chuck

<p>Can photoshop light room directly import from OSX iPhoto library? </p>

<p>If you don't like it, don't buy.<br> If you want something not available, articulate what you want. If enough people share your desires, someone at Nikon, or some other company, will undoubtedly put pen to paper to determine if your numbers meet some critical threshold, if you are all insane, out of touch with applied physics and economics, or have the money which Nikon could pocket with some reasonable amount of effort.<br> <br /> What else can you do?</p> <p> </p>

<blockquote> <p>However, I think future sports/action/wildlife cameras will have to be mirrorless because of the mechanical limitation around 12 fps. When we gradually move up to 20 fps or more, mirrorless is the only way to go (including Sony's fixed, semi-transparent mirror). Nikon's transition to E electromagnetic aperture is part of that transition. Therefore, yes, the new 24mm/f1.8 AF-S being a G instead of E lens might not be as future proof under that scenario.</p> </blockquote> <p>So long as it is possible to use live view in real time, I see no reason why mechanical moving mirror camera would not be adaptable to higher frame rates. The camera could simply lock up the mirror and switch to live view when desired frame rate exceeds certain threshold. As to E aperture being essential for high frame rate, I don't get that either. Why does the aperture have to stop down and then open back up with each frame? Why can't the aperture simply stop down to shooting aperture and then stay there as long as the high fps camera continues to chug away?</p>

<p>I am not saying DSLR will die. I am saying DX and FX formats are IMHO too similar for it to be sensible in the long run to maintain two separate but still broadly similar lines of DSLRs and lenses for them. Eventually it will make sense to transform DX DSLR line from FX junior to something more differentiated from FX DSLRs.<br> </p>

Where would the fun be if we don't speculate?

<p>I will speculate that Nikon will start to move the DX line in the mirrorless direction within the next year or two, and depending on how well that is received, may eventually move the whole DX DSLR line to mirrorless. That's purely my speculation.</p>

<blockquote> <p>Chuck, you have made such comment a couple of times. Is there any basis and reference to demonstrate a linkage to Tamron or it is merely your personal speculation?</p> </blockquote> <p>It is my speculation, but it is based on the Dpreview piece from 9 month ago which indicated Nikon and Tamron filed a joint patent covering a variable aperture zoom design with this exact zoom range:<br> <br /> http://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/54734338</p>

<p>I think the price is lower because it is basically a rebadged tamron lens, slightly modified from Tamron's own 150-600 f/5-6.3 so as to be able to show a constant 5/5.6 max aperture at the expense of reduced zoom range on both ends.</p>

<p>Yonguno flashes from China advertise themselves as Nikon I-TTL compatible, full featured, and cost roughtly 1/4 of comparable Nikon flashes. Does anyone have any experience with these flashes, in terms of performance and reliability?<br> Yonguno catalogue shows the brand offers a large number of remote flash control accessories. But the catalogue seem to suggest Yonguno remote function is based on radio control. If I am not mistaken, Nikon I-TTL uses coded pre-flashes for remote flash control. So could one mix Yonguno flashes and Nikon flashes in the same set up? Can a Nikon flash command Yonguno flash and vice versa?<br> I am particularly interested in Yonguno's ring flash, which is also advertised as I-TTL compatible. Does anyone have any experience with this? Can the ring flash function as a commander for other flashes, particularly Nikon SB-800s?<br> Thanks</p> <p> </p>

<blockquote> <p>I like your sentiment, but those kinds of products are usually ridiculed for being "out of touch." Look at the response to the Sigma 24-35. It is impressive in some ways (first of its kind), but most people on this forum were unimpressed.</p> </blockquote> <p>I am guessing Sigma 24-35 is ridiculed because it has such a small, and common, zoom range, that a 24 or 28 mm prime can surpass it aperture and image quality without losing much in terms of flexibility compared to the zoom. It doesn't do anything much better than readily accessible alternatives. If they made a 10-18mm full frame zoom then that would be another story.<br /> A prestige lens should have some capability that could not easily be duplicated via readily accessible alternatives.</p> <p> </p>

<p>Henry:<br> I just received the reply from the sales department, confirming that the rebate on all three lenses will be credited to me. Thank you very much, it's been great.</p>

<blockquote> <p>Of course they could have made it f/1.2 but it would have had tons of vignetting, uneven performance across the frame and a large and heavy front element. One of the reasons the 58/1.2 Noct got elevated to sky high second hand prices was that it was used as a portrait lens on DX cameras and it was quite rare. However, today DX cameras are lighter and more compact than in the D2X era, and so it makes sense to make the lens lighter (the AF-S 58/1.4 balances perfectly on the D7100 by the way) if this is one of the application goals (few people care about night lights photography which was what the original Noct was designed for, whereas the new AF-S 58/1.4 is in my opinion primarily a short portrait lens with secondary application in urban night scenes). It's not that they don't put any thought to the lens design. It's not about specifications or lens tests but about how the product works in the actual use it was designed for.</p> </blockquote> <p>Fair enough. However, I think Nikon is currently missing a real prestige lens outside its stratospheric telephoto lenses. I think every now and then a lens maker needs to release a lens that is designed to be impressive for its own sake, not because user group survey said it would sell, in order to enhance its own prestige.</p>

<blockquote> <p>If driving people to buy the 24-70mm/f2.8 is the goal, wouldn't it be much easier if Canon simply doesn't sell the f4 version at all? :-).</p> </blockquote> <p><br /> <br /> Then Canon would not be able to make the most out of the segment that wants a more prestigious lens than the average kit lens, but don't want to pay the premium for the 24-70f/2.8. The balancing act is how to get all the money it can from that segment, without at the same time giving a viable alternative to too many people who could be made to pay for 24-70f/2.8, but who would also settle for a <em>slightly</em> lesser viable alternative if such an alternative existed</p>

Regarding the 58mm f/1.4 AFS, That is pathetic. With all the optical development in the last 40 years Nikon couldn't match its own aperture from 40 years ago.

How about the 58mm f/1.2 noct?

<p>I am guessing Nikon has a few standard size VR and AFS units, and don't tailor the size of VR and AF-S unit to the size of the lenses as much as they might, so they end up with some lenses that are bulkier than they need to be to accommodate standard sized VR and AFS units.</p>

<p>I wonder if Nikon will discontinue the current 24-70/2.8, or keep it in the product line as an alternative to the new lens. Given the price difference is only about 15%, I suspect the new lens is meant to completely replace the current one. If that is the case, then there might be some fire sale opportunities coming up. <br> I personally see no reason for getting the VR lens. It's 82mm filter ring would be inconvenient. I will wait for fire sale opportunities on the current lens.</p>

Some internet search turn up a joint Nikon Tamron Patent for a 200-500 f/3.5-5.6 zoom filed back in 2013. My wager is the 200-500f/5.6 is more or less a rebadged Tamron. I remember the first iteration of nikon's 70-300mm f/4-5.6 ED lens back in early 2000s had essentially the same physical construction and identical optical design to Tamron's offering, at a price point not far above Tamron's lens. And the Tamron lens came out first. That Nikon zoom was also much cheaper than earlier Nikon ED lenses or other Nikon offering with similar range up to that time. So it wouldn't be the first time Nikon collaborated with Tamron to put out a discount telephoto zoom at much below hitherto typical Nikon prices.

I think Nikon's backward compatibility has always been more about higher level cameras being able to use older Pre-AI, AI and AI-s lenses that might be in a established photographer's inventory, It was not seriously about older camera bodies being able to use newer AF lenses. So Nikon could always have introduced EM aperture, break older body - newer lens compatibility, without breaking the more important newer body - older lense compatibility.

In other words, Nikon is admitting canon had been right about electromagnetic aperture for 30 years.

The price of the 200-500 f/5.6 is pretty extraordinary for a Nikon lens. One has to wonder what corners were cut to produce a lens so much cheaper than 80-400 f/4.5-5.6, or whether it is really a rebadged third party lens. The size of that 24-70 VR is monsterous for the focal length and aperture.

What is a "E" lens?

<p>B&H's web page say 30 day return period. I'll see if they would help out by saving both sides shipping fee.</p>