< ! --Digital window verification 001 -->

Nikon 35mm f/1.8G AF-S DX shipping in the US on March 12th?

Pin It

353_2183_af-s-dx-nikkor-35mm-f-18g_frontTake a look at this Nikon 35mm f/1.8G AF-S DX ebay listing  (seller: 100% positive feedback, 303 sales) - if they are right, the lens should be available on March 12th in the US.

UK release date should be March 13th according to this site.

This entry was posted in Nikon Lenses and tagged . Bookmark the permalink. Trackbacks are closed, but you can post a comment.
  • Mike

    I ordered one at my local dealer here in Poland last Wednesday and got a message saying they should receive initial shipments between 9-14 March. The lens will be available in limited quantity though, so I shouldn’t get my hopes to high up… First come, first served. Still, hope dies last, right?

    • archer

      today i’ve got my 35 Nikkor in Poland. Wonderful lens

  • Anonymous

    pre-ordered mines from local ritz and already received it yesterday.

    • http://nikonrumors.com/ [NR] admin

      Really? I think you are the first person in the US to have that lens.

  • Chris

    I have one too. I’m from Ontario, Canada.

  • Bob the Builder

    i got one to for free. found it in a skip on the TW building site I was working on few weeks ago. box was a bit damp but everything wrapped up well inside and dry. box is flattened and in airing cupboard to dry in case i decide to sell lens on.

    • Anonymous

      That’s nothing. I found 5,000 of them in a warehouse in Thailand at 3am . Want one ?

  • Anonymous

    I’ve been told the end of next week.

  • DX?

    Who buys DX any more? Total waste – when FX filters down to the consumer cameras and it will sooner than you think – you will be left with a mountain of glass that is worthless.

    DX is DEAD. DON’T WASTE YOUR MONEY. NIKON SCREWED EVERYONE OVER WITH THE LONG DELAY TO FULL FRAME PUTTING A POSITIVE SPIN ON THE DX FORMAT – SPINNING A COMMERCIAL WEAKNESS INTO A STRENGTH AND EVERYONE BOUGHT INTO THIS TRIPE.

    ANYONE WHO BUYS DX NOW IS ONE STEP FROM GOING HAIRY AND WOLF LIKE AT FULL MOON.

    • Digital Observer

      I don’t agree. DX fills the market segment between point-and-shoots and big heavy expensive FX gear. Do you think budding photo enthusiasts are going to step up from their point-and-shoots to a D700? Nikon itself says that the vast majority of their DSLR sales are D40, D40x, D60, D90. That’s why they’re releasing DX lenses. It’s where the market is.

      • DX?

        You won’t have a choice. Its called progress. The FX sensor in prosumer cameras will not make them particularly bigger. They had a whole range of full frame 35m film cameras including prosumer… F80, F65, F75 (dinky), F70 The biggest difference physically between those and the prosumer digital bodies is only the prism which is larger on the 35mm film bodies – didn’t stop enthusiasts buying those. I do wish people who never picked up an SLR before digital came along would do research before commentating on matters.

        As I say as soon as they can they will be making FX in even the D40 and its successors.

        Whats stopping them now:

        1. Cost. There is a higher attrition rate during the manufacture of FX sensors than DX as well as the slightly higher cost of them being larger.

        However, this is reduced on both counts the longer that a company manufactures the product. Nikon has had the FX production line going since the D3 and has supplemented that with the D700 and now the D3x – all that ‘practice’ makes the process quicker, more efficient and less costly.

        2. From a marketing perspective they would really p***-off the DX consumers if they stopped that immediately and said FX was the way to go. Especially after years of telling us different. They got away with it with the pro cameras because the clamour was there for the product – as we can see from all the replies to my post, the clamour most certainly isn’t there with prosumers and beginners.

        3. Economic downturn. There would initially be a real terms increase in price of all the cameras if they went immediately to FX unless they stripped the features out of the cameras – which Nikon won’t do. The time is not now, but as we pull out of the recession we will see FX sensor in at least a D90 style body – it will be no bigger than an F80 (Full Frame film camera which actually the D70/70s/80/90 all are designed from). The D40 style camera may need to be increased slightly in size but they may really shake the competition up and do that one first – producing a FX camera at low cost albeit more than the D40/40x initially.

        Why they will go FX across the range:

        1. Cost too, ironically. It does not make business sense to have multiple product lines and as soon as they can make it viable they will have the one FX (regardless whether they then proceed with a small scale MX line in future)

        2. Consumers will demand it. What starts in high end products always filters down. Consumers particularly over then past 25 years have come to expect more and more form each generation of product. Those that are still obsessed with MP will become reluctant to buy new toys when he limits of the DX senstor are reached – thats when marketing steps in and says “hey, lets go FX” The people who are all those who now say “I am happy with DX” suddenly forget this and jump on the new band wagon and on it goes…. on and on. In a way it is a sad reflection of us all as human beings – others will say it is progress. Me, I am undecided on that from a personal point of view but I do know that from a business perspective DX is done so I would not invest in it.

        There are many more reasons on both these points but I am going to collect some salmon from my gamekeeper to have for supper this evening so I must go.

        I am not going to reply to all your posted replies so just picked the first one.

        • MattM

          “What starts in high end products always filters down. Consumers particularly over then past 25 years have come to expect more and more form each generation of product.”

          Totally! That’s why all cars on the road have V12 engines!

          DX is a perfectly fine format, real technological improvements will happen in the areas of noise control, dynamic range, and sensitivity. Things that can be applied to all sensor sizes (much like variable valve timing in cars), not just one particular size.

          • Or rather like…

            Airbags, anti-lock brakes, three-point seat belts, seat-belt pre-tensioners, side impact bars, crumple zones to name but a few… even the new preemptive crash prevention system on the latest S class which will no doubt similarly filter down as air bags, crumple zones, et al did.

          • MattM

            Exactly, but those all have nothing to do with type of car. FX, DX, Medium Format, Large Format, Four Thirds. They are the type of car. Active D-Lighting, Hi ISO performance, Framerate, etc. They are the improvements that will trickle down.

    • Anonymous

      I got mine yesterday … and love it! Maybe DX will be dead in a couple of year – but for the time being my D300 is all what I need .. and I think for most of the photographers out there DX delivers sufficient quality .. it’s not FX/DX or whatever, it’s about the photographer ;-)

    • yrsued

      I guess you don’t shoot field sports eh???

      I do it for a living and I shoot with DX Cameras all the time, I own two D3′s and Three D300′s!! The D300s get a lot of use!! Too bad this lens didn’t come out at the beginning of the NCAA Basketball season, when I could have used it a lot, for close court action, ASU Wells Fargo Arena is a CAVE!!!

      Now, tell me what work you do in which DX is DEAD?? Are you a PRO?? I am, and have been for 24 years.

    • Henry Nikon Fan

      I do not know if you are correct or not, but I have assumed the same thing. I have sold all of my DX lenses except for the AF-S DX 18-200mm VR lens that is on my wife’s D90.

      I now use AF-S 14-24mm, AF-S 24-70mm and AF-S 70-200mm on a D300 which all work great. If and when the day comes that a semi-pro body will be made in FX only, I will be ready.

      It is speculation on my part, but this glass is superior and faster than the DX lenses anyway so I see no downside except for the cost.

      I have been contemplating this issue for the last year or so and would agree that DX will be dead for the semi pro camera soon, but will live on for years to come at the consumer level.

  • Rocky Road Ahead

    I WOULD THINK CAREFULLY BEFORE PURCHASING. WITH THE IMPENDING DISASTER COMING WE WILL ALL HAVE TO SHOOT FILM. ALSO THE DEPLETION OF WORLD RESOURCES TO FEED OUR INSATIABLE APPETITE FOE NEW TECHNOLOGY IS GOING TO BE LEGISLATED FOR SOON BY THE WORLD COUNCIL (OK, YOU DON’T KNOW ABOUT THE WORLD COUNCIL PROBABLY BECAUSE IT MEETS IN SECRET AND DECIDES IMPORTANT STUFF LIKE WHO WILL WIN ELECTIONS AND STUFF) BUT IT ALSO DECIDES WHAT IS ALLOWED ABOUT EVERYTHING ELSE TO. WE CAN’T KEEP USING OUR RESOURCES TO JUST HAVE A NEW CAMERA. SO I HAVE BOUGHT THREE FILM CAMERAS AND I PLAN TO BUY UP TO 4000 REALLY CHEAPLY THEN SELL THEM ON WHEN THE CRISIS HAPPENS. I MIGHT FOR MIT INTO A COMPANY SO IF ANYONE WANTS IN LET ME KNOW NOW COS I HAVE A LOT OF PEOPLE INTERESTED.

    • http://flickr.com/photos/friedtoast/ Fried Toast

      Every once in awhile, one of the crazies get out.

      Sorry folks. Nothing to see here. We’ll have ‘em rounded up and back in the pen by noontime.

  • Aleksey

    Get some help! World will not end tomorrow and DX will live! And, if disaster come, last thing you will do is shoot film. You will shoot rifle.
    Let’s live in peace, DX, FX or Film! (or Rifle!)

    • Maxime

      +1 exactly

  • Zoetmb

    I assume that Rocky is just having some fun. Else, he’s either very stoned or very nuts.

    I love people who believe that there is this secret “world order” organization who is controlling the world. There has never been so much disorder in the world as there is today. There are civil wars raging in at least five areas of the world, the EU is infighting about monetary policy, the U.S. was almost completely isolated from the rest of the world during the Bush years, etc. I’d sooner believe that there’s a secret “world DISORDER” organization.

    As for DX, I actually think the opposite is true: DX is going to have new life at the point where the cropped resolution on FX is the same as DX resolution today. So when you have a low-noise 28MP sensor on FX, that will provide the equivalent of today’s 12.3MP on the DX crop and at that point, DX lenses will once again be very viable on an FX body, especially when “reach” is desired.

    Furthermore, I think there’s going to be at least one more round of high-end DX bodies (the D400) and if currencies remain week against the Yen for the next few years, I think we’ll even see a DX D500. Nikon will not abandon DX until the equivalent of the D700 can sell for the price of a D300. And at the lower end, we’re at least five years away before FX sensors can be priced low enough to replace the D40-50-60-80-90 lines. And even then, there’s always going to be a market for smaller, lighter bodies and that’s harder to do with an FX sensor (although not impossible if we look back to film days and cameras like the Olympus OM-1.)

  • low

    fx users seem to have more money than sense these days! lol

    • Anonymous

      yeah, gearheads work up to 3 jobs just to buy cameras and lenses just to take pictures of their equipment for flickr.

      • one job mate

        no, precisely because i have only one job i make my money go further longer. if i buy dx i need to replace in a few years. its like the saying goes “poor people pay twice for everything” the poor buy cheaper boots – they wear out sooner and need replaced. i buy brasher boots and they last the better part of 20 years.

        i have moved straight from film (TRUE RAW) to FX and would not have shifted had FX not come along but of course it had to as Canon was making nikon look lame at that time – like a three legged dog with worms.

        the slightly higher cost of going FX now rather than DX will be cancelled by me not having to make another format change in a few years at which point my DX gear would be worth two cups of coffee and a muffin (blueberry).

        • David Hsieh

          I wouldn’t think too far in the future, electronics gets old real quick. Upgrability point is kinda moot. God knows, maybe FX will be soon be super seeded with HX, “huge frame” :P

  • Cjr

    Got mine this friday in sweden. Nice fast lens although I would like even more FX-compatible.

  • jettblack

    I was in the mall today so I stopped in at a Ritz just for the heck of it. When I inquired about when they expected to get this lens in, I apparently took them by surprise. They had no idea that this lens was coming out!!!

    No wonder Ritz is in trouble. They really dont have a clue.

    • Anon

      It’s totally understandable that the Ritz associate didn’t know the lens was coming out. Pre-orders simply weren’t set up for this lens and associates weren’t made aware of it’s status because we’ve got other priorities for the time being.

      We’ve been working hard with Canikon to get all our big sellers back in stock (D90, D60, 50D, 18-55VR + 55-200VR, 50mm f/1.8) and to sell current P&S models to make room for the new spring stock arriving later this month. The 35mm DX is going to be a great add-on to D60 and D90 sales when we receive it, but it’s not an item in huge demand like the 5D2 or D300 were where you had to pre-order one to receive it anywhere near the ship date.

  • Anonymous

    okay now can anybody give us a good explantation for “DX is dead!”…

    the question is, WHY did nikon came out with D40, D40X, D60, D90, and D300 after D300 and FX D3′s introduction?

    WHY did nikon came out with 16-85mm VR DX, 18-105mm VR DX, then 35mm 1.8 DX?

    WHY did nikon and apple keep updating the camera compatibility with the latest DX cameras?

    DID nikon said something like “we will stop continuing the DX line, drastically!”?

    WHERE is your source to prove that DX is dead? ((no useless sources from gearheads, ken rockwell, thom hogan, etc etc))

    let’s see what you have to say.

    • http://www.flickr.com/photos/sooperkuh/ sooperkuh

      The D40, D40X, D60, D90, and D300 are as dead as DX. These are zombiecams ;)

      • Anonymous

        thats one hell of a weak response.

        • yrsued

          Not weak, but…..

          Never mind!!

          I hhave tons of Images paid and Published, that I’ve shot with one of my three D300′s!! They are great bodies, and if you know how to use them… Who knows??

          • Anonymous

            “one of my D300′s”

            good way to show off the fact you’re a gearhead :)

          • Kitty Shark

            Why do you need three bodies? I work in movie industry but do alot of stills work across the world for studios and locations work and have never needed more than one camera at a time and I am a woman so should be able to multi-task if needed with maybe ten or fifteen cameras at once but why would I need to. SLRs have interchangable lenses so I don’t need to carry lots of cameras.

    • Kitty Shark

      No, but they did say the “at this time we will be continuing with both formats, DX and FX.” Sounds confidence inspiring for all you DX’ers until you remember their statements even in the months leading up to the D3 (which is too big and cumbersome by the way).

      Statements like: “Nikon is comitted to the DX format across its range of cameras and will not be introducing any other format st this time or in the foreseeable future”. Last stated, by a Nikon UK executive only weeks before D3 launch.

      I see no DX format in under 5 years.

      • yrsued

        I own three bodies because……

        1) I use them!! I set up several remote units downrange during a Pistol match, that I shoot for several Corporate Clients

        2) D300′s are cheap, they take a bullet, I buy another one

        3) I use them!!!

        4) I can!!

        Gearhead?? If I can, I do!!

        Did I mention my two D3′s??

        This is what I make a living with!!

        This puts food on my table, it will put my kids through College, why should I skimp on the tools that help me make money??

        Because it bothers some of you??

        Too bad!!

        • yrsued

          I forgot:

          5) Backups, NPS Covers me, but they are no required to cover me all the time. It is my responsibility to have backups, not NPS or Nikon, so I have backups for everything I own!! Even my most used lenses. A fellow shooter,(For SI) carries Twelve D3′s at a basketball game!! I only carry 3 bodies there!!

          • John II

            Plenty of tools to blame when his images turn out to be a disaster then? I have never heard anything so – well this is a public forum and children may read so I won’t write it. But anyone who even thinks they need 12 cameras at a sports game or anywhere else, even if they are a “pro” needs help.

            And to think we have homeless people on our streets and half the world starving. You know something, its actually quite disgusting and wasteful.

  • MB

    In the last couple of posts I have seen people yelling, being rude and angry to each other and over what? FX, DX or film cameras!
    Now, how silly is that! And nobody seams to remember what the posts are really about.
    Let’s take this post for example. It is about newest and wonderful little prime lens from Nikon. Yes it is DX but is worth every penny as far as I know. And instead of sharing our experience and opinions on that some of us are fighting over something totally irrelevant.
    And what about all those point and shoot camera users? Should we kill them all, or consider them stupid? Let me remind you that there is 10 times more small point and shoot cameras sold then there are SLRs, FX, film and DX together. Is it possible that there are so many stupid people in the world? Not to mention all those shooting pictures with their mobile phones.
    Please excuse me for being rude now, but I think that those people making all that noise here are really frustrated because they are not able to make decent picture no matter what format or camera they are using.
    Photography is an art, and an art should really give you creative satisfaction and ultimately make you a better man, everything else is unimportant.

    • http://flickr.com/photos/friedtoast/ Fried Toast

      Glad *someone* around here’s actually plugged their brain in and warmed it up. I swear some of the ppl around here tossed their brains and are just sloshin’ around w/ braincases full o’ goo.

      • Anonymous

        actually, gearheads and anybody else related always argue over the greatest, newest, and latest toys, so, they say FX is way way way better just because it’s a new technology.

        • Cole

          There’s also the “if you spend more money on it obviously it’s better” camp — the equipment isn’t what makes the photographer. Just look at the folks winning prizes and whatnot for pictures taken on holga cameras, which have plastic lenses fer chrissakes.

  • Heretics

    Yes MB, you are right, lets kill all the point and shot users – heretics and unbelievers they are, photographers they are not.

    I like your post best today. you have much wisdom. but how, pray tell, can we begin the task? there are many point and shoot users out there.

    what about the camera phone users? will we define them as point and shoot too?

    do you ever use the force? i am typing this without touching the keyboard… only using my thought waves… i once drove my car this way – for a short distance.

    • Kitty Shark

      Er? why do we have to kill the point and shooters? OK some of them are really quite unattractive and don’t wash often but still it seems a bit ‘out there’ to kill them.

  • misty_monsoon

    Amazon is showing in stock from a 3rd party merchant.

  • UF

    Oh please – is this news? What have you come to? How about that this was one of the worst PMA’s ever. Maybe I’ll see a story, “Nikon fans OVERWHELMED by 50th anniversary lens mount press release. Worldwide press release that is.

    How about, “Overpriced D3X stock piles up in dealers that take a chance stocking the expensive dead albatross”? Are these camera stores pr car showroom. Buy yours off Amazon. Your dealer won’t have one for you.

    No one cares about the stock situation on a less than 200 buck half frame lens. Lets have a look at PC-E build issues instead.

    • http://nikonrumors.com/ [NR] admin

      this is your own opinion, of course people care when this new lens will be available in stock – if you don’t, it doesn’t mean no one does.

      • Henry Nikon Fan

        I totally agree with the Administrator, there are many post on the site that I either do not read or only read a little. This is all based on what I am personally interested in. In most cases, not all people are interested in everything so why be criticle of something that you are not interested in when others may be.

        If you are not interested, simply don’t read it. That is what I do!

    • Kitty Shark

      News is news… I may turn on the news on TV and be interested or not in the stories they are running. Mostly I am not – its usually trash and the BBC used to be so good at news delivery but sometimes I am – like over the past month or so with the bush fires in my home state of Victoria back home in Oz.

      News is posted – you can read or not, or move on to something that does interest you.

    • Greg Tommers

      Actually, I’m interested and so are lots of others.

      Seems like a lot of FX shooters are jealous of this lens. Who can blame them considering this lens is better optically (and substantially cheaper) than any of the FX options?

      • John

        Jealous. Have you looked through an FX finder? DX in real terms – go do the measurements if you like is actually less than half the FX frame size. Once you make the move, you wonder how you ever managed without it. I guess newbies who never experienced real photography with 35mm cameras don’t mind peering into a tiny rectangle.

        • Greg Tommers

          In all seriousness, you sound like a newbie

          • UF

            Wow, this site is getting to be a lot like Nikonians. I guess I should have wrote “praise Nikon”. The fanboys like that one.

          • Steve

            UF, it has nothing to do with being a “Nikon fanboy”

            Common sense dictates that Nikon won’t drop a product line that makes up 95% of their DSLR market, especially given that consumer spending is likely to be way down over the next 5 years. It will always cost Nikon way more to manufacturer FX sensors so the DX line will always be the value proposition.

            Working pros who have the highest standards with image quality shoot medium/large format, not FX.

  • thank you

    I love nikon camera and lense. they are good

  • Anonymous

    I got mine on March 6th. I’am from Germany.

  • Crabby

    I think that showing some of the postings above to potential advertisers would get this site lots of ads for anti-anxiety drugs and the like.

  • Richard

    Yes. I agree with the general consensus here on the postings on this site. Digital is finished. The economic decline has hit at the wrong time in events and there is little possibility that it will regain momentum.

    Good thing is though if you want a 35mm film camera, they are ultra cheap at minute.

    Yeah, that other poster is right, digital was fun while it lasted, but maybe we can get back to taking serious photos now with a real artists medium.

  • http://www.matteocuzzola.com Matteo

    I want it!

    • John

      Why? What good will it be in a few years when everything is DX? A wide move would be to buy the 50mm if you don’t have it – in preparation for the switchover.

      • John

        obviously that is supposed to read “when everything is FX” typo in my exasperation at how illogical so many people are being. maybe y’all just have too much money to throw around.

  • http://www.myspace.com/murderattheregistry Tomasz

    My sample arrived on saturday in Germany … looking fine so far! :)

  • THE TRUTH ABOUT DX

    I’ve long let everyone know that megapixels are a scam measurement devised by camera marketers to exaggerate the very small differences in camera resolution. Instead of counting the pixels in one dimension, camera makers instead multiply horizontal and vertical together to double the apparent percentage difference between today’s and yesterday’s otherwise identical camera models.

    For instance, a 10MP camera sounds twice a good as a 6MP camera. A 6MP DSLR file is 3,008 x 2,000 pixels, and a 10 MP DSLR image is merely 3,883 x 2,582. Is 3,883 much bigger than 3,008? No, but multiplying the horizontal and vertical together you get 10MP instead of 6MP makes the newer camera sound like a big deal.

    Now we get to the puny half-frame sensors that have been pawned off on amateurs since 1999.

    We all know about the crop factor, but you’ll never see any camera company multiply the horizontal and vertical crop factors together to show you the actual sensor size.

    Nikon’s DX has a 1.52x crop factor. That means the DX sensor’s area is only 1/(1.52 x 1.52), or 1/2.3, or less than half the size of a full-frame sensor!

    DX is less than a half-frame sensor! I’ve been scammed! All these years I figured 1.5x was no big deal.

    Also notice how the scammers use the reciprocal, so instead of saying a sensor is 0.67x the proper size, they’ve instead been saying it’s 1.5x, which sounds like it’s bigger. This is classic marketing.

    So here goes:

    Canon 1.3x
    1.255x
    63%

    Leica M8
    1.33x
    57%

    Nikon DX
    1.523x
    43%

    Canon 1.6x
    1.622x
    38%

    Sigma
    1.7x
    35%

    4:3 System
    2x
    25%

    So as you can see DX is a total scam and we have all been had – whatever cropped system we use. FX will be the only format for Nikon with five years and that means there is no point in buying this lens. You will have to replace it probably as soon as 2011.

    The amazing thing is that ANYBODY still buys DX cameras to need DX lenses. Who would do this knowing everything that we know. More amazing still is why everyone still shoots digital when you can have much better quality from Real Raw – 35mm film – and a full frame body such as an F4/F100/F5 for less than $400. No computer needed just create great works of art. Of course if you just want to play at taking snaps then I suppose digital is OK. That’s right folks for less than the price of a Canon IXUS compact you can be shooting incredible images on a full frame REAL RAW camera.

    Digital is SO finished now except for PJs and sports shooters. I think the DX lens line will start to be wound up mid to late 2010 as more of us go back to the art of photography in it true form and as the depression deepens. We could get some great BW shots of poor people in our formerly rich country as the tent cities go up in the major conurbations.

    • Joe R
      • Tony G

        Where does he claim credit for it? The post is under a heading so maybe KR posted it or someone copied and pasted. If they had put their name on it like Tony G or Joe R I would see your point and say fair play t’you.

        • Jason

          I’m guessing it’s Ken, judging by the extra text at the bottom, which sounds exactly like him :) The funny thing is even Ken is buying this lens, because he knows that even though digital cameras fail in many ways up against film, they still have their purpose. For instance, if I have a group of friends and family over, I can have a mini-album posted on Picasa the next day.

          If you just want to take pictures, buy whatever you want. If you buy digital, realize that whatever you have is going to be “obsolete” soon (obsolete in quotes because the dang thing will always work as well as ever).

          As for me, I lack the eye to see the ways in which film is better, color-wise. (Maybe because I’m slightly colorblind, who knows.) I see film shots with great color and film shots with terrible color. Film will never match digital in a one key area though: Instant results (every digital camera is a Polaroid, yay!). I don’t care how quickly or professionally some lab can process my film, I still don’t want to go to the post office!

          If you want your photos on the wall of a museum, yeah they might turn you away if you aren’t using film. But even if you are, they are going to turn you away for having crappy pictures. So use digital cameras to learn. Don’t buy the most advanced, expensive, and latest gear, just go out and learn. Take advantage of that souped-up “Polaroid” to become a museum-worthy photographer. Then worry about why film is better.

        • dan

          he didn’t attribute it so it would be stealing since he is not stating the author.

          • Brian

            Unless it was KR who posted it. Surely he doesn’t need to attribute his own work to himself. I mean I know he is all important but I bet even he doesn’t want to credit himself to all his work all the time. He has his website to do that.

            Reading the link and the post above it isn’t a straight cut and paste and the additional parts that have been added certainly ‘sound’ like Ken, so I am going to take a $5 bet with myself that it was KR that posted it.

        • http://www.joerodricks.com Joe R.

          The MLA handbook says you should cite yourself if you’re referring to research and not life experiences. The simple arithmetic done in the above passage is, be definition, research. Therefore, common practice is to cite yourself. There’s no plagiarism liability, but it is common practice (in the rare even you do original research and refer to it later).

          That said, my comment does come across as jerky and I didn’t meant that.

          • hmmm

            the MLA handbook is a suggestion for when you are writing formaly. a comment’s box on a message blog needs no references in MLA format whatsoever. references in the form of links are useful for when posting an entire ariticle would be too long.

    • DaveH

      Sweet nibblets no.
      If you think there is any chance that I am going back to film you are crazy. It would add an hour of driving a night as a run back to the paper. Toss everything in the soup and run upstairs to the editor to tell him I have a good vertical shot driving the lane and I’ll be back upstairs in about a half hour while copy scribbles up a story for the typesetter. Half hour later I get yelled at because I have a landscape under the basket that is better but can’t be used because the spot is set for vert.
      I’ll be using digital thanks. Film is great if I want something to put on my wall, but I need the speed, and that few hours for “Real Raw” are WAY past deadline.
      For vacation I will use digital as well because I really like being able to check the shot to see the distracting element I didn’t notice during the shot, or the bad expression I missed.
      As for this lens, I pre-ordered it once it hit Adorama. It sounded like a bargain to me at $200 bucks. Sure, I could spend 3 times that and get an FX one, but why would I right now. Why do I need to bet the market that FX will rule. Sure, it probably will, but until it does why do I need to throw away my DX gear that works great. My 8 frames a second on my D2Hs will still be 8 FPS tomorrow. For what I do, this lens is a perfect fit. For those who need to scream that it is a waste of money to by DX now, well don’t buy it. For those that think this would be a great little lens to add to the collection, toss down your $200. Arguing formats and films and stuff does not make pictures. You would do better discussing composition than this.

      • Jason

        He acknowledged that photo journalism needs digital.

        • DaveH

          And I am acknowledging that I will be shooting digital DX even when I am not shooting at the paper. And isn’t that what the whole argument going on is about? People choosing with their wallets what format fits them the best? When I read the specs on this it was just the lens I wanted, and so I ordered it. The people yelling how it is not what they wanted are a bit wacko in my mind. I was not yelling when Nikon released new FX capable lenses with the D3. I was thinking cool, but out of my price range and not what I needed right then. I get a nice “normalish” lens and the FX guys freak. I think this one will be a huge seller, but that does not matter to me. All I care is that I want my order to come in so I can plop it on one of my little cameras to play with it. Have a good day!

  • paul rybolt

    My first shipment arrives today.

  • Wiilyb

    Why are there still google ads for scam artists on NR? These guys will never deliver a camera for half price and take payment by wire only. It makes NR look bad to have these ads.

    • http://nikonrumors.com/ [NR] admin

      give me an URL and I will block it – I do not have control what google will push to my blog

      • Wiilyb

        entac-direct.com is a blatant rip off of Future Shop in Canada which is owned by BestBuy. Future Shop is 100% legit and has dozens of stores in Canada.

  • http://flickr.com/photos/friedtoast/ Fried Toast

    Literally amazing at the number of crackheads that hang out here. Speaking of ads, I think some anti-drug ads might do some good. Some of the people in here need serious help.

    All the morons crying about DX is dead, DX is worthless, blah blah blah haven’t keyed into the fact that DX is paying the bills.

    Rellllllllllllllllllax, people. Go out and take pictures. Or did you forget that’s what your camera’s for?

  • tommy boy

    status today is ‘ready for shipment’ so I hopefully will get it tomorrow :P

  • Ricky G

    Some people will keep their toy DX cameras and lenses but make no mistake about it. DX is toast. It’s dead, Jim. Shuttering off this mortal coil. Photographing the farm. Off to that big lab in the sky. Kicking the photobucket and joining Laser Discs, Pet Rocks, The Vic 20, and the AMC Pacer as a semi-fond techno memory. Okay, maybe not the Pet Rocks, but the Pacer was cool!

    And there you have it.

  • Bernie Bernbaum

    Ricky, you are totally on the ball… eventually Nikon and Canon sensors will all be FX and all about the same. Like the “old” days of 35mm film, we’ll buy cameras based on ergonomics, build quality and speed. Higher end models will get sensor tweaks of course, but they will mean much less than they do now. Within a few years a thousand dollar D90 type DSLR will have a better full sized sensor than is currently in the D3x. These are good times, but better ones lay ahead. DX is dead, long live FX.

  • Photo Prince

    Great to see this debate here. Been having the same arguments with a few people lately until they saw sense. As the FX sensors get cheaper to build, the DX sensor will go the way of the Sinclair C5, the Atari, those space-hoppers etc.

    Theres no logic in the DX sensor any more and Nikon know it. An FX sensor gives the type of images everyone wants and it can even mimic the 1.5 crop factor if desired. In fact it can do an even deeper crop with a high MP sensor and easily beat any current DX based cameras.

    • Anonymous

      “until they saw sense” i.e. decided to agree with you to escape your arrogant myopic economically-flawed opinions.

      Having read this thread I see DX people as normal, and FX people as a bunch of arrogant t*ssers.

      I’d hate to buy an FX camera now.

  • Totally!

    I mean I talked to my gardeners third cousin today in the hairdressers and he said that he’d overheard some Nikon and Canon execs smoking and talking at the bus stop about how they’re planning to use SWAT teams to hunt down all of the registered APS-C and DX camera owners, to confiscate their cameras and force them to choose between FX and 25 years hard labour (crushing used DX/APS-C sensors with hammers) in a former Siberian Gulag that Nikon have bought and have called DX101 – don’t check Google Earth – it aint on any map and the Russians say that the area is a special sanctuary for rare soviet tank driving goats and cannot be entered by normal people, only specialist goat herders found in Ukraine except that a by-law prevents any Ukrainian citizen entering the area. (post soviet squabble I think).

    I am scared – Ray Bradbury’s Fahrenheit 451 is kinda coming true.

  • Jesus Fernandez

    You are all being wrong. There is new format going to be – going to mimic the widescreen format the movies. My Uncle tells me and he is half Italian half Sapanish and his grandfather (myggf) owned a camera shop in Milano just after World War 2 until he retired in 1964 so totally knew his stuff and my Uncle knew him when he was littler boy.

  • JC

    Maybe when everything Nikon sells is FX, DX equipments will worth even more. :P

    Also, not everyone is ready to dump thousands of dollar into photography. DX will be dead only if there is a $400 FX camera. I got my D40 for $280, can’t beat that.

  • Matt

    Excellent lens! Picked one up last week, here in Sweden. Used it during the weekend and I tell you, it’s going to remain attached to my D40 for the foreseeable future. :)

  • Tony G

    No the poster is right DX is toast – burned toast at that. No future. Think people who buy in to it now, or anyone who has bought into it say since 2007 is a bit like a coach company owner who decided that “yes” they would buy another fleet of horses and coaches after Daimler invented the motor car in 1886.

    • Gustav

      Meanwhile professionals everywhere are making lots of money today with their DX gear.

    • Greg Tommers

      Actually, based on where the economy is going, FX is much more likely to die than DX.

      DX makes up 90+% of Nikon’s market. Thinking it’s going to die is just naive.

      • God

        No, not once you have used FX. Its like having a solid old F4 again. As another poster added below and I concurred, Sony will really push on this and Nikon and Canon will be forced to move to FX in the lower range, otherwise it will appear to all and sundry that Sony is ahead of the game – whether they really are or not. Bit like when Canon had the only FF DSLR and Nikon seemed like it was living in the iron age when Canon was in the nuclear age.

        • Steve

          We’ll see.

          Maybe Sony won’t because they’ll lose tons of money selling an FX camera for a cheap price point.

          Or maybe they will introduce a cheap FX camera but most consumers won’t care.

          • Gregorzy

            Not if they sell enough of them. They already manage to make a profit and sell their A900 (when I last checked the reputable UK/ European websites) at less than the D700 and the A900 is more of a D3x challenger than D700 rival.

            Nikon do have a pretty large margin on their cameras for a business of that size so they can be undercut pretty severely.

          • dan

            Since I cant reply to Gregorzy I am replying here.

            #1 if you sell enough of something you will make a profit? If you sell at a loss that will not bring you profit at all. I feel like Sony is dumping at time. Note: this is what I feel, no proof of it. But yea they make a nice camera.

            #2 How do you know they are making a profit?

  • Matthew Respario

    I like it – DX is toast – well maybe it is but I shoot film so who cares? I got the new 50mm AFS which works on my film body AND will be perfect when the first $1000 FX camera comes along and buy one – probably later this year/early 2010.

    By the way the D400 looks to have been hobbled due to market conditions. Got this on good authority. D400 may well be how they badge the first FX $1000 camera in 2010 that I mentioned. That is not for certain but the rumored camera which was only ever a possible introduction anyway is on indefinite HOLD. FACT!

    • Henry Nikon Fan

      You very well could be right about the D400 being a FX body, but I doubt that it would be at $1,000. Since the D300 started at $1,800 the D400 FX or DX will more than likely be at least $2,000, especially when you consider the current Yen to Dollar.

  • Julian

    In my opinion, competitive pressure from the underdogs Olympus and esp. Sony will introduce FX into mid to low end consumer bodies ealier than Nikon and even Canon might want to. I.e. Nikon’s hand will be forced on this one.

    That said, it is always about price point and Nikon will use whichever sensor provides the lowest price point for an entry level DSLR to capture the P&S upgrade market. That will still be DX for quite a while i.e. this lens will sell well.

    • God

      Fair point. If the Sony sensor was just a bit better I would have swung that way rather than D700. Gotta say I was impressed with the ergonomics of the A900 and it was cheaper by £49 than D700 when I bought my D700.

      I think Sony will really push on this. They want market share and they have the marketing might to do it. Even if the Sony sensor was not as good as Nikon, they may well stick one in a ‘cheap’ body just for the marketing brownie points. If they could have the first sub £1000 Full Frame DSLR, that’d be quite a coup – particularly as alot of younger people do not have the emotional links to Nikon and Canon that those aged 30 and up do.

      In fact the younger generation know brands such as Sony and Samsung and trust them (rightly or wrongly) more than those such as Nikon.

      Great example is if you look at the sales figures for the IDENTICAL Pentax and Samsung DSLR’s. Samsung way outsells the Pentax version – but if you break it down, more Pentax branded versions are sold to males over the age of 45 than the Samsung – though not enough to swing the total figures! Younger people know and trust Samsung… their mobile phone is probably Samsung, their flatscreen TV is likely Samsung… on and on….

      Marketing is such fun!

      • MattM

        Lol, yeah, my phone and my LCD TV are both samsung… but my camera is a Nikon. I think my generation is more likely to spend hours online researching things before we buy them. We are the reason Ritz is filing Ch 11 and Circuit City is gone.

        And I’m darn proud of that.

        • Peter

          You underestimate the power of marketing! Are you still suing a LCD TV – so not cool, very 2004!

    • MattM

      [sarcasm]You all are wrong, large format sensors are the way of the future. FX will be obsolete by Fall. Bigger is always better. All point and shoot cameras will be the size of clipboards and will have 11×14 large format sensors on them. FX will be used only in disposable cameras that you buy in bulk at costco for your wedding. [/sarcasm]

      It’s a freaking sensor size, are people kidding? This is ridiculous. Saying that one sensor size will obsolete another is like saying ginormous gaudy bro trucks will obsolete compact cars, or that 19 inch laptops will obsolete 12.1 inch laptops.

      • Julian

        Because physical sensor size is mostly hidden from consumers — most current bodies should be able to do FX and DX — benefits pitched to potential customers would include even higher pixel counts, wider angles (improved angle of view), increased low light capability (higher ISO) etc.

        In my opinion this then is rather analogous to how HDTV has replaced standard def plasmas, LCDs and CRT TVs over the last couple of years. The opporunity to pitch and sell this incremental improvement will be irresistable to marketers and consumer buyers as this is replacement and not a new/separate market segment.

        As you indicated sarcastically, why then should the manufacturers stop at FX? Its likely that production improvements over the next few years will increase the yield and reliability of even larger format sensors that will amplify the above benefits and unlock new features/opportunities.

        Remember that unlike film that required standard sizes so that you could develop anywhere, DSLRs sensor size can be anything for a given camera and is only limited by ergonomics, and costs (incl lenses)for the particular market segment.

        I can easily imagine some manufacturer launching a “larger” square or 4:5 sensor that would still fit in the image circles of their current 35mm format lenses.

  • yrsued

    JohnII

    !2 Cameras??

    OK!!
    NCAA Basketball!!

    Two Baskets

    Two Bodies Behind the Backboard, One Vertical, One Horizontal, on each side (4 bodies)

    Two Bodies on the sides of the basket/Stand, One Vertical, one Horizontal, Two Sides, (4 Bodies)

    Each side has One Body to trip the 4 Bodies on each basket via Hard Wire, that makes it 10 Bodies then one bodyfor Mid Court and One Body for Far Court

    12 Bodies!!

    http://www.sportsshooter.com/news/2159

    http://www.sportsshooter.com/members.html?id=2565

    Maybe that is why John shoots for SI!!!

  • yrsued

    John II

    OK, let me break this out for you!!

    Two Baskets on a Basketball Game

    Each Basket has 4 Remote Bodies hard Wired and One Trip Camera to activate the other four

    The remotes:

    Two behind the backboard One Vertical, One Horizontal
    Two on each side, On Vertical, One Horizontal
    One Low Remote on the floor on each side

    One Body for Far Court

    One Body for Mid Court

    Now, this is why John shoots for SI!!

    http://www.sportsshooter.com/members.html?id=2565

    http://www.sportsshooter.com/news/2159

    And JohnII

    McDonough shoots for SI, I don’t know who pays for his gear, but if you feel that many folks go homeless, maybe you should give 90% of your salary to end that problem, and not blame the rest of us that work for a living and out families!!

    I know I do my part and and Give, what I can!

    This is the American way!! It’s a democracy and it’s capitalism, we at not a socialist republic, at least not yet!!

    • Madoff on his yacht

      Capitalism eh? Well, I suppose it creates Nikon cameras but what else has it achieved? Canon – yuk!

      Still, made me a gazillionaire – at everyone else’s expense. Oh well, just don’t tell anyone I was here my friends and I will send you $1 to share amongst yourselves.

      Chin, chin!

    • John II

      I have no money so 90% of nothing is even less than nothing – its, like, negative wealth. I am very poor and have take loaners from Nikon when I want to photographize… if you want to lend me one of your D300′s permanently though – since, like you say they are so cheap anyway, then please let me know.

  • RJ

    I love it how when a post is up for long enough it just gives people time to argue! Always enjoy reading the person with a ridiculous opinion being shouted down by others! :-)

    • Withnail

      You’re right… isn’t it the best! Of course you just know that sometimes the person with the ‘ludicrous’ opinion is playing devil’s advocate and probably doesn’t believe everything they write but its fun imagining the faces and expressions of the furious responders – who certainly are sometimes incandescent with rage!

      My favourite days on this site are when a hot topic is discussed. I reckon site traffic must go up a bit on those days.

  • http://www.flickr.com/photos/the_wrath_of_khan/ TWoK

    The 35/1.8 DX works just find on the D700 in FX mode. I have several shots up from it. My friend has a ton of shots up from his 35/1.8G DX on his D70s: http://www.flickr.com/photos/31732618@N07/

  • Gregorzy

    I have been listening to Ken Rockwell’s podcast. He sounds exactly like I expected him too. How funny! Usually, like when you speak to someone on the phone you never really guess correctly how they look – usually you guess they are this really hot chick and they are not at all. But Ken sounds exactly like I expected. Now when I read his website or think about his helpful advice to us mere mortal photographers I can hear his voice in my head – sort of like when John Malkovich hears John Cusack in his own head in BEING JOHN MALKOVICH.

    Any budding movie makers with a D90 out there? We could make….

    “Being Ken Rockwell – Inside a Genius”.

    Starring Ken Rockwell as Ken Rockwell, co-starring Ken Rockwell, with Ken Rockwell, and a very special guest appearance by Ken Rockwell’s left handed F100 which he “doesn’t own and will one day have to give back to Nikon”

    Admin will delete this I think but I think its funny, I really hear his voice in my head now! Bizarre!

    • http://nikonrumors.com/ [NR] admin

      no, I will not delete it – you did not offend anybody, yes you comment is off topic – I still don’t understand why Ken’s name is present in any other post…

  • Anon

    I don’t see why people are rubbishing John and his 12 bodies – at the end of the day, it’s what he chooses to get the job done, and SI is not about to go out of business… so fair play to him.

    Regarding the 35mm/1.8G and FX/DX – yeah, I reckon all cameras will be FX in a few years. And for that reason I won’t buy a 35mm/1.8G – if I needed one, I’d get a 35/2 instead. I will keep my 18-200 for walk-around vacation value. Otherwise, I’ll buy FX.

    • Greg Tommers

      You reckon?

      Here’s what Thom Hogan has to say on the matter:

      “From both a financial and quality standpoint, true consumer DSLRs won’t support larger sensors for a long, long time, if ever. That’s because the quality is good enough already at the smaller size and the smaller size provides an 8x or higher improvement on cost for the most expensive part in the camera. The vast majority of the market wants sub-US$500 DSLRs, and that requires DX sensors. “

    • yrsued

      People bash on Pros like John because they are jealous!!

      John is a very talented shooter and has a Dream job. And BTW, he’s a great guy to boot!! I shot alongside him at a ASU Basketball game when he was shooting a feature on James Harden. I hope to work with him again.

      Y

      • Artisan

        No, its because when you meet “pro” photographers – I used the term with caution – they tend to prove the old adage;

        “Whats the difference between two artists and two photographers?” Two artists can get together without discussing brushes!”

        To me all photographers who claim to be pro are just the drop outs from art college who lacked the talent to be real artists. There are a few exceptions that I meet out of the hundreds I meet every year and funnily enough they all found photography after they had learned the true arts – watercolours, oils, any of the other mediums where talent and skill are prerequisites really.

        Hey, maybe your pro friend is one of the good ones but I don’t think that he is bashed because he is a pro or has “has a dream job” (who cares? – I have spent 17 years traveling around the world working where I can and living in 67 countries – that’s a dream job to some people, for others their dream is corporate tax law!)

        Pro photographers in 99% of cases have huge egos which is their attempt at disguising the, usually, monumental lack of actual talent or skill.

        Photography is the easiest of the arts to master – many artists refuse to even consider photography a true art in its own right. I tend to concur with that view – when I capture images, I am doing very little to create, I am merely documenting.

  • JC

    Why no one replay my post? I guess I will say it again.

    DX is not dead unless someone can make a FX at the size and price of a D60.

    It’s like saying Honda is going to go bankrupt because BMW makes better car.

    • Anonymous

      …and that D60/D90 FX camera must be able to do at least 10MP in DX crop mode so I can keep using my lenses and get the same image quality that I get with my D90.

      What’s the definition if DX dying anyway ? Nikon stop making dx bodies ? Lenses ? The D3X is dx compatible and I have (almost) all the lenses I’d like so for me, Dx will always continue.

  • http://www.joerodricks.com Joe R.

    Why don’t I want DX? I had a D50 and moved to a D300. I will most likely have my D300 until it dies or there is a sub $1000 body significantly better than it.

    I have the 18-55mm which is a DX. I have the 55-200mm which is DX. I have the 50 1.8 which is full frame lens. I plan on getting this 35mm DX. You’ll note that it’s only $500-600 worth of glass. Which is all I need.

    DX is easier to engineer and usually cheaper to build. I don’t particularly care about having “good” glass Most of the time I shoot at f/8-f/11so even fast glass is really worth it to me.

    There is no one on this site that can tell the difference between a shot using a D300 and a 55-200 at say 100mm and f/8 and a D3 with a 70-200 at 100mm at f/8. You can’t tell. You could plan the shot to emphasize the differences but in normal shoot, me as an avid hobbyist, will see no difference.

    Why should I plan for FX glass when all I need is DX? I don’t have $1000+ to spend on every lens. Because of the DX format, I have the range I need, and some fast glass, at a price I could pay.

    I picked up digital photography because I can afford it. I can’t afford to shoot film. I can’t afford fast FX glass. I can afford a DX body and DX glass. Nikon has made $2500 from me in the past two years. Had they moved from 35mm film to a FX sensor, I likely wouldn’t be able to shoot. I’m thankful for DX. I’m not a Pro and may never sell a print. But I love shooting.

    • Eric

      Let’s move your comparison indoors or to nighttime and see if we can’t spot the difference. =)

    • Artisan

      Oh yes you can tell the difference. You picked one of Nikon’s sharpest lenses – prime or zoom – to compare with a el cheapo chinese/thai made plastic fantastic toy. Had you picked a comparable lens I would have been with you but not the 70-200 VR, not at any aperture!

      You can buy cheap full frame glass too and expensive DX. You can always spot the newbies and those who have only taken photos since the digital revolution – the missing knowledge shines through sometimes.

      e.g. Nikon 70 – 300 VRII – made in Thailand and very cheap £299 or less and FULL FRAME (works on DX too of course)

      Nikon 17 – 55 f2.8 DX – slightly cheaper now but still £800 – 900 and up.

      Nikon 12-24 f4 DX – again slightly cheaper now – infact saw one at £499 but was a staggering £1000 when introduced!

      NEW Nikon 50mm AFS – fantastic FF lens and my favourite lens on my D700 – again works on DX too though. Again a – relatively – cheap lens.

      The price decreases on the Pro DX lenses since 2007 though do indicate that it is a dying format and the fact that only ‘toy’ DX lenses have been introduced for the past few years indicated this too.

      Pick up the 17-55 and – once you catch your breath – bow in awe at its solid metal construction and the focus/zoom rings that don’t turn… they GLIDE! with the smoothness that a V8 Mercedes car accelerates.

  • hmmm

    DX certainly will hang around in the budget and consumer markets. But I’m sure FX bodies will eventually reach the pricepoints of the D300 and eventually that of the D90. By then DX will be a format delegated to other purposes in nikon’s strategy. Maybe their higher end coolpix line.

  • http://www.flickr.com/protonico Luis Vargas

    You guys are nuts. I´m just buying it.

    Period.

  • tommy boy

    crazy thread! I got mine today :D

  • Bebe

    I learned on film – using Minolta cameras. I worked my way up to the F4s and I used it for years.

    When digital came along, I hated it. It was lousy in low light. The cameras were way too expensive for the cheap build quality. I hated the D70. I hated the D200. I hated the DX crop factor. I never bought a single DX lens because I always knew they were inferior.

    Those who learned photography in the digital era just never knew the difference. Too bad for them.

    I have a D3 now, and I feel that digital is finally in the same ballpark as film. It is not as good as film in some ways and better than film in other ways.

    But there should be absolutely no debate over FX vs. DX. DX is less than half as good as FX. It really is plain and simple. Size matters in photography. It just does. DX is and always has been a compromise format. DX lenses are a waste of money.

  • Back to top