Are you happy you changed from DX to FX?

Thanks everyone for the comments, have decided to stick with DX and picked up a Nikon D7200 last week.

Cheers,

Nigel

Hi All-

I am new here, although I've had a account for awhile. I'm currently shooting with an Aquatica D7000, so I've been reading this thread with great interest since I am currently debating the D7200 vs the D610 or D810. I am mainly shooting wide angle on wrecks in New England. I do travel as well and between bringing my rebreather and the camera, I barely have any room left in my luggage for clothing. So, the comments about the weight/size of a full frame set-up really is giving me something to think about with travel, and even when diving wrecks where I'm going in on a shot line or dealing with a lot of current.

Going to full frame from the D7000 seems like a huge step. Although I have a Tokina 10-17 and a Nikkor 16 mm fisheye, I prefer rectilinear lenses and use a 10-24 Nikon now. It seems like I really would need to invest in new lenses, most likely the 16-35 mm, which would lead to a new dome port and extension ring, increasing size and weight. The cost investment is big and it seems like continuing on the DX path makes more sense.

At the same time, I am drawn to the full frame option like a moth to a flame...

Looking at the D7200 on paper compared to the D7000, the sensor sizes seem very similar. I see the other differences with ISO, effective pixels, autofocus, etc. From what I have read here though, the D7100 was a big improvement over the D7000, and going to the D7200 from my current set-up would indeed be an upgrade.

Does anyone have any additional advice or thoughts for me to consider? Based on the comments and choices others have made, it seems like the D7200 might be the right choice.

Thanks,

Heather

 

At the same time, I am drawn to the full frame option like a moth to a flame...

 

Does anyone have any additional advice or thoughts for me to consider?

 

Heather

I think you have said it all, Heather: Moth to a flame. We all are. Why should you escape, eh?

The only other advice I might offer are the words of Dante (not the Brazilian footballer one) on the entry to hell: "Abandon hope all ye who enter".

Underwater photography is a slippery slope to an empty bank account, hours of editing, weeks of frustration and moments of utter delight.

Welcome to Wetpixel, Heather

Hi All-

 

I am new here, although I've had a account for awhile. I'm currently shooting with an Aquatica D7000, so I've been reading this thread with great interest since I am currently debating the D7200 vs the D610 or D810. I am mainly shooting wide angle on wrecks in New England. I do travel as well and between bringing my rebreather and the camera, I barely have any room left in my luggage for clothing. So, the comments about the weight/size of a full frame set-up really is giving me something to think about with travel, and even when diving wrecks where I'm going in on a shot line or dealing with a lot of current.

 

Going to full frame from the D7000 seems like a huge step. Although I have a Tokina 10-17 and a Nikkor 16 mm fisheye, I prefer rectilinear lenses and use a 10-24 Nikon now. It seems like I really would need to invest in new lenses, most likely the 16-35 mm, which would lead to a new dome port and extension ring, increasing size and weight. The cost investment is big and it seems like continuing on the DX path makes more sense.

 

At the same time, I am drawn to the full frame option like a moth to a flame...

 

Looking at the D7200 on paper compared to the D7000, the sensor sizes seem very similar. I see the other differences with ISO, effective pixels, autofocus, etc. From what I have read here though, the D7100 was a big improvement over the D7000, and going to the D7200 from my current set-up would indeed be an upgrade.

 

Does anyone have any additional advice or thoughts for me to consider? Based on the comments and choices others have made, it seems like the D7200 might be the right choice.

 

Thanks,

Heather

I recently switched from the D7000 to the D810 several months ago, and I couldn't be happier. Yes, it is a financial commitment and the gear weighs more (on the surface), but you can't beat the IQ of the D810. I shoot primarily wide-angle in Southern California, and dabble in macro and super macro.

I sold my Tokina (thought I would miss it but I do not), and purchased the Sigma 15mm fisheye and the Nikon 16-35mm. I also invested in the Zen 230mm and Nauticam 140mm domes.

For safety during ripping currents and when you need to be hands-free to shoot a bag, etc., I use the Beneath the Surface Beach Strap System. The clips are always on my BC and strobe ball mounts, just in case I need them. Regardless if you switch to FX or not, I highly recommend the BtS Beach Straps for your set-up. Here is a video my friend and I produced for BtS for that product.

Hope this information helps!

Best,

Michael

Thanks everyone! This is helpful - but making me really indecisive! I had to crunch the numbers to see for myself. This is for an Aquatica housing...

The full frame option is definitely a significant upfront investment going from DX since there's less that can be carried over. The D810 is a larger, heavier rig (for wide angle). Although I do have a lanyard to carry my housing and be hands-free, it's still a lot of camera. The D610 looks like a nice middle of the road FX option for size, weight and price.

FULL FRAME COMPONENTS

Hi NEWreckdiver

A couple of thoughts on your (excellent) spreadsheet: I wouldn't assume an 8" dome with the Nikkor 16-35. I found I had to go with the 9" on my Subal system at significant extra cost and weight.

One way of cutting down on cost and weight is to switch from a 16-35 to a 15mm (Sigma) or 16mm (Nikon) FE. No need for an EXR, no diopter and 8" dome work soft sure. And either the 15 or 16mm is cheaper than the 16-35.

Not to totally derail the thread but I'm considering picking up a 16-35mm and using it behind an 8" dome (because $1,700 for a 9" dome is out of my league) and have had trouble finding photos of the combination. I know people routinely recommend the 9" dome but how bad is it behind an 8" dome? Have an upcoming shark trip and am thinking I can get by with some degree of soft corners.

Sorry for the slight off topic question but it's been on my mind for awhile and I never found any great examples.

This is the best I came across. See Renee's photos:

http://wetpixel.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=46334&&page=9

Hi TightLines

Here's one example of a pic taken using a 16-35 behind an 8" dome. Subal system, with a 90mm EXR and a +2 diopter as Subal recommend. Check out the edges on the left side.

It's not a problem if the edges are in the blue (the right side of the image) as there isn't anything there then that can highlight the softness. But it shows up clearly in the the left side where there is coral etc.

Whereas this photo was taken with the 16-35mm in my Subal, but with a Zen 230 dome, showing very acceptable corners.

If you want excellent FX image quality underwater, spend you money on domes. They make more of difference to your output than a fancy camera body.

Alex

Thanks, everyone. These are some of the considerations I am trying to tease out, so the dome discussion has been helpful. I made an assumption (desperate hope?) that my 8" dome might be OK with a very wide angle FX lens on the full frame camera, but I would agree this is not the case. The larger dome definitely adds a lot of size and weight to the rig.

I'm still leaning towards the D7200 upgrade. It seems some people have the body, but it's not available yet around here. I really want some confirmation from Aquatica that the D7200 fits before purchasing the D7100 housing. I have seen some posts saying it does fit, but it's a lot of money and I want to be sure.

Cheers,

Heather

Heather,

Keep in mind that the discussion about dome size was in relation to rectilinear zooms (specifically the 16-35mm) not the Sigma 15mm or Nikon 16mm fisheye lenses. These provide much better corner sharpness behind an 8" dome.

Good luck with your hunt!

Thanks - point taken. I have to admit, I do prefer rectilinear lenses, but I see why the fisheyes might be better for corner sharpness. I have even seen some soft corners on my 8" dome D7000 with the 10-24 at 10 mm. Thanks again!!

Heather,

 

Keep in mind that the discussion about dome size was in relation to rectilinear zooms (specifically the 16-35mm) not the Sigma 15mm or Nikon 16mm fisheye lenses. These provide much better corner sharpness behind an 8" dome.

 

Good luck with your hunt!

Yeah, TightLines' point is a good one.

I sold my 8" dome before I got the 9" thinking I'd use it for both the 16-35 and a 15mm Sigma. In some way I now regret that decision. Lugging the 9" dome through airports and baggage lines is a bit of a pain - the difference the 1" makes is significant. (Yes, size is everything). For the majority of images I tend to go for, I think I could have dropped using the 16-35 and just used with the 15mm/8" dome combination. Much neater and managable, less hassle if potentially less flexibility.

Interesting, if somewhat ambiguous, interview on dpreview with Nikon regarding their DX/FX strategy. Including their admission of a lack of a professional DX body to compete with the 7D MkII...

http://www.dpreview.com/articles/3639917149/cp-2015-nikon-interview-we-learned-from-the-d600-episode

Whereas this photo was taken with the 16-35mm in my Subal, but with a Zen 230 dome, showing very acceptable corners.

 

ICE11_am-16218.jpg

 

 

Where was that taken? Could it be Iceland? No reason for that guess, just a guess. That's a wonderful shot. It looks like a very interesting dive site.

Late to the party but I just made a similar decision. I shoot 5dMKIII's above water and was shooting the 50D underwater in a Subal system. I love the files from the 5DMKIII but I also love the Tokina 10-17. I shoot wrecks here in the Great Lakes. I was ready to house one of my 5D's but was struggling with the lens decision. I bought a 7DMKII and really like it so I ordered a Nauticam housing this week. I really love the sharp corners I get with the 10-17 and the ability to zoom. In our water I shoot wide open often so I can't always stop down to get sharp corners. There is a part of me hoping I didn't make the wrong decision.

After much fretting, I did decide on the D7200. Still waiting for the housing, but I too am hoping I didn't make the wrong decision! :-)

Late to the party but I just made a similar decision. I shoot 5dMKIII's above water and was shooting the 50D underwater in a Subal system. I love the files from the 5DMKIII but I also love the Tokina 10-17. I shoot wrecks here in the Great Lakes. I was ready to house one of my 5D's but was struggling with the lens decision. I bought a 7DMKII and really like it so I ordered a Nauticam housing this week. I really love the sharp corners I get with the 10-17 and the ability to zoom. In our water I shoot wide open often so I can't always stop down to get sharp corners. There is a part of me hoping I didn't make the wrong decision.

I'm not sure there's a wrong decision to be made.

I'm not that delighted I switched from the D7000 to the D800, but for my wife's work shooting weddings the D800 ability to shoot high ISO is essential. (And using the same bodies seemed sensible.) I really miss the 10-17. I don't care if it's not as sharp as the 10.5 (which I sold), it's certainly sharp enough for commercial work. I miss the size and weight of the DX housing. I only shoot wide these days; I'm not fond of the fisheye look but the Sigma 15 is a good lens. I have the 16-35 behind the Nauticam 230mm dome with 70 extension and it's ok, but my corners never seem that great, and it's a huge heavy rig like that. What I like best is the ability to crop drastically and still have a commercial file. Really, the ability to crop makes the 15 Sigma a 10-17 equivalent if you want.

I hanker after something smaller, maybe that uses the 15mm Nikonos lens.

I know exactly what you mean!

I have a D810 that I (tentatively at least) plan to buy a Nauticam housing for soon, having shot a D800 with Nauticam housing previously. The Sony A7II is a compelling option, though I am not sure if I want to (or can justify the money to) completely start over since I have all the lenses ports, zoom gear, and so on for the D810 -- and I use the 810 a lot, so it's staying no matter what.

There's a 800 to 810 housing upgrade option for the nauticam.