chris haake Posted May 28, 2004 Share Posted May 28, 2004 "a $14,900 Compact Flash card" Sweet Petunia! Are there any applications for such a card beyond/beside still photography? Anyone who purchases one of these instead of three 4 gig cards for a total of $600 (as was suggested at the link above) is a fool with FAR too much money to blow. As for the 200 f/2, I'd LOVE one. I do a lot of low-light indoor photography, and this would fit the bill very nicely indeed. No, I'm sure bird photographers aren't the primary market for this one -- not even with the 1.5 crop factor of digital -- but for just about any indoor application from an appreciable distance (sports, large news conferences, fashion, etc), this would be fantastic. Now, where did I put those spare thousands...? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ShunCheung Posted May 28, 2004 Share Posted May 28, 2004 Eric, nice picture of your cat. BTW, are you sure that people are THAT interested in DSLRs in these days? If you read the Nikon Forum, it sounds like the F2 is still the best. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eric friedemann Posted May 28, 2004 Share Posted May 28, 2004 "(A)re you sure that people are THAT interested in DSLRs in these days?" Yes, Shun, the Canon Digital Rebel has been THE hottest selling camera in our store since the introduction of the AE-1, and that was a stampede. D-300s have sold like crazy. Similarly, the D70s have flown out of the store. Even the owner of the store, who's been there, seen that and rarely raises an eyebrow, has been surprised that cameras in the $800-1,000 price range (body prices) could generate the kind of volume we've seen. Sales have been amazing. As to your F2 comment, I enjoy interacting on p.net in part because of the collection of F-F2-F3 diehards and Leicanistas. But neither you, nor I, nor Ellis, nor 90% of the other people who post on p.net are "average" photographic equipment consumers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mskovacs Posted May 28, 2004 Share Posted May 28, 2004 Eric anyone with large format experience can attest that telephotos have large image circles. Its the wide angles where there can be the biggest tradeoff in size/weight vs coverage. I still have to imagine this to be somewhat of a cult/showcase lens. The majority of types with the money/need are already going to have their 70-200/2.8 VR. People that genuinely need 200/2 and can afford it are likely few and far between. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ShunCheung Posted May 28, 2004 Share Posted May 28, 2004 Eric, my bad. My last comment was meant to be a joke. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eric friedemann Posted May 28, 2004 Share Posted May 28, 2004 MK, from selling gear in an affluent suburb of Chicago, I can tell you that there are plenty of people with more $$$ than they know what to do with. For these people, "need" rarely has anything to do with high-end gear sales. Last month, we sold a 200-400mm f/4.0 to a customer who will use the lens once every other year or so on photo safari in Africa. And there are plenty of people like him who won't blink about shelling out $5-6K for a lens that will spend 99.9999% of its life collecting dust in a closet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chris haake Posted May 28, 2004 Share Posted May 28, 2004 Mike and Eric, you're both on the nose. This certainly is NOT going to be one of Nikon's hot sellers. Longer telephotos in a (roughly) similar price range will sell better, no doubt. This is not to say they SHOULD, for it's been argued that the 200 f/2 with quality TC's will be quite a flexible setup. I'm just saying the longer ones WILL sell better. Cult lens? Probably. But that's why companies like Nikon make/made the 1200-1700 zoom or the 6mm fisheye; why Canon made the 50mm f/1 and 200 f/1.8; and why big auto makers make flashy concept cars. A lot of it has to do with status and company flair. Now, this price is nothing compared to the 1200-1700 zoom, and this lens is emminently more useable. And I'd be surprised if Nikon didn't at least break even on this one -- in fact, considering the above factors, I'm sure they'll make SOME profit. But it won't be one of their top ten, that's for sure. Still, that'll be one sweet piece of glass.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim_Tardio Posted May 28, 2004 Share Posted May 28, 2004 Nice lens which I'm sure will find its users...but, personally, I'd rather have a 50-150/4 AFS, ED, VR, DX, G lens to go with my 12-24/4. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
david_h._hartman Posted May 28, 2004 Share Posted May 28, 2004 <em>"My only quarrel with the lens is that even though it is obviously geared toward DSLR shooters, it is a 35mm full frame lens. Nikon could have made the lens way smaller and less expensive in a DX configuration." --Eric Friedemann<br> </em><br> The DX format will not dominate forever in Nikons high end DSLR(s). I think Nikons continued release of both DX and full frame lenses should tell folks something about Nikons plans. <br> <br> ---<br> <br> Here is another thought for those who like the current 1.5 cropping factor. With a full frame 24x36 DSLR youll be able to crop without the encumbrance of grain so that advantage, when its an advantage, will not disappear in a full frame DLSR. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eric friedemann Posted May 28, 2004 Share Posted May 28, 2004 �The DX format will not dominate forever in Nikon�s high end DSLR(s).� From your lips to God�s ear. The Canon 1Ds was released in 2002. It is now 2004 and Nikon has yet to release anything more than a 6MP 2/3rds sensor camera. As a �system,� Nikon�s DSLR line is a joke. We live in a theoretically infinite universe, so I guess anything�s possible. You may be right, but �forever� is a long time and I wouldn�t hold my breath waiting for a FF Nikon DSLR before � say � 2020. �I think Nikon�s continued release of both DX and full frame lenses should tell folks something about Nikon�s plans.� Should Nikon�s continued, albeit sporadic, release of manual focus �P� lenses- 45mm f/2.8, 85mm f/2.8 PC, 500mm f/4.0- tell folks something about Nikon�s plans to reintroduce the F3 as its dominant professional camera? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EricM Posted May 28, 2004 Share Posted May 28, 2004 �Nikon�s DSLR line is a joke.� Hmm. The D70 or a Canon that costs twice or three times as much? Hmm. A manufacture that has two other key players, Kodak and Fuji in bed with them against a manufature that spends more on photocopier research? Hmm�I�m keeping my primes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kelvinphoto - arlington, t Posted May 28, 2004 Share Posted May 28, 2004 Nikon intruduce new piece of SHi. that I don't want to buy. Where ta heck is full frame DSLR? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
armando_roldan Posted May 28, 2004 Share Posted May 28, 2004 Where ta heck is full frame DSLR? What the deal with full frame DSLR? I shoot 99% telephoto and the magnifacation factor at 1.5x is godsend. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
david_h._hartman Posted May 28, 2004 Share Posted May 28, 2004 <em>"From your lips to Gods ear." --Eric Friedemann<br> </em><br> OK Eric, Ill archive this thread so in five years when Im proven right I can haunt you with it. Then again if Nikon is absorbed by Konica-Minolta Ill just quietly delete it.<br> <br> Best,<br> <br> Dave Hartman. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
david_h._hartman Posted May 28, 2004 Share Posted May 28, 2004 <em>"Where ta heck is full frame DSLR? What the deal with full frame DSLR? I shoot 99% telephoto and the magnifacation factor at 1.5x is godsend." --armando roldan<br> <br> "Here is another thought for those who like the current 1.5 cropping factor. With a full frame 24x36 DSLR youll be able to crop without the encumbrance of grain so that advantage, when its an advantage, will not disappear in a full frame DLSR." --David H. Hartman.<br> </em><br> Yes but some people shoot super wide angles also.<br> <br> Regards,<br> <br> Dave Hartman. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ShunCheung Posted May 28, 2004 Share Posted May 28, 2004 Actually, the 11MP full-frame Canon EOS 1Ds has a lower <B>pixel density</B> than the EOS 10D, D Rebel, Nikon D100 or D70. The 1Ds has more pixels overall, but they are spread out around a much larger area. Therefore, if you crop an 1Ds' image into the same sensor area as those cheap 6MP DSLRs, you are getting an inferior image, at least as far as pixel count is concerned. Meanwhile, you are paying for a $7000+ DSLR instead of one around $1000. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alex_lofquist Posted May 28, 2004 Share Posted May 28, 2004 Has anyone noticed that the lens has nine electrical contacts and the TC has ten? I don't believe that any of the current Nikon camera bodies have more than eight contacts! I am also curious as to the new Super ED Glass. It is implied that it is less fragile than the regular ED glass (whichever formula that might be). Speculation would suggest that its Abbe# might be closer to Fluorite, without its inherant physical limitations. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RaymondC Posted May 28, 2004 Share Posted May 28, 2004 I want a 70-200/4! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
david_h._hartman Posted May 29, 2004 Share Posted May 29, 2004 <em>"Therefore, if you crop an 1Ds' image into the same sensor area as those cheap 6MP DSLRs, you are getting an inferior image, at least as far as pixel count is concerned." --Shun Cheung<br> </em><br> Good points but Im thinking of the future. Also if the 1Ds image is sharp most wont mind cropping. Bjørn Rørslett apparently feels the D2H produces a better image quality than the D70 despite the pixel count. It will come down to specific cameras and sensors. I do not think the cropping advantage will disappear. Everything hinges on the cost of manufacturing the sensors.<br> <br> I remember when I had an IBM PC with 256K of memory I was delivering a job and a doctor walking down the hall said to the person he was walking with something about having 640K. I though to myself what could he possibly do with all that memory. A year later I was trying to figure out how to get past the 640K barrier.<br> <br> Come on Shun: you're supposed to be the forward looking guy here. DSLR(s) are good but they are surely going to get much better. Ellis Vener says the D2H is good enough for a two page spread and I trust him. What if you could have the same pixel count per square centimeter in a full frame 24x36 sensor and at a lower price than today? Would you snub it? It will happen. The camera and computer will improve to handle load. Its just going to get better and better.<br> <br> Best,<br> <br> Dave. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ilkka_nissila Posted May 29, 2004 Share Posted May 29, 2004 David, Bjorn's image quality test was performed in such a way that the D70 was moved further away from the subject than the D2H so that the images of a two-dimensional subject matched pixel-by-pixel of the D2H, and the result was that the image quality was virtually the same. But the D70 produced a roughly 50% larger number of those pixels which were found to have similar detail. I'm sure that Bjorn uses the D2H for reasons of viewfinder, AF, noise, long-exposure performance, colour balance, and speed of operation but the D70 images definitely have more detail. Shun, go to http://www.luontokuva.org/vuodenluontokuvia/index.html and look at the 1993 winner (Bull-finch by Kari Reponen). That image is one of the most beautiful nature pictures I've seen and it was taken from a hide with a 180 mm lens wide open at 1/60th of a second or something like that. I'm sorry that the web image is so small but believe me, the larger print is amazing. I've seen numerous high quality wildlife pics taken with short lenses (<= 200mm) by people like Mattias Klum and Frans Lanting. I recommend that go to a dense forest and try to take pictures of wildlife with your D100+500+1.4x TC setup. You will find that 1) there isn't enough light for it, 2) the branches get in the way between your subject and the lens. Thus, it's not surprising that longer than 300 mm lenses are rarely used on film in these situations, and f/2.8 is essential. As you know, I don't do this myself often, but the results I've seen published are often in contradiction with your claims. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ilkka_nissila Posted May 29, 2004 Share Posted May 29, 2004 Here is a larger image of the bullfinch: http://www.fmp.fi/luonto/185.htm. It's still not a very good reproduction - the original colours are much better. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dominic_. Posted May 29, 2004 Share Posted May 29, 2004 There's nothing you can't want in the 200/2, except for the fact that its a G lens:-(. However if looks as if every major lens Nikon puts out will now be a G type lens, looks like the right time to get an AF body to go along with my F3HP. --Dominic Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
david_h._hartman Posted May 29, 2004 Share Posted May 29, 2004 <em>"David, Bjorn's image quality test was performed in such a way that the D70 was moved further away from the subject than the D2H so that the images of a two-dimensional subject matched pixel-by-pixel of the D2H, and the result was that the image quality was virtually the same." --Ilkka Nissila<br> </em><br> As I recall that was for the noise test. Id have to reread the articles to comment further. <br> <br> Nikon needs a camera between the D70 and the D2H and they need to get out the D2X. I also think the F6 is coming (not real soon) and that it will be full frame and maybe a film and digital hybrid camera.<br> <br> Regards,<br> <br> Dave. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chris haake Posted May 29, 2004 Share Posted May 29, 2004 David: Re: your F6 prediction, do you have any info, or are you taking an educated guess? I'm curious as to what Nikon is going to do. When you say "film and digital hybrid," do you mean it will have interchangeable backs? It seems to me that's something ALL camera companies should be designing for their top-end next-generation items. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
david_h._hartman Posted May 30, 2004 Share Posted May 30, 2004 <em>"Re: your F6 prediction, do you have any info, or are you taking an educated guess?" --Chris Haake<br> </em><br> This is really an educated guess but someone I trust said there would be an F6 and, "It will be able to use film." Nikon would have to be stupid not to capitalize on the F Series reputation. I believe there also have been comments at http://www.bythom.com/ to the effect that the F6 would shoot both film and silicone. Anyone who is really in the know has had to sign a nondisclosure agreement. <br> <br> Cameras in the F series have always taken a number of years to design. Im sure computer design has shortened this but its a safe bet that the F6 has been under development for some time.<br> <br> With miniaturization of electronics a replaceable back as small as a data back is possible. When, if and how much one might cost are open questions. Whether or not one is possible is not.<br> <br> Regards,<br> <br> Dave. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now