UKBouldering.com

Nikon DSLR (Read 96412 times)

dave

  • Guest
#200 Re: Nikon DSLR
June 23, 2010, 11:09:07 am
market segregation is the reason it won't happen.

bloody apartheid.

(BTW I was meaning prime users are a subset of discerning users, not that all discerning users are prime users).

cofe

Offline
  • *****
  • forum hero
  • Posts: 5796
  • Karma: +187/-5
#201 Re: Nikon DSLR
June 23, 2010, 11:13:30 am
the theme here and elsewhere tends to be zoom user = punter. the notion that people might instead select the right tools for the job is alien. a bit sad, really.

Johnny Brown

Offline
  • *****
  • forum hero
  • Posts: 11437
  • Karma: +690/-22
#202 Re: Nikon DSLR
June 23, 2010, 11:26:53 am
I'm just really bored of the serious user=big camera, punter=small camera. Same with lenses, the size advantage of primes seems to have been lost entirely. Even Olympus' latest is the size of a D700, despite the tiny sensor. The only pro body that isn't massive is a Leica, and that's only cos they don't dare change it. #bullshit

JamesD

Offline
  • ***
  • obsessive maniac
  • Posts: 404
  • Karma: +13/-0
  • one ton monkey
#203 Re: Nikon DSLR
June 23, 2010, 05:57:14 pm
albeit not a nikon user, i'm not that fussed about decent primes, i want decent, Canon/Nikon crop format zooms, specifically a 50-150mm 2.8 from either manufacturer. I'm not interested in carrying round a bag full of primes, I want a quality zoom, and I'm reasonably 'discerning'.

market segregation is the reason it won't happen.

There are plenty of "quality" zooms, you just have to pay the necessary dosh to get them  ;)

http://www.warehouseexpress.com/buy-nikon-14-24mm-f2-8-g-af-s-ed-lens/p1023050

http://www.warehouseexpress.com/buy-nikon-24-70mm-f2-8-g-af-s-ed-lens/p1023051

http://www.warehouseexpress.com/buy-nikon-70-200mm-af-s-nikkor-f2-8g-ed-vr-ii-lens/p1032957

http://www.warehouseexpress.com/buy-nikon-200-400mm-f4-g-vr-ii-af-s-ed-lens/p1520588

Johnny Brown

Offline
  • *****
  • forum hero
  • Posts: 11437
  • Karma: +690/-22
#204 Re: Nikon DSLR
June 23, 2010, 06:17:30 pm
Those are huge lenses designed for FX format use. Being predominantly outdoor shooters, Cofe and I are looking for zooms which are both high quality and portable - and DX will always be more portable.

Its not much too ask, but lenses keep getting bigger; even iterations of standard primes just keep growing. Are they not aware some of us don't work out of a car boot? I can't see anyone taking a D3 and 14-24 to shoot this:

« Last Edit: June 23, 2010, 06:33:15 pm by Johnny Brown »

cofe

Offline
  • *****
  • forum hero
  • Posts: 5796
  • Karma: +187/-5
#205 Re: Nikon DSLR
June 23, 2010, 07:56:01 pm
What johnny brown said. Maybe we should put it in capital letters next time so people can read and understand? Fucking hell.

dave

  • Guest
#206 Re: Nikon DSLR
June 23, 2010, 09:56:42 pm
albeit not a nikon user, i'm not that fussed about decent primes, i want decent, Canon/Nikon crop format zooms, specifically a 50-150mm 2.8 from either manufacturer. I'm not interested in carrying round a bag full of primes, I want a quality zoom, and I'm reasonably 'discerning'.

market segregation is the reason it won't happen.

There are plenty of "quality" zooms, you just have to pay the necessary dosh to get them  ;)

http://www.warehouseexpress.com/buy-nikon-14-24mm-f2-8-g-af-s-ed-lens/p1023050

http://www.warehouseexpress.com/buy-nikon-24-70mm-f2-8-g-af-s-ed-lens/p1023051

http://www.warehouseexpress.com/buy-nikon-70-200mm-af-s-nikkor-f2-8g-ed-vr-ii-lens/p1032957

http://www.warehouseexpress.com/buy-nikon-200-400mm-f4-g-vr-ii-af-s-ed-lens/p1520588

You got anything for the gent that doesn't have a wad of 10 kubricks sat lying around gathering dust?

Johnny Brown

Offline
  • *****
  • forum hero
  • Posts: 11437
  • Karma: +690/-22
#207 Re: Nikon DSLR
June 23, 2010, 10:00:41 pm
Price is definitely not the main factor for me. Even if I was given that lot they'd mostly get left in the cupboard.

JamesD

Offline
  • ***
  • obsessive maniac
  • Posts: 404
  • Karma: +13/-0
  • one ton monkey
#208 Re: Nikon DSLR
June 24, 2010, 10:30:56 am
What johnny brown said. Maybe we should put it in capital letters next time so people can read and understand? Fucking hell.

My point was, that Nikon (and Canon), see their main target market for high quality zooms as paps/photojournalists/sports photographers/nature and outdoor photographers, yes johnny I said outdoor photographers, heard of Michael Clark?
What johnny brown said. Maybe we should put it in capital letters next time so people can read and understand? Fucking hell.

My point was, that Nikon as with Canon, see their main target market for high quality zooms as paps/photojournalists/sports photographers/nature and outdoor photographers, yes johnny I said outdoor photographers, heard of Michael Clark?

http://www.michaelclarkphoto.com/#/BEHIND%20THE%20SCENES/CAMERA%20BAG/

Shooting with pro quality FF/35mm primes/zooms, and a D700+D300

Just because you and cofe shoot on crop sensors, with DX lenses doesn't mean the whole world does. The problem is that most of the DX lenses are a pile of shit compared to the FF equivalent, or you pay nearly as much for a good quality DX lens as you would for a good quality FF one!
At that point does it not make more sense to go for the full frame lens so you don't own something that will be obsolete within the next decade?
Neither company are going to be investing serious money in dx size zooms, since firstly it doesn't make good business sense as it's not their main target market for high quality zooms, and secondly as you both should know, it costs a lot more to manufacture a decent quality zoom especially when you want a wide focal range, add that to the fact that full frame camera's are gradually coming down in price year by year, DX will probably be phased out by the major SLR manufacturers in 4-5 years, or downgraded to the amateur bodies only.
So what's the point in them going out of their way to manufacture pro-quality lenses for cameras, which generally speaking are no longer being used by professionals?

slackline

Offline
  • *****
  • forum hero
  • Posts: 18863
  • Karma: +633/-26
    • Sheffield Boulder
#209 Re: Nikon DSLR
June 24, 2010, 10:44:15 am
Check JB's picture above.  If you're going to carry all that pro-camera shit up to a mountain and then climb a long route, in addition to all the gear you need, your knees will be as fucked as your elbows pretty quickly, hence the desire to use something that is smaller and lighter than full frame with a telescope-size lens on the front.

Johnny Brown

Offline
  • *****
  • forum hero
  • Posts: 11437
  • Karma: +690/-22
#210 Re: Nikon DSLR
June 24, 2010, 10:47:33 am
Quote
yes johnny I said outdoor photographers, heard of Michael Clark

Of course. Note, despite being at the top of his profession, he did own a D3, but got rid of it in favour of something smaller. Isn't that strange to you? And he owns and uses a D300? I think he's a more an exemplar of my point than yours. The fact that his lenses are mainly FX is for the same reason as everyone else - Nikon only make a couple of decent DX lenses.

Seb Rogers is another outdoor pro jonesing for some sensibly sized gear from Nikon.

Quote
DX will probably be phased out by the major SLR manufacturers in 4-5 years

No it won't. Outdoor pros will continue to need and use sensibly sized equipment. If Nikon don't make it, others will, and they will lose customers. If that involves using 'amateur' bodies, then that's what they will use. Having a camera at all will always trump having a D3.

Have you heard of Galen Rowell?

dave

  • Guest
#211 Re: Nikon DSLR
June 24, 2010, 11:14:06 am
Just because you and cofe shoot on crop sensors, with DX lenses doesn't mean the whole world does.

There must be more DX shooters than FX by a factor of a thousand.

The problem is that most of the DX lenses are a pile of shit compared to the FF equivalent,

I'm almost looking forward to you trying to justify that with any actual facts.

JamesD

Offline
  • ***
  • obsessive maniac
  • Posts: 404
  • Karma: +13/-0
  • one ton monkey
#212 Re: Nikon DSLR
June 24, 2010, 11:48:51 am
I understand where you are coming from, but my point still stands, why would they develop a whole range of high quality DX sized lenses when it's either very expensive or difficult to produce something that matches up to the quality of the Full-Frame stuff.
Speaking in terms of the bodies this is especially true when you start to move the ISO beyond sensible levels, due to the photosite size on the sensors.
A few nature and outdoor photographers kicking up a fuss here and there, has about much resonance with Nikon/Canon as a few anarchists kicking up a fuss about the state of politics today does with the current government.
I would say the best you can hope for, is they start to reduce the size/weight of full frame zooms in the future, or come out with less bulky primes, that match up with the nice light older designs that are still being sold, but they have to balance that with maintaing the durability required by the sports/press/event guys, and yet still make it affordable eh.
Light, strong, and durable.....they should just start making everything out of titanium  8)
I haven't heard of the guy you mentioned, had a quick google, nice work, clearly a bit of a legend by all accounts.

Dave I was talking about working professionals, maybe I should have been more specific, how many news and press agencies do you know of that shoot on DX? as for justifying my viewpoint, i've probably got circa 30-40,000 images shots on various DX lenses shot on a DX body from a few years ago, and shots with FF lenses on a DX body, and FF lenses on an FF body.
When I get my laptop repaired or the time to access it and pick some images out, i'll try and put up some comparisons or something.
A few of the lenses i've shot/owned/hired:
Sigma 10-20mm DX
Nikon 14-24mm DX
Tokina 10-17mm DX
Nikon 18-200mm DX
Nikon 80-400mm (hired for a day, so bad I never bothered again)
Nikon 14-24mm
Nikon 24-70mm
Nikon 70-200mm (both the new and the old one)
Various primes, 20mm/35mm/50mm I think from memory...it's been a while.

Johnny Brown

Offline
  • *****
  • forum hero
  • Posts: 11437
  • Karma: +690/-22
#213 Re: Nikon DSLR
June 24, 2010, 12:07:32 pm
Quote
but my point still stands, why would they develop a whole range of high quality DX sized lenses when it's either very expensive or difficult to produce something that matches up to the quality of the Full-Frame stuff

Its not difficult, and should in fact be cheaper. FX only has an advantage as you push the ISO or pixel count beyond what most folk need. As we've discussed above, a D3 and D300 shot at base ISO are more or less indistinguishable, certainly by the time they get to print.

Quote
I would say the best you can hope for, is they start to reduce the size/weight of full frame zooms in the future, or come out with less bulky primes,

That's clearly not going to happen. Every new iteration they bring out is bigger than the last. As they clearly aren't taking FX in a more compact direction, I don't think its too much to ask that they bring out some better DX lenses.

There is a potentially huge market, both from an army of keen amateurs, and the portion of pros who value portability. Nikon are ignoring them, and its a mistake.

Quote
Light, strong, and durable.....they should just start making everything out of titanium

Well the bodies of my last (film) system are titanium - pro build quality, smaller than a D40, but with a bigger, brighter viewfinder than a D3, with a range of tiny lenses as sharp as Leicas. Maybe I've been spoiled.

dave

  • Guest
#214 Re: Nikon DSLR
June 24, 2010, 12:18:56 pm
Sigma 10-20mm DX

Strictly this isn't a DX lens as its third party and therefore out of the debate of what nikon or canon are likely to deliver. But still, the only FX equivalent to this lens is the Sigma 15-30mm. Given reviews of both I'd say thats a win for DX.

Nikon 14-24mm DX
This lens doesn't exist. You either mean the 14-24mm 2.8 which isn't DX, or the 12-24mm DX. If the latter then the equivalent is the 18-35mm f/3.5-4.5 AF-D. Not exactly a resounding win for FX, maybe a draw.

Tokina 10-17mm DX

Same third party comment as before. There is no FX fisheye zoom.

Nikon 18-200mm DX
Again there is no FX equivalent. nearest thing is the 28-200mm, which lacks VR and 100mm of reach at the long end. Not exactly a win.

Sorry to be picky but I'm not seeing that "most of the DX lenses are a pile of shit compared to the FF equivalent".

Johnny Brown

Offline
  • *****
  • forum hero
  • Posts: 11437
  • Karma: +690/-22
#215 Re: Nikon DSLR
June 24, 2010, 12:37:49 pm
Thom Hogan seems to rate the sharpness of Nikon's offerings highly too.

I think James is trying to say that any lens which isn't a honking great thing costing over grand looks shit, and that's what matters to the working pro.

What Cofe and I are trying so say is that we'd like some faster DX lenses with smaller zoom ranges, better build quality, in a sensibly-sized package. A bit like Sigma's 50-150/2.8 say, but without the nagging doubts engendered by internet fanboi's who say Sigma's back-focus/ are a sharpness lottery/ go wrong.

cofe

Offline
  • *****
  • forum hero
  • Posts: 5796
  • Karma: +187/-5
#216 Re: Nikon DSLR
June 24, 2010, 12:57:46 pm
Bingo. Canon's 70-200 f4L is a step in the right direction (light-ish and good quality), but it's too long at the short end, and is only f4. 

Johnny Brown

Offline
  • *****
  • forum hero
  • Posts: 11437
  • Karma: +690/-22
#217 Re: Nikon DSLR
June 24, 2010, 01:07:27 pm
And won't fit on a Nikon.

cofe

Offline
  • *****
  • forum hero
  • Posts: 5796
  • Karma: +187/-5
#218 Re: Nikon DSLR
June 24, 2010, 01:23:52 pm
it'll probably fit on a D3, they're that amazing.

Johnny Brown

Offline
  • *****
  • forum hero
  • Posts: 11437
  • Karma: +690/-22
#219 Re: Nikon DSLR
June 24, 2010, 01:28:03 pm
No doubt. You would lose the size advantage though. What the good lord giveth with one hand....

JamesD

Offline
  • ***
  • obsessive maniac
  • Posts: 404
  • Karma: +13/-0
  • one ton monkey
#220 Re: Nikon DSLR
June 24, 2010, 01:41:21 pm
Sigma 10-20mm DX

Strictly this isn't a DX lens as its third party and therefore out of the debate of what nikon or canon are likely to deliver. But still, the only FX equivalent to this lens is the Sigma 15-30mm. Given reviews of both I'd say thats a win for DX.

Nikon 14-24mm DX
This lens doesn't exist. You either mean the 14-24mm 2.8 which isn't DX, or the 12-24mm DX. If the latter then the equivalent is the 18-35mm f/3.5-4.5 AF-D. Not exactly a resounding win for FX, maybe a draw.

Tokina 10-17mm DX

Same third party comment as before. There is no FX fisheye zoom.

Nikon 18-200mm DX
Again there is no FX equivalent. nearest thing is the 28-200mm, which lacks VR and 100mm of reach at the long end. Not exactly a win.

Sorry to be picky but I'm not seeing that "most of the DX lenses are a pile of shit compared to the FF equivalent".

I meant the 12-24  ::)

The more recent Tokina one, I think the 11-16mm, is better than both the Nikon and the Sigma offering anyway, sharper, and doesn't suffer as much on the CA front, although not as good at controlling flare as the nikon was IIRC, and the Sigma had really non-uniform distortion at some focal lengths which was annoying to correct, so yeah...my advice, buy the Tokina  ;D

I'm basing my viewpoint on having looked at thousands of the raw files close up from the above lenses on various different bodies, it has nothing to do with how shit or good the lens looks from an external viewpoint....seriously.
If you think my opinion of photographic equipment is based upon how it looks, rather than the quality of the output, then that's pretty amusing  :lol:

The reason why the "more expensive" fx lenses don't have comparable lenses with a long focal range, is that it's very difficult/expensive to make something with such a long focal range, with great image quality throughout said focal range, the longer the gap, the wider the aperture, the pricier it gets, just look at the 200-400mm lens for an example, similarly you are paying in many instances for the ability to shoot at a very wide aperture throughout the focal range.
None of the DX lenses can touch most of the primes for image quality, however most of the FX/FF whatever you want to call them lenses either equal or surpass a lot of the primes for sharpness/image quality/flare control/lack of CA and so on throughout their focal range, (excluding the telephoto primes of course, they are another level above).

So johnny, i'm guessing your tiny super sharp lenses that fitted onto a titanium body were all primes yeah?

JamesD

Offline
  • ***
  • obsessive maniac
  • Posts: 404
  • Karma: +13/-0
  • one ton monkey
#221 Re: Nikon DSLR
June 24, 2010, 01:42:03 pm
it'll probably fit on a D3s, they're that amazing.

Fixed  ;)

Johnny Brown

Offline
  • *****
  • forum hero
  • Posts: 11437
  • Karma: +690/-22
#222 Re: Nikon DSLR
June 24, 2010, 02:12:53 pm
Quote
So johnny, i'm guessing your tiny super sharp lenses that fitted onto a titanium body were all primes yeah?

Mostly, yeah. Plus: a 50-250mm/f5 zoom which is a wierd spec but unbelievably sharp (and need I say it, compact), and a 35-70 which is smaller than most primes. One of the big advantages of Primes used to be the size - not for Nikon in 2010 though.

Quote
The reason why the "more expensive" fx lenses don't have comparable lenses with a long focal range, is that it's very difficult/expensive to make something with such a long focal range, with great image quality throughout said focal range, the longer the gap, the wider the aperture, the pricier it gets, just look at the 200-400mm lens for an example, similarly you are paying in many instances for the ability to shoot at a very wide aperture throughout the focal range.

I doubt anyone would disagree with that. I think you're missing our point, which is that your statement:

Quote
most of the DX lenses are a pile of shit compared to the FF equivalent

is bollocks. FX lenses are only 'better' if you cherry pick the latest and best. There are no DX lenses as bad as the not-so-old FX 24-120, for example, which by all reports actually is 'a pile of shit'. The 200-400 isn't a great example either - not as good as it should be.

Quote
None of the DX lenses can touch most of the primes for image quality, however most of the FX/FF whatever you want to call them lenses either equal or surpass a lot of the primes for sharpness/image quality/flare control/lack of CA and so on throughout their focal range, (excluding the telephoto primes of course, they are another level above)

As I said, that's only true if you're compare the recent pro FX zooms with the cheap DX zooms. The better DX zooms are comparable to the average FX primes. My DX 16-85 zoom is equal or better to my FX 35/2 prime, though obviously only one goes to f2. Why the fuck though, have Nikon made a DX 35/1.8 which is BIGGER than it? Are HSM motors enormous?

The bottom line is that Nikon are ignoring anyone who wants a pro-spec outfit that isn't massive. Pro quality does not require a D3, nor an FX sensor. Three years back we didn't have FX Nikon bodies, and yet pros still got work published 12MP is more than enough for a DPS in any magazine I sell to, and those 12MP keep getting better without needing to get bigger. Sure, a DŁ will help you compete in a market shooting sports in poor light, but pick up some National Geographics from the eighties and see what folk like Galen managed with 35mm IS0 64 Kodachrome.

dave

  • Guest
#223 Re: Nikon DSLR
June 24, 2010, 02:38:40 pm
To illustrate the point about bigger cameras not necessarily equaling (or indeed required for) bigger image quality, here's a couple of crops from a review of the panasonic m4/3 20mm lens on an EP2. Compared to D3s with a 50mm 1.8 (a very sharp lens), same raw processor for both, both 12mp, both same base ISO, (almost same aperture for both shots, 1/3 of a stop difference cos the guy fucked up).

center crop:





The questions is, which ones of those images is "pro quality"?

http://www.stevehuffphoto.com/2010/01/18/the-pansonic-lumix-g-20-1-7-lens-review/

Johnny Brown

Offline
  • *****
  • forum hero
  • Posts: 11437
  • Karma: +690/-22
#224 Re: Nikon DSLR
June 24, 2010, 03:01:53 pm
Both. But you'd only take one of them up a mountain.

 

SimplePortal 2.3.7 © 2008-2024, SimplePortal