Read-only discussion
Hello,
I've just sold my gear (D70s + Ikelite + dome port for the 60AFD).
I keep my 10.5 DX, 60 AFD, superdome 8", two DS51.
I want to buy a new gear : D300 + Ike or D700 + Ike.
On land I prefer D700.
Here two setup, same "quality"?
D300 + Ike + 10.5 dome 8" + 60 AFD with dome port
D700 + ike + 16 fisheye nikon + 60 AFD with flat port
(I don't want 10-17 Tokina).
Thank you.
(sorry for my english)
(Me at Likoma Island, Malawi, Africa. D70+10.5)
I grapple with this issue a bit in this review:
http://wetpixel.com/i.php/full/review-niko...in-subal-nd700/
Alex
Having transitioned from DX to FX in the last year, I can offer you a few of my personal observations.
For wide angle, I think the 10.5mm FE is sharper than the 16mm FE, though the 16mm is acceptable. You can still use the 10.5mm FE on a FX body in crop mode, but you essentially end up with an image with resolution just a bit lower than what you would get on the D70. With the 60mm micro, your angle of view is going to be wider on the FX body, so at your minimum focusing distance in the absence of cropping, your images will lose a bit of magnification compared to the DX body. You can compensate by going to a longer focal length like the 105mm micro, but keep in mind that by doing this you're cutting your depth of field.
The Sigma 15mm fisheye is also quite good - and comes in Nikon and Canon mount.
Cheers
James
So the 16mm FX not equal to the 10.5 DX. 
Today (since 2007) my land camera is a D2X.
So the 16mm FX not equal to the 10.5 DX.
Today (since 2007) my land camera is a D2X.
i found the biggest problem with the 16mm UW was close focusing. its horrible for CFWA relative to the 10.5mm and the amazingly close focusing sigma 15mm. I sold the 16mm for the sigma and i'm very happy.
the sigma 15mm on a DX camera is a great wide angle, something that cannot be replicated on FX.
i found the biggest problem with the 16mm UW was close focusing. its horrible for CFWA relative to the 10.5mm and the amazingly close focusing sigma 15mm. I sold the 16mm for the sigma and i'm very happy.
the sigma 15mm on a DX camera is a great wide angle, something that cannot be replicated on FX.
I need and advice.
What's the best solution?
Sell all my Ikelite stuffs and go to used Nd2 + my land D2X?
or keep my ikelite stuffs and go to Ike D700?
The Sigma 15mm fisheye is also quite good - and comes in Nikon and Canon mount.
I was surprised to read (promted by a post on another thread) that according to Ikelite, the Sigma 15 vignettes in their port ...
I only mention it because the OP mentioned he was looking at Ikelites.
I need and advice.What's the best solution?
When digital came I was a bit upset with the DX format as I would lose a bit of my WA capabilities with the lenses I had.
Nowadays for UW work I came to think the DX was the best thing happened for us.
- Smaller cameras (comparing D700 to D300).
- Better WA: Nikkor 10.5mm, Tokina 10-17...
- Extremely better CUWA on the same lenses;
- Better Macro you get a 90mm by the price of a 60mm, or a 160mm by the price of a 105mm, with better resolution on borders!!!
- Nicer super-macro crop.
My opinion the best solution today is a D300.
The combination you set: D300 + 10.5 + 60 is a great start!!! The best of UWPhoto IMHO.
I would just add an aluminum housing, to be perfect.
I would Sea&Sea, but Aquatica and Subal are (almost IMHO) as good.
Shock, horror. This week I have used my new D700 and 16mm Nikkor alongside my D200 with Tokina 10-17mm behind a Sea & Sea optical dome for identical shots. I'm sorry to say (having spent a great deal of money) categorically that the FX 16mm is not as sharp over all as the Tokina DX using the same ISO and f11.
Discuss.
Shock, horror. This week I have used my new D700 and 16mm Nikkor alongside my D200 with Tokina 10-17mm behind a Sea & Sea optical dome for identical shots. I'm sorry to say (having spent a great deal of money) categorically that the FX 16mm is not as sharp over all as the Tokina DX using the same ISO and f11.
Discuss.
How about the D700 + 1.4x or 1.5x teleconverter + tokina? maybe that is still better than D700 + 16mm...
Shock, horror. This week I have used my new D700 and 16mm Nikkor alongside my D200 with Tokina 10-17mm behind a Sea & Sea optical dome for identical shots. I'm sorry to say (having spent a great deal of money) categorically that the FX 16mm is not as sharp over all as the Tokina DX using the same ISO and f11.
Discuss.
I missed that! (I was underwater in Croatia) Thanks. However it means buying MORE kit! Next week I'm in the Sudan with the D200/Tokina set-up methinks.
Shock, horror. This week I have used my new D700 and 16mm Nikkor alongside my D200 with Tokina 10-17mm behind a Sea & Sea optical dome for identical shots. I'm sorry to say (having spent a great deal of money) categorically that the FX 16mm is not as sharp over all as the Tokina DX using the same ISO and f11.
I have not found a lack of sharpness with FX Nikons, but of course there is a considerable depth of field difference if FX and DX are shot at the same aperture.
I have commented many times in the forums and in the reviews I have written that DX Nikons are better than FX Nikons for most underwater photography. But it does not stop everyone wanting the D700 - as it is seen as the latest and greatest.
This is from last years D700 Review:
If pushed I would conclude that the D300 offers the marginally better system [than the D700] (e.g. 100% viewfinder, Tokina 10-17mm, better AF coverage), irrespective of price, unless you have a bona fide need for high ISO.
This is from the forums - a few weeks ago:
I think that there are going to be quite a few people this year switching to full frame - who find that their photography goes backwards as a result. Its only small things - but APS-C cameras are definitely a bit easier to use. Its amazing how the small increase in depth of field is enough to make the difference between saving shots and leaving you frustrated with the lack of depth of field.Doesn't stop us all wanting full frame, myself included.
DX is a much more forgiving format than FX. But once you adjust to having to stopping down more the FX cameras produce great results (just don't use a DX camera along side and you'll soon not realise what you are missing) and in the end the difference in not huge.
The D700 is a very capable camera once you get used to shooting it. Here is a gallery of some of my picture from the D700 in the last few months:
http://www.facebook.com/album.php?id=79632...&aid=237530 (remember to browse with Cooliris if you have it installed)
Alex
I have not found a lack of sharpness with FX Nikons, but of course there is a considerable depth of field difference if FX and DX are shot at the same aperture.
I have commented many times in the forums and in the reviews I have written that DX Nikons are better than FX Nikons for most underwater photography. But it does not stop everyone wanting the D700 - as it is seen as the latest and greatest.
This is from last years D700 Review:
This is from the forums - a few weeks ago:
DX is a much more forgiving format than FX. But once you adjust to having to stopping down more the FX cameras produce great results (just don't use a DX camera along side and you'll soon not realise what you are missing) and in the end the difference in not huge.
The D700 is a very capable camera once you get used to shooting it. Here is a gallery of some of my picture from the D700 in the last few months:
http://www.facebook.com/album.php?id=79632...&aid=237530 (remember to browse with Cooliris if you have it installed)
Alex
Not to disagree with anything Alex has said, I should point out that I have been using full-frame since 1966 (when I got a degree in photography at an unprecedented youthful age) and underwater SLR since 1985 albeit with film, so I understand a little about depth-of-field. In fact, most of my high-earning pictures were shot with a 10x8 Sinar and if you didn't know how to control depth-of-field with that - you're dead in the water - not that you'd take one underwater!
This week I swapped to the 20mm Nikkor on the D700 and found I got the excellent quality I always used to get. However, it isn't as wide (or did you already know that?).
So for me it's DX with the Tokina 10-17. I'll keep the D700 for macro and surface use. (I might sell the 14mm)
Not to disagree with anything Alex has said, I should point out that I have been using full-frame since 1966 (when I got a degree in photography at an unprecedented youthful age) and underwater SLR since 1985 albeit with film, so I understand a little about depth-of-field. In fact, most of my high-earning pictures were shot with a 10x8 Sinar and if you didn't know how to control depth-of-field with that - you're dead in the water - not that you'd take one underwater!This week I swapped to the 20mm Nikkor on the D700 and found I got the excellent quality I always used to get. However, it isn't as wide (or did you already know that?).
So for me it's DX with the Tokina 10-17. I'll keep the D700 for macro and surface use. (I might sell the 14mm)
John, borrow somebody's Kenko 1.4 TC and give it a shot withthe 10-17 on the D700, I think you will be pleasantly surprised. Easier to carry a TC then a second rig.
John, borrow somebody's Kenko 1.4 TC and give it a shot withthe 10-17 on the D700, I think you will be pleasantly surprised. Easier to carry a TC then a second rig.
Thanks for the advice. I appreciate it.
I only have one working day in the UK so I guess I'll have to put the idea on ice until after Sudan, France, Bali.
I didn't say that the 14mm Fish-eye wasn't passably sharp but it's just not as good as I have come to expect.
Anyone going to the Sudan next week with a Kenko 1.4TC?
.jpg.857dbbfbdc4d79d9c6ebf7b4ba96ed1b.jpg)
Terms of Use Privacy Policy Guidelines We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.
A worldwide community for underwater imaging.
