Thom Hogan comments on "What's next"

The increases size, weight, and cost simply don't match the 1/2 stop gain. (speaking of the 85 in particular.) Not even close, IMO. Different filter sizes as well. Since the lens already has some corner-softness (wide open) issues, severe longitudinal CA issues, and is pretty prone to ghosting/flare, I just can't see how f1.2 helps any of that, at least not at a size, weight, and price I want to pay.

Flashlight said:

I doubt that very much. You think they launch a 6-7K camera while
Sony releases an equally specced camera for 3K? If so I'll change to
Sony. Seems they have decent lenses and I'm sure their cameras have a
shutter release button, which is about all I need.

Click to expand...

I assume the D3x will cost about 10% more than the D3 costs. There is not much that should drive the cost up. More megapixels per sensor does not change manufacturing costs, more area does (size does matter here).

OTOH if Nikon uses the Sony sensor it will definitely use also Nikon tweaks like more bits in A/D conversion and such, just like in the past. So you would not get the same sensor with a Sony. Remember the film days? You could use the same film in many different bodies (in a 200 USD or 1000 USD or 2500 USD Nikon body). I used F90x and F100 for a reason back then, and most that want to buy a FF model want also to buy a good body along with it.

--
Osku

rlopes said:

Tom_Bruno said:

Ummm...isn't anyone interrsted in the D3x?

Click to expand...

Yes...You have one here...

rlopes said:

But come on! He's saying we'll get the D3x -- a 24 MP pro Nikon, in
a D3 body! Now that's news!

Click to expand...

Is it really going to be a 24 MP? I do remember Thom mentioning the
following sensor sizes in one of his threads in the past: 12, 18, 24
MP.

Click to expand...

Someone also posted about a unofficial (?) statement a Nikon senior manager gave recently (early June?) that we would soon have a model that has similar resolution in DX crop mode than the DX pro models now have, and so everyone should be happy in the end. You can calculate how much resolution there is in a FX if a DX is about the same as D300 is now. I have not bothered to calculate but someone posted it was 28 MP. (I will be most likely happy with a 12 MP D700).

--
Osku

I'm willing to carry a big(er) lens around if it would give me better quality and/or expand my performance boundaries. Ditto about added cost (to a point, of course).

I do understand that others don't feel that way... I guess I'd just like the option for a 1.2 AF lens... but we don't have that.

Then again, I also want a line of f/2 zooms... and I'm not holding my breath on those either.

--
JOE FEDERER
Websites:
Misc personal stuff: http://www.joefederer.com
Minneapolis / St. Paul Wedding photography @ http://www.federerphotography.com

I hope it's true. I love how I can take a bag o' primes with me covering from 14mm to 300mm and the camera bag is LIGHTER than zooms covering the same range. Yes, I do have to walk back and forward sometimes to frame the shot, but walking around is a lot easier with 5 pounds less weight in the bag.

rlopes wrote:
New primes? Nice!!!

You're right, I mixed you up with someone else. I'm posting with my PDA at the moment so the overview is gone. Sorry.

--Philip

b_Light said:

Actually what grabs my attention more is this:

"Indeed, if you've got a D300 you should probably already have noted
that there appear to be two unannounced differences with the latest
firmware for that camera. First, the 14-bit hesitation seems to have
been either removed or lowered significantly.

Click to expand...

Sorry to report, there is no change to the shutter response time in 14-bit mode. I just re-checked the timings with my oscilloscope, and the ver. 1.03 firmware still has a 42.7msec extra delay in 14-bit mode, compared to 12-bit. It hasn't changed even a fraction of a millisecond.

mikemi said:

According to nikonrumors.com...

24mm 1.4 AF-S
35mm 1.4 AF-S
50mm 1.4 AF-S
85mm 1.4 AF-S

I hope it happens, I am excited about the 85mm/1.4!

Click to expand...

I've been waiting for that 85/1.4 AF-S for four years. I'll take one of those, and the 35mm and 50mm too, as soon as they're available.

rlopes said:

Personally, good to hear it's not a D700 size body..

Click to expand...

Good for Nikon, they can keep their brick. I am not build like Schwarzenegger in his bodybuilder years.

Now, all my hopes for a "lightweight" higher res cam are on the 5DII. The weight of the D700 was already a step in the wrong direction.

So would AFS just go and buy the current one and save money. I'd love VR and Nano on an 85 1.4. AFS.

Vince P said:

So would AFS just go and buy the current one and save money.
I'd love VR and Nano on an 85 1.4. AFS.

Click to expand...

The current one has no AF-S, which I would really like. But what is more important is that the current one shows massive purple fringing at on-focus areas as well as longitudinal chromatic aberrations at out-of-focus areas. Not usable for my type of appications.

Carl

Bob GB said:

Nobody need a 50/1.2 lens, IMHO, that is a lens from the film days
that has outlived itself.

Click to expand...

Yes and no. Sure you can now shoot at 3200asa and still get a good picture, but 1.2 does offer some interesting creative options.

Personally I would prefer a really nice pro bodied 1.4/50, because it would be a good deal smaller and an f1.2. The Canon 1.2/50 is the size of a coffee can and that's really not worth the extra half stop.

I used to have a Leica 1/50 Noctilux and while it was a great lens, it was too big and too heavy to carry around. DOF at f1 was so shallow (1/2 cm at 1 meter) that it was next to impossible to shot anything that was alive and breathing, because if the subject moved even the slightest amount, you were out of luck and focus. I ended up selling it and getting a 1.4/50 Summilux, which I still have.