Nikon D3 housing

I got an e-mail from Harald Hordosch yesterday announcing that Seacam will definitely support the Nikon D3, and the new housing will of course accept the 14-24mm wide-angle zoom.

We are all hopeful that there will be a D3X, a high-res version with the same body dimension as the D3. That would be a bonus for all housing manufacturers. But, the D3 as it is now is a very credible imaging tool and deserves to be used underwater. Late summer is a reasonable expectation for delivery on first units.

According to tech specs on both 14-24 Nikkor and 16-35II Canon lenses I'm assuming about the same port extension. I use a 57.5mm on my 16-35II.

I can't tell if length on 14-24 includes sunshade, but assume so. So, sensor-to-front-glass distance is likely about the same. That's my prediction anyway, but will of course test extensively when housing becomes available.

I use a 57.5mm on my 16-35II.

is that with the Superdome, Stephen?

Cheers

Steve

I got an e-mail from Harald Hordosch yesterday announcing that Seacam will definitely support the Nikon D3, and the new housing will of course accept the 14-24mm wide-angle zoom.

 

We are all hopeful that there will be a D3X, a high-res version with the same body dimension as the D3. That would be a bonus for all housing manufacturers. But, the D3 as it is now is a very credible imaging tool and deserves to be used underwater. Late summer is a reasonable expectation for delivery on first units.

Thanks for the good news.

Here is the bad news: The 14-24 does not fit the current ports.

The outside diameter of the shade is a fraction of a mm too large to fit the inside diameter of the ports - I have tried with a Superdome, which is probably the only current Seacam port suitable for this lens. I am thinking of sanding it down a wee bit (the ID of the port and an extension tube).

So, what sort of adjustment is he going to make?

Tom

Thanks for the good news.

Here is the bad news: The 14-24 does not fit the current ports.

The outside diameter of the shade is a fraction of a mm too large to fit the inside diameter of the ports - I have tried with a Superdome, which is probably the only current Seacam port suitable for this lens. I am thinking of sanding it down a wee bit (the ID of the port and an extension tube).

So, what sort of adjustment is he going to make?

Tom

Steve - Yes, the PVL 57.5 is with a superdome. It is a custom size I asked Harald to make, but will be available through any Seacam dealer. Not perfect, nothing really is perfect with that lens it seems, but it is the best I could do after lots of testing.

Tom - Yes, we know the existing ports won't work. Actually, you were the first one to have a 14-24 and superdome in their hands to confirm what we feared. The D3 housing will have to have a bigger throat diameter in the superdome, for sure. How this is accomplished I'll leave to Harald's genius. We assume the real need for the 14-24 is not with cropped sensor cameras like D300 or D2x, but with full frame cameras. Therefore, when that housing is designed this very crucial lens will be accommodated.

The superdome really appears to be the best option for the 14-24mm. However, I think for the time being I am going to use the 16mm fisheye with my D3 along with my existing port. It would be nice to house the 14-24mm, but the 16mm fisheye still has the wider field of view.

I hope the design Harald comes up with will mean the D3 will still accomodate all the old ports, and it will just be the Superdome and port extensions that have the custom diameter.

Otherwise housing the 14-24mm will need a remortgage !

Steve

I hope the design Harald comes up with will mean the D3 will still accomodate all the old ports, and it will just be the Superdome and port extensions that have the custom diameter.

 

Otherwise housing the 14-24mm will need a remortgage !

 

Steve

Steve - I'm certain it is just the 14-24, but can't speculate beyond that.

Tom - Yes, we know the existing ports won't work. Actually, you were the first one to have a 14-24 and superdome in their hands to confirm what we feared. The D3 housing will have to have a bigger throat diameter in the superdome, for sure. How this is accomplished I'll leave to Harald's genius. We assume the real need for the 14-24 is not with cropped sensor cameras like D300 or D2x, but with full frame cameras. Therefore, when that housing is designed this very crucial lens will be accommodated.

This thread has given me the excuse for taking the pix that are attached. They show a 14-24 mounted on an F5 inside a Seacam F5 housing. I stuck on a short port extension tube to show close the fit is. The ends of the shade are flexible enough allowing the tube to fit on the end as shown but not any further. That is the a SD next to it. As you can see there is no issue with the current and past (newer mount) housings with accommodating the lens. The zoom ring is narrow and inside the housing port mount - no issue here. A focusing ring should not be a problem either.

I look forward to finding out Harald's solution. As the SD was designed for the 18mm FL, I would not be surprised to see a 'superduperdome' for the 14mm FL This would make Canon shooters like you happy too and might even enable using a wider lens apertures (re. your recent 14mm Canon MkII evaluation). Obviously different extension tubes would have to be used for different lenses. It is not inconceivable that the port end of these extension tubes would have a larger sized mount than the camera end.

Tom

Thanks for the pics Tom - the 14-24 is big!!

Looking forward to Seacams solution. For me, the ideal would be a superdome with a wider bore, that fits directly onto a port extender designed for the 14-24 (small bore on the housing side, wide bore on the port side). There'd also be a step down insert for the new Super dome to enable it to work with other small bore port extender's or fit directly onto the housing. But I'm sure Harald will come up with a better idea....

Steve

The superdome really appears to be the best option for the 14-24mm. However, I think for the time being I am going to use the 16mm fisheye with my D3 along with my existing port. It would be nice to house the 14-24mm, but the 16mm fisheye still has the wider field of view.

Warren - For those who don't want to have to adapt to the wider port dimensions of the 14-24; the Nikkor 17-35 and 18mm are very nice options on a full frame camera, or at least they were on the full frame film cameras from Nikon. I haven't seen results from them tested on a D3 yet.

See http://www.wetpixel.com/i.php/full/nikon-1...anon-1ds-mk-ii/ for a topside comparison of the 18mm AF and the old style Canon 16-35 and http://www.16-9.net/lens_tests/canon1740_n...740vn1735a.html for a nicely balanced review of the 17-35 Nikkor. And, as you point out, the 16mm is certainly viable for superwide fisheye work.

Actually, the 104-62 degree coverage of the 17-35 might better cover most things on the reef better than the wider coverage (at both ends) of the 14-24. No doubt the 14-24 is a better performer in topside resolution tests, but I find myself at the 35mm end quite a bit with my 16-35II. There is a pretty big difference in the kinds of things you'd shoot at 35mm versus the kinds of things you can shoot with a 24mm, so despite the 10 degrees difference in coverage at the wide end (17-35 compared to 14-24) I won't disregard the functionality of the 17-35 on full frame.

Slightly OT, but Eric had the new 1Ds Mk3 Seacam housing on the recent Wetpixel Socorro trip - and that performed faultlessly straight out of the box.

I shot both the 17-35mm and 14-24mm on the D3 (on land) and was very impressed with both. The 17-35mm might not be new and sexy, but it is a damn fine lens. Plus it can take a dioptre which personally I believe might give it better overall image quality than the 14-24mm when used underwater behind a dome.

Alex

Slightly OT, but Eric had the new 1Ds Mk3 Seacam housing on the recent Wetpixel Socorro trip - and that performed faultlessly straight out of the box.

 

I shot both the 17-35mm and 14-24mm on the D3 (on land) and was very impressed with both. The 17-35mm might not be new and sexy, but it is a damn fine lens. Plus it can take a dioptre which personally I believe might give it better overall image quality than the 14-24mm when used underwater behind a dome.

 

Alex

Hopefully we will soon get a MkIII report from Eric! I think the 14-24 is more a glorified 14 rather than a replacement for the 17-35. Lets hope the 14-24 performs at least as well underwater, if not better, as the new Canon 14 or the Nikon 14.