Better underwater or about the same? D80 or 400D?

If the option was to buy a Canon 400D with 2gb CF card and kit lens (18-55) for about $800US or a Nikon D80 with the 17-85 lens for about $1025US is there a clear choice? I have looked at many online reviews with all being complimentary but a slight lean toward the Nikon. For UW use almost exclusively, is there perhaps a better selection criteria? Does anyone have experience with both? The D200 with the same lens is about $1299US.

Given the small price increase - why not get the D200 - as that increase would not be very significant in the whole package price.

Alex

This might fire it up a little:

NIKON RULES! hehe

I have no experience with a 400D but I shoot with a $3.5 grand Canon 1DmkII for work and a $1.6 grand D200 for personal (and UW) and vastly prefer the D200. Nikons have better colour, better glass (pro glass that is), better focus tracking, better TTL and more efficient controls. Get the D200 (or D80 if money or weight is paramount).

Cheers,

Chris

There are several lens options that were offered for the D200 in that price range. Is there one that would possible be a more robust choice? I do not see myself wanting to change a lens oceanside very often if that matters. Most of my pictures are fairly closeup but do include my kids while they dive as well.

There are several lens options that were offered for the D200 in that price range. Is there one that would possible be a more robust choice? I do not see myself wanting to change a lens oceanside very often if that matters. Most of my pictures are fairly closeup but do include my kids while they dive as well.

I'm not aware of a nikon 17-85mm lens but in that price range i guess the 18-70mm is your best bet for a cheap mid zoom. It won't be wide enough for WA, especially for shooting divers (like your kids) and won't focus close enough for good macro.

You'll soon want the 12-24mm for WA and the 60mm for macro. For less money people like the sigma 10-20mm ($500 at B&H). Fisheye's are great too but won't do you much good above water. Generaly the best lenses for above & below the water differ significantly. There are numerous other threads discussing lens choice. Cheers,

Chris

There is no such thing as "bad color" from a digital camera. If you don't like the color of your MkII then you need to calibrate.

Cheers

James

James,

I never said 'bad colour', just not as good as my nikon (and i was being a little cocky).

Can you please elaborate on the calibration of the colour in my 1DmkII? My 3 collegues and I tend to find the colours of our cameras quite dull. I keep it on high saturation and its duller than my D200 on normal saturation. I wasn't aware that you can recalibrate it. Never bothered to download the manual though.

You can PM me the info if you don't want this thread getting off topic. Cheers,

Chris

My 3 collegues and I tend to find the colours of our cameras quite dull.

I find the color of my camera rather dull too, but I've come to terms with cameras being black. I suppose you could spraypaint it if you wanted...

Seriously, though, you just need to tweak the settings - I shoot in neutral color setting with a +1 saturdation boost, and get very good and ACCURATE color. Your white balance settings will effect it also.

I'll avoid the question about your sanity regarding a D200 having better AF than a 1DmkII....

There are good lenses for both cameras, both WA and macro. I know that the D80 has several nice UW-housing options, probably the 400d as well. A good photographer can take stunning pictures with both. A lousy photographer can prduce crap with either...

But there are off course differences, mainly regarding ergonomics, controls, build/material and price... So, go to a camera store and try them both and see which you prefer. As you plan to take it UW, perhaps also take a look at the D200, which is a much more robust and weather sealed camera - a good choice for photo jornalists in combat zones...or those spending weeks on dirty boats or in sandy huts... Also some added performace in the D200, but not crusial for UW use. The extra $$$ for the D200 will only be a fraction of your total budget once you have bought everything you need

/christian

The 400D has a much smaller viewfinder than the D80 (The D80 and the D200 have the same viewfinder). Every little bit helps underwater.

I feel the Nikon has better strobe connectivity. I love my D80, given the choice I just bought the body and then a Sigma 17-70 macro. It does work UW quite well as it focuses much more closely.

The D200 housings tend to be more expensive. I haven't seen a D200 and lens for $1299 at a legitimate dealer, be careful of bargain basement operations.

One thing I sort of like about the D400 and D40x is that they have the camera setting on a large LCD on the back. Do to my superior age and eyesight, I like big numbers.

Jack

I've not used a D80, but I've used a D70 for three years, and the D80 addresses a number of (minor) irritations, like the viewfinder. I guess that the D40 might, too.

That said, I've just bought a housing for a D200, though it has only been in a swimming pool so far...

I have found that the "feel" and ease of use of the D200 topside is a joy (and you can pretend to be a pro!), and the Nexus housing has a number of improvements (with a couple of new, but minor, irritations) over the D70, especially in the viewfinder.

The cost of a housing makes a few hundred dollars on the camera relatively unimportant, and if close-ups are your thing you will end up with a macro port and a micro lens; for fish and faces the 60mm isn't bad, though you have to get really close for the small stuff.

I guess that the best value for money is an Ikelite, but even then, with a couple of ports and strobes for close-up photography the price is going to match a D200.

Well, I want to thank everyone for thier input. I ended up buying the D80 for $932(US) out the door. I tried the D200 and to me it seemed a bit heavier and the D80 was heavy enough. It came with the 18-70mm lens and I ordered the 60mm Macro as well. They had a Tamron 90mm Macro there which was nice but it seemed that most people I find here seem to use the 60. I hope that means they like the 60mm...

Domo Arigato Gozaimas

James,

 

I never said 'bad colour', just not as good as my nikon (and i was being a little cocky).

 

Can you please elaborate on the calibration of the colour in my 1DmkII? My 3 collegues and I tend to find the colours of our cameras quite dull. I keep it on high saturation and its duller than my D200 on normal saturation. I wasn't aware that you can recalibrate it. Never bothered to download the manual though.

 

 

Chris

if you look all the tabs in ACR (adjust, detail, lens, curve etc) the one on the far right is labelled "calibration". This allows you to enter values that can calibrate YOUR sensor using a Macbeth colour checker card.

Chromoholics offer a program/script that lets you photograph the card, open the pic in ACR, select an area of the pic that includes all the different colour swatches on the card, run the script which then gives you a text file with a set of values to enter into the "calibrate" palet. Every camera is different and this is a way to standardise yours.

I've only used the beta version in CS and CS2, looks like it is now a full release program works with CS3.

The Thomas Fors script for calibrating ACR (the one found at Chromoholics) has been improved. You should try the one found at Rags Int., Inc. You can control the manner in which the script iterates and what the light reference used is. Additionally, there's a script that reports on the final values and overlays the correct values so that you can see where the deviations are. Finally, there's a lot of useful reading on the site.

Shooting ColorChecker charts and running the RAW files through various converters is very informative and anyone who thinks he's getting great color out of his camera and converter should check and see how great it really is. I recently decided to try a different converter based on its reputation for excellent color. Turns out nothing could be further from the truth. :-(

P.S. It's not just the camera calibration controls that need to be tuned. I found that it took a custom parametric curve (not simply linear) to get good grayscale and I had to carefully illuminate the card and compensate for vignetting before I got really good results. Getting good results from ACR calibration takes some care and effort.