Thanks Peter. I just went to Circuit City to see in hand the G10 and the 40D. Interesting that the G9 is still more expensive than the G10 on Amazon, and it's been that way since the day the G10 hit the market. And the 40D is almost the same price as the 50D. Think I read where the megapixel boom has subsided in that more are not necessarily better.

So maybe the G10 will be it. But for only $300 more I can get a 40D body. Course the lenses are as much as the camera.

Decisions, decisions.

Also, there is a proprietary Canon housing for the G9 and 10, only about $150, which makes it $1000 less than the Ikelite for those cameras. Same price as the Ikelite for the 40D/50D.

I still don't know what camera you and Ernie are using underwater if it isn't your expensive ones.

Scubaldy's are with the Nikon D70, thanks for that info, I will look at your images to see what a dslr produces.

Leaning towards the G10 now. If the images will come out as good as the 40d, I'll go that way.

Thanks everyone for the advice so far.

While I never intend to take my 40D, as in camera not bra size sadly, under water I am very happy with my Canon. I bought it through Wolf Camera here in Dallas. I got the insurance and while pricy have already got my money back on a repair. I bumped the 28-135mm IS lense and broke the focus ring. The insurance is good for everything but theft. Drop it in the sea, no problem, fish it out and send it in. Water proof housing leaks, no problem. Run over by a car, no problem. Dog tries to eat it, no problem.

http://www.wolfcamera.com/?gclid=CMn8zuHjk5cCFSAUagodJ380ow

Skippy - look at eBay to see what dealers are selling these cameras for. You don't have to buy via eBay, just treat it as a shop window.

From what I've read I'd take the 50D over the 40D if the price is similar. And of course the G9 should now be much cheaper than the G10, which it's possible to find for the mid-$400's.

Nancy, that's great advice, thanks. Fits my profile of breaking things. All my fly rods end up broken, so I always buy Sage rods with lifetime no-questions-asked repair. I wouldn't have thought I could get it for an expensive camera also. Circuit City wants $219 for the 3-year whatever happens we'll fix it plan. Now I realize that's a bargain.

Peter, I checked eBay, the prices are lower there. I've bought and sold on eBay for years, and because of the warranty issue and insurance protection offered by a brick and mortar store, I'm going to avoid the bay on this.

I've decided to go with the G9, since everything from the Ikelite case to the blue water filters to the 20mm external Ikelite wide angle lens are still available and price reduced on Amazon. Lots of optional stuff for the G9 out there, not so much for the G10 yet.

I'll play with this for a while, find out about this raw image capability, see how 12MP looks, then maybe go up.

But I think I've discovered how you take the excellent underwater images without using your good camera, Peter. Would it be something like this?

SEA&SEA DX-1G 10MP Digital Camera with 3x Optical zoom and Underwater Housing with YS-27 Lighting Package

Now I know what you meant by the term compact.

Maybe that's the way to go.

skippy.. congrats on retirement.. I am counting the days but I have just over two years to go yet.

With regard to the camera purchase at Circuit City, how much is the insurance worth if the store goes under (aren't they in bankruptcy protection)?

Good luck on your purchase, look foward to seeing pictures posted from you.

Gail

Many of the Circuit City stores here are closing.

The G9 is a good choice, tho' I think any accessories for it should also fit the G10.

I use two different u/w compact cameras, each in the manufacturer's housing - a Canon S500 and a Casio EX-Z55. Both from the 5mp era and way inferior to your forthcoming G9, but still capable of good results if you stay inside the design limitations (if you try to do things the camera isn't designed for you end up with rubbish). I'd like to get a G9/10 but finances are a bit tight right now..... I also want to get a Canon 16-35 lens for my 5D at c.$1600, a Canon 24-70 lens at similar price, plus a couple of flash guns at several hundred $ each, but they will also have to wait. Oh, and a carbon fiber tripod, and ..... The list goes on!

If in due course you do get a DSLR you'll find that the real cost isn't in the camera itself but in the lenses. Especially with a camera like the 5D, which shows the slightest flaw in a lens. I've already spent several thousand $ on lenses, and I only have three! Shows how important it is to choose the manufacturer and sensor size before you start buying lenses - jumping ship gets costly.

of the 4 lens i own, 3 are 15 years old! at the time they were nikons top-o-the-line. my D-100 uses the small sensor and i have no problem adjusting to it. it also is but a mere 6mp, and discontinued in '02.
i want to 'upgrade' , but my photos(and wallet) can't justify it.

Being with Nikon you can of course use lenses from way back. Canon took a complete change in direction in the '80's, when all of the previous "FD" lenses were discontinued and replaced by the incompatible "EF" series which they still use. Ironically there are adapters to allow the use of Canon FD lenses on a Nikon, but they can't be used on an EF Canon as the distances are wrong. My A1 was one of the last FD cameras they made and it was/is a superb camera, but the nine FD lenses I own are useless to me on my new EF Canon.

Having invested a fortune (over a few years, not all at once) in what turned out to be outdated technology but which nonetheless was still excellent, I was reluctant to ditch it all and go for new designs that could have turned out (but didn't to be a "flash in the pan".

One lens that I really liked was a 600mm "reflex" lens, ie. a mirror lens. That was Tamron or Sigma and had an exchangeable mount so would work on your Nikon, but will never work on my modern Canon. It wasn't even particularly expensive, so after I got my 5D I looked around for one. No-one seems any more to make reflex lenses, though I've not been able to discover a sound reason for that. On chat forums people say that digital cameras are more intolerant of lens imperfections than film cameras, and reflex lenses had too many inherent flaws to work on a digital. That may be true, but it sounds a bit like BS to me. Any views?

On your Nikon, there's nothing wrong with 6mp unless you want to blow things up really large. There's a lot more to camera performance than just MP. Judging by the hummingbird photos you posted a while back you have an excellent camera (and eye!). Nikon seem to be reining in their MP development at around 12, whereas Canon now even have compacts at 15, the new 5D is 22, and the next 1Ds is rumoured to have over 30. Who's right?

i don't know much if anything about reflex lens. never owned one and have read very little. most had a single 'fixed' apature right?
maybe for some reason thats what lead to there demise?
if only to justify the fact that i have no camera money right now,,i don't see the newest models showing many features that my old one already does. some faster sync speeds, some blazing frames per seconds, live view, and the full frame sensor, but the biggie for me is wireless flash! i could dig that!!
but alas,, i have to ride this horse till she croaks.
and i am using nikon capture nx for post. i like it for a few reasons. one is i just can't grasp photoshop. it is just toooooooo much for my beer soaked brain. capture does what i need very well. i don't have any problems with RAW conversions.
my problem is with storage. but that will be solved in 2 weeks as a friend is bringing me a 1 terrabyte hard drive!!!! lets see me fill THAT suckr up!!