Reading mode: Light Dark

Thom once again on Nikon's neglect of DX...

Go to last post
brunobarolo said:
brunobarolo wrote:
brunobarolo said:
antoineb wrote:

Perhaps self-appointed "experts" like this "thom" just don't look at the whole realm of things, are too DSLR-centered, and are arguing about a universe that is in a terminal decline?
Click to expand...
Perhaps you better spend a few minutes to find out who "this Thom" is before you continue to make a fool of yourself. Here are two starting points:

http://www.sansmirror.com/

http://www.bythom.com/
Click to expand...



OK, so it seems that this "thom" is some sort of icon for some people. Fine. I personally don't like to have icons. But he seems to have a decent head on his shoulders and he advises people to not panic into buying the latest newest camera and master the current camera and all - but tons of experts say the same thing. And he shows some nice shots but again, nothing unique.

I'm sorry if this Thom is an icon to some people which would make it taboo to even dare to comment on his views. When anyone reaches such cult following, it means, by my book, that it's high time for the followers to move on - and that I for one won't be participating.
 
Your rhetorical habits - which really amount to little more than thinly veiled ad hominem attacks - are really quite appalling Bob. As it happens I'm quite interested in another Nikon DSLR, perhaps a D4X, and the 800 f5.6 VR. But first I'd like to know that the $25,000 or so in Nikon-specific lenses and sundry gear I own will still be usable for wildlife photography. Most of the clowns here who question whether wildlife photographers really know what they need don't have a fraction of the skill or equipment needed to pursue this passion. And clown trumps idiot.
 
antoineb said:
antoineb wrote:

OK, so it seems that this "thom" is some sort of icon for some people. Fine. I personally don't like to have icons. But he seems to have a decent head on his shoulders and he advises people to not panic into buying the latest newest camera and master the current camera and all - but tons of experts say the same thing. And he shows some nice shots but again, nothing unique.

I'm sorry if this Thom is an icon to some people which would make it taboo to even dare to comment on his views. When anyone reaches such cult following, it means, by my book, that it's high time for the followers to move on - and that I for one won't be participating.
Click to expand...
It's got nothing to do with being an "icon" but more a voice of knowledge for Nikon products. His Nikon books are arguably the best out there and he has a great understanding of Nikon cameras, glass and flash systems. I for one, learned a great deal from reading his blogs and reading his books; much the same as Moose Peterson, Joe Mcnally, Scott Kelby, etc.




If you want to close your mind to learning from people who are experts that make a living with the products you use while sharing their insight and know how, then there isn't a lot you are ever going to learn on these forums.
 
jfriend00 said:
jfriend00 wrote:
jfriend00 said:
marike6 wrote:
jfriend00 said:
Also what does this single fixed lens camera have over something like a NEX-7 with a prime on it that can also use other lenses for other types of photography?
Click to expand...
Some DSLR users aren't always interesting in buying and maintaining another system camera like the NEX7 or a small m43 camera but many people do.
Click to expand...
OK, it just seems so limiting to spend $1300 on single focal length camera.

I get the IQ issue for serious photographers who want larger sensors. But, I'm under the impression that there are some pretty darn good APS-C mirrorless options now with interchangeable lenses. I would have thought their use is so much broader because, even if you start out with a single prime on it and aren't sure you'll buy other lenses, you at least have the option of getting another lens for other types of photography in the future without buying a whole new body.
Click to expand...
That's the way that I went, preferring the smaller, much less expensive Samsung 20mp NX200 to Fuji's 12mp X100. The NX200 was replaced by the NX210 which is essentially the same camera but has added built-in wi-fi, a feature that I don't yet have a use for. The X100's retro look and hybrid viewfinder appealed to some photographers but as far as I'm concerned, the viewfinder was very poorly implemented in several areas.



jfriend00 said:
Is there some significant advantage to a single focal length, non interchangeable lens camera vs. a camera with a similar size sensor that supports interchangeable lenses (like any NEX)? If this Nikon offering would cost $1300, they don't seem to cost much less money. Are they smaller/lighter?
Click to expand...
The NX200/210 body is not only smaller than the X100, it's smaller than little Fuji's X10. Not with the 18-55mm kit lens that's bundled with the camera ($499 from B&H) but Samsung has several very nice modestly priced pancake lenses, widely recognized as higher quality than Sony's, although that's not saying much. Of the 16mm, 20mm and 30mm pancakes, the 30mm is a real gem. The X100 is a little better at very high ISO levels but not at low levels. Here's DPR's ISO 100 studio comparison.


203c94d6cd214aa2b07f33678f730a5a.jpg.png

d3ac565f577e439ab0fcd0138923515c.jpg.png

14ace07bf73e4719ae03ea35719e843c.jpg.png








jfriend00 said:
--
John
Gallery: http://jfriend.smugmug.com
Click to expand...
 
"Is that they're all instant wildlife photography experts. Makes sense since most of them took awful wildlife photographs with their D7000's before "upgrading"."

I was referring to your gratuitous nose in the air characterization, not your chosen gear in particular. If we're going to talk about awful wildlife pics, we probably should include a goodly number of noisy and less than tack pics taken with the d300s, many of which could have been taken equally well with a superzoom which have been praised to the skies on this very board. Quite frankly, I would rate the ability required to take a "good wildlife photograph" at 10 FPS with SOTA autofocus behind ten or fifteen thousand dollars worth of lens and Wimberly pretty low on the totem pole of photographic skills. Not that I would turn a 500mm down, mind you :^)
 
Member said:
MPA1 wrote:

As soon as FX appeared, I felt that the writing was on the wall for DX.

I just think FX size emulates film and Nikon's long film history suggests to me that they just do not like sub-FX sensors in DSLRS and only had them because otherwise they would not have been able to make any when they began.
Click to expand...
If they're interested in filling price points below $1800 and lower-priced systems, they have to offer smaller sensors - that's just how the physics of semi-conductor manufacturing works. If they only want to sell to the top 20% of the market, they can focus on FX and good luck doing that without all the lower-end models to bring people into the brand and create demand for future FX purchases. Maybe most pros have moved to FX, but that's only a small percentage of the overall market.

So, NO they're not making DX sensor cameras only because they couldn't originally make FX. There are legitimate market reasons for filling in the price gaps with smaller sensored cameras.
 
Let there be peace in the valley!
 
jfriend00 said:
jfriend00 wrote:
jfriend00 said:
mosswings wrote:

And then you have the latest report from Nikon Rumors that the new camera to be introduced will be a DX fixed 28mm f2.8 compact; new DX DSLRs are out another month or so.
Click to expand...
Who wants to buy a DX camera with a single fixed 28mm lens? Not interchangeable, not even a zoom? I know a few other manufacturers have done this too, but I just don't understand who wants to buy them?
Click to expand...
 
photoreddi said:
photoreddi wrote:
photoreddi said:
jfriend00 wrote:
photoreddi said:
marike6 wrote:
photoreddi said:
Also what does this single fixed lens camera have over something like a NEX-7 with a prime on it that can also use other lenses for other types of photography?
Click to expand...
Some DSLR users aren't always interesting in buying and maintaining another system camera like the NEX7 or a small m43 camera but many people do.
Click to expand...
OK, it just seems so limiting to spend $1300 on single focal length camera.

I get the IQ issue for serious photographers who want larger sensors. But, I'm under the impression that there are some pretty darn good APS-C mirrorless options now with interchangeable lenses. I would have thought their use is so much broader because, even if you start out with a single prime on it and aren't sure you'll buy other lenses, you at least have the option of getting another lens for other types of photography in the future without buying a whole new body.
Click to expand...
That's the way that I went, preferring the smaller, much less expensive Samsung 20mp NX200 to Fuji's 12mp X100. The NX200 was replaced by the NX210 which is essentially the same camera but has added built-in wi-fi, a feature that I don't yet have a use for. The X100's retro look and hybrid viewfinder appealed to some photographers but as far as I'm concerned, the viewfinder was very poorly implemented in several areas.
Click to expand...
Your decision makes sense to me. An ILC is just soo much more flexible and makes no sacrificies in IQ and you can use a prime on it anytime you want so unless a fixed, permanent lens camera is way smaller or way less expensive or there is nothing comparable with interchangeable lenses, the fixed lens camera makes no sense to me. Obviously some people are buying them though, but I have a hard time seeing how it's a big market, particularly once the AFS-C ILC product lines get built out even more.
 
toomanycanons said:
toomanycanons wrote:
toomanycanons said:
jfriend00 wrote:
toomanycanons said:
mosswings wrote:

And then you have the latest report from Nikon Rumors that the new camera to be introduced will be a DX fixed 28mm f2.8 compact; new DX DSLRs are out another month or so.
Click to expand...
Who wants to buy a DX camera with a single fixed 28mm lens? Not interchangeable, not even a zoom? I know a few other manufacturers have done this too, but I just don't understand who wants to buy them?
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
Reilly Diefenbach said:
Reilly Diefenbach wrote:

Rumored D7100 specs.

http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=13089.msg235326;topicseen#new

51 point AF and no AA filter sounds pretty darn good. D400 why?
Click to expand...
The differences between this and a supposed D400 have certainly been narrowed a lot. The remaining ones would be 8fps with grip, dedicated AF-ON button and any other remaining differences in build/buffer. It's hard to know if Nikon has quit on the D400 or has ideas for it beyond what we've supposed. It will be interesting to see what the good action/wildlife photogs say about how the D7100 performs.
 
String said:
String wrote:
String said:
antoineb wrote:

OK, so it seems that this "thom" is some sort of icon for some people. Fine. I personally don't like to have icons. But he seems to have a decent head on his shoulders and he advises people to not panic into buying the latest newest camera and master the current camera and all - but tons of experts say the same thing. And he shows some nice shots but again, nothing unique.

I'm sorry if this Thom is an icon to some people which would make it taboo to even dare to comment on his views. When anyone reaches such cult following, it means, by my book, that it's high time for the followers to move on - and that I for one won't be participating.
Click to expand...
It's got nothing to do with being an "icon" but more a voice of knowledge for Nikon products. His Nikon books are arguably the best out there and he has a great understanding of Nikon cameras, glass and flash systems. I for one, learned a great deal from reading his blogs and reading his books; much the same as Moose Peterson, Joe Mcnally, Scott Kelby, etc.

If you want to close your mind to learning from people who are experts that make a living with the products you use while sharing their insight and know how, then there isn't a lot you are ever going to learn on these forums.
Click to expand...
 
JimPearce said:
JimPearce wrote:

Your rhetorical habits - which really amount to little more than thinly veiled ad hominem attacks - are really quite appalling Bob. As it happens I'm quite interested in another Nikon DSLR, perhaps a D4X, and the 800 f5.6 VR. But first I'd like to know that the $25,000 or so in Nikon-specific lenses and sundry gear I own will still be usable for wildlife photography. Most of the clowns here who question whether wildlife photographers really know what they need don't have a fraction of the skill or equipment needed to pursue this passion. And clown trumps idiot.
Click to expand...
You're jumping to conclusions that I meant you. Still, as they say, if the hat fits....

So far as 'clowns' and 'idiots' go, I've never said anything about wildlife photographers knowing what they need, I've just questioned whether there are enough people who 'need' that extra FPS, or that extra button and are willing to pay $600 for it.

Still, looks like Nikon thinks like me, doesn't it?

PS Nikon doesn't make a D4X, I expect that you knew that really.

PPS Bet I know who your two 'thumbs up' are.
 
Last edited:
antoineb said:
antoineb wrote:

OK so now I have this straight: this Thom runs a commercial site where he advertises his stuff, starting with his books. This makes it easier to understand why forum topics about this Thom regularly appear here on DPreview - it's called micro-marketing, or piggybacking, in those cases where it is this Thom who starts the thread (possibly using various IDs).
Click to expand...
Just because that might be your modus operandi, doesn't mean that Thom is as sleazy as you appear to be. In short, you slander somebody without a shred of evidence. And if you had bothered to test your presumption, you would have found that all those alleged aliases of Thom here are quite clearly separate personalities.
antoineb said:
I strongly DO believe that most of the things really worth knowing in life, we have to learn for ourselves.
Click to expand...
antoineb said:
- without reading books I pretty quickly realised that if I didn't know how to operate my camera so that it became a mere extension of my eye, then it was a hindrance.

- without reading a book I also pretty quickly realised that I needed to work around any limitations inherent to my camera. For example the CDAF on my old FZ200 superzoom was quick and always spot on, while on my D7k the IQ is better but the PDAF is less precise (even when well tuned) and the CDAF is pathetically slow and quite often fails to lock focus at all.

- without reading a book I quickly realised that my camera had better be in top shape for top results. Clean sensor, clean lenses, you name it.
Click to expand...
Makes me wonder what you do here. If you are able to learn everything by yourself why are reading anything here at all? And I can could go back as to why humans were able to amass so much knowledge because they developed a language that made it possible to easily transfer knowledge from one person to another. Or how a written language again multiplied the knowledge that could be conserved and handed over to others.
antoineb said:
- reading camera manuals and playing with one's camera (my D7k has 30'000 shots on the meter in 2 years) is the best, and I honestly believe the only, way to learn. If someone is not ready to make the effort to play with their camera in order to learn, what are the chances that they'll have the energy to read a book, or that having read the book, they'll apply its advice?
Click to expand...
So, reading the manual is a good way but reading a better version of the manual is rubbish and unnecessary?
antoineb said:
- as for the things that really matter, things like light, colour, composition, subject: these are things that some people "get" from day one because they have an "eye", and that some other people will never get even after they've read one million photography books
Click to expand...
How many people here have reported to have learned about those things from Thom? You're arguing here that a balance won't tell you how tomatoes taste when we are just discussing how a balance helps in determining the weight of tomatoes. In short, you just change the subject when you run out of arguments.
antoineb said:
Good for this Thom if he can make money selling run-of-the-mill advice that most everyone can find out on their own, or for free on the Web. But don't ask me to become a fan or spend one cent on this....
Click to expand...
Yeah, being able to admit that somebody else might know something you don't know, is apparently beyond your capabilities. But wait, has anybody asked or suggested to you to spend anything on Thom's products? Has anything of the findings of Thom discussed here come from any of his paid products? Apparently you resent the idea that somebody can make money selling his knowledge so much that it taints all the free information he provides to such a degree that it cannot be considered to be of any value.
 
antoineb said:
antoineb wrote:
Oh, and I'm also sick and tired of this AF that needs to be fine-tuned because it was designed for the age of film, the CDAF that is sooooo slooooow, the screen that can't be seen in sunlight whereas my iPhone screed can. Not to mention the video without AF and with low-quality mono sound when my iPhone can film with AF and stereo sound...
Click to expand...



I definitely agree that camera phones are killing the lower end camera market but that's not because camera phones compare in quality or are better but rather because most people don't know sh1t about taking good photos. Heck..even people scooping up D800s because they claim they need them post awful pictures that are no better than a point-n-shoot.

When you film with your Iphone are you using external mics for stereo?
 
jfriend00 said:
jfriend00 wrote:
jfriend00 said:
MPA1 wrote:

As soon as FX appeared, I felt that the writing was on the wall for DX.

I just think FX size emulates film and Nikon's long film history suggests to me that they just do not like sub-FX sensors in DSLRS and only had them because otherwise they would not have been able to make any when they began.
Click to expand...
If they're interested in filling price points below $1800 and lower-priced systems, they have to offer smaller sensors - that's just how the physics of semi-conductor manufacturing works. If they only want to sell to the top 20% of the market, they can focus on FX and good luck doing that without all the lower-end models to bring people into the brand and create demand for future FX purchases. Maybe most pros have moved to FX, but that's only a small percentage of the overall market.

So, NO they're not making DX sensor cameras only because they couldn't originally make FX. There are legitimate market reasons for filling in the price gaps with smaller sensored cameras.
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

B
The Lens from Genoa.
2
Replies
20
Views
3K
Bosun Higgs
B
F
Comparison: Nikon 19mm PCE and Laowa 20mm Zero D
Replies
8
Views
18K
fishguy
F
Tord S Eriksson
DeepSeek is coming!
Replies
13
Views
6K
Richard Dutton
R
bluevellet
  • User review User review
Nikon's Hockey Puck
Replies
12
Views
7K
skyrunr
skyrunr
Satyaa
ML journey with m43... part 3 exposure, framing and editing
Replies
0
Views
3K
Satyaa
Satyaa

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top