Nikon Petition

[ricohflex]

Certainly Nikon can make a full frame digicam anytime they want to.
It is well within their technical capability.
It is also well within the technical capability of Pentax, Konica-Minolta, Olympus, Fuji, Sony.

The decision is a business oriented one. It is a Trillion $ question.

The idea of making the whole world's photographers (who already have much 35mm format equipment) buy another set of lenses (so called "digital" format) is a great temptation.
Marketers salivate at the thought.

If they go full frame, then this hope is diminished.

Personally I like Canon's decision to go full frame. So I can use most if not all of EF lenses (and get a true wide angle) and need not pay high prices for emasculated "digital format" lenses (actually smaller lenses with smaller image circle). I am not saying Canon is better than Nikon. Both companies are good.

I just like Canon's daring to do such things first. Quite apart from photography or camera or lenses, it is a business/commercial gutsiness that I admire. Like a test pilot pushing the envelope on his prototype fighter plane; and knowing that anytime he can lose his life.

 

[Spectrum]

Well, Canon doesn't depends on DSLR alone. How many types of office equipments does it produced? Like, colour photocopier & so forth. Not to mention, the amount of pro photographers that uses Canon system. Very big market, you know. They can afford to gamble man!;p

 

[Peter Lim]

Hmmm the road map is pretty clear, I don't see a need for FF, and following what Nikon has been doing all along is pretty fine, it's those who don't need FF and don't see what Nikon is doing that's making all this ruckus ;p

Why not a petition to see who will buy Nikon FF DSLR? Hehe. So many supporters but none dare to commit a purchase. :think:

No need petition for Nikon FF lah, if photographers need FF they should know what to do......

 

[catchlights]

No need petition for Nikon FF lah, if photographers need FF they should know what to do......

That's right!
all I need to do is just borrow the Canon from you. hehehe

 

[Watcher]

Certainly Nikon can make a full frame digicam anytime they want to.
It is well within their technical capability.
It is also well within the technical capability of Pentax, Konica-Minolta, Olympus, Fuji, Sony.

The decision is a business oriented one. It is a Trillion $ question.

The idea of making the whole world's photographers (who already have much 35mm format equipment) buy another set of lenses (so called "digital" format) is a great temptation.
Marketers salivate at the thought.

However, you seem to have forgetten three things: 1)EF-S mount has been produced 2) you only need 1 or 2 lenses on the wide side for your alleged missing "whole set" as the long lenses have long reach and 3) that on the long side, there is a significant lesser need for the longer lenses which are far more expensive. 12-24DX cost S$1600 < difference of price(200/2, 300/2.8). More money? Hmmm I wonder which brands have change mounts due to alleged constrains of the mount...

If they go full frame, then this hope is diminished.

Ironically, if the 17-40L is the best that Canon can do, then well, it actually increases the users' need to buy a good wide angle lens, thereby contradicting your view that FF saves $$$. To get good wide (which is what many naively think that the FF is for), rather than saving money, they have to pay for a Zeiss and still only have fully manual system.

Personally I like Canon's decision to go full frame. So I can use most if not all of EF lenses (and get a true wide angle) and need not pay high prices for emasculated "digital format" lenses (actually smaller lenses with smaller image circle). I am not saying Canon is better than Nikon. Both companies are good.

Going full frame is one decision. However, your 'emasculated "digital format"' are far cheaper than a longer lens say between a 300/2.8 to even 400/2.8. I guess you consider those using Zeiss lens in order to have good 35mm DSLRs (the results of the best that Canon has produced so far, the 17-40L is marginal at best) are emasculating the poor LF Zeiss lens.

I just like Canon's daring to do such things first. Quite apart from photography or camera or lenses, it is a business/commercial gutsiness that I admire. Like a test pilot pushing the envelope on his prototype fighter plane; and knowing that anytime he can lose his life.

Because they can afford to throw away the entire photographic business and it cost them only a blimp on the revenues. Canon has said in interviews that their photographic equipment business brought in less than 5% of total revenue...

 

[litefoot]

The idea of making the whole world's photographers (who already have much 35mm format equipment) buy another set of lenses (so called "digital" format) is a great temptation.
Marketers salivate at the thought.

If they go full frame, then this hope is diminished.

Lets see how far this stretches. At this point of time, I can only see about less than 15% of their total line up are specifically meant for smaller image circle, DX, EF-S or what have you. For that matter, the 3rd parties and Canon has a more exciting & "practical" (why I say that because someone will try to bring in a non-rectilinear DX lens as a trophy) lineup with fast primes, super zooms and macro. If there is money to make, like you have mentioned I believe the pace should be faster. Perhaps its just too early in the stage of development for me to comment any further on this small format. For now, I just find it funny that there are people trying to shove me to use the 12-24 f/4 when I am rather confident that my current primes are faster and have better resolution. One thing that I have to give it to Nikon is that they have made some optics that are extremely hard to be replaced by any other.

 

[espn]

If D2X can do a high speed crop mode, 1.5X -> 2X, why a FF D2X cannot do 1X -> 1.5X on auto mounting a DX glass? :think: Read Watcher's Affinity on FF DSLRs

 

[Watcher]

Lets see how far this stretches. At this point of time, I can only see about less than 15% of their total line up are specifically meant for smaller image circle, DX, EF-S or what have you. For that matter, the 3rd parties and Canon has a more exciting & "practical" (why I say that because someone will try to bring in a non-rectilinear DX lens as a trophy) lineup with fast primes, super zooms and macro. If there is money to make, like you have mentioned I believe the pace should be faster. Perhaps its just too early in the stage of development for me to comment any further on this small format.

I actually agree with you on the money part ! It is debatable though from your implication that Nikon has less exciting and "practical" lineup. Since 35mm, Nikon has 17-35, Canon has 16-35, Sigma has 12-24 or 15-30, and we have a Canon user who willingly sacrificed the AF and metering for the AF-S 17-35 :sweatsm: . The only significant difference is Sigma on the wide. Prime? 14mm tops; no DX-like primes anywhere. Macro? I doubt Nikkors are inferior.

For now, I just find it funny that there are people trying to shove me to use the 12-24 f/4 when I am rather confident that my current primes are faster and have better resolution. One thing that I have to give it to Nikon is that they have made some optics that ae extremely hard to be replaced by any other.

Why don't you try the 14mm prime verses 12-24DX and show us the results? More than one person has already mentioned the difference in quality. Since it seems that you don't believe anyone nor listen to anyone except yourself, do the test yourself.

 

[litefoot]

...no DX-like primes anywhere....

...Since it seems that you don't believe anyone nor listen to anyone except yourself, do the test yourself...

Sigma 30mm f/1.4 EX DC HSM (fast DX-like prime), EF-S 60 f/2.8 USM Macro 1:1 (DX-like prime/macro) just to name two since I mentioned those type of lenses. That statement only applies to Nikon, less the much acclaimed (only in CS Nikon sub forum) non-rectiliear. Including that you too shot your own foot. Please get the facts before shooting again.

Nikkor 24mm f/2.8 gives noticeable better images than Nikkor 17-35 f/2.8 @ 24mm at ALL aperture settings. I own both lenses and tested them myself. I am not interested in Nikkor 14mm. I can almost claim 12-24mm f/4 @ 24mm can NEVER beat Nikkor 24mm prime PERIOD.

Just to spike you, like some forumers do here, the difference is I am stating this in clear. I will "surrender" you my 24mm for free to you and get the 12-24 f/4 if the later proves to be better. Likewise, you do the same if it doesn't. The good old "pink slip" in drag racing. How's that?

 

[yanyewkay]

zeiss lens is full manual on my D70 :cry: even the metering on my cam doesn't work and I can't use A mode. Full manual is also taking stabs in the dark because the meter doesn't work :cry:

 

[Spectrum]

One thing that I have to give it to Nikon is that they have made some optics that are extremely hard to be replaced by any other.

Can I have a rough idea what are the Nikon lenses that out-performed other lenses? Care to share? Thanks in advance dude.

 

[litefoot]

Can I have a rough idea what are the Nikon lenses that out-performed other lenses? Care to share? Thanks in advance dude.

Many, including some of the MFs. But I love the 24mm f/2.8. I have used MD, EF as well as the Sigma. This Nikkor turns out to be the best in the lot.

 

[Watcher]

Sigma 30mm f/1.4 EX DC HSM (fast DX-like prime), EF-S 60 f/2.8 USM Macro 1:1 (DX-like prime/macro) just to name two since I mentioned those type of lenses. That statement only applies to Nikon, less the much acclaimed (only in CS Nikon sub forum) non-rectiliear. Including that you too shot your own foot. Please get the facts before shooting again.

Hmmm are they available here? :dunno: In any case, any advantage over say 45mm AI-P or 50mm/1.4? Having it is something, having an advantage ('3rd parties and Canon has a more exciting & "practical"' in your own words) with the new lenses is another. EF-S 60 ? Sure, if you consider that Nikon has 60, 105, 200 and 70-180 Macro zoom, while EF has the 100 and 180 (with 2 other macro that is not readily available). So is a 30/1.4 prime more exciting and practical than a 50/1.4? EF-S 60 over the AF-D 60mm? :dunno:

Nikkor 24mm f/2.8 gives noticeable better images than Nikkor 17-35 f/2.8 @ 24mm at ALL aperture settings. I own both lenses and tested them myself. I am not interested in Nikkor 14mm. I can almost claim 12-24mm f/4 @ 24mm can NEVER beat Nikkor 24mm prime PERIOD.

In all conditions? You should search the thread where a 24mm prime was competiting against the 12-24. 24 prime seem to have more resolution, but loses out in the corners for CA and sharpness... Images were provided. Don't take my word for it. From here,

At 24 mm, very sharp and crisp images resulted at nearly all aperture settings. Only the f/4 and f/22 were slightly less sharply etched. Peak performance occurred at f/8-f/11, but the high image quality held up nearly everywhere else too. Colour fringing was virtually non-existent at this end of the focal range. No Nikkor 24 mm prime lens gives this kind of quality images.

I think he knows a bit from shooting about 30 years professionally. Also, since from your statements that primes are superior to any zoom (especially DX), why don't you dare to take up the challenge with the 14mm prime? Not interested does not mean that your statement should not be taken for comparison.

Just to spike you, like some forumers do here, the difference is I am stating this in clear. I will "surrender" you my 24mm for free to you and get the 12-24 f/4 if the later proves to be better. Likewise, you do the same if it doesn't. The good old "pink slip" in drag racing. How's that?

14mm ? I doubt you would want to risk 3k proving your statement that primes are (always) superior to zooms

Note concerning its use on D1X:

The 14 mm is not comfortable when mounted on the Nikon D1X. Neither is the user. Images captured by D1X are noticeably less sharp and colour fringing is quite evident towards the corners of the frame and around high contrast features, even in the image centre. I suspect its optical design was optimised for the D1, and that the loss of sharpness on D1X might be caused by frequency aliasing of fine detail.

Edit: ooops at the top, should have said 35/1.4

 

[Watcher]

Nikkor 24mm f/2.8 gives noticeable better images than Nikkor 17-35 f/2.8 @ 24mm at ALL aperture settings. I own both lenses and tested them myself. I am not interested in Nikkor 14mm. I can almost claim 12-24mm f/4 @ 24mm can NEVER beat Nikkor 24mm prime PERIOD.

From here, the 12-24 DX @24 beat the 24mm prime in CA at the corners, by general consensus. Thus by your very own definition, means you lost. When can I get my 24mm prime?

Just to spike you, like some forumers do here, the difference is I am stating this in clear. I will "surrender" you my 24mm for free to you and get the 12-24 f/4 if the later proves to be better. Likewise, you do the same if it doesn't. The good old "pink slip" in drag racing. How's that?

 

[litefoot]

Hmmm are they available here? :dunno: In any case, any advantage over say 45mm AI-P or 50mm/1.4? Having it is something, having an advantage ('3rd parties and Canon has a more exciting & "practical"' in your own words) with the new lenses is another. EF-S 60 ? Sure, if you consider that Nikon has 60, 105, 200 and 70-180 Macro zoom, while EF has the 100 and 180 (with 2 other macro that is not readily available). So is a 30/1.4 prime more exciting and practical than a 50/1.4? EF-S 60 over the AF-D 60mm? :dunno:

In all conditions? You should search the thread where a 24mm prime was competiting against the 12-24. 24 prime seem to have more resolution, but loses out in the corners for CA and sharpness... Images were provided. Don't take my word for it. From here,

I think he knows a bit from shooting about 30 years professionally. Also, since from your statements that primes are superior to any zoom (especially DX), why don't you dare to take up the challenge with the 14mm prime? Not interested does not mean that your statement should not be taken for comparison.

14mm ? I doubt you would want to risk 3k proving your statement that primes are (always) superior to zooms

Edit: ooops at the top, should have said 35/1.4

I was just pointing out in general what the lens makers are doing for the DX-like format. Indicating what Nikon has done so far as compared to Canon and perhaps Sigma which I have brought in later with an example. Each individual maker's range of DX-like products will tell the consumers their direction as well as their commitment towards this new format. I can't understand why you are bringing in the rest of the lenses. I am sure both Canon and Nikon provide as exciting range of products as a whole.

I dun shoot with 14mm and have no experience with this lens. I am taking the plunge not knowing what a 12-24 can do. Its not a matter of money, unless you are feeling sore of pitting your beloved zoom against my cheap 24mm in a pink slip shoot out.

Please stop trying to put words in my mouth such as inferring things like primes are always better than zooms, you are starting to aim below the belt and it doesn't reflect well in your worthiness.

 

[Watcher]

I was just pointing out in general what the lens makers are doing for the DX-like format. Indicating what Nikon has done so far as compared to Canon and perhaps Sigma which I have brought in later with an example. Each individual maker's range of DX-like products will tell the consumers their direction as well as their commitment towards this new format. I can't understand why you are bringing in the rest of the lenses. I am sure both Canon and Nikon provide as exciting range of products as a whole.

Well, if you want to mention new lenses (especially non-boutique ones) sure. Find me a 17-55/2.8 DX equivalent. New DX-like lenses for newness sake is meaningless. If Nikon has a AF-D 60 macro and now Canon comes out with a EF-S 60 macro, it does not mean that Canon is more exciting. In fact, I would have thought that you would think an established FF/35mm macro is better that a brand new EF-S cropped frame lens...

I dun shoot with 14mm and have no experience with this lens. I am taking the plunge not knowing what a 12-24 can do. Its not a matter of money, unless you are feeling sore of pitting your beloved zoom against my cheap 24mm in a pink slip shoot out.

Well then, what about the 24mm mentioned above? The DX zoom won on the corners vs the prime lens. By your very own statement, you stressed unconditionally that the 24mm prime is supreme and you brought the pink slip shootout. DX zoom corners won by common consensus. Hand over your 24mm then.

Please stop trying to put words in my mouth such as inferring things like primes are always better than zooms, you are starting to aim below the belt and it doesn't reflect well in your worthiness.

Ok DX verses prime then. You kept insisting that nothing can beat FF primes, especially yours.

 

[litefoot]

Well, if you want to mention new lenses (especially non-boutique ones) sure. Find me a 17-55/2.8 DX equivalent. New DX-like lenses for newness sake is meaningless. If Nikon has a AF-D 60 macro and now Canon comes out with a EF-S 60 macro, it does not mean that Canon is more exciting. In fact, I would have thought that you would think an established FF/35mm macro is better that a brand new EF-S cropped frame lens...


Well then, what about the 24mm mentioned above? The DX zoom won on the corners vs the prime lens. By your very own statement, you stressed unconditionally that the 24mm prime is supreme and you brought the pink slip shootout. DX zoom corners won by common consensus. Hand over your 24mm then.


Ok DX verses prime then. You kept insisting that nothing can beat FF primes, especially yours.

For the last time. Please stop putting words in my mouth.

I do not know what you are referring to, I did not read any of your links. Lens test is more than just corners and CA. Sharpness, contrast and most importantly distortion control especially in wides. Obviously you do not know what you are getting into.

 

[maxima]

Nikon do not have CMOS sensor RnD nor have the partnership with semiconductor Fabless or Fab base company which are leaders in that technology?

Call this STUPID or what.....but even they realised NOW, it takes couple of years to get it thru to end consumer's hand. Which INSANE Nikon management DARE to PUT their **** on the chopping board if they failed in the engineering collaborations? :bsmilie: More over it's NOT what they are capable of......they still have to partner or purchase it from a 3rd party.............it's not within their control

You guys can wait LONG..........................LONG lah?

I just signed the petition, and too add on - no one is unhappy about things, we are just abit concerned why is there no FF DSLR thats all... Nikon will remain my first choice when it comes to 35mm format cameras
:thumbsup: :thumbsup: :thumbsup:

 

[ricohflex]

lite foot & watcher
peace
our photo hobby is a source of fun and enjoyment. we exchange information in forums and learn from others. whatever brand or cost of his equipment, if a hobbyist gets pleasure and nice photo records of his family, friends, travels, that is good enough for him.

 

[sehsuan]

gee, i wonder what people are going to do with the DX lenses should there be any FF nikon dslr...