sea & sea d3 housing..anyone use it yet?

I have not seen it in person yet, but am considering one since I already have the d200 housing and all the ports (otherwise, id prolly spend for the subal).

anyone using it?

ps....if you haven't gotten your hands on a D3, oofaaaa, yer missing out. (says the boy with the d100, d2h, d2x and d200)

Best,

Stu

www.stuartphotography.com

I have seen it and I have one it since April 11:th and I will use it on Thursday to try hi ISO in dark swedish waters, I will keep you posted as soon as I have some images. The housing is great and the controls are improved from previous Sea&Sea models.

Kind regards // a happy MDX-Pro D3 owner

We received ours yesterday, and I'm very impressed.

Front command wheel access is excellent, but the rear command wheel is just a stretch for me. I don't have big hands. The combo lever for AF-ON and AE-L/AF-L is a great idea. AF-ON is very comfortable for me, but AE-L is a little bit of an un-natural angle. Having access to both controls without digging around in the menu is important to me (I shoot pelagics in aperture priority these days). I believe that neither Subal or Aquatica will allow access to both functions on the same dive.

I love the playback button being angled out, making it a comfortable reach for my left thumb that I can find without looking on the d300.

I love Subal housings, but in some ways this housing is better designed.

-the MSC switch isn't as fussy

-access to BOTH AE-L/AF-L & AF-ON

-angled playback, delete, menu, zoom, lock, and ok controls

Subal's rear command wheel access is better, and the front command wheel has a little better gearing for my taste. The shutter release is crisper, and they'll have a lens release (my pinky finger barely fits past the 105VR w/ an Athena focus gear on it to get the lens off, but I complain every time I have to do it). Subal also has that lovely viewfinder.

I took some studio images of my housing so that you can see the controls better.

I have more angles if some one is interested, and all images are taken with the Canon 1Ds MkIII so i do have them in very high res enjoy!

I will be back with underwater images very soon...

kind regards // Alex

I've just finished playing with the production Subal ND3, and I actually mis-stated something above. Subal did access both AE-L and AF-ON, and I think they did so in a more ergonomic fashion than did Sea & Sea.

Hello Alex. I have an S & S D3 housing waiting my return back in the USA. Are you able to see the entire image through the stock viewfinder with a diving mask on? I have the S&S d200 housing and that has been a real problem for me. I can only see 1/2 of the image at a time. I am considering a different housing if this issue is not resolved in the D3 housing. I also read on this forum about a 45 degree viewfinder. I'm wondering if that will retrofit onto the D3. I know there was some talk at the S & S booth at DEMA last year about them offering that as an option. I haven't heard anything since though. Your thoughts are greatly appreciated.

Matthew

Hi Matthew, I dont know what to answer you on that question because I never found the S&S D200's viewfinder as a problem but it is better on the S&S D3 for sure! I made 5 dives last weekend with the new S&S D3 housing and I just love it. My only concern so far is that I dont seem to get good corner sharpness on my 14-24 with the port combination I have. But i will solve that problem soon. The biggest problem with the housing for me at this point is the AF-on button that is to short for me so that It sometimes is difficult to find with thick dry gloves... But the camera shoots great images in almost total darkness without flash

I will do a quick test on the viewfinder issue when I come home from work today and I will let you now as soon as I know.

// Alex

My only concern so far is that I dont seem to get good corner sharpness on my 14-24 with the port combination I have. But i will solve that problem soon.

Interesting point, Alex.

And one that does not surprise me. I am yet to be convinced that the 14-24mm will be as good an underwater lens as it should be. I know it is awesome on land, but I am concerned that people will not be able to get the most out of it underwater because of the difficulties of getting the most out of such a wide lens behind a domeport, particularly as you are not able to fit a dioptre to it.

Personally I think that the 17-35mm AFS will remain the better UW optic for rectilinear shooting on an FX Nikon, although not as wide. Although I hope that you do get the 14-24mm performing well and tell us about it.

BTW it is good to hear some honest reporting on its failings. I suspect after spending so much on it that many will not be so objective about this objective.

Alex

Hi Matthew, I dont know what to answer you on that question because I never found the S&S D200's viewfinder as a problem but it is better on the S&S D3 for sure! I made 5 dives last weekend with the new S&S D3 housing and I just love it. My only concern so far is that I dont seem to get good corner sharpness on my 14-24 with the port combination I have. But i will solve that problem soon. The biggest problem with the housing for me at this point is the AF-on button that is to short for me so that It sometimes is difficult to find with thick dry gloves... But the camera shoots great images in almost total darkness without flash

 

I will do a quick test on the viewfinder issue when I come home from work today and I will let you now as soon as I know.

 

// Alex

Thanks Alex. I'm depressed to hear that the d200 housing has not been a problem for you as it would indicate my eyes are worse than I imagined! Damn!

I'm also toying with the idea of a 45 degree viewfinder as it seems more ergonomically correct in a standard diving position.

I'm following a thread on the Inon(?) add-on for the d300. I hope it can fit in the D3. Do you dive with a low volume mask? Yea, that's it! It's all the masks' fault! I look forward to your thoughts on the viewfinder. I'll be home in a week and have my hands on the housing then. Can't wait!

Also, how in the world did you get the 14-24 in your dome port? Are you using an S & S dome? I brought my dome into Sammys' Camera and tried to fit the lens. Wouldn't go. I ended up buying the 14 prime, which also suffers soft corners on both the optical dome port and 8" (?) S & S.

Jason Heller borrowed my 8" port while we were at Wakatobi to compare with the small optical and see which was better/worse. I haven't heard from him yet on a comparison but will let you know once I hear.

I posted a picture on this forum of a subal dome port which was made specifically for the 14. The thing is huge! I am not an optics expert but was told that the radius required to get edge to edge sharpness on the 14 required such a monster.

Hi Guys,

sorry for a delayed answer... Now I tryed at home with a low volume mask "Mares Opera" and the result look like this for me, see Attached file:

So my answer is, I dont see the whole viewfinder but have never had a problem with it. But I might try a straight one in the future if anyone fits?

I use my 14-24 with one 19mm and one 40mm ring and the fisheye port, al Sea&Sea. What I will try is the combination of 2x 40mm rings as soon as I get one more. It will be slightly vinjetting in 14mm mode but nothing that will be a problem to me. I will get back when I have tried that combo.

On saturday I will do the first dive with the 16mm fisheye Nikkor and in beginning of may I will do a test with the 15mm Sigma and see which one of them that is the sharpest with the fisheye port/optical port on the D3 under water.

// Alex

Hi Alex,

Looking forward to your views on the Sigma 15mm versus Nikon 16mm. I have 2 16mm (although one is on permanent loan) but feel that the close focus on the Sigma 15mm makes it the more desirable lens when I go to a FX camera.

Alex

Thanks for the update Alex. Interesting experiments. I am going to take this issue to Andy Solomon, our west coast S & S rep and see what he thinks. If I hear anything interesting I'll let you know.

I just got an email from Jason Heller regarding the sharpness issues of the optical dome port. He has verified that the optical dome is softer throughout versus the 8" S & S dome. WTF, over? Has anybody else heard or seen this issue?

Hi,

I have not made the big pool test yet but so far I have tried the 14-24 with one 20mm + one 40mm extension ring and fisheye port and no good corner sharpness.

And the sigma 14mm with 40mm extension ring and fisheye port has slightly better corner sharpness but it vinjetts slightly as shown on the image...

And then I have also tried the 16mm Nikkor with only the fisheye port and that produces excellent corner to corner sharpness.

all images are taken in the Stockholm archipelago April 2008.

enjoy // Alex

Regarding the Nikon 14 to 24 zoom, I am using a lens which is the same type of design (very curved outer element) and about the same angle of view with great results.

The Olympus 7 to 14 mm zoom has an angle of view of 114 to 75 degrees, it is half an inch shorter than the Nikon lens and I am using a 60 mm extension port with a 220 mm dome, which is the same glass as the Zen Underwater dome port which can be mounted to the Sea & Sea housing. I have also used the 170 mm dome port which is the same glass as Sea & Sea's new 170 mm port.

The 220 mm port allows great sharpness into the corners and has worked out well for me except for the fixed dome shade which you will see in the attached photo (black objects along the vertical sides). This is a problem associated with the Athena port on an Olympus port mount.

This is at the 7 mm end (14 mm 35 equv) at F/9 ISO 100

Phil Rudin

Tnx Phil,

I will look in to that. Is that the port that Athena makes?

I talked to them about a month ago and they said that they will be making a new port made for 14-24 by the end of may...

// Alex

Hi Alex,

Thanks for posting those honest 14-24mm shots. I hope you are able to get an improvement and glad the fisheye works well.

Good example, Phil. That shots looks very acceptable.

Alex

I have 2 16mm (although one is on permanent loan) but feel that the close focus on the Sigma 15mm makes it the more desirable lens when I go to a FX camera.

The 16mm minimal focusing distance is about 25cm - but you can bring it to 17cm by removing the little neutral filter attached on the back of the lens! Problem is that it can't no more be used topside (including splitted shots)... but it's very interesting for UW shot !

btw, I've tried the D3 in the Mediterranean sea - I did some sunburst with it - looks very good to me, but as the water was green and not blue, there's no realistic conclusion to be made yet!

Claude

The 16mm minimal focusing distance is about 25cm - but you can bring it to 17cm by removing the little neutral filter attached on the back of the lens! Problem is that it can't no more be used topside (including splitted shots)... but it's very interesting for UW shot !

Good info, Claude. Although I have found that usually the depth of field is enough to keep infinity sharp without the rear filter on the 16mm. But you are right that the lens won't focus on distant objects without the filter - but the depth of field under normal shooting conditions will keep them sharp.

This shot was taken with the 16mm without the filter and the DOF ensured the clouds were sharp.

My friend Peter Rowlands mounted some +0.5 dioptres in the rear filter for the 16mm to improve the close focus further - and these are/were quite widely used by photogs here in the UK. If you know a friendly optician it is quite an easy thing to do yourself.

Alex