On the point of communication, I have definitely seen companies that are worse. Still, it doesn’t mean Nikon can’t (and shouldn’t) do better. I haven’t really had any issues with their communications PERSONALLY (though I’m sure they exist), so I really can’t say more on this.

As for software, I will say openly that Nikon just plain sucks at software development, at least on OS X. I used NC a while ago and man, was it slow. It was some of the most resource hungry and unresponsive software I’ve ever used. Recently, the whole fiasco with the 10.4/10.5/10.6 issues has been just that: a fiasco.

I have heard nothing but rave reviews of Nikon Capture’s RAW processing being the best there is—too bad I couldn’t even get the software installed and running properly to find out. When you have to wait literally 30-60 seconds (I timed it) every time you change the exposure of a RAW image, you know it’s time to give up and go somewhere else. Whatever the solution, Nikon would be well suited to get that figured out, and fast.

On the rest of the points, I’m glad we can agree.

SCSI—Sure, it’s good notes were made on the issue, but really only if there indeed is a problem after X years. I suppose only time will tell. But I still have yet to see anyone show any image degradation whatsoever from the bubbles.

The 70-200 was definitely not designed as well as its predecessors. At least as far as I’ve seen the new version has significantly higher resolving power, and overall better OOF rendering and sharpness.

That’s the long and the short of what I was saying, nothing more.

Firstly, a mirrorless style camera, interchangeable lens system announced with new sensor format = MX (factor x2.5), followed by later in the year at Photokina a mirrorless style camera, interchangeable lens system announced with a sensor size DX (factor x1.5).

The DX version uses the same component body as the MX, but improves on the Expeed and allows the use of DX and MX lenses on the same body

Just a rumor!

If the F Mount is used, even with a “native” shorter focusing distance, it would be pretty simple for people to pop an adapter on an existing DX lens and use it on the MX camera with the corrected focusing distance and a pass through of electronic data. For example, putting a 55-200mm DX VRII, which someone already owns, on such a camera would still be compact for the occasional use. There are a lot of people adapting various manual focus lenses to 4/3rds bodies and living with the step down & manual focus issues just because it is a neat way to use their existing glass or adapt things that the body manufacturer had not envisioned. One popular combination is to put a 50mm f1.4 lens on a 4/3rds body resulting in an effective 100mm f1.4…pretty neat, I think.

Take a look at this article on the Olympus E-P2. http://visualsciencelab.blogspot.com/2009/12/ep2-san-antonio-fun-shoot-shake-out.html

If Nikon can generate this kind of “buzz” with the new EVIL camera they will have accomplished something.

…….2 more days (hopefully only)……….

Nikon also went after bragging rights back in the day. Only the lenses they produced tended to be exquisite pieces of engineering that were only impractical because of the insane cost and weight. Lenses like the legendary 13mm f/5.6 or the 1200-1700 zoom.

At this point, Nikon does not need to make showcase lenses designed to sell a few hundred a year. And as Canon’s efforts demonstrate, trying to make optics that extreme for a sane price merely ends up creating expensive trash.

I expect that after Nikon launches some fast primes we will see Canon launch another lens whose principal purpose is to be something that Nikon don’t make. It will sell maybe a thousand copies a year but the Canon fans will tell us that it is the absolute must-have photographic essential – much as they used to bleat on about the tilt-shift lenses.

It is really easy to make this stuff if you have computer aided design and manufacture and don’t much care about the quality of what you produce.

If you look at the recent Nikon lenses, they have all been superlative for the niche they are aimed at. There are inevitable compromises between cost, weight, performance and so on, but they make compromises that make sense to most of us.

If you look at the bulk of the lens demands on this site, they are for new versions of lenses that sell less than 5,000 copies a year. Maybe the fast primes will sell faster, but that 35mm f/1.8 DX has already outsold the legacy 35 f/2 AF lens.

The high end lens fan should not worry though. Within a few years they will have the DSLR field all to themselves, just like Medium Format has gone from being a snapshot format to a high end format, the same will happen with the DSLR

The first generation EVIL cameras are not going to be cheap enough or flexible enough to compete with a D5000 in the mass market. But within a couple of generations they are going to be the mass market format. The camcorder market and the still photography market will converge on the EVIL formats as the best compromise of performance and weight for 90% of use.

The EVIL format sensor is larger than typical video camera sensors. A dedicated video sensor with larger sensor sites is going to be able to easily support the type of insane ISO performance we get on the D3s. Who needs larger glass if you can get full HD resolution and ISO12800 response?

As a still format the EVIL sensor is going to support ISO 3200 or so. Which makes it like the D300, a pretty damn good camera for 95% of still shots.

And that is going to mean that the only people left using DSLRs are serious photographers. Which is why that high end glass is going to be important.