Nikon blast - good news!

Discussion in 'Nikon' started by Alan Browne, Aug 24, 2007.

  1. 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.
    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.
    Gisle Hannemyr, Aug 25, 2007
    1. Advertisements

  2. Alan Browne

    Alan Browne Guest

    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.
    Alan Browne, Aug 25, 2007
    1. Advertisements

  3. Alan Browne

    Alan Browne Guest

    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.
    Alan Browne, Aug 25, 2007
  4. Alan Browne

    RichA Guest

    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.
    RichA, Aug 25, 2007
  5. LOL!

    Rita Ä Berkowitz, Aug 25, 2007
  6. 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 Harrington, Aug 25, 2007
  7. 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 Harrington, Aug 25, 2007
  8. 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 Ä Berkowitz, Aug 26, 2007
  9. Alan Browne

    ASAAR Guest

    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.

    RichA must be a really hot guy. :)
    ASAAR, Aug 26, 2007
  10. Alan Browne

    Paul Furman Guest

    The new Nikons have 2 live view AF modes, one that drops the mirror for
    a moment & one that uses the sensor & is slower.
    Paul Furman, Aug 26, 2007
  11. There's no 'rushing back to'. The 17-35 is excellent, even on DX cameras. :)
    Philip Homburg, Aug 26, 2007
  12. 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 Ä Berkowitz, Aug 26, 2007
  13. You got it. It is a solid performer that will be with us a very long time.

    Rita Ä Berkowitz, Aug 26, 2007
  14. Alan Browne

    Alan Browne Guest

    .... all in the context of WA of course ...
    Alan Browne, Aug 26, 2007
  15. Alan Browne

    Father Kodak Guest

    You have _already_ tested on FX digital? A __ Nikon __ FX format D3?
    How did you manage to do that?

    Father Kodak
    Father Kodak, Aug 26, 2007
  16. I posted a link to an image. I suggest you take a look at the EXIF.
    Gisle Hannemyr, Aug 27, 2007
  17. Alan Browne

    Paul Furman Guest

    Kodak DCS Pro 14N
    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
    Paul Furman, Aug 27, 2007
  18. Alan Browne

    Father Kodak Guest

    Considering all the issues with Kodak DCS cameras, is this even a
    reliable test? Can you separate out lens defects from sensor-induced

    A while ago, I considered getting a DCS camera for near-term usage,
    until responses to a question about this resulted in very negative

    Father Kodak
    Father Kodak, Aug 27, 2007
  19. 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.)
    Well, I haven't come across and "sensor-induced defects", so that is
    a non-issue for me.
    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?
    Gisle Hannemyr, Aug 27, 2007
  20. Alan Browne

    Father Kodak Guest

    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.
    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
    Father Kodak, Aug 29, 2007
    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.