Upgrade bug time, where to go from D2X

Welcome back Boi - and great photo! Yes, that is definitely a flasher wrasse - maybe a Mcosker's? Very pretty.

Cheers

James

My understanding is that the d300 is slightly faster autofocusing than the D2x. I doubt, however, that the difference is noticable and that was my point. My point is that FOR MACRO the Nikon lenses work better on the cropped sensor. The 60mm and 105mm respectively lenses are almost perfect for macro on a cropped sensor.

My understanding is that the d300 is slightly faster autofocusing than the D2x. I doubt, however, that the difference is noticable and that was my point. My point is that FOR MACRO the Nikon lenses work better on the cropped sensor. The 60mm and 105mm respectively lenses are almost perfect for macro on a cropped sensor.

This is exactly my concern.

Although one may say that technically you get exactly the same magnification if you translated DX frame to 35mm size so whatever size object you are shooting, you will get the same thing but with bigger frame with FF. The advantage of FF will be narrower depth of field (well it is an advantage in certain instant anyhow). That's why I am thinking that if I am going full frame, I may need

teleconverter with 105 or go back to my 70-180mm with closeup diopter.

Unfortunately I never shoot anything FF and never used film SLR so I am still wondering how well will I adjust to FF using just 105VR.

No way you get better macro pictures with a 70-180 and it'll be too slow to even get some you'll snap with the 105. If you want a new toy get a HD video setup

Consensus seems to be "hold out for D300" replacement then...

Paul C (In Dean B tradition - excess investment in D300 to consider anything anyhow)

Upgrading from the DsII poses the same question (this thread) as with the D2X!

My point was that the 1DsMkII holds its own against most of Nikon's offerings in terms of resolution and speed. Not bad for a 5 year old camera (albeit a $7k 5 year old camera )

My understanding is that the d300 is slightly faster autofocusing than the D2x. I doubt, however, that the difference is noticable and that was my point. My point is that FOR MACRO the Nikon lenses work better on the cropped sensor. The 60mm and 105mm respectively lenses are almost perfect for macro on a cropped sensor.

I think you'll find even a 10-20% difference(say 0.05 seconds) is just noticeable if you shoot often enough. This is especially true if you put it in the mode where it won't shoot without focus lock. As for Nikon's AF-S lenses suiting APS-C sensors, that's been a factor for my decision to switch to Canon. The future is FF and if I put my money in a FF lens I hope to get at least 5-10 years use out of it. Nikon has only recently refocused on FX with the 14-24 and 70-200VR II. They screwed up with the emphasis on DX thinking it was the way of the future. Fortunately the great Nikon to Canon exodus made them realize how stupid that was.

Boi, fyi, if you do upgrade to Canon, the new 100L 2.8 cannot use any of the 3rd party teleconverters or Canon's own. You'll have to live with extension tubes, until the 3rd party people update the firmware.

My understanding is that the d300 is slightly faster autofocusing than the D2x. I doubt, however, that the difference is noticable and that was my point. My point is that FOR MACRO the Nikon lenses work better on the cropped sensor. The 60mm and 105mm respectively lenses are almost perfect for macro on a cropped sensor.

Is this the impression that everybody had? I tested a D300 before and thought it's AF was noticeable slower than my D2x, was the D300 that I tested defective? The 60 and 105 are just as good on FF sensors, you just need to get closer to your subject.

My point was that the 1DsMkII holds its own against most of Nikon's offerings in terms of resolution and speed. Not bad for a 5 year old camera (albeit a $7k 5 year old camera )

 

 

I think you'll find even a 10-20% difference(say 0.05 seconds) is just noticeable if you shoot often enough. This is especially true if you put it in the mode where it won't shoot without focus lock. As for Nikon's AF-S lenses suiting APS-C sensors, that's been a factor for my decision to switch to Canon. The future is FF and if I put my money in a FF lens I hope to get at least 5-10 years use out of it. Nikon has only recently refocused on FX with the 14-24 and 70-200VR II. They screwed up with the emphasis on DX thinking it was the way of the future. Fortunately the great Nikon to Canon exodus made them realize how stupid that was.

 

 

 

Boi, fyi, if you do upgrade to Canon, the new 100L 2.8 cannot use any of the 3rd party teleconverters or Canon's own. You'll have to live with extension tubes, until the 3rd party people update the firmware.

I wonder what proportion of Mark II generation users have upgraded to MK III gen vs. D2 gen users that have upgraded to D3 gen? From the 'roll call' of this thread it seems many Nikon users have stuck, but it is only a small set. I have noticed a number of Canon users selling their MkII Seacams on this forum to get the MK III, again maybe not a representative sample.

With all the new DX lens introductions in 2009, Nikon still seems to think there is a good future in this format. At least that must be their main income source. I am not so sure they are even 'focused' on FX. Hopefully we will get a greater proportion of FX lenses introduced in 2010.

Interesting about the new Canon 100. The Nikon 105 VR works on Nikon AFS converters but not the new 60G.

advantage of FF will be narrower depth of field (well it is an advantage in certain instant anyhow).

I have shot the Sigma 20/1.8 using the maximum aperture, very narrow depth of field. See: http://wetpixel.com/forums/index.php?showt...mp;#entry234476 post#164

One generally needs DOF to focus on a dome's virtual image, so narrow DOF is best attempted with longer FL. The 30mm FF equivalent was just OK as far as virtual image issues are concerned.

Attached is another narrow DOF shot. For this shot the Sigma 20 was stopped down to f/4.

No way you get better macro pictures with a 70-180 and it'll be too slow to even get some you'll snap with the 105. If you want a new toy get a HD video setup

I am not suggesting that 70-180 is better than 105VR but with FF, I can see where it would be more useful. As Rocha said, I would need need to get closer when using 105VR on FF than on DX.

I found 105VR just about perfect on DX sensor because you can get upclose with tiny object like pgymy seahorse but at the same time have very good working distance for the most of the skittish gobies, wrasse. Trying to use 60mm on Dx sensor on those subjects will be almost impossible (for me at least) and I could see that I would have the same problem using 105 on FF on those subjects.

so 70-180 will have more useful focal lenght in those situation unless I do lots of cropping.

D2x vs D300 was straight from some internet reviews. I have no direct knowledge. I will say that the D300 with the Af-105-VR is lightning fast and, once you get used to it, you can snap some cool shots of moving macro from 8"-12"

That being said, I can't tell the difference in speed between tthe d300 and d200. The d200 was reported to be slower than the d2x. My conclusion is that DX cameras are basically as good as it gets for underwater macro.

We may well be at the end of the evolutionary line for cropped sensor cameras. I think that the logical next step would be a D3 for more megapixels and better low light capabilities but I fail to see how that would be useful for macro.

As for Canon friends, the 40D users are satisfied as are the 5D users. Almost nobody I know is upgrading from this level. I can also say my lone Olympus friend is happy with his E-3.

Bottom line may be for underwater work the incremental upgrades in the Canon/Nikon/Olympus line are small enough to not warrent more bucks.

Lots of us D2x shooters in the same boat eh I wish I had switched to the D700 the moment it came out. Now it's too late to switch. I think for macro the D2x is still a very capable camera, but for wide angle, and especially wide angle in low/available light, i often curse at my D2x underwater.

Cor-

I think your solution to wide angle/low light is a D3x. Save your pennies.

Tom

It's such an expensive option though. Both Julie and I both shoot the same camera, so we'd be buying at least 2, possibly 3. Im really not looking forward to buying 3 D3x cameras (and not to mention 2 housings). I like my kidneys.

Im hoping a D700x (D900?), or hell..maybe even a D400 would be a decent choice as well for low/available light.

Cor-

 

I think your solution to wide angle/low light is a D3x. Save your pennies.

 

Tom

More than a few pennies! One may need new ports, new lenses, as well as the housing and body!

I have done some fairly low light shooting with the D2X with many shots having the sun below the horizon. My solution has been to use more flash power. I try to limit the D2X to ISO250 with strobe.

Cor... one word.... SWITCH! Canon beckons LOL!

Cor... one word.... SWITCH! Canon beckons LOL!

Or you could be like NASA and choose the best.

http://nikonrumors.com/2009/12/21/the-lord...-nikon-d3s.aspx

Drew, admit it, you really really want to come back to Nikon again.

We will forgive you!

NASA has used Canon, Hassenblads and Nikon. It's a matter of the manufacturers making the effort to please NASA. If I had 20 million to blow on a space ride, I wouldn't care what camera I carry.

I don't really care about the brand so long as it suits my needs. What I'd like is a ViDSLR with high res stills of Canon and Nikon's Speedlight system in one camera. Oh and plenty of f1.4 wide angles lenses.

NASA has used Canon, Hassenblads and Nikon. It's a matter of the manufacturers making the effort to please NASA. If I had 20 million to blow on a space ride, I wouldn't care what camera I carry.

 

I don't really care about the brand so long as it suits my needs. What I'd like is a ViDSLR with high res stills of Canon and Nikon's Speedlight system in one camera. Oh and plenty of f1.4 wide angles lenses.

I was under the impression that stills grabbed from video were no greater resolution than the video itself, which is not all that high compared to still cameras.

Nikon is rumored to be developing AF 1.4 wide angles. I still have my MF 35/1.4 Nikkor that I got in the 80's but not too useful UW. Recently I got a Sigma 20/1.8 and have been using it on the DX format, works rather well even wide open. One thing about the Sigmas is that they focus very close making them that much more useful for UW use. I would be pleasantly surprised if the hypothetical new Nikkors focused as close.