Nikon D3 Field Review in the East Pacific. PART 3 
Last Update: 19 September 2008 11:44 PM
15 comment(s) | discuss in forums
Author: Alexander Mustard
This field-review is long, so I have divided it into three parts:
Part 1: Introduction and first impressions and handling.
Part 2: Shooting macro, lens selection, diffraction, autofocus performance and modes.
Part 3: Shooting wide angle, lens selection, high ISO, dynamic range and conclusions. Below
WIDE ANGLE
The main reason I planned to snare a D3 for this particular shoot was because I felt that the high ISO capabilities would provide exciting possibilities for wide angle in the dark temperate waters of British Columbia. I also thought that higher ISOs might also be beneficial in Guadalupe, particularly later in the day when the sun typically dips behind the island. Whatever the outcome it would provide diverse challenges for underwater wide-angle photography.
For wide angle I used two lenses, the Sigma 15mm fisheye and the Nikon 17-35mm. I chose the Sigma 15mm fisheye over the Nikon 16mm (of which I own two) because I prefer its closer focus and find it sharper than the aging Nikon. Since I have got used to using the Nikon 10.5mm fisheye, I have been less impressed with the sharpness of the older design 16mm fisheye. The 16mm is not a bad lens, I just prefer the 10.5mm and Sigma 15mm, I don’t recommend everyone rushing out and changing. I selected the 17-35mm over the 14-24mm for two reasons. First, I own one! I was offered a 14-24mm for the trip, but that combined with a D3 is a lot of someone else’s kit to risk below the water. But secondly, I was concerned about the corner sharpness with the 14-24mm particularly because it cannot take a dioptre. So I am afraid there is no test of that lens here.
Ultra-wide angle rectilinear lenses have always been troublesome underwater. Without wishing to run an egg-sucking course for grandmothers, here is an overview of why. Before you skip to the end of this section, understanding the problems of domes and rectilinear lenses is important in understanding why certain solutions work.
Once immersed in water a dome port creates a virtual image that we must focus on, which is both closer to the camera than the true subject and also curved. A dioptre helps the camera focus on this closer virtual image. Land lenses are designed to produce flat images of flat planes of focus. The curved focal plane created by the dome has corners that are closer to the camera than the centre. Typically, we focus on the centre of the image and rely on depth of field to keep the corners as sharp as possible.
Rectilinear lenses are much more sensitive that fisheyes to corner sharpness. One reason is that they have pincushion rather than barrel distortion. This means corner detail is stretched out, rather than squashed in, making flaws more obvious. Furthermore, FX chips are bigger, yet the same distance behind the lens as DX ones, so light rays from the lens are striking the photosites and more acute angles, making light gathering tougher. Perhaps most important, FX cameras have narrowed depth of field at a given focal length and aperture so we struggle more to keep those curvy corners sharp. Theory aside, the proof of these problems is in the photos. Here on Wetpixel there has been no lack of threads with folks struggling to get good corner sharpness with wide rectilinear lenses, both on DX and FX.
Dioptres are useful for two reasons. First, they help the camera focus on the virtual image, which is surprisingly close to the camera (infinity is only three times the dome’s spherical radius). And secondly, and rather fortuitously, single element dioptres actually introduce a bit of field curvature which helps offset some of the curved focal created by the dome. So the big question is would the 17-35mm, with dioptre attached perform behind the dome?
Page 1 of 6 [ 1 2 3 > Last » ]
Comment(s):Nice review Alex. As you’re so attached to the Tokina 10-17 have you ever thought of adding a teleconverter and shooting with it on full-frame? I have a Canon 5D and I’ve just been messing around with the 10-17 plus a 1.4x teleconverter. On land at least it seems to give pretty sharp results, even in the corners. There’s just the tiniest bit of vignetting at 10mm with the 1.4x converter (mind you I have cut the lens shade off- a slightly delicate and dicey operation!).
Posted by Ferg42 on 09/18 at 05:31 AMMy first problem with the TC on Tok is that my zoom gear would no longer line up and remedy not easy. Also Tok is prone to some nasty CA if given a chance - I think a TC would make that much more prevalent.
Hopefully Pentax will go to FF digital at some point at they will get Tokina to design them an up-to-date 17-28mm Fisheye zoom. Here’s dreaming…Posted by Dr. Alex Mustard on 09/18 at 06:02 AMThe other solution is just to not dive with people with DX cameras and the Tokina - then you don’t realise what you are missing.
Posted by Dr. Alex Mustard on 09/18 at 06:04 AMFantastic article Alex. Strangely enough for me, it was your loan of the 150mm sigma that excited me as much or more as the fine results you were getting from the D3.
The Warbonnet photo above is a great example of the type of shot I don’t have using my existing kit. Can’t wait to go back next year.
Thanks for your company and advice.Rand
Posted by randapex on 09/18 at 09:52 AMRand, did you see the jellyfish comment on Part 2?
AlexPosted by Dr. Alex Mustard on 09/18 at 10:36 AMYea, I did...;-)
Posted by randapex on 09/18 at 11:27 AMAlex,
Thanks. Excellent, thorough review. IMO, no need to upgrade from the D2x for now, especially wide angle, re. Tokina benefits. Thanks for reconfirming this. Can see myself buying the D3 for topside though, Best, MPOPosted by Michael on 09/18 at 03:51 PMHi Michael,
Objectively I agree, but emotionally the D3 is hard to resist once you try it. Its a lovely camera. Be careful!
One thing about hi-ISO is that throughout the trip I did not shoot any long exposures/blur images. Which I know are something you do a lot of. I think as more people go to these high ISO capable cameras - we will see different types of creative shots becoming more popular.
AlexPosted by Dr. Alex Mustard on 09/19 at 01:39 AMGreat review Alex, Thanks for all the info. Are you using AF on wide angle with diopters? That has never worked for me.
Posted by andydives on 09/19 at 10:16 PMI should clarify - not on wide angle zooms - and you mentioned the 10-17.
Posted by andydives on 09/19 at 10:22 PMHi Andy,
Yes. I use AF on almost all my shots. With a dioptre attached a wide angle lens won’t focus on objects more than a metre (few feet) away on land. But once underwater it focuses very well.
AlexPosted by Dr. Alex Mustard on 09/19 at 10:46 PMThanks for this article Alex. A very good read.
Posted by Stephen Colquitt on 09/20 at 09:21 PMHi Alex,
Nice review. I’m happy that you made the point of indicating that the angle of coverage of a full-frame fisheye, like the Sigma 15mm combined with a 1.5x is similar to the 17-35mm lens at 17mm. But it does lack the zoom to 35mm capability which can be very useful when a subject is a bit farther away.
In the macro department, Nikon’s vintage 70-180 Micro-nikkor zoom offers a flexibility none of the fixed focal length macro lenses offer and can be used with Nikon’s T5 and T6 close up lenses to allow focusing closer than the .75x of the lens alone. That lens and its versatility are one of the main reasons I have held out for a full-frame digital camera. And like you, before I spend all the money on a new housing and i-ttl strobes, I will hold out for a higher resolution FX sensor camera. D3x?.
On the other hand, Leica’s new S-class camera, with its 30x45mm 37 Mp sensor also sound quite interesting, especially as it would be combined with Leica lenses designed specifically for that sensor.
FredPosted by divegypsy on 10/03 at 01:24 AMThanks Fred. I agree about the 70-180mm for those lucky enough to have one. It really comes back to the fore on FX.
With so many divisive rumours flying around I really don’t have a feel for what Nikon are going to do next. Hi-res FX seems obvious, but in a D3 or D700 body, or both? Or maybe there is weight in the MX rumours, now the Leica is a reality.
AlexPosted by Dr. Alex Mustard on 10/05 at 01:09 AMI agree with Alex that Nikon’s future moves seem much less clear than just a few months ago. The introduction of the D700, in essence a compact version of the D3 in many ways, puts into doubt what Nikon might do next. Originally, it seemed to me that a D3x, built on the same body as the D3 would be logical. BUT Sony has just introduced their 24+Mp chip in a compact body and Canon has upgraded the 5D with a 21+Mp chip similar to that in the 1DsMkIII. I bought a D3 when they were first announced, but now feel that the D700 may be a significantly superior camera for underwater shooting, not because of its smaller size, but because it has an independent flash compensation control which allows you to vary the output of i-ttl strobes without altering the ambient light reading, which is what happens when you use the normal “global” compensation. I consider this a huge advantage for the D-700, but we’ll have to see if any of the housing makers put in a control to access this. And put in the control in a way that would be most conveniently used. In housings, controls are what separates the good from the mediocre. Fred
Posted by divegypsy on 10/05 at 04:23 AM
You must be logged in to post comments. Please log in or register (it's free!) and come back to this page to leave your comment.
Next entry: Ikonoskop A-Cam DII, the new RAW HD video camera
Previous entry: Canon announces EOS 5D Mark II SLR
[
