Nikon D300

[Johnny Boy]

you've even!

[BJ]

As I have already got 2 x Fuji S2 Pro and 2 x Nikon D200, (Oh, and a D2X), I've rushed out and ordered a D400!
Since I got the new software, lots of my old shots on film that were consigned to the scrap heap are now usable too!

[GLOC]

John, I am interested in your comparison of the S2 vs the D200. One thing I really like about the D200 I played with (Martin Edge's) was the large LCD screen on the back and the fact that the histogram was easily accessible compared to the S2.

What housings do you use? I am going to start looking for an A200 Aquatica housing and then move up once I have that. Easier to get bodies than housings.

[Tim Ingmire]

Hey Gareth - take a look at the Nexus D200 housing - if you have Inon 240 strobes you can link up with the optical cables and that gives you TTL - maybe not much use for the majority of your work but a great help when you need it.

[GLOC]

Originally Posted by Tim Ingmire

Hey Gareth - take a look at the Nexus D200 housing - if you have Inon 240 strobes you can link up with the optical cables and that gives you TTL - maybe not much use for the majority of your work but a great help when you need it.

Thanks Tim, I now have one DS125 and depending on what Ikelite say about the 2 x SS200s I have back with them being repaired, I might have some more DS125s

However, as you say, for most of my work I wouldn't benefit from TTL as I shoot manual and play with the strobe power/aperture/shutter speed to get the right balance.

Thanks for thinking of me.

[BJ]

Originally Posted by GLOC

John, I am interested in your comparison of the S2 vs the D200. One thing I really like about the D200 I played with (Martin Edge's) was the large LCD screen on the back and the fact that the histogram was easily accessible compared to the S2.

What housings do you use? I am going to start looking for an A200 Aquatica housing and then move up once I have that. Easier to get bodies than housings.

The viewfinder and LCD are far bigger and far superior on the D200. However, the image on the LCD of the Fuji gives a real indication of what you will get regarding exposure whereas the D200 gives a best representation of the image which can lead to disappointment. I always shoot in RAW so it matters less but I assume this could be crucial if shooting jpegs. I still use the Fuji for all the product shots you see in Diver.

As for a housing, I have a cupboard full and, apart from the Subal that has a tendency to let its big dome port rotate with disastrous consequences (twice), I am not choosy. I use a Sea & Sea with an optical glass dome port with a D200 because it was the only one available off the shelf when I wanted it.

[GLOC]

Originally Posted by BJ

The viewfinder and LCD are far bigger and far superior on the D200. However, the image on the LCD of the Fuji gives a real indication of what you will get regarding exposure whereas the D200 gives a best representation of the image which can lead to disappointment. I always shoot in RAW so it matters less but I assume this could be crucial if shooting jpegs. I still use the Fuji for all the product shots you see in Diver.

I am interested in this John. Does this mean that you can't change the brightness of the LCD like you can in the S2 and therefore WYSIWYG. That would sound like not a very good design. I personally shoot in RAW as it does allow more flexibility and I have 2Gb cards, so file size isn't an issue.

Originally Posted by BJ

As for a housing, I have a cupboard full and apart from the Subal that has a tendency to let its big dome port rotate with disastrous consequences (twice).

I nearly had this with my S2 on Scimitar when the dome port unwound itself due to being knocked by the strobes as I was about to jump in. Solved the issue by putting some cave-line in one of the dome shade holes and then clipping that the housing handle. This now means the port cannot unwind itself and cause me an expensive problem.

[BJ]

You can adjust the LCD brightness but it does seem to make every image look good on the LCD regardless of how it looks on the RAW converter.

[Tim Ingmire]

Is this anything to do with the fact that the camera display a jpg equivalent on the screen converted with it's own converter? It seems that very often when you produce RAW+jpgs the jpgs are better overall than you can achieve using any adobe Raw converter. Also seems to be true when using Nikon software to do the conversion vs Adobe et al.

Am I making sense?

[Cussy]

AIUI a Nikon NEF includes a small jpeg/bitmap, which is used for quick display on the lcd and in Windows/OS.
Rob
PS I saw a D300 today in Jessops, next a D80 it looked significantly bigger. Couldn't be arsed to ask one of the monkeys in the shop if I could have a closer look......