Nikon D2x image quality

Like all technology, when I first got the D2x I was amazed by the image quality. But these days I kind of accept it as the norm.

This morning I was processing this image from the Maldives, and was moaning that the D2x image quality wasn't that good.

Ok the problems have a lot to do with the photographer. First this is a balanced light wide angle shot of moving subjects, which is never going to be as sharp as a macro shot. It is taken through a dome port and a close-up dioptre.

Also I have up-rezzed the image to 19 Megapixels - or 450 by 300 mm @ 300dpi using Image Size in Photoshop. And resharpened.

So its not perfect. Then I snipped out this 100% crop of one of the fish. And this really is very impressive for a moving subject wide angle up-rezzed to 19MP.

I really like this camera. But I am shocked how quickly I have come to accept its awesome image quality as standard.

Alex

Hi Alex

Biggest problem I have is that I constantly need to downsize files from my EOS1DS (not MkII) for clients. The quality of the 1DS and D2X IS awesome but all too often it can be overkill and sadly is unlikely to be often used to its full potential.

My suspicion is that ~6MPixel cameras will be around for a long time simply because they deliver perfectly usable quality for many uses without the larger hard-drive clogging file sizes.

One fish crop from that shot??

Seems a few weeks back you wanted to say something to me that you couldn't say on Wetpixel.

Wellll, right back atcha!

M

That is one issue I already thought about. We start to face digital high end cameras where even some high quality pro lenses already suffer to fully support the superior camera’s image quality in some aspects. Now think about underwater optics. Even a perfect dome (large radius and proper placement) is still an optical compromise. This was more theoretical with film cameras but might start to affect high resolution digital shooting underwater in a more effective way as it starts to become visible.

Alex, what a fate you are caught in with your new camera.

Maybe you should try to get one of those rare Ivanof two element underwater correction lenses and talk to Subal if they can install it into your port. Only way I could think of underwater optics improvement beyond dome and flat optics. Beside Nikonos RS wideangle / fisheye lenses.

However, great picture! :-)

Julian

Good points Jolly, (i think but am not sure as i have not even seen the D2X yet)

But if someone wants to figure out how to attach my Nikkor 15mm to my D70 i am all ears!

Hey Mike, got a roll of duct tape and weather stripping and some Ziplock bag, you want me to mail it to you

Cheers

Alex, don't be offended if I can't make it to you lecture, they grounded the #$@$%?&* Concorde. Seriously, break a leg out there!

Julian has an excellent point. I am moving away from wide-angle zooms and trying to optomize for lenses such as Canon's 24mm f/1.4 as it seems to me that this should operate better with the 1DS that I'm using (its also incredibly good above water). Corners are a distinct problem though.

To step back, I now notice more imperfections in my scanned transparency images (especially chromatic problems) than I did when I was actually shooting film - just more used to looking for it I guess.

Maybe you should try to get one of those rare Ivanof two element underwater correction lenses and talk to Subal if they can install it into your port. Only way I could think of underwater optics improvement beyond dome and flat optics. Beside Nikonos RS wideangle / fisheye lenses.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I have an Ivanoff corrector for my Hasselblad housing. I have never used it because I do not have a shutter attachment for the camera to work in the housing. Wonder how much work it would be to use it with the D2!

Subeye were able to make a camera that took both housed Nikon lenses and Nikonos RS lenses. Maybe I should try and work out a way of attaching a 20-35mm RS lens on my camera! Or maybe I should just be satisfied with what I have.

Alex

I feel the same, I'm strickly prime lens u/w, they are far easier to calibrate for optimum positionning. But, Man what a ride u/w photography as been on, I was looking at some old Rolleimarin shot a few days ago and... call it progress

I don't agree that zooms are basically more difficult to properly position behind a dome than primes. zooms are longer and offer a bigger chance for misplacement for manufactures (who often spend less effort in such a thing).

Some zooms do not focus close enough. The required dipotre can decrease the image quality further as those 20 bucks (non achromat) close up lenses are not the best choice for wideangles.

In general you can position a zoom in the same good/bad way as prime lenses.

Only the entrance pupil shift produces a little placement error. But you can position the dome for the widest setting as if the lens would be a prime. Zooming in already reduces field of view and corner problems are reduced.

IMO only fisheyes provide a real improvement behind a dome as the focus in a way the virtual image is shaped.

Alex, is your Ivanof corrector for sale? Have been looking for one quite a while :-)

Julian

Subeye were able to make a camera that took both housed Nikon lenses and Nikonos RS lenses. Maybe I should try and work out a way of attaching a 20-35mm RS lens on my camera! Or maybe I should just be satisfied with what I have.

The RS lenses have the same lens mount as land Nikon lenses. The adapter that Subeye has is merely to create a water tight seal between the lens and the port mount. I really don't know why noone else does this, unless it's because the camera would need to be perfectly aligned in the housing to do it.

<edit> P.S. If you get someone to make a Subal to RS adapter, have them make two please! I'd buy one .

Theory aside, I have to say that I've used several wide Nikon zooms underwater over the years, starting with the 24~50, moving to the 20~35, then the 17~35 (and trying the 28~105) before ending on the 12~24. My experience has been that if the three real wide zooms have been housed with ports/extender combinations recommended by the manufacturer, the combination has been 'optimised' for the widest setting. At this setting the 20~35 didn't really focus close enough so had to use a diopter and never really performed all that well, and both the 17~35 and 12~24 have a tendency towards soft corners at there widest setting, as their field of view is a little beyond that which can be viably corrected. So all in all, none of these lenses have ever performed quite as well as the old 20mm Nikon lens which I have had for 15 years. And varying the extender hasn't significantly improved matters either. That said, zooming in has improved image quality and this has been close to the 20mm, and would only reveal differences to the hyper critical.

The trouble is that, as Alex said when he started this discussion, we are getting used to superb files which are very unforgiving and do show up lens flaws, and I am finding that fixed focals simply provide me with what I personally like. Don't get me wrong, I fully agree that zooms can be housed and their ports 'optimised' for position, but I currently prefer fixed wides.

The trouble with adapting the RS lenses is the prism over-hang on the Nikons. There would not be enough clearance for both the lens and the housing wall-lens mount. There might not be enough room even with the camera cover removed. Although the RS lenses could be adapted to an EOS, becuase they do not have aperture rings this would make them problematic to use. The RS lenses were the first of the G type now being made for SLRs by Nikon! One would have to build a dSubeye to use the RS lenses at this point.

Tom