Nikon abandoning DX prosumers - no affordable high quality optics?

[mike_halliwell]

<p>Well, the term has never been recognised by Nikon, they are black and white about this issue. It's been used in the past to label the better specified DX cameras, but how that works now with the D7000 v D300s is anyone's guess. </p>

<p>NPS, I believe, use this distinction as a requirement of membership. Pro or Consumer.<br>

There has never been a Consumer FX body.<br>

The D300s is the only current 'Professional' DX body, however long in the tooth it may be.</p>

<p>Michael A, just to check, which bit is the contradiction? The assumption that DX can't be PRO or FX can only be PRO?</p>

[gsbhasin]

<p>Of all people - I think Ilkka gets my intent, so thank you. <br /> <br /> I started with the 50/1.8 D and used it for the first 2 years exclusively. And the 35 mm DX for the last 4 months.<br /> <br /> And yes a 20 or even a 24 mm DX 2.8 would just be fine. Coupled that with an 85/1.8 G, i would be set.<br /><br /> FWIW, I have started to think if i should just get the Sigma 17-50/2.8 I have held off on it because the reviews are mostly on two polar extremes - too good or serious QC issues. <br /> <br /> And with my D7000 exhibiting some focus issues on the 18-70, I don't know if a 3rd party lens would necessarily exacerbate those issues.<br /> <br /> Or I will check if any m43 would suffice.<br /><br /> BTW- I have printed a 16X20 with the D70 and 18-70 and <em>it is acceptable to me</em>. So i am not too worried about m43.<br /> <br /> At the end or the day I would like to avoid fragmentation so if the only choices are a $1400 17-55 or a decent m43 with a fast zoom (The Panasonic 12-35 X goes for 1299) - i may just get a small m43 with an awesome zoom. I realise the m43 has even 1 more stop DOF than DX but at least it covers the need in a much lighter package.<br /> <br /> Again all of this is warranted by lack of options.<br /> <br /> To the nikon fan boys, while Nikon does offer substantially more options than Canon, i hope it realises that Canikon are not the only game in town. M43 has really opened up another frontier.<br /><br /> If anyone reads stevehuffphoto.com , you would notice a lot of pros who use m43 when they want light and portable.<br /><br /> And with advances in CAD and especially higher computing power - I think designing 20/2.8 and 24/2.8 DX that are awesome - is within the realm of reality.<br /> <br /> So yes Nikon has its own goals and challenges and consumers there own. <br /> It is funny observing people's comments.<br /> <br /> The key words for continuing the discussion are: <br /> <strong>Affordable high quality Nikon standard zoom for DX.</strong> All of the last sentence. <br /> <br /> Nikon has produced a 24-85 G for DX which Shun ranks highly. The 16-85 G for DX has been unavailable in US for a long time so it is non existent. <br /> <br /> REPEAT from before: I emphasize with the natural disaster Nikon faced in Japan and Thailand but they have been able to launch V1/J1, and other lenses. If 16-85 is getting a new version either an announcement to that effect or availability of the current 16-85 would be a signal for its commitment to DX serious users.<br /> <br /> BTW - this is my 3rd Nikon body and 4th purchase (1 recommended to a family member)</p>

[emiliogtz]

<blockquote>

<p>To the nikon fan boys, while Nikon does offer substantially more options than Canon, i hope it realises that Canikon are not the only game in town. M43 has really opened up another frontier.</p>

</blockquote>

<p> <br>

If I'm a fanboy, why should I care about what others brands do and/or offer?<br>

<br>

Fanboyism and the diversity of the market has nothing to do with using the right tool for the right job. You are a pro, you may want/have to use pro tools, regardless of brand. Customers might even demand you to do so.</p>

[kj_thomas]

<blockquote>

<p>The 16-85 G for DX has been unavailable in US for a long time so it is non existent.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>This lens is hard to find, but it is not non-existent. I would advise moving away from the large popular retailers and moving to smaller Nikon authorized dealers with a good return policy. I advised someone to do this during the period earlier this year when the 50mm f/1.4G was "non-existent" from December through March, and they found a few stores with plenty of stock...and free shipping to boot.</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>And yes a 20 or even a 24 mm DX 2.8 would just be fine.<br /> I think designing 20/2.8 and 24/2.8 DX that are awesome - is within the realm of reality.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Nikon already has two these two lenses (AF-D versions) for about $550 (20mm f/2.8) and $350 (24mm f/2.8). As long as you have a camera that is a D90 or higher, those lenses will autofocus. Also, given these are lenses designed for film or FX, there should not be much problem with corner sharpness on DX. I wouldn't expect Nikon to design two lenses like this for DX, and if the company does, I wouldn't expect them to be any cheaper than the current versions.</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>I started with the 50/1.8 D and used it for the first 2 years exclusively.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>It looks like you've used an AF-D lens before, so these AF-D lenses shouldn't bother you much at all.</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>Again all of this is warranted by lack of options.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>This really isn't true. There are options out there for shooting DX professionally, and for the wide angle lenses you've indicated.</p>

[orcama60]

<p>Tokina 11-16 f2/.8 is my wide-angle lens on my D300. I do also have the 16-85 so with both lenses, I do have a perfect combo. </p>

[Andrew Garrard]

<p>Ilkka: You've convinced me that a 20mm f/2 DX would be useful (just to prove that when I write "I don't see the point" I really do want someone to tell me!) - my concern is whether one can be made cheaply with acceptable performance. The Sigma 20mm f/1.8 (an FX lens, ish) is optically iffy even before the corners. I don't think there's a DX f/2.8 20mm market with the kit zoom almost as fast and the manual focus options. I suspect an f/1.4 20mm would be silly money. That leaves 20mm f/2, and maybe it'll happen. 35mm FX lenses aren't all that niche, so I could believe it's on Nikon's "to do" list.<br />

<br />

Mike: I'm sure a DX 14mm f/2 would be useful. Cheap, not so much. Just because you don't need much coverage doesn't mean the mirror gets out of the way!<br />

<br />

The FX/DX pro/am argument is a bit debatable. The D7000 doesn't have the D300's build quality, and I'm sure a D400 is needed (the 7D isn't all that new either), but that doesn't make the D7000 amateur-only. The D700 is pretty solid, but one could argue that the 5D series aren't (let alone the Kodak DCS-14n).</p>

[Sycamoe]

<p>Just curious--do you think the great photographers before the digital revolution obsessed over and bitched as much about their tools as we do today? For having all these crummy cameras and lenses, people sure are making some great images, even now in these times of equipment deprivation ; )</p>

[Andrew Garrard]

<p>Harry - have you read Ansel Adams' books? He absolutely obsessed about everything. Not that this would have stopped him from making a good image with anything, just as my D800E isn't going to make me a good photographer.</p>

<p>I post here and bitch because I can take two minutes out of work (I'm in a conference call right now) and still learn things (and possibly contribute, occasionally). If I could be out shooting while still being at work (or when I'm home at 2am, or posting from a train, or while I'm watching television...) I'd be doing that instead. I'm a self-confessed armchair photographer, but not through choice. Fortunately, working twelve hour days all the time helps pay for my camera.</p>

[oskar_ojala]

<p>I have a Voigtländer 20/3.5. It covers full frame, cost less than 400 euros, is very compact, has high build quality and is not a mass market lens. It produces very good pictures on DX in the f5.6-f8 range and I know how to be picky. Making it DX instead of FX, adding 2/3 stops of speed, adding AF and dropping build quality slightly to make it easier to mass produce shouldn't be too hard and not make it particularly expensive.<br>

I've had the 24/2.8 AF-D and let's face it, putting the 18-70 at 24 and shooting with a D300 the image quality is pretty much the same. And we're not talking Zeiss or Nikkor 24/1.4 quality here.<br>

The micro 4/3 are generally a bit unexciting except for the 12-35/2.8, which seems to be seriously good. Of course, micro 4/3 has been around 4 years, so the lens selection can't be as comprehensive as Nikon's. Try it in a store if you can.</p>

[eric_arnold]

<p>just to reiterate what i already said, i think the OP started with a flawed argument, i.e. no new high-quality DX lenses. the 40 and 85 micro aside, nikon's got to feel like its DX lineup is pretty good, considering that we are in the age of multiple competitive digital formats, i.e. DX,FX, mirrorless. nikon could announce a sucessor to the 17-55, perhaps with VR, but then why would it do so before launching a 24-70 VR? they still make the 17-55, so if you're a DX prosumer, there you go.</p>

<p>a better litmus test of nikon's commitment to the DX format in 2012 and beyond is bodies. there will be a successor to the D300 in all likelihood, and if not, you can make a much stronger case for abandonment of the prosumers than you can just looking at lenses, for the simple fact that DX users can use FX lenses. of course that leaves open to question whether a d7000 is a prosumer or consumer body, since in many ways its more advanced than the d300.</p>

<p>it's flat-out silly to say that since nikon hasnt made a 20/2 DX for under $500, it's abandoned prosumers. the reality is many of them have migrated in the past five years since the d300 firmly established a prosumer benchmark. we can't pretend mirrorless never happened, either, but the bad news is the lens Ilkka's talking about does exist, except its in the m4/3 format, i.e. the Olympus 12/2. m4/3 caught up to the d7000 with the OM-D E-5, and not only are fast primes appearing for that format (20/1.7, 25/1.4, 45/1.8, 75/1.8), but UWAs are already out, as are ultra-compact teles (i.e. the 100-300, which is 600mm equivalent at 5.6 for an affordable price, specs which are unmatchable on APS-C and FX). where nikon bungled, big-time, wasn't in not making prosumer lenses or introducing the d400 last year, but in the CX/Nikon 1 format, which lags far behind Olympus, Panasonic, Sony, Fuji, and now Canon. Nikon mirrorless should have had easy compatibility with F-mount legacy glass, like Canon does. Because it doesn't, the 1 line seems toy-like, not prosumerish.</p>

<p>you know what 2012's prosumer wants? high quality optics and a performance body in a compact package. That's what Nikon doesn't have. but it doesnt make sense, marketing-wise, to pretend its still 2007 when, as i said, we're in the era of multiple digital formats--which might mean multiple systems for pros and prosumers alike. Nikon is still pushing out DX bodies, though, which is basically saying, if you're our loyal consumer, you'll stick to the lenses out there and learn to like it. and if not, you'll migrate to canon M, NEX, m4/3 or fuji xpro. of course, if nikon were to drop a compact FX body at a prosumer price of $1500 along with a smattering of new fast wide primes, most, if not all, would be forgiven.</p>

[Andrew Garrard]

<p>Eric - I'm not happy claiming the actual aperture when talking about 35mm equivalents of lenses; this doesn't apply for depth of field, and - for a given level of sensor technology (and I have no idea whether Olympus and Panasonic are able to get better optical efficiency out of their small sensors than those with larger sensors can) - comparing ISO across formats is a bit iffy.<br />

<br />

The long end of a 100-300 f/5.6 on a micro 4/3 camera, assuming a crop factor of 2, is equivalent to a 600mm f/11 on FX shot at 4x the ISO. It's smaller, and that's an advantage, but there's no magic aperture appearing. I'm not judging whether the 4/3 body produces better results than the FX image when the ISO difference is taken into account - that's a sensor implementation detail - just stating the physics. Indeed, from checking a review or two, the E-5 (<i>why</i> did they miss the chance to call it the OM-G?) has a very efficient sensor.<br />

<br />

In DX, the maths are a bit harder. We'd be looking at a 400mm f/8-ish at about 1.8x the ISO. Does Nikon make these lenses? Not as such, but it does make some teleconverters; with a 300 f/4 they work nicely, with an f/5.6 consumer zoom you might need to go off-brand. Or you could use a D3200 and crop.<br />

<br />

As for the "fast primes", you're looking at the equivalents of 40 f/3.4, 50 f/2.8, 90 f/5.6, 150 f/5.6 on FX, all of which are well in the range of zooms on FX, and not necessarily expensive ones. On DX, these are 27mm f/2.3, 33mm f/1.8, 60mm f/3.7 and 100mm f/3.7. The primes required to match that are not expensive.<br />

<br />

Ultrawides are another matter: micro 4/3 systems have an advantage here because there's no mirror getting in the way; DX has no such advantage over FX.<br />

<br />

As for CX, I can see the benefit to producing a genuinely small camera system - with a telephoto lens, it's definitely more pocketable than other interchangeable lens systems. But it's competing with cheaper fixed-lens cameras, and I'm nut sure it makes its case, at least at the price they're asking. Compatibility with Nikkor lenses is a last resort - a crop factor that turns a wide lens into a significant telephoto is just impractical in most cases; I think Nikon would have been better taking proper advantage of their lens range and sticking to a DX sensor. Still, if they can sell them, good luck to them - I guess they could still do a Pentax and change their mind.</p>

[eric_arnold]

<blockquote>

<p>"The long end of a 100-300 f/5.6 on a micro 4/3 camera, assuming a crop factor of 2, is equivalent to a 600mm f/11 on FX shot at 4x the ISO"</p>

</blockquote>

<p>andrew, you're only partially correct. for light-gathering purposes, a m4/3 f/2 or 1.8 is still f/2 or 1.8. a 5.6 is still a 5.6, which is important when you're talking about AF acquisition. a 600mm f/11 lens would be nearly impossible to AF except when next to an exploding supernova. well, not really, but you get the point.</p>

<p>your physics only work for DoF, in which m 4/3 has an inherent advantage for landscape/macro and an inherent disadvantage for portraiture. a far as ISO is convcerned, look at the DPreview comparison charts, and you'll see the OM-D is better than the d7000 at 1600 and 3200.</p>

<p>the CX format is doomed IMO. i have to agree with Rockwell that other than Japanese consumers, no one wants these. a 2.7x crop factor would be great for telephoto users, but who wants to stick a beer can on a pocket portable? that level of magnification means wide-angle lenses will be hard to make. i predict nikon will quietly abandon this format and do what it should have done in the first place, following Canon's lead, and come out with a f-mount-compatible system with an adapter. the trend is toward smaller bodies with high-quality optics, which means bigger sensors. the first company to release a FF compact at an affordable price--sorry Leica!-- wins, IMO.</p>

[oskar_ojala]

<blockquote>

<p>The long end of a 100-300 f/5.6 on a micro 4/3 camera, assuming a crop factor of 2, is equivalent to a 600mm f/11 on FX shot at 4x the ISO</p>

</blockquote>

<p>That is just confusing matters. First, f5.6 is always f5.6, it's a relative measurement that takes into account the focal length difference! Second, ISO 100 is always ISO 100, regardless of format.<br>

As for DOF, it depends on the final magnification of the image. For example, DOF at f4 doesn't mean anything unless we take into account both format and final output size. In practice people learn which focal lengths and apertures give suitable results, rather than relying on rules.<br>

And for ISO and sensitivity, physics doesn't build cameras, engineering does. Or do you claim that a Nikon D800 has the same signal to noise ratio as a Canon 5D, both having same sensor sizes? If I'm looking for an engine with high peak power, I look at the measured power, not at the displacement of the engine to determine its suitability.<br>

I'm not saying that format sizes don't matter, but I'm saying that look at the results and determine suitability of a particular piece of equipment from those.</p>

[Andrew Garrard]

<blockquote>andrew, you're only partially correct. for light-gathering purposes, a m4/3 f/2 or 1.8 is still f/2 or 1.8. a 5.6 is still a 5.6,</blockquote>

 

<p>Absolutely - a 300mm f/5.6 lens is a 300mm f/5.6 lens irrespective of whether you put a micro 4/3 sensor or a sheet of 10x8 behind it. The distinction here is that, because the full-frame sensor is roughly 4x the size of a micro 4/3 sensor, it gets a total of about 4x as much light hitting it. With a 4/3 lens, that light falls outside the sensor (or outside the imaging circle of the lens). If you take a 4/3-sized crop out of a full-frame sensor, you get the same behaviour (and field of view) as the 4/3 lens; the "equivalent" changes to aperture and ISO that I'm talking about are only relevant if you're using the whole frame and talking about what lens you'd need to get the same image as the smaller sensor.</p>

 

<blockquote>which is important when you're talking about AF acquisition. a 600mm f/11 lens would be nearly impossible to AF except when next to an exploding supernova. well, not really, but you get the point.</blockquote>

 

<p>Not really. Remember the AF sensors are larger relative to the frame size in DX cameras than in FX - or, for the same resolution, a 4/3 sensor's pixels in contrast-detect autofocus are a quarter the size of the FX sensor's, so they get a quarter the light at the same aperture. In phase-detect, the depth of field is identical at f/11 of FX and f/5.6 on 4/3, with a corresponding effect on accuracy.</p>

 

<blockquote>your physics only work for DoF, in which m 4/3 has an inherent advantage for landscape/macro and an inherent disadvantage for portraiture. a far as ISO is convcerned, look at the DPreview comparison charts, and you'll see the OM-D is better than the d7000 at 1600 and 3200.</blockquote>

 

<p>I did - to my eye (ignoring the aggressive noise reduction in the OM-D) the OM-D probably is slightly better than the D7000 when it comes to performance for the amount of light hitting the sensor. Put another way, I don't think it's quite as good as the D7000's sensor at the same ISO, but it's appreciably better than the D7000 at twice the ISO (if the sensors were similarly efficient, they'd be about the same if the ISO were 1.7x higher on the D7000). This is a very impressive performance, since the D7000 is known for having good high-ISO behaviour.</p>

 

<blockquote>the CX format is doomed IMO. i have to agree with Rockwell that other than Japanese consumers, no one wants these.</blockquote>

 

<p>I'm wary of assuming that just because the 1-series isn't convincing (as far as I can tell) members of this forum, nobody wants one. I do think they're awfully expensive for a camera that won't appeal to the photography enthusiast crowd. I've seen one in use in the UK... but the owner was, at least, from Asia (I can't narrow down the country further), which may or may not mean anything.</p>

 

<blockquote>a 2.7x crop factor would be great for telephoto users, but who wants to stick a beer can on a pocket portable? that level of magnification means wide-angle lenses will be hard to make. i predict nikon will quietly abandon this format and do what it should have done in the first place, following Canon's lead, and come out with a f-mount-compatible system with an adapter. the trend is toward smaller bodies with high-quality optics, which means bigger sensors.</blockquote>

 

<p>I agree - especially that I think Nikon, who with Canon have a bigger range of lenses than those who had produced mirrorless systems up until a week ago, should have produced a sensor size that can use these lenses practically. I can see the benefit to producing something like a 1-series for some companies (it's effective what the 4/3 system did, only more so) but not for Nikon (or Canon).</p>

 

<blockquote>the first company to release a FF compact at an affordable price--sorry Leica!-- wins, IMO.</blockquote>

 

<p>I'm not so sure - the problem is that a 135 frame makes the lenses big. To me, DX is a pretty decent compromise. I suspect the winner will be the first APS-C manufacturer to make the kit lens collapse properly (in the style of the micro 4/3 14-42 power zoom); I suspect Canon have a head start here if they can wheel out their diffractive optics again.</p>

[Andrew Garrard]

<blockquote>That is just confusing matters. First, f5.6 is always f5.6, it's a relative measurement that takes into account the focal length difference! Second, ISO 100 is always ISO 100, regardless of format.</blockquote>

 

<p>Absolutely. And a 300mm lens is a 300mm lens regardless of format. I only pulled up the distinction because Eric claimed the 100-300 f/5.6 zoom on micro 4/3 was equivalent to a 600mm f/5.6 on full frame. I quite agree that, if you use the entire sensor area, a 300mm lens on 4/3 sensor gives the same field of view as a 600mm lens on full frame. But you really can't do talk about the aperture in the context of this equivalence without a conversion factor; that's the confusion that I was trying to clear up. "Confusing" is not the same as "wrong", but we can argue about "irrelevant". :-)</p>

 

<blockquote>As for DOF, it depends on the final magnification of the image. For example, DOF at f4 doesn't mean anything unless we take into account both format and final output size.</blockquote>

 

<p>I agree, DoF depends on the final image size; once we've adjusted the lens length and aperture to compensate for a difference in image area, the magnification as such doesn't matter. However, once we've done that adjustment, DoF changes identically no matter what format we're talking about. All I'm talking about is how to make DoF <i>match</i> as formats change. I've said absolutely nothing about what the absolute DoF is.</p>

 

<blockquote>In practice people learn which focal lengths and apertures give suitable results, rather than relying on rules.</blockquote>

 

<p>Do people really, completely independently, learn what focal lengths and apertures have what effect for whichever system they might use? Because I really thought the fact that we keep talking about "equivalent focal length" meant that people are quite fond of having a way to convert between systems. I've made these arguments before, and I try not to bring it up again unless someone tries to claim something incorrect about equivalent aperture, which is what I perceived Eric as doing. People are very fond of saying "larger formats have less depth of field and are better in low light"; I don't see a problem in stating why or by how much.</p>

 

<blockquote>And for ISO and sensitivity, physics doesn't build cameras, engineering does. Or do you claim that a Nikon D800 has the same signal to noise ratio as a Canon 5D, both having same sensor sizes? If I'm looking for an engine with high peak power, I look at the measured power, not at the displacement of the engine to determine its suitability.</blockquote>

 

<p>Oh, absolutely. I'm only talking about the amount of light, not the quantum efficiency of the sensor, which has been improving over time (the D800 and 5D<i>3</i> aren't so dissimilar in high ISO) and varies between devices. I'm not claiming that an original 1Ds has the same performance has a D3s - just that the difference is down to technology improvement, not the absolute amount of light. People are fond of saying "FX is better in low light than DX"; that's a function of the amount of light hitting the sensor at the same lens aperture (mostly), it's not because FX sensor technology is inherently better than DX. I, too, would look for an engine with peak power - but it's pretty <i>likely</i> that a six litre car will have more oomph than a one litre. I've tried to make a similar argument in the past about film ISO and grain size between formats.</p>

 

<blockquote>I'm not saying that format sizes don't matter, but I'm saying that look at the results and determine suitability of a particular piece of equipment from those.</blockquote>

 

<p>Absolutely. Not all sensors are equal, just as not all films are equal (though at any given time, the state of the art from several manufacturers tends to be quite similar). I'm only discussing the things we <i>can</i> describe!</p>

[oskar_ojala]

<blockquote>

<p>Do people really, completely independently, learn what focal lengths and apertures have what effect for whichever system they might use?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>For determining the angle of view a conversion factor is indeed useful (provided that the format is roughly the same...). For DOF I'm not so sure, because DOF depends on both the image and the output magnification. Certainly can be calculated, but I strongly suspect that in practice, it's easier to go with gut feeling. I don't need to look through a camera to say what focal length I need for a given subject, but if DOF is critical then I prefer to use visual aids to ensure it will be suitable.<br>

In any case, I dislike statements such as "f2 is equivalent to f4 on..." because that implies that the light gathering power would also change, which isn't true.</p>

[andylynn]

What do you guys expect, a Nikon DX lens announcement each month? I can't think of any shooting situation you

can't find a lens for - all they don't have is primes that are very wide on DX, and there are plenty of zooms that do fine

in those situations.

 

If you're so particular about your equipment that you won't use a zoom lens for very wide angle shooting, why don't you

buy an FX camera? You can have a D700 in great condition for under $2000 and if the rumors pan out there's going

to be some new Nikon option in that price range this year. That's quite reasonable.

[jonathan_newman]

<p>Similar tactics to Canon I'd say, if you force DX users to buy DX lenses then you lock them much more fully into the system so there less free to swap brands if they upgrade to FF.<br>

Pentax offer more high quality crop lenses simpley because they don't have a FF option for people to upgrade to.</p>

 

[Andrew Garrard]

<blockquote>In any case, I dislike statements such as "f2 is equivalent to f4 on..." because that implies that the light gathering power would also change, which isn't true.</blockquote>

 

<p>Belatedly (sorry, been at a conference with spotty internet access): I'd say that a change in sensor format also implies a change in light gathering power - which is why I always include the change of "equivalent ISO" in the equation. But I agree, we need to know what we're talking about - a 300mm lens is a 300mm lens, ISO 200 is ISO 200 and f/4 is f/4. It's only "equivalent" <i>anything</i> that messes with <i>all</i> the variables.</p>