Then I don't understand your point of contention. The 24mp cam needs
better technique and support to significantly distinguish itself from
12mp. Correct?
If you're trying to extract every ounce of available quality, sure.
What is the point of buying such an expensive camera, if you're not trying to significantly distinguish the shots from it and shots that you could get from a considerably cheaper 12mp cam?
So, even if this mythical 24-120 could outperform the
24-70, the difference in weight and size is meaningless to most
users, when you're lugging all that other stuff around.
Sorry, but that's a non sequitur, which we'll get to in a moment...
Non sequitur? AFAIK, most users have no issue with a few ounce difference in the total weight of their gear, which can easily total many pounds. Do you dispute that? You are the exception, rather than the rule, in having the need for trimming weight by ounces.
OTOH, what is the weight, size, cost and performance difference between the 200-400vr or the 400 f/2.8 and the 80-400? Which of those lenses has mass appeal and would more likely be found in the bag of the average Joe that wants a long lens and which of those lenses would be in the bags of shooters that are after superb IQ?
performance in the corners. But implicit in your comment is that you
can't handhold a 24mp camera and get better pictures than a 12mp
camera.
Correct. I don't believe that there are many people that could do that and demonstrate a significant difference.
I most certainly can do that.
And by extension, you are saying that everyone or even most people are like you and can do the same? I predict the answer to that question will be no. More importantly, can most people hand hold any camera and get better photos than they can with a good support system? Again, I predict the answer to that question will be no.
repeating "it all adds up." If I do not need f/2.8, I don't care to
carry an extra half pound for that lens, an extra half pound for this
lens, an extra half pound for the other lens. Indeed, one of the
reasons why I want a D700x is to stop carrying the extra half pound
of the D3x!
For you and the small number of people like you, that makes sense. It doesn't make sense for the majority. Photographers with disabilities are more sensitive to weight/size issues than most people, and that is on a daily basis. Yet I know of disabled, serious photogs that use f/2.8 glass and heavy tripods and don't worry about trying to save a few ounces.
Your issues are primarily when you travel to exotic places or hike 20 miles into never-never-land. Most normal people can't afford to constantly travel to exotic places and/or buy expensive gear to take photos when they arrive in never-never-land. You should be happy that you have the ability to do those things, even with heavy lenses.
If not, they need a priority list.
Absolutely agree. Where I suspect we'll disagree is on the priorities
;
).
Yes, apparently and surprisingly so.
So, if nikon's lenses are not the absolute best available on FX,
compared to any maker, at any price, they're just garbage that needs
replaced immediately?
Actually, sort of.
I don't see the point in that. Perfection is very, very costly. If nikon only made perfect lenses, who would buy them? There is the point of diminishing returns. For sake of argument, let's say that nikon's 24-70 is the top of the heap, a truly stellar lens, but costs $3.5k. Canon's 24-70 is "merely" 85% of nikon's offering, simply a very, very good lens, but only costs $1.5k. Who is going to win the market share battle in that scenario? But, that's a pointless argument.
The main concern is, or should be, first keeping your installed base happy and then trying to expand upon your installed base. To do that, you have to keep prices reasonable, within the grasp of your target market. That means imperfect lenses and bodies, with reasonable price tags, for the majority of the dslr market.
Forget about the lenses that DX users want?
I never said it would be easy ;
). Canon's APS line shows neglect, so
it's not like Nikon is doing far worse.
LOL, that's not very encouraging at all, but is exactly the point I made about why I chose nikon over canon. Until recently, I had no reason to doubt that choice. Now, the line between the 2 companies seems to be less clear, and not because canon has improved things for the majority of their users.......
But three of Nikon's six last
cameras have been FX, after all. That indicates body-wise they intend
to have a two-size lineup. The last six lenses are more interesting
in this regard:
Lots of FX and/or exotic lenses have been introduced in recent times. Lots of cheap consumer zooms in the same time period. We're talking about the same problem, basically. Where are the lenses for the masses? Where we disagree is that the d700x has a need for the 24-120 f/4 that is paramount.
Why don't you ask them why they discontinued it?
I did. NikonUSA doesn't seem to know. Japan didn't answer.
huh, that's a real surprise.
--
my gallery of so-so photos
http://www.pbase.com/kerrypierce/root 
