D2x speculation...

Maybe I'm oblivious, maybe nobody knows, but when I saw all the info

about a Nikon announcement on July 22nd and then the "leaked" info

about the D2h and the lenses and flash I just assumed that no one had

managed to leak the info about the D2x which I assumed would also be

announced with the rest of the stuff.

 

Now I've read speculation that the D2h is the only body that will be

announced and that I will still have to wait until fall for the D2x!!

Can anyone confirm that, is that the assumption b/c nothing's leaked

about the D2x, amy I just being to dang impatient. Holy cow, I really

wanted these guys to be announced simultaneously--it would make the

PJ's happy, the studio guys happy and the ever-so-hungry amateurs

happy as well. If I have to wait another 3-6 months I'm gonna pop!

What got me about the "leak" was word about a successor to the D100 next spring. Just when I am ready to spend $1699 for D100, something else is coming and I'm assuming it will be faster and better than what is now available in D100....nothing like seeing your investment is worth 1/2 of what you paid 6 months ago.

 

I think i'm going to stick to film for LONG time until the digital dust settles.

i dont think the digital dust will settle for a while. so you may be sticking with film for a long while. hoorah for film!

<p>D100, D200, D210, it never ends. Now that the digital/electronics environment has invaded photography camera hardware will follow the same path as computer hardware. Remember how fast that 486 DX50 went out of date? Did you buy a Pentium then cuss because the Pentium MMX came out? Then the Pentium II and a few months later the Pentium III? My laptop was fast a few months ago, but now that the 2 Ghz barrier is broken it seems like a clunker. And now you can get a DVD-R drive to replace those tiny CD-R discs.</p>

 

<p>The computer world has treated us to a dizzying blur of ever-increasing capability and now we see the digital camera hardware industry following the same path. My solution is to accept the fact that my $1700 camera will be out of date in a few months. The features of one that will replace it won't have a huge impact on me anyway (I know, I know, sour grapes...):</p>

 

<ul>

<li>I actually prefer the 1.5x crop factor because most of my shots are longer than 30 mm and I love the free additional telephoto

<li>"It's only film" has never sat well with me and I've always approached every shot as the LF photographer does: think a lot first because each frame is expensive. So the memory buffer size issue isn't an issue for me

<li>I shoot with an N80 now and I like the idea that the D100 provides a nearly identical interface. Hell, there's too much to think about anyway and I sure don't need to learn a whole new body

<li>I can usually think about more benefits to buying now instead of waiting on the new leap in technology, but it's late.

</ul>

DSLRs will continue to evolove but the changes won't be as fast as PCs, unless you are dealing with Canon. Most people agree that 6MP is sufficient to replace 35mm film, and something like the D100 is fine for most amateurs.

 

Having had a D100 for almost a year, my main problmes with it are the slower AF and frame rate. If you don't shoot action, those are not issues. Otherwise, the main issue is price. When something like the D100 drops below $1000, it'll make sense for a lot of people, especially considering that there will no longer be any film and processing cost.

<em>"Most people agree that 6MP is sufficient to replace

35mm film, and something like the D100 is fine for most amateurs."

-- Shun Cheung<br>

</em><br>

Just as I thought! It a conspiracy! :)<br>

<br>

I want a digital back for the FM3a (as well as FE2 and FM2n) and

one for the F5 that has 16MP not 6 and a format size of 23x35mm.

If they cant stuff that size sensor in the film aperture of

these cameras then they can ... never mind.<br>

<br>

Did I mention that G-Series Lenses Suck!

David, I have much the same desire as you have wrt digital back for the FM3A! Who knows, Nikon may have that in mind already ...

 

Reg. megapixels, I'd be happy with 12 mpx but I want 48 bit color ;-)

 

One thing I have wondered about in this regard -- given the poor eye-relief of the FM3A, how usable would it be with a digital back stuck to it? The digiback would be considerably bulkier than the normal back plate, isn't it?

The dust will certainly settle and the changes (in image quality) will be slow after that. There are physical limits to the resolution and noise level that can be obtained, and after those, you'll just need to start buying bigger cameras.

I dunno Vince, my 1.13Ghz laptop is still pretty fast. :)

Wow, that would be a dream come true. And make that a full frame sensor with 12 megapixels. Now that's worth spending $1000+ on!

David, Arnab and John plus whoever may be interested, if you guys can come up with the a few million dollars in R&D cost, I am sure Nikon or someone else will be interested in making a digital back for the FM3a and others in the FM/FE series. For instance, Kodak is making one for the Leica R8/R9. The bad news is that any digital back will still require a battery to operate. That negates one of the reasons to use an FM-type camera. Moreover, I am afraid that $1000 won't cut it.

 

The easier answer is to get a D1 or future D2 and use it in manual mode if that is what you prefer.

I say bah to full frame sensors. They decided to burn the bridge with the G lenses, they might as well have a line of digital lenses as has been suggested by the SMP, I think. Smaller, faster, better.

 

As for the latest models, I demand throwbacks, like a provision for a standard cable release, even though I caved years ago on their stupid $50 thing, and mirror lock up for maximum vibration control, even though I'm too lazy to use it and a used LF setup would probably be cheaper than any new body w/ MLU :)

 

-Devin

The apparence of the apparently professional quality 17-55 f/2.8 AFS DX lens definitely drives quite a few nails into the coffin of a Nikon 135 format DSLR.

Nikon has said that they think the 1/2 frame sensor provides the best quality/price ratio and that's why they're settling for that in the short term. However, it is obvious that the full imaging potential of 35 mm lenses won't be available with these sensors. Of course, this might not matter to zoom users, since those lenses usually are quite soft in the corners of the 24x36 mm frame. Suddenly this matters less and vignetting is gone too. BUT: it's quite clear that the digital sensors with a half-frame size will never meet all needs in resolution, and also since competing brands are offering full-frame cameras, it ties Nikon to the 2nd class in image quality. I have little interest in getting one of these half-frame cameras, although the 17?18-55 mm f/2.8 DX zoom will make them for the first time useable for certain applications. I've payed a lot of money to get sharp corners in the 24x36 mm format, and I'm likely to stay with film until the short-term problem of 24x36 mm sensor cost goes away.

" it is obvious that the full imaging potential of 35 mm lenses won't be available with these sensors."<P>

That is why there are DX lenses. They only offer those potential that would actually be used.