Comments on: Nikon medium format again (MX)

By: Alan LaBaff

Alan LaBaff — Tue, 14 Apr 2009 03:23:35 +0000

I feel Nikon D1,D2H made some nice pictures for myself. I feel making a durable and decent quality camera last a million shutter releases is a key. I have owned F4,F5,F6. I feel film camera’s have less problems by far.. I am looking to purchase the NIkon D700, I think is is an outstanding camera.
AJL

By: William

William — Sun, 22 Feb 2009 18:33:49 +0000

It sure would be nice though. Maybe this could the beginning of the downturn in expensive medium format digital cameras. Kinda like the first high end flat panel HDTV screen. Maybe 5 to ? years form now we’ll be able to buy a medium format digital for 8K….

By: Tony

Tony — Sat, 21 Feb 2009 01:23:05 +0000

Sounds a little costly. Crazy too.

By: [NR] admin

[NR] admin — Mon, 16 Feb 2009 18:18:56 +0000

the comment was clearly offensive and I removed it
those types of comments will not be tolerated here period

By: Michael Houghton

Michael Houghton — Sun, 15 Feb 2009 02:40:01 +0000

That was clearly satire, Amy.

By: Amy Duman

Amy Duman — Sat, 14 Feb 2009 21:19:01 +0000

Correct, and don’t forget the lenses made by Nikon for the Zenza Bronica middle format cameras!

By: Amy Duman

Amy Duman — Sat, 14 Feb 2009 21:11:26 +0000

Interesting that you mention “INCOMPETENCE” and “MASTERING ENGLISH LANGUAGE SKILLS”, if I were you you I’d check out the spelling before puking your own incompetence out! What do you think is “A WOMEN” singular or plural? If singular, would you consider WOMENS as plural? Do you think you are a master of English language? Do you really?
And “MAYBE EVEN BLACK”, now this is what I call pure racism, your screen name “Medieval Mike” suits you well my friend!

By: Larry N.Bolch

Larry N.Bolch — Fri, 13 Feb 2009 20:51:50 +0000

At this point, the RED One is purchased by the motion picture industry, since existing equipment is strictly limited to this market. Last I heard, over 4,000 have been ordered and over 2,500 have been shipped. The first camera first shipped in mid-2007. Even with being on the market for only about a year and a half, IMDB shows camera credits on 186 productions.

http://www.imdb.com/SearchTechnical?CAM:Red%20One

Not listed are the industrial movies that are the un-applauded bread and butter of most working movie makers. While most units will be rented, the camera is cheap enough for a busy industrial production company to actually own, should they see this as economical. Most production companies own no equipment at all. Rival Panavision which has dominated theatrical movie making for decades, sells nothing. To shoot with a Panavision camera, you can ONLY rent.

Its low price tag is not its big feature. Its modularity, versatility and quality is, along with the simplicity of editing 4K stock compared the the hassle of film. It can use film industry standard PL lenses, and has mounts for Nikon and Canon dSLR lenses as well. It can also shoot at 3K and 2K, Its output is easily downsized to HDTV resolutions or printed to film for theatrical release. There are 4K projectors now from Sony and possibly others.

The going rate is $500 to $2,000 per day, depending upon the accessories, lenses, and so on. If you think this is expensive, consider that an A-List actor can top $20,000,000 in salary for a single motion picture, and there may be several on the shoot. With a director and a couple of stars pulling in a couple of million a day, the cost of equipment is trivial. In the case of industrial productions, commercials and the like, the rental costs are included in the invoice to the client.

http://www.elysianpictures.com/red-rental.htm
http://www.indierentals.com/?page=category&id=160311
http://www.digitalredcamera.com/

Most will be bought by such rental firms, who supply the industry.

By: anselmej

anselmej — Fri, 13 Feb 2009 17:00:45 +0000

but who is buying REd ?

By: anselmej

anselmej — Fri, 13 Feb 2009 17:00:15 +0000

who will pay 30.000 or 40.000 $ for a Nikon MX when for that price you can get a P+65 ?
it will never come , never !
and if Leica go on that way in 5 year it will be dead

By: Medieval Mike

Medieval Mike — Fri, 13 Feb 2009 14:11:24 +0000

comment removed by admin for offensive language

By: Ken Elliott

Ken Elliott — Fri, 13 Feb 2009 14:08:27 +0000

Woops! Boy, I messed up bad. Glad you caught my error.

By: NikonMan

NikonMan — Fri, 13 Feb 2009 08:20:38 +0000

Yup that is totally correct, but optical proformance is not always everything.

If Nikon launch an MF camera with (say) 5 MX lenses and an adapter to allow FX lenses to be used, then the Nikon MF camera would have the largest range of lenses available compared to ANY other MF system

And any Nikon user considering MF would be just plain silly to consider a MF system that is not compatable with what he/she already has. Or a student may think “if I invest in Nikon now, then I’ll have some parts of the MF system when (if) I need them later – move over Canon…

Marketing 101 “perception is more powerful than reality”

By: Chevypower

Chevypower — Fri, 13 Feb 2009 07:35:32 +0000

When it comes to outright size, RED’s 261 megapixel 168mm x 56mm sensor seems to blow everything else out of the water

By: Jon Paul

Jon Paul — Fri, 13 Feb 2009 05:57:21 +0000

False or not, we should start up a lively DX/MX argument just because we can. Or maybe, more appropriately, we should start posting comments asking questions like, “Is FX dead?”

By: [NR] admin

[NR] admin — Fri, 13 Feb 2009 02:46:05 +0000

yes, Nikon messed up again
they messed up also the number of blades

By: Mike

Mike — Fri, 13 Feb 2009 02:41:47 +0000

Ha, I’m tired. That should be 80-400! Can you imagine? 40-800? Yikes.

By: Mike

Mike — Fri, 13 Feb 2009 02:40:54 +0000

D40, 40-800, SB-400, 400mm, 12-24 f/4. Canon 40D.

By the way, totally off topic. The new 35mm is not Nikon’s first DX prime lens…. do we all quickly forget about the 10.5mm fisheye? Mine says DX on it!

By: Cluebat

Cluebat — Fri, 13 Feb 2009 01:17:56 +0000

ORLY! I wonder about that little camera Nikon calls the F4… or are you part of the brigade that thinks photography only started in 1999 with the D1?

By: Alex

Alex — Thu, 12 Feb 2009 23:56:41 +0000

this rumor is already getting torn up, but here’s another reason why I think it’s bull:

I highly doubt Nikon will EVER make a camera called the “D4.” The reason is because the number “4″ is considered unlucky in Japaan (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_numerals). We’ve already seen one big camera company skip “4″ in their line… CANON! Remember the S3 point and shoot? Remember what came after that? The S5!