There have been several different housings covered on the main blog. A search for "underwater" or "housing" on the main site yields some good results.

http://www.google.com/cse?cx=partner-pub-2246852236957917%3A7054993103&ie=UTF-8&q=Underwater&sa=Search#gsc.tab=0&gsc.q=Underwater&gsc.page=1

parnuest said:
Msmoto, thank you, we think alike. These were my plans - about the housing, thank you for mentioning the company and lenses. Spraynpray, the problem with water-shock proof cameras is getting these futures you are losing quality of pictures. But of course I always will have this camera with me in extreme conditions like swinging between trees and shooting following me my grand daughter! Or in dangerous conditions like country Ecuador, somebody pointed chisel at me: "Money!" They are not every day situations . . .
My concern about getting D600 were oil spots, how bad it will affect the use of the camera. Browsing nikonrumors found the answer to my question in the tag "When to expect dust/oil spot on my new D600?"
Thank you everybody for advise and support! It was nice and useful talking to you!

Reminds me of the movie RED. What exactly do you do ? ;-)

Msmoto, thank you, we think alike. These were my plans - about the housing, thank you for mentioning the company and lenses. Spraynpray, the problem with water-shock proof cameras is getting these futures you are losing quality of pictures. But of course I always will have this camera with me in extreme conditions like swinging between trees and shooting following me my grand daughter! Or in dangerous conditions like country Ecuador, somebody pointed chisel at me: "Money!" They are not every day situations . . .
My concern about getting D600 were oil spots, how bad it will affect the use of the camera. Browsing nikonrumors found the answer to my question in the tag "When to expect dust/oil spot on my new D600?"
Thank you everybody for advise and support! It was nice and useful talking to you!

You're welcome Parnuest and good luck with whatever decision you make.

One last thought as I read this thread.... If, and a big if, one wants film quality, versatility of the larger format....encasing one's DSLR in a waterproof housing works very well.

I use an Ewa-Marine U-BF100 Underwater Housing, which holds a D4. The quality is outstanding. And they make less pricey ones for the other bodies. like a D600. I use it with the 16-35mm f/4 VR which will work under water nicely. My "wettest" venue was in the surf, allowing the surf to break over me and the camera while shooting images....

Just a thought as to how to protect a D600....

Parnuest - I think you have answered your own question - If I were you I would go for a high end ruggedised and water proof point and shoot. If you are near water and sand you will not want to be changing lenses! If you are not going to change lenses, you do not want a DSLR. An active lifestyle and a fragile camera do not mix well.

Good luck!

HI, guys! I appreciate very much both responses and . . . they oppose one another . . . Spraynpray, your notice is correct, I really did not learn about digital photography. Back in past Soviet Union had not bad film cameras, first FED-3 and later KIEV-10. To use them you need to put manually shoot speed and diaphragm. First digital camera I bought being in USA 10 years ago. Lost it and the second one due to accidents related to water activities. I am very active, like to be under the water or on a tops of trees, etc. Now have Panasonic Lumix DMC-TS2, water proof and shock proof and so little and light. It is always with me in my purse or pocket to be ready to shoot interesting moments. I do not use Auto mode but do use Scene modes. With this futures brain is becoming lazier. BUT: I miss very much quality of pictures what I had with my film cameras - they were 3-dimentional, deep, alive! A drop of water from the leave it is really THE drop of water! Plus hope to be retired soon and have time for leaning and experiments. Gabandy, thank you very much for your detailed analysis of lenses and cameras. Both responses are very useful. Now just the last drop what will be on me - to make decision . . .

IMHO, if you are going to be buying just the ONE camera to tide you up for the next 10 years then you should go for the D600.

Specially if you're considering shooting family moments, portraits or landscapes which I'm guessing probably what you're gong to be doing.

And overall, it's newer than the D7000 and has a better performing sensor.

Then again, if you're planning to shoot mostly sports, wildlife or action then you might want to consider the D7000.

Lens-wise, the 24-85 and the 70-300 should be more than adequate enough for casual and day to day use.

The 18-200, however, while would still be good, it will probably leave a lot to be desired in terms of quality specially later on when you've gotten the hang of you camera.

Not that you wouldn't outgrow the 24-85 and 70-300 eventually but I think you'll be more satisfied with them on the long run.

And back on the 18-200, if you're going to get a superzoom lens like that and leave it on your DSLR 24/7/365 for the next 10 years then why not just get an advance point and shoot? Not saying you should but you get my drift, right?

If you do get the D7000, I would try to avoid the 18-200 and go for a two lens solution like the 16-85 and 70-300... it will a bit more money but should still be less than the D600 deal.

Oh and one last note, even if this is going to be your first DSLR and you're completely new to photography, if you're truly determined to learn then there is nothing better than learning on a good camera. Even if you get something lesser like an advanced point and shoot or even a D3200/D5200, eventually you will outgrow them and want to get a something better. It seems to me you have a good mentality as far as your hobby since you're looking to find a camera that would last you 10+ years.

OK, the answer to your actual question is - all things considered, go for the D7000/18-200.

HOWEVER: I have to ask you why are you buying a DSLR? It seems like you are not experienced or knowledgeable about photography so I STRONGLY suggest you consider a very good point and shoot. No offence meant parnuest, but we see lots of questions like yours and it seems from what you say and what you don't say, that you may not be best suited to a complex camera. If you are destined to use it on auto, save money and carry-on weight by going for a good point and shoot.

Good luck!

A little correction: The price for D600 with 2 lenses dropped to $2390.- and if I am considering what ever I choose now NOT to upgrade for like minimum next 10 years?

I am very sorry to come here with my question (did not find how I can post it) But approximately the same situation I have: I need to choose from 2 kits what is on sale right now in Costco stores and on-line. One is Nikon D600 body with 2 VR lenses: 24-85 mm + 70-300 mm for the price of $2890.-. The second kit is Nikon D7000 body with 18-200 mm VR lens for $ 1500.-. I read reviews on-line and seams every second buyer was complaining about oily spots on D600 sensor. Is it will be a big issue? What is better - to have one lens 18-200 mm or 2 separate 24-85 and 70-300? Will use the camera mainly for traveling. Thank you

waterpork

I feel you are making a very sensible decision

@waterpork - the difference between DX and FX on an enthusiast level is more on paper than in real life. if You think You need d600 than go and get it, after all it really doesn't matter what You use. It matters to enjoy taking snaps and if You will feel better with full frame, You have the answer.
juste one more option to consider, as tcole suggested - d3200, sure not the same league as d600/d7000 combo in the body build area, but certainly good option when You look at the sensor capability (see DxO Mark).

Thanks everyone...seems that different people have different suggestions...actually I'm a college student,now study in US,just for hobby, not for commercial use. If I buy d7000 I'll not upgrade to fx in at least three years;if I buy d600 kit I'll save up to a 14-24 next step...fx offers much better experience than dx but I'm just a beginer and still confused by those professional terms...

@kathryn Welcome. Give your current status and needs, the D7000 will be a great body to go with. With respect to lenses, I would recommend getting the 35 1.8G and/or 85 1.8G, both these lenses are fast, very sharp, great in low light, and will do a nice job for videos. For a "all around" lens, consider the 18-200mm.

Cheers and best of luck.

kathryn said:
Whats the difference between dx and fx .

Hi Kathryn. So much can be said here but here's a good start.

http://photographylife.com/nikon-dx-vs-fx
Best regerds.

I hope MODS don't mind the link posted...

Whats the difference between dx and fx .

well I guess I'd like to limit it to $2000. I'd like good quality photos and ability to make quality movies.

Hi Kathry, welcome to the forum.

We can talk about the D7000 and D600 here, but I think first you have to decide on a budget.

All the lenses you have will on both cameras, but the 18-55 is suited for DX (cropped sensors) cameras like the D7000. Since you are going to just be a casual user, I really don't think you would need a D600. While it's a great camera I think it might be a little overkill for a few family portraits.

So keep your lenses (I doubt you would get much for them, except for the 50mm) and buy a new body.

waterpork said:
Hi everyone, I'm a beginner, and have no more than $3000 spend in dslrs and lenses. I mainly shoot landscapes.
I don't have any lenses burden. Now I'm considering d600 kit or d7000+24-70 2.8, and don't know which to buy... I know many people say to spend more on lense but I heard that wideangle lenses works much better on fx bodies.. Do you have any suggestions? Also any other recommended combination of Canon is Ok!

sorry, new to this site and can't figure out how to post a general question. But I think you can answer my question. I am looking for a new nikon and want to be able to use the lenses I have unless they are just bad with all the new technology. I own a N 55 with
AF nikkor lens 35-105
D50 with nikon DX Af-S 18-55
N70
Nikon AF Nikkor 50mm 1:1.4 lens
I was looking at the D7000 as price is lower now
But then think I should get the newest 600
Maybe I should sell everything I have and buy lenses new too?
So what do I keep, what do I sell
I am a casual user and will be doing family portraits, pets. Am not a professional and though I was a photography minor will use the auto settings and I just get too confused...
BUT my sons will want to use it it to make movies. One is a high schooler, but one is a Calarts grad and more serious, though he can at some point get his own . Price is a consideration as it will mainly be my camera. hope I'm posting correctly.

sevencrossing said:
Agreed. Landscapes need good dynamic range and high color fidelity so native ISO is a must

but the best light if often just before sunrise or after sunset, when light levels can be low. I know, I should use a tripod but some locations can make this difficult, dangerous or impossible. I often find myself shooting at 1/30 Comparative shots with a non VR prime and a VR zoom indicate that I am better off with the VR zoom .

but that's just me; if you shot landscapes, in bright sunshine, ISO and VR are not an issue

I believe that is the best use of VR. I also find myself shooting without a tripod on a hike or something and in the shadows of the trees the shutter speeds are under 1/60 usually. It still is no problem with VR where my 17-55 makes me struggle even at F2.8.

So totally off topic...Nikon you need to add VR to all your lenses that don't have them and we won't have this conundrum anymore :)

On a serious note...this might be one reason I love my 105 F2.8 so much is because of the VR. It makes it so versatile hand holding it to shoot anything really.

I also don't buy the faster lens > VR argument. I mean if you are shooting sports in low light is VR going to help? No...but that isn't what it was meant for. Is it helpful in 95% of the shooting I do...yep. Is it necessary...nope. If you have lenses side by side one with and one without VR and they are exactly the same...would I pay $200 more and get the one with it...yep.

golf007sd said:
Correct me if I'm wrong, but for landscape, ISO is really not the factor. Almost all my landscape shots are at ISO 100...

Agreed. Landscapes need good dynamic range and high color fidelity so native ISO is a must

but the best light if often just before sunrise or after sunset, when light levels can be low. I know, I should use a tripod but some locations can make this difficult, dangerous or impossible. I often find myself shooting at 1/30 Comparative shots with a non VR prime and a VR zoom indicate that I am better off with the VR zoom .

but that's just me; if you shot landscapes, in bright sunshine, ISO and VR are not an issue

sevencrossing said:
As a beginner I would shy away from the 24-70 (and most primes) as they are not VR

Camera shake is more likely to cause an unsharp image than lens quality

if you want a better lens than the 24 -85 get the 24 -120 f 4 VR

I think this can go both ways. I had all VR lenses then went to my 12-24 F4, 17-55 F2.8 and 300 F4 without it. It has been a change to make sure I don't get camera shake. So getting non-VR from the get go can possibly help in the learning process (if it doesn't frustrate beyond giving up point). In the 24-70 range it shouldn't be too hard to get high enough shutter speeds...now would I recommend the 300 F4...probably not.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but for landscape, ISO is really not the factor. Almost all my landscape shots are at ISO 100....it is all about the glass, and how much of wide angle shot the photographer wants.

@Regulator75 +1 on the 50 1.8G

If I was you, I'd get the D600 (no kit) and the 50mm f/1.8 D. Being a beginner you'll learn much faster with just using a prime lens and not depending on your zoom.
Then save some cash up and then get the 24-70mm or as other have stated the 24-120mm f/4 VR.