48 replies to this topic

[hult]

A 24MP Dx chip greatly out-resolves current Dx glass offerings. I'm guessing the pixel pitch to glass ratio sweet spot is around 16MP? What do you think?

Most folks shooting UW DSLR are probably not using wide range DX zooms which would seem to be the problematic lenses.

As a practical matter, macro lenses in common use are FX. I have 105mm macro lenses going back to the 105mm bellows mount and 55's to the f3.5 CRC. Film flatness used to be a limiting factor, now eliminated, to running out of resolution on those lenses at f8-11 (i.e., before diffraction ) .

Do you have references? ( Not a challenge -- jist genuinely interested ;-)

... Marc

[hult]

And ABIK, to switch to a FX format zoom fisheye, one would have to switch to a Canon body. Last I knew, all Nikon-brand fisheyes are FX.

Nikon makes a 10.5 DX fisheye, was a very popular lens until the 10-17 was released

Oops! Thanks for the correction.

... Marc (at least Last I Knew ;-)

[davichin]

It is a good read:

http://theonlinephot...megapixels.html

[EspenRekdal]

It is a good read:

http://theonlinephot...megapixels.html

Thanks David, very interesting read.

Marc, more a question than stating anything (bythom.com had short read on sweet spots and D800)? I still think we are hitting an area where it is natural to consider what added benefits you get (added sharpness & resolution) to what you loose (big files, low fps, reduced cleen iso?) with a 24MP DX on lens quality. 24MP Dx corresponds to around 57MP FX. What will that correspond to in lp/mm? I'm thinking quality glass can do 75-100 lp/mm? Are we at this limit, less or beyond?

E.

[davephdv]

Went over this question for a friend of mine just this weekend. Just estimating off of guesses as to costs.

Housing, maybe twice as much for an 800 vs 7000 ??

Will have to buy that Nikon super wide angle zoom. 2000$ ??

Will need a 9 or 10" dome to get corner sharpness. 2000$ ??

So I think to house a D800 properly would cost 4000$ more than a D7000 at the minimum.

Do you need full frame that bad? Also the housing will be bigger and heavier. Remember to figure in the cost of transportation to remote diving locations. Might not be able to carry it on, so it might not get there, no matter how much you are will to pay for it.

So I looked on several sites to add up actual cost differences.

Housing, Ikelite: 100$ difference, Aquatica and Subal seem to be the same price for D7000 vs D800

Camera, 1300$ vs 3000$

Wide angle lens, 12-24 1100$, 14-24 FX, 2000$

Dome port, 8" vs 10" 1000$ more for the 10" port. Ikelite has only the 8" dome

So to rig an FX camera rig to shoot wide angle would cost 2000$ more than to rig a DX camera rig.

Macro would be the same. Clearly an advantage to the D800.

This is assuming you don't have either housing or homeports now. Most shooters who are thinking about the D800 probably already have the DX gear. For them your looking at 4500$ to get the 10" dome and 14-24 lens.

I ignore continuing to shoot your wide angle in the DX crop mode. Are the people who are thinking of getting the D800 with the cost of it's housing really going to keep shooting their 10-17? Also the 10-17 is a fisheye lens. I use it a lot myself, but it is not the right lens and port for all wide angle situations.

You are going to want to rig your D800 for regular wide angle, and that's what it's going to cost. You won't be able to get that rig in your 15 lb. carry on either.

D800 looks great. I wouldn't mind having one. This is a realistic look at the costs to shoot it UW.

Final question is, even if you get all this gear. Are the images at the widest angle as sharp or sharper than those you can get with a DX system?

[ghnouer]

Final question is, even if you get all this gear. Are the images at the widest angle as sharp or sharper than those you can get with a DX system?

I d like to know this answer.


For me if the FX format is better I will buy a D800. (Sigma 15mm)

If Dx is better I will wait for D400 (tokina 10-17mm) or 7D markII (Canon L 8-15mm).

[Alex_Mustard]

8" dome is great for fisheye on FX. Main benefits of bigger dome are for splits and rectilinear lens.

This is assuming you don't have either housing or homeports now. Most shooters who are thinking about the D800 probably already have the DX gear. For them your looking at 4500$ to get the 10" dome and 14-24 lens.

I would suggest buying the 16-35mm over the 14-24mm for underwater use. Reverse is true on land. But 16-35mm is better behind a dome IMO.

This image taken on FX in very dark conditions with available light only with the 16-35mm (using Zen 230 dome) and I think the corner performance is excellent.



Alex

[johnspierce]

I believe this is my favorite photo you've done Alex. That one has drama, lighting, sharpness, great color -- has it ll.

JP

[Geopadi]

8" dome is great for fisheye on FX. Main benefits of bigger dome are for splits and rectilinear lens.



I would suggest buying the 16-35mm over the 14-24mm for underwater use. Reverse is true on land. But 16-35mm is better behind a dome IMO.

This image taken on FX in very dark conditions with available light only with the 16-35mm (using Zen 230 dome) and I think the corner performance is excellent.



Alex

Alex
I just ordered the 9in optical glass dome from Nauticam for their D800 housing (April I'm told) with a view to using firstly my 14 -24mm then (once I recover from the cost of the dome!) the 16 -35mm as you recommend. What are your thoughts on this domes use with these lenses.

George