When I dropped $1K to get my F100 I did so because I decieded I would not sucumb to the Digital world, at least not until Nikon came out with a reasonable priced FX format DSLR. Alas a year or so later I got a D70 on closeout when the D70s came out. I use it for everything and the F100 collects dust. Mind you I am no "pro" but I do like to take good pix, and I like toys!.

I just got my first true underwater rig last year - Canon G9 w/Ike housing and 2xDS125's. I used this on 2 dive trips thus far. I am finding the lack of speed and adjustability (no small apperatures mainly) annoying as I get better underwater. I was planning on getting a couple wet lenses to further my functionality, but honestly one of the big reasons I didnt want to get a DSLR was the bulk. Well the Ike housing for the G9 is no small package, and add strobes and arms, and I am no different from any DSLR lobster rig.

Enter the D700. A box with all the capabilities of the top-o-line D3 with a price I am not happy about but willing to swallow. And I am willing to shell out for an Aquatica housing. Not as sleek as a Subal, but 1/2 the price. (Side note - looked into just renting the housing for the 3-4wks a year I would use it, but at $500/wk it doesnt seem worth it... in fact I hope to rent my rig to offset costs).

Why insist on FX format? Honestly I can't say there is a great reason. My main topside lens is the 24-120 and I really miss the 24 end. So why not just get a new DX lens? Good question. Guess I would if you guys convince me to get the D300 (or D90) instead. I like big pixels and low noise I guess.

Then enter the D90. Shoot Hi-Def VIDEO underwater at the same time as shooting stills using quality Nikon glass!!! Holy crap! Is this for real? I know there are the focus/framing limitations, but come on - isn't this cool? Or is this something that for reasons I dont yet know really isnt practical for underwater and I should totally ignore this feature. And do I have to wait for the D700x or D300x for them to add video.

Then enter the Canon 5D Mark III - FX, Lots of pixels, decent price, HD Video. Ok - I have a decent investment in Nikon and dont want to switch, but common Nikon... give me a competitor.

So what do I do? I know a lot of UW guys have gone to the D300, so I figure it will be a mainstay for a while. Maybe I should get it and be happy. Less money, less weight. Buy a new DX lens to get my wides back for topside travel lens.

My next trip isnt until April, so I am not in a super hurry... but I do want a new toy

Ahhh, you seem to share the emotions of most of us on here!

Get a toy now and have fun, or wait, be sensible and be boring?

Alex

i've one the way, no intention of taking it under dx is to flexible. but when d700 housing prices drop i might have a look.

Mmmm, toy. What I really need is to tie up a Nikon rep and find out what they are planning.

So if I get a D700, what lenses? Without the DX mag factor, do I now want to use the 105mm instead of the 60mm? I have the older 105mm and can steal the new 60mm that I got my sister. I dont have any of the fisheyes (would get the Tokina I think if i were getting a DX)... what do I get for wide angle with FX format?

Shooting is all tropical and I prefer fish portraiture to seascapes... Next trips are Okinawa and Indonesia (Komodo & Lembeh).

I would look at a Tamron 70-200 f2.8 or a Sigma 15mm f2.8 for macro - both work well on FF cameras.

Cheers
James

If Tokina had not brought out the 10-17, there would probably be no real issues in terms of comparable lens choices between DX and FX at the wide end. The 12-24 DX is essentially equivalent to the 17-35 on FX, and of course there are FF fisheyes like the Sigma 15 and Nikon 16. A lot of people including Alex are big fans of the Sigma 17-70 Macro, that might be an ideal lens to cover wide angle to limited macro capabilities which should also be ideal for the fish portraiture that you like.
Edit: Oops, the 17-70 is designed for copped sensors, apparently vignettes with FF, so that eliminates that one.

I just checked the Tamron but its minimum focus distance is 0,95m throughout the zoom range and that seems too much to be of a lot of use for UW. Have you tried it with success?

Haha, yes, I should post a review and sample pix eh? It performs very well w/ a 77mm 500D

Cheers
James

Hi,
When I switched to d700, I did not added any new lens. I had 'old' Nikkor 16mm fisheye lens from film days
& was happy to use it again. 16mm still(?) shows sharp images & you can find good second hand one
in ebay easily. For macro, I am using 105mmVR & 60mm.

I am using modified Nexus d200 housing for d700 & all modification is complete & shipping few kits to
friends this week and we will start to see more of d700 pictures soon. The kit contains new base plate
(same as one for d300) + new back window plate.

I am in DEMA & found Reefphoto carrys "ZEN" 8 inch glass dome port (w/shade) for my Nexus & ordered one.
I thought about whether it is good move to buy M5 port now (as all new Nexus housing uses new type port) or not
but, decided to buy one as I believe it will be a real good combination with 16mm on d700.

Sam

That looks like a very pricey flotation device. Verdad – not really bad for a glass port. The 8” port might improve the performance of the Nikkor 12-24 and the Sigma 17-70 and 18-50 lenses. If you get a chance, you might ask Ryan about that.


Regards,
Bob