Is this the FX eqivalent of the DX10-17?

D700, 16m Nikkor and Hugyfot housing for sale!

LOL. I do think my next 'travel' rig will be DX as well, though I'm likely to stay with FX for pool work.

LOL. I do think my next 'travel' rig will be DX as well, though I'm likely to stay with FX for pool work.

I think so too. I was thinking more FX for wide angle and DX for macro.

I think Nikon will replace both D700 and D300 with a single camera. As the D7000 is sort of between D90 and D300. So the other new one may be between D300 and D700. But I don't know if it will be DX or FX.

Alex

I think so too. I was thinking more FX for wide angle and DX for macro.

 

I think Nikon will replace both D700 and D300 with a single camera. As the D7000 is sort of between D90 and D300. So the other new one may be between D300 and D700. But I don't know if it will be DX or FX.

 

Alex

I've just shot some studio shots of compacts and their housings for a feature in our mag. and I used an old D200 (I've got a safe full of old stuff) with the 60 Micro Nikkor and studio flash and the results are too good to be true. The FX is great for high ISO ambient light stuff but, it's back to DX if I've got flash to use, for me.

Just my (painfully acquired) opinion. Don't listen to me. I'm just a grumpy old sod!

I think so too. I was thinking more FX for wide angle and DX for macro.

 

I think Nikon will replace both D700 and D300 with a single camera. As the D7000 is sort of between D90 and D300. So the other new one may be between D300 and D700. But I don't know if it will be DX or FX.

 

Alex

That's an interesting thought but I don't think so myself. Previously DX was thought to be less of a professional format than FX, but I think it's becoming clear that there is a place in the semi-pro and pro lineup for DX and for FX. Even topside these issues are apparent; for example the longer reach of lenses with DX for wildlife. With both having advantages and disadvantages depending on the shooting situation.( Just as Canon have the D and DS series) I think the D7000 leaves just enough out to warrant a higher end DX camera, and I find it hard to believe that Nikon will not make an FX camera to challenge the 5DMkII (sure to be MKIII by the time the Nikon D700 upgrade comes out.)

Perhaps the biggest disadvantage of FX over DX is not the lack of a 10-17mm, but the need for bigger domes and bigger strobes, just to get back to DX levels of corner sharpness and depth of field. And all that means extra luggage weight and a bigger rig to push about underwater.

Definitely so Alex. Yet even you jumped onto the FX bandwagon without any goading.

A big glass dome is a pain to travel with, but think of the positives. Besides sharper corners, a heavy glass balances out the housing, making it very useful for ViDSLR to shoot video, with a more stable housing, instead of battling a camera which wants to go dome up all the time.

Big strobes are also a pain, but the recharge rate is almost always faster than the smaller ones, so more power and fps, a boon for shooting action. Plus the aluminum housed strobes tend to be tougher and can take more punishment. I've drowned 3 Inons over the years because the plastic cracked somewhere.

Don't forget that FX will bring in the megapixels. Maybe not now for Nikon users (except D3x users), but it's coming. Now whether you need 20+mp is another discussion altogether . The closer you can get to the subject, the less resolution matters. And the added DOF with DX (est 1.5 stops maybe) gives wide angle shooters fewer focus issues, especially for video.

A big glass dome is a pain to travel with, but think of the positives. Besides sharper corners, a heavy glass balances out the housing, making it very useful for ViDSLR to shoot video, with a more stable housing, instead of battling a camera which wants to go dome up all the time.

Actually the Zen 230 is more positive than the Subal FE4, and really wants to float, so for video would benefit from a small trim weight on the bottom. When I get my own one I was thinking of making a velco trim weight for it.

Alex

Interesting, Alex. I've not used the 230 but the 200 and that wanted to sink. Well it'll still beat an acrylic port anytime.

As for the ballast weight, I suggest you put the weight on the top. At the bottom, it may get knocked during handling. What I suggest you do is have the housing neutral negative with the weight and positive without it. Then in any emergency when you have to let go of the housing, just pull off the weight and it'll float up, hopefully to be collected later after you deal with the emergency.

Hi Alex

Do you know how the 16-35 compares to the 14-24 regarding image quality?

And like Alex said, I would think twice about taking the lens shade of the Tokina 10-17. On the DX one could get a 16mmFE (35mm equiv.) field of view and then zoom in. On the FX one will have the 17mmFE field of view and then zoom out. I don't know if the later will have great advantages.

Marcelo Krause