2006 PMA Releases

I enjoyed the last little "around the campfire question", so here's

another one. What are your predictions for a new Nikon products at

PMA? Here's my list:

 

D3x - 17 Mp chip (with DX form factor), WiFi file transfer,

interchangeable finders, built in databack functionality, built in

GPS, 8FPS full frame with 50 frame buffer, built-in flash GN 60 and

1/500th shutter speed sync

 

9mm f/3.5 DX lens

 

18mm f/2.8 DX PC (shift) lens

 

60mm or 70mm f/1.8 DX with defocus control

 

35mm or 28mm f/1.2 DX

 

SB 1100 potato masher mega flash with i-ttl, GN 190 @ ISO 100

 

MF-200x40 40Gb portable digital storage unit that allows images to

record directly from D200 to large hard drive. Maybe a Coolwalker that

hooks into new DSLR.

 

Nikonos VI digital underwater camera, using existing UW lenses.

Are you kidding? As slow as Nikon is to the competitive marketplace they wil probably

introduce a new line of point and shoot for their growing drugstore market. I would love to

see a 500 or 600 VR lens to rival the big white lenses. Reality is Nikon is slow to react to the

marketplace. I am glad they at least have the 200, 300, and 200-400 mm VRs available.

 

I will be at the PMA to see for myself.

This post will not see saturday night.

 

I know it fun but total BS. The Forum police will have lock this up before midnight.

Probably not a FM4.

I wouldn't be interested in a built-in flash in a pro level dSLR. But a built-in flash commander for the CLS flash system? You bet.

 

Don't look for this in 2006. The D2X isn't obsolete, not by a long shot.

 

There's no point to a DX PC Nikkor. A wider PC Nikkor should anticipate a larger sensor. Lens design is a long term investment. While we don't know when Nikon will introduce a 24x36 sensor, they will eventually do so. It doesn't make sense to design a PC lens with a small image circle.

I'm not entirely convinced that Nikon will eventually release a full frame body. I don't see any

compelling reason why they should. And if your logic were to hold true, why would they have

released ANY DX lenses? If Nikon was committed to transitioning to FF sensors they would

have never manufactured a single DX lens in the first place. I think we have to go with the

assumption that Nikon doesn't plan on making a FF sensor at any time in the foreseeable

future. They're clearly committed to DX.

Making a handful of DX lenses to accomodate the preferences of today's technology is not equivalent to digging a hole. And making lenses that can accomodate 35mm film or a 24x36 sensor isn't an abandonment of the current sensor size. It's likely the current sensor size will continue to be the Nikon standard for some time to come.

20mm f/1.4 DX. I've probably said it a dozen times in this forum; we need a lens like this (among others) if Nikon is committed to the 'DX' size sensors. Until I see this and the other 'holes' in the line filled in, I personally question Nikon's stance that they won't ever do digital FF.

"I'm not entirely convinced that Nikon will eventually release a full frame body. I don't see any compelling reason why they should. And if your logic were to hold true, why would they have released ANY DX lenses? If Nikon was committed to transitioning to FF sensors they would have never manufactured a single DX lens in the first place."

 

If Nikon was committed to DSLRs why did they release the F6. Certainly their development of a new film camera couldn't mean that they would give up on that format would they?

 

Go ahead and buy your crappy DX lenses, Nikon will laugh all the way to the bank when they release a FF DSLR and the mountains of DX lenses are obsolete.

 

Don't think it will happen, take a look over at the Canon forum and see what the 5D is doing to their APS lenses. Since Nikon is heading down the Canon path, within a couple of years investments in these lenses will be useful for consumer grade DSLRS. Pro and prosumer DSLRs will require those "old school" lenses.

<I>Don't think it will happen, take a look over at the Canon forum and see what the 5D is

doing to their APS lenses.</i><P>

 

In this arena, the difference is this: Canon has been making FF digitals for more than

three years now, and has made no secret of the fact that many or most (but probably not

all) of its future DSLRs will be FF. The EF-S (APS only) lenses are offered in that very

explicit context, and the company can't be accused of trying to hide anything about future

"35mm" DSLR formats (and incidently, are there data that EF-S lens sales have fallen with

the appearance of the 5D?). <P>

In contrast, Nikon has been beating the DX format drum exclusively, so if they DO go

with a FF digital (??), a lot of DX lens purchasers who thought that format was the

exclusive wave of the future will have every right to feel a bit duped.

Lex, you said what I've had trouble articulating: how big of a hole is Nikon digging by sticking to the DX story?

 

I wonder how many Megapixels and how much color depth Nikon can cram onto a DX chip.

My prediction is a sub $500.00 DSLR kit, a 30mm f1.8 DX AFS, 70-300mm F4-5.6 AFS VR, and a $125.00 i-TTL consumer speedlight. I also predict an 8 megapixel compact with a 28mm-115mm equivalent zoom lens at the $450.00 price point and a replacement for the S4 with electonic image stabilization.

I believe the APS size sensor will have a place in the dSLR for some time to come. For one thing, it should eventually be practical to put the image quality potential of the D2X into a body the size of the D70s, maybe even the D50. Sure, such a camera probably won't have blistering framerates or a huge buffer, but not everyone is concerned with that. I can see a healthy market for a small, lightweight but well made camera that emphasizes image quality over speed (framerates and autofocusing speed).

 

The main advantages to the DX type lens is a lighter, more compact package at a somewhat lower price without sacrificing quality. Who wouldn't want that?

 

Also, if Nikon issues an f/2.8 version of the 12-24DX, wouldn't that pretty much resolve the complaints about the smaller sensor compromising the effectiveness of wide angles?

 

I don't see any serious problems with the DX format that can't be resolved within the next couplafew years. That doesn't mean Nikon can't offer a dSLR with a larger sensor. But not everyone will want such a camera if they can get satisfactory image quality and effectively wide angle lenses in a smaller, lighter, less expensive package.

 

Having lugged around a D2H for almost a year, I can say that there are times when I'd be willing to give up fast framerates and maybe even AF speed in exchange for a lighter camera, as long as the viewfinder is at least as good as that on my FM2N or OM-1.

It surprises me to still hear people say whether or not there will be a FF nikon. There will be, the only question is when. I'll say spring '07...fall/winter '07 latest. Whether or not you need FF is another matter.

Nikon will reintroduce a FF dSLR they made prior to the D series.

 

It is plain wrong to say there never was a FF dSLR from Nikon!!

This is more a wish list than a set of predictions - for example, Nikon has <i>never</i> made a pro body with a built-in flash. F through to F6, D1, D2, not there. Why would the D3 have one?

It is also plain wrong to assume that in the digital era, the 24x36mm sensor size has any significance other than the fact that a lot of people have existing lenses designed for that format from their 35mm film cameras. But maintaining continuity from the past is indeed an important factor.

 

By the same token, the 16x24mm so called DX format Nikon has been using in all of its DSLRs is not casted in stone either. That could change as well.

 

My point is that formats such as 24x36mm or 16x24mm won't necessarily be there forever. Technology and cost of new electronic components will continue to change quickly. For the sake of argument, say if Nikon feels that a 20x30mm or even 24x30mm sensor works great, that can be an option in the future as well. (For example, the Hasselbald H2D uses a 36.7x49mm sensor, which is a crop from the 645 film frame or the traditional 6x6cm Hasselblad has been using for decades as well.)

 

Now back to the PMA. Please keep in mind that Nikon announced 4 new DSLRs in 2005: D2Hs, D50, D70s and D200. And while the D2X was announced in 2004, it wasn't available until late February, 2005. Therefore, it is unlikely that Nikon will replace a lot of them so soon. The two "S" models D2Hs and D70s were minor upgrades from earlier versions, and most likely Nikon will replace those. Personally, I really would like to see an 8 to 10MP sports/action DSLR.

 

We certainly miss some DX primes. But the rumors I have seen repeatedly are the 105mm/f2.8 VR macro and the 70-300mm AF-S VR.

 

We'll find out within 2, 3 weeks.

Yeh, I'd be more interested in seeing competition to the EOS Mark IIN than anything else. To use Emerilspeak, kick the D2Hs up another notch.

There is a small likely hood that there will be a 1Ds Mk IV N when a comparison camera (for the 1DsMkIIN) from Nikon is announced.

 

Give or take a half a dozen months before it shows up and another full year before all the 'bugs' are sorted out.

Lex, lots of people would like to have a PC DX wide angle, myself included. The discontinuance of the 28 mm PC is a clear sign (and several hints from Nikon) that this is going to come out soon.

 

Movements are relative to the sensor size. To be effective, a DX PC lens for architecture would have to be about 18 mm in FL. I doubt anyone is going to do a FF PC lens of 18 mm FL. Thus it will be DX.

 

A 12-24/2.8 would be huge, expensive, and probably distort and flare significantly more than a prime 12 or 14 in the DX format. The lack of a prime DX lens has actually led me to acquire a 6x7 rangefinder with a 50 mm lens. I just felt that the DX format is basically for tele work and the wide angle stuff is a necessary afterthought, but they aren't really aiming to be very serious about it. Discontinuing the 28 mm PC and 28/1.4, 28/2 lenses are other signs that they don't really know what they're doing. All they look at is current sales figures.

 

So, which is going to come out first? EOS 1Ds Mk III or Nikon FF or DX prime wide angles? My bet is that the Canon will be first, followed by a couple of DX wides which will be followed by the announcement of a Nikon FF DSLR in late 2007 and delivery by June 2008, followed by the discontinuance of the F6. Sorry for the speculation.

A 12/2.8 or 13/2.8 DX lens is what is missing from their DX line up...and perhaps something like a 60/1.8 DX for portraits.

<p><em>"The main advantages to the DX type lens is a lighter, more compact

package at a somewhat lower price without sacrificing quality. "</em></p>

<p>What about the 17-55 f2.8? Expensive, heavy, not so compact. The DX lenses except

for the 17-55 have mostly been cheap plastic contruction and slow. Obviously the format

allows for smaller form factor optics, but then why is the 17-55 2.8 not that much

different in size weight than the FF 28-70 f2.8???</p>

<p>This argument is in no way convincing enough to exonerate Nikon from their

shameful half in half out approach to FF. DX is totally mismatched with Nikon's current

lens line up and for anyone who rarely shoots over 105 (like myself). </p>

<p>Who cares if they make some people angry by making their lenses obsolete? It's either

that or they will lose out to Canon. The only lens that's a pro investment in DX is the

17-55 anyway... I own the 12-24 but it's not necessarily a pro lens (f4) so any pro who

most likely migrated to Nikon Digital kept their fast glass (like 17-35 f2.8 etc.) and maybe

bought the 17-55. when you're talking in the realm of 5-8000 dollars for a FF Nikon pro

camera, pretty much everyone I know would take a loss on a 17-55. Hell I'm thinking of

taking a major loss for the switch to canon so I can get FF.</p>

<p>If they don't announce any plans in the near future for a FF, or drop any good new DX

lenses at PMA, it's an EOS 5d, 16-35 L, 50 1.4, and 70-200 L for me. </p>

<p>What I would like to see at PMA from Nikon:</p>

<ul>

<li>Nikon D3x: 17-20 MP FF Nikon Digital (with form factor of D2X). High speed crop

mode to 1.5x so it's useable with DX lenses.</li>

<li>PLANS to bring out a FF digital around the specs / size of EOS 5D. 13 MP. Drop the

D70, merge the D70 and D50 lines (since the D50 takes better pictures anyway).</li>

</ul>

<p>So Nikon line is like this:</p>

<ul>

<li>D80 (or whatever)- 8MP DX size sensor, $500-600 </li>

<li>D200- we all know the specs obviously, $1700</li>

<li>D6- (built out like F6 form factor)- FF sensor- 13-15 MP- available DX crop mode

$3000</li>

<li>D3X- (built with D2X form factor)- FF sensor 17-20 MP- available DX crop mode.

$5-6000</li>

</ul>

<p><em>Yes I know it looks like Canon's line but nikon's situation is not looking good.

</em></p>

<p>If Nikon dissapoints at PMA, what I'd like to see:</p>

<ul>

<li>A Canon 5d price drop :)</li>

<li>A Canon price drop on the 70-200 f2.8 IS </li>

</ul>

<p> </p>

First of all I like the above suggestions, all have merit. But lets face it Nikon has a lot of work to do. I have read test comparisons between the Canon 1dsMII and the Nikon D2x in the British Practical Photo magazine and on Dpreview, both are IMHO unbiased sources.

 

The major areas that the D2x needs are in exposure latitude, the Canon has at least 2 stops more. Also, the Canon is lower in noise at higher iso say at 1600 and above.

 

Also, removing artifacts and issues such as the banding that been found in the new D200 should be taken care of.

 

It is far more important to make digital more like film with less burnt out highlights and loss of shadow details due to shallow latitude than to add more MP or even FF sensors.

 

Second thing that should be done is shrink the size and weight of the D2x by one third. I would no sooner want to lug arround the D2x than my Pentax 6x7. I never bought the F5 because of its portlyness. I like the size of the F6 without the grip and think that should be the size Nikon should shoot for.

An interesting fireside chat. Can someone explain the phrase, 'form factor' for me?

 

I'm thinking by 'F6 form factor' we are referring to build quality, Cam 2000 focus, existing size and weight of the F6, all the basic custom functions, viewfinder quality, etc. Am I close?

 

Thanks,

 

Gup.

"Form Factor" = Ergonomics? How it handles?