Comments on: The next three days http://nikonrumors.com/2010/02/07/the-next-three-days.aspx/ where there’s smoke there’s fire Sun, 12 Feb 2012 19:45:37 +0000 hourly 1 By: Richard http://nikonrumors.com/2010/02/07/the-next-three-days.aspx/comment-page-1/#comment-51695 Richard Mon, 08 Feb 2010 19:10:50 +0000 http://nikonrumors.com/?p=9721#comment-51695 :-) Seriously, though, I think manufacturing processes are in need of improvement. The ability to turn out ASPH ED lens elements comparatively inexpensively and improved yields of sensors (via process improvements) are necessary to move forward, even incrementally. (Yes, coating technology improvements help, too.) The problems that Canon/Nikon/et al have experienced with sample quality variations are a problem that cries out for attention. There really is no reason they can not turn out products of more uniform quality. Quality is designed in, not inspected in. A nice 85/90mm f1.4 would float my boat in the mean time. :-)

Seriously, though, I think manufacturing processes are in need of improvement. The ability to turn out ASPH ED lens elements comparatively inexpensively and improved yields of sensors (via process improvements) are necessary to move forward, even incrementally. (Yes, coating technology improvements help, too.)

The problems that Canon/Nikon/et al have experienced with sample quality variations are a problem that cries out for attention. There really is no reason they can not turn out products of more uniform quality. Quality is designed in, not inspected in.

A nice 85/90mm f1.4 would float my boat in the mean time.

]]> By: Dr SCSI http://nikonrumors.com/2010/02/07/the-next-three-days.aspx/comment-page-1/#comment-51674 Dr SCSI Mon, 08 Feb 2010 18:44:27 +0000 http://nikonrumors.com/?p=9721#comment-51674 @Ernst, +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 That is a +1 for each paragraph!! Many shooters forget that you need to work both ends, camera and lens. A 2 stop increase in ISO in camera, plus a 2 stop increase in aperature = 1600% more light! I am a low light shooter and I want to see the D5S with f/.5 glass!! :-) O.K. we may be 10+ years away from your 3rd paragraph, but I will be there (hopefully) to buy it when it comes! @Ernst,
+1
+1
+1
+1
+1
That is a +1 for each paragraph!!

Many shooters forget that you need to work both ends, camera and lens. A 2 stop increase in ISO in camera, plus a 2 stop increase in aperature = 1600% more light! I am a low light shooter and I want to see the D5S with f/.5 glass!! :-) O.K. we may be 10+ years away from your 3rd paragraph, but I will be there (hopefully) to buy it when it comes!

]]> By: Dr SCSI http://nikonrumors.com/2010/02/07/the-next-three-days.aspx/comment-page-1/#comment-51673 Dr SCSI Mon, 08 Feb 2010 18:37:26 +0000 http://nikonrumors.com/?p=9721#comment-51673 @LGo, why stop at 100? BTW, the best Nikon lens for the Nikon DSLR is the 135mm f/2 DC. Slap it on a DX body and you get a 200mm (35mm equiv) with f/2 for under $1500!!! This lens GRABS light very well and renders it beautifully! It is also very sharp!! @LGo, why stop at 100? BTW, the best Nikon lens for the Nikon DSLR is the 135mm f/2 DC. Slap it on a DX body and you get a 200mm (35mm equiv) with f/2 for under $1500!!! This lens GRABS light very well and renders it beautifully! It is also very sharp!!

]]> By: edward nafzger http://nikonrumors.com/2010/02/07/the-next-three-days.aspx/comment-page-1/#comment-51586 edward nafzger Mon, 08 Feb 2010 15:13:14 +0000 http://nikonrumors.com/?p=9721#comment-51586 To Rostom i agree with your statement. I do want a and need a good 100-500 range lens with vr for birding BIF and airshows but paying more than 5000 $ is a little to much for the most people so if nikon is not bringing out the 100-500 vr3 f5.6 we all have to buy the 200-400 vr with tc 1.4 or 300 f2.8 with the new tc 20 mk3 but its a lot of $ but one thing i want to replace my d200 for a d3s and near future a d700? replacement To Rostom i agree with your statement. I do want a and need a good 100-500 range lens with vr for birding BIF and airshows but paying more than 5000 $ is a little to much for the most people so if nikon is not bringing out the 100-500 vr3 f5.6
we all have to buy the 200-400 vr with tc 1.4 or 300 f2.8 with the new tc 20 mk3 but its a lot of $ but one thing i want to replace my d200 for a d3s and near future a d700? replacement

]]> By: WoutK89 http://nikonrumors.com/2010/02/07/the-next-three-days.aspx/comment-page-1/#comment-51531 WoutK89 Mon, 08 Feb 2010 13:09:26 +0000 http://nikonrumors.com/?p=9721#comment-51531 To add to that, I think it will overlap another time two lenses already available at F/2.8, but not have a single value in common (so not 24/70/200) To add to that, I think it will overlap another time two lenses already available at F/2.8, but not have a single value in common (so not 24/70/200)

]]> By: WoutK89 http://nikonrumors.com/2010/02/07/the-next-three-days.aspx/comment-page-1/#comment-51530 WoutK89 Mon, 08 Feb 2010 13:07:20 +0000 http://nikonrumors.com/?p=9721#comment-51530 D400 is planned assumably for late 2010 (october or later) or 2011 :-) D400 is planned assumably for late 2010 (october or later) or 2011 :-)

]]> By: WoutK89 http://nikonrumors.com/2010/02/07/the-next-three-days.aspx/comment-page-1/#comment-51529 WoutK89 Mon, 08 Feb 2010 13:04:46 +0000 http://nikonrumors.com/?p=9721#comment-51529 I dont think Nikon will make a lens starting at 24 and going above 100 with F/4 constant aperture. But we will just wait and see what path Nikon is going to take. I dont think Nikon will make a lens starting at 24 and going above 100 with F/4 constant aperture. But we will just wait and see what path Nikon is going to take.

]]> By: NIKONKONKON http://nikonrumors.com/2010/02/07/the-next-three-days.aspx/comment-page-1/#comment-51526 NIKONKONKON Mon, 08 Feb 2010 12:56:41 +0000 http://nikonrumors.com/?p=9721#comment-51526 THAT IS IT!!!!!! Seriously, what is Nikon thinking! I've head enough, I'm switching to Voigtlander. THAT IS IT!!!!!! Seriously, what is Nikon thinking!
I’ve head enough, I’m switching to Voigtlander.

]]> By: alex http://nikonrumors.com/2010/02/07/the-next-three-days.aspx/comment-page-1/#comment-51525 alex Mon, 08 Feb 2010 12:55:38 +0000 http://nikonrumors.com/?p=9721#comment-51525 just the usual dudes without a real life. don't bother, they probably don't even own a camera just the usual dudes without a real life. don’t bother, they probably don’t even own a camera

]]> By: Michael http://nikonrumors.com/2010/02/07/the-next-three-days.aspx/comment-page-1/#comment-51524 Michael Mon, 08 Feb 2010 12:47:09 +0000 http://nikonrumors.com/?p=9721#comment-51524 What would really attract my attention is a D400 with high iso e.g. Why is it so quiet re this camera? What would really attract my attention is a D400 with high iso e.g. Why is it so quiet re this camera?

]]> By: Roger http://nikonrumors.com/2010/02/07/the-next-three-days.aspx/comment-page-1/#comment-51523 Roger Mon, 08 Feb 2010 12:27:21 +0000 http://nikonrumors.com/?p=9721#comment-51523 Why? Canon has two in that range, one at 2.8 and one at 4. Nikon already has the 2.8 range cornered, and if someone needs to use filters for landscape, odds are that it'll be on a tripod stopped down. As such the f/4 is fine. VR isn't 100% on my list for a lens like that, but I think this is Nikon's way of saying "the 24-100+ f/4 VR lens is coming". These two lenses are a salvo towards those users who are on the fence between Canon and Nikon, as Canon's only advantage right now are the wide fast primes and "pro level" f/4 zooms below 200mm. Why?

Canon has two in that range, one at 2.8 and one at 4.

Nikon already has the 2.8 range cornered, and if someone needs to use filters for landscape, odds are that it’ll be on a tripod stopped down. As such the f/4 is fine. VR isn’t 100% on my list for a lens like that, but I think this is Nikon’s way of saying “the 24-100+ f/4 VR lens is coming”.

These two lenses are a salvo towards those users who are on the fence between Canon and Nikon, as Canon’s only advantage right now are the wide fast primes and “pro level” f/4 zooms below 200mm.

]]> By: WoutK89 http://nikonrumors.com/2010/02/07/the-next-three-days.aspx/comment-page-1/#comment-51520 WoutK89 Mon, 08 Feb 2010 12:24:12 +0000 http://nikonrumors.com/?p=9721#comment-51520 The announcement isnt even done yet and still people are complaining. Learn to live what you do can buy, and not what you never will buy anyway ;-) The announcement isnt even done yet and still people are complaining. Learn to live what you do can buy, and not what you never will buy anyway ;-)

]]> By: carew http://nikonrumors.com/2010/02/07/the-next-three-days.aspx/comment-page-1/#comment-51519 carew Mon, 08 Feb 2010 12:13:01 +0000 http://nikonrumors.com/?p=9721#comment-51519 Lens 16-35 f/4 VR is bad bet for Nikon, if 16-35 f/2.8 VR is the best bet... Lens 16-35 f/4 VR is bad bet for Nikon, if 16-35 f/2.8 VR is the best bet…

]]> By: Anonymous http://nikonrumors.com/2010/02/07/the-next-three-days.aspx/comment-page-1/#comment-51518 Anonymous Mon, 08 Feb 2010 12:12:40 +0000 http://nikonrumors.com/?p=9721#comment-51518 Lens 16-35 f/4 VR is bad bet for Nikon, if 16-35 f/2.8 VR is the best bet... Lens 16-35 f/4 VR is bad bet for Nikon, if 16-35 f/2.8 VR is the best bet…

]]> By: laespañola http://nikonrumors.com/2010/02/07/the-next-three-days.aspx/comment-page-1/#comment-51516 laespañola Mon, 08 Feb 2010 11:46:41 +0000 http://nikonrumors.com/?p=9721#comment-51516 no new cameras... bad news fos us. No good job from nikon. no new cameras…
bad news fos us. No good job from nikon.

]]> By: Krzysztof http://nikonrumors.com/2010/02/07/the-next-three-days.aspx/comment-page-1/#comment-51515 Krzysztof Mon, 08 Feb 2010 11:24:53 +0000 http://nikonrumors.com/?p=9721#comment-51515 Where is my D700x buuuu ;( Where is my D700x buuuu ;(

]]> By: zen-tao http://nikonrumors.com/2010/02/07/the-next-three-days.aspx/comment-page-1/#comment-51514 zen-tao Mon, 08 Feb 2010 11:19:07 +0000 http://nikonrumors.com/?p=9721#comment-51514 The same artistic than a f:2,8 lens, even though the 20 mm F: 2,8 Nikon is much better than 24 mm. I have both of them manual and the difference is noticeable. The same artistic than a f:2,8 lens, even though the 20 mm F: 2,8 Nikon is much better than 24 mm. I have both of them manual and the difference is noticeable.

]]> By: zen-tao http://nikonrumors.com/2010/02/07/the-next-three-days.aspx/comment-page-1/#comment-51512 zen-tao Mon, 08 Feb 2010 11:12:50 +0000 http://nikonrumors.com/?p=9721#comment-51512 You are wellcome. If 100 ASA is not enought set 3000 ASA And you will see... No professionals are going to use f:1,4 aperture. The image would be a crap. Have a look to http://www.photozone.de/ and learn about I try to say. You are wellcome.

If 100 ASA is not enought set 3000 ASA And you will see… No professionals are going to use f:1,4 aperture. The image would be a crap. Have a look to http://www.photozone.de/ and learn about I try to say.

]]> By: Char http://nikonrumors.com/2010/02/07/the-next-three-days.aspx/comment-page-1/#comment-51511 Char Mon, 08 Feb 2010 11:04:04 +0000 http://nikonrumors.com/?p=9721#comment-51511 Okay, let me put it this way: In most people's hands, including mine, a 24/1.4 is pretty useless, as is a 35/1.4. But there are people out there where a 24/1.4 or 35/1.4 turns into an artistic tool of the highest quality once given into their hands. For example, in wedding photography, a 24/1.4 and/or 35/1.4 are pretty helpful tools if one is able to master them. Which most people are not.... Okay, let me put it this way: In most people’s hands, including mine, a 24/1.4 is pretty useless, as is a 35/1.4. But there are people out there where a 24/1.4 or 35/1.4 turns into an artistic tool of the highest quality once given into their hands. For example, in wedding photography, a 24/1.4 and/or 35/1.4 are pretty helpful tools if one is able to master them. Which most people are not….

]]> By: Char http://nikonrumors.com/2010/02/07/the-next-three-days.aspx/comment-page-1/#comment-51508 Char Mon, 08 Feb 2010 10:46:13 +0000 http://nikonrumors.com/?p=9721#comment-51508 Just to make this clear - I compared the D80@ISO100 with the D90@ISO200. The D80 is better, cleaner. That is the drawback of the new CMOS sensor - it is cleaner at high ISO, but at low ISO, the old CCD sensor is superior. It is a subtle difference, but it is there. However, if handled right, noise at base ISO should not be a problem with the D90/D300/D300s. Just to make this clear – I compared the D80@ISO100 with the D90@ISO200. The D80 is better, cleaner. That is the drawback of the new CMOS sensor – it is cleaner at high ISO, but at low ISO, the old CCD sensor is superior. It is a subtle difference, but it is there.

However, if handled right, noise at base ISO should not be a problem with the D90/D300/D300s.

]]>