Jump to content

Nikon is starting to tick me off


bob_bill

Recommended Posts

If Nikon make a cheapish, smallish AF replacement for the 135mm f/2.8 AI, I'll quite possibly be interested. I suspect anything f/1.8 is going to be roughly the size of the Sigma; the 135 f/2 is hardly a small/light lens either, so for me the Sigma isn't particularly worse. If Nikon made a (good) STF (graduated apodisation) version as a replacement for the DC, I may well be interested - although the Sony and Laowa both have some limitations. I'd have to be looking very closely at the capabilities of any 135mm they come up when it comes to smooth transitions in order to persuade me away from the Sigma (which, I note, is on cheap at Amazon.com today, US readers) - I'd really expect Nikon to price it north of $2000 (because it's "on brand" and they can), and it's going to have to be special to justify the premium.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 85
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

The Sigma 135/1,8 is 51% heavier than Canon’s 135/2 and 39% heavier than Nikon’s. Nikon’s current 135 has DC which can be left out to reduce weight in the next version. I personally consider the extra weight a significant negative; I have enough heavy lenses and want new optics to make use of new materials to reduce weight. If Nikon should decide to use fluorite, perhaps the weight could be even less than Canon’s.

 

Before someone ask why I use vertical grips on cameras, I prefer the symmetrical handling of vertical and horizontal shots and prefer the weight to be distributed close to my body (in the camera body) rather than far away (in the lens). This is just what I find the most comfortable to use when hand holding. I know there are other people who prefer lighter cameras; I guess this is highly subjective, for me a small and light camera doesn’t feel right when using a telephoto lens.

Edited by ilkka_nissila
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've used heavy cameras and lenses for so long a lightweight doesn't feel right to me. I've incorrectly related lightweight to cheap and these days that's something I need to get over. Still, a fast lens is going to have some heft to it, the longer the heavier. I have a 135/2 mf lens and it is quite a bit heavier than the 2.8 version, same with the 80-200/2.8 and the 180/2.8. There are smaller lighter lenses available. If I don't want to carry something big along I can get a D200 or 300 and leave the battery grip at home, same with the 800. I've been having a lot of fun lately with a motor driven FE and an F2 without a motor. I agree with Ilkka though that the vertical grip is something I prefer nearly always.

 

Rick H.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Some threads take strange turns - this one started out "ticked off about Nikon" and now has arrived at discussion camera and lens weights after taken a brief excursion in good old Canon vs Nikon feuds.

 

Back to "ticks me off about Nikon". Firmware updates rarely seem to add new features: the D5 got one that added the d9 AF mode, the D500 didn't. The D7200 is still not fully compatible with AF-P lenses.

 

Nikon also tends to be slow with updating some lenses - the 300/4 and 80-400 are two prime examples. In my case, that made me actually consider a switch to Canon, who had both a 400/5.6 and a 100-400 on offer at the time. As well as a 400/4 DO that got my attention despite the price tag.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nikon? Utterly rudderless. I've given up on them(happily)and won't be updating/upgrading my D7200 bag stuffed with cheap Chinese-made Nikkor primes(35, 40 Micro-Nikkor, 50 and 85). I still shoot film, so all the old NAI, Ai/AiS glass still gets used along with those lenses that fit the D7200. I jumped to Fuji 2 years ago and couldn't be happier. Superb customer service/support.They get it. Nikon doesn't.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I love Fuji and especially their "Kayzen" policy (meaning frequent free firmware updates- not the case at Nikon) but my Nikon gear is a machine that performs dependably under heavy use, being my main workhorse.

"...folks that have had repair delays"

I live in Romania and we have an excellent NPS service here, with fast repairs and periodical free gifts for members (magazines, camera straps,bags,hats and winter jackets, all with NPS logo)

Last time I send my 70-200 for repair (IS unit) they receive'it on friday and I get the lens repaired three days later , on monday (via UPS) !!! We also benefit from Nikon experiment called "Yellowstore" : first Nikon owned stores , to sale exclusive Nikon equipment.

My only reason of complain is the absence of Nikon professional mirrorless cameras.

Edited by paul_b.|1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The grass is always greener.....

 

The whole idea of being innovative.... to what purpose? While we expect the big brands to have their "posterchild" products and to have some excellent offerings, and some less so, reaching the market with really novel ideas that are radically new and different from what the others offer? It's getting pretty hard - I find it difficult to fault a company for delivering products that have a market (even if a niche one) that don't re-invent the wheel but simply work well. Innovation for the sake of innovation has little use. As far as I see, all manufacterers are refining products, and call the new one innovative while it's just an improved version. Innovation as marketing fluff word is just fluff. Real innovation is rare and much more disruptive.

And we have no idea what kind of ideas they're working on that might be a breakthrough in some way - so perhaps under the skin some real innovation is going on.

 

In the end, it's about using a product you like using, and which you feel you can rely on - luckily the market offers enough choice, and we're better served with having enough choice than with one or two brands "winning" and dictating the market.

 

I don't think it's smart of Nikon USA to be missing on a trade fair for photography professionals; you'd expect them there, and some brand advocacy doesn't really hurt, but the real value of it is hard to assess. Good service is a key point though, and by the sound of it, in some countries they drop the ball, which is a concern I can completely get (been lucky myself so far, so no experience). For a pro, I could see this as a valid reason to switch brands.

 

______

[even more offtopic] I agree with Ilkka's view on the Sigma lenses - while I don't doubt their qualities, I simply don't like their rendering, there is something harsh and overly sharp about it that just lacks grace and smoothness I prefer. What I've seen from the Nikon 105 f/1.4 impresses me loads more, though that lens is well outside of my budget. The 58 f/1.4G - despite the fact it tests poorly in lab conditions - is another lens where I think Nikon got things right, but surely that's a marmite lens. Personal preference, and de gustibus.... etc.

Edited by Wouter Willemse
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was messing around with my F Nikon the other night before this thread started, and thinking that an F, with the F36 drive and comprehensive system was a huge advance relative to other systems out there at the time. Yes, Leica and Contax lenses might have been a little better but those systems were less capable for more $ for a working pro.

 

Also, thinking back on history, I have always respected Nikon's decision to retain the F mount with the introduction of AF, though that decision was probably better for users at the time than Nikon as a company.

 

I don't expect Nikon to always stay way ahead, but I expect them to stay near the front so that the value of my "investment (LOL)" in the system is fairly stable.

 

I am amazed that Nikon (and Canon) don't have mirrorless systems (yet?) to compete with Sony and others. I have an A7, but generally prefer using my D810, The A7 seems awkward and stubborn if I am in a hurry. A Nikon mirrorless might improve my biggest image quality issue with the D810, a little too often images shot at open apertures are not in perfect focus at 100% view. I guess I could use D810 live view for manual focus, but prefer using the Sony setup for manual focusing of live subjects. I don't like the Sony enough to jump systems, but I won't buy another Nikon body until I see what happens. I do hope that future FF cameras from Nikon move away from having AF sensors bunched in the middle, I could focus anywhere on the screen in the old days. Manual focus on the screen in the D810 just does not cut it.

 

Other things that tick me off: Nikon cutting off most parts sales to users, and as mentioned earlier, only limited improvements from firmware upgrades. Seems like more improvements were was promised with the D810 or maybe D800, can't remember. An example could be adding flicker reduction to the D4/D810 series, but that might reduce new model sales, I am sure.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dieter, slow with updating? Absolutely. The 135 dc hasn't been updated since 1994. 24 years. Illka, I agree on the vertical grip. 8 hrs with a flying elbow? Plus it isn't as stable for me if I am shooting at lower shutter speeds. In studio, no big deal, I use a rolling camera stand to store between shots and shoot but hand holding, the vertical grip is something I appreciate as well. Thanks for the info on the 105, I will take a look at it's images and if I like it will consider the 135 when it is updated if it produces similar results, I will be curious to see how the old 135 resolves on the d850.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've been a Nikon shooter since January, 1989, so almost 30 years. I have always owned Nikon film cameras only. In fact, most of my gear is manual focus. It's only been within the past couple of years that I've dipped into Nikon's AF world -- when I bought an F4 and an N80, and a few D-series AF lenses. I like the look and feel of the F4, but I find its AF system to be unreliably primitive. No wonder so many Nikon pros switched to Canon when they switched from MF to AF.

 

I have had no contact with Nikon's pro services. I've always been either a freelancer or a hobbyist, so I've never really had the need for their services. Besides, when I first started using Nikon gear in 1989, I started off with an F3, which was already getting to be quite long in the tooth (to the Nikon folks, at least) by then. My F3 was always stone-cold reliable, so for this reason also I didn't need Nikon's pro services.

 

I have no plans to buy a Nikon DSLR -- although the 800-series had me going for a while. But I got over it. Instead of a DSLR, I bought into Sony's mirrorless system with the purchase of an APS-C NEX 7. With its 24.3 mp sensor, I found that I wound up with a lot of headroom, so having an even higher count sensor seemed like overkill. But I don't own a FF digital of any stripe, whether DSLR or Mirrorless. I'm very tempted by the Sony A7II, but its high price keeps my finger off the "buy it now" trigger.

 

Nikon's rumored FF "Z-Mount" mirrorless may change all that, though.

 

Now, as for Nikon's presence at shows, as a person who used to do a lot of shows, let me just state that I think it is essential for a company like Nikon to maintain a presence at any and all photo-related shows, whether through Nikon's own services, or perhaps dealer network participation. Even if they have nothing new to show off, they're still there in person and they can interact with the people who will be commenting and asking questions. Feedback Nikon can gain from these kinds of shows is very important for the continued growth of the company. They're getting direct feedback from their customer base and if they attend all the shows, they're getting not just direct feedback (and questions), but they're getting a LOT of it. I can't emphasize the importance of this sort of information enough. And I'm surprised Nikon doesn't see it this way. Because it is from this sort of information -- these questions and comments and wish lists -- that Nikon can develop its latest and newest technology and hope to stay somewhat ahead of the curve.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I do wish Nikon would do more in their software updates. I appreciate that they want to sell "the next camera", but when that's on a three-year cycle and you're already buying the best camera they make (for what you're doing, at least) sitting on features is annoying. So many of the things I'd like changed are relatively simple firmware hacks. Yes, I'll get around to that survey at some point soon.

 

Canon do have a mirrorless system which sells reasonably well (Nikon less so). Canon competes with the APS-C competition (Fuji, Sony); Nikon mostly competes with high-end compacts. Rumours suggest both might have their eye on the full-frame mirrorless that is currently mostly Sony's place (with a bit of Leica thrown in). They're both very late to the party (Nikon also to the APS-C variant, if that turns up). There are advantages in mirrorless to the end user, but also to the manufacturer, since the part count reduces, so they'll likely get there given where the sales numbers have been going, although I doubt either will kill off their DSLR lines just yet. Whether either (and especially Nikon) can get a good enough system together that it gets the attention of Sony buyers at the moment it lands, we'll have to see. The competition isn't perfect, but it has a huge head start, and Canikon should understand the merits of having a complete system to buy into.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A far cry from EPOI Days.

 

I'm still buying old ("pre-owned") Nikon film and digital bodies (mostly the former), but I do remember that EPOI was a really fine importer who supported the marque very well.

 

When I went digital, I went to Canon EOS because my old non-AI Nikkors would mostly work on them in stop-down mode. I haven't had much to do with Canon support but when I have, they have been relatively prompt and not overly expensive.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Also, thinking back on history, I have always respected Nikon's decision to retain the F mount with the introduction of AF, though that decision was probably better for users at the time than Nikon as a company.
The negative side of that is the compatibility minefield that G, AF-S, AF-P, and E lenses have created. Any Nikon camera/lens compatibility chart is full of asterisks and footnotes. Canon hardly needs a chart, just a note about EF and EF-S ('DX') lenses. In retrospect, cleanly breaking compatibility once, when they moved from FD to EOS, may have been the better plan.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dieter, slow with updating? Absolutely. The 135 dc hasn't been updated since 1994.

The non-D version is actually from 1990, the update to D happened in 1995; the 105/2 was introduced as D lens in 1993. So yes, very long in the tooth and except for the 135/2 DC the 135 focal length has not made it into the AF era at all (and the 105 only in from of macro lenses). Another fall-out from Nikon's step-by-step approach to the current AF-S E lenses; a step Canon did all at once in the late 80s. A lot of manual focus lenses never made the transition to AF/AF-D and then another break was introduced with the introduction of AF-S and the omission of the aperture ring (G lenses). Now we are seeing another break moving towards electronic aperture control (E lenses) and possibly eventually to AF-P (stepper motor). Without that piecemeal approach, we might have seen a lot more lenses make the transition to AF/AF-S and there might have also been updates much earlier than what we actually got (just recall how long it took to get a set of f/1.8 AF-S primes to replace the outdated AF-D versions).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

AFAIK Canon had an exclusive license for some years to USM technology so all the other makers had to make their AF lens lineups without using the then-best technology. I think this is a case where patents did more damage than good to the users as it gave Canon a dominating advantage in AF at the time and pretty much other manufacturers limping. Also FD users lost a lot of money in resale when they changed the mount for AF.

 

Nikon’s gradual approach to changing the mounts has meant users aren’t left with nothing. If you use reasonably new camera bodies (and avoid the entry level) then you still get generally good compatibility towards the use of old lenses with new bodies but not as much for use of new lenses with old bodies. Nikon still make a lot of lenses that can be purchased for use with older cameras (with reason) if you want to do that and there are a lot of lenses in the second hand market. Given the rapid improvement in image quality in digital cameras, I don’t believe a lot of people today use digital cameras that are from 2003 or 2005, for example, and want to purchase new E lenses for them (generally those are expensive).

 

Personally I think AF-P lenses should be possible to make work with older cameras as you can use Canon STM lenses even on their film cameras. Nikon did not handle this well.

 

However, I have noticed there are exceptions to this fabled EF mount compatibility. Canon say you shouldn’t use the 200-400’s TC switch in LV or video mode with certain older cameras. ”With any EOS bodies introduced prior to EOS-1D X, EOS-5D Mark III, EOS 6D and EOS Rebel T4i (650D): Switching the lens’ extender lever in either direction should only be performed when Live View or Video mode is off (LCD monitor not active) and when camera is inactive (not when pressing shutter button half-way, Image Stabilization active, writing to memory card and so on).”

Also there is this: ”For technical reasons, with older EOS 35mm film cameras (original EOS-1, EOS A2/A2E and EOS 5, EOS RT, etc.), Image Stabilization will not function if AF has been shut down by the camera. ” Finally even with new cameras they say the extender switch should not be operated while the camera is busy writing to card.

 

There: perfect compatibility is not so perfect after all. I guess it is interesting that there is no mention of such limitations in the Nikon 180-400 press materials though time will tell if it is true.

Edited by ilkka_nissila
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nikon’s gradual approach to changing the mounts has meant users aren’t left with nothing.

Fair point. Even though Canon could have modified the FD mount to accommodate electrical and mechanical connections needed for AF operation they chose not to and in addition chose to make the new EF mount incompatible by increasing the film/sensor-to-flange distance thus precluding the use of a simple adapter and the option to exchange an FD lens mount for an EF one. As Nikon's gradual approach shows, a drastic lens mount change like the one Canon did is not necessarily needed.

AFAIK Canon had an exclusive license for some years to USM technology so all the other makers had to make their AF lens lineups without using the then-best technology.

I was unaware of that. But would patent protection not typical last 20 years and not the about 9-10 it took for Nikon to catch up and bring out AF-S?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"How is the 19mm PC less versatile in design than Canon's product?"

 

Well, it's taken Nikon long enough to decouple the tilt axis from shift. Or even to realise that crossed axes should be the 'norm', in order to re-centralise the tilted axis with the sensor. It should never have been necessary to have Nikon's PC-E lenses modified in the first place, if they had working photographers giving input to their design team.

 

I can't see the Nikon designers of 30 or 40 years ago making such a fundamental boo-boo.

 

Also, 19mm is not 17mm. Rendering it far less useful on a DX body, where the degree of shift is effectively multiplied by 1.5 times.

 

And an 85mm (or longer) T/S lens is totally unnecessary. All that was needed was an update to the PB4 bellows unit and a set of simple lens heads to accomplish the same result with far more versatility.

 

I have to wonder how many 45mm PC-E lenses have been sold? For myself I can think of absolutely no use for such a focal length with T/S ability. Neither fish nor fowl. Nikon would have been better off sticking with their former 35 and/or 28mm offerings, rather than blindly following Canon's ridiculous lead.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you photograph a facade at an angle, the default orientation of shift (up) tilt (towards the facade) work well to permit the facade to be free of keystoning and all in focus. For me this orientation is equally useful than the ”modified” orientation where you can recenter the image after adjustment of tilt. Anyway the orientations were the same in Canon’s original EF tilt/shift series.

 

I would not use a tilt/shift wide angle lens on DX because of the extra light (excessively large angle of acceptance into the lens) causes flare and reduces contrast. However if you don’t mind relatively low contrast you can obtain the equivalent of a 36mm by using the 24 on a DX camera, or just cropping from a D8x0 image as needed.

 

I find the 85mm PC-E the most frequently used of the PC lenses I have. I do flower and ice close ups and landscapes with it, and find that the 85 PC is more field compatible than a tilt/shift bellows. I’ve noticed the condition of bellows to deteriorate when exposed to rain/snowfall/water spray as often occurs in nature. Example:

 

Untitled

 

You can see the water flowing, some of it is sprayed in air. So even though I have bellows devices I rarely expose them to the elements, whereas with the PC Nikkors I habe no hesitation to using them in rough outdoor conditions. If Nikon made a 135 PC, it would be useful to me for close up as well as landscape but for now I use 120mm on a tilt/shift bellows occasionally. Bellows is great for indoor close up / macro work, or a nice sunny day (which I rarely photograph in), but it can be a lot clumsier and requirs more bag space and effort to use than a PC Nikkor. This shot was made on DX with the 85mm so it would be suitable for FX and a 135mm:

 

Ice dinosaur

 

Although my frequency of is 1. 85mm, 2. 24mm, 3. 45mm and 4. 35mm, the 45mm is actually my favorite for its natural perspective. Here is a tilted 45mm shot:

 

Untitled

 

Personally after experimenting with tilt/shift bellows, my appreciation of the PC Nikkors has increased significantly. I find the latter more field usable and they have become my primary landscape and close up photography tool. For architecture I regret the curvature of the field of the Nikon 24mm which makes it tricky to use for large buildings. The 19mm is improved in that respect but unfortunately it is expensive. I can make do with the 24mm for now:

 

Lux Helsinki Erottaja rescue station

 

Regarding the superrotator style mechanisms permitting greater freedom of combining movements, I welcome it though the price increase associated with it is unfortunate.

Edited by ilkka_nissila
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm also not too keen on taking bellows into the field.

 

I agree that rise at ninety degrees to tilt is useful - just not so useful you should have to send your lens back to Nikon to do anything else. The Kiev I have, which shifts along its tilt hinge, has something of an excuse; the Nikkors don't.

 

Nikon sorted it, at an extortionate price compared with Hartblei and Samyang, for the 19mm. I admit I was complaining about the others, and the field of view difference between 17mm and 19mm - though I've no personal experience of the Canon 17mm and was unaware of optical issues (I'd mostly heard good things).

 

I'll probably pick up a 24mm Samyang at some point in the future. My current options are frustrating to use.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

However, I have noticed there are exceptions to this fabled EF mount compatibility. Canon say you shouldn’t use the 200-400’s TC switch in LV or video mode with certain older cameras. ”With any EOS bodies introduced prior to EOS-1D X, EOS-5D Mark III, EOS 6D and EOS Rebel T4i (650D): Switching the lens’ extender lever in either direction should only be performed when Live View or Video mode is off (LCD monitor not active) and when camera is inactive (not when pressing shutter button half-way, Image Stabilization active, writing to memory card and so on).”

Also there is this: ”For technical reasons, with older EOS 35mm film cameras (original EOS-1, EOS A2/A2E and EOS 5, EOS RT, etc.), Image Stabilization will not function if AF has been shut down by the camera. ” Finally even with new cameras they say the extender switch should not be operated while the camera is busy writing to card.

 

There: perfect compatibility is not so perfect after all. I guess it is interesting that there is no mention of such limitations in the Nikon 180-400 press materials though time will tell if it is true.

 

Those look like pretty minor issues with an unusual lens, though, and don't stop you using it, they just mean you have to use certain functions in a particular way. With Nikon, you can lose aperture control, autofocus or VR altogether with certain combinations of camera and lens. For example, none of the film cameras will work with E lenses like the 180-400, including the F6, still (just about) available new. One reason I went with the older 24-70 G (the price and lighter weight also helped!) was to retain compatibility with film.

 

It's a pity if patent issues forced Nikon to adopt screwdriver AF as an interim solution. I hope we don't seen them drop the AF motor from the higher end cameras (as they have already done with the cheaper bodies) - it would be a shame to lose compatibility with excellent lenses like the 105 DC, which will probably never be made in an AF-S version, and orphan the large numbers of AF/AF-D lenses on the secondhand market and in our camera bags. I agree about AF-P - it seems like they weren't thinking very far ahead, and seemed a bit confused about compatibility themselves, with (I think) camera like the D800 initially flagged as incompatible, but later described as compatible with 'restrictions' (like the 'auto parking' focus shift when the AF goes to sleep).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don’t think Nikon chose camera body motor driven AF initially because of patent issues but because it permitted lenses to be a bit smaller and was seen as more economical. Also it meant that AF speed could be increased by developing more powerful motors in the camera and this meant speed increases would affect basically every lens. A lot of people at the time felt Canon’s solution was too expensive (a motor in every lens), but it was eventually preferred. Nikon couldn’t use USM/SWM at first but they could have used another type of in-lens motor. Today the SWM is gradually giving way to other types of motors or at least is not as dominant as it was before. Anyway a more industry wide use of USM technology through licensing would have benefited photographers and there would have been more realistic choice of various brands of camera and lens in the early autofocus era.

 

You can use some E lenses on VR compatible cameras (for example I have used the 24 PC on an F5 successfully) as they contain a stop down button. Also for the othes you can use them wide open (which may be where one would most commonly use a longer tele anyway). But I agree that situation is not ideal. Anyway it is what it is; with Nikon if you want to use some of the newest lenses, realistically you need a relatively recent camera body. My D3X cannot use an AF-P lens, but on the other hand there is only one FX lens that is AF-P. If Nikon start making a lot of those lenses I imagine there will be more complaints since even the D810 can’t operate it without limitations. I think they were unwise in not designing AF-P to be more compatible.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ilkka, I think your use of an 85mm PC-E lens outdoors is probably a very minority exception. The target market for such a lens is surely the studio product shooter, who could certainly use more flexibility in choice of tilt angle, and would not be put off by a bellows design. In fact the close-focus facility would be a decided bonus.

 

The following was taken with a PB-4 bellows and 135mm f/8 Claron. Typical of the applications for which an 85mm PC-E might be used I think.

 

Excess image circle can easily be controlled using a lens hood or flags for such a setup.

 

Knives.thumb.jpg.3593c61580bad672036026ac3a7871e2.jpg

 

Nikon will have to update their bellows design to accommodate E series lenses anyway, in order to stay in the macro game. They might just as well make the bellows serve dual purpose as a tilt/shift adapter while they're at it. And sell macro lens heads off the back of it.

 

Adding electrical contacts to a bellows, connected via removable external cable, or through a commutator system and fixed wiring, is entirely doable. No rocket science needed, and certainly no need for an extortionate price tag.

 

With the explosion of online selling demanding ever more product shots, Nikon would be crazy to ignore this growing pro/semi pro market.

 

A T/S bellows + DSLR seems the obvious replacement for a monorail LF camera these days. And it's a market that's probably not afraid to throw a bit of money at equipment that's likely to enhance sales.

 

See? Innovation ain't that hard.

Edited by rodeo_joe|1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now



×
×
  • Create New...