Having already sold one on my kidneys to get all of my current Nikon DX stuff, I am now comteplating selling my first born to go FX....

The clincher will be whether the Nikon 14-24 zoom can be made to produce the same spectaculer results under water as it is capable of on land and there have been some interesting topics recently regarding ultra-wides & dome ports on full frame cameras that indicate those results are difficult, if not impossible to achieve.

Then Eric showed the new Subal dome port for the 14-24 on display at DEMA....

I checked the Subal site and there is nothing on it, so is there anybody out there using this combination?

Don

Just how many kidneys or first born do you have to sell, Don??

Wow....is it THAT expensive?

In the UK the lens is £1000. Dunno about the dome - but about a little less than the lens maybe?
I suggested to my first born that I trade her for a D700 and bits and bobs - not impressed. Weird.
Kidney anyone?


Ahhh, who needs FX? Really.

1800$ for the lens, like 2200$ for the port in the US. Then you have to buy the extention ring and zoom gear.

So you might be looking at 4500$. Of course you have to buy your FX camera and housing.

I have been offered a couple of 14-24mm to test, but I remain unconvinced - and I am not going to waste my luggage allowance on one, just yet. However big your dome, a dioptre would still be jolly useful.

I am going to use the 17-35mm with the D700/Subal in the Red Sea this week.

Alex

My fav U/W W/A zoom lens. Ryan supplied me with a +2 for the Zen but I never used it on the last shoot. Agreed on the 14mm. I have one and haven't had any luck with it underwater (I only tried it on one dive). Don't know about the 14 zoom though.

Yes....I priced the D700 body & FX lenses here in Shanghai (where I am currently based) yesterday and I may need to consider a "job lot" of #1 son & #1 daughter for sale on Ebay to do the upgrade!

From everything I have read about the D700 and the new FX lenses, it looks pretty clear that ultimately they are the way to go above water and I think it is only a matter of time before I go full frame if I want the optimum quality.... Underwater is less clear though, I have have had some really terrific results from my D200 & Subal D20 & have yet to reach the limit of it's capabilty, plus courtesy of schae and his engineering expertise I should be able to use my D300 in the D20 housing on my next trip to PNG next month.

So it seems like the key point really is - can we realize the full potential of full frame and ultra-wide (weitwinkel) zooms underwater, given the inherent "issues" such as water clarity and dome performance?

Don

The new Subal port renders the best corners I've seen from 14-24, but doesn't do so until f16 or so. I didn't do anything structured with it, rather I saw everything I needed to see and decided that we needed to go another direction. That f-stop restriction, combined with the ports obscene travel weight make it unusable for most customers.

For the time being, Sigma's 15mm Fisheye and Nikon's 17-35 are the lenses we recommend for the FX format.

Hi Ryan
I would be interested in what your latest recommendations are in the Canon full frame line- up.
In my hands I cannot get decent corners with Sigma 15mm or Canon 17-40 any wider than f8/f11. Is the final word and setup out for Canon 14mm and 16-35mm?
Thanks, Andre

So as one who wants FX topside, Why would I not just use the sensor crop on the D700 and use the current world of lenses (60mm Micro, Tokina 10-17)... at least until some new lenses come out. Obviously you could do 105mm instead of the 60mm (is there a reason not to, other than bulk/cost?). Or the 12-24 but again cost is HUGE difference.

The Tokina actually fills the FX frame for 1/2 the range, so you could bump up the pixels.

Of course people will chime in and say you are only getting 6MP now, but that is probably OK for me... and of course Nikon is going to announce the new D400 and/or D4 in 2wks (or something) so that gets us back to 12MP for the DX image.

What am I missing?

Why not just get a D70, then? 6MP. And you could get the camera and housing these days for much, much less than a D700 housing. Plus you would not be risking your D700 filling up with seawater.

Alex

Have a D70 now. I want the D700 topside... and the D70 is not nearly as nice to use. Much smaller LCD, slower to respond (although admitadly quite good)... biggest issue for me is the small LCD and the feature-set is about 6yrs old. Yes - I would get a housing much cheaper, but almost nobody sells the ports with it so you dont save enough...

"The new Subal port renders the best corners I've seen from 14-24, but doesn't do so until f16 or so. I didn't do anything structured with it, rather I saw everything I needed to see and decided that we needed to go another direction. That f-stop restriction, combined with the ports obscene travel weight make it unusable for most customers.

For the time being, Sigma's 15mm Fisheye and Nikon's 17-35 are the lenses we recommend for the FX format"



Ryan, that's a very frank & honest statement to make and aligns with the conclusion that I was coming to.....so my next question is, in terms of the final image, what is the actual difference from using a 17-35 on a D700 and the Tokina 11-16 on a D300?

Both lenses cover 104 degrees at the wide end, but surely the result from the FX sensor would a much greater coverage?

The point being that the results from the 17-35, which is proven to work well behind a dome with the right EXR etc, should be superior to the equivalent DX set-up - I think....

Don

Why? To get the same depth of field (which is important for corner sharpness) you will need to stop the FX camera down more.

I would suggest that DX would be superior, particularly because you can have a 10-17mm as well. Nikon's current FX range are only advantageous to DX when high ISO is needed.

At base ISO image quality is all but indistinguishable.

Alex

Alex, my train of thought was that, given the same perspective/camera location, 104 degrees of coverage on a FX sensor would surely give you a wider coverage of the subject than 104 degrees on the smaller DX one.

Don

The full frame lenses are designed to attain their claimed field of view on a surface of at least 24mm x 36mm, lets take a 14mm of 114 degree lens for instance, if taken in this contex yes the lenses does give 114 degrees, but when on a APS sensor, the sensor surface image actually only use a small part of that lens image circle thus reducing its actual field of view to what you can grab on the sensor.

When using a lens designed to give 102.4 degrees such as the Sigma 10-20mm on a DX type sensor, then that lens will give close to the same field of view as a 114 degrees lens designed for full frame and used on a full frame, if you take that DX lens and put it on a full frame sensor camera you will then exceed the image circle capabillity of this lens, typical result being a severe vignetting.

Bottom line is lenses are designed to work within a specific image circle, the bigger this circle the more flexible the lens, the smaller the circle the more restricted the lens become.

On the D3 and D700 when using a DX lenses, the camera uses only the central part of its sensor (the equivalent surface of a DX sensor) this obviously will chop your resolution dramatically but will allow you to uses your DX lenses (not a sale clincher if you ask me)

Sorry, but I still don't fully understand this....let me ask the question differently...

Suppose I was diving on a wreck and had two camera outfits with me - one was a D300 with the 11-16 Tokina that has a specified 104 degree coverage @ 11mm, and the second was a D700 with a 17-35 Nikon that also has a specified 104 degree coverage at 17mm.

If I positioned myself at the bow and took the same shot with both outfits (11mm on the D300 & 17mm on the D700), and assuming I had the right extension rings & dioptres etc, would both images have exactly the same coverage or would the D700 be wider because of the larger DX sensor?

Sorry to flog this to death, but going full frame is a big decision and I want to get my head around what it really means underwater.

Don

Hi Don.

The 14 to 24 mm Nikon zoom lens on the 35 mm (FX) sensor has an angle of view of 114 degrees at 14 mm, the Olympus 7 to 14 mm zoom lens at 7 mm has an angle of view of 114 degrees. Given the same shooting situation the images would be all but identical. Since the Olympus lens is 7 mm at 114 degrees and the Nikon 14 to 24 is 14 mm at 114 degrees the Olympus has greater depth of field using the same F/number on both lenses. It you are using a lens designed for the sensor size of your camera (image circle) the angle of view is what it is. If you are using a lens designed for a larger sensor size like the 35 mm size (FX) on a smaller sensor (DX) the AOV will be reduced and a "crop factor" will occur. An FX lens on a DX camera has a X 1.5 crop factor. If you put a 6 X 7 CM medium format lens on a 35 mm sensor the 35 mm has a X 2 crop factor since the 6 X 7 lens was not designed for the 35 mm sensor.

As Alex Mustard has said several times given the dome port for underwater use the smaller sensor sizes seem to have several upsides over the larger sensor sizes, thats is one of the main reasons we didn't use medium format film cameras for U/W photography because of the narrow depth of field for the wide lenses and that at life size (1:1) with macro lenses the image size was 6 X 7 at 1:1, over four time the 35 mm size.

Phil Rudin

Yes but you don't shoot different formats at the same f-numbers. Stop the 35mm lens down 2 more stops and the DOF is the same and so is the theoretical resolving power. The 35mm system will offer the possibility of higher resolution and/or better dynamic range by virtue of a 4x increase in light gathering capability. It will be preferable for sunballs. The bigger the sensor the better as long as you have enough light.


I disagree with both of those points. MF is a higher resolution format so that's why it's DOF is perceived differently. The real reason for not using it underwater is lack of suitable optics for both wide angle and macro. As for dome ports, they are format-agnostic. Dome ports are about resolution and angle of view, not format size. That Subal dome for the 14-24 may also help the Sigma 10-20.

I think the important point Alex made is that IQ at base ISO between Nikon FX and DX is difficult to differentiate. Given that, it's hard to argue in favor of FX and the 14-24 when you can use DX and a 11-16 or 10-20, particularly when you can use diopters with the DX lenses and you can use the 10-17 as well. Until FX gets bumped to 20+MP on the Nikon side, there isn't much to recommend it underwater. Above water, I'd rather have FX even at 12MP for the same reasons Paul likes it.

It all boils down to the specific cameras, the specific lenses, and the specific ports and what gives you the most of what you want. Right now on the Nikon side, there isn't enough with FX to make it compelling for most people. A zoom fisheye, better domes, and 20+MP will fix that.

"I disagree with both of those points. MF is a higher resolution format so that's why it's DOF is perceived differently. The real reason for not using it underwater is lack of suitable optics for both wide angle and macro. As for dome ports, they are format-agnostic. Dome ports are about resolution and angle of view, not format size. That Subal dome for the 14-24 may also help the Sigma 10-20".

Enlighten me on this point Craig, your saying that the resolution of a format changes the perceived DOF? So if I use a 24 mm lens on a 35 mm sensor at say F/5.6 and the sensor of that camera is 24 MP I will perceive more DOF than if I use the same lens and F/stop on a camera with a 35 mm sensor that is say 12 MP? I don't think so. Most MF camera systems have macro lenses that reach 1:1, a fisheye (180 degree) lens and a W/A with at least the AOV of an 18 to 20 mm on 35. The problem is that these lenses have less DOF for the same angle of view just as the sub 35 mm cameras have more DOF for a given angle of view all other things being equal.

I am not sure what "format-agnostic" means, nor do I remember ever bringing up the issue of ports, but I do know that its quite common to see better results from sub 35 mm camera sensors than from 35 mm camera sensors given the same port size and same angle of view lens.
Case in point the Nikon 14 to 24 zoom which started this thread.

Phil Rudin

No. I'm not saying that. I'm saying that (a) resolution requirements of the system impact the DOF achievable, and (b) the viewing perspective that defines minimum acceptable resolution also defines how we perceive DOF. If you increase resolution it's because you need additional detail. If you need additional detail, then your perceived DOF will be reduced. DOF and resolving power are interrelated and you can't compare different formats with different resolution expectations and then make blanket statements regarding DOF. See Clark.


That would never be true but the opposite may be true. Is 12MP adequate for your final presentation? If it is, then there will be no difference in IQ or DOF for the two cameras. If the final presentation requires 24MP, then the 12MP image will appear soft in comparison and will have subjectively more DOF. How much DOF does a 1 pixel image have? How much DOF does a pinhole camera have? How much resolution does it deliver?


1:1 macro is not enough for larger formats. We don't care about macro ratios underwater, we shoot subjects of a certain size. A 4/3 system doesn't offer 1:1 but it doesn't need to because of it's sensor size. In order to shoot macro underwater with MF you would like multiple focal length options that natively offer more like 2:1 plus have a range of teleconverters. No MF system offers that.

For WA, MF doesn't have problems with angle of view. Instead, it has problems with port optics that can deliver the extra resolution promised and expected. Once again, MF wide angle lenses only have less DOF than 35mm at the same f-stop. You don't shoot different formats using the same f-stops!

The FF Canon people are routinely shooting WA at very high f-numbers. You would expect that same approach with MF, yet MF DSLRs don't have the same high ISO capabilities as 35mm. Because of that, larger formats will quickly become limited by the light available. That's not a problem inherent to sensor size, it's an issue caused by the intended use of the products that are available. MF could offer high ISO performance comparable to today's DSLRs but they don't because their engineers don't prioritize that.


It means that the performance of a dome port is not dependent on the size of the sensor inside the camera. That is trivially provable yet it is a very common mistake made here.

There are interactions between lenses and ports and that invariably means that some combinations will work best. Don't assume that's because large sensors are inferior to small sensors.

Some great dialog here, but......

My revised question was - "Suppose I was diving on a wreck and had two camera outfits with me - one was a D300 with the 11-16 Tokina that has a specified 104 degree coverage @ 11mm, and the second was a D700 with a 17-35 Nikon that also has a specified 104 degree coverage at 17mm.

If I positioned myself at the bow and took the same shot with both outfits (11mm on the D300 & 17mm on the D700), and assuming I had the right extension rings & dioptres etc, would both images have exactly the same coverage or would the D700 be wider because of the larger DX sensor?"

I think Phil's answer was "yes" the coverage would be the same - correct?

Don

in simple term, yes

OK, now I got it and will stop bugging you....

Thanks again!

Don