I'd have to see it with my own eyes. I'm not saying that it won't
happen (so okay, I am), but Nikon:
-- doesn't have an installed professional full frame base;
-- has millions of photographers with significant investment into DX;
-- discontinued the important professional lenses in full frame
(17-35/2.8, 28-70/2.8),
Your source for the discontinuing of these lenses?
The fact that you have to wait for two months to get Nikon in
Poland to get them from Japan?
All that proves is that Nikon has a horrible distributor in Poland. I can get either of those lenses, off the shelf, in Detroit.
You can't get Ricoh cameras at all in the US (and nothing personal, but the US is slightly more important in the world economy than Poland), but that does not prove that Ricoh is discontinuing all their cameras.
Oh sure. A few thousand pro full frame DSLRs is going to affect the
prices of DX lenses with over 4 million DX cameras in the field.
Everybody is assuming that the full frame Nikon would replace the
DX professional Nikons.
I am part of "everybody", and I make no such assumption.
Canon didn't "replace" anything when they added two full frame cameras to their lineup. Have you tried a 1D III? It does the job of both a D2X and a D2H. At 10mp, it's faster than the 4mp D2H, and the prints look as good as those from my 12mp D2X. (and yes, I own a DX2, and have spend a week with 1D III, shot and printed the same subjects from both, and I give the edge to 1D III. And that's despite having a lot more experience squeezing all the goods from D2X files).
2. They would have to provide new lenses -- quickly.
Yup, that's why so many Nikon users are crying for full frame,
because the existing full frame Nikon glass is all so bad it needs
to be replaced.
) You want a comprehensive list?
Sure. Do you know someone who can come up with one?
Oh, so you don't think that a f/2.8 zoom starting at 24 mm is in
order?
Not at all. Canon has proved that such a 3:1 "normal" lens cannot be built consistently with current production technology.
http://www.photozone.de/8Reviews/lenses/canon_2470_28/index.htm
"t took me 4 (f-o-u-r) samples of the lens to get a good one - please note: "good", not a "great" sample. The first three variants showed rather hefty centering defects which spoiled the results quite a bit."
"The Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8 USM L proved to be a worthy representative of the pro grade lens league ... if you can get a good sample. During the last two years four lenses has seen the lab with only one within specs - this is disappointing especially for a lens of this price class. If you´re lucky enough to get a decent sample you can expect a very high performance level, especially when stopped down a bit."
I'll take a 2.5:1 that works well, thank you.
Compare the 50mm guide numbers (Canon and Sony have 50mm guide
numbers on the B&H site, and I have an SB-800 manual.
SB-800 144' (44m) at 50mm
580EX II 138' (42 m) at 50mm
HVL-F56 144' (44m) at 50mm
Looks like one of your "top tier" flash is less powerful than the
Nikon, and the other is exactly the same.
Ooops, my bad. I was basing it on materials released by Nikon in
Poland (I've notified them) and what a Nikon-shooting friend told
me. There was an error that stated that SB-800 had 56 m GN at 105
mm, but at ISO 200. That would mean a GN of about 40 m at 105 mm,
so much less than Canon and Sony.
I checked the info over at Nikon's site, and you are completely right.
Hey, it happens. I'm beginning to think that all your complaints stem from Nikon Poland: product availability, specifications, etc.
but also have larger capacitors and are able to shoot
with flash many more times without having to wait for recycle in
typical situations (fill-flash).
About as accurate as all your other made up information.
Ummm. Maybe made up. But I made it up from my own tests. I've used
Nikon D80, Canon 30D and Sony A100 with the top flashes on fresh
sets of Nickel-Hydride and checked how many flashes I can get with
50/1.4 lenses pointed in the same direction, and stopped down to
f/5.6. At 3 fps, even with Canon's head start (with 6% less frame
coverage), it was an obvious winner, being able to do about twenty
flashes on the 580EX, Sony did about 17, and Nikon only 11 before
the 12th shot was without flash (though with the 13th, there was a
flash).
How accurate was the exposure? Were all three flashes pumping the same amount of light on each firing?
Sure. Once again, are you trolling, or just almost unimaginably
misinformed?
In some areas, I guess I was misinformed, so thanks for clarifying.
But in other... Well, I wasn't trolling, that wasn't my point.
But, just out of curiosity, would you buy yourself a full frame Nikon?
Yes. (I did, once, a Kodak SLR/n, but boy, if there ever was such thing as Frankenstein's camera, that was it).
But that's mostly because I do a lot of portrait and architecture. My rather pricey 135mm f2.0 is difficult to use on a D2X at 202mm equivalent.It makes for a rather tight face shot in my studio. I use an 85mm f1.4 where I used to use a 135, but there's no reasonable equivalent to a 105 or an 85. My very nice 28mm shift lens is now a near useless 42mm equivalent.
Either Nikon needs to revive the remarkable 58mm f1.2 NOCT aspheric in a modern AF mount, or I need a Nikon full frame.
--
Normally, a signature this small can't open its own jumpgate.
Ciao! Joe
http://www.swissarmyfork.com 
