fran__ois_p._weill

<p>Bryce,</p>

<p>This is a very interesting question in itself. But it is awfully difficult to stay 100% objective or scientific unless we can compare the things with all the necessary elements : comparing the raw price of an F3 in its time to the present price of a D700 will need an inflation calculator and to be strictly scientific a reliable way to compare the actual buying power of the buyer for the same job then and now.</p>

<p>After which, we need to decide if we include the cost of using both cameras or not...</p>

<p>So, most of the time, only a relatively subjective judgment can be made.</p>

<p>Roughly considering the things, I feel Nikon's higher grade bodies were cheaper to buy in film times than the present higher grade DSLR bodies but the margin is narrowing at each generation, while the quality of the image is improving.</p>

<p>Is the cost of using the camera a pertinent data to include in the comparison ?</p>

<p>IMHO yes, because a film camera not only needs film to operate but processing these films and even slides need to be processed, though the cost per unit was and still is far under the cost of processing a negative film and get the prints.</p>

<p>It is true the cost of a digital camera is almost peanuts (the only real spending being the electricity needed for the batteries). But prints have a cost too. the advantage is you can actually see the result on your computer screen at a negligible cost and decide which you will print. The cost of prints themselves is difficult to assess... I believe outsourced printing at the amateur format are more or less the same as today's negative prints of the same size from the same outsource, but processing correctly RAW files on your computer and printing them by yourself becomes more and more economical when you both chose the ones you print with discrimination and print them at a professional format (for example no less than A4). In which case I found using a DSLR is far less costly than the same use of a film camera.</p>

<p>The other problem with a DSLR is obsolescence. And I don't mean "commercial" obsolescence but real technical one, the kind of which objectively and visibly affects the image quality and the true performance in current use. I still have a Nikon F2 and a Rolleiflex (between a bunch of film cameras), both can still be used and are likely to produce the same IQ present film camera equivalent can produce because they will use exactly the same films available to later, contemporary, models. A DSLR has its image making surface built-in, called a sensor and any progress in sensor technology is something your DSLR won't be able to be beneficiary. This affects both the image quality you can get from it and the re-sale value of your camera.</p>

<p>However, as the generations pass, the IQ is so much better that a kind of "plateau" is reached for a specific use. True, newer models are likely to increase IQ, but beyond the actual needs of your practice (it is generally a question of maximum enlargement value of the prints). But sometimes a true quantum leap appears : for example FX format vs DX format which allows cameras like a D700 or a D3 to perform at high ISO a way we can only have dreamed of in film times and allow to use older Nikon lenses at their original field of view. These performance were as instrumental in my decision to go from silver halide film to digital as the pratctical use experience of a DSLR I got from using my son's Canon 30D. But related to your original question, the most important thing is for most users a D700 or a D3, even objectively obsolete, will still remain valuable tools for a long period, much longer than anything produced before, as ameliorations in IQ with newer sensors will probably be unnoticeable in practice up to and including at least an A3+ format if not an A2 one... So obsolescence is no more IMHO as an important problem as it once was with high end DSLR's.</p>

<p>With this reflection, I must conclude DSLR's are nowadays becoming cheaper than any film camera, mainly because the cost of their use is cheaper and the number of frames you need to shoot with them for this cheaper cost is substantially reduced to compensate for what remains of the higher initial price when compared to a film camera and they are less likely to be practically obsolete before this threshold is reached, even for an average amateur use.</p>

<p>FPW</p>

<p>Nikon used to limit the filter size to 52mm for most prime lenses years ago...<br>

I don't think the new pro zooms can endure such kind of limitation. A very wide frontal lens is needed to keep a constant and reasonable maximum aperture and conversly the rather "mamoth" size of these lenses is to be kept to the minimum required for obvious practical reason...<br>

One cannot ask for everything and its opposite ! ...<br>

As for a required new lens, and as I'm a full FX supporter and future user (I need the money to buy a D700 and save to this goal) I consider the present 24-70 standard zoom too wide and too short (it is IMHO perfect in range for DX format). So I would like a new standard zoom more in accordance with my requirement, namely a 35-85 or 35-105mm zoom lens with a f/2 to f/2.8 constant maximum aperture as a "maid of all work" lens when I don't want to carry many lenses.<br>

I don't care about VR but far more to an affordable price (for a pro zoom of course), nor I care about the filter size.<br>

FPW</p>

<p>RM Jones,<br>

Though I'm not the best specialist in safari or even wildlife photography by far, I won't take any of the zoom lenses you refer to.<br>

May be you have already some zoom lens reaching 200mm in your bag...<br>

If so and to keep a relatively conservative budget I will go for a 300mm f/2.8 from Sigma and its x1.4 tele-converter (good reputation, fast and cheaper than any Nikon equivalent if not as stellar optically)... So I will have a 300mm f/2.8 and for exceptional situations a 420mm f/4 available for close-ups (the x1.4 extender has a reputation not to alter too much the IQ the x2 one has not). Shorter lenses will do for a more "atmospheric" approach.<br>

The x1.4 extender will be just about the necessary compensation for the decrease in apparent reach from a DX format body to an FX format and you will end up with about the equivalent of a Nikon 300mm f/4 (the only "affordable" 300mm in Nikon range) on a DX body.<br>

But one of the main equipement I will bring in company with a big tele lens will be a sturdy and well made monopod with a high quality ad-hoc head and a fast lock - unlock system. This will take care of a lot of self induced movement blur with the tele-lens.<br>

I hope it helps<br>

FPW</p>

<p>Mark,<br>

It all depends on four factors :</p>

<ul>

<li>The lenses you already have DX or FX compatible</li>

<li>The kind of subject(s) you like the best</li>

<li>Your will and the eventual money you can get from selling them if they are DX</li>

<li>Your budget</li>

</ul>

<p>If you have DX lenses only (and if their quality is to your liking) it is better for your budget to stay with a DX body... The same applies if you like to get maximum (apparent) reach for a given focal length on the tele-lens side.<br>

In which case three bodies can fit your needs :</p>

<ol>

<li>The new D 90, which seems to be a very perfroming one in I.Q. and which will keep a teasonable re-sale value longer but won't allow you to use older Ai-Ais lenses with metering should you be interested (they are dirt cheap on the second hand market). And the D90 has absolutely no weather sealing.</li>

<li>The D 300 which is a splendid machine of pro-level in construction and will accept any Ai-Ais lens with metering (but you will have less mpx and no video function) but the cost is more important</li>

<li>The D 200 which is the immediate predecessor of the D 300... An excellent machine with many possibilities but surely obsolete when compared to both the D 90 and the D 300. It might be good "enough" though for your work but might not be a great improvement in I.Q. . The advantage is you can use old Ai-Ais lens with metering and the body is well built. However I'm not sure the very attractive prices of today will be a real economy in the end as this body is likely to have an almost nil re-sale value within some years when you will want to upgrade again.</li>

</ol>

<p>Now if you have FX compatible lenses or accept to re-sale your DX ones with your D 50 body, I will surely recommend you if your budget allows to go FX with the D 700. It is likely you won't regret the "big jump" if you can afford it. Any lens you will buy in the future will be a keeper for many years (if satisfying of course) and you can use dirt cheap Ai-Ais lenses at their nominal field of view. I think for most people a D700 will be a keeper for many years to come too (even if it becomes obsolete) and the performance in "available darkness" is astounding. I doubt this camera will take the same kind of deep in re-sale price DSLR bodies have accustomed us in the past years. I think it will still sell for something within five years form now (if not for big money), something I doubt of for any of the present DX format cameras. Like the D 300 it is weather sealed to a certain extent and seems sturdily built. My choice if you can afford it.<br>

FPW</p>

<p>I vote for the 43-86mm zoom too...<br>

Not awful but far from usual Nikon optical quality nevertheless.<br>

FPW</p>

<p>(...) <em>this often isn't possible in indoor available light photography</em></p>

<p>Hello Illka,</p>

<p>I'm sure some situations lead to the impossibility you refer to. In such case it is more than often "get what you can"... But take into consideration the fact most of the time a wide to ultra-wide cans be safely used with a very reduced shutter speed when compared to what is necessary even with a standard lens. I bet f/4 (so one shutter speed slower) might have been possible and with the distance between the priest and the couple being relatively small and your 28 pre-set to cover both the couple and the priest into the lens D.O.F. I think you should have been ready well in advance to have the required picture... In the past, when AF was inexistent, such pictures were as current as they are now and a lot of them were taken with this technique successfully. My guess is you are so used to focus directly on the subject (despite the fact you also use manual lenses), a classic AF technique, you even didn't think about this distance pre-set option.</p>

<p><em>I take the position that if the photo is about interaction between people, it's best to have one person truly sharp and then if the other one is a bit blurry, then so be it.</em></p>

<p>Looks for me like a version of a very current movie technique : two people have a conversation, when one speaks the movie camera is in focus on him and when the other answers the focus is shifted to him. Unless you really can't do otherwise, I don't think this technique leads to the better result in photography (obviously because you can't shift focus on a single image).</p>

<p><em>The focus on us is perfect (the 28mm was used at f/2) yet you can see the bride looking towards us and smiling in the background. She is a bit out of focus but still ... a nice detail. Perhaps it'd be better if the DOF had been greater, in some ways, but it just wasn't possible.</em></p>

<p>The most frequent occurrence for such a situation is when the subject is really moving as the subject's movements cannot be "slowed" enough as are the operator movements effect by the wide angle... And with f/2 a mandatory aperture, I admit AF can be of a great help.</p>

<p>I received a mail through photo.net you will soon receive my mail address.</p>

<p>Best regards</p>

<p>François P. WEILL</p>

<p>Illka,</p>

<p><em>I would put it this way: "The subject can be near to the camera which creates a dynamic perspective and the viewer gets a sense of being involved in the activity, instead of being a faraway observer." :-)</em></p>

<p>As a heavily myopic person, I can indeed feel just as if I were the witness of the situation you describe, with the main subject in focus and everything beyond blurred... I just need not to wear my glasses. :) ...</p>

<p>On a more serious mood, I think the value of the result with such kind of pictures is something very subjective. May be because of my myopia, I tend to hate unsharpness when it doesn't fully transform the background into a totally abstract background. I fully admit it is subjective.</p>

<p>Oskar and Ken, the problem of the DOF is much more complicated than you seem to figure. The notion of circle of confusion is partly subjective and the seriously designed scales are made in reference to existing tables based on a commonly accepted value of this circle on the light sensitive medium (once a film, now a sensor) and a typical final enlargement. The final enlargement value is the most subjective part of this problem as it is assumed beyond a certain enlargment value people see the picture from a longer distance so the need for a smaller circle of confusion is obviated. If we had an infinite definition on the sensor and our eyes were perfect, then there will be no DOF at all - whatever the lens.</p>

<p>Ken, you example is somewhat atypical and simply show that then, (when the picture was taken) you were not aware of a well known fact, you expressed nowadays in a very precise and scientific terms speaking about magnification but which is clearly explained and can plainly be seen just looking at a lens with a DOF scale : on a given lens the nearer you focus, the less you get DOF for a given aperture. So it was obvious trying to frame the same subject with the same degree of magnification with a shorter focal length you won't be able to get more DOF. the only thing which is modified in such case is the perspective.</p>

<p>>> <em>I'm not knocking anyone who prefers the scales at all, I'm just saying that many people are now using a different method and the demand for lens scales seems to be greatly reduced.</em> <<</p>

<p>You don't seem to understand the other methods you refer to are either even more subjective than a good DOF scale ("seeing" the DOF through a darkened small finder by closing the aperture to the effective one) or slow (shooting a test pic and examining it on the screen of a DSLR, which is simply what I did in studio photography with my Hasselblad and a Polaroid back) and none of them allows for a distance pre-set.</p>

<p>Of course the latter method is far more precise but it implies your subject, like the deer skull you present here, won't move. The former is extremely imprecise and need to be used only under a fair amount of subject lighting.</p>

<p>>><em> If there was a demand for the scales, they would be there</em> <<</p>

<p>There are far more reasons than the alleged lack of demand for them to have disappeared :</p>

<ol>

<li>Ring actuated zooms precludes their existence unless you introduce a very complicated mechanical link between the focus ring and the aperture ring and a lot of other problems (entry of dust, lack of capability to hold the chosen focal length when moving the camera upward or downward) being generated by push-pull zooms lead to their abandonment which in turn precluded the presence of engraved DOF abaques on the barrel.</li>

<li>The first generations of zooms were mainly in the tele and then the medium focal length ranges where a precise focusing on the main subject is far more important in the average than DOF control.</li>

<li>AF added the necessity to have the smaller possible angular movement of the focusing ring to allow the fastest possible operation with the samllest possible inertia. On original Nikon AF lenses the focusing ring was even freewheeling ! Even today, DOF scales on AF lenses, when they exist at all, are cropped to the two or three smaller aperture value. This has no particular inconveniency with longer lens, but on a very wide one, where values like f/4 give you a fair amount of DOF this is a liability. To proceed otherwise seem to be considered a costly and perhaps impractical solution by all the manufacturers ! ... Finally the reduced angular movement of the ring between minimum focus distance and infinity leads to a less precise manual positionning of the ring.</li>

</ol>

<p>After more or less two decades of all AF and zoom supremacy (the latter first in the amateur world which is where the sales volume is) it is obvious few people ask for manual lenses and complete DOF scales ! But originally this was imposed by the manufacturers for technical and financial reasons, not by the lack of demand (at least on the professional level).</p>

<p>I just thought the appearance of manual third party high quality primes and the fact a lot of pro photographers find a place for them in their bag will trigger a renewed interest by mainstream manufacturers for these lens, at elast where they are the more practically useful : very wides and macro lenses...</p>

<p>FPW</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Unfortunately Kent we are not talking about subjects having the same size on the film. But same distance of focus and same aperture... And here DOF varies considerably from a wide to a tele-lens.</p>

<p>You are just expressing the problem the other way round... At equal degree of magnification (which is in practice not so often the best way to use a wide angle) you're right...But do you use your wide angle lenses for the same subjects and with the same subject magnification in practice? I hope for your models you don't when you shoot a portrait... :)</p>

<p>Illka, I understand your point of view, but, perhaps because of my own style and the subjects I usually tackle I scarcely use a wide angle under 35mm not closed enough as not to use with some profit the DOF scale. Perhaps our final use of shots may differ too : when I operate under the conditions I described earlier it is generally for a publication in offset, scarcely a monumental size of a print. So the better defintion at a reduced ISO setting is not my primary preoccupation, moreover with what a D3 or a D700 can bring at ISO 6400 ! ...</p>

<p>Oskar sorry but the problem with actual DOF capabilities has been evocated before digital photography with the best lenses and most modern films in MF. It was mentioned in the Hasselblad Manual years ago and with a solution : if maximum apparent shaprness is desired under high magnification, then use the DOF scale for one to two apertures more open... This recipe can - I think - be applied to HD digital too.</p>

<p>In a broader perspective DOF might be shallow with a very wide angle at f/2 but you have to forget two points to use this aperture to this goal : The subject must be near to the camera with all the associated perspective inconveniencies and you cannot hope for a high definition at the edges even with the cream of the crop in terms of lens and light fall will be present at the corners.</p>

<p>For me very wides, superwides and ultrawides are mainly landscape with effect or crowd photography lenses where the use of an important DOF is exploited to give a dramatic perspective to the scene. But the very special effect the persopective of such a lens precludes its use as a true portrait lens but if you want to end up with a caricature.</p>

<p>New photographers who never knew the primes as their main equipement can work easily with AF wide angle zooms ? May be. Do they obtain convincng result ? Certainly. Does this habit (and in fact the use of AF in general) transformed the style of many pictures when compared to those taken earlier ? I'm convinced the answer is YES. Both techniques may be valid, but not for the same subjects. I see more and more pictures with (IMHO) an outrageous abuse of wide apertures and far too much areas out of focus. Clearly the camera and lens combination commands, not the photographer in those images. As far as I'm concerned, I prefer a good DOF scale and a total control on the DOF and I ever operated more reliably and faster than any AF (and with more discretion by the way) using hyperfocal and not pointing the camera toward the subject until the very last moment... at least with wide primes.</p>

<p>Now, of course Oskar is right when he says the transition is never immediate between sharp and unsharp areas... To be more specfic the one and only area which is really in focus is the plan on which the lens is focused. The rest just appear sharp to our eyes (circle of confusion). But at the same distance and with the same aperture, a wide angle will have a smoother transition from apprently sharp to unsharp areas than, say, a tele lens like an 85mm. Which means the transition which appears rather neat with a 85mm and detaches the blurred background from the main subject will appear far more indistinct on a wide lens. I don't feel the effect of something still very recognizable but unsharp behind the main subject is really desirable, but I admit I'm very subjective here. I generally use wides when I want to restitute the subject in its context and I use their DOF properties to make this context as sharp as the main subject.</p>

<p>In landscape photography with a small format camera, I still believe - due to the feeble level of restitution of the minuest details when compared to a large format view camera - the best way to make you picture "snap" and capture the attention is to include something of interest (and sharp) in the foreground inscribed in the vastness of the countryside (also sharp) to give an imprssion of depth. But again this is personal.</p>

<p>As for Nikon, I know they will make first what is the most profitable for them. I just hope a certain way to take pictures will surface again and make this kind of lens profitable for them.</p>

<p>FPW</p>

<p>Oskar,</p>

<p>I have to strongly disagree...</p>

<ul>

<li>In the 14-24 (or 28) range you don't need a zoom because if you have a 14, a 20 and a 24 or 28 in your bag, changes in terms of FOV will only need a few paces forward or backward and changes in perspective will be determined well in advance of the shooting proper.</li>

<li>Slower lenses are smaller, frontal lens area is smaller too so easier and cheaper to manufacture with extremely high quality and with such primes you hardly need to focus through the focusing screen at usual effective aperture... For example setting my Leica M-mount Voigtländer 21mm f/4 in hyperfocal at f/4 means everything will appear in focus from 2m to infinity. Setting it at the 2m mark will give me a subject apparently in focus from 1.30m to 5m... So what is the purpose of being better able to focus on the ground glass... I agree this is important for lenses with more limited DOF, says from 35mm or 50mm on. But not on very wides.</li>

<li>It is even quicker and far less aleatory (in case the AF refuses to operate properly, something which can happen without much of a warning) to pre-focus your wide by scale focusing as you don't even have to pint your camera on the subject to proceed so. So the AF is not needed and if AF additionally shorten your engraved DOF scale to only the two or three more closed apertures (as it is often the case) AF becomes a liability instead of an help. I agree this is not applicable to longer lenses and from 35mm on I too prefer AF lenses (moreover with my poor eyes!).</li>

</ul>

<p>Modern AF's are great and to a certain extent zooms too when it goes to longer focal lengths. AF will be indeed faster and allows, if well conceived, to focus precisely wide open with fast medium or long lenses even if your eyesight isn't perfect. Zooms can be very efficient and practical when moving to frame the subject implies a somewhat considerable move forward or backward. Something hardly often seen with wide lenses. It is also the indispensable companion of sports photographers who need to be able to frame very fast from a long tele focal length on a detail (or far away from them) and a broader field (or a nearer subject).</p>

<p>As for your last affirmation : >> <em>I only need the DOF and focus scales when it's so dark that I can't see the subject using live view properly, but at that point they are obviously useful. </em> <<</p>

<p>I consider it more than debatable... One of the main control a photographer need to compose his image is DOF and you generally use the aperture DOF increase properties when there is, on the contrary, enough light to close the aperture. The situation you mention is more related to a full aperture use (where you need something more precise than a DOF scale !).</p>

<p>Personaly, I don't want to close blindly the aperture of my wide lens, because it is a zoom without a proper DOF scale, hoping for everything I want in focus to be so, or to rely on a very darken ground glass to look if by chance I can clearly see what is really in focus enough or not, nor I want to have to make a test on the screen moreover whan something fleeting has to be captured.</p>

<p>I don't want to see the wide angle zooms disappear, I just want to have the choice between them and manual primes and for a reasonable price.</p>

<p>FPW</p>

<p>Ken :</p>

<p>What are you talking about when you say all lenses have the same DOF ?</p>

<p>How do you explain a 28mm (i.e.) set at the same distance and using the same aperture has more DOF than a 50mm (i.e.) ?</p>

<p>Of course be it an AF and a zoom or a manual prime at the same subject distance and with the same aperture they will have the same DOF, but this was not the point I discussed.</p>

<p>I just pointed out short focal lens with their intrinsic increased DOF are certainly not is the same need of AF than say a very fast 50mm or a long tele lens. Moreover whane you know how to use the DOF scale on the lens barrel. A procedure I consider the most efficient to focus such wides.</p>

<p>Nobody forces you to " <em> to go back to the inconvience of single focal lenses"</em> if you prefer. I just say this is a mere inconveniency when compared to the (almost) big tele-lens weight and obtrusiveness of modern very wide angle zooms. I prefer to have some weight in my bag than on my camera body, attached to my neck ...</p>

<p>As to miss a shot because you don't have a zoom in a range from 14 to 28mm, most of the time this is purely a subjective impression... Do some trigonometric computations and see how the actual field varies within a few paces with such lenses. Simply, a lot of photographers have simply forgotten they can move too ! ...</p>

<p>As to the DOF preview and an eventual fine tuning with a test shot, sorry to say that but this is laughable in terms of time spent versus scale focusing which can be done even before you point your camera toward the subject... Don't you know what hyperfocal is ? ... Even changing a lens is less time consuming than your fine tuning procedure ! ...</p>

<p>As for the better IQ of modern Nikon wide angle zooms, this is mainly due to the fact Nikon has not yet modernized its prime range... See the results obtained by third party manual focus wides, like the Zeiss ones vs Nikon zooms. Clearly the IQ problem is not with zoom or not or AF or not.</p>

<p>Galen,</p>

<p>I hardly ever used wides wider than 35mm at extreme aperture. Most of the very fast and very wides are not good off the center at wider aperture than f/2.8, most of the time f/4 or f/5.6 give far better results and allow for scale focusing (and photographer's movement effects are really damped by the short focal length anyway) ...</p>

<p>I see no point using a wide from 12 or 14mm to 35mm (not included) at a very wide aperture : as I said, bokeh is never good, unless the subject is very near to the camera, it is almost impossible to isolate it otherwise and if so you obtain a caricature of your subject because of the particular perspective of wide angles... So, unless you picture something almost flat and parallel to the sensor plan (which will enhance the different lens aberrations) under very dim light, I see no practical interest of a very wide aperture on these lenses, moreover when you can get a fine picture at ISO 6400 and closing the aperture a bit.</p>

<p>It seems a lot of pro photographers are re-discovering the virtues of high quality manual wide primes these days through Zeiss lenses and I think Nikon can provide them cheaper at the very limited inconveniency of a somewhat less spectacular nominal wider aperture.</p>

<p>FPW</p>

<p>Dear friends,</p>

<p>Since the introduction of full format on DSLR's I have the feeling - particularly for Nikon users due to the compatibility of the bodies with old manual lenses - something is beginning to change in the mentality of many photographers.</p>

<p>I have always felt wide angle AF zooms, whatever their intrinsic qualities, were somewhat incongruous., at least when covering a wider FOV than the one a 35mm is able to offer.</p>

<p>Zooms - either manual or AF - are generally unable to offer a continous indication of DOF along their range, at least unless they are not of the much maligned "pump" type (remembrance of the Nikon 43-86mm one for example which had a DOF abaque engraved on the barrel).</p>

<p>As the lens FOV broaden and the focal length decreases, the number of paces, forward or backward, to frame a subject precisely decreases too. On very, super or ultra wides, it is - most of the time - not difficult to obtain the required FOV by using your feet instead of zooming and the wider the lens, the smaller is the effort.</p>

<p>Wide lenses are producing an inherent DOF which is borader and broader as the focal length shorten. Even a 28mm has an inherent DOF which is very important since the first few larger apertures and you really need a very fast one, used very near to the main subject to perceive a very neat out of focus effect. Moreover (but this is subjective) I think the resultant "bokeh" is never really pleasant, whatever the lens, as the transition between the in focus main subject and the background is too progressive to make the main subject "pop out" as with a tele-lens (or even a fast 50mm wide open).</p>

<p>Taking a picture of a subject very near from the frontal lens of a wide angle generally ends up in a somewhat caricatural rendition. This, once again, limits the practical advantage of using the wide apertures as a mean to isolate the main subject in wide angle photography.</p>

<p>AF lenses, even primes, have a very limited DOF scale on the barrel and a relatively imprecise one due to the necessity to limit the angular movement of the focusing system for a faster AF</p>

<p>Most of the time a truly wide lens is used for its particular perspective rendition and maximizing the DOF properties of the lens by closing the aperture.</p>

<p>From these elements, I have concluded :</p>

<p>AF is more a liability on wides under 35mm as a good scale focusing on a complete DOF scale on a MF lens having a focusing ring with a much wider angular movements form minimum focusing distance to infinity is more useful and even faster and more precise than any AF system</p>

<p>Modern wide angle AF zooms, though they allow for a more limited number of lenses to be carried, are very cumbersome and heavy to carry on a body and their frontal lens is generally very exposed. The weight and volume of two or three wides in the bag being in the end less an hindrance to the photographer's movements and their weight is not much heavier than the one of the wide zoom.</p>

<p>For years, I have been frustrated by the multiplication of zooms and AF lens applied to everything, including the sheer non-sense of AF fisheyes !</p>

<p>It seems the trend in beginning to reverse as more modern manual prime wide lenses are appearing these days, either from Zeiss or, more recently, from Cosina - Voigtländer (20mm f/3.5).</p>

<p>Do you think Nikon should revive a range of manual wide primes (under 35mm) with a moderate aperture (f/3.5 - f/4) covering FX format and affordable, but optically as good as technically possible from the maximum aperture on ?</p>

<p>François P. WEILL</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Thanx to Lex, Breogan and Anthony...<br>

FPW</p>

<p>Anthony,</p>

<p>You wrote Nikon still sells Ais lenses (new) ?</p>

<p>At least on the French market they are totally absent of Nikon France lens list. Second hand being the only solution.</p>

<p>Can you elaborate on your affirmation ?</p>

<p>FPW</p>

<p>Jay,</p>

<p>Sorry but for both you and the youg Lady, the D60 is not your main body but a complement...</p>

<p>It is obvious the mainstay of D40/D60 camera bodies owners buy this camera as their only one and ARE amateurs.</p>

<p>I perfectly understand someone already having a D200 (excellent body by the way) and - I suppose - a bunch of DX lenses to go with it (all perfectly suitable for use with a D60) would like to buy a D60 as his second body. But this situation is certainly marginal when compared to the average D60 customer's one. I'm not surprised either by the fact the young Lady who is apprently versy versed in fine art photography wants a (relatively) cheap small format DSLR (probably as soemthing to carry everywhere more than a "masterpiece maker").</p>

<p>But I'm not convinced most advanced photogs and even less pros will stay long with an amateur camera as their main body unless they are financially complied to proceed so. I'm not even convinced, unless the end use requires only a moderate defintion obtained in good lighting conditions, an average advanced amateur - let alone a pro - will keep for a long time a nowadays very obsolescent D200 ad his (her) main equipment.</p>

<p>From there on, I understand those having a bunch of DX lenses hesitate to go farther than a D300 and adopt FX format.</p>

<p>A newcomer (of this level of proficiency) to Nikon DSLR world or, like me, someone who has a stock of great F mount lenses from an older film system will certainly heartily go for an FX camera instead. If you have already F mount lenses (even to be Ai'ed) and not a single DX lens, or no Nikon lens at all it would be illogic to go for a DX camera (unless you specialize in sports of wild life photography).</p>

<p>An amateur level newcomer or someone of the same level wanting to upgrade and having some DX lenses will be more attracted by a D 60 DX body. And someone already proficient in photography but with a limited budget in the same situation will be more attracted by a D90. But I'm convinced only the latter will be attracted by a DX prime.</p>

<p>D40/60/90 are not fully compatible with Ai/Ai'ed F mount lenses. So you need either DX lenses or FX/DX compatible AF lenses.</p>

<p>D300 (as was the D200) is Ai/Ai'ed lenses compatible but as it is a DX camera the old Ai/Ai'ed lenses in the wide angle range won't be useable at their original FOV, so, unless you deal with macro work, the interest of this compatibility is limited (one of the main reason I waited to go digital myself for full format cameras). This notwithstanding, very few people not having a bunch of old lenses will be temped to go for manual focus lenses (even if the are often dirt cheap) and it is clear the best use of these old lenses is scale focusing on wide angles. Add to this the finder of most if not all DX camera is like a dark tunnel when compared to the one of FX format camera.</p>

<p>So, if you accept to use second hand manual primes for wide angles under 35mm, second hand AF primes in mint condition instead of a modern stellar high grade zoom and - but this is the same for DX bodies - FX current primes or zooms for long tele-lenses, I doubt, if you have no DX lens in stock a D700 equipment will cost you more in the end than a D300 with a full array of brand new DX zooms.</p>

<p>Now if your budget is too limited, the best choice for a very good image quality is the D90 and then the new 35mm DX lens is a tempting choice. As it may be for you, considering the equipement you already own.</p>

<p>And sorry to say that Jay, but I never take for granted the opinion of a company managers, largely influenced by the marketing department guys (I have no respect whatsoever for Marketing dept. guys, from Nikon or anyone else)... Big companies sometimes made big mistakes (remember the Ford Edsel ?) ...</p>

<p>You should take into account the fact many low end DSLR customers are first time buyers (unlike you) and are not likely to upgrade or even complement their camera kit as long as it will work. They are the mainstay of Nikon sales only because numerous newcomers are buying such a gear each year. Between them only a few will persevere and acquire enough photographic practice to convert from family souvenir hunters to photographers. And when they convert, most of them, if not on a tight budget, will try to buy something really higher in terms of range. I'm not convinced a unique prime will push them to stay with a DX camera any longer... Moreover if the trend to lower prices for full format cameras continues in the future generations (which is very likely).</p>

<p>Raw price is of course an important element but I think "affordability" is even more decisive, particularly when it goes for something which attracts real amateurs.</p>

<p>FX format is not yet something totally affordable for advanced amateurs (unless they have other way to compensate for the increased cost), but this won't stay such for long. It is not difficult to imagine the successor of the D700 being sold far nearer (if not equal) to the D300 price as when it was introduced. At this point, I think fewer and fewer newcomers to Nikon wanting a semi-pro body will opt for DX format (unless they have compelling reasons to do so). And this is just this kind of customer's panel a wide aperture prime will tempt.</p>

<p>A lens - even in this fast evolving digital photography era - is not something you will keep for two or three years even on a pro level, it is still a long term investment (even if it is a reasonably priced one). It is made to cover many DSLR body lives ! ... Even for an amateur, the "amortizment" (if you can speak this way for an amateur use) is on a far longer period. So, even if this prime (which is most probably intrinsically an excellent lens) has not the ridiculously small maximum (and variable) aperture of most DX zoom lens, someone who is realistic about the future of DX format (here to stay for some years yes, here to stay long for semi-pro - pro range of bodies, doubtful, here to stay forever extremely improbable) only people decided to stay with DX even if this means to downgrade in terms of body range have any interest in buying it (how many are they ?).</p>

<p>Even if I were to buy a D300 or a D90 I, personaly will never buy a DX lens anymore to protect my lens "investment". A lens will stay operational for at least ten years, and as I see the things, I doubt DX format will remain so long available even for amateur bodies.</p>

<p>IMHO Nikon should concentrate only on lenses covering both formats and as they have to upgrade their prime range, I believe this may lead to economy of scale by progressively dropping any pro level exclusively DX lenses (which are not so numerous) but the few necessary wides and in fine to lower retail prices for common lenses.</p>

<p>FPW</p>

<p>Illka, answering Peter:</p>

<p>>> <em>For a lot of the time in the Finnish winter, there are only two options to get reasonably sharp pictures without flash - one is to use a tripod and the other is to use fast glass </em> <<</p>

<p>I sincerely doubt Nikon people took the decision to produce this lens from the peculiar situation of photographers living near the polar circle in winter... :)</p>

<p>Sorry Illka, what you say is true, but just conincidental... Most of the case, what Peter says is right :<br>

>> <em>I'll bet the vast majority of those people are just fine with a D40 or D60, 18-55 zoom, and the built-in flash, if not a simple Canon P&S. Only folks who are slightly more advanced photogs are going to go for this lens imho</em> <<</p>

<p>Which makes me wonder how many lens will be sold in the end when people like our friends here, on this board, who are obviously pertaining to the second category described by Peter and reluctant to go FX will have bought it. I have the feeling there will be few buyers in the end !</p>

<p>Most of the pros or advanced amateurs here, even those who praise the DX format for what it is worth, are already using both FX and DX format... DX being most of the time confined to long-tele lenses for its apparent superior magnification with a shorter lens... Spending even $ 200 for such a standard lens will simply be an eventual additional comfort when they want to go very "light" in the field... But if they want to go light, then they'll probably prefer the zoom solution.</p>

<p>This let us with a market mostly composed of D90 buyers. Is such a market large enough to justify more than a single isolated lens ? Time will tell...</p>

<p>The Nikon product Manager for Europe statement is clear :<br>

>> <em>The main target is D40/D60/D90 owners. They make up 80% of our DSLR sales and there wasn't really an inexpensive prime lens for them. So far, the lens offering for that market has included some really good zooms, but this offers them something they were missing.</em> <<</p>

<p>But I doubt the main target will even be in fact the D40/D60 owners ! ... D 90 customers seems to me far more logical (who I define more or less as true advanced amateurs with a very limited budget).</p>

<p>Looking at photographic forums in France, it seems these D40/D60 people are really reluctant to anything but zooms and I even fequently see threads where people advocate the abandonement of any large aperture lenses "<em>considering the progress in high ISO performance of the last generation of DSLR's</em> ". A statement I completely disagree with... But which seems common among the cropped format die hards ! ... Who are generally in the D40/D60 owners group as far as Nikon users are concerned.</p>

<p>By the way, this statement seems to confirm my opinion there are very few chances the D300 - despite persisting rumors on the net - will have a direct successor in DX format... As even the 35mmf/1.8 DX is considered for the amateur market by this Nikon Product Manager !</p>

<p>Now let's consider the f/1.8 aperture... As far as I know the noiseless limit of the D90 is about ISO1600... Compared to a classic f/4 (at best) DX zoom it appears to be more or less a way to reach the same shutter speed with a D90 you can reach at f/4 with a D700 at 6400 ...</p>

<p>Another food for thought will be to ask the question of relevance in the choice of a reflex camera by a lot of amateurs...</p>

<p>I don't know for the USA and other parts of the world, but here, in France, a lot of people buy low end DSLR's and use them well inside the limits of high end compacts, which are cheaper, less cumbersome and for some of them at least have even a better lens than the standard zoom from the kit which will stay affixed to the reflex body for the duration ! ... I don't see them buying a large aperture prime at all, whatever its intrinsic qualities.</p>

<p>My personal feelings are this lens is a long delayed project which is issued now because Nikon marketing department wants to show once again they can do better than any competitor and as a form of consolation for the long time DX users of a certain level of proficiency who were a tad discomforted by the FX format appearance. It may be also a way to maintain the sales level of the D300 as many people are justifiably hesitating between this DX camera and the D700.</p>

<p>I still don't think Nikon is making a smart move with this lens... A high quality 35mm f/1.4 AF-G - even more expensive - covering the FX format would have probably met the needs of a much wider market, particularly if, optically speaking, it was near to or as good full open as the famed Leica made Summilux-M 35mm f/1.4 aspheric.</p>

<p>May be I'm biased but a "night kit" composed of this lens, the new 50mm f/1.4 AF-G and another hypothetic 85mm f/1.4 AF-G should be a dream kit. Add to this one an f/2 24mm AF-G and even the DX users will have it. Besides, economy of scale concentrating in a single lens range will probably allow for reduced production cost and consequently a reduced retail price.</p>

<p>FPW</p>

<p>IIlkka :</p>

<p>>><em> Although I think the 35mm DX is a good move from Nikon, especially with the price announced, it opens up another can of worms: should Nikon update the wide angle primes to AF-S and make two versions of each: one FX and one DX? If they don't, an isolated 35mm or 50mm prime doesn't necessarily make that much of a difference in what people will use.</em> <<</p>

<p>I fully agree... Just to add, considering the large number of DX users which seems content with poorly open variable aperture zooms with very ide range (the 18-200mm is the epitome of the genre) as their main equipment, I sincerly doubt this relatively fast prime will be a commercial record success... Sigma 30mm is produced to fit quite a number of mounts with the same optical formula, including brands which doesn't produce full format sensors in their range, so Sigma's move was quite logical.</p>

<p>It seems to me these days Nikon marketing department is trying to emulate what other brands produces in a vain (and unnecessary) attempt to show what Nikon is able to do... This is true for this lens and is probably to a great extent true for the D3x... The quality of the resulting products notwithstanding.</p>

<p>>> <em>I use my 35mm and 28mm f/2 quite often for people photography (with FX) and sometimes I need the maximum aperture to make a useable image. Just yesterday I took pictures of people lighting candles at a church and the light towards the end allowed me 35mm f/2 1/125s at ISO 3200. My 28mm and 35mm lenses are manual focus and frankly it would be very useful to have such lenses in AF-S. </em> <<</p>

<p>Not so sure of that Ilkka, at least for the 28mm... But a 35mm f/1.4 (or even more open) AF will certainly be welcome.</p>

<p>>> <em>But I would be very disappointed if Nikon starts spreading their efforts by making separate lenses for both formats.</em> <<</p>

<p>I heartily concur... It would be a sheer nonsense. Some years ago, when FX format didn't exist, I suppose pro DX camera users languished for fast primes and fast fixed macimum aperture zooms... In fact most of the fast fixed aperture zooms they could use were full format and almost no prime (except a fisheye) covered the all too specific wide to very wide range. Then it should have been wise for nikon to issue such lenses in strictly DX dedicated form.</p>

<p>Nowadays, as FX will surely become more and more affordable as the generations will pass, I see no point in dedicated pro oriented DX lenses.</p>

<p>>> <em>If the lens is well designed it can work well on both formats.</em> <<</p>

<p>Yes, but as you once indicated to extract the same level in image quality form a DX format sensor one must have a higher definition from the lens... Hence a lens which will certainly cost more than if it was primarily FX dedicated. One reason why I sincerly doubt DX format will stay as a component of the pro - semi-pro line of Nikon bodies... It is an all different problem for the amateur range... At least as long as FX sensor cost won't allow prices similar to the present DX amateur cameras.</p>

<p>The real forte of DX format in the pro-advanced amateur world is the apparent superior magnification of a given tele-lens... But all pro level tele-lens (Nikon classes into the "super-tele" category) are in fact FX capable. Add to this fast AF is more than a comfort for sports and wildlife photographers so the Ai-Ai'ed lens compatibility is of limited importance for these lenses, and I don't see why a pro or an advanced amateur can't use a D90 as a dedicated super-tele body when these activities are only secondary (as most most professional sports or wildlife photographers will accept to pay for a longer lens on an FX format body to obtain the same magnification). So the interest for a successor to the D300 seems to me extremely limited. And I only D300 users as "massive" potential buyers of the new DX 35mm lenses...</p>

<p>>> A lot of people use both formats, should they have to buy both sets to get the best results? <<</p>

<p>Most of the present (yet limited) advantages (seeing the things in the semi-pro - pro range) of DX format will almost certainly be negated in a near future. The eventual successor of the D700 will probably be no more costly to afford than the present D300 body. Nikon will certainly improve its existing FX compatible lenses as they will gradually implement G mount to all of them, and moderately open (f/4 or f/4.5) long tele-lenses for casual users will probably be part of the program. I doubt a 300mm f/4 will cost more than the splendid 200mm F/2 AF VR... And with high ISO available aplenty I don't see a casual user discontent with an f/4 300mm (may be VR) instead. And, already, unless you go for low amateur range bodies the compactness brought about by using DX format instead of FX is more than debatable. Finally brand new pro-oriented lenses in DX format will have to be obtained new for a while, which will cost far more than buying second hand lenses compatible with FX format at their nominal FOV. Sure the D300 (and before the D200) were able to operate properly with TTL metering most old Ai/Ai'ed lenses, but as manual focus lenses are more useful in the wide angle range, the reduction of the field of view engendered by the DX format is surely a handicap to use these old dirt cheap second hand beauties.</p>

<p>IMHO, Nikon should restrain to develop pure DX format lenses except - perhaps - for very wide primes.</p>

<p>A revision of existing primes, compatible with FX format seems to me far more urgent. And if they really want to have a competing range of lenses, why don't they re-issue manual focus fast ide angle primes optimized for FX format ? Scale focusing is very interesting with such lenses.</p>

<p>>> <em>I can understand that a few DX primes are made (i.e. add a 18mm f/2 or 18mm f/2.8 DX) but I would prefer if Nikon kept most lenses capable of rendering a good image on FX</em> . <<</p>

<p>Sure, and I will add a new trans-standard zoom for FX would be welcome with a tad less capability in the wide angle range and a tad more on the tele side ! And why not a 35-85 f/2 (from small group to true portrait with a really fast lens !)...</p>

<p>FPW</p>

<p>Gents,</p>

<p>It looks very simple to me... When technology will again evolves and Mpx equivalent of the D3x will have the perormance at high ISO of the D3/D700 couple, then this camera will be my dream camera.</p>

<p>For the present time, I may sound prejudiced or old fashioned, but with the standard in defintion set by the D3 and D700 cameras which equals or better any 35mm film camera using a medium speed emulsion but beating anything on the market today at high ISO, either digital or film, I consider most of the tasks once traditionnally performed with a film small format camera within the limits of the D3 and D700 cameras and beyond ! ...</p>

<p>I guess some specialites may truly beneficiate of the increased pixel count of the D3x, but I'm not convinced the specialists of these kinds of photography have a fair trade at $ 8000 <strong>plus the cost of the lenses</strong> versus the cost of a good digital back on an MF camera for which they have already plenty of lenses, just because the D3x is more compact and automated (to which extent if the MF is relatively recent ?)...</p>

<p>To try to be objective, it seems to be true in the US the wedding photographers are still making money enough in the average to envisage using such a camera with some profit, but here, in France, I know but a few wedding photographers who - nowadays - can justify such an expense. And wealthy fashion photographers working outdoors are not so numerous on this planet :) .</p>

<p>This camera (the D3x) is far above in terms of retail price what an average advanced amateur will spend despite most of the time he or she will find more useful an increased definition than very high ISO performance most of the time.</p>

<p>I still considered this - apprently excellent - camera as a technical demonstrator for which the main interest is to serve as a flagship to Nikon and answer the arch-rival Canon performance in pixel count.</p>

<p>For me, the (relatively) affordable D3 and quite affordable (considering its performance) D700 remain the really useful top level cameras of Nikon today. Their definition may appear a tad backward on the paper, but are for most use sufficient and their ability to allow a picture to be taken in "available darkness" remains unequaled to this day.</p>

<p>So, even if the statement of the unknown professional on B&H site may appear a bit blunt, I think he is generally in accordance with the facts when you consider the things on a practical everyday shooting point of view with a small format DSLR.</p>

<p>I guess the sales of the D3x will never reach the level reached by the D3 not to speak of the one reached by the D700. Not only because of a price which appears to many as outrageous (though Im' not sure it is in fact) but because few people will really need it.</p>

<p>FPW</p>

<p> </p>

<p><em>>> Would you say that a Nikon F6 is not a SLR because it has AF?</em></p>

<p>Sorry Robert, but it is an SLR because though the AF is deemed to focus automatically there is a mirror, and a ground glass to observe the image as transmitted through the lens.</p>

<p>Keep the AF, suppress the mirror and the ground glass and add an external accessory finder, and it is no more a reflex.</p>

<p>Will you call it a rangefinder camera because the AF principle is a sort of rangefinder ?</p>

<p><em>The G is a range finder. The mechanism works on the same principles as any manually focused RF camera ever made. It just so happens that the focusing loop is closed by machine (however unfortunate not one very well implemented.) <<</em></p>

<p>In the strict acception of the term rangefinder (and not rangefinder camera) your 100% right<em>...<br /> </em></p>

<p>However, there is absolutely no logic in using the classic "two windows" external rangefinder system as the base of an AF camera... This is proven time and again by a lot of compacts.</p>

<p>The beauty of a true rangefinder camera concept is to allow a very precise MANUAL focusing on the subject which is neither as subjective as the manual focusing on a ground glass nor to the technical limitations (and the stupidity regarding the point of the subject to be precisely focused) of an AF system, which will fail (though generally this has been considerably improved in recent years) just when its help will be of the greatest importance (low light, low contrast). Even the remarkable 51 points AF of the latest Nikon pro DSLR's (the best on the market today) is still submitted to these limitations.</p>

<p>So IMHO the very concept of the G was doomed from the beginning. It has neither the mechanical simplicity of an AF compact nor the still superior precision of a manual focusing rangefinder. By the way, I sincerly doubt the multipoint AF currently in use in modern DSLR's is transferable to a rangefinder camera. So the iteration of such a camera is more than improbable.</p>

<p>>> <em>As for batteries, CR123 is hardly difficult to find.</em> <<</p>

<p>>>> <strong><em>The G would almost always run out when I was far from a source for its special little batteries.</em> </strong> <<< (Darius Jedburg)</p>

<p>I repeat : I'm not and was never a G owner... As far as the battery availability is concerned, I just take into account what a user said.</p>

<p>I don't think they are as easy to find anywhere as AA or AAA ones... Neither my Hexar RF batteries are. But for me battery dependence is a non-issue anyway. Just keep a spare lot (or more) in the bag and nothing can really stops you.</p>

<p>FPW</p>

<p>Josh,</p>

<p>Please, don't misunderstand my words, there is absolutely no personal attack in my message...</p>

<p>I just underlined the fact your quotation of Picasso which introduced the subject (so you are the intial poster aren't you ?) was IMHO based on a misinterpretation of his words. They have actually a totally direrent meaning when considered as a statement regarding the taste of a society or part of a society and not the one of an individual. I even beleive they have sense only this way ! ...</p>

<p>I have quite well understood the real meaning of your interrogation, which regards the eventual necessity for an individual to forget his own taste to become creative. I have just tried to show how dangerous and misleading such an attitude can (but not necessarily will) allow in the practical world. And I think this consequences are already pervasive in the small world of modern art.</p>

<p>For me an artist cannot but express something to the others, if has nothing to express, then he is not an artist at all. The second prerequisite to be an artist, as I see the things, is to be a master craftsman in your art. And the third is you have to express what you want to express in a deeply personal way (otherwise you're a copyist).</p>

<p>This third prerequisite of course void your interrogation as far as I'm concerned... Individual taste being a fundamental part of the personality.</p>

<p>Even if I don't consider me as an artist, when I take a picture and the result displeases me, I dump this picture... Whatever anybody else can say about it.</p>

<p>There are innumerable histories of famous painters destroying their work because they were not satisfied with it, <strong>hence it was not to their taste</strong> <em>,</em> even when a lot people told them it was a great creation.</p>

<p>In fact I believe a true artist is a totally subjective medium between his subject and the audience. By removing this subjectivity in asking him to forget about his personal taste, such a fundamental component of his personality, you just kill both the artist and the art together.</p>

<p>That's why I think Picasso's words have a totally different sense than the one you understood and are not related to personal taste in anyway, but the weight of the dominant conceptions of the era the artist lives in.</p>

<p>Any human work, including the creation process (in art or in scientific discovery for example) is the result of an interaction between the innate characteristics of the individual which are of genetic origins and the environment (natural, social, political, cultural ... a.s.o.). Nothing is produced <em>in abstracto</em> .</p>

<p>Artists cannot abstract themselves from their own personality, they cannot abdicate their personal bias and tastes. If doing so they'll never produce anything interesting as any sincere work of art is a reflection of this personality.</p>

<p>I have yet to understand by the way how your longer development on Leni Riefenstahl's work versus her nazi past is related to the question you ask...</p>

<p>She was without any doubt a great craftsman in photography and film making. She served a bad cause with a remarkable talent. It will be so easy and comfortable for the mind to think people serving bad causes are always stupid, lacking any talent and producing things just as ugly as the ideas they uphold. Unfortunately, this is not the case. To recognize these people may be talented and real artists is not endrosing in anyway their ideas.</p>

<p>Werner Von Braun was instrumental in allowing the USA to reach the Moon... He was also a nazi and in the sombre tunnel of K.Z. Dora where the V1 and V2 were built died a lot of inmates. As a human being he was a nazi and moreover a war criminal (Leni Riefenstahl was "just" a nazi) but I'm yet to hear from the NASA any declaration about the nazi and war criminal past of Mister Von Braun. This doesn't imply he was not ALSO a great scientist.</p>

<p>But I still miss the link between the personal taste of an artist and his eventual need to forget this personal taste to become creative and <strong>your</strong> perception of Riefenstahl's <strong>work</strong> ???</p>

<p>Can you elaborate on this point please ?</p>

<p>FPW</p>

<p>Philip Roberts</p>

<p>>><em> Oh and just to add to the controversy, if Konica had taken up the Hexar range in anger, I personally believe it would have flattened the Leica. I owned one and sold it - and I now wish I hadn't, it was undoubtably one of the best 35mm cameras I have ever owned. </em> <<</p>

<p>I cannot agree more !</p>

<p>I still have mine and currently use M-Hexanon, Leica and Voigtlaänder lenses on it ! ...</p>

<p>The Hexar RF had almost everything the M7 missed, and the M7 had all what the Hexar RF missed!</p>

<p>A very strange situation about which a certain E Putts once gave an explanation : originallay it was envisaged by Leica and Konica to begin a joint venture to produce a new AE pro level rangefinder. The negotiation broke for an unspecified reason and eaxh would be partners developped their own product.</p>

<p>But had Konica really seased the opportunity to develop their model, correcting some flawed features (like the x0.6 only finder magnification) and the inhability to wind the film and re(-arm manually and silently and have added a more modern metering system (Matrix metering in AE mode, true spotmetering in manual mode for example and TTL flash) while keeping the price of the body as affordable as it was it would have been an M7 killer.</p>

<p>Times were to turn to the dominance of digital photography and no one was really in a position to produce a truly efficient DRF as the many shortcomings of the M8 unfortunately demonstrates, moreover at a reasonable price.</p>

<p>So Konica abandonned the model... for more profitable domains.</p>

<p>For film lovers, the Zeiss Ikon alternative seems to a far better alternative choice to a Leica M than any other candidate... I agree by the way the Contax G is nothing more than a glorified compact camera with interchangeable lens and not a true rangefinder. Even if its lenses are far above the average in terms of IQ.</p>

<p>Even with a bad AF (I have no personal experience with the Contax G), I sincerly doubt taking an incident reading on a hand held meter and tranferring the indications manually on an M3 can be faster than a TTL reading, including the eventaul compensation. The metering is most probably extremely accurate (if the situation allows, which is not ever the case with incident metering) but if the subject went away before the end of the operation, who cares about a perfectly acucrate metering !</p>

<p>I use hand held meter and incident reading to, but hardly when I use a small format camera... Generally this is reserved to my MF system when used on a tripod.</p>

<p>Beside, unless you have an old selenium meter, you are as dependent on batteries for the hand held meter as you are for a camera with TTL metering if you want more than a "guesstimation" under the sunny 16 rule. Contax G are dependent on hard to find batteries, the Hexar RF is not (nor to my knowledge the M6 or the M7).</p>

<p>Sadly, for someone active in the professional use of images, digital photography is nowadays almost a prerequisite. So this kind of comparison has become almost meaningless.</p>

<p>I'm going to sell almost all my film gear (but for sentimental reason my Rolleiflex F), including the Hexar RF and all the lenses to go with it...</p>

<p>I'd only whished I could have found a true digital successor for my RF lenses, built like a tank, full format and having all the present DSLR features related to the rangefinder concept for a decent price...</p>

<p>But I'm going to the DSLR world and I'm afraid there will be no turning back...</p>

<p>Times are changing.</p>

<p>FPW</p>

<p><em>>> creativeness becomes the enemy of taste <<</em></p>

<p>Phylo,</p>

<p>I do agree with this statement... and I think we are living in a world where this statement just applies to a vast part of what is considered "creation" or "art"...</p>

<p>Though I doubt this is only the consequence of >> broadening and letting go of the personal taste << ...</p>

<p>It was certainly the case for quite a number of artists up to the late 60's which sincerly tried to open new roads, new ways of seeing the things and transmitting their emotions.</p>

<p>I'm far more reserved about their apparent followers of more recent times sincerity.</p>

<p>I don't believe you can totally forget any kind of scale of reference to judge a piece of art (or a pîece of something pretending to be art).</p>

<p>Taste is one of these evaluation scales and taste is a word which has more than one signification.</p>

<p>Picasso's quotation can be interpreted at least in two ways as we don't know if the Great Pablo referred to personal taste or the more sociological approach of the term taste : the taste of the era.</p>

<p>Knowing the political background of the artist, I would have probably chosen the second interpretation... Which directly refers to things like <em>le "bon" goût bourgeois</em> (the "good" bourgeois taste) which describes what was admitted and fashionable and acceptable in a rather conservative and traditionalist wealthy class, almost impervious to any innovation.</p>

<p>According to this interpretation, Picasso's sentence is far less hermetic and far more practical. it can be translated in this form : Do not let social conventions and socially acceptable taste(s) limit you creativity... Something which is indeed a necessity when someone wants to become really creative in a personal way, as he (or she) has to impose his (her) personal way.</p>

<p>The other interpretation which the original poster seems to favor seems - alas - the way many self appointed artists (or gallery owners boosted ones) seem to put forward.</p>

<p>Most of these people seem to consider shocking the audience for the sake of shocking it and bad craftsmanship are the prerequisite of "modern" artistry ! ...</p>

<p>Then, they (or their sponsors) try to find a way to give sense enough to what cannot be described otherwise than a scam - generally using a psychological (mostly freudian) language - to convince an audience of would be wealthy, but generally art illiterate, buyers the halphazardly composed meaningless by itself "piece of art" has an hidden (and obviously deep) sense ! ...</p>

<p>And here we see the limit and the danger of the interpretation of Picasso's quotation as something regarding personal taste.</p>

<p>If not for the ability of the indelicate seller to "paint" the so-called artist work as having a deep meaning with a totally hermetic argumentation most the buyers are unable to understand (fortunately for the seller as in fact this argumentation is more than often totally meaningless !), most of the would be buyers, simply using their personal taste and feelings as a guide, will never buy it... Add to this recipe a way to flatter the ego of the would be buyer as a possibility for him (her) to pass as a great connoisseur in Art if he (she) buys and a piece of salt telling him (her) how this purchase will also be a sound investment (this kind of language is this time perfectly understood by the potential buyer, it pertains to his (her) usual world) and you've got it ! ...</p>

<p>This is no more Art but art market, and on the contrary to the 16th century mecenes, the new art amateur is not a connoiseur but at best an investor and at worst an illiterate snob sucker.</p>

<p>With no reference system, either social or personal, the art customer becomes a manipulated puppet of the "artistic mafia" and the artist, provided he (she) is not a consicous accomplice, is likely to never produce something new or valuable. As trespassing the limits of his (her) PERSONAL taste without a sound reason cannot tell anything valuable to the audience and something resisting the assault of time and changing fashions. It is only an encouragement to fake artists and scammers.</p>

<p>I doubt it was ever Picasso's intentions.</p>

<p>FPW</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Dear Epp,</p>

<p>You wrote</p>

<p>>> <em>I have no argument with you that the optics on most newer lenses are only minutely better, if at all, than older lenses. That said, I'll happily pay for the convenience of autofocus, matrix metering, full-aperture viewing, zooming, VR, etc. Though I don't think that AF is merely a convenience when it comes to shooting a very fast lens wide open.</em> <<</p>

<p>About conveniences, it seems your young age (I'm 54) doesn't allow you to realize you happily mix eras...</p>

<p>Full aperture viewing was a "convenience" present even on the first Nikon F in ... 1959 !</p>

<p>Matrix metering was first used by Nikon on the FA which if I correctly remember appeared during the 1980's and became mature (if not as perfect as today) with the F4 from the 1990's.</p>

<p>AF appeared (seriously) in Nikon range with the F4... My personal experience with this body and AF lenses performance made me hate the AF for decades ! It is only with the releases of the late 90's and of course the present D3, D300, D700 AF we can see how efficient in practice an AF can be but only to a certain extent...</p>

<p>At least, when you consider this device becomes only useful for lenses longer than 35mm (in FX format) and - but for very large aperture lenses used fully open - a decisive advantage only for lenses longer than 105mm. For shorter lenses, I maintain AF is far from being a progress in practical use, for the reasons already explained in a former message.</p>

<p>Zooming... IMHO wide angle zooms are sheer nonsense ! A few paces forward or backwards with a lens shorter than 35mm in FX format will frame the image you want exactly. Instead of having two or three wides in your bag, you will carry a body with a gigantic and heavy lens with an exposed and fragile large frontal lens I won't swear it is not more troublesome to carry than a few small lenses in the bag.</p>

<p>I cannot remember - even in film times - a lot of pictures taken at full aperture with a lens shorter than 35mm... The widest aperture used was generally f/4 and in fact these "babies" were seldom used more open than f/5.6. Even at f/4 they already have plenty of DOF. A DOF you will certainly better control with a fully engraved DOF scale conspicuously absent on most zooms (and all the AF ring commanded zoom I know).</p>

<p>Pro-level zooms are not cheap, they are generally heavy and even if they tend to lighten your bag, they are generally very cumbersome to carry on the body. Amateur zooms not only have a ridiculously small maximum aperture, but this maximum aperture varies within the zoom range</p>

<p>In my humble opinion, the real practical value of zoom lenses is much overestimated these days... I may understand the pro or advanced amateur using a trans-standard zoom (admitting there are actually such kind of zooms available, which is true for DX format but not for FX to date : the 24-70 being - IMHO - too wide and too short in full format), I agree a sports photographer may find a lot of help having a pro-zoom to frame a close up and the instant after with a wider field of view with a good tele-zoom. But I remain unconvinced a pro or experienced amateur really needs a zoom in other situations. And like Dave Lee - with a small reserve concerning the latest Pro zooms from Nikon with their stellar price - I take any zoom with a good prime any day ! A tad of anticipation in changing the lens is all you need.</p>

<p>VR and other stabilization devices are clearly largely overestimated... At least when it concerns anything but long tele-lenses. Yes, they are useful to picture a <strong>static </strong> subject as their function is to limit the effect of the operator movements. So they allow hand held photography at a much slower shutter speed to be free of the effects of the operator "instability"... They also allow for hand holding long tele lenses at slower speed - though this speed is sufficient ot freeze the subject - as even limited operator movements dramatically spoil pictures with such lenses. But they(ll NEVER compensate for a large aperture and a higher shutter speed to freeze both the operator movements <strong>and the subject movements</strong> for the latter they are useless !</p>

<p>To my knowledge only a few pro level lenses from Nikon use the V.R. device and probably just because of what I've just explained...</p>

<p>VR is clearly more amateur oriented than pro (or simply proficient) photographers oriented and to a certain extent allows the use in "not so difficult" circumstances of those amateur zoom lenses of awfully small maximum aperture which are current.</p>

<p>If you take the example of a subject for which using your V.R. equipped awfully slow amateur zoom the correct exposure is F/5.6 at 1/30th of a second, you will end with a vibration free useable shot, but only if the subject is motionless when a pro prime with a maximum aperture of f/2.8 will get the subject at this aperture at the repectable speed of 1/125th of a second !!! Thus, allowing the capture of a moving subject ! ...</p>

<p>Of course a D40 won't allow you to properly use the old Ai or Ai'ed Nikkors (morover because it is a DX format camera), it has no compatibility with them and won't allow you TTL metering ! ... But fortunately with the semi-pro and pro range of Nikon DSLR we can enjoy an almost complete compatibility. And perhaps it is that which makes all the difference in appreciation.</p>

<p>FPW</p>

<p> </p>

</blockquote>

<p>Ian :</p>

<p><em>1. Performance. We are told that the latest lenses are better performing than old versions. Well, KR has tested the old lenses against the new ones and it seems the performance is only a tiny bit behind - or better than the new lenses on some occasions.</em></p>

<p>It has been proved some older lenses have problems with DSLR's, some don't... As far as performance are concerned, at least for the many ones which have no problem showing, you're right, the newest lenses are generally only marginally better and it shows only in extreme conditions. This is not peculiar to Nikon lenses, even the famed Leica lenses won't show a tremendous improvement in their latest version from what was obtainable from equivalent lenses coming from one or two generations earlier. To see the improvement, you will need a very sturdy support and a very slow film (hardly something you often use with a small format camera).</p>

<p><em>2. Autofocus. Yes, that is the major thing, but with a little skill and effort manual focus can be used for many applications and indeed is better for macro work and landscape. I think autofocus is over-hyped.</em></p>

<p>On that point I have mixed feelings... Since the AF now used on semi-pro and pro level Nikons is the best available AF has become a very useful feature and - IMHO - from 35mm on (on FX format) at least when you intent to use a fast lens fully open, it is a major advantage. I'm far less convinced of its utility for shorter lenses and even consider it an hindrance as I generally work in scale focusing with these shorter lenses, the same remark is also valid for zooms (manual or AF) as they don't have a fully developped engraved DOF scale on the barrel. Macro work is also more than often a manual thing and landscape photography generally implies perfect DOF control.</p>

<p><em>3. Metering. Most Nikon cameras have no trouble with metering manual lenses and indeed some even offer you selections in the menu to set your lenses in the database.</em></p>

<p>"Most"<em> </em> is a bit of an overstatement... Only the semi-pro and pro range can provide this feature. The amateur range doesn't (I mean in DSLR world).</p>

<p><em>4. Non-AI. No real issues here - many kits are still available and if not Ai conversions are easy to have done. To save even more cash, just use something like an FE with the flip-tab.</em><br>

<em><br /> </em><br>

FE like flip tab<em> </em> will allow to mount the lens on the body without damaging anything, but a non-Ai lens won't allow the metering at full aperture (as far as I remember). You will be complied to meter at actual aperture. The best way to proceed is to "Ai" your lens.</p>

<p><em>5. Price. The older lenses at this point in time are so low in price that it is possible to build up a really high quality kit for less than the price of one consumer zoom.</em></p>

<p><br /> I do agree ! ... And in fact it allows to negate in practice the difference in price between a D300 DX camera and a D700 FX camera by buying second hand or keeping older lenses without compromising the image quality<em>. </em> And this, even if you buy some second hand AF primes for anything longer than 35mm ! ...<em> </em> With a DX camera, particularly when it goes to wide angles, even with a D300 which fully alllows the use of most older lenses Ai or Ai'ed, the advantage is less evident as nothing existed in the old range to provide you rectilinear wides short enough to give you a very large field of view on a cropped sensor.</p>

<p>So, with the FX format, even a Nikon digital photographer can enjoy these "oldies" profitably !</p>

<p>This is my plan to go for the D700</p>

<p><br /> FPW</p>

<p>I can hardly adhere to the ideas expressed by both Landrum Kelly and Matt Laur...</p>

<p>To the original poster, I will simply answer the evocation of a past moment is inherent to photography whether this is deliberate or not... Just because what is recorded was recorded in the past, whatever you do.</p>

<p>Now it is true a lot of pictures are deliberately taken to record a certain event to see its image in the future... But is it really to prevent a loss ?... It all depends on what you mean by this term. And from both the way you speak about it and the illustration of your statement you indicate, it seems you refer only to a personal loss.</p>

<p>IMHO most pictures are recorded to remember more than to anticipate on the unavoidable disappearance of people, animals and even things. So to say it doesn't imply any deliberate intention to retain the image of something now disappeared. The fact is, when you lose someone or something, then, the picture of it becomes a way to compensate (but so lightly !) for this loss.</p>

<p>A lot of pictures are also taken as a witness of something... This is the ordinary job of a P.J. ... Those pictures are recorded to be seen on the next morning (or next issue) paper (so they are images of the past when published) but even if they can bring emotional reactions, these reactions are not very often a feeling of loss... Again, it is later, much later, that they can bring emotions about something lost (i.e. : a lost atmosphere of yesteryear), and most of them are simply a mute testimony of a piece of History.</p>

<p>Finally there are pics which tends to be looked upon as nearly intemporal... A picture of the Parthenon for example is something which should have been taken in the 19th century or yesterday, provided there is no "dated" elements in the frame (and, of course, the work is in B&W). Of course you can object that for the photographer it can evocate his (her) holydays in Athens at a precise date and trigger a feeling of the passing time and loss... But you can hardly sustain this picture was taken on purpose to trigger this feeling, years later. For the casual viewer, it is just an image of... the Parthenon ! ...</p>

<p>Now, the idea a picture taken for creative purpose is never to remember and mourn a loss or even the majority of them is oriented toward the future is also quite a dangerous affirmation.</p>

<p>I know some car or motorcycle owners who photograph their machines in a very creative way and with the deliberate intention to keep a record of them in the future when they will be sold, definitively out of order or destroyed...</p>

<p>By the way, I'm very cautious about the terms "creative" or "creation" in arts and moreover in the specific domain of photography...</p>

<p>From the late 60's onwards until nowadays, this terminology have been largely abused and perhaps even more in photography than anywhere else.</p>

<p>For example, it has ever been and remains difficult to define the borders of what can be legitimately called a photography and what should be better described as the use of photographic techniques in graphic arts. No consensus seems to exist on this point.</p>

<p>I won't be foolish enough (and it will be necessary to open another specific thread on this subject) to try to define what is "objectively" a photography... Though I have a very personal view about this problem. Moreover it will largely be out of the topic of this exchange.</p>

<p>But I sincerly doubt what is generally accepted as creative photography is a dominant practice and motivation for picture taking anyway.</p>

<p>FPW</p>

<p>Liam,<br>

I like the prime idea too and this is probably the way I'm going to proceed with my future D700.</p>

<p>Remember that if you shy zoom lenses, you can save a lot buying second hand excellent lenses and the D700 is able to handle manual focus lenses of Ai (and Ai'ed) series.</p>

<p>For landscaping, you will need at least a truly wide lens, may be, if you like the effect a super-wide one. My advice is to get a manual focus one as most of the time you will enjoy using a perfect depth of field control and use scale focusing. Manual wide primes are far better used this way than anything in the zoom range and even superior to AF lenses in this sort of use.</p>

<p>Some people enjoy perspective correction lenses for landscaping to go the way the traditional landscape photographers proceed with a view camera... But I don't consider a small format camera the best tool for traditional landscape pics. I prefer to use the very wide angle and enhanced foreground subject technique with a small format. But your milage may differ.</p>

<p>As a kind of rule, I consider any prime having a larger field of view than a 35mm (on an FX format camera like the D700) worth to have an auto-focus. Even fully open these lenses are not too critical to be manually focused due to their inherent extended DOF even wide open and most of the time you will deliberately use this extended DOF to enhance the "elongated" perspective effect to full advantage. So, save money in buying almost dirt cheap high grade second hand Ai (or Ai'ed) Nikon lenses (just avoid those allegedly having problems with DSLR's) ...</p>

<p>The next useful lens, which I consider the best for candid shots placing the subject naturally in its environment is a 35mm, preferentially one with a large maximum aperture. This one should be AF (for faster and - if your eyes are aged - more precise ficusing full open in low light) but may also be a second hand Nikkor AF lens.</p>

<p>You have already the 50mm f/1.4 (I suppose in its latest iteration as a G lens). So it is not useful to comment.</p>

<p>I will probably hesitate between the 85mm and the 105mm, both should be AF anyway. Those are for portrait and the 85mm might be also useful in landscape photography, particularly in mountain ranges to capture better than with a wide the "mountain majesty" ... The 105mm will give you even more opportunity for a close-up portrait. It is all up to your choice.</p>

<p>Is a trans-standard zoom a useful lens ? ...</p>

<p>Theoretically, I would like to have one as a complement... But the AF 24-70 which is nowadays available fails too short of my expectations...</p>

<p>For my kind of use and practice (again you may disagree) it is too wide (and it seems also from those who use it not so good a performer at 24mm) and too short (70mm) as a portrait lens (beside the fact it seems again not to be of the best I.Q. fully extended).</p>

<p>As far as I'm concerned, I will wait until Nikon produces a new trans-standard zoom with a wide and constant full aperture with a more appropriate range for FX format (35-85 or 35-105 for example) as I suspect the 24-70 range was devised in a time the main concern for Nikon was to produce a pro-grade zoom which can be used both on full format film camera and on their DX DSLR's (on which the field covered is equivalent to a 36-105mm) and with more attention to the DX pro users who were likely considered to grow in number. Now, with semi-pro and pro-grade FX bodies available, I think they'll reconsider the problem sooner or later.<br>

Do you have to carry all your primes at all times ?</p>

<p>It essentially depends on the way you work... If you just carry your camera to capture any interesting subject which may appear, this assertion is true. If you go for a deliberately determined kind of subject, I suppose carrying a 35mm, a 50mm and either an 85mm or a 105mm will do most of the time within the kind of subjects your are interested in except landscapes. Notice the weight of a manual 18 or 20mm and a 24 or 28mm in addition won't break your back either... Far less with a D700 (even with its handle) than an F2 and a pair of FM (or FE) and a bunch of lens - including a 180mm f/2.8 - did when I used to be a P.J. ...</p>

<p>I hope it helps</p>

<p>FPW</p>