Pro Nikon Photographer Getting Wet - help spend my money...

great forum...have done a lot of underwater shooting in the past with Nikonos system and various lenses but now want to go digital... I do nearly all warm water diving. Currently I have:

D3, D300, all nikon lenses: 14-24mm, 12-24mm, 85mm, 105mm macro, 10.5mm fish eye, 30mm f2, 50mm f1.8, 17-55mm, and will buy the 24-70mm if needed.

I love the topside wide angle view of the D3 and 14-24mm but not sure if I want that $ value underwater...and, of course, the D3 housings are more expensive than the D300 version.

Which would you take under, the d3 or d300? ...with which lenses - I'd like to do a mix of macro and wide angle shooting. I love the prices at divervision so an ikelite or sea and sea housing would work well (support ttl?)...are these worthy contenders for good housings? I've used sea and sea strobes in the past so that i'd just go with the ttl versions now...are there better contenders?

I need to make my decision quickly as I leave 11/1 on a trip, hence my open call for opinions...I know some of these topics have been covered elsewhere so feel free to point me to other threads...I'm also searching and reading to try and absorb info quickly...but you guys I'm sure will be good at giving me the "management summary"! I will write a review of the equipment purchased upon my return...

thanks in advance, John.

Some early reading to suggest:

http://wetpixel.com/i.php/full/nikon-d3-fi...pacific-part-1/

My review of the D3 underwater. With pros and cons of using the camera versus a DX Nikon.

Alex

Welcome to Wetpixel. There are a number of threads on Wetpixel regarding full frame vs cropped ,DX vs FX etc. Do a search for them. In summary you will find that the options available for DX are more user friendly than FX. Particularly the Tokina 10-17 is a favorite for which there is no FX equivalent. Although I own a D700, I have not yet been convinced it is worth housing and giving up on DX - my D200 or future D300. I'm hoping some new housings on the horizon may house both. I still think if I had to choose one, I'd probably stay with DX.

I love the topside wide angle view of the D3 and 14-24mm but not sure if I want that $ value underwater...and, of course, the D3 housings are more expensive than the D300 version.

If you go with a reputable insurer with flood coverage (the majors are DAN's H2OInsurance and DEPP), the value underwater is not so much the issue as would be the inconvenience of losing the ability to use the camera until you return from the trip and make a claim.

Another important point for a Nikon shooter is that I think the current FX vs DX issue is different from the FF vs APS-C for a Canon user. Because with Nikon you don't get any extra resolving power for going FX.

Annoyingly, Nikon's next moves are not easy to guess - so the current FX camera's don't really help with the "I'll get into FX now because the future's FX argument" because when Nikon do go to a higher megapixel FX camera there is no guarentee at all that it will fit in existing housings. If you are going to take that risk I'd say the D700 is the safer and cheaper bet.

This is from the conclusion to my review (actually from a later version than the one on Wetpixel):

So should you go with FX? As I have said above, a lot depends on the type of diving you do. Future FX cameras will certainly bring more resolution, but at the moment, as a Nikon shooter, the FX versus DX debate really comes down to high ISO. If you shoot mainly in the deep or dark waters and enjoy a lot of wide angle, then the D3 will allow you to take images that have simply not been possible before. For deep or cold water wrecks, for example, this camera, and its ilk, promises to revolutionise the images we produce. However, if you dive mainly in brighter conditions in the tropics or if almost all your cold water dives are macro then the D3 will offer you little to justify the cost of FX over DX.

The advantages of FX in Nikon’s current range really depend on what you like to photograph and where. Of course, buying a D3 might just change what you like to photograph! Its capabilities in low light will change your approach to photography in these conditions. This makes it a very exciting underwater camera.

ikelite have the i-ttl sorted. worth checking out.

thanks for the replies....perhaps you missed it, but I already own a D3 and a D300 so buying the camera or the lenses is not an issue (they are all listed above)...I guess it really comes down to the housing cost and the cold water/warm water usage discussion...I know the D3 has much lower noise than the d300 once you go above iso 1600....the d3 is amazing even at 6400! But given that I don't have a lot of interest in doing cold water diving, then perhaps the d300 housing would be better as the entry cost is lower.

Which lens would you go with...I liked the Tokina images...nice stuff. I could use the 12-24 which is very sharp or the 10.5mm ...would I predominantly only need two lenses u/w? say the 105mm macro and the tokina? anybody have the ikelite d300 housing?

alex - i did read your d3 housing review, very thorough and informative.

Matt - thanks for the insurance tip...

ikelite have the i-ttl sorted. worth checking out.

forgot to mention that I also have two sea & sea ys120 duo strobes which I'd like to take advantage of including the ttl ... I have all the cords too that connects them to the nikonos setup but assume i'll have to buy new cords to connect to the new housing...at least I won't have to buy everything!

Sorry but you're probably out of luck with the 120's. I'd check the Heinrich's Weikamp (spelling?) to see if they are compatible with his converter for the D300 or D3. I don't think they are compatible, but just haven't looked. I also don't know if he has a model compatible with the D3 yet.

As for lenses, the 12-24 is HIGHLY overshadowed by the Tokina 10-17 as there is a world of difference in the underwater performance.

Regards,

James Wiseman

Sorry but you're probably out of luck with the 120's. I'd check the Heinrich's Weikamp (spelling?) to see if they are compatible with his converter for the D300 or D3. I don't think they are compatible, but just haven't looked. I also don't know if he has a model compatible with the D3 yet.

 

As for lenses, the 12-24 is HIGHLY overshadowed by the Tokina 10-17 as there is a world of difference in the underwater performance.

 

Regards,

James Wiseman

thanks for the input James...the converter chart says "This strobe can be used in manual (and M-TTL if available) only" - not sure what M-ttl mode is though...so I guess I'd be stuck using them in manual mode...ideally, I'd like to use my SB-800's - is enclosing them a good solution? on the lens...if I only had the tokina plus the 105mm, it seems that would give me a decent arsenal for most situations...agree?

I'm going to go with a D300 housing...I can't justify the added expense to house the D3 especially when these housing seem to change with every new camera model. so, ikelite or sea and sea or? Will my YS120's give me full ttl if I use the sea and sea housing?

Also, I've read about people driving the strobes via fiber optics with the advantage being that its one less wired connection to leak...i don't understand this...don't the fiber optic cables have to be attached also?

For the D300 I like the following lenses. Tokina 10-17 for very wide. Nikon 17-55 is a good lens for medium size subjects to moderate wide angle. The Tokina 35 mm macro is a surprisingly good lens. The larger macro and any small subject. I shot sea lions with it down it La Paz this fall. I like the new Nikon 60 micro. The 105 is nice for small skittish subjects. If you have only one lens the 60 is the best macro.

Unlike everyone else I also like the Nikon 12-24 a lot. It goes from a nice wide angle to decent medium range. Good for sharks and such where the Tokina 10-17 is just too wide. If I could only bring one of the two it would be more likely to be the 12-24. 10.5 is excellent, but the 10-17 is much more versatile UW.

I went with the D3 for underwater, primarily for the reasons Alex outlined. A lot of my work is in cold, dark, and often low visibility wrecks in the great lakes. Shooting clean higher ISO is my prime benefit of the D3 (although I liked the idea of FX since I shot film SLR for years). It's not inexpensive transitioning from DX to FX, though, as I virtually replaced all my lenses.

I have the 14-24mm, which is really my favourite lens topside. I've used it underwater with decent results, but I still find that I use my 16mm fisheye moreso underwater for wreck photography. I have the 24-70mm which I have used underwater only a few times for shark photography. Again, another fantastic topside lens. For macro, I find the 105mm more useful on FX than the 60mm (which I loved on DX). Similar angle of views on their respective sensor formats.

One other consideration is that with the D3 and the FX sensor, you typically need shorter focal lengths to get the same angle of view as the D300 and the DX sensor. With the shorter focal lengths you will get shallower depth of field, which may or may not be an advantage.

The investment in a D3 housing is not insignificant. Depending on the housing you choose, it can be about the same cost of the D3 itself. For me, I love my D3 topside. It can do shots that the D300 and even the D700 cannot do.

Also, I've read about people driving the strobes via fiber optics with the advantage being that its one less wired connection to leak...i don't understand this...don't the fiber optic cables have to be attached also?

They can be triggered through a clear window so there's no possibility of a leak. Strobes can be changed underwater with this system and still support TTL. Electrical isolation of the camera from the water is the big advantage of fiber, not the reduced risk of a flood.

Fiber is cheaper (or at least should be), lighter, smaller, more bouyant, lower drag, field repairable, wet pluggable, electrically isolated and TTL capable. If you consider using fiber, you should consider Inon strobes and a Nexus or Seatool housing. Between the two, Seatool gives you more port options though adapters, more control over the popup strobe, and the ability to use the back focus control.

even on land i've never been impressed with optical ttl control, there is always 1/2 a stop or more change in variation. with my ikelite at 5 fps it's very consistent.

lou, what "optical ttl control" have you used on land?

Scubaguyjohn, I'd be very interested to hear what your final setup was. It looks like you are on your trip now so maybe when you get back. Basically, I am in the same boat. I have every current high end Nikon body and all the lenses, and I am looking to get underwater. Thanks!

the nikon i and d ttl's , never found it to do exactly what i wanted. M is so much easier optically.

the nikon i and d ttl's , never found it to do exactly what i wanted. M is so much easier optically.

Turbidity and absorbtion (strobe - subject - lens optical path length) have such a great effect on strobe illumination that I doubt any TTL system will work as well as it does in air. The available TTL systems get you close, and the perfect exposure needs a degree of manual over-ride. My (educated) guess is that it doesn't matter what TTL system you use, as long as you have a stop or two of manual over-ride.

I use optical sTTL, which is really TTL emulation, with Inon strobes, but I'm always adjusting the variable output control. sTTL only reduces the number of "burnt - out" exposures. That said, strobe angle and strobe - subject - lens optical path length still seem to be the most important determinants of strobe illumination to me...

Tim