The Nikon D3 makes everyone's life better, even mine!!!

Discussion in 'Nikon' started by Dudley Hanks, Mar 2, 2008.

  1. Dudley Hanks

    The Dave© Guest

    Makes one wonder why prices have gone up so dramatically. Cost of
    technology? Popularity, i.e. supply-and-demand... or just demand?
     
    The Dave©, Mar 8, 2008
    #21
    1. Advertisements

  2. Because now you're in effect buying a lifetime's supply of film in
    addition to the camera. It's actually a real bargain unless you rarely
    take photographs.
     
    Chris Malcolm, Mar 8, 2008
    #22
    1. Advertisements

  3. Dudley Hanks

    dj_nme Guest

    So' you expect the camera to stop functioning after only 18 months?
    I would call the camera lemon if that was the case.
     
    dj_nme, Mar 8, 2008
    #23
  4. Dudley Hanks

    John Sheehy Guest

    Just when someone came out with a Nikon lenst to Canon camera adapter that
    translates the protocols!

    Did you see the review where the D3 and the 1Dsmk3 both use the new Nikon
    14-24mm f/2.8?

    Well, you had the non-S mk3, so the D3 was a step up in overal IQ, (unless
    you are maxed out on focal length and would wind up cropping with the D3,
    in which case, a subject that is the same absolute size on the sensor would
    have less subject noise and more resolution with the 1Dmk3).

    --
     
    John Sheehy, Mar 8, 2008
    #24
  5. Dudley Hanks

    Tony Polson Guest


    Nikon has been doing this for years. I was very disappointed indeed
    when the Nikon N80/F80 did not offer metering with AIS lenses. Within
    a short time, the only Nikon SLR body options for a photographer
    expecting to meter with AIS lenses started with the F100, at a price
    not unadjacent to the equivalent value of today's $1800.

    So this is nothing new. What Nikon did was to improve their lenses
    incrementally. First AI, then AIS, then AF (in two attempts), then
    AF-D, then AI-P, then AF-S, and now VR. Somewhere in there was AF-P
    also. So Nikon offered some backward compatibility, but not the sort
    of near-total compatibility that the Canon EF mount has offered.

    However, let us not forget that Canon abandoned its loyal FL and FD
    customer base (and largely alienated it) with the introduction of the
    EF mount. At least Nikon has avoided that, going for step by step
    changes that keep most Nikon users on board rather than Canon's one
    step change that turned off a whole community of loyal fans.
     
    Tony Polson, Mar 8, 2008
    #25
  6. Dudley Hanks

    Dudley Hanks Guest

    I wouldn't go quite that far.

    I was an avid Canon shooter prior to the introduction of the auto-focus EF
    lenses, happily running around with two Canon bodies that used the FD type
    lens system.

    But, when Canon introduced the new EF system, it also came out with bodies
    like the A2 that added a great deal of functionality, better metering, ETTL
    flash accessories, and built-in power-drives with great performance.
    Upgrading to the newer cameras wasn't simply a change in lens mounts, it was
    a whole-sale overhaul of the entire system at a reasonable cost. None of my
    acquaintences were the least bit upset with the company.

    Take Care,
    Dudley
     
    Dudley Hanks, Mar 8, 2008
    #26
  7. Dudley Hanks

    Tony Polson Guest


    That was my feeling at the time. I wasn't happy.


    I mentioned the N80/F80 film SLR, not the D80 DSLR. At the time I
    think Nikon claimed the extra cost would have been about $80. The
    camera needed a ring to engage with the aperture ring of the lens and
    transfer aperture data to the camera's metering system.


    That's certainly one way of looking at it. Given Nikon's commitment
    to some kind of backward compatibility, I think adding features on the
    one hand and taking away some of the backward compatibility with the
    other is probably inevitable, given the restriction of using the basic
    F mount.


    For me, the N80/F80 was the straw that broke the camel's back. I also
    had serious issues with the optical performance of some of my Nikkors.
     
    Tony Polson, Mar 8, 2008
    #27
  8. Dudley Hanks

    The Dave© Guest

    Must've bought the 'Mission Impossible' model.
     
    The Dave©, Mar 9, 2008
    #28
  9. Dudley Hanks

    The Dave© Guest

    If everything you've said about this in this thread is true, and I have
    nothing with which to dispute it, then it seems that Canon actually
    made the better long-term choice in changing everything to EF as far as
    the customer is concerned.
     
    The Dave©, Mar 9, 2008
    #29
  10. Dudley Hanks

    Tony Polson Guest


    I agree. However, I suspect that neither you nor I had a big
    investment in Canon FD lenses at the time the EOS system was
    introduced.

    A friend was heavily into Canon equipment and was very annoyed. Canon
    had tried AF versions of the FD mount (in the T80 if I recall
    correctly) and he felt reassured that Canon would stay with FD. When
    they announced EOS, he was livid.

    He is still using Canon T90s and FD lenses and still uses only film!
     
    Tony Polson, Mar 9, 2008
    #30
  11. Dudley Hanks

    Ray Fischer Guest

    Do you think that Nikon cares whether you idolize them or not?
     
    Ray Fischer, Mar 9, 2008
    #31
  12. Dudley Hanks

    Pete D Guest


    I guess they have done their homework and know that many buyers of the lower
    end cameras will only ever buy a couple of lenses but they do appreciate the
    better quality results and the far better handling of even a low end D-SLR
    over any P&S. These lower end cameras are just fat P&S's after all.
     
    Pete D, Mar 9, 2008
    #32
  13. Dudley Hanks

    XxYyZz Guest

    Quite true. Rita thinks that purchashing an expensive camera will allow
    'her' to take great photos. So Rita does have the 'Mission Impossible' model.
     
    XxYyZz, Mar 10, 2008
    #33
  14. Dudley Hanks

    The Dave© Guest

    Why?
     
    The Dave©, Mar 10, 2008
    #34
  15. Dudley Hanks

    The Dave© Guest

    Subjective and biased consumer reviews aside... why would the mounting
    necessarily affect the glass itself?
     
    The Dave©, Mar 10, 2008
    #35
  16. Dudley Hanks

    The Dave© Guest

    At the time all I had was a Minolta XG9 and a Vivitar zoom lens. It
    wasn't until years later that I caught the 'photo bug', so I wasn't
    even aware of the change over at the time. What I know is more from
    reading and talking with people and trying to look at it in a
    historical perspective.
     
    The Dave©, Mar 10, 2008
    #36
  17. Dudley Hanks

    Tony Polson Guest


    Didn't Minolta go through a similar process, with manual focus lenses
    being incompatible with the (then) new AF mount?
     
    Tony Polson, Mar 10, 2008
    #37
  18. Dudley Hanks

    Tony Polson Guest


    The large diameter opening in the lens mount would allow larger rear
    elements, and the very short film/sensor plane to lens flange distance
    would allow optics that were not so dependent on retrofocus designs.

    The irony is that, with the exception of the Tilt and Shift lenses,
    Canon has never truly taken advantage of these two opportunities to
    produce high quality optics, especially wide angle lenses.

    I am very happy with my two Canon EOS 5D bodies, but most of the
    lenses I use have "Carl Zeiss" engraved around the front element.
     
    Tony Polson, Mar 10, 2008
    #38
  19. Dudley Hanks

    John Turco Guest

    TH O wrote:


    Hello, TH O:

    I love the fact that my K100D is fully compatible, with the vast majority
    of Pentax's 35mm-format lenses, ever made!


    Cordially,
    John Turco <>
     
    John Turco, Mar 14, 2008
    #39
    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.