Overwhelming news all at one time

[arthuryeo]

Nikon has released some new stuffs for the Photokina show-off season .

.. <a href="http://nikonimaging.com/global/news/index.htm">right

here</a>

 

<li>F6

<li>D2X

<li>Nikkor 300mm/2.8 VR

[chuck]

I am underwhelmed. I expected 16 Mpixel for D2x. Canon's 12 Mpx 1Ds has been out for over a year. Simply market psychology demand Nikon beat it by a noticeable margin. F6 is perhaps the finest camera ever to become irrelevent the day it was announced. If Nikon wants to release telephoto VRs, it should have either aimed to really make a splash, like releasing a spectacular 300mm/2.0 VR, or release the complete line of normal telephotos, including 300/2.8VR, 400/2.8VR, 500/4VR and 600/4VR. Yes, 1.5X factor might mean that Nikon can get away with not having a 600/4VR, but it should release the rest in one swoop, not dribble them out the way they do now. And, yes, Nikon DOES have the production capacity to introduce all of those at once. Previous AFS telephotos were all introduced in complete sets.

[arthuryeo]

Chuck,<br>

The Canon D1s is only 11.1 Mp. Nikon D2X is 12.4Mp. So, it is marginally more pixels.

<br>

One thing which puzzled me was the switch from CCD to CMOS. It sounds as if the LBCAST thingy did not caught on or something.

<br><br>

And, that 300mm/2.8VR lens that has a Meniscus element made me question whether if the rest of the Nikkors are crap for the digital photography since the internal reflection from the sensor would have caused so much watering-down of the final image.

[gary_woodard]

the f6 sounds baaad. canon is looking over its shoulder and breathing hard,..

[Prof-K]

Many ppl talked earlier about F6's new feature: matrix metering with ais lenses. However, http://www.nikonusa.com/template.php?cat=1&grp=6&productNr=1799# link says something else. It seems the same thing like F5. Any idea which one is true?

[martin_jiang1]

I just can not see anything exciting in F6. I don't see any difference other than the multicam 2000 and 11 area AF, and the cheapest Canon can do 45 now. so it's not a deal.

 

I think F6 should be a hybrid camera that has two back, one for film and one for digital, now that is something that will retake the lead.

[ilkka_nissila]

A hybrid camera would be excessively expensive and a poor design for either film or digital. 35 mm cameras are supposed to be compact, that's their advantage. A hybrid camera would probably be about 30% heavier than a dedicated design. I certainly wouldn't buy one.

 

11 AF sensors is better than 5, and 9 of them are cross-type. This is very good news. Also, the number of sensors doesn't tell anything about AF speed or sensitivity, which are reportedly excellent on the D2H. 45? I don't really see the need, especially since they in the Canon design are concentrated in a small central area. Seems like a waste of processing time, although I must admit I haven't used the canon.

[rustys pics]

Actually the F6 sounds like a great camera. If it really is as small and quiet as the press

release claims, then it's an "F" I may finally buy. The F4 and F5 are like carrying an Abrams

tank around your neck, and are only slighty quieter.

If that thing really does color matrix metering with Ai and AiS lenses, then it's a very rare &

wonderful thing. That kind of attention to detail is what sets Nikon apart...IF it's true.

[elliot]

Nikon, I hate you. I should have gone Canon. Oh well too late now.

[ilkka_nissila]

Elliot, what's wrong with the new products. For the first time in the 10 years I've been doing photography, I think Nikon has a significant edge over the competition. In fact, I think the D2X looks like a huge improvement over existing DSLRs.

[elliot]

"<i>Elliot, what's wrong with the new products. For the first time in the 10 years I've been doing photography, I think Nikon has a significant edge over the competition. In fact, I think the D2X looks like a huge improvement over existing DSLRs.</i>" - Ilkka Nissila<P>I duno. I guess I just feel that, overall, Canon seems to offer the same things for less money. For example, currently, the digital rebel camera is selling for around $700, while the d70 is selling for about $900. You can get the canon WITH a lens for around 825.<P>Nikon didn't offer a vertical grip for their D70 so that they force you into buying a d100 if you want that feature. Canon offers vertical grips for all of their DSLRs. The grip for the digital rebel is $99 everywhere. The grip for my D100 was well over $200.<P>Nikon announced their SB-80DX flash in Feb 2002. And then they announced the D2h in July 2003, and the D70 in January 2004. NEITHER OF THOSE CAMERAS CAN USE USE TTL WITH THE SB80! AND THATS TOTALLY FUCKED UP!<P>The D2x only offers 12mp at 5fps and if you want 8fps, you only get 6.8mp. Canon's lower resolution, high frame rate (D#h equivalent) camera offers 8.2mp at 8fps.<P>Canon has announced the 20d already (last month), which should be 5fps at 8.2mp (actually, I think its already available for purchase). (This would be the next camera I would be buying if I was shooting Canon). It is only $1600. Nikon has no competition to offer, and when they do, they'll charge more for a camera that wasnt available until long after the canon mid range model because they're assholes. <P>Canon has newer technology throughout more of their line. They have a 24 1.4, 50 1.0, 85 1.2 (maybe one or two of the latter are "discontinued" though.) and VR/AFS throughout their telephoto line (and have for some time already). ETC ETC ETC the list goes on. But since I don't feel like selling all of my lenses and buying new canon ones, I'll probably buy a Nikon F5 in a year or two when film camera prices are even lower. Unless I actually DO end up selling all of my nikon gear. Never know...

[elliot]

Oh and if you want to compare the high resolution top end models, the Canon high res model is full frame, 11mp, and has been out for a long time (September 2002). Nikon is just <i>now</i> releasing an 11mp model. Keep your eyes open and watch Canon replace their 1Ds with a full frame 16mp or 20mp camera any day now. I can see it coming. Full frame = 14mm on digital, 8mm on digital = awesome. They also have partial metering, which would be perfect for the 8mm. I duno. Nikon blows. Nikon if you're reading this, straighten out your act, or you're probably going to lose all of your business.

[ilkka_nissila]

Canon's 11 MP model doesn't have a crop factor, thus I'd need a 300/2.8 (costs lots of money I hear) instead of the 180/2.8 I use now to snap head shots. Also, the 1Ds is bigger and heavier than the Nikon D2X I believe. The D2X has 5-8 fps, and costs 5k, while the 1Ds costs 7-8k and has 3 fps. The Nikon seems a lot better for the money to my eye. And it takes Nikon lenses!!! Including manual focus ones and matrix meters with them even without chipping. In fact, it seems to have all the features of the 1D and 1Ds (which cost together quite a bit more than the D2X) in one body.

 

BTW. I doubt there will be a successor to the 1Ds any time soon other than the 1D Mark II which is out already.

 

I guess it's a question of personal preference. I hate vertical grips. I don't use flash. You can still use the flashes with flash auto modes or manual. The moral of the story is, I guess, to wait until standards are developed. The F3 also had a really odd flash interface.

 

Canon users frequently complain about the quality of their wide angles. Bjorn Rorslett rated the 20 mm f/2.8 EF lens a 3 while the Nikkor got a 5. And it's generally true that VR/IS reduces image quality when a moderately long FL is used on a good tripod (that is, the best results obtainable from a lens favour a non-IS/VR lens).

[elliot]

"<i>Canon's 11 MP model doesn't have a crop factor, thus I'd need a 300/2.8...instead of the 180/2.8 I use now to snap head shots</i>"<br>Ya, but 14mm on full frame is awesomeness. I believe that there is a place for both full frame sensor cameras and for smaller sensor cameras.<P>"<i>The D2X has 5-8 fps, and costs 5k, while the 1Ds costs 7-8k and has 3 fps.</i>"<br>So what. The 1Ds has been out since 2002. The D2x was just <i>announced</i> this month.<P>"<I>And it takes Nikon lenses!!! Including manual focus ones and matrix meters with them even without chipping.</i>"<br>I don't actually own any MF lenses in nikon mount anymore except for the 16mm zenitar that I never use (my medium format is all manual focus though, but thats a different story altogether). If I traded in for all Canon lenses, the canon camera would take all canon lenses. This is a moot point.<P>"<i>I guess it's a question of personal preference. I hate vertical grips. I don't use flash. You can still use the flashes with flash auto modes or manual. The moral of the story is, I guess, to wait until standards are developed. The F3 also had a really odd flash interface.</i>"<br>I like ttl flash and I like vertical grips (sometimes). You're right about the F3 flash though.<P>"<i>Canon users frequently complain about the quality of their wide angles. And it's generally true that VR/IS reduces image quality when a moderately long FL is used on a good tripod (that is, the best results obtainable from a lens favour a non-IS/VR lens).</i>"<br>I don't know anything about quality of canon wide angles. What you say about VR is misleading, though, as VR is only really beneficial for handholding/monopod use. I really havent read about it in a while though, and dont feel like looking it up.

[harvey_edelstein1]

I don't like the small dx sensors and the crop crap. I hope kodak keeps getting better and Fuji gets into FF sensors too. For wide angle and landscapes for what they are charging for a FF digital I could get a Hassy Xpan kit that will give me a panoramic aspect ratio in wide angle and still save money and I could scan it and still spend less.

 

The F6 looks good except if you need to be able to change viewfinders. I thought 1/500 sync was going to be standard for flash

like the D70/d1x have. But in view of the fact that the camera has some things built in that were previously extra cost options. Like,

data back, intervalometer and letting users get matrix metering with lenses that can be had cheaply because others dumped them when they upgraded to AF. The total cost of putting a system together with the F6 may calculate to be reasonable if you utilize these abilities.

Also, marginally better AF, Metering and Flash subsystems in a lighter and quieter body may outweigh not having changeable prisms.

[ilkka_nissila]

Elliot, I don't think there is much to disagree about really.

 

I think the flash business is really sad, how it went. Fortunately I wasn't affected by it. By the way, the D2H does use all the DX flashes in TTL mode, and I suspect that is true of the D2X. So nowadays you get compatibility with lenses and flashes, if you pay 5k for the body :-)

 

What I said about VR was meant like this: a lens designed without VR with current technology is very likely to overperform the VR lens (with VR is off or on) when the lenses are used on a tripod. This, I believe, is the main reason Nikon didn't pick up VR on superteles sooner.

 

I'm just glad that the D2X is coming out at all, and that it has such a high MP count. And the compatibility with old lenses is a refreshing change, although I too got rid of my manual lenses except for the 35 mm PC Nikkor, which works for panoramics (!) on the D70.

[tom_burke3]

Canon 1D MkII is not a replacement for the 1DS - it's a replacement for the 1D (Mk 1). The

IDS always fitted alongside the 1D as an alternative professional model, with different

characteristics - put simply, higher resolution, lower frame-rate.

 

And as somone else suggested, the Canon community will be sorely disappointed if this

Photokina does not see an updated version of the 1DS. Even if the sensor remains

the same (thereore same resolution, etc), at least some of the surrounding technology

ought to be updated.

[elliot]

I've been using the 8mm for panoramics. Just correcting them with <a href="http://home.no.net/dmaurer/~dersch/Index.htm" target="_blank">panorama tools</a> in photoshop. <a href="http://www.acapixus.dk/photography/panotools.htm" target="_blank">another panotools link</a>. <a href="http://www.razziphoto.com/archives/000023.php" target="_blank">another panotools link</a>.

[chris haake]

Gee, Chuck, I guess the 200 f2 and the 200-400 f4 were for naught. Whadaya think?

[lukas_kisiel]

This Nikon Canon war is kind of cool. First Canon releases the latest greatest fastest thing, then Nikon follows with a much better thing but a year or so later. Interestingly, Canon already has the next wave of the latest greatest fastest thing coming out. But of course, this time again it's not as good as the thing that Nikon will release in about a year. :)

 

I think F6 is released in order to discontinue F100 and F5. Smaller film market, less models to support, F6 is probably cheaper to make, it's all business sense. I don't think F6 is obsolete. There are plenty of people still using manual SLRs and those German rangefinders.

[douglas_greenberg]

Do people upgrade their equipment so frequently that a sixth month or even one-year lag in new product innovations between companies is that important? I only buy a new SLR every several years. If Nikon lags a bit behind Canon but then comes out with a good, solid, well-engineered product, that's fine with me. That you have to watch Canon users play with newer toys for a short time is a little frustrating but it's not that big a deal.

 

Were I just starting out in photography, perhaps I would go with Canon; I really can't argue with the quality of their products. But having already invested in Nikon products for DECADES, the slight lead that Canon has hardly makes it worth my while to switch.

[jay_miao1]

Just kind of follow-up Doug's comment as I wouldn't write anything in the first place as to the already lengthy F6 thread here, but I couldn't against myself to admit this.

 

Once upon a time I have visited a family with group of people, the host has used her digital Rebel to take pictures and I was curious enough to get a chance to really hold D-Canon as I've always been a Nikon fan for years. It is plasticy, too light like a toy, not comfortable to grip.... just one thought at that moment in my mind, I'm so lucky invest my money on Nikon through all these years!

 

All I'm saying is that's how and why Canon's selling their con cameras cheaper in general comparison to Nikon's. I would bet that most photography enthusiasts will like to have a well built body on top of the advanced technologies.

 

All in all, even the F6 has not been a digifilm combo as most imagined or dreamed of, but that's not important. This camera will last as long as the film makers would close their business.

[chuck]

"Chris Haake , sep 17, 2004; 04:20 a.m.<p>

Gee, Chuck, I guess the 200 f2 and the 200-400 f4 were for naught. Whadaya think?"

 

200 f/2 does not stake out any ground Canon doesn't already claim.

200-400 f/4 is definitly a good marketing step in the right direction for Nikon, especially since Canon promised one 4 years ago but has failed to deliver. However, current score sheet still heavily favor Canon, and one 200-400 is not enough to equal the score. To regain part of its former cache, Nikon needs more spectacular lens that shows off its optical prowess. A 300 f/2 would go a long way towards clawing back the ground Canon gained since about 1994.

[chuck]

Other DX lenses I think Nikon should offer for strategic reasons includes:

1. 16-160/3.5-5.6 VR

2. 800/5.6 VR

3. 55-140/4

4. 35/1.4

5. 18/1.4

6. 18/2.8 PC

[ilkka_nissila]

Why 800/5.6 DX? Oh never mind.