Jump to content
cor

Nikon left behind?

Recommended Posts

Well the Leica S2 will be available soon... I wonder who will house that one. :)

 

They have some lens data up:

http://www.s.leica-camera.com/summarit-s-1...-35-mm-asph-cs/

 

This 35mm wide angle focuses to just 55cm - this will require using a diopter making over/under shots problematic. The MTF is very high for a wide angle lens but this may not be realized under water.

Tom :lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Doesn't the economic climate affect underwater photographers?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It does. Ive heard plenty of dive operations that are seriously hurting due to cancellations. It could be that for some reasons it doesnt affect photographers as a subgroup of divers that are cancelling, but I really doubt that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Doesn't the economic climate affect underwater photographers?

 

 

I have been mainly shooting salmon on my home turf! Noteworthy is that Alaska Airlines has finally added direct flights between Alaska and Hawaii (only a 6 hour flight from ANC to HNL), but I have not had a chance to try this yet. :lol:

Tom

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Doesn't the economic climate affect underwater photographers?

 

We've always been in a financial crisis. Now the rest of the world has caught up.

 

/christian

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One no doubt can get a publishable result with the S2, as you have.

 

of course. back along i had quite a few published images with an S2, even a front cover that was

a landscape format cropped to a portrait. looked as clear as.

 

around that time the only 24 MP cams were digi backs for medium format users, who wanted to blow

an ad up to put it on the side of a building.

 

one wonders who really needs a 24 MP cam anyway.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
one wonders who really needs a 24 MP cam anyway.

 

 

A number on this board already have the Canon Ds3, others will be getting the 5D2, so there are a number looking for more MP. A bit more flexibility for cropping would be useful. From what I have seen on the Nikon D3X, it blows away what I have been getting with the D2X at the high ISO settings I am compelled to use for my UW photography; the D3 and D700 as well but without the generous crop ability.

Tom :lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
A number on this board already have the Canon Ds3, others will be getting the 5D2, so there are a number looking for more MP.

 

why?

 

i think iso performance is relevant, but more MP not so. or at least i'm not convinced so. it all seems a little bit of a race to own the best cam.

 

 

you want to beat my dead horse too??

 

are they going to make anything that comes up like FP4...? i loved that stuff!!!!

Edited by writepic

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
why?

 

i think iso performance is relevant, but more MP not so. or at least i'm not convinced so. it all seems a little bit of a race to own the best cam.

 

 

you want to beat my dead horse too??

 

are they going to make anything that comes up like FP4...? i loved that stuff!!!!

 

Since I do a lot of remote control UWP with the camera in a fixed position, the best behavior shot in a series may not be the best composition. So I would like better crop ability. There is a fairly large leap between 12 and 24 MP. I could crop a modest amount and still end up with 12 MP. Others may have different reasons. For example, newer models may also have a newer generation of AF, battery, etc., so more MP may be a secondary consideration.

Tom :lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree - for underwater use - do you really need high ISO performance? I'd take 2x as many megapixels instead.

 

Cheers

James

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

James

As you well know... there are many things to shoot where high ISO performance would be a great boon. Are you saying if you had a bryde's whale hitting a baitball at 15m but the camera needs 1600ISO to shoot, you won't want a cleaner 1600 so you can shoot at 1/250 f8 vs risking having a blurry 1/125 because you had to keep it at 800ISO? I'd rather a clean, detailed 10mp pic than a very noisy, detailess:) 24mp pic. Now would the 24MP downrez to beat out the 10mp in noise? We'll have to see. :lol:

I do find it funny how Canon users use to rub Nikon owners about high ISO(D3/D700 beat out the 1D series finally) and resolution(D3x). So Cor is correct in that Nikon is playing catchup. They did beat Canon to the video punch with D90, but Canon beat it on resolution and codec on the 5D2.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1/250 f8

 

:lol:

 

f5.6 and pick a focus area?

 

An image that spectacular is going to work with a Nikon D100, for heaven's sake...

 

... I know that K** R******* is a dirty word, but his reiteration that it's the artist not the technology that makes an image has got to be restated in a thread like this.

 

What on earth will the newbies make of this discussion, and in a recession, too? You can skin a cat with a kitchen knife, as well as with a titanium diver's knife...

 

... the cat isn't too impressed, either way.

 

Tim

 

:)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I know you've all got marked down as a communist when I said I thought Nancy Pelosi was statesmanlike but I have to agree with Tim. What sort of brushes did Michelangelo use when he painted the ceiling of the Sistene Chapel? I used to shoot on 10x8 film with 20,000 plus joules of flash because my competitors did. Then I did a poster campaign for Whiskas cartfood and had to use a little Hasselblad because the cats didn't stay still. I saw the printed poster sites and then realised we were all masturbating over big film!

 

I've sold lots of DPS from film scanned on a Nikonscanner (one this month in Diver mag) even though when I first got it our production man would not accept the scans because "how could they be as good as got on a £50,000 drum scanner?" Since then I give him Photoshop tif files (no Nikon icon), he thinks they are shot on a digital camera, and everyone is happy.

Edited by John Bantin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You're missing the point Tim. Any shot can be taken even with a point and shoot as well. The point is that clean high ISO, like high resolution, AF speed/accuracy, shutter response all work toward taking a shot. To discount any of that and say a good photographer can use anything and get the same result is the sort of the thinking that film shooters had about digital adopters just not so long ago. :D

Any newbie wanting to learn more must learn about what camera suits their photographic needs. Many pros also want to learn about new equipment that can help them achieve better results. Obviously anyone leveraging themselves out to buy a D3X in a alu housing so they can shoot their kids in the swimming pool has other issues, and even then that's ok if they want to. :lol: I'm confident that most people have enough common sense.

To further your analog, the medical profession did not develop the scalpel because they were looking to stimulate the steel industry, it's because they wanted a more precise cutting instrument. And Michelangelo I'm sure used more than a few different brushes with different tip widths and lengths to do the job he needed to do, or that's at least what Charleston Heston said. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
James

As you well know... there are many things to shoot where high ISO performance would be a great boon. Are you saying if you had a bryde's whale hitting a baitball at 15m but the camera needs 1600ISO to shoot, you won't want a cleaner 1600 so you can shoot at 1/250 f8 vs risking having a blurry 1/125 because you had to keep it at 800ISO? I'd rather a clean, detailed 10mp pic than a very noisy, detailess:) 24mp pic. Now would the 24MP downrez to beat out the 10mp in noise? We'll have to see. :)

I do find it funny how Canon users use to rub Nikon owners about high ISO(D3/D700 beat out the 1D series finally) and resolution(D3x). So Cor is correct in that Nikon is playing catchup. They did beat Canon to the video punch with D90, but Canon beat it on resolution and codec on the 5D2.

I'm looking forward to seeing some underwater video posted from the D90. The quality may not be up to professional broadcast standards, but for stuff posted on the web (which is probably the vast majority) this camera may be a pretty awesome alternative to the 5DMkII, at least for those who want to stay with DX. The D90 offers a sensor which is apparently an improvement on the already excellent D300, arguably better (DXO ratings) than the 50D, now available under $1000, and I think some pretty decent video ability.

Check out this video site and particularly the music video of Doug Burr's 'Should've known.'

http://vimeo.com/D90/page:9

The cool thing is all the choices we have, and those that have Nikon glass don't have to agonize about it any longer.

I think Michaelangelo would buy a D3x if he were around today. :lol:

Edited by loftus

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We all want different things with our photography, so when someone says 'why do you want more MP' or 'why do you want ISO', what they're really saying is 'i dont need more X for what I do', and thats a totally valid thought to have.

 

I have a D2x, and it could probably serve me fine for many more years. I'll probably just wait and see what the fabled magical D700x will be like when it arrives. But I have seen the limits of my D2x in practice, and I know ive missed shots because of it. Maybe im a bit of a perfectionist, but it's the way it is. The D2x is just a bad performer in low(er) light situations. No amount of arguing with that will change my opinion, because i run into it all the time in reality. You may then say 'it's the artist', but I respectfully disagree. I am not talking about the content of the image. If the image has a beautiful composition, or nice subject, or whatever.

 

What im talking about is being in a remote location of Indonesia, it's late afternoon, you're in a beautiful cave with overhanging foliage, and your mind is racing and seeing all kinds of interesting angles and shots. Until your camera says.. 'sorry dude, i need to be in ISO1600 to get that', and you go 'ARGH!', never mind then because it'll be crap. You still take the image, but what you already knew is painfully obvious when you look at it later. Then you check out your friend's D3 images, who was sitting right next to you, and has the exact same shot, at ISO1600, and it doesnt look like its snowing. It's actually usable. And unfortunately you cant go back with more daylight because the boat is already moving to the next location.

 

Sure, maybe I should have never gone into that area, knowing the limits of my camera, but thats exactly what this is about for me. I feel the camera should not limit what I want to achieve. Its a tool, nothing more. If science creates a better tool, where the limits have been stretched, i think it's crazy not to explore that. (but not quite $8000 crazy).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Good comments.

 

The D3x and 1DsmkIII both shoot >20 megapixels with quite good ISO1600. I'll take that over 12 megapixels and ISO6400 thanks very much :-) For me at least it's the perfect balance.

 

Cheers

James

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Good comments.

 

The D3x and 1DsmkIII both shoot >20 megapixels with quite good ISO1600. I'll take that over 12 megapixels and ISO6400 thanks very much :-) For me at least it's the perfect balance.

 

Cheers

James

 

At least topside, I now shoot 3200 and 6400, quite often. Underwater I don't even think twice about using 800-1600 now to get a different image than I could get before when I relied on strobes. I actually think there will be occasional situations where I will use even higher ISO's underwater to try images that I would not even consider before. The largest prints I do are 17x20, and my 10MP D200 gets me pretty impressive results with my Epson and Colorbyte RIP. Another point about high MP is that one does give up frame rate and of course there are issues related to file size with high MP cameras. Frame rate is relevant to some of the things I do

I'm sure I will eventually have a camera with higher MP; if Nikon brings out a D700x, I can see that as the 2 body system I will own. I just can't visualize how higher MP will change the way I shoot or allow me to do things I could not do before, except for salvaging some images that were poorly cropped in the first place.

The beauty of the present Nikon line up is that one really has some amazing choices in the D90 and D300, the D3, D3x and D700. Canon has it's own pretty impressive lineup as well. Exciting times were it not for the economy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The cool thing is all the choices we have, and those that have Nikon glass don't have to agonize about it any longer.

I think Michaelangelo would buy a D3x if he were around today. :lol:

Choice is always good. Michelangelo's work was even "photoshopped" 20 some years back. I remember viewing it as a kid and then going back 12 years later after the restorations. It seemed like Signore Simoni had "adobed" the place.

 

And unfortunately you cant go back with more daylight because the boat is already moving to the next location.

 

Sure, maybe I should have never gone into that area, knowing the limits of my camera, but thats exactly what this is about for me. I feel the camera should not limit what I want to achieve. Its a tool, nothing more. If science creates a better tool, where the limits have been stretched, i think it's crazy not to explore that. (but not quite $8000 crazy).

You could use that $8k to charter the boat and return there when you have more light :) I'm sure it'll drop in price in a few months. I doubt they'll move many in this climate. Then again with 0% financing being offered everywhere, you never know. :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm on the more Megapixels side of the fence - especially now all the new cameras have such good high ISO. It is no longer limiting at the typical values we need underwater at the typical repro-sizes. I think that the D300 is already adequate for almost everything, so the high ISO kings are overkill for most UW shooting. When reviewing the D3 and D700 for Wetpixel I really tried to find high ISO needs underwater needs and it is pretty hard to find much above 800, let alone 1600.

 

For that reason I think that megapixels add something useful. Although of course as is often pointed out on Wetpixel - how often do we really need more than a good 10 for most of our typical outputs. But I think that more megapixels are a more useful over engineering than more ISO. Although I am not sure that they currently justify the price except in the 5D Mk2. So Nikon is left behind :lol:

 

Alex

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

While ISO 1600 is high in absolute terms, it's not especially high for the newest digital SLRs. I agree with James, high ISO (>1600) is less useful underwater than 2x pixel count. You don't have to take advantage of either, but I'd rather have a base ISO of 100 that the D3x offers than the 200 of the D3/D700/D300. That represents a full stop advantage for sunballs.

 

Now, if you are talking ISO > 400, like Cor is with the D2x, then that's a different story. I agree with him as well.

 

Finally, I see no point in pointing out that it's the artist, not the equipment, that matters. A serious photographer will care about his equipment and his technique.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
For that reason I think that megapixels add something useful. Although of course as is often pointed out on Wetpixel - how often do we really need more than a good 10 for most of our typical outputs. But I think that more megapixels are a more useful over engineering than more ISO. Although I am not sure that they currently justify the price except in the 5D Mk2. So Nikon is left behind :lol:

 

Alex

And now we've come full circle, back to my original post. Alex may not be quite serious, but it is somewhat true. The 5D2 seems to be exactly what I want. High pixel count, high ISO performance, HD video, and all for a reasonable price. And I look at Nikon's lineup, and im thinking...ok..where is this going to fit. I do hope the D700x will have all this, because the D3 line sure isnt offering this.

 

My story above is not actually a true story. It's just an example of what I have experienced many times. Maybe ISO1600 is a bit much, it usually is more like ISO800, but even at 800 i find my D2x images rarely acceptable.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
And now we've come full circle, back to my original post. Alex may not be quite serious, but it is somewhat true. The 5D2 seems to be exactly what I want. High pixel count, high ISO performance, HD video, and all for a reasonable price. And I look at Nikon's lineup, and im thinking...ok..where is this going to fit. I do hope the D700x will have all this, because the D3 line sure isnt offering this.

 

My story above is not actually a true story. It's just an example of what I have experienced many times. Maybe ISO1600 is a bit much, it usually is more like ISO800, but even at 800 i find my D2x images rarely acceptable.

 

I think you'd find the 5D-2's AF a bit of a disapointment for macro and fish photography coming from a Nikon (or for that matter a pro-series Canon), but for wide angle its hard to fault (except for no 10-17mm, which curses all full framers).

 

From my point of view, the vidiot function they can keep. But I accept others think its great. For me high quality UW imaging has always been about optimisation of all your kit, not jack of all trades. At the Antibes Festival I saw Danny Van Belle's Lembeh film and was blown away. Something like that isn't produced with half your mind and kit thinking about stills.

 

I'd also say D2X images become unacceptable at ISO 400. While D300 become unacceptable at ISO 1600 and D3/D700 above ISO 3200.

 

While a D700x might be 3-12 months to never away (who knows) - 5D-2 housings are not properly available yet. The D3x is going to be underwater well before that (are already), so as an underwater photographer the 5D-2 although launched before actually enters our equations later. If the D700x fits the D700 housing (not as much of a guarentee as the D3/D3x) then it could be in the water just a few months behind the 5D-2. We'll see, although I can see it costing at least $1000 to $1500 more than the 5D-2.

 

I think that the other consideration for each individual is when they have major shoots scheduled. In your case Cor, I can see a motivation to upgrade before Feb!

 

Alex

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I think that the other consideration for each individual is when they have major shoots scheduled. In your case Cor, I can see a motivation to upgrade before Feb!

 

Alex

Exactly. Being in Indonesia for a total of something like 35 days of shooting in february/march, im really anxious to try a higher ISO camera than the D2x.

I know i'll get plenty of good images from my D2x, im not worried about that at all. But it'd be great to be able to try some different stuff that ive been avoiding with my D2x. Julie and I prefer to have the same equipment for backup purposes, so switching to D3x brings along a really..really high cost.

 

The D700 is an option, but id really hate to have to face the same problem in 6 months if the D700x (or whatever) doesnt fit.

 

I'll probably just stay with the D2x for now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
This is not a fair comparison. You are taking an entry level camera (Nikon D90) to compare against a serious enthusiast camera (canon 5D MkII)

 

Wow... :lol: Since we are all super pro here, I think any thing short of H3 is an entry level in my books! Seriously, D90 is an enthusiast camera; D40 and D60 are entry level. :) 5DII is a professional DSLR. Most of my friends do not want to carry full body camera since they do not need the huge buffer and this is just extra weight. For my fun pictures I use my D90 much more than D700. It is smaller and lighter.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sponsors

Advertisements



×
×
  • Create New...