New Sony - D7 competition?

[MikeA]

Bizarre. Your reply must be at least six jumbo prawns short of a Captain's Plate. I have no idea how you came by such a weirdly paranoid interpretation of what I wrote -- why you decided it was refutation . I thought at first I would explain -- nice 'n' slow, nice 'n' patient -- what I meant the first time around, but then I realized that someone who'd misinterpret the original message as completely as you did probably won't grasp the explanation, either. So ... have fun with your mind-reading, kiddo, and I'll hope Bob will reply in the spirit in which my message to him was written: inquiry . (Look it up.)

I would agree with Bob Williams. It was easy to go to
bhphotovideo.com and find listings like

Nikon Zoom...28-70mm f/2.8 D ED IF AF-S Auto Focus Lens $1320
Now we can quibble about details (for example there are Nikon
28-200 zooms that cost $500, but they are not F2.8, the lens listed
here is merely 28-70mm instead of D7's 28 to 200mm, etc etc).

But if you're going to argue with Bob's point, do so by presenting
us with a top-quality 28mm to 200mm F2.8 zoom lens, from a
manufacturer that many of us respect, that sells for a lot less
than a thousand dollars.

And it is an uncalled-for insult to the guy's argument to ask if he
is a shady holder of "insider information". It's the kind of thing
someone would say who feels argumentative, but doesn't have the
facts to refute the original assertion. Anyone who disagrees that
Nikon and Canon are trying to get us to pay over a thousand dollars
for a 28-200 F2.8 zoom, or pay thousands of dollars to get their
maximum quality imagers, should put up or shut up.

 

[jp52637]

One time more I agree 98% whit the Phil pro / cons in this review
but one time more I don't agree with the conclusions based on the
results (the points)

I have a little problem understanding the points rating too

No manual zoom
No histogram (the most important tool to evaluate exposure in the field)
No controllable quick review mode
No saturation control
No real flash shoe
Missing white balance settings found on most other cameras
Max 1/30 shutter in AE
But but only 1 point less for features
must be the nightshot mode that did it

only 38 mm WA range
Same CCD as D7 (different engine though)
More distortion
But still 1,5 points more for lens/ccd:
must be the faster lens that did it

1.5 points more for construction
As good as the E-10 wow, what a solid machine!
must be the 20% more magnesium thad did it.

Could go on a little longer but...

skuzme now, nuff whin'n dun, have to crawl back under my rock where I belong, snif.

Jean Paul

 

[jp52637]

Oh yeah forgot to mention this:

Value for money 9 against 7.5 :

throw in the 8 obligatory 128Mb fish sticks, a spare lion and a why tangle convertor and you are in the same ballpark as the D7
must be the nice eyecup that did it.

and now ladies and gentlemen... back to my rock!

 

[Bob Williams]

Just good guessing Mike. Go to B&H and price the nikon and
canon pro lenses. They have too many pro customers that
pay those prices for their lenses to build something as good
as the D-7 lens and sell it cheap. Their pro customers would
scream bloody murder. No inside info, just good guessing
and watching the trends. Answer me this. Who has the best
shot right now of producing a 4 or 5 mp consumer SLR for
under 2000$ with a real SLR AF? Think about it.

Also, that you know of, were the lenses costing twice as much as
the D7 already in production before the D7 was introduced, or did
they appear only after the D7 was introduced? (Were they made for
35mm photography or were they designed expressly for use with
digital cameras like the D30 or D1?)

As with the other fellow I would be interested to hear if this
information about the companies' attitudes came to you by way of
company insiders.

I posted this months ago. Canon thinks a lens they make that
would compare with the lens on the D-7 is worth more than the
D-7 costs, just for the lens. Nikon is the same. Oly doesn't even
in this game, especially since they partnered up with Kodak. Nikon
thinks any lens they make that is as good as the D-7's lens is
worth twice what the D-7 is going for.

 

[Bob Williams]

Just lucky guesses so far JP. No insult taken. What I posted
is very open to challenge. When I posted it when this forum
started, no one paid attention at all. I just watch and follow
the trends. They point to some obvious things. Who is about
to start delivering the first 3.3 long zoom camera, another first?
Who can and will respond, and when? Simple questions, but
they lay out a map of expectations.

And it is an uncalled-for insult to the guy's argument to ask if he
is a shady holder of "insider information". It's the kind of thing
someone would say who feels argumentative, but doesn't have the
facts to refute the original assertion. Anyone who disagrees that
Nikon and Canon are trying to get us to pay over a thousand dollars
for a 28-200 F2.8 zoom, or pay thousands of dollars to get their
maximum quality imagers, should put up or shut up.

I suppose this post was also intended as an answer to mine.

http://www.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1024&page=1&message=1426306

I can hardly understand how the followng phrase can be interpreted
as an insult

Is it information you got from insiders or did you find it through
the public channels.
I do believe you but I wonder how on earth the competitiion would
admit such a thing in public.

I never meant to imply that Bob Williams was lying.
I only found that if this information came from somewhere where I
have access to it, I would be interesting for me to read the whole
article.
If on the other hand, this is simply a personal technical deduction
from him, then it can hardly seen as an insult if sombody wants to
further discuss it rather than blindly accept it.

Crowning argumented along the same line of reasoning as you, he
only formulated it a bit more politely.
I already replied to him and I invite you to read it too.

Kind regards,

Jean Paul

 

[Dr. Gonzo]

I think what did it was the greater image quality. As people in this group are always fond of pointing out, the proof is in the images, and if it creates good images, then it's doing its job, right? And if it creates BETTER images, then shouldn't it get a better rating? No? Why the double standard all of a sudden?

See replies below.

I have a little problem understanding the points rating too

No manual zoom
No histogram (the most important tool to evaluate exposure in the
field)
No controllable quick review mode
No saturation control
No real flash shoe
Missing white balance settings found on most other cameras
Max 1/30 shutter in AE
But but only 1 point less for features
must be the nightshot mode that did it

Well, nightshot and the AF assist, the tiltable body for real waist-level shooting, etc. There are quite a few more features the 707 has than the D7 doesn't than you seem willing to admit, hence the "only 1 point less for features." And the flash shoe issue is moot -- both cameras only take proprietary flashes as they come from the factory.

only 38 mm WA range
Same CCD as D7 (different engine though)
More distortion
But still 1,5 points more for lens/ccd:
must be the faster lens that did it

Probably the superior detail resolution and noiselessness, apparently unmatched on any consumer camera before this. How can you overlook that?

1.5 points more for construction
As good as the E-10 wow, what a solid machine!
must be the 20% more magnesium thad did it.

If it's as solid as a 505 with added ergonomics (read: a better grip), then yes, it is quite a bit better built than a D7 and deserves a high rating. Sony cameras of this line certianly have high quality builds; a trip down to any worthless major electronics retailer with cameras on pegs like Compusa will tell you this. Of course you should also keep in mind what got a 9.5/10 for construction -- the stainless Elph!

Could go on a little longer but...

skuzme now, nuff whin'n dun, have to crawl back under my rock where
I belong, snif.

I'm sorry, but it does sound like a case of the sour grapes. It's grousing for the sake of it and deliberately overlooking very relevant issues.

Jean Paul

 

[Dr. Gonzo]

Just good guessing Mike. Go to B&H and price the nikon and
canon pro lenses. They have too many pro customers that
pay those prices for their lenses to build something as good
as the D-7 lens and sell it cheap.

Bob, it sounds like you are suggesting that the D7 lens is better than a Nikon or Canon AF lens? Well wouldn't you have to consider the performance of the AF system in that equation? The lenses in question only start getting really expensive when they've got top-notch AF systems in them, e.g. Nikon AF-S. The lower lines (probably better compared with the D7 lens) are like sub-$500.

 

[Tony56769]

Well, I guess it could be argued, which flaw can you live with, D7's slightly less detail in its images (which can be compensated in-camera with contrast control and sharpness adjustments if necessary), or the 707's overblown reds and greencasts (which cannot be adjusted in-camera since the controls do not exist). As is, Phil's review turned a blind eye to the poor image quality in the Sony shots. I see both sets of images as flawed, yet as jp indicates, it seems to make the point ratings hard to accept.

See replies below.

I have a little problem understanding the points rating too

No manual zoom
No histogram (the most important tool to evaluate exposure in the
field)
No controllable quick review mode
No saturation control
No real flash shoe
Missing white balance settings found on most other cameras
Max 1/30 shutter in AE
But but only 1 point less for features
must be the nightshot mode that did it

Well, nightshot and the AF assist, the tiltable body for real
waist-level shooting, etc. There are quite a few more features the
707 has than the D7 doesn't than you seem willing to admit, hence
the "only 1 point less for features." And the flash shoe issue is
moot -- both cameras only take proprietary flashes as they come
from the factory.

only 38 mm WA range
Same CCD as D7 (different engine though)
More distortion
But still 1,5 points more for lens/ccd:
must be the faster lens that did it

Probably the superior detail resolution and noiselessness,
apparently unmatched on any consumer camera before this. How can
you overlook that?

1.5 points more for construction
As good as the E-10 wow, what a solid machine!
must be the 20% more magnesium thad did it.

If it's as solid as a 505 with added ergonomics (read: a better
grip), then yes, it is quite a bit better built than a D7 and
deserves a high rating. Sony cameras of this line certianly have
high quality builds; a trip down to any worthless major electronics
retailer with cameras on pegs like Compusa will tell you this. Of
course you should also keep in mind what got a 9.5/10 for
construction -- the stainless Elph!

Could go on a little longer but...

skuzme now, nuff whin'n dun, have to crawl back under my rock where
I belong, snif.

I'm sorry, but it does sound like a case of the sour grapes. It's
grousing for the sake of it and deliberately overlooking very
relevant issues.

Jean Paul

 

[Bob Williams]

Gonzo alert. He has returned!!!! Welcome back Gonzo! You
are preferable to the last unreasonable person we have been
dealing with while you were gone. You are at least informed
and unreasonable. He is just unreasonable. Gonzo, find me
a cheap 28-200 nikkor or canon lens that has the quality
optics of the D-7 lens.

Just good guessing Mike. Go to B&H and price the nikon and
canon pro lenses. They have too many pro customers that
pay those prices for their lenses to build something as good
as the D-7 lens and sell it cheap.

Bob, it sounds like you are suggesting that the D7 lens is better
than a Nikon or Canon AF lens? Well wouldn't you have to consider
the performance of the AF system in that equation? The lenses in
question only start getting really expensive when they've got
top-notch AF systems in them, e.g. Nikon AF-S. The lower lines
(probably better compared with the D7 lens) are like sub-$500.

 

[Dr. Gonzo]

Well we're still looking at a 2 vs. 1 issue here in that case: resolution + noiselessness vs. truer colors ... as tested. Apparently Phil is not convinced, nor am I, that the D7 can live up to its CCDs potential simply by messing with the in-camera asettings.

Well, I guess it could be argued, which flaw can you live with,
D7's slightly less detail in its images (which can be compensated
in-camera with contrast control and sharpness adjustments if
necessary), or the 707's overblown reds and greencasts (which
cannot be adjusted in-camera since the controls do not exist). As
is, Phil's review turned a blind eye to the poor image quality in
the Sony shots. I see both sets of images as flawed, yet as jp
indicates, it seems to make the point ratings hard to accept.

 

[Dr. Gonzo]

Let's just say, for the sake of argument, that only top of the line Nikkor lenses can match the D7 lenses in optical quality. You still have not accounted for the AF system, which makes up a part of the cost of these lenses.

Anyway this is the closest thing I saw at B&H, I don't know how it compares. http://www03.bhphotovideo.com/default.sph/FrameWork.class?FNC=ProductActivator__Aproductlist_html___224193___NI2820035DAJ___USA___CatID=274___SID=E8B19D5F780

You seem to have a particular lens in mind, which is it?

Gonzo alert. He has returned!!!! Welcome back Gonzo! You
are preferable to the last unreasonable person we have been
dealing with while you were gone. You are at least informed
and unreasonable. He is just unreasonable. Gonzo, find me
a cheap 28-200 nikkor or canon lens that has the quality
optics of the D-7 lens.

 

[Bob Williams]

Gonzo, the whole post two months ago was sheer speculation,
and the post this time is sheer speculation also. I don't have
any certain lens in mind, but I have read over several hundred
pages of lens prices, and I do watch a little of everything to do
with consumer digicams. I am going off of the prices I read on
those pages, comments from their owners, used prices for the
lenses, and general info. I just am just lucky at guessing things
like this unless I have money invested. Then I always guess wrong.
I will ask you the same question. What company has the body,
the lenses, the factories, and has the best chance of producing a
5 mp consumer SLR digicam with a true SLR AF system for under
2000$ at this time? Please don't say OLY/KODAK. Right now they
could not find their own butt with four hands.

Anyway this is the closest thing I saw at B&H, I don't know how it
compares.

http://www03.bhphotovideo.com/default.sph/FrameWork.class?FNC=ProductActivator__Aproductlist_html___224193___NI2820035DAJ___USA___CatID=274___SID=E8B19D5F780

You seem to have a particular lens in mind, which is it?

Gonzo alert. He has returned!!!! Welcome back Gonzo! You
are preferable to the last unreasonable person we have been
dealing with while you were gone. You are at least informed
and unreasonable. He is just unreasonable. Gonzo, find me
a cheap 28-200 nikkor or canon lens that has the quality
optics of the D-7 lens.

 

[Jack40001]

I compared the two galleries D7 vs 707.

The D7 pictures are much more enjoyable, since the 707 seems to mess up the potential good color reproduction of the ccd and in-camera processing. The 707 pictures taken from flowers look like they come strait from a contaminated nuclear reactor plant. Also printed images, (i tried several) turned out to point strongly to the D7 as being the nicest images, in respect of color. Resolution and noise are clearly not the issue here anymore. I'm very happy with the D7! People always get excited by the colors of my D7 pictures as well as its resolution. Again, et gets proven that resolution alone doesn't make a good camera. There is a thread of recommended in-camera adjustments for the D7, which really give very nice results in respect to noise and color. Nice we have all those adjustments... Just the default setting weren't optimal...

In te case of the 707 they are not optimal either, however those settings can not even be changed...
Jake.

See replies below.

I have a little problem understanding the points rating too

No manual zoom
No histogram (the most important tool to evaluate exposure in the
field)
No controllable quick review mode
No saturation control
No real flash shoe
Missing white balance settings found on most other cameras
Max 1/30 shutter in AE
But but only 1 point less for features
must be the nightshot mode that did it

Well, nightshot and the AF assist, the tiltable body for real
waist-level shooting, etc. There are quite a few more features the
707 has than the D7 doesn't than you seem willing to admit, hence
the "only 1 point less for features." And the flash shoe issue is
moot -- both cameras only take proprietary flashes as they come
from the factory.

only 38 mm WA range
Same CCD as D7 (different engine though)
More distortion
But still 1,5 points more for lens/ccd:
must be the faster lens that did it

Probably the superior detail resolution and noiselessness,
apparently unmatched on any consumer camera before this. How can
you overlook that?

1.5 points more for construction
As good as the E-10 wow, what a solid machine!
must be the 20% more magnesium thad did it.

If it's as solid as a 505 with added ergonomics (read: a better
grip), then yes, it is quite a bit better built than a D7 and
deserves a high rating. Sony cameras of this line certianly have
high quality builds; a trip down to any worthless major electronics
retailer with cameras on pegs like Compusa will tell you this. Of
course you should also keep in mind what got a 9.5/10 for
construction -- the stainless Elph!

Could go on a little longer but...

skuzme now, nuff whin'n dun, have to crawl back under my rock where
I belong, snif.

I'm sorry, but it does sound like a case of the sour grapes. It's
grousing for the sake of it and deliberately overlooking very
relevant issues.

Jean Paul

 

[Russell Bozian]

MikeA wrote:
Bizarre. Your reply must be at least six jumbo prawns short of a
Captain's Plate. I have no idea how you came by such a weirdly
paranoid interpretation of what I wrote -- why you decided it was
refutation

*******

The guy's point was that comparable Nikon and Canon zoom lenses-alone cost in the range of the Minolta camera. Instead of spending a few seconds to think over the facts, you come back and (1) ask for examples and then (2) ask if he's got "insider information". Since we can look at any price sheet to see if he's right or not, it did not occur to me that someone would really be wondering about insider info. So I instead concluded you were tiresomely refuting his point by making it sound like an unnecessarily complex judgement.

Since we started with a simple observation based on relatively obvious facts, I mistakenly thought that you were for some reason intent on befuddling the issue. Now you have clarified that you were not, you merely wanted to know more about his information sources.

My criticism of you was incorrect, but it hardly merits you calling me "weirdly paranoid". Especially since the tone of your original response seemed anxious to bog down his overall simple point. And I would not be so sure that the average reader of these couple of posts would be convinced that I am a mere crustacean under the boots of your brilliance.

. I thought at first I would explain -- nice 'n' slow,
nice 'n' patient -- what I meant the first time around,

******

Yes, only an imbecile such as myself could possibly have misinterpreted your demands for examples that Nikon zoom lenses are expensive as oddly quarrelsome.

but then I
realized that someone who'd misinterpret the original message as
completely as you did probably won't grasp the explanation, either.
So ... have fun with your mind-reading, kiddo, and I'll hope Bob
will reply in the spirit in which my message to him was written:
inquiry . (Look it up.)

******
Name-calling rarely increases anyone's confidence in your judgement.

 

[abc]

Welcome back Gonzo. I see you heard my Where are You When We Need You plea. Some mindless Mr Kewl from the Sony group had taken your chair.

Anyway,

The Nikkor 28-200 you found as an example is not a reasonable match for the D7 lens. I know that lens, have used it, and while it is decent glass, among other things it is 5.6 at the long end. If memory serves me right it has more distortion. Anyway, the loss of light at the long end puts it out of the competition.

Also, most of what goes into the AF on a lens are what are sometimes called compliance and support mechanisms. There are obviously more of those because the D7 is a manual zoom. So, there is some apples and oranges going on in the comparison

I think the point that the lens is roughly equivalent to moderately expensive system lenses in the (my guestimate) $7-800 dollar range. If you take into consideration its size, weight, and optical properties(very consistent and high quality througout the focal range) and ithe implications of those on portability, field use, etc., then add a little bonus on for not having the PIA factor of convertors(never on when you need them qucikly, never off when you need the long end quickly), then a worth a grand statement holds a lot of water.

The lens is the deal maker for me on the D7. I am not in the slightest tempted to the 707 on the basis of lens comparison--not for other reasons as well. Hang a huge convertor on the end of the 707, and that is what you would need to maintain the quality and speed of that lens), and it will I suspect be more awkward than a moose with a lead nose.

Good to see you back, Gonzo.

dh

Anyway this is the closest thing I saw at B&H, I don't know how it
compares.

http://www03.bhphotovideo.com/default.sph/FrameWork.class?FNC=ProductActivator__Aproductlist_html___224193___NI2820035DAJ___USA___CatID=274___SID=E8B19D5F780

You seem to have a particular lens in mind, which is it?

Gonzo alert. He has returned!!!! Welcome back Gonzo! You
are preferable to the last unreasonable person we have been
dealing with while you were gone. You are at least informed
and unreasonable. He is just unreasonable. Gonzo, find me
a cheap 28-200 nikkor or canon lens that has the quality
optics of the D-7 lens.

 

[Frank B]

It cost a lot more to make a 2.8 lens for the larger format 35mm. Also, these expensive 35mm lenses are usually 2.8 at all focal lengths and that cost more too. The smaller CCD of the d7 and other digital cameras is a real advantage in that it allows fast lenses for these cameras at modest cost. However, the noise at higher ISOs (Sony 707 excepted) reduces this advantage over 35 mm based digitals. For example, with a D30 you can buy a relatively inexpensive lens and get no more noise than the D7 at ISOs 200 and maybe 400.

Frank B

Also, that you know of, were the lenses costing twice as much as
the D7 already in production before the D7 was introduced, or did
they appear only after the D7 was introduced? (Were they made for
35mm photography or were they designed expressly for use with
digital cameras like the D30 or D1?)

As with the other fellow I would be interested to hear if this
information about the companies' attitudes came to you by way of
company insiders.

I posted this months ago. Canon thinks a lens they make that
would compare with the lens on the D-7 is worth more than the
D-7 costs, just for the lens. Nikon is the same. Oly doesn't even
in this game, especially since they partnered up with Kodak. Nikon
thinks any lens they make that is as good as the D-7's lens is
worth twice what the D-7 is going for.

 

[abc]

No double standard from my perspective. That the Sony is rated higher is not the problem, that the D7 is rated at 7.5 is just plain baloney by any sample comparison you want to make among the lenses Phil has tested recently.That the Sony got a 9 is somewhat problematical when you consider the deficiencies that he did list for it. An 8 for the D7 as a minimum from my perspective to a minimum 8.5 for the Sony. If the Sony is a 9 relatively, then the D7 would need bumping up. I think that a .5 difference is more in line with the actual tests.

I am afraid I am beyond expecting consistency out of Phil's conclusions at this point. The lens data is what is important, and lens performance doing photography, not photographic tests(some of which are of less than clear merit, such as the DR test) is what really counts. Phil does use his objective tests consistently and those are the really helpful ones, so we all should be grateful to him for that and for providing the opportunity for real world discussion of the cameras.

dh

See replies below.

I have a little problem understanding the points rating too

No manual zoom
No histogram (the most important tool to evaluate exposure in the
field)
No controllable quick review mode
No saturation control
No real flash shoe
Missing white balance settings found on most other cameras
Max 1/30 shutter in AE
But but only 1 point less for features
must be the nightshot mode that did it

Well, nightshot and the AF assist, the tiltable body for real
waist-level shooting, etc. There are quite a few more features the
707 has than the D7 doesn't than you seem willing to admit, hence
the "only 1 point less for features." And the flash shoe issue is
moot -- both cameras only take proprietary flashes as they come
from the factory.

only 38 mm WA range
Same CCD as D7 (different engine though)
More distortion
But still 1,5 points more for lens/ccd:
must be the faster lens that did it

Probably the superior detail resolution and noiselessness,
apparently unmatched on any consumer camera before this. How can
you overlook that?

1.5 points more for construction
As good as the E-10 wow, what a solid machine!
must be the 20% more magnesium thad did it.

If it's as solid as a 505 with added ergonomics (read: a better
grip), then yes, it is quite a bit better built than a D7 and
deserves a high rating. Sony cameras of this line certianly have
high quality builds; a trip down to any worthless major electronics
retailer with cameras on pegs like Compusa will tell you this. Of
course you should also keep in mind what got a 9.5/10 for
construction -- the stainless Elph!

Could go on a little longer but...

skuzme now, nuff whin'n dun, have to crawl back under my rock where
I belong, snif.

I'm sorry, but it does sound like a case of the sour grapes. It's
grousing for the sake of it and deliberately overlooking very
relevant issues.

Jean Paul

 

[jp52637]

I think what did it was the greater image quality. As people in
this group are always fond of pointing out, the proof is in the
images, and if it creates good images, then it's doing its job,
right? And if it creates BETTER images, then shouldn't it get a
better rating? No? Why the double standard all of a sudden?

What better image quality ?

Well, nightshot and the AF assist, the tiltable body for real
waist-level shooting, etc. There are quite a few more features the
707 has than the D7 doesn't than you seem willing to admit, hence
the "only 1 point less for features." And the flash shoe issue is
moot -- both cameras only take proprietary flashes as they come
from the factory.

Probably the superior detail resolution and noiselessness,
apparently unmatched on any consumer camera before this. How can
you overlook that?

Has to do with image processing, not with lens or CCD.
And we are talking prosumer here, not consumer:
read my lips
image quality E10: 8 Sony: 9

Of course you should also keep in mind what got a 9.5/10 for
construction -- the stainless Elph!

Exact!
ly my point

skuzme now, nuff whin'n dun, have to crawl back under my rock
where I belong, snif.

I'm sorry, but it does sound like a case of the sour grapes.

Do not be sorry Gonzo, your sense of humor is not developed enough to understand the sarcastic undertone.

It's grousing for the sake of it and deliberately overlooking very
relevant issues.

Bwahahaha! Look who's talking now.

Kindest regards

Jean Paul

 

[abc]

The lens offered as an example (Nikkor 28-200) is not 2.8 throughout, nor are any but the high end ones, but you are right that such lenses are not comparable in function or price.

However, the D7 lens, given its overall charateristics of range and 2.8-3.5 with its edge to edge sharpness and lack of CA, APO qualities, does compare to the mid range system zooms at approximately $7-800 US. But since the camera has to have a lens in any event, the true price differential is the added quality and the added features of the D7 lens over the usual fare in say a G2 or a 995 or, now a Sony. For example I would compare my 990 zoom to nothing more than a $300 system lens. While the Sony is a nice piece of fastglass, its focal range limitations reduce its value somewhat.

My added value factor, that is what I would was willing pay for having the D7 lens, with its 28-200 at its glass quality, over the usual good quality fare is $400 minimum. Would I pay the same premium over the Sony lens? No.

But I would choose the D7 over the Sony for the differtial cost of a WA convertor that did not degrade the Sony glass and had at least as good optical quality as the D7--and I still have until next Monday to return it, so it is not posturing on my part. I don't know quite what dollar value to put on the pure PIA of having to contend with a convertor for WA, but I suppose that should be added to the differential as well.

As for your D30 eaxample, isn't that apples and oranges. The D30 noise levels because of its entirely different sensor system are much lower period.
May be I am missing the point you are making, though.

dh

Frank B

Also, that you know of, were the lenses costing twice as much as
the D7 already in production before the D7 was introduced, or did
they appear only after the D7 was introduced? (Were they made for
35mm photography or were they designed expressly for use with
digital cameras like the D30 or D1?)

As with the other fellow I would be interested to hear if this
information about the companies' attitudes came to you by way of
company insiders.

I posted this months ago. Canon thinks a lens they make that
would compare with the lens on the D-7 is worth more than the
D-7 costs, just for the lens. Nikon is the same. Oly doesn't even
in this game, especially since they partnered up with Kodak. Nikon
thinks any lens they make that is as good as the D-7's lens is
worth twice what the D-7 is going for.

 

[Scotty]

papatrout,

I've been questioning whether it's even possible to put a converter on the front of a very good lens without degrading the quality. What I've experienced so far says "no", but certainly haven't tried them all. Ergonomics and added cost aside, it's hard to imagine that there wouldn't be a significant loss in optical quality with any converter. What's been your experience?

Anyone else had positive results using wide-angle converters with their digicams?

Regards,
Scotty

But I would choose the D7 over the Sony for the differtial cost of
a WA convertor that did not degrade the Sony glass and had at least
as good optical quality as the D7--and I still have until next
Monday to return it, so it is not posturing on my part. I don't
know quite what dollar value to put on the pure PIA of having to
contend with a convertor for WA, but I suppose that should be added
to the differential as well.