After reading Rod Klein's review, it got me wondering. Having never flooded a housing before, he had two floods. He noted the speculative cause of the first one and didn't mention a cause for the second one. Makes we wonder.

Also, I would have liked a confirmation that all the electronic controls worked flawlessly for the duration of the four weeks of usage.

Now that you mention it George,

I noticed that Rod says the housing has both electrical and mechanical controls. But I don't see a control dial for the aperture or one for the shutterspeed - the two most important controls on the camera.

The two floods (!) made me think the port seal was not as foolproof as you'd like.

Guys,

Most housing floods are due to "pilot error" (not saying Rod's careless, as I've flooded a camera too) so it's not always the housing's "fault."

Cheers
James

True, but if the author has genuinely never had a flood before (and I have no reason to doubt the veracity of that statement), then has two floods with the same housing system in a relatively short period, to my mind it brings up the question:

Is there something about the design/implementation/components of this housing that increase the probability of operator error?

Are there things like really complex o-ring groove geometry, excessive torque necessary to close clasps (I played with a Titan d-100 at Cathy Church's recently, and found the clasps hard to get a handle on/counter intuitive), that sort of thing.

Good questions Criag - I don't know.

Wasn't there a guy at the DDI that had a TitanD100 named John? Perhaps he can jump in here as well w/ his thoughts.

Cheers
James

By Craig I know you meant both of us, James!

Good engineering is when you antipate problems and design your products to help prevent as many of them as possible. The best o-ring in the world isn't any good if users are inclined to break it frequently. That's what I mean by foolproof.

I'm not saying the Titan D100 has that problem; just that, like George, it made me wonder.

All floods are due to user error. If you didn't use it, you wouldn't have had an error.

It is the design that determines how easy it is to create a user error. "It was my fault because I failed to disassemble every control, clean, re-lube and reassemble while standing on one leg with my fingers of my left hand crossed behind my back and simultaneously closing all four latches of the housing."

Example 1: A case study in gradual school was the Firestone 721 steel belted radial tire. (Long before you dreamed of driving a car James) There were many reported failures, some causing deaths. Firestone said there was no design problem. Eventually the problem was discovered. The failures occurred when the tires were severely under inflated, as in under 27psi. A survey discovered that few people ever check their tire pressure. Design error or user error? The tires said inflate to 32psi.

Example 2: The Aquatica A90 had a really long ribbon cable to the hot shoe connector. This was quite handy if you wanted to shoot your Ike strobes on land. If I hadn't read about someone else flooding their housing by pinching their cable in the main o-ring, I would have done it myself on a couple of occassions. Thanks to someone else's error, I was saved from my own error.

If someone goes 0 for xx years, then goes 2 for 4 weeks, you've got to wonder. There was no adequate explanation in the review. As a matter of fact, the first flood was explained,

So, despite feeling the necessity to check the housing in the rinse tank prior to each dive (something that I never do), it still flooded again. No explanation on how the second flood occurred. Instead we get and

I would have liked to have seen sample shots from all the lenses that he said he used, especially various wide angle lenses with various extensions.

I would also like to see reviewers disclose their relationship with the gear manufacturer that they are reviewing. We know some reviewers are dealers. The casual reader might not know. Reviews by Stephen Frink for Seacam and Mauricio Handler for Aquatica, etc. should be accompanied by disclosure as dealer/distributers. Some professionals also have "relationships" that should also be disclosed.

In Rod's E20 Titan review, "If you want to get the best available digital camera and housing combination, in my opinion, the Light & Motion Titan is the way to go."

In this D100 Titan review, "With the Titan E20, I had always felt that the placement of the electronics was vulnerable to moisture or some other type of damage."

"the Titan E20 had some reliability problems found in many newly introduced products"

This is the first mention of E20 problems over a year after the initial review.

I've seen the Titan up close. I like it and hope it works perfectly. If I was certain it was reliable, I'd buy one myself and use it, despite being an Aquatica dealer. I'd hate to take it on a $6000 dive trip to Indonesia and have it fail. Nor do I want to carry a backup housing and camera. One down side is that if you mingle top side shooting with u/w shooting, constantly dismounting the ROC controller from your camera is a pain in the arse.

George, my disclosure: I am a Light & Motion Dealer, and I sell this housing. It is my recommendation as the best housing for the D100 to anyone who asks, and it is the housing I personally shoot.

I helped John Gordon determine the source of his flooding. He flooded his housing once on the Nekton, and once at the Digital Diver.net DDI in Florida.

We were able to recreate his housing's failure- a pinched o-ring, by intentionaly misaligning the backplate and rolling the latches. It was easily noticed when inspecting the seal, and should have been caught before diving. It was user error, as floods tend to be. I would have loved for the misalignment to be corrected by the latches, but it wouldn't have been fixed by any other latch system either.

I don't know Rod's problem.

I do agree with his opinion of latches. They are easy for me to operate, and roll applying even pressure to seal the o-ring. They are much easier, in my opinion, than the spring-loaded cam buckles used by Sea&Sea, Aquatica, and Ikelite. If someone had trouble operating the Light&Motion latch, I can see them having considerable difficulty with the Aquatica and Sea&Sea systems.

I would like to see a port/lens pool test done, and hope may do it myself in the future if necessary. I stand by my claim on other boards, and Rods in the review: This is a great line of ports. I've used it with Nikkor 16, Sigma 15, Sigma 14, and Nikkor 20. The only lens that wasn't as sharp as I'd have liked was the Sigma 14- not shown as supported by Light&Motion. Even then the softness was slight in the extreme corners.

The 60 & 105 offer both M/A shift, and MF on the port. They setup quickly, engage easily, and operate flawlessly.

This port system doesn't support the 200mm macro, or the 70-180. It may at some point, but these are niche lenses.

James, the front and rear command dials are reached through the ROC grips, electronicly controlling aperture and shutter speed. If you were to lose the electronics, you would lose these controls, as you were hinting at. As John and Rod have unfortunately discovered, the electronics can stand up to being flooded twice. That is testament enough for me.

Lastly, I don't quite understand this:

To remove the camera tray, you push a lever (the tray is spring loaded) to pop the tray out, the tray removes easily, then unscrew the tripod screw that holds the camera to the tray. Why is this a pain? If anything, removing the tray makes it easier to unscrew the tripod screw.

Does this "system" of two ports support a midrange zoom like the 24-85, 28-105 or 28-75? Does it support the 105mm plus a teleconverter? Of all the lenses listed, I only use one, yet I can list 4 lenses I use that it does not support. A whole lot of people will be unhappy with the choice of glass for the large dome. It is heavy and expensive and will be ruined if damaged, something that happens often enough with larger domes. I certainly don't agree that it is a great line of ports. I'd say it is a very incomplete line of ports. In contrast, Nexus offers 5 domes (both acrylic and glass), 5 dedicated flat ports, 8 extension lengths, and the outstanding multiport system that fully supports 5 different macro lenses and can be made to support others easily. All lenses Ryan listed plus all lenses I listed can be used with the Nexus port system using only one of the acrylic or glass domes plus the multiport system.

As far as I know, my Nexus back cannot be latched when misaligned so the problem can certainly be addressed though engineering and there's an existence proof of that. As far as the port flood, no analysis has been offered yet.

A failure of the electronics renders this system inoperable due to critical controls being electronic only. Since the controls James mentioned are both critical and easily supported mechanically, I view this as a poor design decision on LMI's part. Does LMI make the electronics available for purchase separately so that you can service the housing in the field?

I don't have any problem with the LMI latch though I like the Amphibico one better. The goal is to leave the housing closed as much as possible so latches are a secondary consideration for me. The fact you can't turn the D100 off in this housing is disturbing. I love the fact that I can go two days between battery changes with my Nexus. It only requires two latches as well.

I believe the issue with the tray is that it's bulky so you don't want to leave it on. I wouldn't want to damage it while shooting topside, either. Most trays are small enough that they don't get in the way. I prefer no tray since it makes mechanical control alignment more precise. It does make removing the camera more difficult, though.

How is the viewfinder on the Titan? As many know, the D100 does not have a large viewfinder and VF optics can be a differentiator for some people.

For anyone interested in spending this kind of money on a D100 housing, they should consider Nexus or Subal. Lee Peterson at Marine Camera Distributors (wetpixel sponsor) carries all three of these products and is someone you really should talk to about them. Seacam and Aquatica are equally worthy competitors. All four of these manufacturers have good reputations, long histories with SLR housings, and port systems far more complete and mature than the Titan.

Just like Jonah, LMI is new to the field of digital SLR housings. I think it was a wise move for them to start off moderately with an 8" dome and a simple flat port. They are moving from video housings with add-on optics to the E-20 housing, which also had add-on optics. Now they are having to grapple with the problem of port/lens combos, extension rings, zoom and focus gears, etc. The two "starter" ports offered will cover the two lenses that users MUST have - a fixed wideangle and a fixed macro. But I would not go as far as to call this a "great line of ports." They may be great ports - but they aren't a lineup yet.

LMI can build off of them by adding port extensions at a future date, to accomodate most, but not all lenses. I would have started with an acrylic dome, as they are lower cost, and like Craig points out, if you scratch one, you don't have to replace it.

I think from a purely business standpoint, LMI should put more work into designing and fabricating their own ports, as folks that have Subal or Nexus ports will probably just buy a Subal or Nexus housing (as Craig has vociferously stated :-)

The Aquatica housing also has lineup studs to help in closure, and it only has two latches as well. You can close the housing if it is misaligned, but it is pretty obvious by the gaping crack. I also don't see any way for the main o-ring on the Aquatica to pop out and get pinched, but I suppose it's possible.

Cheers
James

I agree. The two ports offered are the bare minimum. According to the LMI site, the 12-24 and the 17-35 are also supported. I'd like to see a midrange zoom and either the Sigma 180 or Nikon 200 added. A wider range of extensions would help fit unusual lenses along with a greater selection of focus rings. A 20mm and 25mm extension ring set would allow the use of 1.4x and 2.0x teleconverters (although the AF/MF switch would no longer work).

Just thought I'd add a few comments from a Titan/D100 user:

I have a Subal F100 housing, but went with the Titan and Subal adapter ring rather than a Subal for the D100. My primary reason was ergonomics and the accessibility of the ROC strobe control. I have small hands, and the F100 Subal housing is really a stretch for me to use with one hand. I really don't see any issue about the port lineup. The adapters are very easy to install, and give alot of flexibility about ports to users like me. That said, there were moments where I wished I gotten the Subal! (see electronics problems, below)

I also have a Subeye camera and originally used a Nikon RS, so the viewfinder is extremely important to me. As I didn't have all the housings to compare, I had to rely on reviews and opinions of folks I consider knowledgable. The feedback that I got was that the Subal and Titan viewfinders are comparable, and both are larger than the Nexus. I still find the Titan viewfinder woefully inadequate, as I am used to a big and bright viewfinder (even the Subal F100 viewfinder is too small for my liking). I was unwilling to invest in a Seacam for my first digital setup, as I felt I wouldn't have it long (which will likely be true). However, my next setup will probably be a Seacam. I use primarily manual focus, and I can't stand tiny viewfinders.

I don't like not being able to turn off the camera in the housing. But I haven't had any troubles with the latch system or alignment of the back. It feels foolproof to me, but obviously it isn't if others are having problems.

There are replacement electronics available for field replacement.

The ROC tray is definitely larger than my F100 Subal tray, and since the alignment of the electronics is critical, I don't like taking the tray off for topside use. This is an issue for me as I don't care to leave any tray on my cameras while using topside. But overall, I do prefer trays for housings. Granted, the Subal F100 housing has very precise mechanical controls and gear alignment, so I haven't found any need to have room for adjustment there.

Now, do I *like* my Titan D100? As I mentioned, the viewfinder is an issue for me, but there are very few better alternatives (Eric's new rig would be, if I could stand to lug something that size around...). I have had a few problems with the electronics (needed board replacement initially, and a couple of problems with buttons working afterwards). Currently, it appears to be working. It's a heavy and large rig compared especially to my Subeye and even my Subal F100 setup. I'm also still getting used to all the postprocessing I have to do. I have a batch loader for my slide scanner, and precise color management set up, so I have to do very little to my slide scans. It seems to be much more work to get the color accurate on my digital images (I shoot RAW). A friend with a 10D feels his out of camera color (also RAW) is better. Perhaps the S2 color would be more to my liking. Still hard to compare with Velvia. Oh, but having the ROC strobe control is great.

Anyway, the jury for me is still out. I'll keep using it and watch for something more acceptable (for *my* criteria) to come along. I think for now it is a perfectly fine training wheels setup for me.

Is it possible to use a DTTL (e.g. SB80DX) strobe with the Titan?

I think the ROC system looks very easy to use and saves the photographer the effort of reaching up and changing the strobe power on the guns. However, there are times (skittish macro and behaviour subjects) when I prefer to have TTL(DTTL) instead of manual strobes with the D100 - to get the shot when you only have one chance.

It is not clear to me whether the ROC system can be over ridden to allow a DTTL gun to be used.

Alex

Plus I think it looked much cooler in black than in silver.

Alex, there is no way to circumvent the ROC system to allow the camera to control D-TTL strobes directly. ROC controls the strobes using TTL and takes over any camera control. I agree about wishing for real TTL/D-TTL for those brief encounters where you don't have time for strobe adjustments and the exposure may be tricky. It would be nice if LMI incorporated the capability to choose.

The other thing that frustrates me during special encounters is the D100 limit of 4 RAW images in the buffer, along with the slow write speed. I'd love to have a bigger buffer or at the least one like the S2 that accomodates 7 images of any format. My solution is to switch to JPG, but I hate messing with the menus underwater, and sometimes you just don't have time to switch, or you'll miss the shots altogether. I like RAW for the flexibility it gives me to choose white balance later. I don't know how many times I have sat there with something special in the viewfinder, and half shutter presses just get me "r00".

Make sure that you are shooting uncompressed RAW files. They store VERY quickly. In fact, if I ask for a full dump from my YS120s, the strobe recycle takes longer than storing the file. I have NEVER outrun the buffer unless I outran the strobe recycle.

Get slower strobes!

Kasey, thank you!!! I've had it set on compressed all this time, as apparently it's the default for RAW. I just went and checked it, had never even thought they'd make compressed the default...

I used to have the YS-120 strobes as well, and changed to Ike strobes in large part because of the improved recycle time . Was not fun to start shooting digital only to have much longer wait times! This should help alot, not to mention prevent me from losing so many topside photos because I turned the camera off while it was still writing to the card .

I owe you a beer if I'm ever on a boat with you!

Hey Kasey,

Hows vacation, are you back yet. I have your Sea & Sea YS-90 back from service. Can't wait to see your latest images from the far east.

Doug

delete

see new post

moved to new thread

Wow, how about board management, a reply is moved to a new topic, then the thread is closed. That will be easy to follow in future searches, etc.

I gotta' hand it to you Craig and James.

Since I can't follow up what Rod posted in the thread he was moved to, I'll have to do it here.

This is the first Light & Motion SLR, housing, it won't be the last. Do you honestly think Nexus, Aquatica, and Subal (my opinion, the widest port lines in the industry) built their line overnight? I don't.

I know they listened to feedback from users, and built the ports that were needed as they were needed.

What makes you think Light & Motion won't do the same? They've started with a line of great ports, that supports 99% of D100 user's port desires. These ports are built spared no expense (If you want prices you can download them off of the Light&Motion website Craig). By this, they are engineered for the lens (how many other manufacturers built a new extension ring for the 12-24?), and are full featured. I don't expect a midrange zoom until the 17-55, and the 10.5 is a challege with the current shade, but a fisheye port may be on the way as well. That leaves the 200 mm, which can be handled with existing extension rings, but a/m is lost. I haven't tested a 70-180, but personally see no need to support a discontinued lens with less than ideal reproduction ratio and max aperture.

The electronics will prove themselves. Rod is exatly right, the most reliable control at them moment is a mechanical control. I think the future will unveil a shift, with electronic control's reliability surpassing mechanical. An electronic control won't misalign with pressure, isn't succeptible to corrosion, can be placed in the most ergonomic orientation for the user, and won't flood a housing.

Hi Gang,

I thought breaking off the thread was a smart move on Craig's part. It had split into a commercial discussion of whether the reviewer is qualified or should even be writing the review in the first place. It was no longer about the product being discussed. Once "both sides of the fence" had a chance to reply to that, I closed it - that seems fair and pretty straightforward to me. And I think that most of the members here would support that decision. Folks, if you don't agree, please let us know in the feedback forum.

Ryan said:



This thread is still open for the relevant part of the discussion of the pros and cons of the housing and we appreciate your feedback as a TitanD100 user Ryan.

Cheers
James

Light and Motion will be a great dSLR housing mfr in time. The Titan D100 has resolved the handle issues that plagued the Titan E20, and I'm sure their line of domes and ports will grow quickly. It'll be interesting to see whether they house the E1 - a controversial camera but LMI has always housed Olympus. I'm glad to see them shift to Nikon.

Back to the flood issue, Subal, Aquatica and Seacam have all modified their port systems in the last 5-10 years. I suspect that LMI's may call for some improvements down the road. But if John's rear door was the source of the leak, I can certainly say that LMI's door latches are fantastic.

Gee wiz, I wasn't trying to start a flame war. I have no axe to grind with L&M, Rod or the Titan housing. I would love for it to be a startling success. The issues I noted were:

1) All reviews should include full disclosures. This includes me, Ryan, Stephen Frink (in case anyone didn't know he was the Seacam distributor), Mauricio.

2) There were two floods, how and why? This is information a potential purchaser and user would like to know.

3) I thought a synopsis of lenses supported and ports would be helpful to the review. Again, not as criticism, but as a conveyance of information. E.g. is there a setup that works well for the popular 12-24mm. If not, is one expected. Heck, we talk about it all the time; what works with Ikelite or the new Jonah, etc.

I don't believe any of these points are part of a bashing conspiracy.

I just think that LMI should actually do that before anyone declare their line of ports to be so great. Fact is, LMI's competition has complete port lines and LMI does not. LMI doesn't support 99% of this user's port desires. Anyone out there with 100 lenses they want to use and 99 of them work in LMI ports? Gross exxagerations like that are at the heart of the problem. Why can't LMI fans just state things as they are?

As for the other points, there was the suggestion that bundling the diopter was proof that LMI has "really did their homework on their optics." That's absurd. It means they bundled a diopter. It's not like diopters are mystery parts or that no one else bundles any. I wondered how big a markup LMI was getting on that bundle.

A few other points. The 70-180 is rumored discontinued but I don't know of any confirmation. Do you know different? In any event, its ultimate magnfication is quite good (1.5:1.33) on the D100 and it's plenty fast enough to focus with. I doubt you've used it, Ryan, because you wouldn't talk of it being deficient if you had. It is a great lens.

LMI can't house the 200mm well or the 105mm with teleconverters, so high magnifcations are out. I suppose you could use Aquatica ports, but why not just use Aquatica?

The fact that the 70-180, the 200, and the 105+tele aren't supported means that not one macro lens setup I want to use is supported by the LMI port range.

Electronic controls will be subject to corrosion.

I suppose you could use Aquatica ports, but why not just use Aquatica?

Because the finish quality is far superior, the LMI is very responsive, and the Titan is 1/2 the size and feels better in the hands. Not to mention the ROC control.





Electronic controls will be subject to corrosion.

In 3 years, 2 electronic LMI housings, and 400-500 dives, I've never had a corrosion issue with my LMI housings, and the new circuit boards are coated and sealed from moisture - mine were not. That is not to say that I haven't had an electronic problem here or there, but never caused by corrosion.

On the flip side, in less than 2 months and 50 dives, each of my manual A100 housings developed corrosion on the flash mode control rod. It was severe enough, in both cases, that I damaged the outer oring using the control. The idea of fewer pistons through the housing appeals to me greatly.

I'm very much on the fence in the electronic vs manual debate. I think that when mechanical controls are well executed, as in the Subal-Nexus-Seacam housings, they may be more reliable. But I think that the electronic controls are not far behind, and they are optimal as long as they are functioning correctly. The big drawback is that you won't be finding quick solutions in the field like you might with a manual housing.

Not a Light and Motion fanatic, in particular, just offering my experience with their equipment service. I look forward with great interest to see how their dSLR housings mature.

Hi Gang,

with interest I followed the review (thanxx Rod!). I do not know if I got it right, but as far as I understood there are almost all D100 controls available through a wire and only few mechnanical controls left.

Maybe this is a new era of housings? So far I have seen this approach with video housings. But when I discussed this with Eric in Antibes he told me that they have the advantage of a universal remote control protocol which does not exist for DSLRs so far.

So how did L&M make this work? Reverse engineering? I think it's very time consuming. But the result is a quantum leap in housing ergonomics.

Maybe Rod can give some more words on which controls are electronically available and if he sees a chance for this with other camera modells too.

thanks, Andi

My point with electronic controls and corrosion is that the buttons that provide the control are still mechanical and still exposed. In addition, the electronic contacts are subject to corrosion. I'd didn't say those problems couldn't be solved, but Ryan said "An electronic control ... isn't succeptible to corrosion..." and that's just not true. They are equally, if not more, susceptible.

I'd like to mention that the Titan has electronics in more than one place. It has them inside the housing but also inside each grip. If you think the grips won't fail, you are wrong. I've personally had LMI grip electronics failures along with tray failures and monitor failures. In fact, in all the years I've owned housings (over 10) I've only lost LMI housings on trips and that's happened 4 or 5 times. No other manufacturer has let me down. Every LMI product I've owned with electronics in it has failed on me, some multiple times, and I've owned 5 counting lights and monitors. I don't count my Sunray since it hasn't made a trip yet. I have seen them fail, though, and there are reports in the forums.

I'm a big fan of electronic controls, just not LMI ones. I think LMI's machine work is very fine. It's a shame they lack the commitment or understanding necessary to make their electronics bulletproof since they would make fine products otherwise. It would take a history of success as long as their history of failure to convince me otherwise and they haven't started yet.

I have 2 sunrays and they have both failed mysteriously at least once. When they are working, they are the best modeling lights I've ever used. Therefore, I've purchased a backup to keep me going. I guess the downside to electronic stuff is that it is expensive to back up.

On another note, I seem to remember that the pistons and buttons on the LMI handles are plastic, therefore not succeptible to corrosion. I had to take mine apart frequently on my Titan because the orings would dry out and the buttons got sticky. Again, a carryover from their video systems that had unforseeable problems on the dSLR housing. The shutter button on a dSLR gets pressed far more frequently than the rec button on a video housing. Easy remedy once I figured out what was going on.

Also, the handles have redundancy if they are like the video handles the controls can be switched. ie if the right handle fails, its functions can be served by the left handle by holding 2 buttons down simultaneously. This was the case with my Mako, and hopefully with the Titan.

I'm very much on the fence about which is better - mechanical or electric. It is certainly nice to be able to slide the camera in the housing without worrying that ever control is in the right position, and the potential for upgradeable housings may lie in electronic controls. If LMI developed a slightly larger housing (the D100 fits the Titan perfectly), you might be able to slide anything from a D1x to a 300D in the same box with different mounting trays and circuit boards. How cool would that be!!!

Please re read the review. the section on flooding was to demonstrate the quality of the electronics and L&M committment to this area.

To repeat: Both Floods Were User Error!!!! Not one problem since.

Control questions are answered in links below.

for more info go to Titan Housing Webpage

Titan Tech info PDF


Rod Klein

Kasey, I don't disagree with you on the corrosion issue. It's just that electronic controls have corrosion issues to deal with just like mechanical ones do. You could makes shafts and bushings out of non-corrosive materials, for example, like the buttons apparently are. Electrical contacts are inherently vulnerable to corrosion and only half of them are under LMI's control. I've personally never considered corrosion a serious mechanical problem. It's never hurt me on any mechanical control but it bites me frequently with my electrical connectors.

I bought the very first Mako housing and received it the day before the trip. When I got it out to use it, one of the two grips was dead. During the trip the other grip died. So much for redundancy. On the third dive, the mechanical on-off switch, made of plastic, literally shattered inside the housing. It was a part required to flex when the camera was inserted/removed and it was not made of an appropriate material. That's three failures on one trip.

When I got back, I found that the broken part was replaced by a different, more flexible one. I also found out that the grips had a tendency to self-activate and run their batteries down. All these things could be resolved permanently, but that should have been the case before they began shipping.

I have plenty of more serious problems I could describe about repeated LMI failures and products of defective design that they continued to ship, some apparently to this day. None of them are relevant to the Titan but they call into question LMI's commitment (or ability) to fix engineering mistakes with regards to electronics. I've heard from some that LMI's problem is quality control, not design, and that they blame their suppliers, but how many years must customers suffer while LMI fails to fix it?

I recently purchased the Sunray modlight in spite of my aversion to LMI products. It's too great a modeling light to pass up. I do expect problems with them and will soon buy a 2nd one like you have done. Everything is a compomise, and a sunray modlight regardless of reliability is still the best modlight available, just as you say.

I think LMI is a company with good ideas and one that does excellent machine work. It's too bad they've consistently failed to correct their electrical issues on so many products over so long a period of time. I agree that the LMI D100 control setup is appealing and I'd be tempted if it came from anyone else.

I was considering an LM Titan D100 housing, but now I am backing off for two main reasons.

1. Cannot bypass the ROC for TTL when it becomes available. Thus I am forced to shoot only manual ROC mode and not have the flexibility of both options, manual ROC or manual operator control (when that option arises). Consequently, I will either have to pay for a serious future upgrade to the already 3k housing assuming that upgrade becomes available, or sell it and buy another housing.

2. If ROC fails, there is no "electronics bypass" or hard connect feature to switch to full manual control (kinda like the Nik V shooting in M90). I am not wanting to invest in backup electronics on top of the housing cost. To me that is anticipating failure, although going overseas, it may be a good idea.

L&M needs to make some major changes to that housing to be more accomodating to the user. Ie.. manual aperture and shutter speed option, strobe back-up options etc, so we are not relying solely on sensitive electronics. Electronics and seawater just don't mix, so you'd think backup options would be part of the design.

Just my opinion, of course.

Joe

Hi Guys
I have been shooting the Titan since June/July 03 and have had an awesome time with it.How many dives you may ask?,3 to 4 dives a day on the Belize Aggressor up until october so lets say thats 300 dives and its been working great for me.

Lets be fair to Rod ,when he is on an Aggressor he is teaching guests and so often has 6 to 8 other housings to take care of as well as his own,so life can be fairly hectic.I can say this as I have worked along side him.

I have flooded other housings before and its always because I was in a rush to get in the water and made a mistake, ask any photgrapher who works on a liveaboard its hardly ever the equipment,its the user.

No I'm not a Light and Motion dealer,but they put out a fine product.

Steve

May I wade in by first stating that I am the Seacam dealer for the UK and Ireland. I also buy and sell used housings! This gives me a very interesting picture of what happens to them. I have no experience of the Titan, but the following may be of interest.

Most floods are due, in my experience, to user error. Sometimes this is due to the design of the housing which allows users to make assembly mistakes, but being brutally honest about it, my experience is that most could be avoided by the user taking more care in maintaining and assembling the housing.

I have found that many (I mean this) floods have been caused by things getting trapped in the main ‘O’ ring seal – especially lanyards (on one occasion made out of a bootlace!). I find this baffling, but it happens. I recommend anyone new to underwater photography to try their housing several times without the camera in it. This ensures that they can assemble and seal it correctly.

Despite this floods occur and in every case to date, where I have supplied the housing, they have been due to user error – reassembly and retesting has shown no problem. Experienced users of housings can have problems as I have seen people take ‘calculated’ risks in a hurry, assembling the housing quickly and not re-lubricating ‘O’ rings in order to get in the water for a shot. Most of the time they seem to get away with it, but not always.

It is clearly not an ideal situation to have a housing design which predisposes it towards a potential flood. But given the low volume of sales and the difficulties of designing housings, I believe that most designs will have compromises somewhere, and the extensive long-term testing will inevitably be carried out by their users.

I would go as far as to say that dealing with minor inadequacies is a part and parcel of owning such equipment and with the rapidly changing digital cameras I suspect that this is likely to remain the case. As an example of what I mean, take Subals screw down clamps. Now replaced by a far more elegant latch system, the screw downs worked fine, provided the user used them correctly and as Subal recommended. I used these type of Subal housings for 8 years and had one flood – due to impact damage which dislodged a port – hardly a design problem!

On this note it is worth my while stating that longevity (perhaps not such an issue with digital housings) is another aspect of design which is difficult to assess. My own experience is that Seacam (no not bias, just fact) and Subal are the housings I find easiest to work on and service. These two manufacturers produce equipment which suffers little corrosion and for which I find spares easy to obtain. I wish I could say the same for all manufacturers, but it simply wouldn’t be correct. (No doubt this statement will arouse comment, but be aware that I am referring to the UK situation!).

In response to the requests for allegiances and loyalties to be disclosed, I have recently switched to using a Fuji S2Pro in a Seacam housing. I do not use equipment I am not wholly satisfied with, and certainly don’t sell it. Since I got this housing it has performed flawlessly and I have no complaints about it. And I will add the 45 degree finder (when money permits and I’ve sold off my own 35mm gear) which will address the small viewfinder image problem. My choice of this housing was made because it and the camera fulfilled my requirements and I am satisfied that it does just what I expected. Having used the S2Pro above water since it became available, there are areas in its design which I would like to see addressed, but for me it was the best choice of the cameras currently available. Although I also use a D1X I felt that the straightforward conventional ttl on the S2 was a real advantage for macro work.

BTW, on a recent trip on the Cayman Aggressor, there were m 4 digitl housings: 2 Titans, 1 Nexus, and 1 Tetra. The only housing to flood was the NEXUS D100 and it a happened twice!!!

So it only goes to show that it can really happen to anyone, anytime and all fuss with my review and the flooding situation is a non issue. I have been using this housing continually since July and it has been flawless.

Just a thought on LM products. I know two professional videographers. One uses a LM housing and has used several in the past. Swears by them. It is not uncommon when we are on a dive boat to see him working on his electronics. It seems as though it it quite common that the lights won't work or some part on the electronic controls won't work. He always gets them working and he loves the housings.

The other's gear gets hard use and you would say not religious maintenance. He started with LM housings (several of them) and swears AT them. He now uses the totally mechanical gates housing and never has a problem no matter how much he abuses it. He insists you should never buy anything else. And he doesn't have a lot of money to spend on housings. Says you will always get the shot with a Gates.

Only peripherally related to the LM D100 housing but just the thoughts of two professionals on electronic controls.

Hi everyone,

Lars & I were able to take a closer look at the Light and Motion Tetra housing on
the BOOT expo in Düsseldorf, Germany. We were impressed by the smooth and
elegant design. The electronic control approach is something that offers you
completely new ergonomic opportunities.

The finishing looks clean and sturdy. Our impression was that it really plays in
the upper class of underwater housings among Seacam but with another
technical approach.

offtopic: You can read more in our Boot expo review which is still under
construction but available here....

http://www.digideep.com/articles.php?id=7

Ah yes, the wrong one. Look forward to your opinion after a few trips with a Tetra/Titan.

Your BOOT coverage was interesting. Looks like Subtronic is doing the same kind of thing Aquatica is with their strobe signal decoding.

Nice to see Uwe at UK still exists. I've had emails in to him for over a month now without a response.

[quote=craig,Jan 21 2004, 02:09 PM] [quote=andi,Jan 21 2004, 02:10 AM]Ah yes, the wrong one.  :rolleyes: [/quote]
Huh, I am afraid I could not quite follow you...
What did you mean by "the wrong one" ?!?!?

The report is not finished yet. It still contains
a lot of spelling mistakes and is missing
several yet unwritten parts. Please have some
patience and revisit during the next 48 hours.

Andi

"The wrong one" refers to "another technical approach".

Hi Andi,

I am really enjoying the ever expanding report from Boot on Digideep. I had hoped to get there - but now I don't need to!

The new digital Subtronics look nice. I am curious if there are any 35mm camera housing there? I would like to know whether the manufacturers are still making 35mm housings - it seems that just about everything is digital these days! It is such an amazing change in just a few months.

Alex