Comments on: Coincidence?

By: Matt

Matt — Mon, 07 Dec 2009 16:46:12 +0000

Agree… a survey done in the last couple of months is, in NO WAY, capable of significantly affecting production merchandise that is supposed to be announced anytime soon… it would take many months (perhaps 12 or more) to incorporate anything from a survey into a production item. Designing, building mock-ups, building test units, testing, evaluate test, make changes to the design and start over, marketablility research, and finally pricing,,, many months!

By: Matt

Matt — Mon, 07 Dec 2009 16:29:00 +0000

to Mike:
First you say the D700 is you planned purchase, so therefore there is no cutting into the D3s market…. then you say people are waiting for the D700 successor to get a back-up for their D3s… if their was no planned successor, wouldn’t some of those people be getting another D3s?

But consider someone like me, who is not sure which body to get, the successor, or the D3s… why should I get a $5000 camera when a $3000 version will do 98% of what I need, and the other 2% isn’t worth an additional $2000??? from my point of view, its already cut into their D3s sales, and I’m still waiting for the camera to come out…

By: Dave Bowman

Dave Bowman — Mon, 07 Dec 2009 11:57:41 +0000

In France Nikon.fr is also planned to be partly closed down for maintenance.

http://www.europe-nikon.com/home/fr_FR/homepage/broad/site.html

By: Jabs

Jabs — Sun, 06 Dec 2009 19:11:19 +0000

About Power PHB:
There are ’boutique sellers’ all over trying to con you, so I stay away from that.
Spikes and surges plus low or over current, cause ripples in power lines or supplies and these are often audible to an audiophile or people who pay attention to much.
I have used certain spike suppressors to even out the power and give me stable current with low ripple and this helps a lot to me, as household current is awful for digital/computers.
Most equipment nowadays is more immune to power fluctuations BUT they are still there especially if you use computers in a Home Theater or Recording Studio setup (I have a 24/32 bit 192Khz pipeline on Ubuntu Studio 64 bit).
Some call themselves ‘golden ears’ and others have deep pockets (rich) and/or little sense or knowledge (take your pick)! We read web sites and follow Internet GURUS, so what do you expect – ever read Ken Rockwell’s web site?
Same kinds of people all over the place – Instant Internet EXPERTS – lol.
Signals going from one item to another via optical cable, can indeed get degraded by the type of cable used, but optical has its’ own problems and thus people play on that. In the older style cables, capacitance or even the type of wire used often determined how they handled high peaks or bursts of signals as digital is different from analog. Digital sends bits of information which is later reassembled, so signal purity is even MORE important, plus bandwidth.
This is what some are addressing and others are trying to con you into purchasing an item to cure the incurable or even make up a problem and then sell you this ‘cure’ – lol.
Yeah, thanks for your answer and I hope that I have answered a few of your comments/complaints.
Technology drives ya NUTS at times!
Time to go to the beach and chill out, eh?

By: fugue137

fugue137 — Sun, 06 Dec 2009 18:57:54 +0000

If they need to bring part of the website down just to update its content, they seriously need to fire their sysadmins. nikon.com is running Solaris, so the OS shouldn’t be an issue (nikonusa runs Windows, which has some problems in the way it handles open files, but the solution (fire their sysadmins) is the same).

By: PHB

PHB — Sun, 06 Dec 2009 15:55:46 +0000

This is the sort of idiocy I was referring to, the $147.72 power socket:

http://www.parts-express.com/pe/showdetl.cfm?Partnumber=110-439&vReviewShow=1&vReviewRand=2818820

Now if you go to certain audiophile BBS there are fools who will tell you that passing the electrical current through a micron of gold will alter its electrical properties. Yes, good quality speaker cables can improve the sound over the cheapest doorbell wire. But power cables will make no difference at all because the power from the grid is crappy to start with.

There are folk who argue that $200 optical fiber cables give better sound than the $15 sort. They totally misunderstand what the system is designed to do. The whole point of the design is to make as few parts as possible depend on tight manufacturing tolerances.

The guy with the $3000 CD player was telling me the story long before they came out with different formats. It was just a CD player built with the standard chip set from Philips in a slightly nicer case and with $2900 added to the price.

By: zeeGerman

zeeGerman — Sun, 06 Dec 2009 15:24:24 +0000

Well, I don’t believe that there is a shortage. For starters the 50mm f/1.4, which isn’t the first choice if you go for bokeh, it does his it’s issues, but if you know it’s weak spots, it will make you very happy.
The cream machine, the 85mm f/1.4 is doing a quite better job here. Also the Zeiss 85mm f/1.4 will give you beautiful results.
The 135mm f/2 is performing very very well.
And last but not least, the “dream machine”, the 200mm f/2 VR, even the old version without VR will give you fantsatic results.

This is also the reason why FX is on the expensive side. because it does give you more blur. I know a lot of fashion and wedding photographers that payed a steep price for the extra stop of the 200mm f/2. They don’t use this lens in low light situations, they use it wide open at base ISO, with surrounded by a flash system worth a couple thousand Dollars. Therefor they don’t care the extra money Nikon is asking them in order to get a FX camera.

By: PHB

PHB — Sun, 06 Dec 2009 15:05:16 +0000

“Who is using zoom lens… apart from the 70-200…”

Well in case you hadn’t noticed, at the moment Nikon’s offerings of primes are not exactly great. Which primes (apart from the 35mm f/1.8 DX!) outside that range do you think have great bokeh?

Maybe Nikon are planning to really piss of the FX fans and bring out a fast 50mm DX lens with great bokeh. An f/18 50mm DX for $200 would sell a lot better and make a lot more money for Nikon than most of the lenses suggested here.

Clearly if you have a large number of lenses from the film days and they are the right lengths for your particular photography, then FX is likely going to be better for you than DX. Otherwise it is really not half as important as folk on this board try to make out.

But as it stands, the D700 costs a lot more than the D300s and fails to outperform it on ISO. I can’t imagine that Nikon expect to sell very many more of the current model without either a significant price drop or an update to add the D3s sensor.

By: zeeGerman

zeeGerman — Sun, 06 Dec 2009 14:22:43 +0000

@Mike, the point is, if you take a portrait of a person with a 50mm lens, one time on a DX camera, and one time with a FX camera, the FX camera will allow you to move in closer on the subject. Let’s say your persons head fills the vertical axis of your FX frame when you are 1 meter away. To get the same frame coverage of the head on a DX sensor with this 50mm lens you will need to back off to 1.5 meters. As the amount/size of bokeh, or out of focus blur, strongly correlates with the camera to subject distance, you will get more of it on the FX camera.

By: bjokerud

bjokerud — Sun, 06 Dec 2009 12:24:22 +0000

The norwegian and danish site will also be under 8-10th december. Sweden didn’t write anything about it.

By: santela

santela — Sun, 06 Dec 2009 11:53:12 +0000

35/1.4 or an update on the 85s please!
I think I’m out of patience here for the fast primes, i mean c’mon, Canon’s got a couple 1.2 going, and 35/1.4, how much longer is it gonna take Nikon?!

By: Don't be silly

Don't be silly — Sun, 06 Dec 2009 11:38:30 +0000

I think Nikon will announce the release of new camera and lens in some countries with bigger consumer market
Nikon Event in Slovenia (this is a small country in Europe right?) will only be an introduction of D3s and other cameras and lend that are already available in the market …

By: andres

andres — Sun, 06 Dec 2009 11:13:42 +0000

i think you guys are overlooking the fact that this guy is pretty new to photography and owns a d700…i wish i couldve started like that…on a side note. i wouldn’t use a zoom for portraiture..prime lenses are engineered with (obviously) one focal length AND it’s common uses in mind..so they’re made faster and sharper.if you got the cash i would stay within the 85 f1.4 or 105 f2.8 range.

By: mike

mike — Sun, 06 Dec 2009 09:26:20 +0000

If you are closer with FX, then the perspective is different and the picture is not the same. When comparing FX to DX, focal length should be scaled by the crop factor to maintain perspective and field of view. The shallower DoF of FX has nothing to do with the distance to subject if you maintain perspective and FoV for both formats; rather, it comes from using a lens with a larger clear aperture.

By: JD

JD — Sun, 06 Dec 2009 08:34:29 +0000

PHB – where in that link does Thom say the D3 is a Sony fabrication??

Once again, we are not talking about the D300. Only D3, D700, D3S.

By: zeeGerman

zeeGerman — Sun, 06 Dec 2009 07:51:37 +0000

Who is using zoom lenses,apart from a 70-200mm 2.8, to get great bokeh??? And the difference is quite big, if you have on a FX sensor the equivalent focal length of a lens used on a DX sensor, let’s say an imaginary 75mm f/1.4 used on FX, compared to a 50mm f/1.4 on a DX sensor, you would get 50% more blur. If you use a 85mm f/1.4 on FX instead of a 50mm f/1.4 on DX, you will even get 70% more blur. Assuming the background is reasonable far away from the subject.

If you use the same lens and you move in closer to your subject, the difference, depending on focal length, camera to subject and subject to background distance, will even be more significant.

By: Joshua

Joshua — Sun, 06 Dec 2009 07:29:11 +0000

I NEED NEW LENSES!

I nee something for my FX Camera (D700) around 15mm that doesn’t cost as much as the 14-24.
Something like 14-24 with 4-5.6
Why doesn’t Nikon do it as Canon: One pro lens and a normal lens
Pro: 14-24 2.8
Norm: 14-24 4.0

By: Jabs

Jabs — Sun, 06 Dec 2009 06:12:12 +0000

One more reply – about AUDIO, one of my specialities – LOL!
Cables do have an effect on SIGNAL quality, as it is measurable.
The higher the frequency, the less some materials are able to transmit the SIGNAL or nuances of the signal that we cannot hear but are there and thus measurable and you have dropouts or even phase shifts and such that affect the quality at the frequencies that we DO HEAR at.
NOW, lots of liars or ‘marketing types’ siezed on this and overplayed the issue to sell YOU stuff or play on your ego or stupidity, but it is based upon facts, bub!
The frequency response CAN be measured BUT humans cannot hears at that frequency, so the point is moot often – lol!
NOW, humans can hear wow and flutter and some better than others, plus humans hear distortion or even lack of transient PEAKS which give life to music and even when they extend beyond the realm of human hearing, the EFFECT they have on the signal within the human hearing range 20HZ to about 20KHZ or there about, is profound.
Super CD’s or higher bit rate music on DVD’s sound way better than regular CD’s, as CD’s are compressed a bit to make them fit onto a CD 700-800 megs of storage.
MP3′s, I hate, as they have limited frequency response and limited DYNAMIC range (worse to me), as in the music or sounds are squashed into a narrow range to make the file smaller.
EVER listened to a 24 bit recording done at 192 KHZ?
Probably not – when you listen to the same recording MIXED down or downsampled to CD, or worse MP3, then you might know what irks audiophiles.
Some claims are really bogus and some claims are very real.
Some claims can be measured while others are ‘touchy-feely issues’ or even things we cannot measure but can perceive.
Go visit a Recording Studio or a Video Studio and look at what they call the MASTERS or the original master copies – Digitally, they are like night and day to the commercial releases.

By: Jabs

Jabs — Sun, 06 Dec 2009 05:49:09 +0000

Greetings,
Many here have this ‘holier than thou’ attitude here and often do NOT have an engineering or even photographic background to back up almost anything they post.
Full frame represents a different magnification at the sensor -vs- the smaller frame cameras.
FACT!
Many are stuck between the OLD (crop frame cameras) and the newer and better full frame sensor cameras (resolution, ‘clarity’, depth of field, e.g.), so they argue one way or the other.
In the film days, there were Nikon TC’s used by many including myself, such as the TC14 (1.4 crop factor), TC 16AF (1.6 crop factor) used then with the ancient F3AF and there were other TC units. In digital NOW, we have a similar situation optically with the crop sensors being like putting a TC behind the lens to give you a different focal length on the SAME lens and hence the magnification varies ACCORDING to the lens design [Macro lens, telephoto or evena CRC (close range or ratio corrected lens) lens like SOME Macros or Micro-Nikkors, as they were called].
Same exact thing digitally now with Full frame -vs- cropped frame cameras with the sensors being the magnifying factor.
The reason for cropped sensors were originally COST and clever marketers claimed advantages, but people used them and it skewed the real MM size of the lens like the TC’s and made it easier for many to fill the frame like they were using a longer telephoto lens (sort of like DIGITAL ZOOM)!
The crop sensor cameras were there because the lens of that era were mainly NOT able to resolve well at the corners especially, so they put smaller sensors than the standard 35MM size in there and used the center portion of the lens or like some cameras of the past used like Leica’s of old, to give you amazing shots from the center of the lens but limited focal lengths – FACTS!
You use the center mainly and you get around vignetting at the corners of the frame and thus you have legendary Leica’s which use the center only and look great as a result.
With the new crop cameras, all manufacturers had to go back to basics and redesign BETTER lens for a BIGGER sensor, as the bigger sensor and its’ higher resolution exposes faults of a lens design or lens aberrations often. When sensors out-resolved the lens or showed corner sharpness to be below what is needed, then in order to continue using the OLD technology and lens, you have the crop sensor or smaller sensor cameras.
Some use was from cost, lack of engineering skills or even time to bring to market but bigger sensors with the SAME category (35mm – for example) give better results, as the MORE you magnify almost anything, the more flaws you will see (as the crop cameras magnify the image, likewise). Full frame magnifies the image less but since it is a bigger sensor, then the resultant image is SMALLER and hence NO digital zoom factor and you get the REAL focal length of the lens in shooting.
To some, that is going backwards while to others, it is NOW what you see, is what you get in FOCAL length.
I would NOT compare any crop sensor camera to a full frame, even when they perform closely, but when I look at images from full frame Nikons, I see a total difference. It depends on the lens and the shooter, as most people DO NOT know how to shoot properly, as DSLR’s now make you lazy, less thoughtful or careful about getting the image PROPERLY the first time, as now cameras are faster, more forgiving of your sloppy or crappy technique, so you see lots of mediocre or sub-par images done by ‘buzz-shooters’ who don’t KNOW the basics of exposure or composition. They will fix it is PhotoShop, as they say, while they still are LOUSY photographers with a PhotoShop skill to bring us an alternate reality.
FINE, but learn the basics FIRST, then use software to ADD to your work.
You see 8-10 frames of crap because the cameras can shoot at 8-10 frames per second and then most expect VR or VRII to save them when they don’t KNOW how to shoot a camera or how to use this VR or even WHEN to use a monopod or tripod. VR is to make things possible BUT is not a cure all for sloppy technique or lack of knowledge and experience.
If you know how to photograph a subject WELL and how to use your camera well, then what you use is not as important but when you use a BETTER instrument or camera, then you get even better results, because you took the time to LEARN how to photograph a subject and then also HOW to use your camera.
Crop sensor cameras have a focal length advantage like the TC’s but also lack the resolving power of the full frame FORMAT, as their sensors are smaller and their FIELD of VIEW is also smaller, so they magnify NOISE and aberrations EVEN when they use the center point of the lens.
ASK any Leica rangefinder shooter about this and try to figure out WHY rangefinders DO NOT have any real long lens. They also shoot through the center portion of the lens quite often and thus not many macros or telephotos, as these would expose the shortcomings of the CAMERA and its’ image pipeline.
Old optical trick, now relegated to use in the digital world.
LEARN about cameras instead of raising something which was designed AROUND a limitation or as a stop gap measure to use OLD technology longer. Sort of a bridge between old FILM lens and new digital era 35 MM lens and cameras.
Depth of filed is a factor within EACH focal length and not about comparing IMAGE magnification as in LESS -vs- MORE.
The crop factor has been turned into a marketing asset and for some users it is an asset in the telephoto end like the TC’s are, but in the long run, it probably will be limited in my opinion.

By: [NR] admin

[NR] admin — Sun, 06 Dec 2009 05:47:10 +0000

LOL