My beef with the "g" mount

[shoots]

Scott,

 

I'm with you. Let these sheep take what's given to them. I'm sick of people who are so

complacent to think that bitching doesn't help things, well it's better than setting in

your pasture grazing on thorns while your guts twist over your silent self torture.

Manufacturers rely on that attitude, they know most of you are sheep and will not

complain, so in the end it becomes the norm. I have little admiration for anyone who

keeps quite under the guise of "take what you get and be happy". I'm not the only one

who avoids buying G lenses, in the end it WILL effect the bottom line for Nikon.

Everyone knows, money talks.

[david_h._hartman]

Now if you will excuse me gentlemen I�m going to go and hug my AF 80~200/2.8D ED and Bogen 3018 monopod.

[tcb.photo]

First off Shun, thanks for the information. So as long as you can use Shutter priority with the "G" mount and still adjust the aperture that way, then I do feel better about it. Even though I don't have a f4s or n90s etc.

 

Why a F3 and a F100? Obviously the F100 will do everything the F3 does and more. But that's not always what I want, call me strange (as I'm sure Josh will), but there are times I just want to take my time and do it the way I learned how to.

 

For me there is nothing more enjoyable than taking a photo that I know was all my doing. Mentally compensating throught my own multiple spot metering the F3's 80/20 center weighted and seeing that in the end, good or bad, what's there is me. Not just the push of the button with the camera set at p and matrix metered. I know of course you can use M mode on the F100. But with a F3 or a Leica MP, it's more "pure". I like the camera, the feel of it, and I have enjoyed it. So the the F100 didn't replace it, it augmented it.

 

For me the "g" lens is a inconvenience. Because it won't meter on my F3. I did bother me at first, but now I just accept it. So long as those with the AF bodies can use the "G" mount in the cameras Shutter Priority mode, then it's still viable for them and they aren't being shut out.

[ShunCheung]

Rob, thanks for the answer, but I guess I'll never understand why some people need an all-manual camera to "slow themselves down." I am one of those who have no trouble switching my F5 to all manual and be as slow as I want.

[neal_vaughan]

I'm flabbergasted by some of these posts. Who in the world

really would want to use a 70-200 2.8 AFS VR with an F3? More

the the point, how would it work in the first place since this lens

sucks battery power from the battery of the body?

 

The original post that started this all baffles me as well. Bitching

about not having an aperture ring...but praising the competition

who doesnt offer them either? Why, if AF speed and worry of "the

shot get(tting) away" would you be concerned about how fast you

can twirl the command dial at that moment? Shouldn't you

already have your aperture and shutter speed nailed down by

that point?

 

 

I love the G lenses. Not having to worry about that dastardly error

message is great, and after just getting a 300 2.8 back with the

aperture ring replaced, I'd love not to have to worry about the

reliability of them either. Sure, it would be nice to have updated

firmware that would allow adjustable stops...but I think you guys

are just looking for reasons to bitch.

[tcb.photo]

I'll never understand why some people need an all-manual camera to "slow themselves down." - Shun

 

I can appreciate that, I like both.

 

It's like autos. My ford is an automatic with ride control and so on. But there is still nothing like Porsche speedster for pure driving exhilaration. I don't own one, but my friend does. Nothing like it. For me, it's the same with photography. Only I'd say my Leica MP is more of the speedster.

[shoshana]

I have an N90s ... I'm not real thrilled with the whole new direction Nikon is going ... the g lenses.. the digital lenses.

 

But really, at the moment it's not making a dent in my life. Because I'm very happy with the lenses I have.

 

VR would be lovely - but even if they worked on my N90s ... I can't afford any VR lenses! Or the fancy new G lenses.

 

So - I'm not kicking up a fuss. If I had extra money right now for camera equipment ... I'd buy a really nice tripod set up before a new lens. And I'd start saving for a digital body.

 

And I sure would like a reliable flash! Not the SB-28 that's been in the shop twice this summer - once for 8 weeks, now again for going on 4 weeks...

 

'shana

[raul_lithgo]

What's the point of switching to Canon? They don't have an aperture ring on ANY of there modern lenses. Had you been a Canon owner in the early 1980's all of your FD gear would have been instantly out-dated when the changed the mount. At least Nikon has allowed much of the gear to be used with newer equipment for many years. My old Nikkor 135mm lens will still work on my F100. Switching to Canon because of the G lenses makes no sense.

 

Frankly, I wish people would stop crying over this G lens thing. Nikon must keep up with the times. They are not going to bankrupt themselves just to keep these folks happy. Build a bridge and get over it.

[bozo the clown1]

What part of "planned obsolescence" don't you understand?

[david_h._hartman]

<em>"Who in the world really would want to use a 70-200 2.8

AFS VR with an F3? More the the point, how would it work in the

first place since this lens sucks battery power from the battery

of the body?" --Neal Vaughan<br>

</em><br>

I would.<br>

<br>

It would do everything an 80~200/4.0 AIS did but have a very

solid tripod mount because certain very vocal websites have

embarrass Nikon into improving their tripod mounts. It would be

one stop faster and it would have better optics. It would not

draw power from the camera body as it cant. It would not

have AF or VR because the F3 has no such capability. The lens

would do everything that lenses contemporary to the F3 did and it

would produce fine images. Well it wouldnt do a few things

the 80~200/4.0 AIS did because its not has hand holdable as

the smaller lens. In the right hand the images would look no

different if the lens had an F3 or an F5 on the back.<br>

<br>

One would not expect the typical F3 buyer to pay a premium for a

VR lens for use exclusively on an F3 but for those who use a

variety cameras bodies it makes excellent sense for all lenses to

fit all bodies. Some photographers might value the optics and

tripod collar enough to buy the lens for exclusive use on an F3

if it had an aperture control ring. If thats what they want

its their money. If they get the images they want who is to

say they are wrong.<br>

<br>

Those who are totally smitten with new technology are going to

have trouble understanding that in the right hands a Nikon F or

Leica M3 are fully automatic cameras because the automation is in

the reflexes of the photographer. Studies show that experienced

photographers uses different parts of the brain while shooting

than those who must think out each step as they go. The

experienced photographer does what is necessary to capture the

image without be consciously aware of focusing or stroking the

advance lever, etc.<br>

<br>

I remember the day the original Minolta Maxxum came to my local

camera store. It was the most lame piece of junk. It had focus

priority only. You could point it at a subject, see that it was

clearly in focus and the damn thing didnt detect focus so

you could not take the photo. I was appalled that people traded

far more useful photo equipment to buy this poor excuse for a

camera. I do realize that those who use a camera only very

occasionally forget to focus or fear they wont focus

accurately. For them a camera that saves them from making out of

focus images may be just what they want. I think the NT feeling

and having the latest was the major draw. I went through a short

faze where I stopped down too much because I was afraid I wouldnt

focus correctly I also like new technology.<br>

<br>

If one chooses not to understand one wont. Since I use

everything from a Nikon F5 to a stone age Linhof Technika 4x5 or

even just for fun a folding Kodak SIX-16 with Kodak Anastigmat

126/6.3 I find it easy to understand why one would want to use

any quality piece of photographic equipment, new or old.<br>

<br>

What Nikon will do is unknown. Who would have thought Nikon would

make lenses with such useless tripod collars as they have made in

last number of years. Who would have though a few vocal

individuals would shame Nikon to get back to Form Follows

Function and put an excellent tripod collar on the AF-S 70~200/2.8G

ED-IF VR.<br>

<br>

Some have to have the latest and greatest, some will use whatever

gives them the results they want. Some dont value anything

that isnt antique. This is a little simplified but one

group of three can understand the opposites but the other two cant

understand either of the groups they are not a party to.<br>

<br>

The ability to understand is a matter of choice. One can chose

not to understand, that is allow their emotions to block

understanding, or one can consider open mindedly and understand.

[nickjohnson]

Coming from a lowly Canon user, a little information of my own. I use an EOS-1v, which can adjust exposures in 1/3 or 1/2 stops by a custom function, but I keep it at 1/3 stops. Why? Exposure accuracy. Does it really make a difference? Heck, I don't know, but its one less thing to worry about. I switched from a 1/2 stop Elan7 and simply got used to moving the wheel a few more times.<p>

As for the ergonomics, I think one gets used to either system. After about an hour I was right at home on my friend's N80, funny wheel placement and all.<p>

On the 18-55mm EF-S lens; I don't care much since its a cheap kit lens. It looks good by kit lens standards but doesn't step on anyone's toes. Now, if I had an F5 I would really want that nice 12-24DX lens, but really, if you're not shooting with an FOV crop you don't need that kind of lens. Want? Maybe.<p>

Here's a suggestion and I think its a good one. How about putting an electronically sensored, (almost) infinitely variable, aperture ring style wheel by the lens mount. It would feel just like the ring you're all used to, give that bored left hand something to do, and could be easily turned on or off, and ajusted for sensitivity on the camera's interface. Rumor has it that this feature is in development on the D3h (kidding).<br>

But seriously, doesn't that sound like a feature people would like? And it could just be turned off for you G lovers. Leave the specifics up to R&D.

[avery_homes]

I have owned a F2AS every since it was new. It's the one and only proffessional camera I've ever owned, or plan to own. I have a few lens, all prime, and frankly I have no need or desire to own a zoom.

So for me the debate about "G" mount means nothing.

 

However, I feel Nikon has hurt their own reputation as being "pro consumer" by developing lens that can't be used on all their camera bodies. If I went out and paid nearly $450.00 for a brand spanking new camera body, only to be told I would never be able to use it on my body, I damm well would not like it!

 

Even If I had no plans to buy one at that time. I've been around long enough to know one thing; new lens often have better optical qualities than the older versions. AF-S and the VR be dammed. I wouldn't like someone telling me I couldn't use the new lens that produce better results, especially after I just paid a good amount of money for a new camera. Maybe they aren't better right now, but how about 5 years from now? It just isn't right.

 

I have no plans of buying a new body or lens, but this isn't how Nikon became number 1. Some of you people who have the newest bodies should support your "brothers". I don't know who it was he said it, but if you let them get away with it now, they just might do it again.

 

I know nothing about Canon, and frankly who cares. Were talking about a major shift in Nikons attitude toward their photographers.

I just can't figure out why Nikon would want to eliminate large numbers of photogrpahers from potentially lucrative sales.

 

It seems to me like a good way to ruin a company

 

Just an opinion

 

Avery

[erick_lamontagne]

Why would anyone want a FM3a along a F100?

 

To have a lighter, more compact yet solid and full-featured (like 1/250 synch) back-up body which does not depend on battery to function (a bonus) for hiking and bike touring or anything else...

 

Why would anyone want to use a 70-200 VR with a F3 (or FM3a)?

 

To use it as a manual non-VR 70-200 lens. Well, of course, one could use it with his/her F100 but what if the F100 is broken? or ran out of batteries? or just because the F100 is used with another lens and one needs to put the 70-200 on the F3?

[ShunCheung]

Folks, the debate of G lenses have been going on since the beginning of this forum. Every time we are merely repeating the same arguments over and over. There are a lot of people who buy G lenses and that is the only reason why Nikon continues to introduce new ones. Unfortunately, cameras and lenses are not taylor made for each individual's preference. I have to live with features I don't like and sometimes even have to pay for functions that I would rather not have. If you don't like G lenses, I am sure you won't buy them. If Nikon doesn't serve your needs, by all means switch to another brand. There are choices out there.

 

Let's move on to other topics.

[hugh_t]

Yawn.

[scott_warn]

Shun, you point out that the N8008s can use the "g" mount in flex-program. Correct. Just so you know, I have an extensive array of Nikon equipment. Until now, I could mix and match between bodies with the lenses. Bodies range from the F through the F5 and include an N8008s, N90s and a slew of lenses. Thirty years of shooting without trading in lets you acquire quite a collection.

 

Now to my beef with Nikon ditching the aperture ring on the high end lenses. Take that N8008s and put it in flex-program, it has, GASP, 1 stop increments on the command dial. Go out and shoot with the camera using the flex-program. It is quick and natural, major shifts in effect can be accomplished with 1 sweep of the thumb on the command dial. THIS IS EXACTLY HOW I USE MY N8008s!!! Now, take the F5, put it in flex-program, it has, DAMN IT, 1/3 stop increments on the main command dial! Major shifts in effect now require 3 TIMES as much movement of the main command dial. Nikon has told me, through their reps, that this 1/3 increment WILL NOT BE CHANGED!!!! This excessive finickyness forced me into using the aperture ring and A mode on the F5 to accomplish what I could once do easily with the N8008s, that is, adjust for effect, quickly. If Nikon had not incorporated that stupid 1/3 stop, unchangeable, increment on the F5 I would probably not be bitching about the "g" mount to the extent that I am. I could live with not using the lens on my F2. What pisses me off is that I have spent over 2000 USD on a camera body and now Nikon wants to take away the one feature that allows me to adjust the camera for effect quickly, the aperture ring. It's a lot of money and that gives me a right to bitch.

 

In todays world, a large group bitching loud enough and often enough, can cause a company to change. My hope is that Nikon watches these boards and, if they see enough voices crying out, they will percieve a market for continuing the "D" mount. Simply put, for the 70-200 f2.8 VR it would not cost Nikon a huge sum to bring out a "D" version. If they perceive a large enough market for this version, they will build it, they are in the business of selling lenses.

 

What I do not understand is why "g" mount users want to deny "D" mount users a parallel series of selected lenses. If you do not want an adjustable aperture ring on your lenses, fine. I have no problem with that at all. Why don't you take a tube of super glue and glue the lock on all of your aperture ring? That would absolutely guarantee that the ring would never move again. That is, until you decided you neeeded it to move and took it to a repair shop. Why don't you try an experiment, sit down with a tube of super glue and one of those "nasty" D mount lenses you own, put it at minimum, lock it, and glue the lock? Do you hesitate, is it possible that maybe you may want that adjustment? How about posting the results of this experiment?

[neal_vaughan]

"I would.

 

It would do everything an 80~200/4.0 AIS did but have a very solid tripod mount because certain very vocal websites have embarrass Nikon into improving their tripod mounts. It would be one stop faster and it would have better optics. It would not draw power from the camera body as it can�t. It would not have AF or VR because the F3 has no such capability. The lens would do everything that lenses contemporary to the F3 did and it would produce fine images. Well it wouldn�t do a few things the 80~200/4.0 AIS did because it�s not has hand holdable as the smaller lens. In the right hand the images would look no different if the lens had an F3 or an F5 on the back.

 

One would not expect the typical F3 buyer to pay a premium for a VR lens for use exclusively on an F3 but for those who use a variety cameras bodies it makes excellent sense for all lenses to fit all bodies. Some photographers might value the optics and tripod collar enough to buy the lens for exclusive use on an F3 if it had an aperture control ring. If that�s what they want it�s their money. If they get the images they want who is to say they are wrong."

 

 

 

You're missing the point. Why would you not just use the 80-200 2.8 AFS? You're going to raise a huge stink about what, the missing 10mm of reach? Pfft. The tripod mount that most dont use, and that is easily replacable by a kirk mount? Optical quality? Certainly not an improvement with the 70-200, definitely not so when it comes to flare and ghosting. What practical advantage does the 70-200 give you that the 80-200 (with the aperture ring) does not, when shooting on a manual focus body that cannot take advantage of any of its advanced features?

[neal_vaughan]

"What I do not understand is why "g" mount users want to deny "D" mount users a parallel series of selected lenses."

 

 

Perhaps because there more to life than wanting to mount a 2003 hi-tech lens on a 30 year old low-tech body for novelty and then bitching because they wont work?

[joseph_sanders]

God intended Aperture to be selected on the lens.

[photojim]

I think God meant us to use silver-based technology, too. :)

[scott_warn]

Neil, speaking of missing the point, you obviously did not read my posts completely. Uh, I intended to be able to use the 70-200 VR on the F5 body. This lens is fully compatible with the F5, the problem I have with the F5 is the stupid controls. To put it succinctly, the 1/3 stop increments on the F5 SUCK!! The only way to speed up the handling of the F5 is to use the aperture ring on the lens. This is the ONLY way to speed the handling to match that of an ancient Nikon N8008s. In 2003, why are we forced to put up with a DECREASE in effectiveness in a camera reputed to be the pinnacle of film cameras? This is NOT progress, it is REGRESSION. People, like you, who only use Program Mode, never use the program shift feature, and never override the cameras decisions don't have this problem. My problem is that I like to make the decisions, I like to be able to do it quickly, and I don't like distractions, or stupid finicky controls, interfering with this process.

 

Nikon, if you are watching, you can do one of 2 things to satisfy users like myself. 1) offer certain lenses in parallel lines offering either the "g" mount or the "D" mount. This is my preference and I am willing to pay for the additional cost of the aperture ring. 2) Offer a refit program for the F5 allowing the user to choose the increment on the command and the sub command dial via the custom program feature. Call it the F5s, at the cost level of this camera, why you did not include this I will never understand.

 

Sorry to be getting cranky folks, but I do get impatient with people responding in a manner that indicates that they did not read everything. The point is that Nikon should, at the least, offer a parallel series of selected lenses in the "D" mount.

[neal_vaughan]

"Neil, speaking of missing the point, you obviously did not read my posts completely."

 

 

"The only way to speed up the handling of the F5 is to use the aperture ring on the lens. This is the ONLY way to speed the handling to match that of an ancient Nikon N8008s. In 2003, why are we forced to put up with a DECREASE in effectiveness in a camera reputed to be the pinnacle of film cameras? This is NOT progress, it is REGRESSION."

 

 

I find it much faster and easier to use the command dial, actually. Frees up my left hand. I'm very very happy the ring is starting to die a slow death.

 

 

 

"People, like you, who only use Program Mode, never use the program shift feature, and never override the cameras decisions don't have this problem. My problem is that I like to make the decisions, I like to be able to do it quickly, and I don't like distractions, or stupid finicky controls, interfering with this process."

 

 

Boy, what an insult. I shoot for a living and have not put my camera on P since I was probably 12. I find that freeing up my left hand for supporting the lens and focusing/zooming is much more effective in producing better images.

 

I agree it would be nice for Nikon to offer firmware updates that would allow selectable speeds, as I said previously.

[david_h._hartman]

The longer these G-D (God Damned) discussions go the looser the logic gets :)

[ebogaerts]

"The longer these G-D (God Damned) discussions go the looser the logic gets :)

 

-- David H. Hartman , September 14, 2003; 07:56 P.M. Eastern"

 

Yes, and the weaker each participant's argument becomes. However, to provide one more final opinion, I am NOT happy that Nikon is taking away features, or flexibility from me or any of their other customers. But of course if you have the "G" lenes you likely think they are wonderful and will do anything to defend them, perhaps even (in all honesty) soley because you spent your money on them. :)

[photojim]

Scott, while I cannot agree with your main point of concern (it doesn't bother me, although I concede that it obviously bothers you), it hasn't occurred to you that there may be technical reasons why Nikon didn't put an aperture ring on the 70-200/2.8. Don't you think that Nikon wouldn't have been worried about adding $20 to the cost of this lens, if it created total backward compatibility? I am 100% sure that if that were the matter, the lens would have an aperture ring.

 

Now, I have to defer and say that this is idle speculation, but it seems unfathomable for it not to be true. I am not saying it is impossible for Nikon to put an aperture ring on the lens, but that the cost to do so must be prohibitive. I don't know if this is $100 or $300 or $28,500. I do know, logically, that it must be sufficiently high that Nikon felt it would significantly hurt sales - or that it isn't possible, due to the VR technology and fast aperture, or for some other technical reasons.

 

There is only one VR lens ever made by any manufacturer (Nikkor 80-400 VR) that supports an aperture ring, so I think it may well be a technical issue.

 

On the plus side, if the gibbering hordes rush off to buy this lens, it will create a glut on the market of older 80-200/2.8 lenses that do have aperture rings. You will be able to get one for far less money than you could have in the alternative. And since vibration reduction does nothing to stop subject motion and isn't the huge benefit that many suppose it will be, that isn't a bad thing at all.