Nikon on Crack

[ziocan]

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.

I just say what I think, based on my experiences taking photos with the equipment I'm referring to.
After all is just an opinion, like many others.

[pixman63]

It is now absolutely critical that Nikon get the D700x / D800 out as soon as possible for under $3000.

I wouldn't hold your breath on that one. A Nikon ad in the BJP last week contained the phrase, "The Nikon FX family is now complete". Obviously that doesn't rule things out 100%, but I'd be surprised if a 5D-alike were to appear in the medium term.

[Tony Beach]

I wouldn't hold your breath on that one. A Nikon ad in the BJP last week contained the phrase, "The Nikon FX family is now complete". Obviously that doesn't rule things out 100%, but I'd be surprised if a 5D-alike were to appear in the medium term.

I am reading a lot of posts suggesting it might take a year or even more for Nikon to release a "D700x".  IMO, even six months is too long; I've decided to wait until May or June, but than I will get a Sony A900 and 16-35/2.8 ZA which should satisfy about 90% of my landscape work.  If Nikon waits longer and/or charges significantly more, I will punish them by selling off gear to buy Alpha mount lenses and will eventually abandon Nikon over this one issue.  Nikon has been too late a number of times:  too late for decent high ISO performance, too late for FX, and now this.

[Slough]

I wouldn't hold your breath on that one. A Nikon ad in the BJP last week contained the phrase, "The Nikon FX family is now complete". Obviously that doesn't rule things out 100%, but I'd be surprised if a 5D-alike were to appear in the medium term.

I suspect that is just marketing spin, to convince is that Nikon now covers all needs as they have a complete system. As to what Nikon's plans really are, only they know.

[douglasf13]

I am reading a lot of posts suggesting it might take a year or even more for Nikon to release a "D700x".  IMO, even six months is too long; I've decided to wait until May or June, but than I will get a Sony A900 and 16-35/2.8 ZA which should satisfy about 90% of my landscape work.  If Nikon waits longer and/or charges significantly more, I will punish them by selling off gear to buy Alpha mount lenses and will eventually abandon Nikon over this one issue.  Nikon has been too late a number of times:  too late for decent high ISO performance, too late for FX, and now this.

  I say keep the Nikon gear and go for an A900 and 16-35 in the interim.  I'm sure you wouldn't loose too much money if you were forced to sell the Sony gear in May.  Probably <$500 total, which would be a very good 5 month rental price for such a set up.   I waited 2 months from the release to buy the A900, and I wished I would have gone ahead and purchased it in the beginning.

[Tony Beach]

I say keep the Nikon gear and go for an A900 and 16-35 in the interim.  I'm sure you wouldn't loose too much money if you were forced to sell the Sony gear in May.  Probably <$500 total, which would be a very good 5 month rental price for such a set up.   I waited 2 months from the release to buy the A900, and I wished I would have gone ahead and purchased it in the beginning.

I will not do anything until May or June because my income is seasonal (it comes primarily from residential window cleaning), and I just can't afford the $4200 the Sony system will set me back; besides that, the Sony 16-35/2.8 ZA will not be available until January.  Likewise, I was always planning on waiting for the Nikon $3000 alternative -- it's just that now it doesn't look like it will be $3000.  Where this becomes a bleed for Nikon is that if they just leave me hanging and then come out after a full year with something that is not competitively priced, then the combination of my resentment and my investment in Sony lenses will grow to a point where I won't turn back, plus I will start funding missing Sony lenses by selling off my unused Nikkor lenses.  Actually, there will be a tipping point where all the Nikkors and Nikon DSLRs go at once, probably that will be August or September -- I just don't see myself straddling two systems with incomplete satisfaction in either system when it starts to look like Sony is going to give me more satisfaction than Nikon has so far.

[douglasf13]

Gotcha, Tony.  Makes sense to me.

[DaveCurtis]

"Nikon on crack", well Nikon is on rocket fuel down under!  The price listed down here in NZ at www.photo.co.nz  is $21200 NZ. To give you an idea I paid 12000 NZ for my 1DS Mrk3 back in January.

I could buy a rather nice used Porsche for $21K.  

[Cohiba]

"Nikon on crack", well Nikon is on rocket fuel down under!  The price listed down here in NZ at www.photo.co.nz  is $21200 NZ. To give you an idea I paid 12000 NZ for my 1DS Mrk3 back in January.

I could buy a rather nice used Porsche for $21K.  

Sure, but how many megapixels is the Porsche?

[Tony Beach]

Sure, but how many megapixels is the Porsche?

Not to overstretch the metaphor, but what if I could buy a Mazda for one third the price of the Porsche and it could do everything as well except didn't have the same top speed?  In California where I live you never get to go 200 mph (except on a racetrack), so 150 mph or even 120 mph would be more than enough -- the same is true of the A900, for me.

[JohnKoerner]

Not to overstretch the metaphor, but what if I could buy a Mazda for one third the price of the Porsche and it could do everything as well except didn't have the same top speed?  In California where I live you never get to go 200 mph (except on a racetrack), so 150 mph or even 120 mph would be more than enough -- the same is true of the A900, for me.

Actually, the Mazda can't do anything as well as the Porsche (it can't handle corners, it does not have the braking system, steering, acceleration, etc.) So the Mazda (though nice at its level) truly can do nothing as well as a top-end Porsche.

The only thing the Mazda has over the Porsche is it's cheaper to buy and cheaper to run. But it will never perform anything like a Porsche ... or feel as good to own ... and that's why there's such a dramatic price difference  

[vandevanterSH]

"Nikon on crack", well Nikon is on rocket fuel down under!  The price listed down here in NZ at www.photo.co.nz  is $21200 NZ. To give you an idea I paid 12000 NZ for my 1DS Mrk3 back in January.

I could buy a rather nice used Porsche for $21K.  

What good is a Porsche in NZ..there are all of those dam* sheep on the roads.*g*

Steve

[DaveCurtis]

What good is a Porsche in NZ..there are all of those dam* sheep on the roads.*g*

Steve

Good Point!!  Perhaps the Nikon is a better option!!!  

[John Camp]

What good is a Porsche in NZ..there are all of those dam* sheep on the roads.*g*

Steve

In my experience, a Porsche has much better acceleration than a sheep, and also a better high end. No need to fear sheep; an M3 might be a different matter.

JC

[Ray]

So the Mazda (though nice at its level) truly can do nothing as well as a top-end Porsche.

Except get you to your destination safely; perhaps more safely.

[Tony Beach]

Actually, the Mazda can't do anything as well as the Porsche (it can't handle corners, it does not have the braking system, steering, acceleration, etc.) So the Mazda (though nice at its level) truly can do nothing as well as a top-end Porsche.

The only thing the Mazda has over the Porsche is it's cheaper to buy and cheaper to run. But it will never perform anything like a Porsche ... or feel as good to own ... and that's why there's such a dramatic price difference

Are you still shooting with a P&S?  That's the photographic equivalent of a small station wagon with a 4 cylinder engine.

We could also start discussing putting a lousy driver in a Porsche and having him race against a professional race car driver in a Mazda -- but then we might need to discuss the gas they put in the cars, the tires they drove on, the road conditions, etc, etc -- but that would all be nonsense as it relates to whether a D3x is worth $5000 more than an A900.  That's what why I said I didn't want to overstretch the metaphor.  There are many things the D3 can do that the D700 cannot do, but they have nothing to do with image quality.  As for the A900 compared to a hypothetical D700x or an actual D3x; at or near base ISO using optimal technique and skills there will be very little to distinguish them from one another in landscape and nature photography.  As Thom Hogan wrote today:  either the A900 is underpriced, the D3x is overpriced, or Nikon has spent $1000 making the D3x sensor better than the A900 sensor upon which the D3x sensor is based -- and that last possibility is highly dubious.

[vandevanterSH]

In my experience, a Porsche has much better acceleration than a sheep, and also a better high end. No need to fear sheep; an M3 might be a different matter.

JC

The problem arises when ( ∆d(sheep)/∆t=0;  intersects with ∆d(Porsche)/∆t=>0) = >D3x

Steve

[JohnKoerner]

What good is a Porsche in NZ..there are all of those dam* sheep on the roads.*g*
Steve

Well, for starters, it's still a Porsche, and therefore handles better, so you could whiz around the sheep easier  



>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Except get you to your destination safely; perhaps more safely.

Nonsense. All of the safety features favor the Porsche ... well, unless you are driving a silver Porsche too fast at dusk like James Dean ...



>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Are you still shooting with a P&S?  That's the photographic equivalent of a small station wagon with a 4 cylinder engine.

True, but in the camera world I am still just a student driver  

We could also start discussing putting a lousy driver in a Porsche and having him race against a professional race car driver in a Mazda -- but then we might need to discuss the gas they put in the cars, the tires they drove on, the road conditions, etc, etc -- but that would all be nonsense as it relates to whether a D3x is worth $5000 more than an A900.

All could be parallels drawn, actually. However, when you put equally-talented drivers in the Mazda and the Porsche, it won't be the Mazda winning the race  

That's what why I said I didn't want to overstretch the metaphor.

Are we over-stretching the metaphor---or missing the point? The Porsche costs more because it is a better car, on every level, except economy. And I would venture to guess that the Nikon D3x will be a better camera in every way than the Sony, except for those who can't afford it (or who just don't want to go that high-end).

As for the A900 compared to a hypothetical D700x or an actual D3x; at or near base ISO using optimal technique and skills there will be very little to distinguish them from one another in landscape and nature photography.

Sure, just like sitting in traffic, or calmly put-putting down the street, there will be little to distinguish the Porsche from the Mazda (except look and feel). However, I would imagine that when called upon to "push the limits" the metaphor will again apply when a person will now be able to see where that extra money's going ...

As Thom Hogan wrote today:  either the A900 is underpriced, the D3x is overpriced, or Nikon has spent $1000 making the D3x sensor better than the A900 sensor upon which the D3x sensor is based -- and that last possibility is highly dubious.

I don't know why it is "highly dubious" at all. I guess we'll have to wait and see, but my money is betting that there will be a lot of "oohs" and "aahs" when it comes to nut-cuttin' time and the comparisons are made, just as there was when the D300 came out, and just as there was when the D3 came out. In both cases, Nikon delivered and justified its price.

Jack




.

[Ray]

Nonsense. All of the safety features favor the Porsche ... well, unless you are driving a silver Porsche too fast at dusk like James Dean ...

As a matter of interest, do we have any accident statistics on this issue? Percentages of Porsche drivers involved in accents as opposed to percentages of Mazda drivers?

There is a perception that powerful vehicles with quick acceleration tend to have more accidents, just as motorbike riders tend to have more accidents.

Let's look at the facts, if you have them.

[JohnKoerner]

If anything, a Porche is a status symbol, not necessarily the best car one can get. Now for a Nikon...

A Porsche is a status symbol, because it is a superior vehicle in every way. Whether it is "the best" car a person can get, "best at what" becomes the question. If you are traversing wild terrain, I would recommend a Land Rover. If you are wanting to enjoy a wide-open, winding highway on a beautiful day, I recommend the Porsche.

(Check out how Road & Track magazine, etc. rates the Porsche, time and again, against its competitors ...)

As a matter of interest, do we have any accident statistics on this issue? Percentages of Porsche drivers involved in accents as opposed to percentages of Mazda drivers?
There is a perception that powerful vehicles with quick acceleration tend to have more accidents, just as motorbike riders tend to have more accidents.
Let's look at the facts, if you have them.

When I first got out of college, I was an auto bodily injury claims invesitgator/adjuster for 12 years. But while I do not have any concrete statistics, per se, I can truthfully tell you that accidents involving Porsche's were almost non-existent.

However, it is also true that the owners of Porsches are almost non-existent compared to the owners of other, cheaper, vehicles. But I would imagine that the people who have the wherewithal to buy a Porsche would (on average) have a little more sense to begin with and would probably be better drivers.

RE: motorbikes, I don't know if they "get in accidents more," but those who do get in accidents sure do die or get seriously injured more ...

Jack