Nexus D2x Housing

You all see the photos on the homepage? :-)

http://wetpixel.com/module-pagesetter-view...4-pid-395.phtml

Cheers

James

Thanks James. Mine is already ordered. Hope that extra length at bottom below port is for the WiFi adapter....wouldn't that be nice...

M.

And did you see that this report on Wetpixel has lead to some gnashing of teeth over on DPreview.

Blueseadiver, whoever you are, you are very naughty :evil:

Lol, yeah, I saw that too Craig - the "c-team" really cracked me up.

Cheers

James

Hope that extra length at bottom below port is for the WiFi adapter....wouldn't that be nice...

I don't think there's enough space, sadly. What will be cool, though, is when people make polecams out of the D2x with a long waterproof USB2.0 cable. With the new version of Nikon Capture you can actually change settings on the camera (aperture, shutter speed, +/- EV and, I think, focus area) and fire the camera under the control of the remote computer, and actually see what you are shooting.

That would be cool for Humboldt Squid and Great Whites 8)

The WiFi would obviously be excellent for posing - "oh I'm just going to download my pictures while my camera soaks in the rinse bucket" but I would rather have a smaller housing and have to open it to change the card!

I'd like to see better shading of LCD - this would be a pain at somewhere bright like Stingray City. Other wise it looks very nice.

I haven't seen the DPreview thing, yet! Just going to check it out.

Have done! Very dull typical DPReview hypersensitive/over reaction stuff.

Alex

Well, I'm not real clear on Eric's statement either. If the D2x doesn't go over well Nikon goes out of business? Or is he saying Nikon loses out on the U/W business?

From strictly a business point of view, I'd say the last "U/W War" between Canon and Nikon was clearly won by the D70. As I'm not much into topside photography, it's pretty much irrelevent to me what posters on DPreview have to say. So I'd like to hear it from you guys.

I'd also like to see some shots and a review of the New Nikon D2x as well. If someone can point me to them, I'd appreciate it. Yes, the wheels are turning...

Rand

Hi Rand,

I think what Eric was referring to was about upgrade camera models for working pros. When I say "pro" I mean a body that's weather sealed, w/ large viewfinder, vertical grip, etc. The last time Nikon released a best in class competitor was with the D1x. When the 4 megapixel D2h, Nikon's high-speed upgrade to the D1h came out, Canon just about simultaneously announced the 1DmkII which had the same features, but twice the megapixels. Canon was one step ahead of the D2x (in my opinion) this time too, with more megapixels, and a full frame sensor. It's tough to make a real comparison here though, as Nikon has only posted small samples from the D2x and no RAW files yet.

In any case, I'm sure the D2x will be the upgrade from the D1x that many pros have been waiting for. On the other hand, there are always those folks who simply must have the best-in-class and if the D2x isn't at least comparable to what Canon's offering, then I think they may abandon Nikon. That's probably where Eric's comment camer from...

A lot of this may be irrelevant for underwater use though - but some factors may not be. Check out my most recent article if you haven't already - for more of my thoughts on this subject.

Cheers

James

. It's tough to make a real comparison here though, as Nikon has only posted small samples from the D2x and no RAW files yet.

Wow, I had no idea that there's no real info on the D2x as of yet. There seems to be a strong negative undercurrent here on that camera. Interesting. Hmmm.

James, I did read your review. It's also of interest to me that you can reliably judge a camera's U/W performance after two dives. I find that impressive, albiet a bit time consuming to sell off and re-buy if it doesn't meet with your expectations. After 50 or so dives, I'm still not sure how I feel about the D70. And if any shortcomings are user or camera caused.

Looking forward, just for fun, if the Canon falls short, what will your next move be? (said somewhat tongue in cheek)...

Rand

Make my own digital camera and housing, I guess. :-)

I think it's easy to judge the D2x based on the fact that there's no information available...lol. As Kodak has shown, if you announce and the postpone and postpone, customers assume the camera must have had some problem that the company is correcting. In the case of the D2x, I think customers are taking the "you're going to have to prove it to me" stance.

RE the Kodak - I used the camera in just about every shooting condition, prior to taking it underwater. I had a few concerns about the camera, but certainly wasn't going to sell it until I had worked through those concerns underwater. I only needed 2 dives (about 50 frames on each dive) to confirm that the system wasn't the right one for me.

Cheers

James

Its a rare event, but I feel compelled to leap to James's defence!!

I think the fact that James has owned and dived several DSLRs makes him well placed to judge a camera quickly!! James's previous cameras (S2 and D100) have the same body as the Kodak so he didn't have much new to get used too. Also he was using another Aquatica housing.

I think Eric's comment is fair - if a little tongue in cheek. Currently the best (money no object) DSLR you can buy a housing for is the 1DS MK2. The D2X is Nikon's new top line camera and for a Nikon owning pro it is v important. If it is not a close match for the top Canon then I'm sure it will be a reason to switch to Canon for some. Despite the considerable expense.

Personally I think Nikon has chosen not to release RAW files and D2X samples on the web so as not to feed the N and C Teams - who will blindly stick with their allegences whatever evidence is put in front of them.

Nikon is showing D2Xs and sample pictures all around the world at various Nikon event days. The events are targeted at the pro-photographers who will actually buy the D2X, rather than over-hype it or slag it off on the Internet based on their predujices. I am going to one next Tuesday when I am back in the UK. If I wasn't away in Cayman I would have seen them already.

Nikon know that they will sell all the D2Xs they can build for the first few months - so why worry about what people who will never buy the camera and just want to mouth off about it on Internet Forums think.

Once the camera is released and Nikon is busy supplying all the pros who have been to preview days and seen images and handled the camera - I'm sure they will have sample pictures on the web.

Sorry for the DPReview-style rant. But I am sure the D2X will be a good camera. Just as the D70 is. I doubt it will be quite as good as a 1Ds Mk2, but I am sure it will be by far Nikon's best DLSR to date.

Alex

I think a lot of people here are awaiting the D2x. Is the opinion here negative on it?

I just want full frame and Nikon isn't doing that right now. I'm sure the base ISO performance of the D2x will be acceptable and underwater shooters will be happy with it. The Nexus housing looks great of course and works with their fabulous macro system. Wish it weren't so big but the Canon is bigger.

I am curious about DX sensor vs full frame sensor comment. Since the release of the 12-24mm DX lens, 10.5mm fisheye DX and 17-55mm DX lenses, do we still miss something more on the wide angle side that made DX sensor a disadvantage? Or is there something else inherently inferior about smaller sensor? May be you can fit more pixels into a bigger sensor with less digital noise but after 8-12 megapixels, how much more benefit will you truely get beside playing the number game?

I am curious about DX sensor vs full frame sensor comment. Since the release of the 12-24mm DX lens, 10.5mm fisheye DX and 17-55mm DX lenses, do we still miss something more on the wide angle side that made DX sensor a disadvantage?

Personally, I think not. Others can make a reasonable argument that there is a disadvantage.

Or is there something else inherently inferior about smaller sensor?

All things being equal, a larger sensor is better. All things aren't as equal as they used to be.

Early in the digicam market, there were distinct pro's and con's about CMOS and CCD. These differences have narrowed considerably. No one really cares, they just want what works best for them at an appropriate price.

Just my opinion, but FF is meaningless to me. If I change to Canon, it will be for other reasons. I need to see the D2X before making a decision.

Or is there something else inherently inferior about smaller sensor? May be you can fit more pixels into a bigger sensor with less digital noise but after 8-12 megapixels, how much more benefit will you truely get beside playing the number game?

Yes, the smaller sensor has a smaller acceptable circle of confusion and a proportionately smaller acceptable diffraction limit. Larger sensors provide superior macro performance and higher resolving power for the same process technology and pixel size. It's not a wide angle thing. Frankly, I think DX sensors are fine for wide and full frame is better for macro. I'm mostly interested in macro.

If you accept that the D2x will provide acceptable performance at 12MP in a given application, just remember that a full frame version would be 27MP, not just 12. If your goal is 12MP, you can get it full frame with much better dynamic range and superior high ISO performance. It's quite possible that the D2x will be "good enough" but that doesn't make DX sensors just as good as full frame. One application where small pixel size is an advantage is when you can't get a long enough lens or get close enough to your subject such as on safari or shooting birds. Unfortunately, high ISO performance is frequently important in those applications as well. I hope the D2x works as well as the 20D for that but I'd be surprised.

I want full frame because I'm tired of not using the full capability of my macro lenses; not just the image circle but the available aperture range. You can't use beyond f/22 with a DX sensor without the image turning to crap. Remember that f/22 for film = f/16 for DX. If you're shooting f/22 with a DX sensor that's like shooting f/32 on full frame. Most people would say that's a no-no.

Craig, maybe I'm in a minority here, and I know this sounds somewhat self serving as my D70 suffers from the problems you state. But, as DOF goes in macro, I'm seeing less as more.

Macro shots with everything in focus seem less interesting to me than those where DOF is controlled. I'm making a conscious effort to shoot wider. Trying to blur backgrounds, especially where the color contrast is not good but subject matter is.

Emphasizing certain elements while throwing the rest out. I'm not sure I would shoot f22 or higher even if the results were snap sharp.

I'd like to hear other viewpoints on this as I think it's a worthwhile discussion.

Here's a recent example of what I'm trying. Maybe it looks like crap and most of you would rather see all the gills etc. in focus.

Rand

Sometimes yes but not always. The ability to get superior DOF is good even when you don't need it. for a given DOF you will get less diffraction with full frame.

Dang, that's a fabulous shot Rand.

Cheers

James

Ok, that's what I'm missing. I understand the diffraction term in a general sense, but I'd like to see maybe a side by side example of it. James would probably have that...maybe?

Thanks James, sometimes we kind of lose track of why we're here. LOL!

Rand

Rand.....just keep doing what you are doing ..othewise you might try to fix it until it's broke :?

Karl