Lower priced Nikon Digital SLR?

Discussion in 'Nikon' started by Cary D., Oct 3, 2003.

  1. Cary D.

    Gavin Cato Guest

    The point is, that the old lenses work on the new cameras. i.e. a AIS MF
    lens will work pretty darn well on my d1h.
     
    Gavin Cato, Oct 4, 2003
    #21
    1. Advertisements

  2. Cary D.

    Gavin Cato Guest

    It's actually 1.5, 1.6 is canon. I agree though, I want full frame as well.
    Thats not true, D1x/D1h/D2h/probably D2x all work with them just dandy.
    More to get people to buy the Pro bodies actually, which do meter.

    You want everything for nothing.
     
    Gavin Cato, Oct 4, 2003
    #22
    1. Advertisements

  3. Cary D.

    Gavin Cato Guest

    Well, you seem to be infatuated with the megapixel myth. Although the 14n
    has 3mpixels more, the 1Ds spanks it well and truly in damn near every area.
    Uhh, no. They brought them out as there is simply no need for a aperture
    ring these days with all the new bodies doing it electronically.

    The 70-200/2.8 AF-S G VR won't even work on a low end body except in MF so
    there goes your theory.
    Your lack of experience doesn't make them garbage, thats your own shortfall
    in lack of knowledge. Go to a store, ask to see a 70-200/2.8 - if you think
    thats a cheaply made lens then I'll eat my hat. It's better than it's
    replacement, the classic 80-200.
    As an engineer, you appear pretty quick to jump to conclusions about
    products you have barely touched.
    Right, so you picked up a cheap, cheap lens designed for the lowest common
    camera buyer, and automatically assume that G lenses are crap because you
    looked at a cheap example. Well guess what, every camera company makes cheap
    lenses to the low end consumer. Just because Canon also make a few cheap
    lenses as well does this mean the whole EF line is cheap chinese junk?

    honestly, thats a really absurd outlook you have there.

    Which is the shell of the D100.
    The new lenses available are already better than the ones in the past, the 2
    obvious examples which I own are the 70-200/2.8 which is better than the
    80-200 in quite a few areas (BUILD quality, AF speed, VR, bokeh, sharpness
    at wide apertures) and the 17-35/2.8 which outdoes pretty much all the old
    prime lenses in that range. The gear is just fine, thanks.
     
    Gavin Cato, Oct 4, 2003
    #23
  4. Cary D.

    George Guest

    Yes, I realize that they CAN work, just not in a very convenient manner on
    some of the bodies. I believe the D1-series will at least meter with the
    AI/AIS lenses so the only real inconvenience (depending on the type of
    photography you do) would be the multiplication factor. I guess the real
    frustration is that the D100 was close to hitting the mark design-wise and
    price/performance wise...as they say, "close, but no cigar".
     
    George, Oct 4, 2003
    #24
  5. Cary D.

    George Guest

    I have been in electronics a long time. It is the ONLY industry in the
    world where price is expected to go down while performance is expected to go
    up. (The first 1MB of RAM I ever bought cost $6,000 while my most recent
    memory purchase cost me the equivalent of $0.15 for 1MB.)

    If you also want a full frame sensor Nikon, why argue on this newsgroup?
    Somebody at Nikon has to be reading this stuff and we're giving them free
    market research. Manufacturers WANT to sell you the lowest common
    denominator at the highest possible price...I don't blame them for this, I
    just want the "lowest common denominator" bar raised a bit. I have no
    problem with the existence of stuff like G series lenses and N55 bodies
    (other than the confusion it adds to what WAS a relatively simple
    compatibility matrix) because if it fills someone's needs (even if not mine)
    it'll sell, if it doesn't it won't sell.
     
    George, Oct 4, 2003
    #25
  6. Cary D.

    George Guest

    I've seen some published photos and thought they looked pretty good...but it
    IS difficult to keep up with the best digital camera body du jour.
    Where have you seen photos to compare?
     
    George, Oct 4, 2003
    #26
  7. Cary D.

    Gavin Cato Guest

    At this stage a full frame sensor is very expensive, i.e. looking at the
    wholesale price list from Canon, the 1Ds sensor is nearly 3 times as much as
    the D100 retail price body.
     
    Gavin Cato, Oct 4, 2003
    #27
  8. Cary D.

    Rafe B. Guest


    I suspect (vaguely recall) it was a URL posted on this NG,
    probably a couple months ago. I'm sure a web search would
    turn up something.


    rafe b.
    http://www.terrapinphoto.com
     
    Rafe B., Oct 5, 2003
    #28
  9. Cary D.

    George Guest

    That is the nice thing about electronic parts: time and mass production
    brings down prices, usually rapidly. Is Canon using a CCD sensor or CMOS?
    The reason I ask is because the Kodak DCS-14n also uses a full frame sensor
    (CMOS) and it is higher resolution and the camera is considerably cheaper
    (either the sensor sells for less or there is less mark-up). Unfortunately,
    you cannot really go by what Canon charges a repair facility (or whatever)
    for the sensor as much of an indicator on actual cost to produce...too many
    factors go into pricing. It could be high because of uniqueness (if you
    paid $7500 for a camera, and this is what is keeping it from working, what
    else can you do?) or lack of competition, low production yields (the reason
    plasma tvs have been high until recently), limited production (no economy of
    scale effect yet), high handling costs, etc.

    BTW--It looks like Nikon just dropped $200 off the price of the D100 (unless
    Calumet is pushing down non-gray D100 prices...not too likely).
     
    George, Oct 6, 2003
    #29
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.