Comments on: “In few days” http://nikonrumors.com/2010/02/01/in-few-days.aspx/ where there’s smoke there’s fire Sun, 12 Feb 2012 18:00:06 +0000 hourly 1 By: Anonymous http://nikonrumors.com/2010/02/01/in-few-days.aspx/comment-page-1/#comment-49768 Anonymous Wed, 03 Feb 2010 20:21:21 +0000 http://nikonrumors.com/?p=9569#comment-49768 lol mrmoo got owned. lol mrmoo got owned.

]]> By: MichaelStano http://nikonrumors.com/2010/02/01/in-few-days.aspx/comment-page-1/#comment-49747 MichaelStano Wed, 03 Feb 2010 17:27:32 +0000 http://nikonrumors.com/?p=9569#comment-49747 I almost placed an order for a 14-24 over the weekend. Then, I stumbled on the rumors of a 16-35. I get that it would take filters, and the 14-24 can't. I get that the 16-35 is likely to be an f/4, and maybe $700 cheaper. But, price aside, is there anything in the rumor mill about the 16-35, or other wide zoom, that would seriously challenge the quality of the 14-24, and cause me to wait to order the 14-24? TIA for any insights. Mike I almost placed an order for a 14-24 over the weekend. Then, I stumbled on the rumors of a 16-35. I get that it would take filters, and the 14-24 can’t. I get that the 16-35 is likely to be an f/4, and maybe $700 cheaper. But, price aside, is there anything in the rumor mill about the 16-35, or other wide zoom, that would seriously challenge the quality of the 14-24, and cause me to wait to order the 14-24?

TIA for any insights.

Mike

]]> By: carl http://nikonrumors.com/2010/02/01/in-few-days.aspx/comment-page-1/#comment-49676 carl Wed, 03 Feb 2010 13:39:18 +0000 http://nikonrumors.com/?p=9569#comment-49676 oops ... "Mr. Moo," not "Moss". oops … “Mr. Moo,” not “Moss”.

]]> By: carl http://nikonrumors.com/2010/02/01/in-few-days.aspx/comment-page-1/#comment-49674 carl Wed, 03 Feb 2010 13:38:42 +0000 http://nikonrumors.com/?p=9569#comment-49674 ".2 seconds into the first round, Mr. Moss wins by knockout. DNHJR may never recover." “.2 seconds into the first round, Mr. Moss wins by knockout. DNHJR may never recover.”

]]> By: MrMoo http://nikonrumors.com/2010/02/01/in-few-days.aspx/comment-page-1/#comment-49662 MrMoo Wed, 03 Feb 2010 12:35:18 +0000 http://nikonrumors.com/?p=9569#comment-49662 "ture" does not sound right. How about "true". “ture” does not sound right. How about “true”.

]]> By: The invisible man. http://nikonrumors.com/2010/02/01/in-few-days.aspx/comment-page-1/#comment-49411 The invisible man. Tue, 02 Feb 2010 22:01:56 +0000 http://nikonrumors.com/?p=9569#comment-49411 This is what I have (and all I need in my bag): Nikkor 20mm f/2.8 AF-D Tamron 28-75mm f/2.8 (excellent but feel like a plastic toy) Nikkor 105mm macro AF-S f/2.8 Nikkor 300mm f/4 AF-S VRII (well, not yet) This is what I have (and all I need in my bag):
Nikkor 20mm f/2.8 AF-D
Tamron 28-75mm f/2.8 (excellent but feel like a plastic toy)
Nikkor 105mm macro AF-S f/2.8
Nikkor 300mm f/4 AF-S VRII (well, not yet)

]]> By: Rob http://nikonrumors.com/2010/02/01/in-few-days.aspx/comment-page-1/#comment-49296 Rob Tue, 02 Feb 2010 13:25:36 +0000 http://nikonrumors.com/?p=9569#comment-49296 Any chance of the P7000 here? I was about to pick up a p6000 until I read about there being a possible replacement in the works! Any chance of the P7000 here? I was about to pick up a p6000 until I read about there being a possible replacement in the works!

]]> By: huh http://nikonrumors.com/2010/02/01/in-few-days.aspx/comment-page-1/#comment-49294 huh Tue, 02 Feb 2010 10:47:07 +0000 http://nikonrumors.com/?p=9569#comment-49294 fad? with the two major dslr makers charging full steam ahead, this fad isn't going anywhere. What I do see is DX being pushed to even more basic models and eventualy excuded from the professional body lineups completely. fad?
with the two major dslr makers charging full steam ahead, this fad isn’t going anywhere. What I do see is DX being pushed to even more basic models and eventualy excuded from the professional body lineups completely.

]]> By: Bob http://nikonrumors.com/2010/02/01/in-few-days.aspx/comment-page-1/#comment-49293 Bob Tue, 02 Feb 2010 10:46:42 +0000 http://nikonrumors.com/?p=9569#comment-49293 All I want is a 24 mm/1.4 (so, great news) and a 35 mm/1.4 (please), that's all I need. All I want is a 24 mm/1.4 (so, great news) and a 35 mm/1.4 (please), that’s all I need.

]]> By: Matthew Saville http://nikonrumors.com/2010/02/01/in-few-days.aspx/comment-page-1/#comment-49292 Matthew Saville Tue, 02 Feb 2010 10:45:45 +0000 http://nikonrumors.com/?p=9569#comment-49292 Who still uses 4x5 and 8x10? Veteran, gallery exhibiting landscape photographers like Rodney Lough Jr, Peter Lik, Thomas Mangelsen, Clyde Butcher. You'd get laughed out of town, shooting DX and calling yourself a master-class landscape photographer. (I actually strongly advocate DX for adventure photography, don't get me wrong. I really think it's a great option. And when they make a 24 MP D700 kinda body, FX will be an amazing option as well. But that still doesn't match an 8x10 Velvia, when you're making a massive gallery print...) =Matt= Who still uses 4×5 and 8×10? Veteran, gallery exhibiting landscape photographers like Rodney Lough Jr, Peter Lik, Thomas Mangelsen, Clyde Butcher. You’d get laughed out of town, shooting DX and calling yourself a master-class landscape photographer.

(I actually strongly advocate DX for adventure photography, don’t get me wrong. I really think it’s a great option. And when they make a 24 MP D700 kinda body, FX will be an amazing option as well. But that still doesn’t match an 8×10 Velvia, when you’re making a massive gallery print…)

=Matt=

]]> By: huh http://nikonrumors.com/2010/02/01/in-few-days.aspx/comment-page-1/#comment-49291 huh Tue, 02 Feb 2010 10:44:16 +0000 http://nikonrumors.com/?p=9569#comment-49291 I just don't see it happening given the main buyers of expensive high end optics is the professional market which can be asked to pay upwards of 1k for lenses and they will. Even if they shoot DX (which some pros do), they know an FX lens will perform better since they are using the best part of the lens (the center). The majority of DX users, simply do not care to pay more than their camera's worth on a lens that doesn't zoom. I just don’t see it happening given the main buyers of expensive high end optics is the professional market which can be asked to pay upwards of 1k for lenses and they will. Even if they shoot DX (which some pros do), they know an FX lens will perform better since they are using the best part of the lens (the center). The majority of DX users, simply do not care to pay more than their camera’s worth on a lens that doesn’t zoom.

]]> By: Matthew Saville http://nikonrumors.com/2010/02/01/in-few-days.aspx/comment-page-1/#comment-49290 Matthew Saville Tue, 02 Feb 2010 10:40:05 +0000 http://nikonrumors.com/?p=9569#comment-49290 Obviously you haven't seen a wedding photo lately. Primes are ALL the rage with portrait photographers... ;-) =Matt= Obviously you haven’t seen a wedding photo lately. Primes are ALL the rage with portrait photographers…

;-)

=Matt=

]]> By: huh http://nikonrumors.com/2010/02/01/in-few-days.aspx/comment-page-1/#comment-49289 huh Tue, 02 Feb 2010 10:39:36 +0000 http://nikonrumors.com/?p=9569#comment-49289 plenty of FX primes there are. however nikon's full frame line up has the following huge gap for AF-S lenses: 24 35 85 105 135 nikon simply needs to keep addressing those gaps so that it can keep the professional market happy. As far as the DX market, there is already two normal primes. That's one more than FX which only has one (50G). Thus it makes total sense for nikon to let the DX market enjoy the selection of DX zooms and DX primes while addressing the needs of the professional market. plenty of FX primes there are. however nikon’s full frame line up has the following huge gap for AF-S lenses:
24
35
85
105
135

nikon simply needs to keep addressing those gaps so that it can keep the professional market happy.

As far as the DX market, there is already two normal primes. That’s one more than FX which only has one (50G). Thus it makes total sense for nikon to let the DX market enjoy the selection of DX zooms and DX primes while addressing the needs of the professional market.

]]> By: Matthew Saville http://nikonrumors.com/2010/02/01/in-few-days.aspx/comment-page-1/#comment-49288 Matthew Saville Tue, 02 Feb 2010 10:33:37 +0000 http://nikonrumors.com/?p=9569#comment-49288 When you shoot people, 24 is un-deniably wide. I'd much rather have a 28 1.4, or better yet a 35 1.4. I wouldn't have to worry so much about ladies arms getting distortedly fat when they stand at the edge of my frame... :-P =Matt= When you shoot people, 24 is un-deniably wide. I’d much rather have a 28 1.4, or better yet a 35 1.4. I wouldn’t have to worry so much about ladies arms getting distortedly fat when they stand at the edge of my frame… :-P

=Matt=

]]> By: Matthew Saville http://nikonrumors.com/2010/02/01/in-few-days.aspx/comment-page-1/#comment-49287 Matthew Saville Tue, 02 Feb 2010 10:29:17 +0000 http://nikonrumors.com/?p=9569#comment-49287 On the topic of the NEW "holy trinity"... (14-24, 24-70, 70-200) I think for landscape photographers, the "holy trinity" will be: 16-35 f/4 VR, + 70-200 f/4 VR. This is how Canon did it, and both of those lenses are pretty impressive for sharpness. Throw in a pocket-sized 50 1.4 to fill the range gap and off-set the fact that your other options are limited to f/4, and you've got the landscapers trinity! Either that or a macro 50 like the Sigma 50 2.8, depending on which is more important to you as a landscape photographer; macro or low-light... =Matt= On the topic of the NEW “holy trinity”… (14-24, 24-70, 70-200)

I think for landscape photographers, the “holy trinity” will be:

16-35 f/4 VR, + 70-200 f/4 VR. This is how Canon did it, and both of those lenses are pretty impressive for sharpness. Throw in a pocket-sized 50 1.4 to fill the range gap and off-set the fact that your other options are limited to f/4, and you’ve got the landscapers trinity! Either that or a macro 50 like the Sigma 50 2.8, depending on which is more important to you as a landscape photographer; macro or low-light…

=Matt=

]]> By: Kuv http://nikonrumors.com/2010/02/01/in-few-days.aspx/comment-page-1/#comment-49284 Kuv Tue, 02 Feb 2010 10:11:58 +0000 http://nikonrumors.com/?p=9569#comment-49284 f/1.4 is f/1.4 no matter what size the sensor is. Period. Does the D3x lose a stop of light when you switch to DX mode? A 50mm 1.4 is NOT like a 75mm 2.0 n DX. It has an angle of view of a 75mm, the dof of a 50mm 1.4, and receives the amount of light trough an f/1.4 aparture. f/1.4 is f/1.4 no matter what size the sensor is. Period. Does the D3x lose a stop of light when you switch to DX mode? A 50mm 1.4 is NOT like a 75mm 2.0 n DX. It has an angle of view of a 75mm, the dof of a 50mm 1.4, and receives the amount of light trough an f/1.4 aparture.

]]> By: rhlpetrus http://nikonrumors.com/2010/02/01/in-few-days.aspx/comment-page-1/#comment-49279 rhlpetrus Tue, 02 Feb 2010 09:52:11 +0000 http://nikonrumors.com/?p=9569#comment-49279 No, D700+16-35 will be much more expensive than D300+10-24. Each FX piece will be/is more expensive than the DX counterpart. My guess: 16-35mm f/4 ~ USD1,100.00 No, D700+16-35 will be much more expensive than D300+10-24. Each FX piece will be/is more expensive than the DX counterpart. My guess: 16-35mm f/4 ~ USD1,100.00

]]> By: tim http://nikonrumors.com/2010/02/01/in-few-days.aspx/comment-page-1/#comment-49276 tim Tue, 02 Feb 2010 07:54:22 +0000 http://nikonrumors.com/?p=9569#comment-49276 Ah the never ending prime/zoom debate. I carry a 24mm 2.8 (interested to see, what the 1.4 will look like), a 50mm 1.4, a 16mm fish and a 70 200 2.8. I must say its a much lighter bag than those bulky 24-70s, and 14-24s. Ah the never ending prime/zoom debate. I carry a 24mm 2.8 (interested to see, what the 1.4 will look like), a 50mm 1.4, a 16mm fish and a 70 200 2.8. I must say its a much lighter bag than those bulky 24-70s, and 14-24s.

]]> By: photonut http://nikonrumors.com/2010/02/01/in-few-days.aspx/comment-page-1/#comment-49273 photonut Tue, 02 Feb 2010 06:30:42 +0000 http://nikonrumors.com/?p=9569#comment-49273 weight and size. weight and size.

]]> By: Segura http://nikonrumors.com/2010/02/01/in-few-days.aspx/comment-page-1/#comment-49272 Segura Tue, 02 Feb 2010 06:12:49 +0000 http://nikonrumors.com/?p=9569#comment-49272 Sorry "PHB", your logic is dumb. You completely ignore the high ISO quality of the FX format. If you think DX format is the Jesus format, then by the same logic a PS with a 1/2.5" sensor is better than DX since the sensor is smaller. The D300s and the D700 are not the same, the larger sensor is what makes the quality show. I mean the sensor of FX is twice as large as DX. Most of my indoor shots are done without a flash, and all of these shots would never have even happened if I was on a DX. Sorry “PHB”, your logic is dumb. You completely ignore the high ISO quality of the FX format. If you think DX format is the Jesus format, then by the same logic a PS with a 1/2.5″ sensor is better than DX since the sensor is smaller. The D300s and the D700 are not the same, the larger sensor is what makes the quality show. I mean the sensor of FX is twice as large as DX.
Most of my indoor shots are done without a flash, and all of these shots would never have even happened if I was on a DX.

]]>