Check this out:

http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewI...3875355672&rd=1

$862 for a full Sea and Sea NX100 setup, INCLUDING fisheye dome and macro focus port... un-freaking-believable...

Cheers
James

James,

I'm surprised YOU'RE surprised! I've been beating this drum (along with Jim Watt, Eric and others) for 3+ years......

I still see the occasional Nikonos RS system or 15mm Nikonos lense garner some decent $$$$ But I've also quit helping my NEW digital equipment customers sell their film gear as it's too painful.....For them.....

I predict some folks will buy housings for ports and other parts in the next few years at continually plummeting prices.....

Once a photographer (and especially an underwater one!) sees their images pop up on the magic window it's all over...You can take any decent sized file in for prints tons of places for low cost. Or print in your own home on a high quality / low cost inkjet printer.

Digital rules!

David Haas
Ikelite dealer
www.pbase.com/dhaas

That's why I am keeping my NX100 as an antique. $863 is less than the two ports if new, why bother?

Well shoot, if I was going to get into a Sea and Sea digital system, I would have bought this fellow's housing, kept the port, and sold the rest.

It's a small world though - the fellow that won this NX100 is the same guy that bought my 105mm extension ring when I sold my Nikon gear...

Cheers
James

Yep, it's a sad world to still be in.

I sold my NX-100 for $560 (housing only) having bought it for $1100 less than a year previously. The seller of the system linked above would have done much better by parting the system out.

You still see people list NX-100s and port systems with reserves and starting prices of $3K, obviously believing that they should get back ~50% of the $6K or so they spent on the system, but they never get a bid.

I know a guy in the UK who chucked more than 10 Nikonos V bodies in the bin because it wasn't worth his while to repair them.

I think older DSLRs and housings may begin to suffer the same fate. All underwater cameras seem to be disposables these days.

Alex

Subal doesnt even sell non-digital housings anymore. Luckily we found an F100 housing real cheap on the used market

Cor

S&S nx100 and F100 body just sold for $710 on ebay...I think it is time for me to go digital

That's why I won't even try to sell mine, for that kinda price I'd rather keep it as an emergency backup.

It's going to be the same for the D100 era, or already is. As digital quality improves and becomes more and more affordable, those of us who paid $1500 for a D100 might be lucky to get $300 for it this time next year...maybe a year later. Look at all the people dumping their D100's and housings for the next best thing. It becomes a commodity item in relative terms...ther'll be a lot of them on the market soon, and $3000 housings for $750.

Joe

Yep, I agree, just like I paid 1900 for a XT computer (remember that, before 286?). And 2000 for my first Pentium 133mhz, etc.

Alex

Is that related to the water in the housing syndrome

Cheers
Rob

I just bought in a Subal F100 outfit for an embarrasingly small sum - essentially for the Inon220 with it. Its very sad but I can now put my old F100 into it and it may look good on the mantelpiece (along with 3 other Subals). If you think that this is bad, I recently removed the flash connectors from one (near mint) Subal (Canon EOS50) housing because I figured that they were worth more than the housing!

And I have a friend's Nik III and late 15mm lens for sale (as a favour) which need a service and for which there has been no interest for 18 months.

Film may not be dead but in the underwater arena its doing an extremely good impression of it at the moment.

You know i will never consider giving up my Nik V and 15mm lens. It is the single most amazing piece of glass for underwater. The DOF of is and the sharpness around the edges is incredible and just can't be replicated by a housing.

And there are just so many uses for the manual focus lens. So many times feeding different creatures off the back of a boat i just put it on min focus and hold the thing underwater and snap away when said creature gets close, no focus problems ever. Same thing for extremely fast stuff, the fact you don't need to use autofocus when composing could mean the difference between getting the shot and not.

I use it still and will never, ever give it up.
Sure, digital has huge advantages in different areas but in certain situations the 15mm lens just can't be beat by anything.

I would like to hear if Steve Frink is still using his Nik V's as well as his digital stuff, last time i saw him he was but that was two years ago so could have changed. There are very few people more prolific in underwater media (if any) than Steve.

Sure film can be a pain in the butt these days for such things as decent E6 processing but it is not all that hard to digitize the capture afterwords.

Me? keeping the Nik V and 15 and still using it and am pround to say it! (In fact i can lean over and touch it right now if i wanted to...)
Mike

No comments to add. I just wanted to put this up in a quote box!

Alex

Alex, didn't i just read in one of these threads that you were out shooting your Hasselblad the other day??!!

Out of interest, we (the Northern Underwater Photography Group in the UK) held our annual Splash-In a week ago. the ratio of digital to film was 50/50 and images held up well from each. The SLRs made a better showing than either 'wet' film cameras or compact digitals, and the (close) winner was shot on film. In the print competition digital won in the temperate section but film won the tropical (less entries though). And this in only the second year in which digital has been accepted. Given people's constraints in changing expensive systems over, this indicates to me that the future is very much digital.

If you are happy using film, now is the time to buy - there are some real bargains to be had which are capable of extremely high quality results (which many tend to foget).

The phrase which Alex kindly quoted refers to the sales of digital versus film - some photographic dealers have gone out of business in the UK and its likely that more will follow through reading the changing market wrongly.

At present I have in my safe the following:
Hasselblad 500C
Hasselblad ELM
5 Magazines
NC2 Prism
Polaroid Back
The following Hasselbald lenses: 40,60,80,120,250mm.
Numerous other Hasselblad accessories
Nikon F2 Photomic with 24 and 85mm original lenses
Nikonos V with 15mm
Nikon F801S
Nikon F90
Nikon F90X
The following Nikon AF lenses: 20,28,50,85,105mm macro
Nexus N90 with dome
Sea & Sea N90 with flat port and dome

In my case packed for travelling:
2 Fuji S2 Pro
The following lenses: 12-24, 35-105mm
Subal

So, any offers for the entire contents of my safe?

John, all that gear and no cash?

A month ago I missed out on a Subal housing for the N90. It came with a dome and a flat port. The selling price was $250. Just the ports would have made it worthwhile.

Still, even during pre-eBay days there were good deals. 5 years ago I bought my Aquatica 80 housing used for $200. It came with a scratched 6" dome port and a macro port w/ extension. I already had another dome port from my aqualens. I UPS'd everything to Underwater PhotoTech for serviceand a week later I was on my way to the Keys.

There was a fascinating thread on robgalbraith.com - "what do you miss about film?".

My resonse was (and I stand by it) absolutely nothing!

Athough I know that housed film cameras are very capable (I have 2 fully operational ones) the bottom line is that I have no intention of using them. Digital is just SO elegant with its instant feedback and confirmation of a viable photographic result. What the next few years will bring is anyone's guess, but we do live in exciting times.

Back to the subject - I reckon older housings could easily be fitted with a clock face inside the port ........ it has been done with Nikonos already I believe. And yes Alex, I too have heard stories of repairable old Nikonos cameras being skipped!

Sold my Horseman LS and Zone VI 4x5 with 65mm, 90mm, 210mm and 300mm including pola back, 6x7 & 6x9 roll film back bag bellow tripod and kitchen sink for 2000.00$ Canadian, and was happy I could get that much, same for Mamya RB67 and 6 lens for 3000.00 $ I was so depress at the low price I got, that I drank a good chunk of the money I got , I have a pair of matching book end N90s and a f100 paper weight. Yeah film is dead, the only thing I miss is the tilt and shift of my view camera. large format is still awesome, but my customers dont care for it anymore. He who dwell in the past... Now to get sober and buy the digital flavor of the month, I love the techo, but not the life expectency of it.

Cheers

A nice Hi-8 video setup makes a pretty effective boat anchor, too.

Just because they are cheap doesn't mean that film is dead! Prices are driven by market demand - which is driven by volume. Hence, amateurs and recreational users are who really drive pricing. Clearly, for those users, film is dead. There are A LOT of pros that have yet to make the switch, and many have no interest in doing so.

The more the prices crash the better for me - I bought a Kodak slide projector last week for $61! Now, what would it cost me to present my digital images with the same quality?

For me and many others, I don't think that film will ever be replaced. I love spending a day diving without having many hours of computer work to enjoy my productivity. There is also something concrete about transparencies - noone asks how it was manipulated, or suggests photoshop. This is the way the light hit my film...

For traveling, I like digital because it gives me the security that I got the shot. For local (frequent) diving, film is tough to beat! YMMV

...and just as I made up my mind to abandon film I get a call from someone who has just come back from a very remote island in West Papua. I am going there in September.
He told me the is only intermittent electricity but he took a pile of CF cards and a ton of batteries and managed all right. IGb CF equates to 2 rolls 35mm but costs a lot more. Sounds like a place where I might be better of using film.

Funnily enough i just had one of our new guests ask me not 10 minutes ago if i offered E6 processing, sorry no i don't its too expensive to ship chemicals etc when things will go to waste due to lack of demand because everyone shoots digital these days...
Needless to say she was not happy about that and is worried about getting correct exposures...

Personally i have to keep my exposed rolls of film sitting on the shelf until i go to Palau so that i can get them processed, but i have shot so much that i am not all that worried about exposure so i am lucky in that regard.

Believe me, a lot easier to clip off a Nik V and 15mm with no strobes to my BC when i have the video camera than it is trying to strap off the housed system with an 8 inch dome port! (That way i can get both stills and video when things are going off) And don't tell me i can get images that my agency will accept with the latest little P&S in a small housing that can replace my Nik V, not buying that idea!

Mike

ps John i'll offer you $10 for your 15mm lens from your safe if you cover the cost of shipping!

We live in a throwaway world - not just in underwater photography.

As a rule, secondhand kit rarely realises more than half its original purchase price. That is because of the price a dealer can buy a new one for from distributor or manufacturer. People are unrealistic. They think their stuff is worth something as in an investment but in fact they did not invest. They spent their cash!
Buy it because you want it. Once you take an accountants look at the situation you understand what capricious lives we lead.

However, when I tried to bid on any of the S2 Pro on eBay I got nowhere. I bought one from a dealer (with a guarantee) for a lot less than the eBay prices. eBay seems to give people buy buy buy fever!

Half new price? I reckon that film housings are now down to as little as 10% of new prices!

But ebay fever is a strange phenomenon. I too have watched buyers bid more for an unseen housing than they could have bought a serviced and warranted one for from a dealer.

Paul, I meant anything. A car, a washing-machine a computer. Buy it and within a moment it is worth less than half what you paid for it.

Once a thing gets to be obsolete, yes then it is worth nothing. I remember well putting a Hi8 camera and housing out for the garbage collector. I still bear the scars from when I sold my 10x8 Sinar and its lenses back in 1990! I still have the Polaroid back and processor somewhere in a garage.

However, the 2k spots, also in that garage, which were obsolete then might now be worth something to a digital photographer.

I made the switch to digital several years ago, so I am permanently on the dark side But as Im reading this thread, my wife is using a CoolScan 9000 ED next to me scanning some of her slides, and I again know what I am missing. The brilliant colors, the sharpness, the crispness, the huge potential of a 4000 dpi scanned slide. Sure, slides are on its last legs, but those legs are mighty pretty..

What we see when we are on a trip together (4-5 times a year), is that I (with my D100) get a lot more keepers, but her keepers, although much smaller in number, are so much prettier. Once you nailed it with a slide, its just plain amazing. Traveling together with digital and slide is really the best

And like Kasey said, the cheaper the non-digital stuff becomes, the better for her. She bought a Jobo developer for next to nothing, an F100 Subal housing for a very good price, and i think she's eying a nice scanner (the coolscan isnt ours).

Cor

I totally agree, i am taking a lot more photos now, which obviously results in more keepers and more bracketing in composition, lighting techniques etc., the macro is especially benefitting from this
However, just can't get the colour pop, saturation, and crispness when it comes to WA that shows up on film. This could be due entirely to me and lack of processing skills, but the Dig just looks Matte whereas slides look Glossy (to use a metaphor)
But, as i also digitize my slides for everything, they always end up looking somewhat matte as well in the end. Must be me...Have got to hire my own art director i think!

What is going to eventually kill slides is not digital cameras per se. There is a large enough niche for slides to survive. If it weren't for one small problem. Places like Mike's, but he's in no way alone in this, stop developing slides. I think my wife will move to digital as soon as too many places will not even develop a few rolls anymore, just to make sure nothing is going bad in an unexpected way.

It's a spiral that seems to be unstoppable. Slides become too expensive and cumbersome to develop, so places stop developing, so photographers have to face a tough choice. Take the risk, or take a digital camera..

Cor

Quote: "The brilliant colors, the sharpness, the crispness, the huge potential of a 4000 dpi scanned slide. Sure, slides are on its last legs, but those legs are mighty pretty."

I've just had a 30" x 20" glossy print made on Fuji Archiva paper from an interpolated 110Mb file off a wide-angle underwater shot. Whilst it shows up optical problems (common to film and digital), the print is saturated, punchy, very sharp and to be blunt, a lot better than I could have produced from 35mm. But perhaps what really elevates it from film is the cleanness of the image - there is no grain to distract the viewer. I would say though, that I do adjust my files increasing contrast and saturation to produce a more Velvia-like impression. Perhaps Alex would comment on the files he produces?

I had a discussion with a photographer the other day. He reckoned that some photolibraries are happier with film - problem is that none of my professional stock photographer friends are shooting film! If he's right then expect to see more agencies and libraries go out of business.

Don't get me wrong, I think that if you are into film then now is a great time to buy. But in terms of the thread, film housings are only sellable at minimum prices, and not easily saleable even then.

We put about 20 rolls through the Hasselblad during the shoot last week. Pain in the arse getting out the water that many times, taking the housing apart and reloading. Many digital photographers would have got that many shots on a single card! Personally, I reckon that given the optical limitations of shooting medium format underwater (poor optical port setups, unsuitable wide angle lenses and narrow DOF), that 10MP plus digitals are actually better in real world shooting. But that is not always what the client thinks...

I really realised I was a digi-convert, when I was shooting the freediving world records in Cayman a few months ago I had both my D2x and F100 - housed and ready to go on the boat. And despite spending 5-6 hours in the water with the freedivers it never occurred to me to use the film rig.

That said the only camera + housing I have sold in recent years is my Nikon D100 and Subal. I still have all my 35mm and MF housings and cameras. And strangely enough I would like to spend a few 100 to buy an only film housing - like a Subal or Hugy for a Nikon F2, F, FG, FA or something. I want to wind film on again!

Alex

I am with Paul. My taste for how an UW image should look is definitely influenced by years of shooting Velvia. And certainly with the D100 I would always push contrast and saturation in RAW conversion. I do it less now with the D2x because the camera's files look much closer to slide than any other camera I have tried.

I think my taste is also changing. I like pictures that are a bit less saturated these days (because I mainly see so many digital images). I saw some Velvia shots on here recently and my initial reaction was "Yuk, that photographer has over saturated those a bit." But they were probably untouched - straight from the scanner. So I think that like most things in life, our tastes are always changing. And these days taste is for saturated - but slightly less than Velvia!

Different digital cameras do have distinctive looking images (especially in conditions you know well). As I am sure most would agree. In january I was judging a photo-comp in Cayman and I could tell which photographer had taken which images, because I could tell a D100, from and S2 from a 10D from the look of the images. Amusingly it was easier to identify the photographer from their blues than their shooting style!

The good thing about RAW is that with the right software you can make your files look like those from other cameras. I was playing with Nikon capture the other day and pushed the noise reduction up, the saturation down a bit and increased the exposure a bit (to the correct one) and suddenly my picture looked like a Canon shot - with super smooth blues and more print film looking reds, yellows and greens.

There are no rights or wrongs, of course. But I think that photographers who shoot with a camera that isn't one of the most popular brands - may find their colours out of favour/fashion in the future! Only joking!

Alex

I used to be an Advertising Photographer commanding top daily rates. I gave that up 13 years ago to go diving.
Everyone has gone digital now - or so I am told by everyone who has gone digital. So I telephoned a few of my surviving old contemporaries in London to ask if that was the case among top earners.

The reply was invariably a big guffaw and a definite - No Way!

Of course everything gets digitised before printing but it seems that a good transparency and a drum-scanner (or Flextite) still rules where quality counts. And you might ask why Ridley Scott and his ilk still shoots on Panavision 70 (with video-assist) rather than shooting on video.

But then the last picture I took had a production budget of £50,000 (for an ad for Toyota) and that was back in 1992!

I often get offered only £20 for a brilliant underwater picture.

Time to chime in on the film naysayers. First film is the history of photograpy so before you toss all the past for the latest and greatest new dig wonder. Consider where this photo thing all came from and how long it took to evolve. That said I just got back fro a 25oo mile Indonesia liveaboard. Sorong to Bali in 28 days. That was 83 dives. The boat split the trip into 2 trips we signed on for all. There where lots of housings aboard and for a month I saw why ikeilkes are clear. One fellow had a tampax in his leaking Ike to soak up the mosture every dive. Subal was by far the best one ahead of all others on this trip except for a sea cam. The viewfinders on ALL dig housings I saw including the $1000 latest magnifier on a subal D70 could not hold a candle to my F5 sportfinder. That was what folks told me.Yes its a film camera heaven forbid and I did shoot only 83 rolls of 36 only 2988 images but hey they all blow up to clean 14 x20 prints. If your selling shots to magazines or making small prints heck you can shoot them with a point and shoot dig but until very recent digitals could not compete whith huge blow ups. Pro's in the large print field all use scanned film still. Thats wildlife -senics -ect. As John said in previos post drum scanning is still tops.Now with the d2x and cannons new line these are up to speed for large prints but thats all just very recent. So realize that your latest just bought dig will lose value just like your computer the moment you buy it.. I would not trade in my sportfinder for anything less that that huge nonmagnifided image. What you see is what you shoot.
Film is not for the gotta see it now folks. Film is for quality. film is how we got to here and this should have meaning. If you cannot grasp that your pixel may be wet.. Yes you have to wait to see the results. The world is slowly becoming all gotta have it now -right now
I too will pick up a used d2x or the like in a few years when they are pennies on the dollar as will the housings. Meanwhile I very happy with my subal and f5 with the best dam viewfinder on the planet. . Did not mean to offend but bashing film seems to disregard where your camera in your hand came from.. Dig cameras up until very recent where a cruel joke for serious photohogs.
Now if you really want to get to the meat lets talk about boiyancy control and divers especially photograhers. I saw more problems with this single issue on this trip. The push to move divers through to certify and not teach skills is more harm than good but thats another issue for another forum.
I'll try and not bash digital even though I know the media cards and readers will be obsolete within a few years. Yes film has slowed down but out I do not trhink so. Hey what happened to floppy disks & Zip drives ???. The times are a changing but film will stay around longer than your stored media will be able to be read. Mark

There are some excellent points being made on this discussion. Seems to me like a candidate for "Best of Wetpixel" at some point.

Alex

And when it moves over there perhaps Paul (PGK) can give each participating member a free film housing!

( ya ya ya...another boring evening for me....)

I dont think it's a matter of there being naysayers. For most people digital is simply good enough. It really depends on what you mean to do with your images. There is (imho) no question that slides (and lets not forget medium/large format) are in some ways superior to anything digital can do at this point. For instance, personally I think digital can still not compete with any film type (maybe except for normal 35mm negatives) on huge blowups. I guess that also depends on your application. For me, digital is good enough, and I still use a D100. Havent seen a reason to move to a D2X yet. (thats another funny discussion, which digital is the best

Two interesting articles to read:

Ken Rockwell's view on film vs digital
Arizona Highways Magazine's view

My wife and I really have it good, she uses an F100, I use a D100

cor

ps: I put a tampax in my Subal housing, so that in case of a minor leak, the camera can most likely be saved.

I'll tell you what, I could quite happily thrown in a Subal F100 housing & Nikon F100 (or F80 Hsg/camera) to a purchaser of a Seacam D2X or EOS1DSMkII outfit (money where mouth is)!

But seriously, The EOS1DS (not even the mark II), and the D2X I expect, really do produce better large prints than 35mm imho - The quality obtainable is staggering and certainly for underwater use beats anything I have produced on 35mm. As far as I am concerned, and having shot Velvia for as long as it has been available, the EOS1DS produces, cleaner, sharper and tonally better images. Ok its an expensive camera, but for me it will have paid for itself in film costs well before it is worthless. After 18 months its worth about half its new price, but its saved the difference easily.

My biggest problem these days for my commercial photography topsides is that I often have to downsize files for clients to be able to view them on their own computers.

If you want another way of looking at it, I reckon the smaller format favoured by Nikon, Fuji and some Canons, has replaced 35mm, whilst the 'original' 35mm full frame format is now very close to if not as good as (and in some cases better than) medium format. I say this having shot on Rollei, Hasseblad and Contax medium format camera over the years. In my opinion we now have the equivalent of medium format in a viable to use underwater package - full frame digitals. The disconcerting part about this is that cameras like the D2X are actually so good given their sensor size and the boundaries are blurring. I'm sure that more opinions will be voiced after this!

I have just spent the last two days comparing eight different cameras that cost less than £500 ($US900) complete with housings and I must say the results are frighteningly good!
So do we need to spend more?

No, you just need to spend as much as the camera that works best for you costs, not a cent more.

EDIT: With camera I meant camera/housing/strobes (that is if you're not satisfied with the in-camera flash).

I would be more than happy to go strictly digital, i love being able to shoot 100 photos on one dive, amazing. Also i no longer have to deal with the oh so pleasant smell of Colour B developer! However...the only reason i still shoot it from time to time is sunbursts pure and simple. Perhaps the D2X can do it better than my D70? And hopefully it has less noise, as we know it does, if i had that set up then i probably would give up film except the NIk V and 15mm for the smallness factor.
But, i won't be spending that sort of money any time soon therefore i am happy to shoot all macro on dig, and most WA but not all.
I only print up to 8x10s anyways so not a problem, i use most of my shots for magazines etc and going to an agency where i can successfully interpolate my D70 shots to 18x12 using Miranda software.
So at this point mostly digital for me, a touch of film and when i win that lawsuit against Michael Jackson....D2X or whatever the current good model is 5 years down the road when the money comes in....

Law suits can take a long time, don't wait! Do as I did, sell one of your kidneys..

Woohoo - I just won a $200 sirostar slide view on ebay for a whopping $5.99!!! I love it!

I thought you had told me you had given up sleeping with blokes?

...and as for all that chat about digital quality being better than film, I have shot many pictures that have been for 64-sheet posters on film and I would certainly hesitate to try to do that!

I don't think MJ is qualifies as a bloke....

Sell two and make twice as much...

I certainly found it difficult to get used to diving with such an expensive camera as the D2x. Taking that much money underwater is very disconcerting! I found it quite distracting and would stop in the middle of dives, panicking, and check inside the housing in case it was leaking.

I think part of the problem I had was that I also had a lot of diving planned with three trips back to back, stacked up. And I didn't want a problem at the beginning that would affect future trips.

I know this sounds stupid. But worrying about the camera definitely distracted me from my photography a bit during my first three trips with it! Anyway I am over it now. 8000 UW shots and it finally feels like my camera (in fact I think telling everyone I have taken 8000 shots is part of the therapy). So know I can concentrate again, hopefully my photography will improve some more.

Alex

Alex is spot on.

I bought my first Hasselblad second-hand in 1968. It was a 500C and had a set of silver lenses. Soon all the latest lenses were finished in black but using an undesirable camera freed me up to get on with photography.

As an underwater photographer, I have continued with this policy using Nikon F801 when everyone bought F90 and using F90 when everyone bought F100. It is probably subliminally why I went for the S2 Pro as my first underwater digital (second-hand bodies are £650 in the UK).

The importer for Aquatica once said to me that my trouble (with wear and tear) was that I kept taking my housing in the sea when all his other customers kept theirs under their beds!
If you think you camera is a piece of jewellery or a status symbol you will end up neurotic and never take the risks needed to get good pictures!