64 replies to this topic

[Christian K]

From the Nikon site-- "Closest focus distance
0.28 m/0.9 ft. (with focal length 18-24 mm)"

I am also very interested in this matter. Because it is not stated, it leads me to believe that the CFD in the 14-17 mm range is worse. I am very interested in this lens after Alex mentioned that it seemed to be of as high quality as the 17-35/2.8. It is a very fat lens, but seems like it will fit in my Hugyfot housing.

cheers

Christian

Edited by Christian K, 23 October 2007 - 12:04 PM.

[loftus]

It would seem that this lens will not really have any advantages over the 12-24 for the D200. Even though it may be pretty sharp topside,as is the 12-24, I would not be surprised if it has the same issues underwater with edge sharpness that the 12-24 has, without the option of using a dioptre. Also it is much more expensive than the 12-24.

I am also very interested in this matter. Because it is not stated, it leads me to believe that the CFD in the 14-17 mm range is worse. I am very interested in this lens after Alex mentioned that it seemed to be of as high quality as the 17-35/2.8. It is a very fat lens, but seems like it will fit in my Hugyfot housing.

cheers

Christian

[james]

[quote}What pity because I was not astounded (as I expected to be) by what I saw on Saturday.[/quote]

Oh, thanks a LOT John!

Cheers
James

[Tom_Kline]

snip

And, as you know - it is not the camera that matters, but what you point it at. While I was playing with their cameras, the guys from Nikon were looking through my new book (sorry for the cheeky plug ). A few of the pictures in there are shot with the D100 - and one of the Nikon reps actually voiced their surprise at how well they had reproduced in the book. Even the reps, it seems, get so caught up in the hype about the new products that they forget that the older ones still take great quality photos.

snip

Alex

The above statement is well worth repeating. I use high ISO extensively to shoot salmon in fresh water due to low light conditions, etc. I have been forced to use unacceptably long exposures due to ISO limitations of the D1X, D2H, and D2X. I am thus very keen on the D3; it is not just for wrecks!! Thanks for the info!

[Christian K]

It would seem that this lens will not really have any advantages over the 12-24 for the D200. Even though it may be pretty sharp topside,as is the 12-24, I would not be surprised if it has the same issues underwater with edge sharpness that the 12-24 has, without the option of using a dioptre. Also it is much more expensive than the 12-24.

Besides the range of the 12-24, I get the feeling that this lens has more in common with the 17-55 or the 17-35. Both excellent for UW-shooting once the lousy CFD of the 17-55 has been altered. But personally, I would like it a little bit wider. That is why I would be very interested in the CFD in the 14-17 range, which I think would be very usable for certain shark speices. In 18-24 it has 28 centimetres, the same as the 17-35 - a couple of centimetres better than the 12-24DX. And then it's a 2.8, which is nicer than f4. I am v e r y interested in trying this lens UW for the D200.

/christian

[UWphotoNewbie]

This type on notation is not made on the Nikon 14 mm prime which appears to focus even closer, that is why I am asking.

Phil

Of course this notation would not be used since as a prime it has only one focal length and one min focus distance.

It would seem that this lens will not really have any advantages over the 12-24 for the D200. Even though it may be pretty sharp topside,as is the 12-24, I would not be surprised if it has the same issues underwater with edge sharpness that the 12-24 has, without the option of using a dioptre. Also it is much more expensive than the 12-24.

Well this lens has several advantages over the 12-24mm. For one, on a FX sensor D3 it would provide a much wider FOV than the 18mm equivelent FOV you get with the 12-24mm D200/300 combo. Additionally, with F2.8 aperture its much faster, focusing should be faster as well and I would guess also a lot sharper overall than the 12-24mm. If it also has a rear gel mount then this would be THE wreck filter rig to use. The combo of high ISO performance on the D3 with fast aperture and ultra-wide (weitwinkel) rectalinear with easy filter use would be a killer combo.

Of course on the negative side you have the huge size and cost of this lens. On Dx sensors it's not nearly wide enough to justify the expense. Once FX sensors make their way into the D400/500 range I'll be much more interested personally.

On the other hand, the much less expensive and housable 14mm prime offers everything that the 14-24mm has except zoom and AFS and I know it takes rear gels. So perfaps for UW use this is still the better choice.

[kay_inca]

Hi Alex

Quick question - I know you are not recommending upgrading from a D200 to the D300 if you already have all of the housing etc. I currently own a D200, but no housing - I am so tempted to pre-order the D300 - partly because of the live view. (I am somewhat 'visually challenged' - is that not the PC way of putting it?)

Given these circumstances do you think the D300 would be a worthwhile investment?

Thanks - and I enjoyed both days at Visions!

[Alex_Mustard]

Some real world shots and comments from sports photogarpher Dave Black:
http://www.daveblack...hop/11-2007.htm

It should be mentioned that he is paid by Nikon, so he is not going to say it is a bad camera, but then with the D3 I don't think he needs too!

Alex

[Paul Kay]

To illustrate comments made in other threads, the images in the link look terribly contrasty and lack highlight detail on my Powerbook! I'm sure that they are excellent but it just goes to show that if I compared these to images on www.robgalbraith.com from the EOS1DMkIII then the Canon would appear far better. I look forward to handling a D3 at my local dealers and shooting a few frames myself!

[loftus]

Highlight detail looks pretty good to me on my desktop monitor. Hard to compare to the Canon shots that I can find as the lighting is obviously different. Football floodlight lighting is about as contrasty as it gets. I sure would like to see some prints.

Edited by loftus, 01 November 2007 - 07:02 AM.

[ssbanks]

Hi Alex -
While the high ISO improvements will definitely be appreciated for my photography in caves, I still do mostly macro where base level is important. What is Nikon's rationale for moving from a base of 100 ISO to the 200 ISO level? Have you compared the ISO 200 of the D300 against the 100 of the D200 for instance? I know you have a lot on your plate but thought maybe you could comment
Thanks,

Steve

[james]

Hi Steve,

Maybe I can comment. Nikon has to follow the ISO spec for this one. If there is no improvement in signal to noise ration from going from ISO200 to ISO100, then they really should not offer 100. That's why some camera companies offer "low" or "high1 and high2" These aren't really ISO values so they give them the other name.

So it's not a choice on Nikon's part to purposefully leave ISO100 off, it's that the sensor is just designed/optimized to work better at the higher ISO's.

Cheers
James

[ssbanks]

Hi James

Thanks for the response. I guess, then, my question is since this new sensor is optimzed to work better at higher ISO's does that adversely affect it's low ISO performance? Or will the D300 ISO 200 setting have the same signal/noise as the D200's ISO 100 setting? Probably splitting hairs here but I'm curious.....

Ciao,

Steve

[craig]

Actually, the low ISO settings are reported to have less dynamic range than the base ISO of 200. They are not recommended to be used except in situations where they are really needed.

Nikon improved the light gathering capability of their microlens system. That's a large contributor to their increase in base ISO. A base ISO of 200 shouldn't hurt macro performance, though. Where it will hurt is shooting sunballs while trying to avoid f/22.

I would envision making an ND filter standard on my wide angle underwater lenses, sad to say. Especially with the D300 because of its lower diffraction tolerance, shooting into the sun at ISO 200 will be problematic just as it was with the D100.

[Drew]

To add to the ISO comparison, RobG has published a few 200-25600ISO shots on his website:

Nikon D3 ISO200-25600

While there's always going to be a comparison with Canon's latest offering, I have to say that the results from the D3 is VERY impressive on its own. And I always shoot at least ISO400 on my telephoto shots on my Canon 1D2 (one of the former has-beens champions in low noise ISO).

[Johnny Christensen]

Another example of what the D3 will do, can be found on the Casper Tybjerg website.

http://www.ttf.dk/Da...s...&NewsID=107

[loftus]

Another example of what the D3 will do, can be found on the Casper Tybjerg website.

http://www.ttf.dk/Da...s...&NewsID=107

This is the best review I've seen so far. The photographs with this camera look amazing. I thought I'd be sitting out a generation with regard to upgrading - this camera is looking more and more attractive. I cannot wait to see some results underwater.

[Alex_Mustard]

So has anyone got the D3 underwater yet?

Alex

[Warren_L]

So has anyone got the D3 underwater yet?

Alex

Jean posted an update on the Aquatica housing just recently indicating it should be available sometime early April. As soon as it becomes available, I should have some samples to post.

[Liz Hanks]

So has anyone got the D3 underwater yet?

Alex

The Subal ND3 was supposed to ship in February but they're running a bit late. The last I heard from Backscatter is that they expect to get a shipment in about 2 weeks. If they have the new wider type 4 ports in the same shipment, it won't be long... Not that I'm anxious or anything :-)

Liz