 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| PhotoKB HomeDiscussion Groups Digital Photography Digital PhotoDSLR CamerasZLR CamerasPoint & Shoot CamerasFilm Photography 35 mmLarge FormatMedium formatDarkroomFilm and LabsOther EquipmentPhoto Technique Nature PhotographyPeople PhotographyTechnique GeneralGeneral Photo Topics General TopicsAustralian PhotographyUK PhotographyDirectoryPhoto Clubs |
Photo Forum / Digital Photography / DSLR Cameras / August 2007Nikon blast - good news!
As you all know by now, Nikon have hit one out of the park by putting up two new FF sensored bodies. This is great news for everyone as now Canon has a most serious competitor in the pro machines. Some or many will lament or torment over the comparatively low 12 Mpix of these machines in the light of the 1 Ds Mk III from Canon. But all those folks with the classic great glass such as the Nikkor 17-35 (eh Matt?!) will rejoice to get their WA's back in full action. Congratulations to Nikon and Nikon users! (Oh, and for you DX lens owners, tough sh.t). Cheers, Alan.  Signature-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm -- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm -- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin -- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch. > As you all know by now, Nikon have hit one out of the park by putting up > two new FF sensored bodies. This is great news for everyone as now > Canon has a most serious competitor in the pro machines. Oops... 1 FF machine. Sorry. > Some or many will lament or torment over the comparatively low 12 Mpix > of these machines in the light of the 1 Ds Mk III from Canon. But all [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > Cheers, > Alan. Signature-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm -- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm -- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin -- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch. >> As you all know by now, Nikon have hit one out of the park by putting up >> two new FF sensored bodies. This is great news for everyone as now Canon >> has a most serious competitor in the pro machines. > > Oops... 1 FF machine. Sorry. Yeah, that Polson set me up to think the D300 would have a (near) ff sensor--dang you Tony! I was all set to spend way too much money on yet another camera, wife be damned. I really like my D200, though, so I'll get over it soon enough. Finest built camera I've ever owned. (And no DX in the stable yet--I'm going to hold out for the D400, with its lovely full frame sensor... ;-) Signaturewww.mattclara.com On Aug 23, 7:29 pm, Alan Browne <alan.bro...@Freelunchvideotron.ca> wrote: > As you all know by now, Nikon have hit one out of the park by putting up > two new FF sensored bodies. This is great news for everyone as now [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > Cheers, > Alan. Only to find out those old film lenses just do not cut the mustard (as Canon found out) with FF SENSORS. Get ready to scrap LOTS of old glass if you buy that D3. > Only to find out those old film lenses just do not cut the mustard (as > Canon found out) with FF SENSORS. > Get ready to scrap LOTS of old glass if you buy that D3. NONSENSE! Canon users were forced to use the classic Nikkors of their FF bodies. The D3 will not change this. Rita On Aug 23, 8:06 pm, Rita ? Berkowitz <ritaberk2O04 @aol.com> wrote: > > Only to find out those old film lenses just do not cut the mustard (as > > Canon found out) with FF SENSORS. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Rita Start grabbing them now then, because the prices are about to jump! On Aug 23, 8:06 pm, Rita Ä Berkowitz <ritaberk2O04 @aol.com> wrote: > RichA wrote: > > Only to find out those old film lenses just do not cut the mustard (as [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > Rita Start grabbing them now then, because the prices are about to jump! You HAVE to be a politician or a broker, say one thing at 18:58 and the complete oposite at 19:39... >> Only to find out those old film lenses just do not cut the mustard (as >> Canon found out) with FF SENSORS. >> Get ready to scrap LOTS of old glass if you buy that D3. > > NONSENSE! Canon users were forced to use the classic Nikkors of their FF > bodies. The D3 will not change this. Canon users found that the classic Nikons were no better than Canon glass. The folks who can't figure out how to stop down to f/11 throw money at the problem and use the Leica R19 and the Zeiss 21/2.8. The rest of us simply get great images with the 17-40. David J. Littleboy Tokyo, Japan > On Aug 23, 7:29 pm, Alan Browne <alan.bro...@Freelunchvideotron.ca> > wrote: [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > Canon found out) with FF SENSORS. > Get ready to scrap LOTS of old glass if you buy that D3. You forget several things: The FF performance of many is known by using Nikkor lenses via eos adapters on Canon full-frame or Kodak dslr cameras anyway. The performance of the Nikkors - even the old ones - on the Nikon D3 will be better than on the Canon or Kodak because either in camera, or using Capture NX in pp raw, automatic correction for lateral CAs is possible. (The D300 has the same in-camera automatic lateral CA correction) The D3 is the sports / pj's cam "only" 12mp. A higher MP full frame camera will come. > > On Aug 23, 7:29 pm, Alan Browne <alan.bro...@Freelunchvideotron.ca> > > wrote: [quoted text clipped - 31 lines] > The D3 is the sports / pj's cam "only" 12mp. A higher MP > full frame camera will come. But remember the DX2's resolution? In some instances, almost as good as Canon's 16 meg FF. What if this new one is even sharper? >>> On Aug 23, 7:29 pm, Alan Browne <alan.bro...@Freelunchvideotron.ca> >>> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] > But remember the DX2's resolution? In some instances, almost as good > as Canon's 16 meg FF. What if this new one is even sharper? Why wouldn't you expect the d2x be "almost as good as Canon's 16 meg ff" in the right conditions? So long as it's not at an aperture where it's diffraction limited, so long as the iso is low enough not to lose detail from NR, so long as you're shooting in the sweet spot of the lens, then 12mp/16mp is nothing. In the right conditions, then the D2x performed wonderfully. At high iso, the FF canons killed it. Nikon's now killed the D2x/s stone dead. They just replaced a $4k camera with a $1.8k one. > >>> On Aug 23, 7:29 pm, Alan Browne <alan.bro...@Freelunchvideotron.ca> > >>> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 38 lines] > it. Nikon's now killed the D2x/s stone dead. They just > replaced a $4k camera with a $1.8k one. Well, all things being equal, 12 meg does not = 16 meg. However, looking back on the tests of the D2X, it did match the Canon sometimes when it came to resolution. In-part, I think, thanks to a weaker AA filter. It will be interesting to see if Nikon's new 12 meg is as sharp as the D2X was in all circumstances. Camera companies often shift course in mid-stream, such as what Panasonic did with it's P&Ss when it came to noise versus resolution. Nikon (Olympus as well)are now concentrating on controlling chroma noise rather than going after luminance noise as much, because luminance noise isn't ugly. >>>>> On Aug 23, 7:29 pm, Alan Browne <alan.bro...@Freelunchvideotron.ca> >>>>> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 37 lines] > > Well, all things being equal, 12 meg does not = 16 meg. Sort of true, but I'd defy you to tell the difference in a print at any size between 12 and 16mp, unless it's a print of a photo of a test chart. > Only to find out those old film lenses just do not cut the mustard > (as Canon found out) with FF SENSORS. Get ready to scrap LOTS of > old glass if you buy that D3. Nonsense. I've already tested my old Nikkors om FX digital, and they are just fine. Here is the good ole' Nikkor 14mm fully open (f/2.8). Corner sharpness is adequate (and gets better when I stop down, and vignetting a non-issue): http://foto.no/cgi-bin/bildegalleri/vis_bilde.cgi?id=319177 Signature- gisle hannemyr [ gisle{at}hannemyr.no - http://hannemyr.com/photo/ ] >> Only to find out those old film lenses just do not cut the mustard >> (as Canon found out) with FF SENSORS. Get ready to scrap LOTS of [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > vignetting a non-issue): > http://foto.no/cgi-bin/bildegalleri/vis_bilde.cgi?id=319177 You need to put up an image with more detail in the corners on the focus plane in order to make corner sharpness assertions. And post full size crops from those corners too. Signature-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm -- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm -- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin -- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch. On Aug 25, 10:31 am, Alan Browne <alan.bro...@Freelunchvideotron.ca> wrote: > >> Only to find out those old film lenses just do not cut the mustard > >> (as Canon found out) with FF SENSORS. Get ready to scrap LOTS of [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > plane in order to make corner sharpness assertions. And post full size > crops from those corners too. There is likely little doubt Nikon is going "telecentric" with it's new lenses. They'd be crazy otherwise. For Canon? Who knows what they'll do. >Nonsense. I've already tested my old Nikkors om FX digital, and they You have _already_ tested on FX digital? A __ Nikon __ FX format D3? How did you manage to do that? Father Kodak >> Nonsense. I've already tested my old Nikkors om FX digital > You have _already_ tested on FX digital? A __ Nikon __ FX format D3? > How did you manage to do that? I posted a link to an image. I suggest you take a look at the EXIF. Signature- gisle hannemyr [ gisle{at}hannemyr.no - http://hannemyr.com/photo/ ] ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Sigma SD10, Kodak DCS460, Canon Powershot G5, Olympus 2020Z ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > I posted a link to an image. I suggest you take a look at the EXIF. Kodak DCS Pro 14N http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/14N/14NA.HTM Review First Posted: 03/23/2003 MSRP $4,995 US 13.7 megapixel CMOS Full-frame sensor Compatible with most current Nikon F-mount lenses and accessories. ISO from 80 to 800 >> >> [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] >Compatible with most current Nikon F-mount lenses and accessories. >ISO from 80 to 800 Considering all the issues with Kodak DCS cameras, is this even a reliable test? Can you separate out lens defects from sensor-induced defects? A while ago, I considered getting a DCS camera for near-term usage, until responses to a question about this resulted in very negative comments. Father Kodak >>>>> Nonsense. I've already tested my old Nikkors om FX digital >>>> You have _already_ tested on FX digital? A __ Nikon __ FX format D3? >>>> How did you manage to do that? >>> I posted a link to an image. I suggest you take a look at the EXIF. >> Kodak DCS Pro 14N >> http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/14N/14NA.HTM [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >> Compatible with most current Nikon F-mount lenses and accessories. >> ISO from 80 to 800 > Considering all the issues with Kodak DCS cameras, is this even a > reliable test? What issues are you talking about? (Ok, it won't set any speed records, nor is it much good above ISO 160, but if you handle it correctly, the IQ is outstanding.) > Can you separate out lens defects from sensor-induced defects? Well, I haven't come across and "sensor-induced defects", so that is a non-issue for me. > A while ago, I considered getting a DCS camera for near-term usage, > until responses to a question about this resulted in very negative > comments. Was this responses from actual owners of the camera, or from the brand-zealots that seem to be all over the Internet, and whose main purpose in life is to criticise equipment that they've never owned nor used? Signature- gisle hannemyr [ gisle{at}hannemyr.no - http://hannemyr.com/photo/ ] >What issues are you talking about? (Ok, it won't set any speed >records, nor is it much good above ISO 160, but if you handle it >correctly, the IQ is outstanding.) The "Italian flag" for one. Severe color banding that resembled the colors of this flag. There were other issues, but the takeaway was that this was a good camera only for a studio or other setting with well-controlled lighting. My photography is mostly outdoors, and a lot of it is under "available darkness." I got this information after asking a sincere question and getting replies from current and former owners of these cameras. Aside from these issues, ISO 160 is way too slow for me. Of course, your own experience may be different, but it's always dangerous to extrapolate from your own experiences. >Was this responses from actual owners of the camera, or from the >brand-zealots that seem to be all over the Internet, and whose main >purpose in life is to criticise equipment that they've never owned >nor used? See above. Hey, I don't appreciate being jumped on over this issue. About 12-15 months ago, I asked a _sincere_ question and got presumably sincere answers. That was enough to dissuade me from buying a used DCS camera, even the latest versions. The fact that Kodak no longer manufactured these cameras was also an issue. I was concerned about support. Father Kodak >> What issues are you talking about? (Ok, it won't set any speed >> records, nor is it much good above ISO 160, but if you handle it >> correctly, the IQ is outstanding.) > The "Italian flag" for one. Severe color banding that resembled the > colors of this flag. Interesting. I've never seen this defect. > There were other issues, but the takeaway was that this was a good > camera only for a studio or other setting with well-controlled [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > of these cameras. Aside from these issues, ISO 160 is way too slow > for me. It certainly isn't a low-light camera, so if that is what you were looking for, not getting it is probably the wise thing (the newer SLR/n is a bit better in this respect than the old 14n, which is the model I use, but it is still not a "available drakness camera"). > Of course, your own experience may be different, but it's always > dangerous to extrapolate from your own experiences. Yes, but the point we debate here (see the Subject line) is whether present Nikon users will have to replace their existing lineup of non-DX Nikkor glass to use the new D3 digital model, and my point was simply that judging from my own personal experience with old Nikkors on my Kodak 14n body - which also has a FX-sized sensor - it that old glass work fine on this format. You then started to argue that because of all the "issues" with the sensor in the Kodak, it is supposedly useless for evaluating how these lenses perform on an FX-size digital sensor. My point is that these "issues", to the extent thay exist, are avoidable, so, yes, you can use this camera to judge the suitability of a lens on a FX-sized digital sensor. Ok? > Hey, I don't appreciate being jumped on over this issue. Nobody has jumped you. I simply responded to the points you raised with respect to my opinion about the usability of old Nikkors on the D3. > About 12-15 months ago, I asked a _sincere_ question and got > presumably sincere answers. That was enough to dissuade me from > buying a used DCS camera, even the latest versions. Which was probably the right thing to do, if you wanted a camera for available light. That doesn't mean that the camera can't be used to see how old Nikkors perform at various apertures, given that there is enough light to shoot at ISO 80. > The fact that Kodak no longer manufactured these cameras was also an > issue. I was concerned about support. Support may become a problem at one point, but currently, there are a number of workshops, official and un-official, that repair these cameras. I had to replace a shutter about two months ago, and that was not a problem. However, the prices at eBay for these models are falling, and it is probably only a matter of time before it will be more expensive to repair than to replace. Signature- gisle hannemyr [ gisle{at}hannemyr.no - http://hannemyr.com/photo/ ] ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Sigma SD10, Kodak DCS 14n, Canon Powershot G5, Olympus 2020Z ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > (Oh, and for you DX lens owners, tough sh.t). Not really. The D3 will recognize DX lenses and effectively crop its sensor to suit. Nikon thinks of everything. Neil > Not really. The D3 will recognize DX lenses and effectively crop its sensor > to suit. > > Nikon thinks of everything. Did Nikon allow that feature to be disabled, in case one wants to get the circular set of pixels beyond the DX crop? By definition, some of the discarded pixels would be closer to the center of the image circle than others in the corners of the frame. And some photographers may enjoy a slightly larger frame despite the additional vignetting, and that might even provide a reminder from today's technology to pictures produced by cameras a century ago. :) >> Not really. The D3 will recognize DX lenses and effectively crop its >> sensor [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Did Nikon allow that feature to be disabled, in case one wants to > get the circular set of pixels beyond the DX crop? Dunno; the description I read didn't say. > By definition, > some of the discarded pixels would be closer to the center of the > image circle than others in the corners of the frame. And some > photographers may enjoy a slightly larger frame despite the > additional vignetting, and that might even provide a reminder from > today's technology to pictures produced by cameras a century ago. :) That's true. . . . It's all hypothetical for me anyway -- I ain't buyin' no dang D3. ;-) I don't think I'll live long enough to exhaust the capabilities of my D80, to tell you the truth. Neil > It's all hypothetical for me anyway -- I ain't buyin' no dang D3. ;-) Nor I. No matter how nice, it's well outside my size and weight budget. > I don't think I'll live long enough to exhaust the capabilities of my D80, > to tell you the truth. True, and the same may be true for my D50, but I still wouldn't complain if a firmware upgrade added some D80, D200 or D300 features. Not long after buying a P&S in 2004 I planned to upgrade to a Nikon DSLR in 2 1/2 to 3 years, and 3 years later that's just what happened when I bought the D50. At that time, my new plan stayed about the same, to upgrade to a D90 or D300 after another 2 1/2 to 3 years. Unlike some of the older DSLR chauvinists, I wouldn't mind at all having the new dual optical/live view system. >> I don't think I'll live long enough to exhaust the capabilities of my >> D80, [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > 1/2 to 3 years. Unlike some of the older DSLR chauvinists, I > wouldn't mind at all having the new dual optical/live view system. I haven't really thought about that feature much, since I already have the Coolpix 8400, 8700 and 8800 which I imagine do the "live view" thing at least as well as any DSLR is likely to do. I don't feel the need for having both view systems in the same camera. But I don't really know anything about that newfangled business and might change my mind about it if I did. Basically, anything that isn't a) in my price range and b) made by Nikon, isn't likely to be of much interest to me. For the present I guess I'm in the "older DSLR chauvinist" camp. :-) Neil > I haven't really thought about that feature much, since I already > have the Coolpix 8400, 8700 and 8800 which I imagine do the "live [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > in my price range and b) made by Nikon, isn't likely to be of much > interest to me. I played with the live view feature a little bit and it really isn't all it's cracked up to be. First off, you will be doing manual focus even with Canon lens, which really isn't a problem for me. They warn you about overheating the sensor if you use it too long. It is recommended you use it with a tripod. It might be great for static objects when shooting macro on a set of slides. Bottom line, it's a novelty feature. If you need true live view buy a P&S or hook up a video cam to the viewfinder. Heat = noise. Rita > If you need true live view buy a P&S or hook up a video cam > to the viewfinder. What's needed are good pictures, not live view or any other feature. But if a feature helps get shots (such as macros, or by boosting brightness when it might be too dark to see well with an optical vf), it may be a boon for the needy. > Heat = noise. RichA must be a really hot guy. :) >> I haven't really thought about that feature much, since I already >> have the Coolpix 8400, 8700 and 8800 which I imagine do the "live [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > it's cracked up to be. First off, you will be doing manual focus even with > Canon lens, which really isn't a problem for me. The new Nikons have 2 live view AF modes, one that drops the mirror for a moment & one that uses the sensor & is slower. > They warn you about > overheating the sensor if you use it too long. It is recommended you [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Heat = noise. SignaturePaul Furman Photography http://edgehill.net Bay Natives Nursery http://www.baynatives.com >> I played with the live view feature a little bit and it really isn't >> all it's cracked up to be. First off, you will be doing manual >> focus even with Canon lens, which really isn't a problem for me. > > The new Nikons have 2 live view AF modes, one that drops the mirror > for a moment & one that uses the sensor & is slower. Interesting. I would like to see how well this works in the real world and how practical it is to use. When in crowded situations where I need to hold the camera over my head I would point it in the general direction and let the camera and luck take over. Live view might have helped in that situation if it performed seamlessly, which I suspect it won't. This feature wouldn't be a deal maker or breaker for me. Rita >> (Oh, and for you DX lens owners, tough sh.t). > > Not really. The D3 will recognize DX lenses and effectively crop its sensor > to suit. > > Nikon thinks of everything. Making the D3 able to accept "DX" is not exactly rocket science. My point was that those who skimped on FF lenses to get DX now have DX lenses that will vignette (or auto-crop?) in the camera. These lenses will stay in the bag ... or at home ... or on e-bay. OTOH: I would bet that most who will shell out for a D3 don't even own DX glass... Cheers, Alan Signature-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm -- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm -- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin -- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch. >OTOH: I would bet that most who will shell out for a D3 don't even own >DX glass... That strikes me as odd. What do they have as an alternative to the 12-24? (I assume that it will be mostly D2H/D2X users that upgrade to the D3). SignatureThat was it. Done. The faulty Monk was turned out into the desert where it could believe what it liked, including the idea that it had been hard done by. It was allowed to keep its horse, since horses were so cheap to make. -- Douglas Adams in Dirk Gently's Holistic Detective Agency >> OTOH: I would bet that most who will shell out for a D3 don't even >> own DX glass... > That strikes me as odd. What do they have as an alternative to the > 12-24? The 12-24mm f/4.0 DX on an D2x or a D2H will give you a FOV equivalent of FX 18-36mm. On FX, your alternatives are the new Nikkor 14-24mm f/2.8 G ED AF-S, the Mikkor 14 mm f/2.8 ED, and the legendary Nikkor 17-35mm f/2.8 D AF-S. I.e. the FX body will give you a wider a FOV and also a faster lens. > (I assume that it will be mostly D2H/D2X users that upgrade to the > D3). Probably, plus a bunch of Canon 1D and 1Ds owners that already own the Nikkor 17-35mm f/2.8 D AF-S and will trade up to the D3 and sell their F-to-EF-adapters adapters on eBay. Signature- gisle hannemyr [ gisle{at}hannemyr.no - http://hannemyr.com/photo/ ] > Probably, plus a bunch of Canon 1D and 1Ds owners that already own the > Nikkor 17-35mm f/2.8 D AF-S and will trade up to the D3 and sell their > F-to-EF-adapters adapters on eBay. LOL! Rita >> OTOH: I would bet that most who will shell out for a D3 don't even own >> DX glass... > > That strikes me as odd. What do they have as an alternative to the 12-24? Good point. But those who were forced to buy the chintzy little f/4 will rush back to the 17-35 f/2.8 that's been languishing in crop-land. Signature-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm -- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm -- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin -- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch. >>> OTOH: I would bet that most who will shell out for a D3 don't even own >>> DX glass... [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >Good point. But those who were forced to buy the chintzy little f/4 >will rush back to the 17-35 f/2.8 that's been languishing in crop-land. There's no 'rushing back to'. The 17-35 is excellent, even on DX cameras. :-) SignatureThat was it. Done. The faulty Monk was turned out into the desert where it could believe what it liked, including the idea that it had been hard done by. It was allowed to keep its horse, since horses were so cheap to make. -- Douglas Adams in Dirk Gently's Holistic Detective Agency >> Good point. But those who were forced to buy the chintzy little f/4 >> will rush back to the 17-35 f/2.8 that's been languishing in >> crop-land. > > There's no 'rushing back to'. The 17-35 is excellent, even on DX > cameras. :-) You got it. It is a solid performer that will be with us a very long time. Rita >>>> OTOH: I would bet that most who will shell out for a D3 don't even own >>>> DX glass... [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > There's no 'rushing back to'. The 17-35 is excellent, even on DX cameras. :-) ... all in the context of WA of course ... Signature-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm -- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm -- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin -- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch. >>> (Oh, and for you DX lens owners, tough sh.t). >> [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > will vignette (or auto-crop?) in the camera. These lenses will stay in > the bag ... or at home ... or on e-bay. Far more likely, they will just stay on DX cameras. I for one have no interest whatever in FF. Going to full frame would be analogous to going to medium format from 35mm. Obviously some people did exactly that, professionals mostly and a few serious amateurs as well -- but 35mm still ruled the roost for several decades before digital came along. Neither Nikon nor Canon ever showed any real interest in entering the medium format market, did they? My guess is that the *only* reason they're both making FF cameras now is that there are already so many of their lenses out there that will cover that format, and of course as we've seen here, there are some folks (probably a fraction of one percent of all users) who keep demanding FF cameras thinking there's some real benefit to them. For the vast majority of camera buyers out there, there won't be any real benefit. And they will know it. So FF cameras will remain niche products, too expensive to attract any but a few buyers. DX (and approximate equivalents) will be the standard for nearly all consumers just as 35mm was. There you have it, Harrington's Famous Predictions #3278. Neil On Aug 23, 4:29 pm, Alan Browne <alan.bro...@Freelunchvideotron.ca> wrote: > Congratulations to Nikon and Nikon users! > > (Oh, and for you DX lens owners, tough sh.t). > > Cheers, > Alan. Nothing wrong with using the DX lenses on DX cameras. Nikon has introduced only one FX camera. All the rest are still DX. We can expect that Nikon will continue to introduce DX lenses in the future. Thom Hogan, who claims to be in a position to know, says that they will. That said, my DX lenses are for sale. :-) At least, they will be after I get back from Mazatlan. Except for the 18-200mm and 10.5mm fish eye. Those I will keep for the D200. So I guess that leaves the 12-24mm and the 17-55mm f/2.8. I really love the latter lens, though, for portraits. Maybe I will keep it after all. The 12-24mm can go, though. Maybe. Hmm. The D70 is now so unreliable it can no longer serve as a backup, so I might need a wide angle for the D200. Besides, I am not planning on getting a D3 at all -- waiting for the next FX camera which I think will be introduced next year. (But then again, I was not going to get an iPhone, either.) So, what? Start acquiring the new lenses with a view toward a new FX camera, while I keep the DX lenses until then? Probably. But then I need something to replace the wobbly D70. The D300 is overkill. So, what, the D40? Again I need the DX lenses. OTOH, I really do not want to lug two camera bags around on our travels. So the DX lenses are likely to get left behind, especially on our trip to South America next spring. So it hardly makes any sense to keep the DX lenses after all. |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2008 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.