Jump to content
Interceptor121

The impact of DSLR APSC Phase Out on Underwater Photography

Recommended Posts

My thoughts on this may differ from the norm.  I've been shooting FX since the D700 came out, currently using a D850 in a Nauticam housing.  I have only two lens choices: 105vr and 16-35.  I've tried adding some flexibility with the 60mm macro and a 1.4tc on the 105, but the 60mm focal length is too short, and the 1.4tc robbed too much sharpness for my liking.

When I look at an APSC, I see a tradeoff.   That tradeoff is image quality versus lens choices.   Yes, I know that for most of you, the sheet size of the FX rig versus an APSC rig is a big deal, and it is.  But for me, image quality is bigger.   What I see as a clear win for APSC is having more useful lens choices, specifically a normal midrange zoom option.  Fisheye?  I can get the 8-15mm Nikkor, or others.

And while I'm sitting here thinking, I suddenly start thinking about cropping, how much I do it, and the fact that a DX camera simply 'precrops' the image, I'm wondering why one couldn't simply stick the same DX lenses and smaller ports on the D850 and shoot it in DX mode?  19mp DX crop is quite good, and I often crop to DX and well beyond in post processing.

So - not an ideal choice, but it IS still a choice.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 hours ago, Seewolf said:

Its the Aquatica 18462 (39.5 mm) which fits very well, and the zoom gear custom made by Aquatica. They print it, its much lighter and works better than the old aluminum zoom gears.

Isn't the 18462 the old style port system?  I can't seem to find any info apart from it being referred to as for the bayonet style housing; this reference is not used for the newer extensions such as the 48453 which would seem to be the extension recommended to use with the type 4 port chart for Nikon.

  The extension listed in the aquatica port chart is 16.5mm for the bare lens and the difference between the extensions for using a 1.4x is 12mm (for the 10-17 vs 10-17 plus 1.4x) which would be an extension of 28.5mm.  Is the 4" port you use an old style one as well?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, phxazcraig said:

Fisheye?  I can get the 8-15mm Nikkor, or others.

 

 

That will give you a circular or diagonal fisheye but not a zoom fisheye that is the attractiveness of the APSC format.

A lot of the IQ of full frame and additional resolution goes away when you impose the underwater depth of field requirements. This is certainly through for sharpness, colours and dynamic range remain however DR is not that much of an issue once you pass 12 stops as after you make a jpeg you compress it to 10 stops so somewhere has to give

Likewise the additional color and tonal depth disappears when you create an 8 bit jpeg of your camera

What the full frame gives you is additional latitude to manipulate the process from the raw file down to something you can display and print so the difference will be much more subtle than a complete wow

APSC is an acceptable compromise and the most popular format among semipro shooters and advanced amateurs because the tradeoffs are quite good.

In terms of shooting cropped I am not sure but I would think that would half the resolution but give you some flexibility

Consider that shooting at f/16 with a 48 MP camera already means you are loosing half the resolution to diffraction so cropping will not deteriorate sharpness but may still affect overall tonal and colour depth

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, ChrisRoss said:

Isn't the 18462 the old style port system?  I can't seem to find any info apart from it being referred to as for the bayonet style housing; this reference is not used for the newer extensions such as the 48453 which would seem to be the extension recommended to use with the type 4 port chart for Nikon.

  The extension listed in the aquatica port chart is 16.5mm for the bare lens and the difference between the extensions for using a 1.4x is 12mm (for the 10-17 vs 10-17 plus 1.4x) which would be an extension of 28.5mm.  Is the 4" port you use an old style one as well?

The only differences between the old and new extension rings are a locking mechanism that prevents that the port falls off when not under pressure (I use a vacuum system, so this cannot happen anyway) and the numbers start with 18 (old) and 48 (new). The dimensions are exactly the same, no difference between old and new style, parts can be interchanged.

For the Nikon 8-15 without TC I use the 48463 (21.5 mm) and not the 18456 (16.5 mm equivalent to 48456) which I also have. 16.5 mm is a little bit short, I told Aquatica some time ago. I also have the 18453 (28.5 mm) which is clearly to long.

The Kenko 1.4 TC is 19.3 mm flange to flange, no difference between the old and new version (I have both). However, only the new version works with the Nikon 8-15, both work with the Tokina (which I also used). So, the 18462 (or 48462) with 39.5 mm fits exactly. For the Tokina you need shaorter extensions, the Nikon 8-15 is longer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, Interceptor121 said:

Consider that shooting at f/16 with a 48 MP camera already means you are loosing half the resolution to diffraction so cropping will not deteriorate sharpness but may still affect overall tonal and colour depth

Here's a 36mp shot at F29 that still seems to have plenty of detail.170927-095347-19-D810.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, phxazcraig said:

Here's a 36mp shot at F29 that still seems to have plenty of detail.170927-095347-19-D810.jpg

Thats because the picture is a couple of megapixels. In practical terms your camera is resolving around 6 megapixels if you printed it on A3 paper you would notice on social not and on screen only if you go 1:1 pixel (that you dont)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/15/2020 at 1:19 AM, Interceptor121 said:

Thats because the picture is a couple of megapixels. In practical terms your camera is resolving around 6 megapixels if you printed it on A3 paper you would notice on social not and on screen only if you go 1:1 pixel (that you dont)

That picture was not 'a couple of megapixels'.   That picture is almost uncropped and represents about 30-33mp of resolution.  Here is a crop from it:170927-095347-19-D810-2.jpg

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, phxazcraig said:

That picture was not 'a couple of megapixels'.   That picture is almost uncropped and represents about 30-33mp of resolution.  Here is a crop from it:170927-095347-19-D810-2.jpg

 

Wetpixel pictures are compressed. I have a 4K screen if you put it on flickr at full resolution and it is scaled it will still not show anything but it will on 1:1 pixel. It is physics of diffraction it is just the way it is. Kicks in at different f'stop depending on pixel pitch. The limit on a D850 I think is around f/10 then it will no longer resolve the 45.7 megapixels and start dropping. It happens on my camera too it is normal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sponsors

Advertisements



×
×
  • Create New...