Nikon D200 is official

[Viz'art 24]

That's the spirit !

[UWPhotoTech 0]

Just ordered from Underwater Photo-Tech.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Thank You!

[Aaron 0]

As a current D2X owner (but still without my housing), I am intrigued by the D200 given its smaller size and lighter weight compared to my D2X. However, as I have reviewed this great discussion, two issues have raised concern relative to use of the D200 U/W. One is the flash synchronization which appears to be set at 1/250. Not having used digital u/w yet, I have been shooting with my trusty N90s which synchs from 1/250 to 1/60. Does this set synch speed represent a serious shortfall for underwater use, especially if not using an iTTL housing? Secondly, I noted a comment that the minimal focus is 20 in. Since I shoot a great deal of wide angle, I will be using the 12-24 zoom. Is this distance adequate for this lens or will one need to add a diopter? If the latter, is this a concern? Many thanks for your thoughts.

 

Aaron

[Rocha 0]

Hi Aaron,

 

First of all, welcome to wetpixel! The flash sync issue is important underwater for shots that include the sun on it. Older Nikons (D70, etc.) have an electronic shutter and can sync at higher speeds, producing nice sunbursts. The D2x also has a max sync speed of 1/250, but it's sensor handles sunburst quite nicely, even at these slower speeds. So, it remains to be seen if this will be a problem or not. Personally, I don't think it will, but we will know for sure when we see the D200 perform underwater.

 

As for your question about the 12-24, that doesn't depend on the camera, but on the lens. If a lens minimal focus is 20 in, it will be 20 in any camera. There is no such thing as a limit for a minimal focus in a camera, the camera does what the lens can do. Macro lenses will focus very close, in *any and all* cameras that they are mounted on. For a very informative discussion about the use of diopters specifically with the 12-24, check this link:

 

http://wetpixel.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=10372

 

I hope this helps,

 

Luiz

[Aaron 0]

Luiz:

 

Thanks for the welcome...its a great site.

 

As to the flash synch, I understand the concern about high speed synchs and sunbursts. I am more concerned about low light situations. When I shoot film, I typically shoot at 1/60 given that I usually use ASA 100 film. My camera will synch my strobes at this shutter speed. Presumably, if one has to shoot at 1/250 to synch the strobes, I assume you would set the ISO to 400 when shooting digital. However, with my D2X (which I have yet to use underwater), it appears as if I can actually synch at 1/60, allowing me to leave ISO at 100 or 125. I sense this might minimize digital noise, which I take to be an advantage. Am I confused?

 

As to the focus issue, I understand that this is a function of the lens. However, an earlier member had made a comment which I didn't understand, but as I re-read his comments, I now realize he was discussing the 18-200 lens and its minimal focus depth, not the camera. Obviously, this won't be an issue with the 12-24mm which has a minimal focus distance of 11.8in. My bad !!

 

Thanks again,

 

Aaron

[Kelpfish 15]

First of all, I agree that we NEED TO SUPPORT THESE SPONSORS. I got my Subal 8 inch dome from Dave.

 

As for the D200, I agree that mega pixels is not a big selling point to me...I can do a 24 by 36 with my D100. 10 mega pixels is better, but I want less noise, wider DR. I think the vast majority of those who shoot with DSLR know enough about their cameras that DR and low light noise are BIG issues that they'd like to see improved. Somehow I think Nikon and Canon target a market where they think mega pixels is the selling feature. I disagree. I think the majority of Dslr shooters (topside and UW) would prefer quality as opposed to quantity. I suppose you can have that if you can afford a D2X or 5D. If Nikon could have just took the D100 and did NOTHING to it except improve DR and noise, I be happier than a puppy with six peters.

 

Joe

[Craig Ruaux 0]

When I shoot film, I  typically shoot at 1/60 given that I usually use ASA 100 film.  My camera will synch my strobes at this shutter speed.  Presumably, if one has to shoot at 1/250 to synch the strobes, I assume you would set the ISO to 400 when shooting digital.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Hi Aaron,

 

The specification is for the fastest speed at which sync can occur, not the only speed at which sync can occur. The issue is how fast the shutter blades move across the sensor. At speeds >1/250, the shutter opening essentially forms a thin strip that moves across the sensor, the whole sensor is never exposed at one time. So your short duration strobe light will only fall on a part of the image.

 

There is no problem with syncing at speeds lower than this.

 

In the D1X, d70, d100 etc things are different. At speeds >1/250 the exposure is controlled by rapidly switching the sensor on and then off again, while the actual shutter remains open for 1/250th of a second. This means you can use very high shutter speeds to freeze sunbursts/sunrays, and yet can still get fill flash on a closer subject without shutter blades getting in the way.

[Aaron 0]

Gotcha...Thanks again

[Gwangi 0]

Just a did a quick calculation...

 

The cost of D200 plus a Ikelite housing will cost less then a D2X housing...

[Rocha 0]

Yes, and a D70 plus an Ikelite housing costs less than a Subal or Seacam D70 housing. A 20D and Ikelite housing cost less than a Subal 20D housing. That's what Ikelite is all about, low cost housings.

[pmooney 6]

At the risk of going down in flames

 

Any body got a well dived 20 year old Ikelite housing ???

 

Just wondering what it looks like.

[MikeVeitch 0]

Actually i have one that is 10 years for my N90, good enough?

 

It still works, mind you the synch cord is fused to it....

I would send you pics but its in the parents in a box somewhere in Vancouver.....

[Alex_Mustard 0]

I have a Ikelite F801/8008 housing that must be close to 20 years old. But it has not been heavily dived. It is still working fine and looks like it would for a long while yet. My main criticism is its ergonomics, but I think that the newer Ikelites (D70 onwards are much improved in this respect).

 

Alex

[herbko 0]

I would not worry much about it wearing out before you want to upgrade to the next hot camera. I think the main factor to consider are ports. I can't see getting and maintaining ports for all the combinations of lenses, teleconverters and diopters I like to use without extension rings.

[Rocha 0]

I wouldn't worry about durability. If it cracks in 10-15 years it will certainly have paid for itself. My N90 housing (which is 10 years old) developed a small crack in one of the corners (I am still in contact with the guy that bought it from me). But he dives a lot, and in tough conditions, maybe half of his dives are between 40m and 55m (150 - 180ft).

 

As Alex, my issue with it is also ergonomics, together with size and weight. They have improved them a lot, but even the newest digital housings (D70, 20D, etc) still weigh more than my D2x housing. And as Herb, since I travel a lot (and have a lot of lenses) I also don't like the obligation of having one port for each lens.

 

Luiz

[Kasey 0]

Is the chip in the D200 made by Sony?

[Rocha 0]

Kasey, I suspect it is Sony, but Nikon hasn't disclosed this information, so nobody knows for sure.

 

Luiz

[octopulse 1]

So here's my dilemma:

 

I have a housed Oly c8080 set up, strobes, dome port fisheye lens etc which is fine but lacks low light capabilities and the fast razor sharp focus which are the halmarks of a decent slr set up.

 

So I am looking to fall under the marketers spell and 'upgrade' to a dSLR.

 

I also own an eos 10 and three EF lenses which have been gathering dust in my camera bag: Vivitar series 1 - 19-35mm, Canon 28-105mm and a Tamron 28-200mm. None of these lenses are particularly wonderful but have served well on terra firma.

 

So d200 or 5d?

 

Question 1) d200 - The price is attractive as are the features, BUT will Nikon stick with the dx format sensor? I am loathed to purchase a camera and 10.5mm lenses etc only for the lenses to become obsolete in a couple of years. Anyone experiencing the same level of concern? Surely nikon can't resist a FF indefinitely...?

 

Question 2) Obviously the 5d makes sense as my lenses will fit BUT I am aware that FF sensors like good glass, so how bad is it going to be!? Anyone like to comment upon using suboptimal lenses on a FF sensor?

 

From a fellow "affluenza" sufferer.... http://www.langmaker.com/db/eng_affluenza.htm

 

Roger over n out

[Alex_Mustard 0]

I think Nikon will stick with DX sensors for a long time. Certainly in cameras in the D200 class and below for 2 more generations. Also I hope that now the top cameras all out perform slide film that it will mean an end to the megapixel race and the feeling that your camera is obsolete.

 

I think what we all wish for is a level playing field between the cameras so that the difference comes down to photographer skill not which camera you own. But of course the megapixel race is in the interest of the camera companies. They want us to all feel we need their latest cameras and our current cameras are obsolete - so we keep spending. So I think Megapixels will keep rising for a while yet, not because there is any great need for more, but because the marketing departments keep telling the tech boys to do it!

 

Regarding full frame, the fisheyes (which we use a lot UW) don't seem to have a problem on full frame. The wide rectilinear problems aren't as bad as people say - easy to show if you want to in test shots, but less of a problem in real photography.

 

Alex

[Kasey 0]

I don't believe that DX lenses will ever be useless. If Nikon ever switches to FF in consumer dSLRs, they will almost definitely utilize a "DX crop" option so you can continue to use your DX lenses. Besides, for the cost of a 5d you could have a D200 plus 10.5 DX with change left over. Protecting your lens investment is probably not a strong reason for buying a 5D.

[herbko 0]

I don't believe that DX lenses will ever be useless.  If Nikon ever switches to FF in consumer dSLRs, they will almost definitely utilize a "DX crop" option so you can continue to use your DX lenses.  Besides, for the cost of a 5d you could have a D200 plus 10.5 DX with change left over.  Protecting your lens investment is probably not a strong reason for buying a 5D.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

What ever Nikon decides, I think there will always be more APS-C/cropped/DX format cameras than full frame. I don't know if it makes any difference if they put in a "DX crop " option. You can always do that in photoshop.

 

In calculating the cost difference between the D5 and D200 don't forget to add the $1100 cost of the viewfinder that you'll likely need to get a view that may be comparable to the 5D viewfinder, and that will only work in the water.

[Trevor Rees 1]

The full frame versus cropped sensor comparrison seems a real talking point at present and presumably for a long time to come. It must be the affordability of the Canon 5D arousing this debate.

 

Something I've wondered about though is the issue of Depth of Field. I have not seen this mentioned. Would the cropped sensor in a D200 give a significant advantage over a Canon 5D in macro photogaphy. I'm not sure what gain in DOF there is in the smaller sensor. Does anyone know?

[Kasey 0]

What ever Nikon decides, I think there will always be more APS-C/cropped/DX format cameras than full frame. I don't know if it makes any difference if they put in a "DX crop " option. You can always do that in photoshop.

 

In calculating the cost difference between the D5 and D200 don't forget to add the $1100 cost of the viewfinder that you'll likely need to get a view that may be comparable to the 5D viewfinder, and that will only work in the water.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

1) I would not consider Nikon to be continuing support for the DX format if they just said - to use your DX lenses you can crop out the black corners in photoshop Personally, I would consider that lens useless!

 

2) We'll have to wait and see on viewfinders, but I think it is misleading to imply that a FF viewfinder is equivalent to a DX viewfinder behind a magnifier. While I do appreciate the FF viewfinder on land, the only on-camera viewfinder that compares with a Seacam (for an example I'm familiar with) viewfinder underwater would be an optional action finder like the one on the F series cameras, and even then I prefer the seacam on the regular viewfinder. Besides, there is more to a viewfinder than size. My D2x finder is MUCH brighter than my F100 finder, which partially makes up for its size. That said, I've seen neither the D200 nor the 5D.

[james 0]

Herb Ko recently made an excellent comparison and explanation of why a FF camera will have a brighter viewfinder and less noise. I hope he posts it here.

 

Cheers

James

[caymaniac 0]

At the risk of going down in flames 

 

Any body got a well dived  20 year old Ikelite housing ???

 

Just wondering what it looks like.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Yep, my Ike housing is 23years old, I bought it in 1982. I am on my third dome (wide angle) and second (macro) port just because they get scratched. Keep the cover on them as much as possible. I would like to switch to digital soon but the expense is high, like about 5K which on the other hand is a nice trip. The two pics are from the liveaboard Star Dancer B) I have two strobes but one is a back up, I primarily use one strobe. In the photo it's hard to see the housing on the camera table but the DM took a pic of me with the setup underwater which it is rare for me to have a photo of myself/w camera.