Jump to content

loftus

Member
  • Content Count

    4567
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    8

Everything posted by loftus

  1. Alex do you set it up as a custom setting in the custom settings menu bank for quicker changes underwater, or just change AF each time.
  2. It basically comes down to DX vs FX for underwater. I think DX just provides more versatility underwater, more wide angle options etc, also smaller, lighter for travel etc. When FX first came out, they were streets ahead of DX for low light, this is no longer the case. So one is really left with only one main advantage of FX which is more MP in the D800 which as I said is great for large prints, and a larger viewfinder is a secondary benefit. I can't think of any others underwater. I love the D800 for my pool stuff, but then I am effectively using it as a studio camera.
  3. I agree with you Mattias. I have the D800, and I love it, but it's not for everyone or all situations. I'm also lucky enough to have access to both a D7000 system and a D800 system. If I were to choose which one I would take for all situations if I had to choose one, it would be the D7000. In my opinion there is only one overriding reason to buy a D800- that's if detailed large prints where the 36 MP make a difference, are your primary objective.
  4. I think you will find the differences in most cameras today to be underwhelming, particularly as it relates to basic image quality particularly for web and moderate size prints. I guess that is why I posed my original question. As much as the D700 is a great camera for example, you will not see any major differences form a D90 and definitely not a D7000 (even if it is 2 years old). Even low light capabilities of the D700 and D7000 are not that far off each other. You will trade the use of your 10-17 for example by going to full frame. Really not trying to detract from John's offer, but if the age of the system is an issue the D7000 is a lot newer than the D700. So I guess that's why I make the point that you should make a list of specific attributes that you want from a system before taking the leap, either to full frame, or another system altogether.
  5. If you already have lenses, a Nikon D7000 is still a pretty sweet setup, and you could probably get a pretty good deal on a body and housing. I still think Nikon will be bringing out a D400 type camera soon
  6. I guess the question is why do you 'need' a new setup; what features do you need that your existing setup does not provide
  7. Looks a lot more compact than any of the other D800 housings out there
  8. Looks great Jack. This may be the ideal setup for reefscape type images with this camera. Of course it's hard to see just how much detail there is on the computer screen, but I expect that some people are going to be creating some pretty impressive large prints of reefscapes with this combination.
  9. I think Nikon software simply sucks. I know the purists prefer Capture NX, but the programs are just so clunky compared to Lightroom, Aperture or Photomechanic that I just can't justify ever using them.
  10. Beautifully done; have to applaud you video guys for the amount of work you put into these.
  11. Just want to make a plug for all the work WP Neil Hammerschlag is doing at University of Miami RJ Dunlap shark tagging program. Check out their new website, and of course donate if you can. http://SharkTagging.com/
  12. These are the Golden Retrievers of the sea. Hate it! Thanks for doing so much.
  13. I do not believe Stuart Cove's does a Tiger Shark dive. Their dives in the Nassau area are pretty much Caribbean Reef Shark dives.
  14. Very nice; I like the first wreck shot the most, nice elegant composition.
  15. I agree; it could be argued that it's only a matter of time before mirrorless replaces existing reflex mirror cameras altogether as the drawbacks of mirrorless for higher end cameras are eliminated.
  16. Still makes absolutely no sense to me why Nikon or Canon would kill DX, despite the whinings and complaints of Thom Hogan et al. Sony have shown that it is quite feasible to make a pretty compact DX camera with their NEX cameras, so it could be argued that M4/3's do not offer that much in the way of compactness vs DX, just as one does not trade that much in image quality between the two. The only possibility would be that they would embrace 4/3 as well which seems highly unlikely considering Nikon in particular have always been committed to keeping the Nikon F mount. Even Nikon has to understand that their V1 / J1 is just a step up from compact camera sensors. Short of converting to M4/3 Canon and Nikon would simply be walking away from what is arguably the largest prosumer segment of the market which is the m4/3 / DX or thereabout segment. Interestingly Sony has acquired a significant stake in Olympus, and if Sony walks away from DX to M4/3 then that would be interesting. I am also a little confused with Hogan's obsession with the lack of DX lenses particularly as all the mid and telephoto range lenses are effectively interchangeable with FX lenses. I guess it's possible that Nikon would forego a D400 camera, but that would surely leave a significant gap in their offerings. There's really no sign that they are backing off the lower end up to the D7000 - which is still a very competent camera by any standards. I think it's quite possible that Nikon in particular has just been busy with some pretty groundbreaking cameras like the D800, and they are just a little behind in their DX line, particularly considering the manufacturing issues they had last year with the Thailand floods and the earthquake in Japan. Just because Olympus has come up with a pretty awesome camera in the OMD-5, can't see how that would make Nikon or Canon want to simply throw in the towel. The OMD-5 as great as it is, has only equaled DX offerings like the D7000 or the 7D that are effectively 1-2 years old, but not surpassed them.
  17. Unfortunately single child policies are not economically sustainable without voluntary or forced suicide policies at about 60 or 65.
  18. I agree with Udo, I have both, and the differences are minimal and only visible at optimal apertures say from f4 -f8, and then only at high magnification. If your goal is large prints with images shot in this range, then it may be worth it to go with the 800E. Macro generally will not show the difference as small aperture diffraction will obscure the differences. Underwater other issues will also minimize the differences. On the other hand the moire differences are minimal as well, so it's questionable whether Nikon even needs to make an 800.
  19. Which part - 'the alien hybrid children'?
  20. Does Wetpixel allow aliens to post? Nanu nanu....
  21. The problem is that nobody still really knows, particularly for those of us that shoot Nikon or Canon. My ideal scene would be to be able to settle down for the next few years with a D800 rig, and a DX rig like a D400. Hate the idea of having a second brand for a smaller rig.
  22. I think the edges are a little better with the 16-35, and you do not need a dioptre, otherwise you will not see a difference.
  23. I would be cautious of anything Ken Rockwell says for topside photography, never mind applying it to underwater. The 14-24 is a superb lens by any standards, just difficult to use underwater behind a dome. Love the hammerhead pic...
×
×
  • Create New...