I found my own thoughts about DX treatment by Nikon in this...

Started Oct 5, 2012 | Discussions thread
ForumParentFirstPreviousNextNext unread
Flat view
ThomasH_always
Regular MemberPosts: 289Gear list
Like?
I found my own thoughts about DX treatment by Nikon in this...
Oct 5, 2012

I think that some others have already mentioned this article by Thom Hogan:

http://www.bythom.com/stateofdx2012.htm

I am decisively and finally not interested in FX!

Its already over 10 years since we have DX format (or APS-C as others call it, but Nikon's lingo is simply better.) In the beginning, we have had to adapt to the 1.5 factor in our lenses, and being creatures of habit, some of us found it inconvenient to deal with the longer focal length and larger depth of field.

But now, so many years later I find myself actually completely adapted to this situation, extended on wide end by 10mm and 12mm lenses, and... happy with lower weight, lower price of the lenses. And, most FX lenses have the "sweet spot" in the middle of their glass, even "bad dogs" on FX sensor are suddenly acceptable, or even super on a DX sensor. I mean both Nikon and Canon alike.

With the great improvement in sensor technology I find myself perfectly happy with low light abilities of the modern DX sensors. Why in gods name should I even consider losing all this for FX, when I do not do billboard size prints, or sell images for money in a gallery?

Nikon got it all wrong. Nikon disregarded the class of passionate amateur photographers and their purchasing power, which in the US has collapsed since under Mr. Bushes rule America became a 'Land Of Unlimited Foreclosures'.

Most troubling is that Nikon's strategists decided to release D5100 and later D3100, and than even D3200, on the bottom of the consumer class, with sensors far outgunning the venerable D300. I think, this will be a topic of many PhD's thesis about marketing mismanagement, arrogance and stupidity of men in striped suits. Good that we have the D7000, this body saved the day. The only and only Nikon's contemporary body accepting legacy lenses. I have 12 of them, and that was for me the most valuable asset on Nikon brand, that they always maintained the compatibility. 2007 to 2012 without a D300 successor! This is really, really arrogant.

Fascinating in Thom Hogan's article is also the compare of just how many DX versus FX lenses have been released since we have the DX format, despite the fact that a vast majority of bodies are DX bodies.

Like him, I also look at the ever growing set of m43 lenses, their size and think more and more often about the unthinkable... Jumping ship. But not FX, just compare 300mm f/2.8 versus 400mm f/2.8 weight and price, and this should give a "hint" to the men in striped suits.

Thomas

PS: an extreme example:

400 mm f/2.8 VR II  10.2 lbs / 4626g    $8,999.00
300 mm f/2.8 VR II  102.3 oz / 2900g   $5,349.00    (DX ~450mm)

Really? I shall get a D600 for an extra thousand, to carry around extra 4lbs/2kg and pay extra another $4000 for that web photo 1200x800 pixels, or an 19" print?  Sorry folks, 1st I would have to "sell my Lamborghini" and cancel college funds for my girls.  Or... maybe its not an option,

Nikon got that?

 ThomasH_always's gear list:ThomasH_always's gear list
Leica V-Lux 3 Canon EOS 6D
Nikon D300 Nikon D3100 Nikon D3200 Nikon D5100 Nikon D600 Nikon D7000
If you believe there are incorrect tags, please send us this post using our feedback form.
ForumParentFirstPreviousNextNext unread
Flat view
Post (hide subjects)Posted by
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
ForumParentFirstPreviousNextNext unread
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark post MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow