Prosumer models question

[GrumpyOne]

I've decided that I should get a new camera. Over the last year I've actually learned how to use a camera and have moved from being what my daughter calls "a clueless n00b" to a plain old n00b. I'm hoping to move on to "almost knowledgeable apprentice" later this year. I currently take a lot of pictures underwater and operate primarily in manual mode.

I have yet to see a basic point & shoot model that does all of what I wanted, too many seem to be marketed primarily based on pixel count, and I really don't want to move into DSLR space yet. I see lenses as another money pit and since I have two of those already between diving and a kid, I figured a prosumer model would be best.

I had some questions:

What features do you find invaluable in a camera?
What's the minimum max focal length / optical zoom rating do you find useful? At what point do you consider extra focal length a waste?
Image stabilization, useful or marketing gimmick?
For post processing, are high-quality JPGs "good enough" or is RAW the end-all/be-all? (I know lossy vs lossless, but I've never worked with RAW)
Your opinion of prosumer models. Do they fill a valid need or are those who buy them "delusional people who ought to just pull the trigger on a DSLR and get on with life."

Camera purpose: Buying it in time for a 10 day trip to Orlando this summer. It will later be used in Egypt (pyramids) and Kenya (safari).

.

 

[YEKCIM]

What features do you find invaluable in a camera?

First off, a good quality optical zoom, with enough range to cover all the bases. Next, good high-ISO performance. Burst speed / buffer capacity is also a desirable feature, although for my personal needs, not a show stopper.

What's the minimum max focal length / optical zoom rating do you find useful?

In full frame 35mm film terms, 28mm to 300mm would probably be sufficient. I have an 18-135mm Nikkor lens (28-200mm equivalent) for my D50's and feel like it will probably cover 75% of what I'm likely to shoot. The 18-200 VR Nikkor would probably "do it all", but it's out of my price range, if it could even be found.

At what point do you consider extra focal length a waste?

I would not characterize "extra focal length" a waste, but as a luxury, or bonus. I won't go wider than 28mm (equivalent) or longer than 300mm (equivalent) as often as I shoot within the 28-200mm range, but for those occasions that I need/want that additional flexibilty, I am glad I have it.

Image stabilization, useful or marketing gimmick?

Definitely useful.

For post processing, are high-quality JPGs "good enough" or is RAW the end-all/be-all? (I know lossy vs lossless, but I've never worked with RAW)

I hate "darkroom work", even on my computer, so I shoot JPEG's exclusively. I have experimented with JPEG vs RAW and can't tell enough difference to make it worthwhile, *for me* (I know others, who like to and have time and skills to tweak, will disagree with me...personal choice as I see it).

Your opinion of prosumer models. Do they fill a valid need or are those who buy them "delusional people who ought to just pull the trigger on a DSLR and get on with life."

I moved up from a Fuji S5200 "bridge" camera...not exactly a prosumer, but positioned between point and shoot and dslr, so there are some similarities. I would judge Fuji's S9100 or the Canon PowerShot Pro1 (not sure if it's still available) to be more what you describe.

Hope that helps. I'm sure others will weigh in, as well.

 

[ukcatfan]

I had some questions:

What features do you find invaluable in a camera?
What's the minimum max focal length / optical zoom rating do you find useful? At what point do you consider extra focal length a waste?
Image stabilization, useful or marketing gimmick?
For post processing, are high-quality JPGs "good enough" or is RAW the end-all/be-all? (I know lossy vs lossless, but I've never worked with RAW)

A very important feature to me is the ability to shoot well in low light.

For focal length, I am more worried on the wide side as most prosumer models start around 36-38mm. The new models from Sony and Olympus start wider and whenever Canon gets around to replacing the S3, it will also likely start wider. Pretty much anything 10x and above is going to be enough on the tele end for me. I am a little sceptical of the 15x to 18x models being announced, but I will wait for some reviews before I give up on them.

I love IS. I have it on both my S2 IS(prosumer) and my K100D(DSLR). I do not typically do a bunch of action shots, so it is great for me. If you mainly shoot action shots that are not at the tele end, then IS might be a waste. The reason is that to capture action shots, you typically have to use a shutter speed fast enough that motion blur cannot affect the image anyway.

JPG vs. RAW - It depends on what you do with your images. If you typically work on editing every image, then RAW is the way to go. If it is just one here or there, then JPG is best. You get the ability to take a shot that you got the exposere wrong on and make it usable with RAW. It is not a miracle worker, but it does offer more leverage. Being that you are talking about a prosumer camera that uses a small sensor, the benefits of RAW for you might not be all that much compared to what a DSLR sensor can do with the extra data it collects. I basically would not let it be my deciding factor at that level of camera, but I would likely use it if there.

Your opinion of prosumer models. Do they fill a valid need or are those who buy them "delusional people who ought to just pull the trigger on a DSLR and get on with life."

As a user of both a prosumer and DSLR, I see that there is a real need for the prosumer niche. Some people never really need to make the jump to DSLR. You can get incredible pictures from even a low end p&s these days. It is the special needs situations that end up dictating the need for a prosumer or DSLR. My needs for going to a DSLR were the low light capabilities, better high ISO performance, and the ability to go wider. My upgrade to a DSLR was fairly recently, but still keep my S2 around for those times when I need telephoto in an instant. Changing lenses is not too time consuming, but sometimes it can be enough to miss a shot. When I have time to plan ahead, I use my telephoto lens which on my K100D is effectively a 120-315mm. That is not as tele as the S2 that goes to over 400mm, but I have yet to miss that last little bit of range. Like I said, I keep the S2 with me just in case I need it.

Kevin

 

[ukcatfan]

I moved up from a Fuji S5200 "bridge" camera...not exactly a prosumer, but positioned between point and shoot and dslr, so there are some similarities. I would judge Fuji's S9100 or the Canon PowerShot Pro1 (not sure if it's still available) to be more what you describe.

Many people have used the prosumer name to also cover the bridge style as well, but to clarify, my S2 is more of a bridge camera than a true prosumer. The prosumer models usually start a little wider and go to around a 6x zoom. I personally would put the Canon G7 in that category right now, but there are others as well. Unless the size is an important requirement, I do not see the need of the G7 when you can get a cheaper DSLR like the Pentax K110D or Nikon D40/D50 for just a little more $ and have so much more to work with. I am not sure on the Nikon, but you could get something like the Sigma 18-125mm lens for the K110D and have virtually the same focal length range as the prosumers and still not have to change lenses too often. I prefer a two lens solution for the ~18-200mm range, but that is just my preference. Keep in mind that used lenses for a DSLR are a very valid option to save $.

Kevin

P.S. I just looked at B&H and you can get the K110D with 18-55mm lens and 50-200mm lens for $674 with $150 in rebates totaling $524 in the end. By comparison, the G7 is $485. Shipping might be a few dollars more on the Pentax with more to ship, but they are pretty much close to the same price in the end.

 

[YEKCIM]

For focal length, I am more worried on the wide side as most prosumer models start around 36-38mm. The new models from Sony and Olympus start wider and whenever Canon gets around to replacing the S3, it will also likely start wider. Pretty much anything 10x and above is going to be enough on the tele end for me. Kevin

FWIW, both current Fuji "prosumer" cam's, the S6000fd and the S9100, have 28-300mm equivalent lenses, *much* better range than the 38-380mm on the S5200 that I have.

BTW, for examples of the image quality (not necessarily the photographer's ability) of images from the S5200, please feel free to visit a couple of my Photobucket galleries:

http://s76.photobucket.com/albums/j11/fasteddiew/DisneyWorld 2006/

http://s76.photobucket.com/albums/j11/fasteddiew/Blue Ridge Parkway October 2006/

~YEKCIM

 

[ukcatfan]

I have always liked the Fujis, but their lack of IS always kept me away. I wish they would add it.

Kevin

 

[YEKCIM]

I have always liked the Fujis, but their lack of IS always kept me away. I wish they would add it.

Kevin

It would certainly be a bonus, but I have not found the lack of IS to be a huge problem, particularly when the high-ISO images are so good. The ISO 1600 of the S5200 is (barely) useable (5X7 max, probably), but ISO 800 is very good, IMO, especially compared to the same speed from other cameras in that class. And, if you have *subject* motion, good high ISO trumps IS.

~YEKCIM

 

[ukcatfan]

Going back to the OP, there is one more feature that I want to mention. It is actually a lack of feature. Do not go overboard with MPs. It seems like the MP barrier for a p&s, bridge, or prosumer before starting to introduce more problems than benefits is around 6-8MPs depending of course on how well it is implemented. For the APS-C sensor of the typical consumer level DSLR, it is around 10-12MPs. It is a whole different ballgame when you go above that, but you do not seem to be looking there anyway.

Kevin

 

[DueyDooDah]

I too do underwater shooting. I picked up a Canon Powershot S80 and got the u/w housing that went with it. It turned out to be a great choice. The camera is fully capable, Auto to full manual modes. ISO goes from 50 to 400. It's only limitation is the 4x zoom, which I don't mind. Zoom underwater, especially in 6ft viz, is pretty useless so I don't miss the 12x other cams offer. It has a macro mode also, which helps for the nudibranch shots, and a diffuser to cut down on particulate backscatter. The housing can accomodate weights to make the setup neutrally bouyant. It's well thought out. Take a look here for the housings Canon offers.

Note that the S80 has been discontinued but there may be similar models out there, and you can probably still get an S80 through various vendors.

 

[Groucho]

This sounds like a good excuse to haul out my sensor size chart again.

The big problem with "bridge" or "prosumer" cameras, IMHO, is that they are all saddles with ridiculously small sensors.

Here's relative sizes of some of the common sensors:

Most long-zoom cameras, like the Canon S2/S3 and the Sony H5, have a 1/2.5" sensor - that's that tiny one in the lower left.

A few higher-end point-n-shoot cameras have a 1/1.8" sensor - that's the slightly larger one. Fujis often have a 1/1.7" sensor, which would be slightly larger.

Pretty much all DSLRs (except Olympuses and the very high-end full-frame DSLRs) have the APS-C-sized sensor - which, as you can see, is significantly larger.

A larger sensor means sharper photos all the time, but especially a huge difference when the light goes low. I think once you start looking at PnS cameras in the $400+ range, you really should look hard at a DSLR due to the image quality difference (and all the other features.)

If you want to stick with a PnS for whatever reason (size, complexity, etc), I would personally probably look for one with a larger sensor more than anything else, and possibly even over one with IS. For example, a Fuji long-zoom will lack IS compared to the Canon/Sony models, but the larger sensor (1/1.7" vs 1/2.5") means that it will be able to go to a higher ISO level without as much "noise" as the others, which will allow for a faster shutter speed and less need for IS. Meanwhile, the larger sensor will help in all photos, whether or not IS would help. Of course, ideal is a big sensor and IS, but I'm not sure that there is such an offering.

 

[photo_chick]

I am not as knowledgeable about the technicalitites of digital cameras as teh rest of these guys, but I will address RAW. Working with RAW files is not hard. And there are many times I have been able to save a shot that I could not have if it were a jpg (if I were a better photographer this probably would not be so necessary ). For me the ability to do so much with the image in post processing is a huge advantage. But then I am also one who enjoys working in the darkroom, so that might skew my viewpoint a bit.

 

[GrumpyOne]

I rather agree regarding the number of pixels. There's a reducing return on investment the higher you go and we've long passed the point where a bigger number was better. As it stands now, all a higher resolution does is allow me to hide a bit of blur or noise by reducing the resolution. A pic taken with ISO 400 that is slightly blurry looks bad at full res but shrunk from 3070x2300 down to 640x480 and it's a good web pic.

I'm not so sure I'm buying into the sensor issue in the non-SLR world. It's easy to compare sensors in cameras from the same manuf. but I'm starting to feel that sensors are like computer processors. Some engineering and improvements I only understand the basics of combined with a lot of hype. That was a good illustration of the sensor sizes Groucho, it really drove home just how much bigger the DSLR versions are.

I'll have to take another look around the DSLR space, I had no idea they had dropped as low as the K110D can be found for, even without the rebate. I'm still leery of the money pit, full-sized lenses and sensor dust but at least the initial cost fear has reduced.

I've done some work in Photoshop Elements and manged to save some pics. I don't enter anything in shows (although I've been encouraged to enter a few macro pieces), which is why I was wondering about RAW. It seems that you lose quality every time you modify and save a JPEG. I agree that if I were a better photographer that less work would be needed. At the moment, I'm just happy that I get the occasionally show-worthy piece. It means I did something right. A real photographer would know WHAT he did right.

Zoom is pretty useless underwater, isn't it? The only times I've wanted more zoom have been with sharks. The little x4 on my dive camera manages to fill 1/8 of the frame at best with white & black tips since they won't let me get closer. Something with longer zoom (assuming good viz) would let me do a white balance for distance and get a good shot without spooking them. I need to find some wrecks with good viz. There are a ton here but the viz usually is poor.

Discounting the DSLRs for the moment, there seems to be three real cameras I'm taking a closer look at and one imaginary one:

Fuji 9100
Sony DSC H9
Oly SP 550

The imaginary one of the Canon S4 IS. Since they've announced an S# each spring the last few years, I'm hoping they continue the trend.

The Fuji looks nice, sort of like a cut-down SLR. The Oly is heavily feature-rich but it's getting slammed in reviews for not living up to the marketing hype. I'm trying to separate the valid complaints from the petulant whining. The Sony will be available in May and it remains to be seen if the features and function will be worth all of the proprietary stuff Sony does.

It took me over a month to decide on a laptop (I wanted a gaming machine) and at the end I had charts of features, costs, how the options stacked up and various sheets comparing the technical aspects of each option. I guess it's time to start that with these cameras. At least there aren't many options. Or, there weren't until ukcatfan got me to reconsider DSLRs.

 

[Groucho]

I'm not so sure I'm buying into the sensor issue in the non-SLR world. It's easy to compare sensors in cameras from the same manuf. but I'm starting to feel that sensors are like computer processors. Some engineering and improvements I only understand the basics of combined with a lot of hype. That was a good illustration of the sensor sizes Groucho, it really drove home just how much bigger the DSLR versions are.

Glad you found it useful. I don't think the sensors are that difficult to compare - it's the software that can make the difference, namely in the amount of noise reduction that they apply. A camera with heavy noise reduction may appear to have a clearer photo at high ISOs, but at a loss of detail.

IMHO, the camera manufacturers have been misleading the public for a while - if you think of it in film terms, they'd have us believe that the mp size is like the negative size. A 35mm camera was better than a 110 camera, so a 5mp digicam is better than a 2mp one, right? Actually, the sensor is the negative size, the megapixels are just the final print. Pulling 8mp out of a 1/2.5" sensor is like printing a 27x40 poster off a little Kodak Disc negative.

Furthermore, I've noticed that most online reviews really throw softballs at the PnS cameras. Look at the sample galleries and you'll find lots of ISO 100 shots from the PnSs. Virtually every test photo is a bright, sunny outdoor photo. How about some REAL test shots - like a shot of a running child inside a living room at night with no flash?

It took me over a month to decide on a laptop (I wanted a gaming machine) and at the end I had charts of features, costs, how the options stacked up and various sheets comparing the technical aspects of each option. I guess it's time to start that with these cameras. At least there aren't many options. Or, there weren't until ukcatfan got me to reconsider DSLRs.

Well, as a guy who's build dozens (hundreds?) of computers over the years... that's kind of an interesting comparison... the best gaming laptop is still going to be pretty lousy compared to a good gaming desktop machine... similarly, the best PnS is still going to be handcuffed by that tiny sensor and won't be able to touch a DSLR's abilities especially in low light. Fortunately PnS digicams are a lot cheaper than "gaming" laptops. It's all about knowing the compromises you'll be making.

 

[photo_chick]

Yeah, I have to ask how you can play a decent 3-d game on a laptop? I buit 2 computers for DH. One to play games on (sweet SLI set up) and one to render 3-d stuff in Maya. the two 2 different applications need very different video cards.

But cameras are very similar when you are shopping . What you need does greatly depend on what you want to do. I love my DLSR. I had a Sony DSC-H1 briefly and it just was not enough for me. There are some great deals to be had out there on "last years" Canon, Pentax, and Nikon models. I was just helping a friend shop recently and we ended up spending less than $600 for a nice DSLR set up for her before taxes. (we went with a Rebel XT, but almost got a Pentax.)

 

[GrumpyOne]

Warning! Warning! Thread hijack in progress!

On the topic of notebooks, you can get a notebook that will rival all but the most high-end of desktop units. Let me give you an example. This an extreme example with top-of-the-line everything but it shows what can be done with a notebook:

Core 2 Extreme 2.93 GHz Processor
4GB DDR2 RAM at 667MHz
3x 100GB HD at 7200 RPM (RAID 5)
17" wide-screen 1920x1200
Dual nVidia 7950GTX (SLI) (that's 1GB of video memory)
DL-DVD writer

Of course, you'd only use the above with the 64-bit version of Vista and it's not exactly a gaming config.

Other systems can be configured with single video cards, including the Quatro 2500M which is the one to choose for CAD and modeling. There's at least one that sports a 20" screen and can have dual video cards in SLI (either the 7950GTX or the Quatro 2500M). These types of extreme machines are really best for business purposes. I once worked for a company that used a flight simulator to show off certain agricultural products they sold. This would have been great for that, we had to send a full-sized PC around to all the tradeshows.

At the moment, you'd need a desktop with at least an nVidia 7900 GT or ATI x1900 to beat what can be done with a notebook and I'm not sure that would be better once you take SLI into account.

I tried to balance the needs and the desires vs. the cost (and the fact that I'll be lugging it around for two months) so I didn't go whole hog on it. The one I finally settled on had:

Core 2 Duo 2GHz processor
17" wide-screen at 1680x1050
2GB of DDR2 RAM at 533MHz
160GB HD at 5400 RPM
nVidia 7900GS video
DL-DVD writer
802.11n (draft) wireless and bluetooth

shipped for under $1750
I was really hoping the new Seagate drive would have shipped (160GB at 7200RPM) but I needed to make a choice between the 160GB at 5400 vs the 100GB at 7200RPM and the extra space won out.

Notebooks are a lot more modular than most people think and most people don't know that the major sellers largely don't make the stuff they sell. There are only a few firms that actually make the notebooks, the HPs and Dell's do the same thing the boutique shop does, they get a case (bare-bones), add a processor, memory, hard drive, any accessories, install an OS and sell it. The big players often get some slight chassis differences but any Joe can buy a bare-bones laptop and put the components together himself.

The biggest restrictions I currently see revolve around the video processor. Notebooks with up to a 15.4" screen will support up to an nVidia 7700, to go any higher you have to move to a 17" where most of the offerings are for a 7950GTX. This creates a big price gap in otherwise identical systems, unless you go with one of the few vendors carrying the 7900GS, as I did. The other issue is that the 8800 series won't be available in a mobile factor for a couple more months. DirectX-10 will require Vista and the nVidia 8800 (I don't think ATI has even released their desktop DX-10 card yet, never mind the mobile version).
.

 

[Groucho]

Thread hijack continues.

Are you sure on those performance numbers?

Any half-way decent-performing 3D video card nowadays requires a big heatsink and fan to keep it running cool enough even in a roomy desktop case. Some even take up two slots. Laptops are nearly hot enough to burn you even with basic shared-memory video. I haven't been paying attention to high-end video in the past year or two, but I know that last time I did check, they weren't even remotely close to the performance of a desktop.

The other thing is that actually playing on a laptop isn't really optimal - you're stuck with a cut-down keyboard, no real mouse, tiny speakers, etc. It's also a huge premium from a cost perspective. My Radeon X1900GT cost $200 last summer and I upgraded from an Athlon XP 2600+/GF6600GT to an Athlon X2 4200+ at the same time and man, what a difference.

Then there's the big bump in cost over a "non-gaming" laptop (well over $3k for the top-line ones! ), the extra weight, and IMHO worst of all, the potential to be stuck with a 1920x1200 screen. I've worked with a few with these ultra-high-rez screens and they are absolute murder on the eyes, I get a headache after just a few minutes, and nearly everyone who got one was forced to lower the resolution in order to make it usable. These were on ~15" displays, possibly the 17+" ones are a little better, but you're talking about a monster-sized laptop! Space is really an issue, too - I've got three 160g drives in my PC and am constantly battling running out of space. Especially when some new games can take up 6 gigs or more.

When building PCs, I always said "only buy a laptop if you really need a laptop", and I think that goes many times over for a "gaming" laptop.

 

[tinksdad]

Another point to consider when choosing a camera for above and underwater use is the availability of a housing. As you know, the Canon has their own to fit the smaller PnS cameras as does Olympus. Sea and Sea has some pretty decent offerings as well. As you get into the DSLRs the choices diminish. Most of the major players in UW housing will only fit the big boys and common choices like, Canon and Nikon. If you want one camera for both purposes, do your homework so you get what you need for both areas.

 

[GrumpyOne]

No one ever said there wouldn't be trade-offs but I do disagree with some of the assumptions. Because it's difficult to compare apples to apples across lines that different manufacturers are poking their fingers into, I settled for a doing a two-way comparison. First, I pulled the specs on the various mobile and desktop units (non-OC'd) and compared values for bandwidth, various clocks, fragment and vertex pipelines, texture fill rates, etc. Based purely on the engineering numbers, a Go 7900GS will have slightly less performance than a desktop 7800GT. For real world tests, I just look up what other buyers/reviewers are posting and compare.

All numbers will necessarily be approximate, it's not like Tom's is testing every single GPU being made. But many sites will test with the same applications (rendering or games) and/or with 3D Mark so it's sort of easy to compare frame and fill rates at different resolutions. A rough comparision (since one was using 16:9 and the other was using 4:3) with 3D Mark's SM2 benchmark shows that the cards perform about the same. (Ref: www.gpureview.com, http://www.pcper.com/article.php?aid=293&type=expert&pid=5 and Tom's)

Heat: A desktop 7950GTX uses about 350w, an X1900 XT uses 450w, a mobile 7900GS uses 85w.

Not everyone buys a notebook to be ultraportable. If someone wants a computer that's occasionally portable, they may go with a bulkier device. There's never a portability issue with a mouse but there can be with a keyboard. But if the user leaves the notebook in one spot most of the time, then they'll probably also attach a USB keyboard.

The speakers in many laptops aren't all that bad and if they don't meet someone's standards, there's always headphones. And some laptops come with sound cards that support 7.1 channel surround sound.

I'm not a fan of the ultra high-res screens but they have their uses, both in games and business.

I agree that it's a premium from a cost perspective, never said otherwise. Those ultra high-end systems I mentioned before would run $5k. But it's also a heck of a lot easier to carry around and secure as well. The key, IMO, is to remember that high-end notebooks are like DSLRs. 99% of camera users don't need a DSLR just as 99% of computer users don't need a powerful notebook but for those who do (or don't but want one anyway), the option is out there.

Just remember that a lot of the premium found in a notebook is marketing and administrative overhead. Asus makes a pretty decent notebook but I'd rather buy from the boutique guy, get a better machine for less cost. Also, some of that premium is unacknowledged insurance. The buyer pays more for the brand name, gaining comfort that "such a large company will be around as long as I need them and will provide a high level of customer service."

*cough* Minolta anyone?

There is value in that outlook for someone who can manage to turn the notebook on 2 out of every 3 times but for someone like myself who can largely do my own diagnosing and who mostly lives outside industrialized countries, "support" is mostly meaningless. If it breaks, I call and get an RMA and send it back. I'll gladly use that premium for better components.

True story: I have a friend who has spent the last couple of years doing support work across northern Africa and the Middle East. He makes a ton of money but is bored stiff when he's not working because many of the areas he's in aren't safe to be wandering around whenever he feels like. He loves his ultra high-end notebook, he can drag it around to local LAN parties or just play games in his hotel room.

 

[GrumpyOne]

Another point to consider when choosing a camera for above and underwater use is the availability of a housing. As you know, the Canon has their own to fit the smaller PnS cameras as does Olympus. Sea and Sea has some pretty decent offerings as well. As you get into the DSLRs the choices diminish. Most of the major players in UW housing will only fit the big boys and common choices like, Canon and Nikon. If you want one camera for both purposes, do your homework so you get what you need for both areas.

You're absolutely correct, there's minimal support for DSLR housings other than for the big two. Ikelite has some support for Oly, Sony & Fuji DSLRs but not much. It's mostly C&N. Then, moving from a P&S, you have to consider strobes as well since the flash won't be used, the lenses just stick out too far for a diffuser to work right. The $5k entry for this is what's been holding me back because I'll say "Self, why get the little strobe? You'll just just be unhappy and buy the bigger one anyway in six months."

Maybe I should just start building my doghouse now, I'll most likely be sleeping in it soon enough.

 

[tinksdad]

You're absolutely correct, there's minimal support for DSLR housings other than for the big two. Ikelite has some support for Oly, Sony & Fuji DSLRs but not much. It's mostly C&N. Then, moving from a P&S, you have to consider strobes as well since the flash won't be used, the lenses just stick out too far for a diffuser to work right. The $5k entry for this is what's been holding me back because I'll say "Self, why get the little strobe? You'll just just be unhappy and buy the bigger one anyway in six months."

Maybe I should just start building my doghouse now, I'll most likely be sleeping in it soon enough.

Yep, Yep!!

I've had a couple of the Olympus PnS (C-4040 & C-7070) that I had housings for. My daughter still uses the C-4040. I bought a used Sea & Sea strobe that has been really great. Now that I've upgraded to the Nikon D-200 and Ikelite housing the allure of iTTL underwater is pulling towards purchasing the Ikelight D-125 strobe. So far I've resisted and keep on using the S&S (which works fine, just not iTTL).

This is NOT a hobby to get into if you don't want to spend some money!! But then again, most hobbies are like that aren't they?? Same for scuba!!