That's the spirit !

Thank You!

As a current D2X owner (but still without my housing), I am intrigued by the D200 given its smaller size and lighter weight compared to my D2X. However, as I have reviewed this great discussion, two issues have raised concern relative to use of the D200 U/W. One is the flash synchronization which appears to be set at 1/250. Not having used digital u/w yet, I have been shooting with my trusty N90s which synchs from 1/250 to 1/60. Does this set synch speed represent a serious shortfall for underwater use, especially if not using an iTTL housing? Secondly, I noted a comment that the minimal focus is 20 in. Since I shoot a great deal of wide angle, I will be using the 12-24 zoom. Is this distance adequate for this lens or will one need to add a diopter? If the latter, is this a concern? Many thanks for your thoughts.

Aaron

Hi Aaron,

First of all, welcome to wetpixel! The flash sync issue is important underwater for shots that include the sun on it. Older Nikons (D70, etc.) have an electronic shutter and can sync at higher speeds, producing nice sunbursts. The D2x also has a max sync speed of 1/250, but it's sensor handles sunburst quite nicely, even at these slower speeds. So, it remains to be seen if this will be a problem or not. Personally, I don't think it will, but we will know for sure when we see the D200 perform underwater.

As for your question about the 12-24, that doesn't depend on the camera, but on the lens. If a lens minimal focus is 20 in, it will be 20 in any camera. There is no such thing as a limit for a minimal focus in a camera, the camera does what the lens can do. Macro lenses will focus very close, in *any and all* cameras that they are mounted on. For a very informative discussion about the use of diopters specifically with the 12-24, check this link:

http://wetpixel.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=10372

I hope this helps,

Luiz

Luiz:

Thanks for the welcome...its a great site.

As to the flash synch, I understand the concern about high speed synchs and sunbursts. I am more concerned about low light situations. When I shoot film, I typically shoot at 1/60 given that I usually use ASA 100 film. My camera will synch my strobes at this shutter speed. Presumably, if one has to shoot at 1/250 to synch the strobes, I assume you would set the ISO to 400 when shooting digital. However, with my D2X (which I have yet to use underwater), it appears as if I can actually synch at 1/60, allowing me to leave ISO at 100 or 125. I sense this might minimize digital noise, which I take to be an advantage. Am I confused?

As to the focus issue, I understand that this is a function of the lens. However, an earlier member had made a comment which I didn't understand, but as I re-read his comments, I now realize he was discussing the 18-200 lens and its minimal focus depth, not the camera. Obviously, this won't be an issue with the 12-24mm which has a minimal focus distance of 11.8in. My bad !!

Thanks again,

Aaron

First of all, I agree that we NEED TO SUPPORT THESE SPONSORS. I got my Subal 8 inch dome from Dave.

As for the D200, I agree that mega pixels is not a big selling point to me...I can do a 24 by 36 with my D100. 10 mega pixels is better, but I want less noise, wider DR. I think the vast majority of those who shoot with DSLR know enough about their cameras that DR and low light noise are BIG issues that they'd like to see improved. Somehow I think Nikon and Canon target a market where they think mega pixels is the selling feature. I disagree. I think the majority of Dslr shooters (topside and UW) would prefer quality as opposed to quantity. I suppose you can have that if you can afford a D2X or 5D. If Nikon could have just took the D100 and did NOTHING to it except improve DR and noise, I be happier than a puppy with six peters.

Joe

Hi Aaron,

The specification is for the fastest speed at which sync can occur, not the only speed at which sync can occur. The issue is how fast the shutter blades move across the sensor. At speeds >1/250, the shutter opening essentially forms a thin strip that moves across the sensor, the whole sensor is never exposed at one time. So your short duration strobe light will only fall on a part of the image.

There is no problem with syncing at speeds lower than this.

In the D1X, d70, d100 etc things are different. At speeds >1/250 the exposure is controlled by rapidly switching the sensor on and then off again, while the actual shutter remains open for 1/250th of a second. This means you can use very high shutter speeds to freeze sunbursts/sunrays, and yet can still get fill flash on a closer subject without shutter blades getting in the way.

Gotcha...Thanks again

Just a did a quick calculation...

The cost of D200 plus a Ikelite housing will cost less then a D2X housing...

Yes, and a D70 plus an Ikelite housing costs less than a Subal or Seacam D70 housing. A 20D and Ikelite housing cost less than a Subal 20D housing. That's what Ikelite is all about, low cost housings.

At the risk of going down in flames

Any body got a well dived 20 year old Ikelite housing ???

Just wondering what it looks like.

Actually i have one that is 10 years for my N90, good enough?

It still works, mind you the synch cord is fused to it....
I would send you pics but its in the parents in a box somewhere in Vancouver.....

I have a Ikelite F801/8008 housing that must be close to 20 years old. But it has not been heavily dived. It is still working fine and looks like it would for a long while yet. My main criticism is its ergonomics, but I think that the newer Ikelites (D70 onwards are much improved in this respect).

Alex

I would not worry much about it wearing out before you want to upgrade to the next hot camera. I think the main factor to consider are ports. I can't see getting and maintaining ports for all the combinations of lenses, teleconverters and diopters I like to use without extension rings.

I wouldn't worry about durability. If it cracks in 10-15 years it will certainly have paid for itself. My N90 housing (which is 10 years old) developed a small crack in one of the corners (I am still in contact with the guy that bought it from me). But he dives a lot, and in tough conditions, maybe half of his dives are between 40m and 55m (150 - 180ft).

As Alex, my issue with it is also ergonomics, together with size and weight. They have improved them a lot, but even the newest digital housings (D70, 20D, etc) still weigh more than my D2x housing. And as Herb, since I travel a lot (and have a lot of lenses) I also don't like the obligation of having one port for each lens.

Luiz

Is the chip in the D200 made by Sony?

Kasey, I suspect it is Sony, but Nikon hasn't disclosed this information, so nobody knows for sure.

Luiz

So here's my dilemma:

I have a housed Oly c8080 set up, strobes, dome port fisheye lens etc which is fine but lacks low light capabilities and the fast razor sharp focus which are the halmarks of a decent slr set up.

So I am looking to fall under the marketers spell and 'upgrade' to a dSLR.

I also own an eos 10 and three EF lenses which have been gathering dust in my camera bag: Vivitar series 1 - 19-35mm, Canon 28-105mm and a Tamron 28-200mm. None of these lenses are particularly wonderful but have served well on terra firma.

So d200 or 5d?

Question 1) d200 - The price is attractive as are the features, BUT will Nikon stick with the dx format sensor? I am loathed to purchase a camera and 10.5mm lenses etc only for the lenses to become obsolete in a couple of years. Anyone experiencing the same level of concern? Surely nikon can't resist a FF indefinitely...?

Question 2) Obviously the 5d makes sense as my lenses will fit BUT I am aware that FF sensors like good glass, so how bad is it going to be!? Anyone like to comment upon using suboptimal lenses on a FF sensor?

From a fellow "affluenza" sufferer.... http://www.langmaker.com/db/eng_affluenza.htm

Roger over n out

I think Nikon will stick with DX sensors for a long time. Certainly in cameras in the D200 class and below for 2 more generations. Also I hope that now the top cameras all out perform slide film that it will mean an end to the megapixel race and the feeling that your camera is obsolete.

I think what we all wish for is a level playing field between the cameras so that the difference comes down to photographer skill not which camera you own. But of course the megapixel race is in the interest of the camera companies. They want us to all feel we need their latest cameras and our current cameras are obsolete - so we keep spending. So I think Megapixels will keep rising for a while yet, not because there is any great need for more, but because the marketing departments keep telling the tech boys to do it!

Regarding full frame, the fisheyes (which we use a lot UW) don't seem to have a problem on full frame. The wide rectilinear problems aren't as bad as people say - easy to show if you want to in test shots, but less of a problem in real photography.

Alex

I don't believe that DX lenses will ever be useless. If Nikon ever switches to FF in consumer dSLRs, they will almost definitely utilize a "DX crop" option so you can continue to use your DX lenses. Besides, for the cost of a 5d you could have a D200 plus 10.5 DX with change left over. Protecting your lens investment is probably not a strong reason for buying a 5D.

What ever Nikon decides, I think there will always be more APS-C/cropped/DX format cameras than full frame. I don't know if it makes any difference if they put in a "DX crop " option. You can always do that in photoshop.

In calculating the cost difference between the D5 and D200 don't forget to add the $1100 cost of the viewfinder that you'll likely need to get a view that may be comparable to the 5D viewfinder, and that will only work in the water.

The full frame versus cropped sensor comparrison seems a real talking point at present and presumably for a long time to come. It must be the affordability of the Canon 5D arousing this debate.

Something I've wondered about though is the issue of Depth of Field. I have not seen this mentioned. Would the cropped sensor in a D200 give a significant advantage over a Canon 5D in macro photogaphy. I'm not sure what gain in DOF there is in the smaller sensor. Does anyone know?

1) I would not consider Nikon to be continuing support for the DX format if they just said - to use your DX lenses you can crop out the black corners in photoshop Personally, I would consider that lens useless!

2) We'll have to wait and see on viewfinders, but I think it is misleading to imply that a FF viewfinder is equivalent to a DX viewfinder behind a magnifier. While I do appreciate the FF viewfinder on land, the only on-camera viewfinder that compares with a Seacam (for an example I'm familiar with) viewfinder underwater would be an optional action finder like the one on the F series cameras, and even then I prefer the seacam on the regular viewfinder. Besides, there is more to a viewfinder than size. My D2x finder is MUCH brighter than my F100 finder, which partially makes up for its size. That said, I've seen neither the D200 nor the 5D.

Herb Ko recently made an excellent comparison and explanation of why a FF camera will have a brighter viewfinder and less noise. I hope he posts it here.

Cheers
James

Yep, my Ike housing is 23years old, I bought it in 1982. I am on my third dome (wide angle) and second (macro) port just because they get scratched. Keep the cover on them as much as possible. I would like to switch to digital soon but the expense is high, like about 5K which on the other hand is a nice trip. The two pics are from the liveaboard Star Dancer I have two strobes but one is a back up, I primarily use one strobe. In the photo it's hard to see the housing on the camera table but the DM took a pic of me with the setup underwater which it is rare for me to have a photo of myself/w camera.

Perhaps you should say - "A FF camera SHOULD have a brighter VF"
Clearly there are other factors. My F100 viewfinder was bigger but not brighter than the D2x.
Further, I think that bigger is more accurate than brighter - using the example of the F5 vs D1x, 2 cameras based on the same body, the VF in the D1x was just masked off from the F5. Hence, the size of the VF was affected, but not the brightness of objects in the frame. Obviously, the total amount of light would be less, but not the brightness of subject.

Well, from what I've been reading for the past month, this body seems like the next logical step for me from my D100.

When I figure the expense of a D2x body and Seacam housing, it's about $9,500. If I wait a few months for Seacam to offer the D200 housing, I bet I'll save about $4,000 on the body and housing combo, which is considerable in a rapidly changing technology.

For those that can't get enough of the D200, here is a new 45 page Nikon PDF about it:

http://members.chello.se/joniz/D200.pdf

With interesting autofocus system diagrams. Slow connection warning ===> 3mb PDF file.

[Warning]The following is a mental exercise from an armchair underwater photographer, e.g. me trying to understand optics based on theory. It's what I do to entertain myself while preparing for the big purchase and actually getting my feet wet. I hope to also see some comments from those that speak from experience[/warning]

DOF is a property of the lens, not the sensor. You can get higher magnification by digital cropping which has the advantage of not decreasing your DOF. If you do so by simple cropping, blowing up a subsection of the image, you of course don't gain resolution. If you would do it by making the pixels smaller so you can cram more pixels in a small sensor then you may actually gain resolution and thus have a sensor that is potentially better for Macro. This may be what you were refering to. The drawback is that smaller pixels lead to more noise so you'll have to find the right balance. In addition, there is no point in making the pixels much smaller than the "optical resolution" (the smallest features in the image projected on the sensor by the lens). According to theory a pixel size half the resolution of the optical image is best. I have the feeling that for good lenses the optical resolution is typically higher than the sensor resolution so you could indeed gain something with smaller pixels. However, if camera optics works the same as microscopes, then closing the aperture should lower resolution while gaining DOF. In a recent wetpixel posting, don't remember on which topic, it was mentioned for a macro lens that image quality degraded when closing the macrolens down beyond a certain F-stop. I wonder if that is the F-stop where the optical resolution and sensor resolution are properly matched. If so, then you would have to keep your aperture further open to benefit from smaller pixels, which means you'll be loosing DOF again. It seems you can't win with macro. If you want the detail and magnification then you'll have to handle the shallow DOF.

As I will stay faithful to Nikon, I am curious about D200 vs. D2X. I can't seem to justify the extra $3000 (although that difference will be far less once the D200 is out for a while).

To my knowledge the main differences are (except for price)

Multi-Cam 1000 vs. 2000
-I guess we have to wait for results in a month or so? correct?
construction
-D200 is smaller, lighter
-D200 is more durable
megapixels
-probably not a huge difference in actual resolution of the pictures

what else?


All of these little notes are tentative statements...up for debate

You answered your own question. If you can't justify it, get a D200!

Just heard from my Nikon distributor that D200 and 18-200VR will be officially released on Dec 15 worldwide. However, they don't expect to have the first delivery until Dec 19. I am not getting the D200 but has colleagues who are intereseted in it. However, I think I am going to get the 18-200VR for a smallish walk around end and retire my 18-70mm

Aquatica will have D200 housing ready early '06 with a very attractive price.
It will be based on the very successful D70 / 20D model that have proven very popular for its compact
size and easy to access buttons. The AD200 will also feature some of the new ideas incorporated into the New D2X like removable saddle
and spring loaded internal contact point that have made the AD2x the success that it has been.

For previous Aquatica housing users all current ports, extenions and gears work flawlessly with the new D200.
Look out for progress reports on this most anticipated housing.
If you are interested in getting on, contact your Aquatica dealer who are already taking pre-order.

Mauricio Handler

this weekend in Bangkok, there is a Photoshow exhibition and D200 was available for demonstration. It was a bit hard to judge AF performence as the lens on the camera again, is the 18-200VR AF-S. I am not sure how fast it would perform with 105mm +/- teleconverter but with AF-S lens, it is incredibly fast even under low light situation. The new macro ringflash also looks very nice. Wish I can house those
However most interesting thing I just found out is not related to D200 but it is something that has been mentioned here from time to time. Unfortunately again, I was told not to mention anything just yet but I expect by sometimes next year, an item on my wish list and on quite a few Nikon users' wish list will come true. Btw, I already am on the waiting list for it

Hi Boi,

Would you mind writing your nikon wish list down so I can take a guess on what is coming up next year. It would not be cheating this way, would'nt it ? LOL, .
What did you think of the 18-200VR ? Is that lens can be housed at all by any of the housing ?? (I'm about to buy the D200 ( I guess just ordering for right now), I'm still trying to decide on the lenses and when the housings start coming out on the housing and strobes.

Sylvie

Sylvie, As far as 18-200VR goes, I don't think that it will be a good candidate for underwater use. For one thing, minimum focusing distance is 50 cm so it won't be all that useful for macro unless you use strong diopter.
Secondly, port will be very tricky. When fully extended at 200mm end, it is about twice the length of the lens at 18mm lens. If you use flat port, you can pretty much use only the telephoto end as you will see part of the ports at wide angle end. If you use a domeport, when properly position for wide angle end , there won't be enough clearance in the dome for the lens to fully extend. So I think this will be pretty much a land lens only.

As far as my wish list, I think it is not hard to figure from my sig, certain items that are missing Nuff said before I get into trouble and they won't tell me anymore inside scoop

Do you know what I would really like from Nikon? Fast focusing long macros, something like AFS 105, 70-180 or 200 micros, these would be awesome, but I don't expect they will produce any.

Boi: I don't think you are missing anything in your sig! Come on, tell us the inside scoop Do you really think Nikon checks these forums? If they want an information to remain secret they won't tell anybody!

Careful Boi! They do check this forum!

Actually, I will take that back (the part that I said I didn't expect Nikon would produce my dream lenses). Here is a link that I just found on DPReview:

http://www.club-nikon.org/links/AFS105.htm

It is in Russian (or something like that), but you get the idea.

Luiz

I'd rather have an F2.8 AFS version of the 12-24mm. But that AFS macro lens would be nice too.

Alex

Luiz, luiz,

You might have win the guessing prize !!!!!
I don't see a 105 mm in Boi's list
If that is the case I might hold on a little while before I buy a 105 mm

Sylvie

Well, over here D200 will be available for pick up next week. Both D200 and 18-200DX are now in stock but the distributer here are not allowed release them until the rest of SE Asia get their stash as well. So officially Dec 19 for D200 and Dec 23rd for 18-200DX over here.

Alex, I am curious about your comment on F2.8 12-24mm. Practically I am not sure that I see the advantage, especially for UW use. For underwater use, I imagine that most of the time, you would need to set the F stop at F 7.1-9 or around about that but certainly more than F5.6 to get the entire virtual image on the dome in focus. Also being stuck at 1/320s shutterspeed when using strobe, I am not sure how handy F2.8 would be underwater.

At F9, I am not sure how much better the image from the F2.8 12-24mm would be over the current 12-24mm.

I suppose for topside use, it is a different story!

Hi Boi,

What I would really like is a top quality DX wide angle. The 12-24mm f4 is pretty much the equivalent of the AFD Nikon 18-35mm f3.5-f4.5. Although seemingly very similar to the 18-35 the Nikon 17-35mm AFS f2.8 is an amazing piece of glass, for many poeple Nikon's best ever lens. I would like the equivalent of this lens optically in a 12-24mm AFS.

So your right, it is not the aperture I want, but a 12-24mm with the same optical quality of the 17-35mm. Everytime I put that lens I my camera and see the results I am happy that I did. The sharpness and colours are astonishing.

Alex

So Alex you dream is to have
The 10,5mm and a 12-24 mm AFS f2.8? Will you not use the 16mm ??

I think a AFS lens from 12-35 would be a killer lens

I'd use the 16mm too. I'm just greedy. Optically the 16mm is very nice, and my favourite lens for filters. But I'd also like an optically superb zoom.

Alex

Alex,

All you need is a full frame Nikon camera and then you can use that fabulous lens! Ah, to dream, eh?

Cheers
James

I know, James. Would be nice. But then all my macro lenses would be wrong!

Alex

Except for the Sigma 150mm. It's a great lens especially with the 500D.

Cheers
James

Alex, I think your dream will break my bank account. F4 12-24mm is already expensive enough (considering price increase from F3.5-4.5D 18-35 to F2.8 17-35) and I wonder how big would the lens be.

Now I can see, a FF Nikon (hopefully with D2X body) to use for wide angle and keep the D2X for macro so you can still use the same housing and just switch otu the body/lens as needed! I think I like this dream but it might just cost one of my kidney!

I think the only need for full frame would be for more resolution, say up to 20MP, as I think the DX format is limited to 15MP. I am not convinced that Nikon would solve the corner sharpness issues with wide angles any better than Canon. So I would only consider going full frame if I really needed ~20MP.

Also I think that the 10.5mm on DX is a better lens than the 16mm on FF. And as this is my main lens I would have to think very carefully about it. A wide angle rectilinear is a lens I would use less than 5% of the time anyway.

I would like to dream like Boi that Nikon might make a full frame camera in the D2 chassis. But I don't believe it. But I do think that when they go FF they will give the camera a DX crop mode.

Alex