Photography Gear and Technique / Archived topic
Started by Alex_Mustard ·
Read-only discussion
If you can overlook that it's Ken Rockwell...
Coupl'a points
For thouse of you who think that a fisheye zoom for FF is impossible/difficult you should note that such a lens does/did exist.
smc PENTAX-F FISH-EYE 1:3.5-4.5 17-28mm
http://kmp.bdimitrov.de/lenses/zooms/short...5-4.5-Fish.html
Yeah, it was a popular underwater lens in the 1980s on the Pentax LX housings. Rowlands wrote a brief news article about it in an issue of UWP Magazine last year when the Tok was finally announced available. A friend of mine used her LX until earlier this year, when she got a D80.
Anyway, the reason I asked the question is that later in the year Nikon are likely to announce the D2X successor, and there is a fair chance it will be FF or close.
Alex
I still haven't got over the fact I couldn't take a 10x8 Sinar and 20,000 joules of flash with me underwater! What's a cropped sensor? (That was a joke!)
As I'm sure you know William Thompson back in 1856 took photos underwater with a plate camera then Louis Boutan started more of this with a glass plate camera in 1892. It seems underwater flash came just before 1900 with magnesium powder in a bell jar with oxygen. So, have a go with your Sinar B)
Charles
Craig, we'll simply have to agree to disagree! My problem is that I can SEE differences between images I have shot on FF and smaller sensors. I have to admit though that I still think that my 1DSs produce an image quality which I prefer above anything else I've seen - warts and all, and yes 1DSs do have some pretty big warts!
I don't dispute that you see differences knowing that you choose a FF configuration that offers a unique perspective. There are relatively few of those but among them is certainly WA coverage at less than f/2.8. What I do dispute is your claim that those differences are the result of a specific superior capability of FF that is proven and documented not to exist. There is no superior tonality in current FF sensors because there is no distinguishing hardware in them that could possibly offer that. If you continue to insist otherwise, then you should offer an explanation as to what "tonality" actually is in a digital image so that we can discuss what precisely allows FF to offer a better quality of it.
FF cameras and cropped sensor cameras are currently very much alike in overall IQ under ideal lighting and there is ample objective documentation of that on the internet now. Where FF distinguishes itself is in low light shooting. That may or may not be of value to UW shooters. Going forward, FF has more room to grow in performance but that has no impact on what today's cameras offer.
Ignoring high ISO (and modest differences in resolution and noise), all that's left to distiguish FF from cropped sensor is the perspective offered with available lenses. The original topic of this thread was the desirability of the cropped sensor 10-17 FE and you clearly prefer your FF camera with its 24mm f/1.4 lens. That's all fine but what's not fine is claiming that your lens configuration allows you to appreciate the superior qualities of FF that the rest of us cannot see. The qualities you refer to are the emperor's new clothes; what you see IS the uniqueness of the lens and nothing more.
While you may like the OOF areas you get shooting your lens wide open, those characteristics will not benefit you when shooting that lens at f/8 as compared to a cropped sensor camera that can achieve similar perspective and aperture. Likewise, the superior tonality you believe that you see won't exist when you use that same FF sensor in a macro setup.
Don't confuse my criticism of your claims to be a criticism of full frame. I believe in FF as much as anyone but, just like you, I believe that the best UW rig has to consider lenses. For you, a specific FF lens perhaps tilts the balance. For me it was other lenses and the availability of housings that influenced my choice. If I were choosing a year later perhaps my choice would be different. Both systems have compelling features and the needs of UW photo pros are different from amateurs.
Coupl'a points
- Linking to Ken is akin to linking to Luminous Landscape
- Ken, as per usual MO, has not actually used said lens, just rendering an opinion based on specifications
- The 17mm image he displays is a crop of the 10mm image, with a caption that says "this is what it would look like"
Of course, for land use a FE is a very specialized lens. For someone making money in KR's manner you'd expect more effort than that.
Hi Craig,
Excellent points. I agree with you that now-adays there isn't much difference between FF and DX sensor performance at base ISO. I read the article you showed me and it's pretty clear that until Canon implements >12bit ADC in all their cameras they can't improve base ISO performance (DR, etc).
But your post clearly shows your preference for shooting macro. The diffraction limits, lens choices, FOV, and port choices may point to a DX set-up as the "best" for macro shooting, but I don't think the same choice applies for wide angle.
My reasoning is:
Shooting behind a dome requires a small aperture in order to get the whole curved image within the depth of field limits.
Shooting behind a dome also requires a small aperture in order to get the best performance out of most WA lenses (12-24DX, 17-40L, 16-35LII ETC)
I typically shoot at F8 or higher if I can get away with it.
This often requires using ISO well above base in order to get a properly exposed background and stop action or get a high enough SS to make the sunball look acceptable. Many Canon WA shooters regularly use ISO400 This was crucial on the shark trips I've done.
Another area where shooting above the base ISO is useful is when using filters. A magic filter or CC30m will typically rob a stop of light, requiring a change in either SS, F-stop, or ISO. Usually changing the ISO is the best choice.
Anyhow, I'm not going to get into the qualitative differences but I've used DX cameras, cropped sensor Canons and FF Canons. It's strictly my opinion but there are definitely differences.
I agree with your choice when it comes to macro shooting - I just got back from a week diving that was mostly WA, but I did 5 macro dives. I had to use a 150mm lens while all the DX shooters had 100mm lenses and were getting the same shots as me, but with a much lighter rig. But I think the "tables are turned" when it comes to shooting behind a dome - and this is dues to the optical constraints of our underwater housings/domes and wide angle lenses.
Cheers
James
James,
Yes, I have a preference for macro and my choice of DX ultimately came down to a preference for macro DX lenses over FF ones. FF does have some advantages for macro but I felt the extra theoretical performance wasn't worth the extra struggle. I did take the 10-17 FE into account, however, since I was never a fan of the 12-24 nor the 17-40. I didn't like the idea of using FF wide primes since I don't expect to get the WA dive hours necessary to minimize the downside. I'm a vacation shooter, not a photo pro scheduling 4 week liveaboards.
While FF sensors allow the use of higher ISO, they also require it more. The DX crop factor is the equivalent of about a stop so a FF WA lens at f/8 is the physical aperture equivalent to a DX WA lens at f/5.6. FF WA has greater vignetting and edge softness to deal with so it needs those smaller apertures more. If a given dive requires ISO 400 for FF setups, it is likely to only need ISO 200 or even 100 for DX. In any case, up to ISO 400 DX sensors still perform well. It's 800+ where the differences become pronounced.
Of course, that's not to say you aren't correct. I'd be interested in seeing the best achievable, most comparable result between DX and FF for rectalinear wide angle shooting. I don't think anyone's approached a comparison from that perspective. For ambient shooting with filters, there's no question that high ISO is an advantage. To balance that, DX offers clearly better options for FE shooters. Depends on what you want.
I decided to forego WA primes and zooms and use the 10-17 instead. I like filter shooting but in combination with strobes so I don't value high ISO beyond a point. I have no interest in shallow DOF WA with its requisite 2+ stop vignetting and edge softness. These are simply my choices and I'm certainly not convinced that my choices are the best ones. Frankly, I think the 1D3 may be the best UW to date but it's neither DX nor FF, it will not have full housing choices, and it will be superceded in less than a year by something better. I believe both Canon and Nikon will offer something more desirable by the end of the year.
Theoretically, a DX crop should have about 1 stop worse DNR than FF for equal resolution. For identical perspective, FF should need about 1 stop smaller aperture so they should cancel out. In reality, things are much different and it becomes a matter of specific lenses and ports. If we could have ideal sensor performance and any lens/port we could imagine wanting, I think it's easy to agree that DX and FF would have matching WA performance. FF would always be better for macro, though, actual WA lens choices will favor FF and resolution growth over time will favor FF as well. At least that's how I see it.
Another area where shooting above the base ISO is useful is when using filters. A magic filter or CC30m will typically rob a stop of light, requiring a change in either SS, F-stop, or ISO. Usually changing the ISO is the best choice.
Yes and no, depending. Yes, a CC30 filter removes a stop of light since each 10 units is 1/3 stop. However, in the case of a CC30M where you are metering blue water, the filter itself doesn't alter the blue at all so exposure compensation will be a matter of taste. I like darker, bluer water so I wouldn't adjust at all. For a magic filter and ambient shooting there is clearly a needed adjustment.
When shooting complementary filters such as a CC30M/CC30G, the strobes lose 1 stop of output due to the CC30G filters. You must take that into account and possibly adjust your aperture. There are always considerations!
One thing is certain, filters work by removing light so you will either need to add more light, increase light sensitivity, or accept more limitations on what you can shoot. Wide angle is fun!
Anyway, the reason I asked the question is that later in the year Nikon are likely to announce the D2X successor, and there is a fair chance it will be FF or close.
Alex
Is there any basis/rumour why Nikon would build a FF camera?
Anyway, just bought the Tok and I will test it next weekend.
There are a number of sources for such rumors. The most concrete is that Sony has been showing prototype dSLRs at public shows and one of them has a finder that's unnecessarily large for a DX sensor. Since Sony is a leading provider of Nikon's sensors, it's speculated that Sony and Nikon are working together on a larger format sensor to fit that body. Since Sony implements VR/IS in the body, there is reason to believe that the sensor may be somewhat less than FF, possibly a 1.1 or 1.13 crop. There may be a sweet spot where manufacturing is simplified as well at slightly less than FF. Finally, there are some insiders who've been reliable in the past suggestling strongly that Nikon's D3 will be FF and that prototypes have been in testers' hands for some time. Suggested announce and ship dates vary but they all predict it in 2007. Hogan has even suggested June/July announce and September ship though he is adamant that he has no inside knowledge and he is generally very careful with what he says.
There are additional rumors that Nikon is preparing a rather large lens announcement. The belief is that most of the new lenses are not DX thus adding to the speculation that Nikon's pro bodies are about to move to FF. The feeling is that many older lenses need to be updated to support FF digital adequately.
The reason for Nikon FF is pretty obvious. The industry is reaching real limits on their ability to improve performance through reduction in photosite sizes. Since that's the case, Nikon must pursue larger sensors or permanently conceed the resolution race. At least that's the talk among people who aren't actually engineering these things. It's common to claim that what we have is just about as good as it can get, yet the next generation is always better. I think it's clear that, sooner or later, Nikon will need to use larger sensors.
What seems to me to be a very reasonable rumor is a D3x that provides a 1.1x crop, 19MP sensor with a high speed DX crop of 10MP. The 1.1x crop eliminates the worst part of the image circle and enables Sony's IS while the DX crop allows a high framerates and the use of existing DX lenses. The pixel pitch would be similar to the D200 and the speculated 22MP 1Ds3. If all that pans out the D3x and 1Ds3 may be surprisingly comparable.
"Anyhow, I'm not going to get into the qualitative differences but I've used DX cameras, cropped sensor Canons and FF Canons. It's strictly my opinion but there are definitely differences."
James, this is my point exactly! I've tried side by side tests, same apertures, etc., etc., and the FF simply yields (slightly I'll admit) but better 'image quality' and the only difference is the sensor even at the 'smaller' apertures as you say you use.
I am starting to suspect that this is due to a huge number of interactions which undoubtedly include the specific image being shot, but I'm really not prepared to get involved in more pointless discussion about it!
On the speculation about Nikon. Unless they also announce this new line up of lenses too I'd be very doubtful but it would be good to see some serious competition in the camera business to Canon's F cameras. For anyone really interested in resolution, MPixels and lenses, its well worth reading up on Leica's M8 digital rangefinder which, although it has some substantially different lens/sensor interaction problems, can give an insight into the optical requirements of the lenses required to operate with higher MPixel cameras. Its interesting that Leica with a 1.33x crop camera have opted for a 10.1MPixel sensor and there appear to be some sound reasons for them doing so. Sadly, I still think that dome ports will remain the final limiter for underwater images with wide-angles when all said and done.
James, this is my point exactly! I've tried side by side tests, same apertures, etc., etc., and the FF simply yields (slightly I'll admit) but better 'image quality' and the only difference is the sensor even at the 'smaller' apertures as you say you use.
I am starting to suspect that this is due to a huge number of interactions which undoubtedly include the specific image being shot, but I'm really not prepared to get involved in more pointless discussion about it!
I would agree that such a discuss is pointless for those who have no interest in what's actually going on, but for those who make technical claims on the differences between sensor designs you'd think there would be a point. You'd also expect that those who make such claims after performing such tests might offer some side-by-side comparisons that demonstrate their observations.
It seems you are implying that Nikon's lenses aren't capable of full frame performance. Canon didn't rerelease all their lenses with the introduction of the 1Ds and there are examples, the 17-35 in particular, where Nikon's offerings outperform Canon's on a Canon dSLR. Nikon has no more problem than Canon does, and it doesn't really matter because Nikon is, in fact, expected to make a large lens announcement. For underwater shooters, what matters is only a subset of lenses for which Nikon is, if anything, ahead. Nikon has traditionally offered better wides and, having owned all Nikon and Canon macro lenses, I prefer the Nikon ones in all cases. Of course, these things are always subject to change as the new 16-35L shows us.On the speculation about Nikon. Unless they also announce this new line up of lenses too I'd be very doubtful but it would be good to see some serious competition in the camera business to Canon's F cameras.
The claim that Nikon lenses, and its mount in particular, are not capable of full frame digital is a myth disproved by full frame digital Nikon-mount bodies long ago. The reason Nikon went DX was that it was close to bankrupcy and was basically just a lens maker. Nikon's full commitment to DX played to its strengths as a lens maker and minimized its weakness of being dependent on others for its sensors. Meanwhile, Canon could make its own sensors and introduced three different sizes. Such lack of focus caused it to be late and to botch its initial EF-S lens design. Now that Nikon is financially healthier, more competitive, and more capable of sensor design, it's just prejudice that causes people to argue that it can't do FF. Whether they do or not is another matter, but anyone who thinks Canon doesn't face serious competition already has his mind made up. I'm sure Canon knows differently.
Craig,
I think what Paul was saying - and I could be wrong - was that it will look a lot more likely for Nikon to announce a FF camera if they also announce some new lenses. All they've announced in the lens category lately is amateur stuff. If they announce some "pro" lenses then that will add a bit of legitimacy to the rumors.
Cheers
James
I know that, I just don't understand it. Did Canon announce a bunch of new "pro lenses" just before the 1Ds?
If Nikon does not announce any new pro lenses, then why would a FF D3 be a great surprise? It would only be so if it's assumed that the existing lens lineup is unacceptable for FF. How many lenses has Canon reissued because they weren't up to digital FF? We know that Canon and Nikon face similar challenges.
Nevertheless, people in the know believe that Nikon is planning a number of lens introductions. In fact, a major announcement was rumored in May but didn't materialize. Their belief is that few, if any, will be DX and many will be pro. I haven't seen any speculation beyond that.
Nikon says that many lens designs don't benefit from being DX, so there's a good explanation for why a major announcement might not include any DX models and I wouldn't interpret such an announcement as signalling FF intentions. Introducing lenses and bodies at the same time makes great marketing sense since they are complimentary products. I would think that Nikon would time announcements to coincide if they are close together, so the passing of May without an announcement may signal that the D3 may come sooner rather than later. Who knows what it's sensor size will be, though.
I don't know why but Thom Hogan seems to think that Nikon has a lot of lenses in design/development. He thinks they are in need of a "lens refresh"
http://www.bythom.com/lensrefresh.htm
They certainly need to get VR into their telephoto exotics. They should probably do an upgrade to many of their older lenses that are great optically but don't have silent wave motors, etc. A good example would be an update to the 24-120 VR - something along the lines of the Canon 24-105
Cheers
James
Yes, Hogan does think that and he's critical of Nikon's lens lineup for its usability. Much of the criticism involves the poor translation of focal length ranges to DX, some involves lack of VR and AF-S, but little involves criticism of image quality or suitability to FF. He wants new wide primes and faster ones and that's a FF issue. Notice that he still lists the 70-180 macro as his favorite lens, only he wants it back with constant aperture and AF-S. Me too.
Hogan is also one of the ones most vocal in believing that Nikon has a large lens announcement coming. As best I can tell, his argument centers around 2 year buying cycles of larger customers entering the sweet spot. That alone isn't convincing to me but Hogan is an ex-Nikon employee and a very knowledgable camera guy. He's likely familiar with how that works. I believe he's quite surprised that the May announcement didn't occur and he's convinced that the D2 replacement will occur this year and will be FF.
Nikon is very slow to update their telephotos to VR. Instead, they add VR to their midrange macro lens. Odd.
I don't really understand the reasoning behind lens development. Neither manufacturer seems to update the areas of their perceived weaknesses very quickly. New telephotos seem to be most justifiable for Nikon, but those are uninteresting for underwater and they're most likely the ones least in need of IQ improvements for FF. I'd like improved wides, conversion to AF-S, and a new zoom macro myself. That should be obvious 
I'd bet a beer Nikon will (or already is) mainly developing AF-S lenses finally putting the damn motor in the lenses where Canon did in 1990
Evidenced by all the D40X users they'll sell them to
DX is also where I'll bet that beer they will spend most of their development time and $$$$$$
dhaas
P.S. - They don't care what underwater shooters want When will everyone understand that?
WE have to learn how to incorporate the tools they create to OUR needs......
On the other hand, sony introduced or announced a series of lens (Carl Zeiss and G type), which is a clear indication that full-frame is coming.
We can speculate that Nikon will use the same or similar sensor in its flagship camera.
I read somewhere - I think somewhere on one of Canon's website (may have been somwhere on http://www.canon.com/camera-museum/) - a comment about how Canon knew that their ALL their lenses would need to operate with both digital cameras and flash units at least 10 years ago! So all lens designs since then have, I assume, accepted this point and been designed accordingly. (This website shows the release date of lenses which is interesting if you then correlate this to performance). The lens design industry is an interesting one (on the above website there is a wonderful video about the cradle to grave manufacture of a 500/4 IS lens) and as with most thing I suspect that lenses are a substantial mix of compromise between optical characteristics and design/manufacturing cost. Lenses are often diffraction limited thesedays at smaller apertures so improvements will only be noticable in terms of performance at larger apertures, distortion and specification (greater zoom ranges, smaller designs, etc.). I have a friend who is a lens designer and in his experience lenses are designed to the best of their designer's ability within financial constraints - to put this in a 'commercial' perspective look at the price of Leica M and R series lens and Zeiss lenses relative to Nikon/Canon and you will see that they are more expensive, but are often considered to be exquisite in their performance - tricky to use underwater though (the Leica 21mm might be feasible.....behind a big dome and with custom focus and aperture gears).
I would be pleasantly surprised if Nikon did announce a FF camera and new lenses - it would hype up the competition if nothing else! - but consider this - all the camera manufacturers MUST know what their line up will be several years ahead - the complexities of manufacturing such sophisticated equipment will dictate this.
Lastly, I have done side by side tests, same subject, same lens, FF and smaller bodies - my opinion stands - and the only differential is the sensor and its size!!! I WANT a smaller camera as my 1DSs are TOO heavy but I simply don't care for the alternatives except the 1.3 crop sensors (a Leica M8 sounds lovely but not for underwater I think!) which leaves little option!
Sadly, as commented, we underwater shooters are a miniscule portion of the market and our requirements are unlikely to impinge on major manufacturers!
Terms of Use Privacy Policy Guidelines We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.
A worldwide community for underwater imaging.
