Nikonos vs. DX focal lenghts.

Nikonos focal lengths did not have the same angle of view as that of SLR 35 mm camera lenses. The legendary Nikonos 15 mm had the same field of view as the Nikon 20 mm lens. 20 mm Nikonos was the equivalent of a 24 mm SLR lens. 28 mm Nikonos the same as a 35 mm lens, and the 35 mm the equivalent of a 50 mm. lens.

It occurred to me that the Nikonos focal lengths are very similar to those of the DX lenses. I was curious; when switching from Nikonos to SLR did any of you take into account some of the factors that people consider when comparing DX with FX? Such as depth of field or having to maintain two non compatible camera systems?

There are obvious differences such as the Nikonos system was optimized for UW use, was a range estimator system, and they used the same chip (i.e. film).

Having had to shoot various film formats over the years, I kind of gotten into field of view thinking, if I needed +/- 94 degrees of FOV, then I would pick a 15mm for the Nik V and a 20mm for my SLR in its Aquatica housing. I find this method more convenient when relating to different format, It might not be a big dela for some, but having to work day in day out with the 1:1 , 1:5, 1:6 and sometime 1:3 I got away from the focal lenght frame of mind quite fast.

Now that we have more and more folks who never shot a 35mm before, using the '' its like a whatever when using a 35mm'' does not get you very far with them, it made sense for the older geezers (my crowd ) but not much for someone who does not have the film frame of reference.

Yes, that was kind of what I was getting at. I just got to thinking about the similarities of the Nikonos system focal lengths and that of the DX format. I have had a lot of people ask me if I'm upset for getting a D300 housing just before the D700 was announced. The answer is no. I just have to use the lens that gives me the angle of view that I want. I like having a smaller housing and camera.

Now where is my digital Nikonos.

Dave,

It is worthwhile noting that the main reason for the narrower field of view with the Nikonos lenses was they had a flat port. If you were to use a FF camera and put an equivalent lens behind a flat port you should get the same field of view. e.g. a 35mm lens on a FF camera in a flat port should give the same FOV as the Nikonos 35mm lens.

It wasn't so much the flat port as the fact they where designed with refraction in mind from the start, the 15mm (behind and optically corrected dome/element) & 2omm (somewhat of a corrected front lens/rebikoff optical design) where worthless outside water but priceless underwater, one of the price to pay was FOV. the 35mm was never a very good lens in or out of the juice, I suspect it was because of its multirole design. the 28mm was a better choice but again not a nobel prize winner either and the 80mm, well was, i my humble opinion, the most exceptional and sophiticated multicoated paperweight I ever got to own.

I have a question. IF there were a digital Nikonos, how many people would go back to using it? As great a camera as it was at the time, it seems to me we have much more versatility in our camera, lens and feature choices with a DSLR.

A good example is the RS, I believe a Digital nikonos would have to be in the same design as this camera, nobody in is right mind would buy a digitalized Nikonos V type of camera, guestimate focusing, fixed focal lenght, paralax viewfinder, yuck. so what do we have, take another good look at the RS specs and imagine it has a LCD in the back, look at the weight and the cost... and balance that with a modern DSLR kit & housing, the cost and weight of a system that is usefull only underwater versus a housed system that let you use the camera and lenses on an everyday basis. hard to justify the RS digital.

Bottom line with a RS digital system is that even if the system is smaller and somewhat lighter, you would still/want need to bring a DSLR for top side on the trip in most case and that offset a lot of the so called advantage of a system such as this one, having cleaned the slate of this crowd you would be left with the hardcore believer, given that this number is substancially smaller you would expect a hefty price tag per unit not to mention a system more likely to be technologically challenged faster than its top side sibling would be.

Oh! and the weight, if you think today's crop of housing are heavy underwater, take a RS for a spin, ouch!

Cheers.

IF there were a digital Nikonos, how many people would go back to using it?

I agree, Loftus, I just can't imagine the expense involved of re-building a system around a digital Nikonos and having the versatility that we have now.

I do somewhat miss my Nik III and V quietly sitting way back in the recesses of my closet...

Dave's question and the answers posted bring up some points I'll share.

I continually catch myself trying to explain to folks in digital seminars sensor size, lens numbers on small sensor digital cameras, cropped sensor versus full frame sensor and more in "35mm film and lens" terms. It is lost on most people today......Unless someone was a serious SLR shooter with an understanding of lenses, FOV and such. Most don't know or can't remember only recalling their 20mm wide angle was better for scenics than their 28-85mm or whatever. Or care for that matter!

I am constantly revamping my little talks to cut to the chase.......Most shooters want the bare minimum or in terms used by all my friends at Ikelite, Sunset House in Cayman, Shearwater trips, etc. "The Magic Formula" They just want in focus, bright colorful photos......

I also agree with Jean that any attempt to build an underwater SLR with features we have and use on the simplest of dSLR cameras would not sell enough units to justify the engineering. Better to continually work on housing and flash improvements. The Nikonos RS was brick underwater, and had I think Nikon's N6006 guts which wasn't a terribly expensive set of technology. Instead of that I opted for a Nikon N8008s in an AQUATICA housing Then migrated to N90s models and finally a trio of lower cost but spectacular N80 cameras before going digital SLR in 2002 with a Nikon D100.

Finally, if you want something small like a Nikonos III or V but with tremendous capability to compliment your dSLR it's here already. It's called a Canon G9 and produces pictures in RAW (albeit on a little sensor) that would blow most shooters away. I have a few photojournalist buddies who even shoot this puppy defying logic by hooking low priced manually set NIKON flashes to it and more......

YMMV!

dhaas

P.S. - For those who REALLY want to know why a Nikonos 15mm lens was only approximately 94 degrees (and the Nikonos 20mm equal to a land 35mm lens of 24mm focal length) it's because they had mini-domes BUILT IN and were corrected for underwater use only Hence the legendary sharpness of the Nikonos 15mm lens as a rectilinear lens worked well (versus fisheyes we love today) was because it had a perfectly matched dome port!

Dave's question and the answers posted bring up some points I'll share.

 

I continually catch myself trying to explain to folks in digital seminars sensor size, lens numbers on small sensor digital cameras, cropped sensor versus full frame sensor and more in "35mm film and lens" terms. It is lost on most people today......Unless someone was a serious SLR shooter with an understanding of lenses, FOV and such. Most don't know or can't remember only recalling their 20mm wide angle was better for scenics than their 28-85mm or whatever. Or care for that matter!

 

I am constantly revamping my little talks to cut to the chase.......Most shooters want the bare minimum or in terms used by all my friends at Ikelite, Sunset House in Cayman, Shearwater trips, etc. "The Magic Formula" They just want in focus, bright colorful photos......

 

I also agree with Jean that any attempt to build an underwater SLR with features we have and use on the simplest of dSLR cameras would not sell enough units to justify the engineering. Better to continually work on housing and flash improvements. The Nikonos RS was brick underwater, and had I think Nikon's N6006 guts which wasn't a terribly expensive set of technology. Instead of that I opted for a Nikon N8008s in an AQUATICA housing Then migrated to N90s models and finally a trio of lower cost but spectacular N80 cameras before going digital SLR in 2002 with a Nikon D100.

 

Finally, if you want something small like a Nikonos III or V but with tremendous capability to compliment your dSLR it's here already. It's called a Canon G9 and produces pictures in RAW (albeit on a little sensor) that would blow most shooters away. I have a few photojournalist buddies who even shoot this puppy defying logic by hooking low priced manually set NIKON flashes to it and more......

 

YMMV!

 

dhaas

 

P.S. - For those who REALLY want to know why a Nikonos 15mm lens was only approximately 94 degrees (and the Nikonos 20mm equal to a land 35mm lens of 24mm focal length) it's because they had mini-domes BUILT IN and were corrected for underwater use only Hence the legendary sharpness of the Nikonos 15mm lens as a rectilinear lens worked well (versus fisheyes we love today) was because it had a perfectly matched dome port!

It's a good thing we have some old-timers around to put things in perspective.

Hey Dr. Hartog,

I resemble that remark LOL.......

Yes, it is painful to try and educate people how good we have it with today's technology. Want to see a grown photographer cry? Tell him or her their beloved Nikonos 15mm lens or super expensive FILM CAMERA housing is only worth a pittance of $$$ if you can find someone crazy enough to buy it.

My friends told me I was crazy in 2002 when I bought my D100 and starting ditching my film stuff as fast as I could......Look who's laughing now

That said, you can't know how good we have it without a bit of history. For what is likely the best stories buy Brett Gilliam's interview format coffee table book "Diving Pioneers and Innovators" and sit down with a frosty one and read a chapter or so each evening. It will open your eyes like no other diving book as to how far we've come......

Later!

dhaas

Can't help but notice the old timer remark was directed at you David, I believe David was around when they started shooting daguerotype. and rumor has it he was the assistant of Louis Boutan, no spring chicken, that's for sure.

Oh the pain!

ROTFLMAO.......

Yes, I started diving in 1969 and have seen a few changes come down the road in dive AND photo gear......All for the better in my opinion.

Never thought I'd be a "resource" for things old and decrepit though

Any questions welcome!

"Geezer" Haas