Nikon D3 Field Review in the East Pacific. PART 3

by Alexander Mustard Thursday, September 18th, 2008

HIGH ISO
Arguably the most exciting photographic capability of the D3 is its noise free performance at high ISO. I was interested in investigating how useful this was beneath the waves. Underwater I found that I could shoot up to ISO 800 without any noticeable degradation in image quality. ISO 1600 could still produce excellent double page spreads and ISO 3200 would be good enough for covers or single page spreads. Incredibly impressive. Nikon users have never known anything like it. The D3 changes how you think about light.

This photo of black bass in a bull kelp forest in Canada is taken in mainly available light, with just a little fill flash. Being able to capture seascapes, like this, in dark conditions was new to me, thanks to the D3. Nikon D3 + 15mm, Subal housing. F10 @ 1/60th. ISO 800. Two Inon Z240 strobes.

Perhaps my biggest surprise with the D3’s high ISO performance was how I struggled to find subjects that really made use of ISO 1600 and above. On this trip I dived in some pretty dark waters. Below the kelp, in the gloomy waters of British Columbia on a (typically) rainy day is not bright. However, shooting typical wide angle scenes with flash, I found that I never needed an ISO higher than 800. Sure, I could dial in higher ISO settings and they worked, but at ISO 800 I was able to use all the aperture and shutter speed combinations I wished. In other words you have to do some pretty unusual diving to really “need” ISO 1600 to 6400. The obvious examples would be deep or dark available light shots, such as wrecks, particularly with filters.

When you use the ISO settings above 800 you do begin to degrade image quality - not much, but its visible. Therefore it is important to make sure that the ISO setting is getting you something photographically that could not be achieved at a lower ISO. Up to ISO 800 you can increase for free, above this you should not just be using ISO as a crutch for poor technique. I believe that there are many interesting and novel underwater images to come from high ISO shooting. I really felt that I only just started to make use of this potential during my shoot.

At ISO 800 this was the slowest I had to go on shutter speed for this shot of a large Puget Sound king crab in the kelp. I took this on both ISO 800 and ISO 1600. The ISO 800 shots, despite being at slower shutter speed still looked better. In Port Hardy I struggled to find anything that justified shooting above ISO 800 or higher. Nikon D3 + 15mm, Subal housing. F14 @ 1/25th. 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