I'm just sayin, that's all...

What if?

Let me state for the record that I would be on that like flies on sh*t 8)

I would in line right after you...

He is right more than he is wrong.

I hope so too. It would make an excellent UW camera.

But I don't think Nikon will share their pro body F6/D2 down their range. I think they will use a different body, possibly new to fill the D100 to D2X gap. I'd like to be wrong and for this camera to be F6 based.

Alex

Alex and Craig -

What makes the F6 so good for U/W? I have only ever used f100, Nikonos, Oly 5050 and d70.. so my experience with slr's is limited...

M.

A point of view that Thom has forwarded on many occassions is the limited factory capacity that Nikon seems to have. This is given as one reason Nikon is slow to introduce the speculated 5 distinct models.

I don't buy the reasoning. If the demand is there, you add the capacity.

Before anyone tells me how hard it is to add capacity, been there, done that. It may not be easy, but it can be done. Nikon's part of the equation is mostly assembly.

The mystery surrounding this camera is interesting to me. To compete wtih a 20d, the camera needs better & faster AF, more resolution, faster frame rate, and a bigger viewfinder(okay, I want a bigger vf).

If the pro viewfinder, shutter mechanism, metering, proprietary high speed sensor, and AF motor of the d2H are only worth $1995 right now, how much of this is the cost of the sensor?

In other words, is a mass-produced Sony sensor any more expensive than Nikon's in house engineered high speed lbcast sensor?

How would Nikon sell a D2x at $4995 if the same features were in an 8mp body for less than half the cost?

I have only ever used f100, Nikonos, Oly 5050 and d70..  so my experience with slr's is limited...

"only ever used f100, Nikonos, Oly5050 and d70..."

snort

OK, well I've only ever used f100, Nikonos, Oly3040, Ikelite Auto35 and a d100 (underwater) and d70 (above water), so my opinion plus $2.95 will buy your namesake .

To me the things that are important are:

BIG viewfinder

Snappy AF

Compatibility with nikkor wide angles

(To reverse James' comment of the other day about buying a $2800 housing for a $900 camera, I find the idea of buying a $300 Sigma lens to go on my $4500 camera body in order to get reasonable WA performance a bit odd, surely this superior system should be just that, a complete and superior system.)

Looking through the viewfinder of the f100 underwater was like having a wall of windows rather than a port hole . I would rather have a pentaprism viewfinder with no pop-up flash, particularly in a camera that will be housed and will have external strobes.

The big viewfinder plays in with the AF issue as well. The d70's AF can be a little hit and miss, so I find it is important to check the AF and adjust if needed. This is much easier to do on a camera with a large pentaprism and bright viewfinder. That the camera with the large pentaprism and bright viewfinder has higher end AF circuitry is an extra bonus.

That's why I think the F6 would make an utterly killer UW film system, and the chassis would be a great jumping off point for a digital system.

Thanks Craig!

I think the bigger viewfinder would be nice as well.. I was initially disappointed with d70 after f100 but I've come to realize there will never be the "perfect" camera..and there will always be some tradeoffs.

Right now I'm trying to figure out what to do with mediocre performance of my 12-24DX.. I think I may sell and get the 17-55 dx... what's another 1300 bucks... that lens added to my 900 camera should justify the 2800 dollar housing.. . ))

M.

I would be very surprised if the 17-55 at 17mm was better than the 12-24 at 17mm...

If the pro viewfinder, shutter mechanism, metering, proprietary high speed sensor, and AF motor of the d2H are only worth $1995 right now, how much of this is the cost of the sensor?  

 

In other words, is a mass-produced Sony sensor any more expensive than Nikon's in house engineered high speed lbcast sensor?  

 

How would Nikon sell a D2x at $4995 if the same features were in an 8mp body for less than half the cost?

The cost of1.5x cropped sensor shouldn't depend much on how many pixels are on it. Since the DRebel sells for only a little over $600, The manufacture cost of the sensor is probably not much more than ~$200 for Canon. Unless Sony is grossly incompetent, their cost of production for the D2x sensor should not be that different. Of course there's lots of setup and R&D money that they'll try to recover.

Nikon is charging > $3000 because they think they can.

For a given chip area and technology, it's a trade-off between number of pixels and noise and dynamic range. An 8M pixel D2x may actually be better than 12M depending on the shot you're after.

(To reverse James' comment of the other day about buying a $2800 housing for a $900 camera, I find the idea of buying a $300 Sigma lens to go on my $4500 camera body in order to get reasonable WA performance a bit odd, surely this superior system should be just that, a complete and superior system.)

Sigma lenses aren't inherently inferior, the costs quoted are inaccurate and the Sigma lens itself is not the only way to get reasonable WA performance. Perhaps you should just say that the only bodies worth considering are F-mount because Nikkor wides are the best. Lens cost is irrelevent.

This imaginary Nikon body with some Nikkor wide isn't a complete and superior system as compared to the 1D2/Sigma 12-24 that you're apparently comparing it to. I don't find the Nikkor 12-24DX to be an especially good underwater lens and the camera is nothing but a figment of Thom's imagination.

I think a superor body with a sensor competitive with the 20D would make a great D100 replacement, but I don't think you should compare it to the 1D2. The sensor in a 1D2 is considerably larger than DX and the body is entirely different. The 1D2 handily outperforms the 20D. Wake me up when Nikon gets serious about the full frame digital derivative of the F6.

Bingo. What Craig (J) said. I have used the D100, 20D, and 1DmkII now and the body, viewfinder, controls, drive and responsiveness, and noise performance of the 1DmkII are vastly superior. Yes, it's worth $2,000 more than the 20D in my opinion, for the same 8 megapixels.

The Sigma 12-24 cost me $800 - actually more than the cost of the Canon 17-40. Pretty funny when you think about it. But I have a lens that will work on cropped and FF cameras - something I'm willing to pay for.

A digital F6 would be great. Heck, while Nikon is at it, why don't they put the 12 megapixel sensor in it and sell it for $2,000. I'd buy one...:-) Now I'm dreaming too.

Cheers

James

Hey Craig, perhaps I should go back and add some "sardonic" emoticons in my parenthetic comment, I'm going to need some in here too, just to warn you...

Wake me up when Nikon gets serious about the full frame digital derivative of the F6.

Sure, right after the Galbraith forums stop rattling on about adaptors for Zeiss primes and the Nikkor 17-35. :roll:

Craig:

The 17-35 alternative is the one you'll be least pleased with. Lots of sample variation that leads to strong opinions for both the 17-40 and 16-35. You can expect softness with both lenses and loads of barrel distortion. Expect to require a large dome as well. Canon's wide primes are not so good, either. I purchased a Sigma 20mm f/1.8 based on its reputation but it was a dog.

And Whitey, page 2:

Don't even think of trying a consumer zoom on this camera. And don't plan on shooting even the L series wide zooms wide open if you can avoid it (possibly underwater the blurry corners and vignetting would go unnoticed - I'll leave that call to those who do more underwater  

shooting than I do).  

 

Watch for sample variation with these wide zooms.  

 

1.5/ Wide primes:  

24mm f/2.8 - my initial shots are not encouraging. Just not as sharp as the 17-40L. I doubt I'll use this lens (my old favorite from 35mm velvia days). the 24/1.4L is expensive and not a superb optical performer - buy it if you have the money, I won't be for now- but possibly could be an underwater option if you like this focal length. The 20mm/2.8 is a bit of a dog optically.  

The sigma 20/1.8 seems to be good 20% of the time - buy 5, keep 1!  

 

If you're serious about wide angle prime performance, it's got to be the zeiss 21mm, but at $1500 for no AF and manual aperture I can't see many underwater photogs making this work.  

 

The zeiss 28mm is relatively cheap ($350 or so) and is a good performer.  

And here's James on page 3:

My conclusions: Barrel distortion is MUCH better w/ the Nikon. <edit: the 17-35> Sharpness is a little better, but not drastically better. Vignetting is hard to compare without equal test photos. The brick wall at f2.8 shows very little vignetting. The garage door in shadow shows a LOT.

END OF QUOTING

My rather hyperbolic point in parentheses, such as it was, was to poke fun at James after his angst-ridden recent conversion. It would be nowhere near as funny if I was accurate with prices, would it?

Starbucks question was "What makes the F6 so good for use UW?" Given that nobody has taken one underwater yet (to my knowledge), all we can do is speculate, and further speculate what a dSLR based on this chassis would be like. I'm sure, though, in the interests of consistency with our previous positions, we can all agree that there is an easier and less, say, controversial path to superior wide angle performance within the Nikon system at this point in time. I am sure Canon will rectify this sooner rather than later, and until that time Sigma and the other 3rd party lens manufacturers will do good business filling this niche.

Thom Hogan's pleasant dream camera strikes me as a D2H replacement or supplement more than a d100 replacement, putting it in direct competition with the 1DII. So I'm deliberately comparing this hypothetical machine to the 1DII, and looking at what all the recent Canon owners on this board have said in their ongoing quest for good WA performance.

I certainly recognize the weakness of wide lenses in the Canon lineup but not the inferiority of the complete system as a result. I'll take the superior sensor of the 1Ds2 over anything in a DX camera. Besides, Canon does have a superior wide zoom---it's just limited to 24mm.

What's the matter with wide adapters for Canon mount? They may be impractical for UW use but they work fine otherwise. At least they aren't imaginary.

...we can all agree that there is an easier and less, say, controversial path to superior wide angle performance within the Nikon system at this point in time.

Only if we agree that the things that make wide angle performance superior play to Nikon's strengths. Wide dynamic range, noise performance and resolving power all favor the Canon system and we can all agree those are important wide angle considerations. Canon has a superior 24-70 zoom and offers full frame fisheye. There are only some aspects of wide angle that Nikon does better, namely the 17-35, 18, 20, and 24mm but these are not the preferred UW wide lenses for DX sensors. As a complete system I'm not sold that Nikon is better at wide. Perhaps when the D2x comes out it will really excel at this.

I switched to Canon because I want full frame and I didn't think that a Kodak system would work as well underwater. Ultimately, there's no substitute for sensor size and Nikon will be giving that up to Canon for some time to come. If that level of performance is important then you can't argue that Nikon is a superior system regardless of the quality of their wides or their macro (which I also think are better).

Until we see what Nikkor wides, both zoom and prime, can do on a full frame DIGITAL sensor integrated into a Nikon camera, I prefer to withhold judgement on any Nikon/Canon direct lens comparisons. Why:

1. Digital sensors seem to handle corner resolution differently than film

2. Fond memories of how my slides looked though a Schneider 4X loupe are different than the reality of viweing digital captures on a 23" cinema monitor at Actual Pixels size of 100% or greater.

2.  Fond memories of how my slides looked though a Schneider 4X loupe are different than the reality of viweing digital captures on a 23" cinema monitor at Actual Pixels size of 100% or greater.

Don't you hate that... I had to go out and buy a $1K+ tripod and ball head system when I started doing the same.

Craig: I'm just rabble rousing :wink:

Congratulations y'all - we've just come to the conclusion that there IS no perfect system out there just some good ones with some compromises.

Cheers

James

I'm sitting outside in the Caribbean sun - on Ocean Frontiers wireless network - so I haven't read all the long replies in this thread. So sorry if this is repitition.

The reason a digital F6 would appeal to me for UW photography are

1) Nikon's best AF

2) Large viewfinder (compared with D70 for example)

3) Small camera body = small housing.

That last reason is why I prefered a F100 to a F5. Although I intend to get a D2X I am concerned that the height of the camera/housing may make it difficult to get down to eye level with macro subjects when they are on a flat sandy bottom.

I know not everyone shoots this kind of shot (I do) - but has anyone noticed this problem with a large pro-bodied camera with a inbuilt vertical grip compared with their previous smaller bodied camera?

Alex

Craig wrote:

Wake me up when Nikon gets serious about the full frame digital derivative of the F6.

I'm not convinced that Nikon needs to go to full frame. In previous tests on this board I've seen some pretty poor results from wide angle lenses in the corners on full frame. Compare these to the results with from dx lenses like the 12-24mm in the corners and to me (its pretty hard to judge these because there are no direct equivelents except subjectively) its a wash.

What you get is a more compact system with smaller lenses giving essentially the same performance.

So there is a theoretical limit to how closesly you can space the photosites on the sensor until s/no becomes an issue. But I don't think we are anywhere near that yet. I'd be willing to bet that the differences in noise performance between Canon and Nikon have more to do with chip technology and processing than photosite pitch. We'll see when the D2X finally comes out.

I think the only legitimate gripe with the Nikon system is the slow pace of updating the high end cameras. The kinds of features lacking in Nikon are only attributes that you wouldn't see until you pass the $2000 barrier. Hopefully the D2x will help to answer some of that. And with the D2x using the D2H body style, it seems both Canon and Nikon are down the path of creating a standardized body that can be used in a single housing at least in the high end.

There will be a time to pay the piper and go to full frame. But I don't see it comming for a while. And by the time it makes its way to my market segment it will be quite a while. In the meantime my 12-24mm, 10.5mm and 18-70 will see a lot of use. And I'll be happy to take the added portability as well.

Alex:

To continue dreaming of a D100/F6 common body:

It might also be nice to have a camera body with similur enough button positions to use both a film and digital SLR in the same housing.

Hey, given that option I might just re-develop an appreciation for film.