Nikon D3 Field Review in the East Pacific. PART 3

by Alexander Mustard Thursday, September 18th, 2008

In Guadalupe I was very happy with the performance. I used a +3 dioptre on the lens (I tend to favour the +3 for pelagics and the +4 for reef wide angle with these lenses) a port extension ring and a Subal FE2 port. This review is about shooting real world subjects, and the shark images with the 17-35mm are all very acceptable. I was satisfied that wide rectilinear was working for me on FX and did not even try any other port/dioptre combinations.

The 17-35mm produced some very pleasing images of sharks, but of course with little or no detail in the corners they are not really suited for examining corner sharpness. That said if you want to take photos like this, at F8, the D3 and 17-35mm work very well. Nikon D3 + 17-35mm & +3 dioptre, Subal housing. F8 @ 1/160th. ISO 320. Two Inon Z240 strobes.

Shark photography is not the toughest challenge for corner sharpness. Firstly, most shots do not have any important corner detail. Moreover, corner softness is accentuated by short camera to subject distances, which you would get with reef CFWA, rather than shooting pelagics. So for those who like a bit of measurebating, this thread in the forums has some photos of the cage grid. Normally I would have used the +4 dioptre for such shots, but in any case, these shots are not too bad at all. The corners suffer more with fringing than sharpness and the problems only manifest right in the corners at FX.

Okay. Here is a photo of the cage so you can look at the corners. Viewed as a whole frame it is not too bad at all. This is with the 17-35mm @ 17mm, F10. Nikon D3 + 17-35mm & +3 dioptre, Subal housing. F10 @ 1/200th. ISO 400. Two Inon Z240 strobes.

There is one important further feature of the D3 that is worth mentioning in respect to dome performance. The D3 has an in-camera AF fine-tune feature, which can remember specific settings for certain lenses. I tried setting a slightly closer focus (than the true distance) for the 17-35mm, to bring the plain of focus forward slightly relative to the curved virtual image to help corner sharpness. I felt this improved matters, but I was not able to achieve any quantifiable results, mainly because the 17-35mm was already working well. When I own a camera with this feature I will experiment further.

Despite getting technically acceptable images with the 17-35mm, I have to admit that I just don’t like the pincushion look of the shots. I am a fisheye guy. Give me cuddly, curvy barrel distortion any day over spikey, pointy pincushion. To me the underwater world looks so much better that way. So most of the time I put the fisheye on.

Optically the Sigma 15mm was superb. There is no doubt that fisheye lenses perform very well on FX, and if like me that is what you like to shoot, then you will be very happy. Up in Port Hardy it was without a doubt the lens to have. The full 180 degree view is definitely what is required for wide angle photography. It allowed me to photograph the colourful walls with a diver or a colourful foreground with the bull kelp towering above as a background.

The Sigma 15mm worked very well on the D3. I feel it is slightly sharper than the Nikon 16mm and its more modern design focuses much closer. Nikon D3 + 15mm FE, Subal housing. F13 @ 1/50th. ISO 800. Two Inon Z240 strobes.

I agree with Alex that Nikon's future moves seem much less clear than just a few months ago. The introduction of the D700, in essence a compact version of the D3 in many ways, puts into doubt what Nikon might do next. Originally, it seemed to me that a D3x, built on the same body as the D3 would be logical. BUT Sony has just introduced their 24+Mp chip in a compact body and Canon has upgraded the 5D with a 21+Mp chip similar to that in the 1DsMkIII. I bought a D3 when they were first announced, but now feel that the D700 may be a significantly superior camera for underwater shooting, not because of its smaller size, but because it has an independent flash compensation control which allows you to vary the output of i-ttl strobes without altering the ambient light reading, which is what happens when you use the normal "global" compensation. I consider this a huge advantage for the D-700, but we'll have to see if any of the housing makers put in a control to access this. And put in the control in a way that would be most conveniently used. In housings, controls are what separates the good from the mediocre. Fred
Posted by divegypsy on 2008-10-05 08:23:37 Thanks Fred. I agree about the 70-180mm for those lucky enough to have one. It really comes back to the fore on FX. With so many divisive rumours flying around I really don't have a feel for what Nikon are going to do next. Hi-res FX seems obvious, but in a D3 or D700 body, or both? Or maybe there is weight in the MX rumours, now the Leica is a reality. Alex
Posted by Dr. Alex Mustard on 2008-10-05 05:09:30 Hi Alex, Nice review. I'm happy that you made the point of indicating that the angle of coverage of a full-frame fisheye, like the Sigma 15mm combined with a 1.5x is similar to the 17-35mm lens at 17mm. But it does lack the zoom to 35mm capability which can be very useful when a subject is a bit farther away. In the macro department, Nikon's vintage 70-180 Micro-nikkor zoom offers a flexibility none of the fixed focal length macro lenses offer and can be used with Nikon's T5 and T6 close up lenses to allow focusing closer than the .75x of the lens alone. That lens and its versatility are one of the main reasons I have held out for a full-frame digital camera. And like you, before I spend all the money on a new housing and i-ttl strobes, I will hold out for a higher resolution FX sensor camera. D3x?. On the other hand, Leica's new S-class camera, with its 30x45mm 37 Mp sensor also sound quite interesting, especially as it would be combined with Leica lenses designed specifically for that sensor. Fred
Posted by divegypsy on 2008-10-03 05:24:44 Thanks for this article Alex. A very good read.
Posted by Stephen Colquitt on 2008-09-21 01:21:27 Hi Andy, Yes. I use AF on almost all my shots. With a dioptre attached a wide angle lens won't focus on objects more than a metre (few feet) away on land. But once underwater it focuses very well. Alex
Posted by Dr. Alex Mustard on 2008-09-20 02:46:18 I should clarify - not on wide angle zooms - and you mentioned the 10-17.
Posted by andydives on 2008-09-20 02:22:27 Great review Alex, Thanks for all the info. Are you using AF on wide angle with diopters? That has never worked for me.
Posted by andydives on 2008-09-20 02:16:21 Hi Michael, Objectively I agree, but emotionally the D3 is hard to resist once you try it. Its a lovely camera. Be careful! One thing about hi-ISO is that throughout the trip I did not shoot any long exposures/blur images. Which I know are something you do a lot of. I think as more people go to these high ISO capable cameras - we will see different types of creative shots becoming more popular. Alex
Posted by Dr. Alex Mustard on 2008-09-19 05:39:03 Alex, Thanks. Excellent, thorough review. IMO, no need to upgrade from the D2x for now, especially wide angle, re. Tokina benefits. Thanks for reconfirming this. Can see myself buying the D3 for topside though, Best, MPO
Posted by Michael on 2008-09-18 19:51:27 Yea, I did...;-)
Posted by randapex on 2008-09-18 15:27:10 Rand, did you see the jellyfish comment on Part 2? Alex
Posted by Dr. Alex Mustard on 2008-09-18 14:36:33 Fantastic article Alex. Strangely enough for me, it was your loan of the 150mm sigma that excited me as much or more as the fine results you were getting from the D3. The Warbonnet photo above is a great example of the type of shot I don't have using my existing kit. Can't wait to go back next year. Thanks for your company and advice. Rand
Posted by randapex on 2008-09-18 13:52:36 The other solution is just to not dive with people with DX cameras and the Tokina - then you don't realise what you are missing.
Posted by Dr. Alex Mustard on 2008-09-18 10:04:12 My first problem with the TC on Tok is that my zoom gear would no longer line up and remedy not easy. Also Tok is prone to some nasty CA if given a chance - I think a TC would make that much more prevalent. Hopefully Pentax will go to FF digital at some point at they will get Tokina to design them an up-to-date 17-28mm Fisheye zoom. Here's dreaming...
Posted by Dr. Alex Mustard on 2008-09-18 10:02:48 Nice review Alex. As you're so attached to the Tokina 10-17 have you ever thought of adding a teleconverter and shooting with it on full-frame? I have a Canon 5D and I've just been messing around with the 10-17 plus a 1.4x teleconverter. On land at least it seems to give pretty sharp results, even in the corners. There's just the tiniest bit of vignetting at 10mm with the 1.4x converter (mind you I have cut the lens shade off- a slightly delicate and dicey operation!).
Posted by Ferg42 on 2008-09-18 09:31:14