Nikon on Crack

[douglasf13]

Typical statement from who never used the camera and base his knowledge from web samples.
Sony a900 noisy.... Yawn!

Let's be serious, up to 800 iso , from 20mm to 135mm, A900 images got from equal to almost always better IQ than the Canon 1ds3 and definitively better character when images are shot with a Zeiss. The "character" aspect, will very likely apply to comparisons next to the d3x, considering the typical 35mm look Nikon lenses deliver once photos hit the paper.
Above 800 iso is another story.
If someone shoots at above 800 ISO is better off whit lower MP count anyway.

  Agreed.  Not that Popphoto should be an oracle of truth, but they tested the A900 to have quite a bit more resolution than the 5Dii/1Dsiii.  The 5Dii ended up very nearly right in between the D700 and A900.  At ISO 800 or less, the A900 can't be beat.  

  BTW, usual Nikon shooter, Iliah Borg purchased an A900, and he says the camera is limited by it's ADC at ISO 100, so if you really want great high ISO performance, shoot at ISO 100 and boost in a good RAW converter like RAW Therapee.  If you're using Adobe, ISO 400 is probably the sweetspot.  Granted, this method of shooting is a little slower, but for critical high ISO work, it works well with the A900.

[michael]

That may be true if you don't mind reduced dynamic range.

ISO 200 on the Sony is in fact more like 130 in the real world in any event.

Michael

[douglasf13]

That may be true if you don't mind reduced dynamic range.

ISO 200 on the Sony is in fact more like 130 in the real world in any event.

Michael

ISO 200 improves highlight DR, but ISO 100 is better in the shadows with lower noise. Fwiw, Iliah says best possile exposure in the camera is ISO 100 with -1/3 ev exposure comp.

[jjj]

Well, someone has to show a sense of self-irony.

I'm now wondering if it would make a good t-shirt.

[jjj]

That may be true if you don't mind reduced dynamic range.

ISO 200 on the Sony is in fact more like 130 in the real world in any event.

Is there is an easy way of finding out the true/accurate ISO of Digital cameras, like the tool you just reviewed which allows to you to easily tweak one's front/back focus. Using a light meter assumes light meter is absolutley spot on too and how do you get that dead accurate.

[Mort54]

I'd love that, but where are the lenses?

I hear good things about a few of the Sony lenses. But Nikon isn't lacking their own high quality lenses, either from Nikon itself or from third parties. There are, of course, a full range of superb Zeiss ZF lenses for the Nikon F mount. I would argue it's a much more complete line of primes than Sony has. Also, Nikon has the 14-24 and 24-70 zooms, both with curved aperture blades for pleasing bokeh. I don't think you're going to find a finer performing zoom in the 14-24 range than the Nikon. Even the Canon folks seem to appreciate the 14-24 optics :-) And I'd guess the 24-70 can hold it's own. Then of course you have the new tilt-shift lenses, which I don't think Sony has (correct me if I'm wrong on this). And the long teles - the 300, 400, 500 and 600. And the superbly flexible 200-400 zoom. I don't think the Nikon D3X will be in any way hampered by lenses of suitable quality.

I'm not knocking the A900. So far I've been favorably impressed by what I've seen from it. But it's quite a stretch to suggest that the D3X will be hampered by poor lenses.

[douglasf13]

I hear good things about a few of the Sony lenses. But Nikon isn't lacking their own high quality lenses, either from Nikon itself or from third parties. There are, of course, a full range of superb Zeiss ZF lenses for the Nikon F mount. I would argue it's a much more complete line of primes than Sony has. Also, Nikon has the 14-24 and 24-70 zooms, both with curved aperture blades for pleasing bokeh. I don't think you're going to find a finer performing zoom in the 14-24 range than the Nikon. Even the Canon folks seem to appreciate the 14-24 optics :-) And I'd guess the 24-70 can hold it's own. Then of course you have the new tilt-shift lenses, which I don't think Sony has (correct me if I'm wrong on this). And the long teles - the 300, 400, 500 and 600. And the superbly flexible 200-400 zoom. I don't think the Nikon D3X will be in any way hampered by lenses of suitable quality.

I'm not knocking the A900. So far I've been favorably impressed by what I've seen from it. But it's quite a stretch to suggest that the D3X will be hampered by poor lenses.

From most I've heard from that have both ZA and ZF lenses, the ZA are a cut above, being newer designs.  Plus, they're autofocus.

[Mort54]

From purely an Image Quality point of view, the 5D Mark II is in fact a competitor against the D3x.
.......
And why mention the new Sony fullframe A900?  It is the worse performing fullframe to date.  The noisiest, and the least capable, and not worth mentioning.  The only fullframes worth a look are those made by Canon and Nikon.  In the future, perhaps Sony will bring better IQ to the table, but not now.

No one is in any position to throw rocks here. The D3X image quality is, as yet, totally unproven. There just aren't enough samples available that were captured in a controlled way. The A900 seems to capture images with superb resolution and dynamic range (best in class so far), while apparently having some issues with noise at higher ISOs (in fairness, however, is the A900 really targeting high ISO applications). And the 5DII has the dreaded black dot problem, and is reputed to have fairly average AF (I'm only going by what I've read regarding the AF).

Instead of throwing rocks, maybe we should all be counting our lucky stars at the rapid pace of advancement in our tools.

[Mort54]

From most I've heard from that have both ZA and ZF lenses, the ZA are a cut above, being newer designs.  Plus, they're autofocus.

Deleted. I did not realize that the ZAs are the Sony versions. I thought you were talking about the new Canon mount ZEs (?). As I said, I've heard good things about a few Sony lenses. At this level, however, I think we're talking nits.

[JohnKoerner]

And my reply was in reference to that. So even more ridiculous that you took a further play on those words as a dig at iPhones.
Why not simply be adult enough to admit you simply misread my post rather than come out with more nonsense and insults.
Yes and it was still in context of thread  discussion. Again try reading more carefully.

No I didn't you illiterate, I was actually referencing Orange's poor service with the lemon comment. BTW Orange are a mobile phone provider, as this may also have escaped your attention. And as an aside the iPhone is on my shortlist for my next phone.

Yes you really do need to read more carefully, to save repeating myself, see my points above.

So what do lemons make then? Other than a sourpuss out of you? WARNING! - PUN ALERT!!!! WARNING!!!

And you call me rude!? Obviously you are a hypocrite as well as an illiterate and ADD is certainly not a problem I have ever had. However, you seem to have trouble reading or realising a very obvious joke, grief I even added a smiley to underline the fact that it was a humourous comment and still you misread it.
Why not simply admit you made a mistake and move on or are you too stubborn to do that? You gain respect admitting to errors and quickly lose it when denying them.
I get really, really fed up with people not taking the time or effort to read posts more carefully or in context of thread, before replying in a hurry. It's not that hard to to do and saves a lot of unnecesarry aggro if a bit more care is taken.

And your argument as to why Nikon want to charge more is actually perfectly valid and is the same argument people will use when justifying Apple's cost  when compared to other makes. So it is another reason why I think the companies are similar.

You sure do get excited easy don't you? Is it that time of the month?  

Thank you for acknowledging that my argument as to Nikon's pricing is perfectly valid. You could have saved all of the histrionics and just acknowledged that to begin with

Jack




.

[Slough]

You sure do get excited easy don't you? Is it that time of the month?  

Thank you for acknowledging that my argument as to Nikon's pricing is perfectly valid. You could have saved all of the histrionics and just acknowledged that to begin with

Jack
.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/How_to_Win_Fr...nfluence_People

[michael]

I won't close the thread yet, but I do request that everyone remain civil.

No personal attacks please!

Michael

[rlb2444]

I was anxiously awaiting the D3X and was shocked when the price was introduced at $8000.  I expected it to be around $6000.  They already had the body so there was very little development cost involved in fitting the new chip to the body.  The Sony with the 24mp chip was $3000, the Canon 5D with the 24mp chip was under $3000 and the current price of the D3 is around $4100.  There is a huge void in the Nikon line from 12mp to 24mp and they want to slam an $8000 camera down loyal users throat during a time when the world is in financial turmoil.  

They can keep it.  The price will drop like a bullet in short time in my opinion.  If it doesn't then bye-bye Nikon for me.

[jjj]

You sure do get excited easy don't you? Is it that time of the month?  

Thank you for acknowledging that my argument as to Nikon's pricing is perfectly valid. You could have saved all of the histrionics and just acknowledged that to begin with

Wasn't disagreeing with why they did it, that was a separate issue to your misunderstanding and ubsequent rant.
Plus I notice you convieniently ignored everything else I wrote and I was annoyed with your continued inability to read and personal attacks to cover up for your mistakes.

Why can't peple read posts correctly and if they don't, why not have the backbone to admit they made a mistake say sorry and move on?
This is why I gave up on LL for while, as there was too much aggro from people who were too lazy to read posts properly and then too proud to admit to making a mistake and built entire world views around their misunderstanding.
I have zero respect for people like that and sadly once again they seem to be increasing in numbers here.

[Tony Beach]

Then of course you have the new tilt-shift lenses, which I don't think Sony has (correct me if I'm wrong on this).

Hartblei sells TS lenses for the Alpha mount (as well as for Canon EF, Nikon F,  PentaxK, Leica R, Contax).  They are more expensive but the functions can be independently aligned, which is very cool; the alignment of the functions on the Nikkors come from the factory offset at 90° and I'm currently having mine aligned to be on the same axis, but it's costing me $126 per lens (plus shipping to El Segundo) and it appears that Nikon is going to take a month to finish the project (there is currently a "Parts Hold" on my 24mm and 45mm PC-E lenses).  On the other hand, the Nikkors can focus closer without using extension rings, communicate well with the D3x, D3, D700, and D300 (so far, more DSLRs to come), and you can get a Nikkor 24/3.5 PC-E whereas the shortest focal length for the Hartblei TS lenses is 40mm.

I don't think the Nikon D3X will be in any way hampered by lenses of suitable quality.

Yes, and it sometimes comes down to a matter of individual taste -- some prefer Zeiss while some prefer Nikkor or Canon, and those preferences can change depending on the particular lens.

I was anxiously awaiting the D3X and was shocked when the price was introduced at $8000.  I expected it to be around $6000.  They already had the body so there was very little development cost involved in fitting the new chip to the body.  The Sony with the 24mp chip was $3000, the Canon 5D with the 24mp chip was under $3000 and the current price of the D3 is around $4100.  There is a huge void in the Nikon line from 12mp to 24mp and they want to slam an $8000 camera down loyal users throat during a time when the world is in financial turmoil.  

They can keep it.  The price will drop like a bullet in short time in my opinion.  If it doesn't then bye-bye Nikon for me.

That's pretty much exactly how I feel.  I will say though that the street price of the D3x will likely drop to around $6500 once initial demand is met; it appears to be a worthy camera in its class and the only other camera in that class is the 1DsIII which has the same MSRP and a current street price of about $6500.  I expect Nikon will come out with a "D700x" that combines the D700 body with D3x sensor; I would pay $4000 for it if the image quality is as good as some informed sources are claiming it is for the D3x and because of the aforementioned compatibility with my existing lenses -- YMMV.  Therefore, the big question for Nikon is when a "D700x" is available and for how much; for their sake it better be soon and it better be affordable.

[ziocan]

I hear good things about a few of the Sony lenses. But Nikon isn't lacking their own high quality lenses, either from Nikon itself or from third parties. There are, of course, a full range of superb Zeiss ZF lenses for the Nikon F mount. I would argue it's a much more complete line of primes than Sony has. Also, Nikon has the 14-24 and 24-70 zooms, both with curved aperture blades for pleasing bokeh. I don't think you're going to find a finer performing zoom in the 14-24 range than the Nikon. Even the Canon folks seem to appreciate the 14-24 optics :-) And I'd guess the 24-70 can hold it's own. Then of course you have the new tilt-shift lenses, which I don't think Sony has (correct me if I'm wrong on this). And the long teles - the 300, 400, 500 and 600. And the superbly flexible 200-400 zoom. I don't think the Nikon D3X will be in any way hampered by lenses of suitable quality.

I'm not knocking the A900. So far I've been favorably impressed by what I've seen from it. But it's quite a stretch to suggest that the D3X will be hampered by poor lenses.

I did not say that Nikon would be hampered by poor lenses. Though on almost every lens where there is  a CZ or a minolta prime, Sony got from equal to better than Nikon. BTW, Sony also got curved blades on all lenses even the 300$ ones.

Anyway, my comment that you quoted above and some how you got out of contest, was referring to someone saying that Nikon, Canon and SIGMA? are working on medium format digital cameras. Therefore my question "where are the lenses" for such a large sensor was made ironically.
In my view, nothing on the lens line up of the DSLR makers could be put in front of a medium format sensor today, even the smallest sized 28/31mp sensors. therefore they all need new lenses.
Sigma can barely do decent lenses for 35mm FF, Nikon is spilling out 2 or 3 lenses per year (sometime even DX lenses....), canon is maybe doing barely better. If they want to introduce such a body, they need to come out with at least 6 lenses to begin with, in order to be able to work with such a camera.
Let's be realistic, nikon took 6 year to catch up with Canon borrowing sensors from sony, and they finally came out with a 12mp sensor 5 years too late and with a 24mp sensor when everybody, a part from Nikon users, already got one 20mp+ DSLR and are yawning about the DX3. Not mentioning that medium format kits body, lens prism and digital back can be bought for 15/18.000 dollars today and leica will be out with a 37mp body in september next year and they said they will do their best to offer it at 15K. The Leica body, if anybody had the chance of playing with it, will realize it is on a league that will be very difficult to match by anybody else, they will use a Kodak MF sensor of the same class of those used on Phase and Hassy backs, and they already have at least 6 medium format lenses ready. Who think Canon , Nikon and Sigma? really want to go there?
I mean Sigma... come on!

[ziocan]

From most I've heard from that have both ZA and ZF lenses, the ZA are a cut above, being newer designs.  Plus, they're autofocus.

they are of a superior "grade" of anything that was designed by Zeiss for Hasselblad, Contax and Rolley in the past. And all the "new" manual focus DSLR ones are based on the older designs, while the CZ are completely new.

[Mort54]

they are of a superior "grade" of anything that was designed by Zeiss for Hasselblad, Contax and Rolley in the past. And all the "new" manual focus DSLR ones are based on the older designs, while the CZ are completely new.

So you own all these lenses and have done side by side tests to verify all this. That's fantastic.

[ziocan]

So you own all these lenses and have done side by side tests to verify all this. That's fantastic.

I own and owned quite a bunch of them. being shooting those cameras for 25 years.
In any case it does not take a crystall ball to know that. All those older Zeiss were designed for medium format film and they had requirement and tolerances that were less strict that those needed for a 24/36 digital. the new CZ were redesigned taking care of all these new requirements.
We have been told to they are based on the old design and carry the same old names (like Sonnar, Planar whatever....) but if we look at the technical design the groups and the glasses do not even look alike.
I know posts like mine are a bit annoying to read, since they go against the consensus.....

[Mort54]

I know posts like mine are a bit annoying to read, since they go against the consensus.....

Not really. What's annoying is someone making statements as if they were facts, without any data to back them up.

I appreciate your enthusiasm for the CZ lenses, but so far all I've heard is the same old brand favoritism. Blanket statements suggesting that the CZ lenses are superior to everything that's come before them, simply because the CZ lenses are newer, is a rather "interesting" position to take. Sorry, but I just find this brand bashing and brand posturing a little tiresome.