Unprecedented housing flexibility for Nikon Users

If rumours are to be believed, then Nikon's forthcoming announcements might provide a uniquely flexible situation for the Nikon using underwater photographer.

It would be quite a remarkable state of affairs if both the D3X and D700 (or D10, what ever it is called) both fitted in existing housings (D3 and D300 respectively). Perhaps the greatest consequence would be the real different choices this offers the UW photographer with the same housing.

Canon pro users have had this for a while, although I have never really seen the full UW value of the 1D series if you have a 1Ds series camera. After all the main use of high ISO underwater is for big WA shots in low light. And the 1.3 crop of the 1D series kind of negates this advantage with the loss of angle of coverage and no specialist 1.3 crop wide angles.

Nikon users also got it with the D200 and Fuji S5 - although I think most D200 users who tried the S5 decided it was too similar to both with. A few fell for the S5, and therefore didn't bother with their D200s any more.

Actually the more you think about it, the harder it is to really see a good benefit of the two cameras options.

The D3/D3X could to be interesting. The D3X providing the high res, low ISO camera. And the D3 providing an option for high ISO for available light wrecks in dark waters. I struggle to see many other uses for the D3 over a D3X. And unless you do a lot of low light, available light the D3 is an expensive backup.

The D300/D700 might be the most interesting. Two 12MP bodies, one FF, one DX. But again when would you use the FF? Wide angle fisheye, perhaps. But I'd rather have a Tokina zoom. Wide angle rectilinear, unlikely unless you like smudged corners. Macro. Possibly with the 60mm for a wider macro view. But certainly not for macro close to 1:1 where the extra DOF of DX will win. I have yet to see a DX macro shot ruined by diffraction, but I do see FX macro shots suffer a lack of DOF. So again it would be FF for dark, deep wrecks. DX for everything else?

That of course, presumes that both pieces of vapourware fit existing housings. Hopefully we will hear soon.

I certainly find the idea of a backup camera with different skills very exciting. But particularly with the D300, I can't help concluding that it will be the 12MP FX camera that will be the backup to the cheaper 12MP DX camera. Which seems all wrong.

Alex

Canon pro users have had this for a while, although I have never really seen the full UW value of the 1D series if you have a 1Ds series camera. After all the main use of high ISO underwater is for big WA shots in low light. And the 1.3 crop of the 1D series kind of negates this advantage with the loss of angle of coverage and no specialist 1.3 crop wide angles.

 

 

Alex

Hey Alex - I think you are spot on with your observations relative to Nikon, but now having spent the past 2 weeks in the water with a combination of 1DMKIII and 1DsMKIII, in the same Seacam housing, you may underestimate the power of the 1.3 crop. First of all, the MKIII color rendition and ability to achieve auto-focus are both massive improvements over the MKII. These are scary-good cameras, both in terms of ergonomics and file handling characteristics.

I used to use the 1DMKII when I had to shoot fast motor-drive sequences. Giant stride entries, springboard diving competitions, my daughter in equestrian competitions ... that kind of thing. The 1DMKIIN was a big leap ahead of the 1DMKII, and now with the 1DMKIII I have 10 frames per second and very capable files. But, the big surprise was how nice the 1.3 crop is with the 15mm fisheye, 14mmII, 50mm macro, and 100mm macro. It does step on the versatility of my 16-35mmII, but even with that lens, it crops off the offending corners I struggle to avoid with full-frame.

Because I liked the 1DsMKII files so much better than my 1DMKII files, I never really used my MKII version 1.3 crop camera underwater too much. But now, in the MKIII generations, the 1DMKIII becomes a serious imaging tool for an UW shooter. I have one of each, and will no doubt still use the 1DsMKIII more often in the housing; but the 1DMKIII turned out to be far more than a cheaper back-up body for the 1DsMKIII. I was pleasantly surprised with the results, both in terms of optics options and certainly with the file quality.

The D300/D700 might be the most interesting. Two 12MP bodies, one FF, one DX. ... Macro. Possibly with the 60mm for a wider macro view. But certainly not for macro close to 1:1 where the extra DOF of DX will win. I have yet to see a DX macro shot ruined by diffraction, but I do see FX macro shots suffer a lack of DOF. So again it would be FF for dark, deep wrecks. DX for everything else?

If you ignore the effects of diffraction then yes, that's right. Shoot both at f/32 and you'll see the difference. If you shoot FX one stop more closed the diffraction will be proportional and so will the DOF. At high magnifications something unexpected occurs.

I think most people would prefer the ease of use of DX for macro if the resolution is the same.

All I can say is......uh, I don't know. Must wait for actual cameras.

The D700 caught me off guard, probably because I don't follow the rumor mill anymore.

I was hoping for a D3x, so that the D3 might drop in price. Would love a D3 on land. Want, want, want. Not interested in paying for more pixels than a D3.

I'll wait for an actual D700 review. Maybe a D700 is all I really need. Maybe.

All I ever wanted was a digital F100, but now that it's here, technology has made me greedy and lust for more.

The idea of shooting ISO 800-1600 at the push of a button has created a need I never knew I had.

I will probably get a D700 but continue to use DX (in my case D200) for underwater. Although, I would really like to see what my Nikon 16mm 3.5 would do on a FX body.

"It would be quite a remarkable state of affairs if both the D3X and D700 (or D10, what ever it is called) both fitted in existing housings (D3 and D300 respectively). Perhaps the greatest consequence would be the real different choices this offers the UW photographer with the same housing."

Don't hold your breath Alex.

Body dimensions (W x H x D):

D300: 147 x 114 x 74 mm

D700: 147 x 123 x 77 mm

Back to Housing(S) once again.

Better chance in a future D3 housing fitting a posible "D3X"

And then if D3X has 12MP+ DX crop mode, no need for two housings.

Better chance in a future D3 housing fitting a posible "D3X"

And then if D3X has 12MP+ DX crop mode, no need for two housings.

Except for size and the cost of getting it through Bali customs, this seems like the ultimate and ideal camera for me, topside and underwater. Assuming the 24MP Sony sensor meets or exceeds the performance of the DSMKIII I think we have reached the point where these high end 35FF digital cameras are pretty close to the quality of medium format. That's all I want, in this life anyway. Add the ability to go to DX, and that's a pretty sweet combo for underwater use and flexibility.

Last week the Canon rep for Florida was at Stephen Frink's course, and I asked him what's next and what else is there; how will the paradigm change? His response was that probably the next major change will be still / movie cameras along the lines of the RED camera, but effectively designed as a still camera that can capture the same high quality still frames as present day top end cameras, but at the rate of a movie camera. Think about the storage needs of one of those babies, and sorting through those images in your browser.

Hmm, I've had that functionality now for a few months. Both my 5D and 40D work in my modified 10D housing. There are great advantages to using a FF 15mm FE lens on one dive with full coverage or the equivalence of a 224mm macro when using the 100mm macro with a 1.4TC and a 1.6 crop camera.

s.

Hmm, I've had that functionality now for a few months. Both my 5D and 40D work in my modified 10D housing. There are great advantages to using a FF 15mm FE lens on one dive with full coverage or the equivalence of a 224mm macro when using the 100mm macro with a 1.4TC and a 1.6 crop camera.

 

s.

Yeah, but think about having that type of flexibility in one camera; especially if the switch from FX to DX can be done underwater.

I can see the utility of DX mode when using a unique DX lens like the 10-17, but I fail to see the value in applying a predetermined, undoable crop while in macro mode with FX lenses.

I can see some interesting possibilities for some of my favorite FX lenses that I use with DX, including the 16mm, 17-35 and 60mm. Being able to change the 16mm from FX to DX would be like having the 2 ends of my 10-17, the 17-35 being a wide rectilinear on the FX (that seems to work better than the 14-24) and the 60 switching for different size fish portraits.

FX to DX is simply cropping the frame in camera. No difference than shooting the 5D and cropping down by 1.6 = 5MP. Would be the same if you cropped the D3 image down. 1DsM3 cropped to DX mode would yield a 13MP image... it's not like by going to DX mode your DX or DX00 camera will change it's pixel density on the fly.

s.

FX to DX is simply cropping the frame in camera. No difference than shooting the 5D and cropping down by 1.6 = 5MP. Would be the same if you cropped the D3 image down. 1DsM3 cropped to DX mode would yield a 13MP image... it's not like by going to DX mode your DX or DX00 camera will change it's pixel density on the fly.

 

s.

I understand that, but my lens perspective will change, that would be an advantage to me with the 3 lenses I mention if the D3x turns out to be a 24MP camera.

1DsM3 cropped to DX mode would yield a 13MP image...

A 1Ds3 cropped at 1.6 will be 8.1MP. Crop it to DX and it will be 9.2MP.

I don't understand Dr. Alex's trying to make a big deal of a cropped sensor Nikon vs the mythological 24 Mpixel D3x. If you have the D3x and use it with any cropped sensor lens, you will still have almost the same Mpixels as a D2x and have auto-focus points out as wide in the "cropped" frame as he now does in the D2x. BUT, if you wanted maximum quality for large prints, no 12 Mp camera will match the quality obtainable with 24 Mp.

And if the D3/D3x duo fits into the same housing, a photographer will be able to simply make the choice between the highest resolution at a slower frame rate vs higher frame rate and high ISO capability. All using exactly the same lenses. If Nikon didn't think full frame images had a higher quality potential, they wouldn't have introduced the new lenses like the new 105 VR, the new 24-70mm and the new 14-24mm. That they were thinking full frame long ago is evidenced by the fact that their 200-400mm f4 zoom was introduced to cover full frame even though it could have been made smaller and lighter if they had made it to cover only the cropped sensor cameras. The filmosaurs, of which I am still a member, were not sufficient financial justification alone for Nikon to keep designing and introducing new full frame lenses. And advantage of staying with a D3/D3x combo is that in all likelihood, accessories such as batteries, chargers and maybe focusing screens will be shareable.

The other really big advantage to the new and upcoming full frame sensor digital cameras is that all my "vintage" lenses will image exactly the same as they have been doing on my F5's underwater and F6 topside. And I will continue to be able to get full normal use of the 70-180 Micro-Nikkor Zoom.

I have already bought a D3, but will wait until the introduction of the "D3x" before I make any decision on a housing. I currently use Seacam housings for my F5's. That makes it easier to stay in Seacam, but does not make it guaranteed. I will buy whichever housing I feel most conveniently lets me access the D3/D3x camera controls I feel are most important for shooting. Seacam is a housing manufacturer that seems to first consider Canon in its design, and Nikon seems more of a market afterthought. I have added several extra controls, and modified others, on my F5 housings to elevate the housing's capabilities to match those of the F5. And will do the same to whichever housing I buy for the D3/D3x.

Fred

Good info and feedback, guys.

Alex

Now that the D700 is announced at 12MP, I'm a bit disappointed. The smaller body is more desirable UW but going to FX at 12MP is questionable at this point. It does lead to an interesting possibility.

Assuming the 24MP sensor variant is inevitable, Nikon could choose to offer a D700x as well or perhaps instead of the D3x? That would seem unlikely to me, but had the D700 been introduced with a 16-18MP sensor, as some had predicted, that wouldn't be an option. Could Nikon offer the high resolution sensor in the small body? What would studio photographers prefer?

Craig: I see the Nikon lineup looking a lot like the Canon lineup looked 18 months ago (at least in sensor size/pixels.)

Canon had 5D at 12 mpix FF and 1DsII at 16 mpix FF

Nikon will have D700 at 12 mpix FF and D3x at 24mpix FF

Cheers

James

Now that the D700 is announced at 12MP, I'm a bit disappointed. The smaller body is more desirable UW but going to FX at 12MP is questionable at this point. It does lead to an interesting possibility.

 

Assuming the 24MP sensor variant is inevitable, Nikon could choose to offer a D700x as well or perhaps instead of the D3x? That would seem unlikely to me, but had the D700 been introduced with a 16-18MP sensor, as some had predicted, that wouldn't be an option. Could Nikon offer the high resolution sensor in the small body? What would studio photographers prefer?

Almost certainly when Nikon released the D3 they already had the D700 in the works, so it would be unlikely that they would plan a D700 with more MP than the D3, that would make the D3 obsolete pretty quickly, particularly if you add the battery drive to the D700. I've always liked the Canon 5D, and it seems likely the new 5D will be a pretty similar camera to the D700, except maybe a 10-15% MP increase. Otherwise Canon starts infringing on the DS cameras.

I understand the "standard" perspective; I'm offering a new one.

Yes, the D700 in some ways is what the 5D has been but that's not a particularly high goal considering the 5D has been due for upgrade. The D700 is, in many ways, far more than the 5D. It's virtually an entire D3 in a smaller form factor. The 5D was/is a pro sensor in a consumer body and the D700 is arguably not that.

I am suggesting that the new D700 body plus optional grip be considered an alternative to the large, monolithic pro body for the same intended uses. When considered that way, there's no reason why Nikon wouldn't proceed to offer a D700x version.

A D700x would no more "obsolete" the D3 than the D3x would. If we can accept the logic behind a D3/D3x combo or a 1D/1Ds combo we can understand the point behind a D700/D700x combo. In fact, I'd argue that the big, durable pro body makes more sense for the D3 than the D3x and a D700x might be preferred for many who want the resolution. I'm sure that's the case for UW photographers.

I'd be really curious what the split is among potential D3x customers if they were asked their preference between the large body and the small one.