2006 PMA Releases

[peter_martucci]

by form factor I meant basic industrial design. size, shape, grip, controls etc. Maybe an

improper use of the word?

[peter_martucci]

<em>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.</em>

 

<p>Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but I think that in order to have a camera with the

speed

and MP count of the D2x (or EOS 1Ds for that matter) I think that the extended battery

(and thus built in grip) is crucial. The EOS 5d, while no slouch, is 3fps and 12.8 MP (FF)

and only gets 320 or so shots per charge. That's why everyone I know that got one

bought the optional battery grip.

 

i don't think the battery technology is up to the task of an 8fps 17-20 MP beast in a small

form factor at this point.

[gaius1]

Big heavy camera = lots of inertia = easier to handhold at slower shutter speeds.

[vivek iyer]

"lots of inertia" Right you are, Guy.

 

Won't help kick start the use by the folks who are averse to heavy equipment!

[harvey_edelstein1]

The medium format Mamiya ZD will be about the same size as the D2x and Canon 1ds they need less steroid for their size sensor. 35mm was supposed to be the balanced size vs. performance format. If a medium format dslr is the same size approximately with a larger sensor the format delineations disappear and the camera that takes the better picture wins.

[ShunCheung]

Speaking of the Mamiya ZD, it was announced in September 2004: http://www.dpreview.com/news/0409/04092902mamiya_zd.asp

 

However, it is still not available as a product. That kind of delay is usually a very bad sign.

[ilkka_nissila]

I think they should do a 13/2.8 DX (or it can be f/4, I don't care as long as it is <b>small</b> and has good image quality), and a 20/1.4 DX as well as 28/1.4 DX, along with the 18/4 DX PC. Then they should do a 50 mm or 60/1.8 DX or so as Jim suggested, with the build quality of the 105/2 DC or 85/1.4, so that it doesn't wobble like the AF 50s do when focusing.

 

Then we're in business with the DX format.

 

The way I see it the problem is this: medium format digital is either not really competitive or it is absurdly expensive ($30000+). Those who can afford it without a second thought - great. But there are quite a few who can't. Then there are the Canon FF DSLRs and the D2X and D200 on the DX size. These are the options for landscapes. The DX cameras have their own advantages (even sharpness and illumination) but if you want a bit better than that, then there is the Canon and then the price jumps up dramatically after you go beyond FF, not before. And the Canon system is every bit as comprehensive and versatile as the Nikon system, if not more.

 

So it's really a no-brainer if you start a new system. There is point of diminishing returns and that's after the Canon 5D, not before it.

[harvey_edelstein1]

Shun you are right once again, I was thinking the same thing when the D2x was delayed in availability for months. I think that Mamiya can't afford to have Banding issues (d200) or dead cameras (d2h) since they are a smaller company selling to pros not prosumers and they need to get it right or else they could be in for bad fiscal hit and awful PR.

 

It seems like all these MF outfits including Pentax are having to struggle to get a product out the door. I hope they do a good job since so many of us would like to at least use our MF lenses on an MF camera one day before film either dries up or gets too expensive.

[ilkka_nissila]

IT would be nice to see the medium format camera makers back in the game but I think that will take another 10 years before their use becomes widespread outside of the very rich and the studio photographers in digital. When you can get a MF DSLR for $5000 people will start buying them in numbers. Of course, then a 5D will cost $1500.

 

Still, it would be nice to see Mamiya stay healthy. If Hasselblad and Mamiya go under, then there are just Canon and Nikon and that would be really bad for all of us.

[ShunCheung]

The D2X's announcement was different. When Nikon announced it just before PhotoKina in September, 2004 (around the same time as the ZD), Nikon made it clear that it wouldn't actually be available until January, 2005. Eventually they started shipping in February. Therefore, the actualy delay was merely a month. The ZD is more like Contax's digital N, the world's first 35mm "full-frame" DSLR. That was delayed by 2 years and when it was finally available, it was very expensive and had a lot of problems. The digital N lasted only a year and eventually the entire Contax brand went down the drain.

 

Essentially, in the digital era, the need for medium format is greatly reduced. I just make some 13x19 prints from the wedding I shot with my D2X a couple of weeks ago. The print quality is far better than anything I have ever gotten from 35mm film. I wonder whether I'll ever have applications to justify medium-format digital. Therefore, I wouldn't be surprised that eventually perhaps only 1 or 2 brands will survive in medium format. I can only wish I had realized this 5 years ago and I wouldn't have bought my Contax 645 to begin with.

[lex_jenkins]

Peter, as I mentioned in another thread in which you brought up this argument, many folks will find the additional 20mm focal range of the 17-55/2.8DX to be a significant advantage over the 17-35/2.8 Nikkor, which is approximately the same size and weight.

 

Even the 18-70/3.5-4.5DX is not cheap plastic construction (can't speak for the new DX lenses introduced for the D50). It's pretty well made for a consumer grade lens.

 

The 10.5mm f/2.8 fisheye and 12-24/4 DX lenses are hardly slow. Do you know of anyone making faster comparable lenses?

 

If you're feeling the yen for instantaneous full frame gratification, by all means, get a Canon. But don't expect others to be persuaded by specious arguments.

 

The only really persuasive arguments in favor of Canon have nothing to do with sensor size. As Mark Chappell has rightly pointed out, Canon offers a better selection of long telephotos for the serious wildlife photographer and, to a lesser extent, the sports photographer.

 

However I don't see why anyone would feel "duped" if Nikon does eventually introduce a FF sensor. It doesn't mean they'll abandon the DX sensor. For many folks the ideal dSLR will be something no larger and heavier than a D50 but with more capabilities. These folks won't want to hang unnecessarily large lenses off a small, lightweight camera.

 

The people who are getting all emotional about Nikon's current offerings and what they might or might not do in the future were never potential customers for the D50 in the first place. They aren't representative of the entire market, any more than D50 or digital Rebel buyers are representative of the entire Nikon and Canon market.

[ilkka_nissila]

I think that only the price and slow computers are keeping MF digital from becoming a hit. Once sensors for 645 cameras get affordable, I'm sure many people will say "I can't believe how soft my prints were from ten years ago ... and they look like they were artificially sharpened instead of utilizing only actual detail from the scene and presenting it as it was."

[harvey_edelstein1]

I think Mamiya is trying to show that their MP count while only slightly higher than the Canons' 1dsII, can make pictures that are a cut above in terms of subtle things that Pros want. Better colors, more natural hair that looks like hair on film less blob like more texture. Better skin rendition not looking plasticy. Good balanced colors with good saturation with many shadings and hues. Latitude improvements that mean less work retouching in PS.

Mamiya lenses are excellent and wides like the Mamiya 7 43mm show they know how to make low distortion WA. Maybe, results will WA will work better on the larger image circle with digital MF. I could go on but, I think the point is that Mamiya is doing their first all digital camera and just like Nikon take a long time for their product cycle Mamiya is taking a longer time since they have to prove that MF still has a place in the digital capture age.

[ned1]

I have it on good authority that Nikon intends to preview a line of "matchbox" cameras. These cameras will be only slightly larger than a match box and extensive market research has shown that the will be highly attactive to the average consumer. They will have no lense since this will make them look really cool and most consumers don't know what a lense is anyway, and they will be made entirely out of lead to give them a professional feeling heft. They will be available in black, chrome, and bling. Suggested retail price will be $500.

[ilkka_nissila]

The sample images from the Mamiya digital were certainly impressive and a cut above 35 mm FF in quality. This is what it will be about: more actual detail and less image processing-induced sharp look.

 

I don't think the Mamiya 7 wide angles are digital-friendly. If Mamiya were to make a digital rangefinder with a full 6x7 frame, it would probably cost $100000. Just my guess :-) But yes, they're very sharp and have 1/10th of the distortion of typical prime Nikkor wide angles.

[peter_martucci]

<em>If you're feeling the yen for instantaneous full frame gratification, by all means, get

a Canon. But don't expect others to be persuaded by specious arguments.

 

The only really persuasive arguments in favor of Canon have nothing to do with sensor

size. As Mark Chappell has rightly pointed out, Canon offers a better selection of long

telephotos for the serious wildlife photographer and, to a lesser extent, the sports

photographer.</em>

 

<p>Hello Lex, with all due respect, the Canon line of lenses has an advantage in the

wideangle area as well. Not to mention the subtle yet advantageous noise, IQ and DOF

advantages of FF. Of course there are disadvantages like falloff, but let's not rehash that

battle here.

 

<p>However, if you go back and read my posts, my qualms with Nikon's current offerings

are less about FF, and more with its mismatched lens line up and the lack of DX lenses

available. I've posted numerous times about the superiority in Nikon ergonomics,

metering system, and flash system. PLus I've used Nikon my entire life (although my first

camera was a Canon).

 

<p>After the release of the D200 with only 1 new DX variable aperture VR lens (which BTW

is supposedly great but nonetheless not exactly filling out the DX line), I started thinking

long and hard about what the future of the NIkon line is going to be instead of just blindly

buying the D200 (which I may yet do). It's time for me to upgrade and I've revisited all of

my old shots and thought long and hard about what I need in a camera versus what I want

(and what is lacking in my system). I don't have a significant investment in Nikon glass,

and I'm not married to Nikon, so i thought I'd look around.

 

<p>I am in no way trying to convince people to switch to FF. But some people like myself

who are wide-angle shooters with some portrait work are having trouble with the Nikon

lens line up. Not everyone uses long lenses (although it sometimes seems that way on

photo.net).

 

<p>There is no fast straight lens right now. There is no equivelent to the 85 prime. either

too long or too short. i don't need to rehash the argument but I think you get the idea.

And once again, a 10.5 mm lens is a different wide angle IMO than a 15mm. Same as a

12mm versus an 18mm.

 

<p>The 70-200 VR, which is/was the next lens I plan/plannned on purchasing becomes a

slightly long 105-300, which for my purposes is pretty tough to use. And the 80-200 is a

120-300, which is even more useless IMO.

 

<p>As someone posted on photo.net sometime ago... no one asked for smaller sensors.

They were forced on the consumer because it's cheaper. Simple as that. Yeah that's a cool

side effect that long lens shooters get 1.5 times the length, but the original intention was

price.

 

<p>that's ok with me i suppose (although DX-size sensor has shortcomings) as it's been

proven that a DX camera can offer magnificent results (D2X), probably as good of results

as I would ever personally need in a small form factor, but the appropriate lenses must

follow. Yes these are just tools, but you can't screw in a flat head screw with a phillips.

 

<p> And with the D50, I stand by my earlier suggestion of merging the d50 and d70 line.

They are too similar and the d50 takes better pictures, so why waste R&D money on

making two very similar products? Let the d200 settle into a groove against the 20D and

drop something new to take on the 5D. A new D80 in smaller D50 form factor would kill

the Rebel which IMO is a really cheap feeling camera. A new camera with 5D specs but

better weather proof build quality would be a smash. Then let the D2x battle the 1ds.

Nikon has made bad moves in the marketing war since everyone always thinks they are

playing catch upbut in reality they drop some products which are superior to the canon

equivelents in many ways (D70 versus Rebel, D200 versus 20d for example) but they have

a staggered line up.

 

<p> sorry all it seems i've gotten caught up in the very NIkon v. Canon war i always try to

stay out of so I'm going to step out of this one for a bit. Best...

 

<p>

 

 

 

 

 

[gaius1]

Canon: 600/4 lens on a full frame body.

 

Nikon: 300/2.8 VR lens on D2x in HSC mode.

[lex_jenkins]

Peter, if your primary concern is with the lenses and accessories you'll need for your style of photography, and not with brand loyalty, I can't argue with your logic. I've always believed that choosing a system should start with a review of the available lenses and accessories.

 

Since focal length is definitely related to format (sensor/film size), especially with wide angles, there's no way to ignore the format. If you need a particular lens that's available in one system and not the other, that pretty much clinches the deal.

[chan_wei_jian]

Do you think that Nikon will issue a price drop on 70-200vr or 17-35 afs. Im new and hence have no experience with Nikon trends...

[lex_jenkins]

Price discounts tend to be seasonal. You missed the recent rebates on the 70-200/2.8 VR and 17-35/2.8. So did I, altho' I couldn't afford 'em anyway.

 

Other variations are according the the exchange rate. Keep an eye on the value of the Yen against your currency.

 

Nikon doesn't often seem to discount prices simply because an item has been discontinued. The D2H was an exception.

[chan_wei_jian]

I thought the rebates were only applicable to those in the US?

[lex_jenkins]

I don't know whether Nikon offers rebates or other incentives outside the U.S. It probably depends on the exchange rate for the currency of each country.

[ilkka_nissila]

Rebates are to my knowledge a unique phenomenon to the USA. I've never seen a product in another country offered with a rebate that you get after filling in some paperwork and mailing it to some company.

[Michael R Freeman]

Mail-in rebates are very common in Canada. However, I don't recall ever seeing Nikon Canada (or any other camera manufacturer) offering a rebate scheme.

 

They are not the "great deal" they might first appear to be here, since we have to pay (depending on the province) up to 15% sales tax on the price *before* rebates.

[wj_lee]

I think the next pro nikon will be a FF, cost of the sensors are coming down fast enough for it to be cost effetive. In which case it will be around 30mp CCD or CMOS, or around 16mp foveon chip.