Nikkon D80

[SDB66521]

Hi, Does anyone out there use a D80 underwater? I'm thinking of a D80, 10.5 fisheye lens and hugyfot housing. any one any experience of this set up?
steve

[BJ]

Excellent!

[Cussy]

Steve,
I've got a D80 in Ikelite housing with Tokina 10-17 and Sigma 50 and 105. Fantastic camera.

On a dive last month with Tim Ingmire he had a 10.5 on his D70. He wasn't too happy as the "always" wide was a problem when we could get close to Pike. The ability to zoom to 17 definitely was an advantage for me. I had the same in the Red Sea. This sort of flexibility may make it worth looking at the Tokina.

The D80 was my first DSLR, so nothing else to compare it too. In comparison to my Olympus C7070 it's fantastic. Easy to use, quick to change what needs to be changed, can be temperamental at manual WB underwater, nice burst speed and big buffer which allows quick shooting, (depending on lens) very quick focus with no shutter lag, feels robust, 10MP is plenty. Only thing it lacks in my opinion is the sensor cleaner of the D300.

Hugyfot look nice, but whenever they're asked about on here or Digigreen the reply tends to be slightly negative as there is no UK rep to fall back on.
HTH,
Rob

PS there's an Ike D200 housing on eBay at the moment

[Bardo]

Originally Posted by BJ

Excellent!

Seconded! A very, very nice setup - like Cussy said, though, you might want to consider a wide angle zoom instead as it'll give you more flexibility. I know GLOC uses a Sigma 10-20mm with his Fuji S2Pro and the results I've seen from it look very impressive!

[Cussy]

Originally Posted by Bardo

I know GLOC uses a Sigma 10-20mm with his Fuji S2Pro and the results I've seen from it look very impressive!

I think I'd be right in saying that the Sigma is a rectilinear lens, so at the 10mm end it's probably similar as the Tokina fisheye at 17mm. What I find with the Tokina is it behaves a bit like a 10mm fisheye to rectilinear. The Nikon 10.5 is a fisheye and very wide.

[GLOC]

Correct Cussy.

The reason why I chose the 10-20 is because I also wanted to use the lens for topside wedding photography (not that you get much underwater wedding work!!) so a fish eye wasn't something that I wanted.

Might need to meet up somewhere and try the 10-17 and see what that is like.

Regards

[pauldiving]

has anyone had any dealings with the d300?

i just got a d40x but im liking this new one.......

[Cussy]

Originally Posted by GLOC

The reason why I chose the 10-20 is because I also wanted to use the lens for topside wedding photography (not that you get much underwater wedding work!!) so a fish eye wasn't something that I wanted.

At a friend of mine's wedding the photographer used a Nikon 10.5. I thought this was either 1) brave or 2) totally insane!! The last thing you want is to make the brides arse look even bigger. In fairness the shots he did were stunning, so I conclude it was brave - afterall the difference between bravery and stupidity is survival.


As for D300, don't think there are any housings yet for it or the D3.

[pauldiving]

no i need a d300 topside,

no lens would make a brides as look bigger! the ass is big and if its not big on the big day it will get bigger.......

[Cussy]

Originally Posted by pauldiving

no i need a d300 topside,

If it helps, this is the most comprehensive, non-bias review I've seen Nikon D300 Review