 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| HomeArticlesDiving DestinationsLearning Scuba DivingMarine LifeMiscellaneousDiscussion GroupsGeneralScuba EquipmentScuba LocationsAustralian ScubaUK ScubaDirectoryScuba Clubs |
Scuba Forum / Scuba Equipment / November 2004Why aren't underwater video housings generic?
Excuse the newbie question but for those of you who've used different underwater video housings, what is it that keeps them from being semi generic? Obviously they have to be big enough and about the right shape to physically house the camera, but afaik in most cases the controls operate the camera via its LANC plug. So I would think if the camera fits, and has LANC control, it should work. But no one advertises that, so I'm missing some key point. > Excuse the newbie question but for those of you who've used different > underwater video housings, what is it that keeps them from being semi [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > But no one advertises that, so I'm missing some key point. You are missing at least a couple of key points. First, the housing has to be the right size to hold the camera securely and in a position that allows the lens to see through the port. That fact, alone, introduces a log of variation. Secondly, many underwater photographers distrust electronic connections. Housings have, for many years, relied on manual controls and O ring seals and there's nothing standard about O ring seals. Finally, and perhaps very telling, if housings were generic, there's be little or no incentive for somebody to buy more than one, even when they changed cameras. Lee >> Excuse the newbie question but for those of you who've used different >> underwater video housings, what is it that keeps them from being semi [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] >perhaps very telling, if housings were generic, there's be little or no >incentive for somebody to buy more than one, even when they changed cameras. While I agree with Lee, I'll also point out that for many years Ikelite has made -- and continues to make -- two basic housing bodies which it can customize to fit pretty nearly any 35mm SLR ever made. And it looks like they're doing similar for many digital cameras. But, as Lee says, the controls are NOT standard. And most cameras do NOT have an electic/elctronic interface for most of their feachers. So Ike spends his idle hours figuring out how to fit mechanical controls to push, pull, slide and twist all the various and non-standard camera buttons and switches. And even with Ike's ingenuity, you generally cannot get both manual focus and manual zoom to work at the same time. One or the other.  SignatureCharlie Hammond -- Hewlett-Packard Company -- Ft Lauderdale FL USA (hammond@not@peek.ssr.hp.com -- remove "@not" when replying) All opinions expressed are my own and not necessarily my employer's. >>> Excuse the newbie question but for those of you who've used different >>> underwater video housings, what is it that keeps them from being semi [quoted text clipped - 32 lines] > cannot get both manual focus and manual zoom to work at the same time. > One or the other. Should the question be:- Why do cameras not have a generic layout? Damn if a camera was a car, you would not know which door to open to drive the thing!! just a 0.2 "Timberwolf" <howling@themoon.invalid> pounded away at his keyboard resulting in: :Should the question be:- :Why do cameras not have a generic layout? They do. Lens in front. Shutter release on top. Viewfinder in the rear. Dan Bracuk Is it my imagination, or do Buffalo Wings taste like chicken? The Best of rec.scuba http://www.pathcom.com/~bracuk/RecScuba/ > :Should the question be:- > :Why do cameras not have a generic layout? > They do. Lens in front. Shutter release on top. Viewfinder in the > rear. There's a whole world of cameras out there that don't have the viewfinder in the rear. Lee > Should the question be:- > Why do cameras not have a generic layout? > Damn if a camera was a car, you would not know which door to open to drive > the thing!! > just a 0.2 True story. Long and several thousand dollars ago, when I first explored the idea of becoming a serious amateur photographer, I went shopping for a better camera. One that I particularly liked was made by Cannon. It had all the features I was looking for and the price was as good or better than other options. I picked the camera up, went to adjust the aperture and promptly removed the lens. The lens release ring on the Cannon was in almost exactly the same place as the aperture adjusting ring on my previous camera. I bought a Nikon. Lee I picked the camera up, went to adjust the aperture and > promptly removed the lens. The lens release ring on the Cannon was in > almost exactly the same place as the aperture adjusting ring on my > previous camera. I bought a Nikon. > > Lee I used to sell photographic equipment in the late 70's and I personally thought that the 'breechlock' system used on Canon was superior to the 'bayonet' as is now common on all cameras. I owned a couple of A1 bodies. You have to remember that this was in the days when many cameras (mainly Pentax and Leica and all the 'clone' Pentax systems) still used screw thread lenses (M42 or M39), so breach or bayonet was a significant improvement. At that time Nikon still relied on that 'nipple' on the lens to connect to the Photomic head of the F and their bayonet has always turned the opposite direction to everyone else. As a final complication, it is only Olympus (OM1, OM1n OM10) that had the shutter speed dial around the lens throat not as a top-mounted control. I now have all Nikon SLR's, as, compared to the other brands, at least Nikon have not changed their lens fitting since the first F model (and all current bodies including the new Digital cameras accept the older lenses, obviously with limited functionality). > I used to sell photographic equipment in the late 70's and I personally > thought that the 'breechlock' system used on Canon was superior to the > 'bayonet' as is now common on all cameras. I owned a couple of A1 bodies. Opinions vary. I suspect both are quite effective. One, however, was not compatable with what I was used to. > You have to remember that this was in the days when many cameras (mainly > Pentax and Leica and all the 'clone' Pentax systems) still used screw > thread lenses (M42 or M39), so breach or bayonet was a significant > improvement. You have that one right. Not only were they screw threads, they were fine screw threads. They were way to easy to crossthread. Lee And took time and two hands to change lenses. >> I used to sell photographic equipment in the late 70's and I personally >> thought that the 'breechlock' system used on Canon was superior to the [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > Lee JT <NgPoster@missing.org> pounded away at his keyboard resulting in: :Excuse the newbie question but for those of you who've used different :underwater video housings, what is it that keeps them from being semi :generic? The requirement for a camera to take pictures while inside them. Dan Bracuk Is it my imagination, or do Buffalo Wings taste like chicken? The Best of rec.scuba http://www.pathcom.com/~bracuk/RecScuba/ >Excuse the newbie question but for those of you who've used different >underwater video housings, what is it that keeps them from being semi [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >But no one advertises that, so I'm missing some key point. > There are some "generic" housings out there. Some home-brewed, some which you can buy. Problem is accessing the controls; for most of these housings you turn on your camera, hit record, and seal it in the housing. No way to control the camera aside from that. . . Bryan Thanks for the interesting answers, but no one touched on the basic question - if I have a LANC-enabled housing in my hand, and accept that I'm going to be satisfied with no control beyond LANC, what keeps me from installing in it any LANC-compatible camera that fits comfortably? For the comments to date: No points for the comment that cameras are different shapes and sizes and need to be held firmly - I think that's a given, and the guy who invented the standard tripod interface took care of mounting. No points for noting that not all cameras have LANC control - enough do, starting at reasonable prices. A couple of points for noting that LANC doesn't control everything. When shooting land-based I seldom use anything that's not, though. As long as I have a properly exposed and framed picture, I'm happy to leave the fancy stuff for post-production. That's what computers are for. But others may do it differently and be willing to pay for the push-rods. Finally, the gold goes to the throw-away comment that custom housings pay better. I think there's more truth in that than perhaps was intended. It's a thin market, and a simple well-made housing intended to accept a reasonable range of cameras probably won't have customers coming out of the woodwork. >Excuse the newbie question but for those of you who've used different >underwater video housings, what is it that keeps them from being semi [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > >But no one advertises that, so I'm missing some key point. >Finally, the gold goes to the throw-away comment that custom housings >pay better. I think there's more truth in that than perhaps was >intended. It's a thin market, and a simple well-made housing intended >to accept a reasonable range of cameras probably won't have customers >coming out of the woodwork. So any other pre held convictions you'd like to hear repeated to you? SignatureJason O'Rourke www.jor.com > Thanks for the interesting answers, but no one touched on the basic > question - if I have a LANC-enabled housing in my hand, and accept [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > and need to be held firmly - I think that's a given, and the guy who > invented the standard tripod interface took care of mounting. Sorry, we didn't know you already knew the answer to the question you asked. We were trying to help, not earn points. If you think that the guy who invented the tripod interface took care of mounting, perhaps you should look more closely at where the tripod attachment point and, on some cameras, the locking detent, are. Sure, I can put any of my cameras on a standard tripod, but I can also move and resecure the camera on them whenever I like. That's a bit hard to do with a camera that's underwater. > Finally, the gold goes to the throw-away comment that custom housings > pay better. I think there's more truth in that than perhaps was > intended. It's a thin market, and a simple well-made housing intended > to accept a reasonable range of cameras probably won't have customers > coming out of the woodwork. It's only one of several reasons. There's nothing to keep you from making a box with a front port and a rear view window that is large enough for any camera you chose to put in it, complete with electronic controls. Ikelite will probably make one for you is you ask and are willing to pay the price for the custom job. It won't handle worth a damn thanks to the excessive amount of very buoyant air inside the box, it won't travel as well as a more custom housing thanks to the fact that it will have to be large enough to fit most camera shapes and sizes, and it will be heavy as hell out of the water thanks to all of the lead it will take to overcome the buoyancy of all the air in the box. It probably won't take particularly good pictures since the lens can't be ground specifically for the location and type of lens and you probably won't get many good pictures of small fish either. They tend to be a bit shy around big boxes shoved into their living space, but it will work . . . sort of. Lee JT <NgPoster@missing.org> pounded away at his keyboard resulting in: :Thanks for the interesting answers, but no one touched on the basic :question - if I have a LANC-enabled housing in my hand, and accept :that I'm going to be satisfied with no control beyond LANC, what keeps :me from installing in it any LANC-compatible camera that fits :comfortably? The button to operate the shutter release has to line up with the shutter release. Oh yeah, what's LANC? Dan Bracuk Is it my imagination, or do Buffalo Wings taste like chicken? The Best of rec.scuba http://www.pathcom.com/~bracuk/RecScuba/ |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2008 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.