But the 24-70mm f/2.8 wouldn't be. Point and shoots do it, the Olympue E-3 Dslr comes strikingly close to it... A fisheye is not the only lens you could use, even though it is the most practical at 15 meters down. Not everyone is Clark Little. Now If nikon had a 10-70mm f/2.8 i can see it not being worth it but the possibilities of a waterproof body are endless, and I watch friends with waterproof P&S's exercise that creativity often. But the Idea is based on the concept of not just snapshooting underwater but being able to actually compose a shot underwater(to an extent) and to have the ability photograph more than what you think the lens will see. Most housings do not have that ability, whereas a special eyepiece that could rest on your mask could. Pressure could brought in on a Grip like attachment. Again the idea is more based on creating a more useful tool than on slightly improving what we have...

People laughed at AF when minolta released it, people laughed at olympus when Live view came out... Even if the camera wasn't submersible the idea of a watertight body is very practical for any out of the studio situation. Rain may not kill a D3 but a good splash has the potential to. Why fight a good Idea before it is even tested, although I can see your point, to an extent, if money was to be invested in it...

kyoshinikon said:
That is like saying telephoto lenses are useless on a hike and only bring a fisheye! Remember the beginning of this ( http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nXN7jlXePYA&feature=player_embedded ) there are more uses for a watertight SLR than Scuba Diving... As to the mount I'm referring to a sealed mount adapter that can be attached to the F mount in which the lens is mounted to an additional mount inside the case that mounts to the Fmount (the case would need a correction lens in it. Admit it, if they could make a system of this type, this would be much more impressive than the 16-35mm f/4... Point and shoots can, the Olympus E-3 DSLR comes very close... nikon has made cameras to go everywhere in the 1900's now all they do is thumb around with crap they already have... and Ashton Kutcher.

The post was not so directed at creating a costly Idea but to see what the response (cynical probably like the board at nikon) was to a unique idea. Nikon isn't doing anything to rapidly boost their sales or expand their market because of this modern mentality where a upgrade is from VrI to VrII and Ashton Kutcher represents Nikkonians is considered a BIG (unrisky) thing. I will not be impressed when the 70-200mm f/2.8 VrIII super nanocoated lens comes out in the distant future;The current one (rather new) works good enough!

OMG, that chica was so hot. . .and how she held that D3s, WOAH nelly. . .

I'm going to go buy one now. . . .(I'll have to say though, the video image quality in low light is AMAZING!!)

You don't need a Nikonos camera to shoot the beginning of that movie Kyoshi. Just a simple waterproof housing. I'm talking about actually using the camera several meters underwater. A telephoto like the 70-200mm is useless there.

That is like saying telephoto lenses are useless on a hike and only bring a fisheye! Remember the beginning of this ( http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nXN7jlXePYA&feature=player_embedded ) there are more uses for a watertight SLR than Scuba Diving... As to the mount I'm referring to a sealed mount adapter that can be attached to the F mount in which the lens is mounted to an additional mount inside the case that mounts to the Fmount (the case would need a correction lens in it. Admit it, if they could make a system of this type, this would be much more impressive than the 16-35mm f/4... Point and shoots can, the Olympus E-3 DSLR comes very close... nikon has made cameras to go everywhere in the 1900's now all they do is thumb around with crap they already have... and Ashton Kutcher.

The post was not so directed at creating a costly Idea but to see what the response (cynical probably like the board at nikon) was to a unique idea. Nikon isn't doing anything to rapidly boost their sales or expand their market because of this modern mentality where a upgrade is from VrI to VrII and Ashton Kutcher represents Nikkonians is considered a BIG (unrisky) thing. I will not be impressed when the 70-200mm f/2.8 VrIII super nanocoated lens comes out in the distant future;The current one (rather new) works good enough!

Unless you live in a pineapple under the sea, why would you want to change lenses underwater?!? All you need is a good wide angle or a uh... fisheye lens. Telephoto lenses are useless underwater.

kyoshinikon said:
There is no chance (or no possibility that nikon is or could be working on the idea at all)I merely stated the 0% to say that the idea doesn't exist at nikon. The reason I brought it up in the first place is that I find water housings impractical as they don't work well from land to water and back to land, they don't allow you to comfortably handle your camera underwater as you would on land or with a point and shoot, and you cannot interchange lenses underwater with most housing systems making it harder to get the shots you want. Also housing systems often limit the control you have over all of your settings.

Unless a housing is absolutely massive, or it has some special air lock system to keep water out, there's no way you're changing lenses underwater. I guess you could do something like a revolver and keep lenses on this weird rotating barrel thingy, but that'd be pretty massive on its own too. And that would also mean you're definitely not working with a F mount anymore either.

There is no chance (or no possibility that nikon is or could be working on the idea at all)I merely stated the 0% to say that the idea doesn't exist at nikon. The reason I brought it up in the first place is that I find water housings impractical as they don't work well from land to water and back to land, they don't allow you to comfortably handle your camera underwater as you would on land or with a point and shoot, and you cannot interchange lenses underwater with most housing systems making it harder to get the shots you want. Also housing systems often limit the control you have over all of your settings.

Willis said:
"about 0%"

So your saying there's a chance!

"Like... 1 in 100?"

"More like 1 in a million."

"SO YOU'RE SAYING THERE'S A CHANCE!"

there are plenty of underwater housings, so who cares about D3w

Why bother, when it would be cheaper just to get the underwater housing for the D3?

"about 0%"

So your saying there's a chance!

If nikon was to create a D3w (a fully waterproof D3) that had a system where instead of mounting specialized lenses (like that old nikkonos underwater system) you would mount any lens inside of a plastic shell (a few sizes of shells) that mounted onto the body allowing any lens of a certain size to be mounted to the body and taken underwater.... Would you buy it? If not a D3 how about a D700/D300/D90? Also due to the nature of this site the probability of this being a rumor with any ground is about 0%...