D3 & sunball

Here is an image I took recently in Grand Bahama with the Nikon D3. I was spending the day seeing what it would do compared with my old D200 and images I have seen from the D300.

Setup was:Sea & Sea MDX-D3, Optical dome, 40mm & SX spacer, Nikkor 17-35 @17mm, ISO400, 1/250, f22

Here is an image I took recently in Grand Bahama with the Nikon D3. I was spending the day seeing what it would do compared with my old D200 and images I have seen from the D300.

Setup was:Sea & Sea MDX-D3, Optical dome, 40mm & SX spacer, Nikkor 17-35 @17mm, ISO400, 1/250, f22

I think it would be a great idea to set up similar shots like these taken at the same time with different cameras to see how each perform. Unfortunately this picture does not seem any better or worse than some sunballs taken with my D200. There are a lot of variables though, including depth, viz and sun angle.

What do you think Matthew?

I think it would be a great idea to set up similar shots like these taken at the same time with different cameras to see how each perform. Unfortunately this picture does not seem any better or worse than some sunballs taken with my D200. There are a lot of variables though, including depth, viz and sun angle.

What do you think Matthew?

Shot at about 11am. Depth 40ft aprox.

What I noticed immediately is a lack of "blooming" I used to get on the D200 around the edges of the sunball. I haven't gone through my D200 files to critically compare, it just seems "cleaner" (since I dropped serious coin on this setup I may just be justifying). With that said, the images I have seen from D300 users seem equally impressive which kinda sucks! But I have longer battery life.. so there!

I think that looks pretty impressive.

Alex

Yes I agree now. I'm not sure what all the variables are, but at that depth, that's definitely better than the D200. Be nice to see tests with different rigs, different exposures, different depths. One of you pros have the time to do that?

Clarity of the water seems to be very important as well, influencing the width of any cyan fringe; in this photograph it's very narrow to my eyes, which is of course good. If the identical photography were taken in water with less clarity, would this fringe be worse?

And of course, someone has to have a film camera there as well.

Here is an image I took recently in Grand Bahama with the Nikon D3. I was spending the day seeing what it would do compared with my old D200 and images I have seen from the D300.

Setup was:Sea & Sea MDX-D3, Optical dome, 40mm & SX spacer, Nikkor 17-35 @17mm, ISO400, 1/250, f22

Are results better using lower ISO (your example was at 400) or 14 bit rather than 12 bit raw (which did you use, was it a NEF)?

Tom

Are results better using lower ISO (your example was at 400) or 14 bit rather than 12 bit raw (which did you use, was it a NEF)?

Tom

I cannot answer the ISO question as I only shot at 400 ISO on this trip. I am shooting NEF at 14 bit depth. One would assume 14 bit would be better due to the expanded tonal steps.

From shooting the D3 on land which i have more experience to date, I can see little difference in the ISO's in the lower ranges. These are not scientific evaluations though.

I think it would be a great idea to set up similar shots like these taken at the same time with different cameras to see how each perform.

Here are two shots taken with a D200 recently which have settings close to the previous shot. A different part of the world, different lens though.

This shot: D200, Nikkor 14mm, 1/250 @f18, 100ISO 60ft aprox

D200, Nikkor 14, 1/250 @ f18, 100ISO Depth unknown

There is nothing scientific at all in these comparisons, and looking at my D200 libraries I realize I have avoided the sun like a vampire. I have other images from the 200 with plenty of light rays but very few with unobstructed sunballs.

I would not have attempted that shot with my D200, right or wrong it looks impressive.

Be interested to see what a D300 might be like - side by side.

Good stuff.

Paul C

One would assume 14 bit would be better due to the expanded tonal steps.

I have been wondering about this.

Underexpose to save the highlights and then do shadow recovery in post (fill flash helps too). The xtra bits may help in the shadow recovery. But hard to test effectiveness without two identical set-ups and identical shots with identical pp.

Be interested to see what a D300 might be like - side by side.

 

Paul C

I was on a trip in Indo with a D300 shooter and saw the results he was getting. Very impressive. Much less blooming than the D200 as far as I could tell. Sadly, no side by side as we were on different boats. That would be a great comparison though!

Matthew,

I am really enjoying your reports, as I hold back till at least early next year on upgrading. I'm hoping the 'full' Nikon line-up with D3x and maybe D10 will be revealed before I commit.

I noticed you used the 17-35 for this shot. This is one of my favorite Nikon lenses (even with the DX format) - probably their sharpest zoom. What are your thoughts on this lens with your D3 underwater - it would seem to be ideal, especially considering the problems folks are having underwater with the 14-24

especially considering the problems folks are having underwater with the 14-24

Have not been even able to get it UW though I have had it for 6 months. It is a great lens for topside work!! The few postings I have seen have been with relatively small diameter ports (8 inches would be small for this lens). One needs a super dome or a mythical super-duper dome for this lens before the jury can come out. Any super dome tests done yet? One also needs to assure that the center of the radius of curvature of the port is at the entrance pupil which is a quite far out from the lens mount. Thus one is going to need a rather long port extender or combination of several port extenders.

17 or 18mm may be wide enough for most full-frame shooting, however. There are downsides to ultra-wide (weitwinkel) besides accommodation. Recall much of the cautionary advice given on using the Nikonos 15mm lens, which is a 20mm FF SLR equivalent (thus much less wide), in many magazine articles and books on UW photography.

Here is a picture of the Subal prototype dome port made specifically for the Nikkor 14mm lens with the D3 (from an earlier post). I haven't followed up with Subal on info regarding the prototype. Perhaps someone on Wetpixel who deals with them could ask????

The Sea & Sea fisheye dome is a 9" (I thought it was 8" but S & S says 9")dome which will have a much greater radius of curve than this baby.

I have had quite limited success shooting the 14 with the off-the-shelf S&S domes at any f-stop more open than f14 and have done pool tests with various spacers to rule out that issue. The tests seem to indicate the aberrations are not spacer related.

I'll be testing several dome port/spacer combinations this summer using a more scientific approach with various Nikkor and 3rd party lenses and may have a prototype dome made to verify what I believe to be the root of the FF sensor/WA issues.

The 17-35 is a great lens and I can get acceptably sharp corners at f11 with a 40mm spacer. Ideally, I would like to be able to open up to f8, but the corner aberration using available S&S domes is too great.

Matthew,

I am really enjoying your reports, as I hold back till at least early next year on upgrading. I'm hoping the 'full' Nikon line-up with D3x and maybe D10 will be revealed before I commit.

I noticed you used the 17-35 for this shot. This is one of my favorite Nikon lenses (even with the DX format) - probably their sharpest zoom. What are your thoughts on this lens with your D3 underwater - it would seem to be ideal, especially considering the problems folks are having underwater with the 14-24

I used the 17-35 exclusively in Grand Bahama and love it. I was shooting sharks and when I had free time was playing with the sunballs and close up wide angle. I used the S&S optical dome, 1 40mm & SX spacer which is a setup not even considered on the S&S charts, but I found to be the best setup in some pool testing I did prior to the shoot.

17mm

26mm

I had diopters standing by for my close/wide shooting but found that the 17-35 on the D3 didn't need one. No focusing problems at all. Very quick, no hunting. I think on a crop sensor that may not be true and found using it on my D200 did benefit from a +2. Overall, I would highly recommend this lens for both topside and UW shooting.