How's my logic...

[Stoo 42]

I use a D7000/Aquatica system and I'm very happy with it. However, I know I would be even happier with a D800/Aquatica system.

 

So I had a serious conversation (with myself, because if I'd had it with Mrs. Stoo, it would have been a VERY short conversation...). I concluded that there was no rational reason to upgrade whatsoever. "Gear lust", pure and simple.

 

But then I had an epiphany in the middle of the night. It seems like I would get a much better price selling my current camera and housing, while the camera is still readily available... right? I mean who wants to but a housing with a camera in it that can't be replaced, should it die? Part of this came from chatting with a guy on SB that was trying to sell a D200 and housing and wasn't get a nibble.

 

Getting a better price now, means that an upgrade is more affordable... So assuming that I would upgrade sooner or later anyway, isn't my logic in doing it sooner, rather than later, sound?

Edited November 24, 2013 by Stoo

[iDreamOfBubbles 1]

That's about the best argument I can come up with for what would be a pretty expensive upgrade besides 36 MP of full frame glory..

[Stoo 42]

That's about the best argument I can come up with for what would be a pretty expensive upgrade besides 36 MP of full frame glory..

 

Ya, I was pretty pleased with it, myself. Considering that I'm one of those guys that keeps a car until the wheels fall off, it was a bit of a stretch...

Edited November 24, 2013 by Stoo

[peterbkk 110]

 

Getting a better price now, means that an upgrade is more affordable... So assuming that I would upgrade sooner or later anyway, isn't my logic in doing it sooner, rather than later, sound?

 

You could run a financial model with several scenarios, sell now, sell in X years, sell in Y years, making some assumptions about costs and prices and see which option works out financially better.

 

Then you should explain the financial model to Mrs Stoo...

 

Or you could just try the old, "well at least I'm not spending the money on wine, women and song".

 

Good luck!

 

Regards

Peter

[E_viking 30]

1: Decide what you want to do

-- here you can be honest ( I want vs. I Need vs. I pay)

-- I assume that the "I want" wins here :-)

2: Build a "waterproof" Business case that supports your decision

-- Telling "the whole truth and nothing but the truth" is not necessarily a good idea

-- Anticipating the main Shareholder's complaints and views are of utmost Importance ...

3: Convince the main Shareholder ( Mrs. Stoo)

-- Everything is allowed here

 

It sounds easy doesn't it :-)

 

/Erik

[tdpriest 115]

There's an argument (one which I obviously ignored) that the D7000 is a more versatile underwater camera than the D800. The narrow depth of field, the need for big wide-angle dome ports and the choice of lenses makes the D800 difficult to use, and a little restrictive. I've had to work much harder at defining the focus in macro images, for instance, and haven't found a good way to shoot really tight close-focus wide-angle images.

[Stoo 42]

There's an argument (one which I obviously ignored) that the D7000 is a more versatile underwater camera than the D800. The narrow depth of field, the need for big wide-angle dome ports and the choice of lenses makes the D800 difficult to use, and a little restrictive. I've had to work much harder at defining the focus in macro images, for instance, and haven't found a good way to shoot really tight close-focus wide-angle images.

 

Now, let's not get all sensible...

 

I'm starting to think that, since Mrs. Stoo doesn't know the difference between an f-stop and a flapjack, she probably wouldn't even notice if "that" housing suddenly replaced "this" housing. I mean, they look pretty much the same, right? The cameras both say Nikon on the front...

[ehanauer 37]

My criteria for updating is when I see images that I can't make with my current system.

[divengolf 17]

Assuming that your funds are not unlimited and the Mrs. has material wants as well, I'd rather keep the D7000 and use the $$ for additional dive trips. Plus note the limitations that tdpriest listed above.

 

It all depends on your motivations. I have a D7000 in an Aquatica housing and it's perfectly fine for my needs. All I do is shoot, enhance, print and show them to g-kids and friends. I'm not trying to enter any photo contests. I expect that my D7000 will last me for several more years and perhaps the rest of my diving career (I'm 67, but in excellent health).

 

Also factor in that many of your DX lenses will need to be replaced, but there is a pretty good market for used DX lenses, esp. the most popular ones.

 

But I'm the one who shot a D70 up until a couple years ago, so I may be biased (and cheap). I bought my D7000 and housing from someone who had to have the newest and greatest. So I got a great deal on an excellent camera.

 

I agree that all housings and cameras may look the same to the uninitiated, but who checks and pays the credit card bill in your house. She might notice that. My wife does.

[Stoo 42]

Assuming that your funds are not unlimited and the Mrs. has material wants as well, I'd rather keep the D7000 and use the $$ for additional dive trips.

 

Dang nabbit... You sensible people are so... well, sensible.

[newmanl 15]

I'm with Eric and divengolf. Up until two years ago I was shooting a Canon 30D in an Ikelite housing, then moved to a 7D and Aquatica housing mostly because the old rig was holding me back in a practical "user comfort/safety" kind of way. When I did the gear change, my wife and I had to lower our expectations for dive travel that year... man, that was a tough year! So, while I still think about a full-frame set up from time to time, I'd much rather do the trips! As soon as I notice that the 7D/Aquatica set up is holding me back in some way, and not the other way around, I'll see what the next latest and greatest for me will be... but until then, I'd much rather be sitting a gate wait to board!

 

Lee

[diverdoug1 56]

Life is short. If you can afford it, and want it, then get it. I love my D800. It is amazing how much detail is in even a tiny crop!

[Aquapaul 26]

I have had a D800 and an Aquatica housing in my cart at B & H for a month now. I don't need it, not sure it would even be better then my D7000 underwater. But it's only a matter of time before I have that moment of weakness an select buy…..

[E_viking 30]

Well, sometimes we just need some new toys regardless if we need them or not!

 

I can not really say anything, since I fell for the "I want" and bought a d800 earlier this year.

I was on the other hand updating from a d80. So, I can clearly do more now that I could with my old System.

 

Kust being a bit boring, but be aware that moving to a FX System brings with it a whole chain of costs: New lenses, new Laptop, new Desktop etc etc

 

/Erik

[iDreamOfBubbles 1]

Maybe this will make things easier for you: http://overstockdigital.com/ovcat/product_info.php?products_id=322913

[tomeyer 3]

Maybe this will make things easier for you: http://overstockdigital.com/ovcat/product_info.php?products_id=322913

 

That almost sounds like it's too good to be true, looks like you have to buy the battery separately but maybe I'm reading it wrong.

[Stoo 42]

Just house-cleaning some old threads... Still shooting with the D7000... Won or placed in a couple of contests, hosted my first exhibit and sold well, selling some prints...

 

And just booked two trips (one a comp) and not entirely broke.

 

Thanks for helping me through that difficult time. ;-)

[TimG 62]

Wow, you are one tough, dude. I'm impressed. I'd have cracked months ago.

(And good for you on the sales and exhibition. Brilliant!)

 

OK, I admit it. I did crack months ago.

 

D810 anyone?

[PeteAtkinson 45]

I made the switch from D7000 to D800 Nauticam. I convinced myself that the high ISO ability would be useful, cropping etc. But really the big drawbacks are the loss of the Tokina 10-17 (and the ability to use small domes) and the increase in size and weight. I do like the ability to crop drastically but the weight and size is an issue for me. The 16-35 is ok, but seldom wide enough, and I'm not fond of the fisheye look for many subjects with the Sigma 15. I think would stay with the D7000...

[buddy 7]

I made the switch from D7000 to D800 Nauticam. I convinced myself that the high ISO ability would be useful, cropping etc. But really the big drawbacks are the loss of the Tokina 10-17 (and the ability to use small domes) and the increase in size and weight. I do like the ability to crop drastically but the weight and size is an issue for me. The 16-35 is ok, but seldom wide enough, and I'm not fond of the fisheye look for many subjects with the Sigma 15. I think would stay with the D7000...

 

the 16-35 at 16mm on a FX body (D800) is about the same wide as the 10-17 at 10mm on the D7000 (DX). But the wight and size is certainly an issue...

 

But the IQ of some newer cameras like D810, D4s can let you change the shooting style:

Think about the following scenario:

 

You shoot a dynamic scene (let's say fast moving sharks) in relative deep water with dim ambient lighting conditions. You shoot at f8 and 1/125 sec, 2 flash guns at half power each. The image on the LCD looks ok on the exposure of the shark (foreground) but is too dark on the background, almost black and thus rather underexposed (let's say by -1 stop). But we want blueish water !

 

Now, instead of lengthening the shutter speed to 1/60sec you can do as alternative: change ISO from 100 to 400 (2 stops) plus lowering the flash output to 1/8 power and thus reducing backscatter and decreasing flash recycle time, leaving the aperture unchanged (relative closed at f8) thus conserving DOF (nobody shoots today with f2.8 - 4.0 anymore!), shorten the shutter speed to 1/250sec and thus freezing the action of the moving subjects even more...

 

Off course, that works only with a camera which can handle ISO 400 (or higher, depending on situation) on a neglectable noise level and a high resolution.

 

Wonderful world, isn't it ?

 

Going to Cocos for next 2 weeks and wil try these modern concepts more extensively...

[Alex_Mustard 0]

 

the 16-35 at 16mm on a FX body (D800) is about the same wide as the 10-17 at 10mm on the D7000 (DX). But the wight and size is certainly an issue...

 

This is incorrect, probably a typo.

 

The 16-35mm at 16mm (on FX) is about the same angle of coverage (a little over 100˚) as the 10-17mm at the 17mm (on DX). The 10-17mm then goes a lot, lot wider ,when zoomed out. In short there is very little overlap between these lenses - although both are useful.

 

Alex

[diverdoug1 56]

I think Buddy was assuming that the 10-17 was a rectilinear lens.

[buddy 7]

yes, that was my thinking. don't know the Tokina personally; using Sigma 15mm f/2.8 on FX with 9" dome or 4"mini dome. Thanks for corrections.