images. Just because I can afford a Ferrari, does not mean that I can drive like Kimi.

 

[stuartv]

BUT: I still recommend that rookies start out with rookie gear just in case they discover that they hate it, or even worse, can not do it.

Right. But, that's why I suggested getting the Meikon housing for the camera he already has. It's cheaper than a TG4 or getting a different camera and housing. So, the least money spent if he decides he hates it or can't do it.

 

[KeithG]

Right. But, that's why I suggested getting the Meikon housing for the camera he already has. It's cheaper than a TG4 or getting a different camera and housing. So, the least money spent if he decides he hates it or can't do it.

Yep - go cheap!

BUT: If they screw something up...

Buy more cheap cameras, have more cheap fun!

I have land cameras and I have dive cameras. Never the twain shall meet. And I never travel with less than 3 cameras (these days my cell phone counts as 1, sigh...). On a recent non-diving trip I dragged along my elcheapo automatic tiny Canon P&S with dive housing. I proudly waved it about and took tons of random crappy shots in the pouring rain and sea spray as our zodiacs zoomed about. I believe I witnessed the silent death of several highend DSLRs that week...

 

[Hoag]

Rather than worry about flooding, I would suggest looking into the dive gear insurance you can get (extra cost) as a DAN membership benefit. IIRC, the OP could get insurance for his/her camera that would cover it being lost, stolen, or even ruined by flooding. Or even check your homeowners or renters insurance to see if it would cover it. My g/f is an insurance agent and I am often surprised at the things that are and are not covered.

You are missing (or possibly deliberately ignoring) my point. OK, let's say that additional insurance is purchased. This will cover the cost of replacement. Until the insurance gets around to issuing a check though, your only camera is destroyed. I try very hard to ensure that I have a "Plan B" available. For UWP, I leave my full frame DSLR and my "L Series" lenses nice and safe and I take a different camera underwater. If my housing floods and my A6000 is destroyed, I may not have a camera to take diving with me, but I still have a camera. I am not at the mercy of the insurance company's time table.

And, yes, I do believe that while someone is learning, they are more likely to make mistakes. I have flooded 2 cameras in rough;y 20 years of UWP. In one case, I know that the housing was sealed when I gave it to the boat crew to hand back to me once I got in the water, but it the transfer, a latch somehow got popped, and the camera (a Canon XTI) quickly flooded. I was not experienced enough to double check the latches/seal after the camera was handed back to me. I would rather learn that type of a lesson with a camera that is not my only camera. If my backup camera gets flooded or otherwise destroyed, I will still have a camera available to me.

Both of us have systems that work. Mine is perhaps a little more conservative, while yours is perhaps a little higher risk.

 

[stuartv]

You are missing (or possibly deliberately ignoring) my point.

I see your point. And yes, we do have different approaches. Your approach reminds me of some people I have met who, for example, might have a really nice car, but they won't use it for their (long) commute to work, and maybe not even use it on road trips, because they don't want to put the miles on it or expose it to the risk of getting caught in bad weather.

I'm definitely not saying there is anything wrong with that approach. I am just different. If I have something nice, I want to enjoy it and I will use it for its intended purpose. If I have a really nice car, that is definitely the car I want to spend many hours a week commuting in, or many hours of a road trip in. Otherwise, I wouldn't buy it.

If I have a nice camera and I can also afford a backup camera, that's cool and I might buy the backup camera and take it with me. Especially if it was something like going on an expensive trip and wanting to be sure I didn't miss any photo opportunities.

But, I would use the nice camera. If something happened to it, then I would switch to the backup. I would not use the backup as a way to ensure nothing happened to my good camera - except, of course, in unusual, exceptionally risky situations. E.g. if they were both rated to 130 feet and I was going to do a dive with a plan to hit 140 or 150, then I might bring the backup camera instead of the "good" camera. Otherwise, I'm using the good one. If it dies, it dies. It's only a thing (which can be replaced) and money. And that's what insurance is for.

ps. the link to my photo album that I posted earlier was the result of my first real effort at shooting underwater. I am very happy with some of those pictures and very glad I didn't elect to go with a not-as-good camera just because it was really my first time out. I read Martin Edge's book. I shot on full manual. I am very happy, overall, with the results. I know they are not world class photos or anything. But, I got 1 or 2 that I will print and frame and I am quite content to get that many that I like that well out of my first real effort.

 

[Hoag]

I see your point. And yes, we do have different approaches. Your approach reminds me of some people I have met who, for example, might have a really nice car, but they won't use it for their (long) commute to work, and maybe not even use it on road trips, because they don't want to put the miles on it or expose it to the risk of getting caught in bad weather.

FWIW, I dove my Porsche every chance I got & put a lot of miles (km) on it. When winter came, and the weather turned bad (as it will in Northern Ontario) however, I parked it and drove my other car for the winter.