Unprecedented housing flexibility for Nikon Users

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.

Agreed. I think everyone would want small. For getting low to the sand and for travel. If everything else was equal. Hopefully Nikon will do something about their AF sensor coverage on FX before we see the next cameras.

Vertical grips are not much use UW! Extra battery life isn't either. Everything lasts a day - giving you plenty of time to recharge while you sleep. High frame rates, driven by the batteries in vertical grips are also rarely a key UW feature.

Starting from scratch I would take a D300 over a D2X (despite the D300 not having the AF mode I like) and I would take a D700 over a D3 (although plan to get either) and to get really vapourware a D700x (which won't happen for a while) over a D3X. I took the F100 over the F5 (although I have always regretted not owning an F5).

Of course, this assumes that they were announced and available at the same time. Annoyingly, Nikon get the big bodies out first, which means that you have usually jumped before the small body arrives.

Alex

I see what you mean Craig - that would be a good idea. Sports shooters need the integrated Pro body and studio shooters could make out fine w/ the D700"x" w/ vertical grip.

Cheers

James

I had not thought about it that way; yes a 24MP D700x would probably be my ideal camera without the size and weight of a D3x body.

Thom Hogan comment here: http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp...essage=28477162

I'm going to go a different direction: no D3x. Yes, a 24mp FX body, but it'll be the D900. This allows them to use the Sony sensor and bring it downscale to compete with the A900/5DII.

So another person thinking that the high res camera may not be in the pro body. Then he speculates on the announce date: http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp...essage=28473910

Watch this space on August 28th ;~).

Would Nikon follow up the D700 announcement 2 months later with a body not from the D700?

Then there's this post: http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp...essage=28456226

Thom Hogan seems to have thought that the D700 would have an 18MP FF sensor and there are rumors that a D3X might have as many as 27MP. But does it make sense to use a D3-class body for a landscape and studio camera? How about a D700X with the 24MP to 27MP sensor.

More fuel for the small-body fire!

This would be an opportunity for Nikon to create a class of camera that Canon has not yet defined. Naaaah...Nikon are not that marketing savvy.

Yes, but if you read Thom's comment, Sony will be defining it regardless. That is precisely Thom's justification for the D900. I agree that it's product that Canon doesn't have and that makes it potentially interesting. It might also explain why the D3 isn't called the D3h. Perhaps Nikon never intended the X version to go into the big body.

Craig, I think the camera you wish for will be the sony a900.

It would certainly make sense to announce them a couple of months apart. I think that Nikon must have learned that by announcing the D3 and D300 at the same time, the former stole much of the later's press.

I think it makes a lot of sense to announce the D700 and then a couple of months later a more higher spec'ed camera such as a D900/D3X.

Craig, I think the camera you wish for will be the sony a900.

Except nobody will make a decent housing for it!

Alex

Yes, but if you read Thom's comment, Sony will be defining it regardless. That is precisely Thom's justification for the D900. I agree that it's product that Canon doesn't have and that makes it potentially interesting. It might also explain why the D3 isn't called the D3h. Perhaps Nikon never intended the X version to go into the big body.

Thanks for this perspective. Following Sony's lead rather than Canon, may actually turn out to be a brilliant move. For some reason we have been mesmerized into this concept that the top end cameras in terms of sensor resolution etc are the size of tanks almost the size of medium format in bulk.(D2X, DS series) When hey all you have to do for 90% of users is take off the 'motor drive' and then we will have 35mm size cameras again irrespective of sensor quality. I like that. Now I am really torn, take that D700 I ordered or wait for a D900? (Wish Sony used a Nikon mount) My dream camera 'stable' starts to materialize - a 'normal' size 20+MP full frame camera, maybe a DX camera for underwater, and a Leica FF M9 20+MP rangefinder.

And I say 20MP+, because having seen prints now from a DSMKIII and a Hasselblad 39MP (17x22 size), I could not tell the difference in image quality, color, tonal range, specular highlights, and for me that is as good as I'll ever need and I can totally stop blaming the camera for my crappy pictures.

Except nobody will make a decent housing for it!

 

Alex

I'm afraid you are right on this. Ikelite is the only one who will surely support the sony flagship.

By the way sony offers some flexibility with a300 10 mpix (better in high iso) and a350 14 mpix (better in low iso for resolution) cameras, since they share exactly the same body.

But it's not something like full-frame vs aps-c.

Marcell

The choice between the larger D3 style body vs the smaller D700 body is not as simple as you guys seem to be trying to make it. Note in the D3 line of comments it has been said that the D3 auto-focuses faster than the D700. Maybe this is because Nikon uses the extra body space to fit in a better auto-focus motor which can be better powered by the larger more powerful battery. I also seem to recall reading somewhere that the viewfinder of the D3 is a bit brighter and clearer. And if I were a fine arts and studio shooter I would prefer the larger body with its built-in vertical grip that has a vertical shutter release and input dials. Especially if it also had faster better auto-focus capabilities.

From an underwater perspective, if you shoot a lot of wide-angle and use one of the big 8-10 inch domes, the somewhat larger housing body is still not as large as the dome with respect to touching the substrate first. And a larger housing body gives you better mechanical leverage when maneuvering the large dome, especially if you have your strobes spread widely on long strobe arms.

Yes, the larger body does not allow you to put the camera lens quite as low to the substrate when using smaller diameter macro ports, BUT unless you have a 45 degree viewfinder, it is difficult enough to get a clear view with a 90 degree finder on the larger housing body which is probably only an inch or inch and a half higher off the sand. It would be near impossible to get your head in a position to clearly see the viewfinder with the smaller body and the viewfinder window another inch lower.

I, for one, would prefer a D3/D3x combination and a single housing to fit them vs a D700/D700x combo. And I would prefer the full frame FX sensor to the 1.5 crop DX because with a 24 Mp FX you could crop the 24 Mp frame any way you liked, say to only a 1.2 crop at about 16 MP to eliminate soft edges or corners.

Fred

From an underwater perspective, if you shoot a lot of wide-angle and use one of the big 8-10 inch domes, the somewhat larger housing body is still not as large as the dome with respect to touching the substrate first. And a larger housing body gives you better mechanical leverage when maneuvering the large dome, especially if you have your strobes spread widely on long strobe arms.

The housing isn't the limiting factor with a large dome but getting lower isn't especially valuable then anyway. I haven't noticed any mechanical advantage to the larger housings. The difference is essentially in height and that doesn't help with dome or strobe handling.

Yes, the larger body does not allow you to put the camera lens quite as low to the substrate when using smaller diameter macro ports, BUT unless you have a 45 degree viewfinder, it is difficult enough to get a clear view with a 90 degree finder on the larger housing body which is probably only an inch or inch and a half higher off the sand. It would be near impossible to get your head in a position to clearly see the viewfinder with the smaller body and the viewfinder window another inch lower.

I disagree here too. Viewing the finder in macro is frequently awkward but suggesting that the advantage of the smaller housing is worthless because you can't sight through the finder in those situations hasn't proven true in my experience. If the finder were so consistently hard to use we would see an explosion of 45 degree finders. I've tried a 45 degree finder but didn't stick with it. I just don't have a problem using a conventional finder even on small housings and low perspectives. Each has limitations and you choose the one least limiting to you.

With regard to autofocus, we have yet to see what the actual performance differences are, if any. For macro I don't use much AF anyway. For wide, how important will that difference be? This well be a user preference issue at best.

Nevertheless, there's no reason why some wouldn't prefer the larger body. I feel the biggest difference for us will be the travel size savings. I will like the smaller housing a little more underwater and a lot more when I am packing.

With regard to autofocus, we have yet to see what the actual performance differences are, if any. For macro I don't use much AF anyway. For wide, how important will that difference be? This well be a user preference issue at best.

I agree here. From all the folks I know who have a D300 the auto focus is still superb and much quicker than the D200. Assuming, the D700 is the same, it's not likely that the D3 will have any great autofocus advantage underwater especially as Alex says with S lenses.

If you think you want a bigger housing (makes no sense to me) - just add a block of aluminium below the housing.

For topside (again, assuming the D700 specs are as published) the D3's only advantages will be faster max frame rate (11 vs 8 with the optional grip) the 5:4 crop option, 300,000 vs 150,000 tested shutter activations, ability for voice recording, and possibly some control options more suited for fast action photography.

None of this is to take away from the D3 which will still be the camera of choice for those individuals requiring the top end speed. I just can't see where any of divegypsy's points have any real advantage for me. The D700 has sensor cleaning, and for shooters like me I can keep the size down unless I want to add the handle.

Maybe Nikon will have a D3x and a D700x, then everyone can be happy.

The D700 has sensor cleaning

To be honest, I'm not sure the sensor cleaning devices are much more than gimmicks. After five months with my D300, I find myself manually cleaning the sensor just as often as I did with my D70. I'm sure it helps with the small (and almost un-noticeable) bits on the sensor, but it doesn't seem to have much effect on those big old dust bunnies that require you to retouch a photo.

I use AF intensively (in fact I never use manual focus) - and I'd look very carefully at any slight advantage. When I first used the D3/D300 I did comment on Wetpixel that I felt the D300 AF was a bit slower, but it was hardly a scientific test. I will look much more closely at the difference when I am actually investing the hard earned stuff.

I think in the end I would take the small drop in AF performance for the advantages of a smaller rig.

What frustrates me most with the Cam3500 (D3, D300, D700) versus the CAM2000 (D2, F6) is that it does not have the grouped AF mode - which is the one I use 80-90% of the time underwater. It is perfect for wide angle and excellent for fish portraits. The only time I don't use it is for non/slow moving macro subjects - where I tend to use single points. The 3D focus tracking on the D3 really impressed me on land - and this might make my wish for the grouped mode redundant for fish. I'd still miss it for wide angle. We'll see.

Alex

I use AF intensively (in fact I never use manual focus) - and I'd look very carefully at any slight advantage. When I first used the D3/D300 I did comment on Wetpixel that I felt the D300 AF was a bit slower, but it was hardly a scientific test. I will look much more closely at the difference when I am actually investing the hard earned stuff.

I think in the end I would take the small drop in AF performance for the advantages of a smaller rig.

Alex

Alex, I think for someone like yourself who makes their living doing this, a small advantage in focus speed could be important I guess. For me I have to decide whether it's $2000 more important. As I said earlier, just because one might choose the D700, does not detract from the great camera the D3 is. Anyway hope my D700 gets here by the end of the month, my 24-70 should be here tomorrow - you can play to your heart's content with it end of August.

I guess the point I wanted to make is that we spend ages and ages discussing factors like FF vs DX, megapixels and high-ISO, but there seems to be a lack of discussion of camera specs that are not on the sensor. For me, AF performance is fundamental. And I know what shots Af has got me that I have seen others try and fail to nail.

That said in this case I think that the difference between the two is very small and I suspect that after testing I would find the AF differences to be so small as to allow me to favour a smaller body. I hope so for all the other advantages. We should also consider that the 60mm and 105mm are both available as AF-S now.

I also hope that the mythical D3x/D900 not only have a grouped AF option, but also a much better frame coverage of AF points than the D3/D700.

Anyway, Jeff, I'd definitely love to have a play with your D700 at the end of August.

Alex

I also hope that the mythical D3x/D900 not only have a grouped AF option, but also a much better frame coverage of AF points than the D3/D700.

Reading the stuff on the D3 - it looks like the clustering of the sensors on FF (not DX) combined with 3D is a type of grouped AF option; possibly their thinking was that this would replace the D2X grouped AF option. I would assume then that the grouping on the D700 will be the same as the D3 in full frame made and the D300 in DX mode (more spread out), just the motor will be different. Whether this will work as well for you as the D2x I don't know.

I finally have been able to house the D300 (will try to do a review on the Hugy) and I think Alex is perfectly right: why didn´t nikon preserve the group AF mode? I have very few hopes that it will be fixed with a firmware update (but I really wish they did).

Anyway, focusing proved to be very good with fast jacks but the shutter felt somewhat less "snappy" than with the D200, as if it had a very short lag (yes, I was with shutter priority, not with AF priority). I have to try it more.

As per D700/D3 for uw I would prefer the D700 (but I even prefer the D300) even though it has only a 95% coverage viewfinder.

I do not think 12 mpx FF is of any advantage over the D300 12mpx as I never shoot high iso. In this case FF has a lot of disadvantages (no tokina, softcorners, depth of field, AF points not well spread...) and no advantages (maybe slightly better AF?, viewfinder?) TO ME. Maybe a <> 20 mpx would be worth but not with today´s FF nikons

I think you have to be careful suggesting that soft corners is a full frame problem. It's more related to specific lens/dome combinations and the resolution capability of the system. For D700/D3 the resolution is the same as the D300, not greater. If Tokina introduced a full frame version of the 10-17 I wouldn't assume it had softer corners than today's DX solution. The two systems will use different wide angle lenses with different characteristics but what works better can change quickly.

Nevertheless, I agree that FF at 12MP will have very selective appeal over the D300.