UW photography without strobes with the Nikon D3?

Hey all!

I was wondering if anyone has tried the Nikon D3 underwater without any strobes. I have read and seen great results above water even at 6400 ISO, so I would love to see some UW samples.

Technically, is this approach practical? Perhaps a focus light is the only thing that's needed.

Marcos

Strobe light isn't just used to light up a dark environment so that you can take a photo. It's used to fill in shadows, isolate the subject from the background, etc. High ISO shooting and filters will never take the place of strobes.

With that said, I'm sure the camera will be GREAT for the types of photos that don't benefit from artificial light.

Cheers

James

Strobe light isn't just used to light up a dark environment so that you can take a photo. It's used to fill in shadows, isolate the subject from the background, etc. High ISO shooting and filters will never take the place of strobes.

 

With that said, I'm sure the camera will be GREAT for the types of photos that don't benefit from artificial light.

 

Cheers

James

Hey James:

I guess I didn't think the question through, because the color w/o strobes will definately not be true to the subject, and shadows won't be able to be filled.

I am intrigued to see the D3 in action though.

Hi guys,

On the topic of the D3 underwater without strobes. I have also been giving a lot of thought to this very topic. I have just boght a D3, but at present don't have a housing so all thoughts on the subject are merely conjectural and theoretical. I currently shoot with Nikon F5's and film and have always felt that if I were to begin shooting with digital, it would be because the digital camera had to have some significant capability that my film cameras didn't have - other than instant gratification and many more shots per dive.

Nikon has finally entered the "full-frame" arena with a camera that does offer at least one very huge advantage - its very low light capability (high ISO). It also allows me to use all the same lenses I have becomes used with film in exactly the same way. For shots without flash, the high ISO capabilities will allow us to shoot earlier and later into each day and still use a color correcting filter such as the "Magic Filter" without missing the extra f-stops the filter eats. A nice plus for shooting subjects like whales.

The high ISO's would allow shooting very large subjects - whales and other marine mammals, large reef walls, etc using fill flash where the same strobes wouldn't have a high enough guide number (enough power) to provide illumination from greater distances. This can work ONLY if the ambient light is low enough that it doesn't overpower the strobe fill. A possible example of where this might be of real value is shooting something like the Orcas feeding on herring in Norway. In the age of film you had to push process high ISO film to even get a grainy image. I believe the D3 with ISO 1600 or 3200 or even 6400 would be capable of getting a much better quality image. AND be able to do it with fill flash to make the picture even better.

Another area where higher ISO might be useful is trying to shoot "super-macro" shots with water color as a background. Right now, with ISO 100 film it takes virtually all the muscle two Hartenberger 625 strobes can put out to simply correctly a 4.4x lifesize image on film for which I use 92mm of Kenko extension tubes combined with a Nikon 2x converter between my F5 and the 105mm Micro-Nikkor. I shoot at between the marked f16 and f22. But there is an effective aperture loss of about 5-6 apertures which means that wide open (at f2.8) the lens about f18 and the shooting aperture is somewhere between f90 and f128. And no water color is recorded. With a much higher ISO you would need much less strobe muscle (Ikelite 50's or 125's) AND possibly be able to get a blue water color which can really enhance the shot vs the "night-like" black.

And even regular macro can benefit. While in Komodo in 2005 I shot a Tozeuma shrimp down at about 20 meters. I was "last in line" for the shrimp and thus had all the time I wanted with it. First I shot a few frames of the standard black background. Shot at about 1/250 at F18-f20 with the 70-180 Micro-nikkor zoom. And then I scrunched way down into the black sand and shot up the sand slope towards the shallows. To get any blue to record at ISO 100 I had to drop my aperture to about f11 and my shutter speed to 1/15. But I like the "blue" shots much better as a background for the yellow shrimp and yellow black coral even though there is noticably less depth-of-field. Unterwasser, in Germany for whom I was doing the Komodo shoot liked the "blue" shot much better also. On a digital camera simply raising the ISO from 100 to 800 would have allowed me to shoot at 1/60 at f16 - a much more workable combination.

I think there is no doubt that most of the major housing makers will be coming out with a housing for the D3. And if we are very lucky, the highly rumored 24 MegaPixel D3x (or whatever Nikon calls it) will be built on the same camera body and fit into the very same housing. It could be almost like film in one respect - you would decide which camera body (instead of which film) to put into your housing based on the light conditions you expect to be shooting under.

As a small aside, I also picked up one the the new 14-24mm f2.8 Nikkors. Geneally it seems to be a nice lens. And maybe even sharper and less vignetting than Nikon's fixed 14mm. On the down side, I was very disappointed to find Nikon did not put a get filter slot on the back of the lens and because of the curvature of the front element, no filter can go there. So it will be much more difficult to utilize a "color correction" filter on this lens than on their 17-35mm f2.8 which takes a standard 77mm filter on the front. The 17-35 also focuses several inches closer which means it can be used in a 6" diameter dome whereas the 14-24 just about requires an 8" or larger dome. Overall, with its 2:1 zoom ratio, closer focusing, and regular filter capability I feel that I will use the 17-35 more often than I would the 14-24. And may end up selling the 14-24 unless it is definitely sharper than my fixed 14mm which I like to use for over/under shots.

The 14-24 is also so large in diameter that it won't fit in any of Seacam's current dome ports. Misses by about 1 mm or less. So I am having to have a machine shop make me a special adapter which will allow me to mount an older, thread mount, 8" Aquatica dome (which I had for my F4 housings) on my Seacam. I should have the lens in the water in another couple weeks for testing vs the 17-35. Aquatica at DEMA told me that they were going to be able to "shave" a hair off of the opening to their new 9" glass dome to make the lens squeeze in. I have also heard that Subal's D3 housing may be using a different port mount than their current housings, which would mean all new ports or using port adapters for Subal users changing over to or addiing a D3. So again, that may be another reason to "skip" the 14-24.

Fred Bavendam

The D3 has a base ISO of 200. That will cut in half the amount of strobe light typically needed for base ISO shooting, but for those used to cropped sensors there will be more light loss at higher magnifications with macro.

The D3 has a remarkable 12-bit unity gain of ISO 3200. See the Roger Clark article. Note, though, that Clark did not test the D3 himself and I've read about discrepancies in the testing that may be associated with the D3 black level noise truncation. The D3 data in that article may not be definitive but it's probably not overstating the D3's performance.

A downside of ISO 200 is that sunballs will be a stop harder to shoot while avoiding really high f-stops. I wish I could have a variable neutral density filter for ultra wide (weitwinkel) angle stuff. Of course, the D3 can operate at ISO 100 but its dynamic range is reduced.

The 14-24 won't be the first time anyone has had to tape gel filters onto a lens in order to use them underwater.

Supermacro with dual Hartenberger 625s...very sexy.

I think anyone investing in a D3 and a new Subal housing will be willing to spring for new ports. The 14-24 will likely want the new dome anyway so existing Subal users won't be rebuying as many ports as it may seem. It's possible that the new port series could have some new, desirable features as well.

I believe the real question is the one already discussed; whether a D3/14-24 is preferable to a D300/10-17.

Craig

Singh Ray has a great variable ND filter... you just have to be able to actuate it from inside the dome

Yes yes I know! Here it is.

I have a good idea how it works. Since something like a 14-24 inside a dome would likely require a version larger than what Singh-Ray offers, some fabrication would be necessary. We also need a control knob other than the zoom. :-(

I believe that a dome rigged with such a filter might be very desirable.

Regarding the D3x - I have heard chinese-whispers from Japan(?!) that Nikon have confirmed it will have the same body. Source reliable, but what Nikon think is the same body and a housing manufacturer thinks may be different.

Regarding the Subal dome problem. The D3 will be available with two sizes of ports (3rd and 4th Generation) - and a conversion ring. I would also refer folks to Ryan Cannon's new dome - which might neatly solve the problem in one go:

http://wetpixel.com/forums/index.php?showt...mp;#entry161900

Ryan has already considered a custom extension ring for the 14-24mm. Further more, future ports in that range (optimised for rectilinear lenses) might suit the 14-24 even better. Watch this space...

Also I tend to agree with Fred's arguments on the 17-35 vs 14-24 for UW use. Although I am biased in owning a 17-35 and not being able to afford a 14-24! I had a long play with the 14-24mm last week (can't afford to buy one) and decided that I would stick with the 17-35mm for now.

Alex

Are you considering a D3/D3x Alex? I thought you had more interest in the D300 and the 10-17.

Matt did some testing with the 10-17 with a 1Ds3. I played with one on the D3 but not nearly as extensively as he did. I'm not sure yet how usable it will be but I haven't ruled it out. I think I'd shave off the sunshade so that the 10mm end would still work. Trouble is edge softness, of course.

Hey Craig,

I'm not that interested in high ISO shooting - don't suit that much of what I shoot. Certainly not enough to justify D3 and housing purchases. Neither the D3 nor D300 offer enough of a low ISO IQ increase over the D2X to be worth it for me (although I do this as a job - so my purchases have to make financial sense, not just my desire to have the latest and greatest).

So I am waiting for the D3X - although when it comes out I might also get a D3 as a second camera (should I be able to afford it) if they fit in the same housing (which I am now confident they will). I am hoping the D3X will be around 18MP (my wish) and not the 24MP Sony chip (the likely reality). Not heard anything definitive on that one.

I am not planning to attempt to use the 10-17mm with FX Nikons. I am trying to decide whether to use the Nikon 16mm I already have or buy a Sigma 15mm for the better close focus. And then use my 17-35mm to complete the wide angle set. I won't sell my D2x - although luggage restrictions my limit the diving it gets.

I will have a good look at the D300 on my forthcoming trip to Thailand - 25% of the photogs on board will have them. But I won't get one. The AF is v. good, although neither the D3 or D300 have my main AF mode from the D2X... My other hope for the D3X is an improved AF (frame coverage and low light) over the D3.

Alex

I think the same as you, Alex. Unfortunately, all my equipment was lost on my last trip so I have to either wait for the D3x or buy into another system. I'm gambling on the D3x in buying the D3 now. I could have gone 1Ds3 as well or waited for the 5D2. As always, I really love my 70-180 so I'm praying for the D3x.

If only Nikon would give us a macro version of the 70-200 f/4 with AF-S. For that matter, if only Canon or Sigma would. Then all we'd need is a FF version of the 10-17. We can dream, right?

Alex, remind me again which AF setting you use on your D2X.

Thom Hogan talked about the D300 AF system in his review Thom's Review

Alex, remind me again which AF setting you use on your D2X.

I use many modes - depending on suject. But the one I really like and will miss is the grouped dynamic-AF mode (pattern 1) on closest subject priority. And just to prove that I have always loved this mode - and haven't just started talking about it because it is not on the D3/D300, here is a quote from an old interview from Rob Galbraith.com

Group Dynamic-AF mode, which he calls "one of the great things about the D2X." This mode provides eleven different subsets, or groupings, of the camera's AF sensors (of which there are also eleven). He uses the groups that incorporate five sensors (Pattern 1 in Nikon terminology) and sets them for closest subject priority. He was initially worried that closest subject priority would be fooled into focusing on the assorted detritus that is always floating between an underwater photographer and his subjects, but it hasn't been a problem. "Once [the D2X] is on to a subject, it knows what's going on very well," Mustard says.

I'm gambling on the D3x in buying the D3 now. I could have gone 1Ds3 as well or waited for the 5D2. As always, I really love my 70-180 so I'm praying for the D3x.

Then all we'd need is a FF version of the 10-17. We can dream, right?

I actually think that the D3/D3x in the same housing is a pretty safe bet, now. And like Canon users with 1D and 1DS bodies it would be a very nice system with two bodies with different strengths and weaknesses. Although in Nikon's case both bodies will have the same sensor size (the crop on the 1D series negates much of its high ISO advantage UW where the fisheye will be the lens of choice - deep wrecks etc).

I can't see a Tokina 10-17mm in FF, but it may happen (especially if Pentax makes a FF DSLR or Tokina sells more lenses than they were expecting). Of course, the original UW fisheye zoom was the Pentax 17-28mm that was widely used on the Pentax LX, in its time a popular UW camera.

Alex

Ryan has already considered a custom extension ring for the 14-24mm. Further more, future ports in that range (optimised for rectilinear lenses) might suit the 14-24 even better. Watch this space...

 

 

Alex

I think one will want to use a superdome with this lens. One could adapt the one made by Aquatica, for example, which apparently fits the 14-24. One will need to use an extension tube because of the lens length. So one might as well combine the extension tube and adapter function as one unit. B)

I think a common D3/D3x is safe bet too. Neither Canon nor Nikon change their pro bodies much. You'd have to wonder what possible justification Nikon would have for deviating from the D3 body at this point.

I agree that a FF 10-17 is a pipe dream but I'm surprised the 10-17 itself exists. Sadly, I think a 70-200 f/4 macro is a pipe dream too. Canon makes a really nice one but it only focuses to 1 meter. The f/2.8 versions are too big and not much different in close focus. I wish photographers cared more in general about macro.

Craig,

Nikon's 70-180 Micro-nikkor zoom is a really excellent approximation to the 70-200 zoom you say you would like to see. Granted, its only f4.5~f5.6 vs your dream lens f4. But sometimes compromises have to be made to get the best quality, especially in a lens that combines zoom and close-focusing. To those of us lucky to get one before Nikon discontinued it due to insufficient sales, the lens is worth its weight in gold. And if you need slightly greater magnification than it's .75x, you can easily add Nikon's T5 or T6 dual element close-up lens. The one thing I would like to see most chaged in the lens is NOT the maximum aperture, but a change to AF-S focusing to replace the body-driven focusing the lens now has which includes a separate AF-M control ring.

Fred Bavendam

Concerning taping a gel filter to the rear of the 14-24mm lens. The rear element is also curved and at 14mm protrudes just beyond the ring where you might logically tape a gel filter. So at 14mm the filter would be in contact with the center of the rear-most element. Not good.

Fred

Yes, I've looked at the 14-24 and taping a rear gel to it will be quite challenging. The gel will have to be carefully cut and there's almost no room for tape. Discouraging but I'll be trying it.

Regarding the 70-180, I've used one for years and it is what compels me to shoot Nikon underwater. Fortunately, it was the only piece I didn't lose in lost luggage on my last trip.

The reason I chose 70-200 f/4 as the base for a new lens is that Canon makes one and that range makes clear sense. In fact, the Nikon 70-180 would be used similar to the 70-200 f/4 by land photographers but offer the bonus of fine macro. Nikon could make a modern competitor to Canon's lens AND create the ultimate underwater macro lens at the same time.

As for the slight differences in speed and focal length, those aren't the important things. What is important is the internal focus and zoom that the Canon offers plus the AF-S. That's what I want. If Canon offered it I'd probably be using them instead.

Incidentally, I tried the Inon 330 wet diopter with the 70-180 and it is nice. When attaching the diopter, you simply zoom out, reframe, then zoom back in. I found I rarely made it back to 180mm with the diopter attached. Much easier than using the same diopter with a 150 or 100+1.4x IMO. I used to worry about losing magnification with the switch to full frame but not so much anymore. On the flipside, shooting fish portraits will be that much easier on the 70 end.

Craig,

I don't understand why you feel internal focus is an important issue. I am much more concerned with image quality. Many excellent lenses are not internal focus, one of them being the classic 105 Micro-nikkor. And so what if the lens changes in length a bit due to focusing. Almost all zoom lenses, internal focus or not, change in length as you zoom. As long as you have chosen your port to preclude vignetting, I see not real practical difference.

Fred

The current Canon 100mm macro lens is internal focus, and very fast. I don't even bother putting a manual focus ring on it unless I'm using it with a teleconverter.

I don't think it would be focusing so fast if it were not internal focus. So that's one issue. (not related to the zooming issue, but it is one issue)