interview with Nikon

"DCWatch interview with Nikon held at PMA 2007"

 

 

http://www.nikonians.org/cgi-bin/dcforum/dcboard.cgi?az=show_thread&om=16586&forum=DCForumID38&viewmode=all#12

 

 

[...]

 

The zoom lenses have VR function now, please add VR to prime lenses.

 

Of course. To satisfy customers? demand, we will keep introducing VR lenses for

the entry level users.

 

For individual users, Nikon already has so many product lines. In what direction

is Nikon heading in product development?

 

Our plan is to start from the low end products and then move to the high end

products. We will update our products based on the new technology and

development speed.

 

Also ──D2x is on the market for a while now. Is there and when a replacement coming?

 

No comment for that. Of course, we continue our research and development?.

 

[...]

 

 

regards, michael

You can't always get what you want, but if you try sometime, you just might find, you get what you need.

"Our plan is to start from the low end products and then move to the high end products. We

will update our products based on the new technology and development speed."

 

That is what Canon's stated position is as well currently.

There is a prime lens with VR. The new 105 2.8 micro VR.

And the 200/2 VR.

... and the 300/2.8 VR. :-)

 

I'm sure there will be more ... eventually!

How about a VR on the body itself so some of us can use our normal lens instead of having to shell out an extra $300 per lens just for VR! We all know they have the technology to do so. Unfortunately for us, the margins on VR lenses are too sweet for Nikon to simply "give it away."

I think VR in the body has been noted to affect shutter reaction time. I'd rather it in the lens for the reason and you can also see the effect of the VR with it in the lens :).

You need to keep in mind that VR in the body isn't free either. There is an additional cost involved when you incorporate VR into the body.

 

Also remember that we are now in the digital era, and most people replace their camera bodies a lot more often. If you upgrade your bodies every 2, 3 years as a lot of people, you'd be paying for the addition of VR into the body over and over.

 

I am not sure which way is more econimical, but either way, you'll be paying for VR multiple times.

While its true there's an additional cost to incorporate VR on the body, at least we just have to bite the bullet once and not have to replace all our normal lenses to enjoy VR. If Sony can produce a VR camera in the sub $1000 range, I'm sure Nikon and Canon could do the same. The only difference is the former does not manufacture lenses while the latter does. That said, I believe the two giants have discovered a new source of revenue (sizeable profit margins of course)and are not about to challenge Sony in that arena.

 

Then again, Eric may be right and may be best to incorporate VR on the lens if only to improve focusing speed and shutter reaction time.

Nikon has stated they prefer to incorporate VR into the lens. And they fine tune the VR circuitry for each lens.

 

http://nikonimaging.com/global/technology/scene/16/index.htm

 

"Detailed adjustments are made to individual Nikon lenses at the time of production, so it is possible to add appropriate parameters to the VR feature according to the characteristics of each lens at that time."

<I>While its true there's an additional cost to incorporate VR on the body, at least we just have to bite the bullet once and not have to replace all our normal lenses to enjoy VR.</I>

<P>

Nope, Jack, you missed my point completely. I already pointed out that since most people will upgrade their digital bodies fairly often, they would pay for the additional cost of in-body VR over and over also.

<P>

If you really want to save money and have really good VR, the easiest solution is to use a good tripod. Now, that is something you need to buy just once and use for a long time, although perhaps still not forever.

<P>

This issue is kind of like in-body vs. in-lens AF motor. As it turns out, it is better to have the AF motor in the lens. One side doesn't fit all. When you have a bigger lens, you need a more powerful motor to drive the heavier elements.

<P>

By the same token, for those of us who use super teles, a small amount of shake is going to lead to a lot of movement at the image level where the in-body VR will have a hard time correcting it. For VR to be effective on super teles, you are much better off having VR lens elements that are close to the pivit point of lens shake.

Is it possible that, having developed a VR-in-lens system, they're now effectively committed to it? If you had VR lenses clamped to VR bodies I somehow doubt the effects would be cumulative - more likely disastrous* - so it would add yet another layer of complication to what equipment could be used together in which modes. Not so much fun.

 

*Disclaimer. This comment is based upon pessimism and not actual experience. Do not take it too seriously.

A while ago Thom Hogan had a fairly extensive discussion about having VR in both the body and the lens. I am not sure that the two can work well hand in hand. Perhaps it is more like if the body detects that the lens already has VR and it is on, the body will switch off its own VR.

 

Another major issue is that in-body VR takes advantage of the fact that those DSLRs are using a small sensor so that the image circle from the lens can still completely cover the entire sensor while it is moving around. Once you go full-frame on the high end, the image circle is simply insufficient unless you widen the lens mount and make bigger lenses. Obviously changing the lens mount is a complete no no for Canon and Nikon now. Therefore, for any brand that has full-frame in plan, they'll continue to need VR in the lenses.

 

It is unclear whether Sony and Pentax, or for that matter Nikon, will ever add full 24x36mm frame DSLRs. If so, it'll be interesting to see how Sony and Pentax resolve that issue.