Yes and it should be a D90 size FX

Pete

Sony keeps tempting me, but I'd like a 14mp FF from Nikon :^)

I think Willis meant Nikon FF.

What about the Sony a850? And the soon to be announced 14mp FF A750?

Why does there need to be an affordable full frame wide zoom? There aren't any affordable full frame cameras yet. Well OK, I suppose there is film, but you get my point.

NSXType-R said:
So you mean a constant aperture wide angle zoom? There's the 12-24 DX. It's about $800, but it's a really good lens, or so I hear.

He said Full Frame.
You have the ultra-wide 14-24 f/2.8 gold standard beast @ $1800, the wide 17-35 f/2.8 @ $1800, and the 18-35 f/3.5-4.5 @ $600.

What you don't have is a 18-35 f/4 @ $600. I don't grok the advantage of f/4 CA over 3.5-4.5 VA, but he's far from the only one wishing for it.

Only wide (not ultra-wide) CA lens sub $1000 is a used 20-35 f/2.8. A nice boy if you can find it. That combined with the 14mm f/2.8 prime = a poor man's nice wide-end setup for the price of any of the new CA wides.

It's exactly this hole (the fact you need two used lenses to affordably cover the wide wide end) that I think many want filled with a wide F/4. (And even that described budget setup still leaves you with more distortion than horizon-shooting landscapers want on the wide-wide side.)

JMCS said:
The only thing that I see wrong with Nikon's dSLR lineup, is the lack of an affordable constant aperture full-frame wideangle lens (I count affordable as less than 1k.)

Nikon should probably make some real improvements to the Coolpixes (Instead of changing just the color, and the item number), and maybe offer incentives for companies to trade in their old steppers (if they don't already.)

So you mean a constant aperture wide angle zoom? There's the 12-24 DX. It's about $800, but it's a really good lens, or so I hear.

But yeah, I get your point- a wide angle version of the 35mm DX would be awesome. For cheap too.

The easy answer: Because Canon was struggling since 2007 (excluding the 1Ds) because other companies came up with awesome stuff. Now it's Canon's turn to get the awesome toys and in 1-2 years it's very probable that Nikon comes back with some new stuff that Canon doesn't have. Be patient.

The only thing that I see wrong with Nikon's dSLR lineup, is the lack of an affordable constant aperture full-frame wideangle lens (I count affordable as less than 1k.)

Nikon should probably make some real improvements to the Coolpixes (Instead of changing just the color, and the item number), and maybe offer incentives for companies to trade in their old steppers (if they don't already.)

bmxdad said:
We all like to have a great and fair deal, but a company that can not operate with a profit, will only give you a great short term deal. With camera gear we need a long term solution. So with Nikon, I hope you can keep producing great products and keep on being innovative at fair prices

Pete

I honestly am not balking at Nikon's product line. I'd love to see them sell the 70-200 VR at $500, but that's nuts and it's honestly a $2000+ lens (or whatever it's selling at now).

Besides, I'm more than happy with my 35mm 1.8.

That Canon guy is ridiculous though. There's plenty of cheap lenses in the Canon lineup, and plenty of cheap bodies too. He has no reason to complain. Whether or not they're high quality is another issue, but if you're not willing to pony up the cash, shut your trap. Or move to Nikon. :D

NSXType-R said:
Wow, did the Canon shooters expect Canon to not turn a profit?

What did they expect?

Give me a break.

We all like to have a great and fair deal, but a company that can not operate with a profit, will only give you a great short term deal. With camera gear we need a long term solution. So with Nikon, I hope you can keep producing great products and keep on being innovative at fair prices

Pete

Wow, did the Canon shooters expect Canon to not turn a profit?

What did they expect?

Give me a break.

Back to Canon making a profit, here is an interesting post on DpReview about the OP complaining about Customers getting screwed by Canon and several people defending Canon and for that matter any company for making a profit

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/readflat.asp?forum=1018&message=33545566

Basic no long term profit you go under, simple as that. Many post in the past have complaint about this costing to much and that not getting made. I think Nikon is trying the best they can to balance their bottom line, and they have an the moment a operating loss

Pete

They do OK with medium format.

Kodak has a pretty sweet IP portfolio, but that company never did manage the transition to digital very well.

When WAS the last time Kodak did well in the consumer digital imaging market?
;)

Kodak isn't doing too well either.

some good news for Nikon:
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601101&sid=aeVW3Za2In.s

This was not posted to place Nikon in a bad spot or anything like that, I love Nikon and was not aware in what part of their company that they had their looses. But 1 billion in hole in the Sony camp Ouch, and I would be very surprised if Sony made a profit in their Camera area, they mostly sell by going cheaper

Pete

Nikon's losses came from their percision optics department, not the camera division. Nikon is one of 3 major players in this industry, and they are all suffering as chip fabs are sticking with their older equipment to save costs.

The camera division posted some of their best sales numbers in the last 12 months.

Canon's offerings are more consumer & office oriented, both of which have been less aggressive in cost cutting than the manufacturing space.

Yes I know there is no split on profits/loss in different lines of products, just overall. The same for Sony, their loss might be in Television or gaming systems. I still think Canon's camera sales have a better profit margin in comparison to others. Less profit for retailers, less warranty etc and their cameras do sell well, and believe me I try to get these Canon people to see the light

Pete

Nikon's product line is much narrower than Canon's. Canon's camera division is a small part of the Canon empire of products. Head to head in the camera and optics lines I think the bottom line is pretty comparable.

Not having seen their (or Nikon's) annual report I'm curious if they gambled (and won) by hedging against the currency market, or if their business model is more tolerant of a weak US dollar, as this (weak US dollar) is (one of) Nikon's biggest problem(s) right now.

EDIT:
Word of explanation: The more staff who get paid in dollars the better your position would be in a weak-dollar market. (and vise versa)

Almost every day you hear of another Manufacture having a bad last year with lost sales and negative profit margins. Of the camera manufactures properly Sony has posted the largest with nearly a billion loss in the last year, even Nikon had an operating loss last year. Then we have Canon, they have just stated that their sales have dropped but they have still posted a great year with a healthy profit margin.

What is Canon doing that is so much better compared to other brands incl Nikon. I know in sales that they have a very strong brand name loyalty, we have lots of costumers that only think Canon or told by friends to get Canon. I do know that profit margins are smaller for retailing Canon

Anyway what do you think, is their Cameras marketed better, is it their P & S cameras that always seems to do well (I would say that Nikon needs to improve their P & S cameras), What do you think and what should Nikon do to get out of their smaller financial hole

Pete