The Nikon D3 makes everyone's life better, even mine!!!

This message is not archived
 >> Stay informed about: The Nikon D3 makes everyone's life better, even mine!!! 

Rita Berkowitz wrote:
> Pudentame wrote:
>
>>> Makes one wonder why prices have gone up so dramatically. Cost of
>>> technology? Popularity, i.e. supply-and-demand... or just demand?
>>
>> or precipitous fall in the value of the dollar?
>
> It doesn't make that much of a difference since the D3's MSRP of $5,000 was
> already set way before the further decline on the dollar.
>
>
>
>
> Rita
>

*Further* decline...
 >> Stay informed about: The Nikon D3 makes everyone's life better, even mine!!! 

"Rita Berkowitz" <ritaberk2008 DeleteThis @aol.com> wrote in
news:13t53c3peu0b134@news.supernews.com:

> Canon's lens system didn't live up to my expectations so I now
> know without a shadow of doubt that I made the right decision staying
> with Nikon and buying the D3.

Just when someone came out with a Nikon lenst to Canon camera adapter that
translates the protocols!

Did you see the review where the D3 and the 1Dsmk3 both use the new Nikon
14-24mm f/2.8?

Well, you had the non-S mk3, so the D3 was a step up in overal IQ, (unless
you are maxed out on focal length and would wind up cropping with the D3,
in which case, a subject that is the same absolute size on the sensor would
have less subject noise and more resolution with the 1Dmk3).

--

<>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<>
John P Sheehy <JPS DeleteThis @no.komm>
><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>><
 >> Stay informed about: The Nikon D3 makes everyone's life better, even mine!!! 

TH O <tho DeleteThis @tho.23.invalid> wrote:

>And best of all, Nikon has introduced planned obsolescence into its
>line. We used to be able to use manual focus lenses on all cameras but
>now you need an $1800 camera or better (D300) since Nikon has removed
>metering and aperture coupling ability from lower end bodies. Which
>means that now the customers are more likely to buy new lenses. With the
>D40/D40x/D60, half of the autofocus lenses won't AF on the bodies, so it
>further limits the available used lenses, makes many AF lenses obsolete,
>and leads customers towards new lenses.


Nikon has been doing this for years. I was very disappointed indeed
when the Nikon N80/F80 did not offer metering with AIS lenses. Within
a short time, the only Nikon SLR body options for a photographer
expecting to meter with AIS lenses started with the F100, at a price
not unadjacent to the equivalent value of today's $1800.

So this is nothing new. What Nikon did was to improve their lenses
incrementally. First AI, then AIS, then AF (in two attempts), then
AF-D, then AI-P, then AF-S, and now VR. Somewhere in there was AF-P
also. So Nikon offered some backward compatibility, but not the sort
of near-total compatibility that the Canon EF mount has offered.

However, let us not forget that Canon abandoned its loyal FL and FD
customer base (and largely alienated it) with the introduction of the
EF mount. At least Nikon has avoided that, going for step by step
changes that keep most Nikon users on board rather than Canon's one
step change that turned off a whole community of loyal fans.
 >> Stay informed about: The Nikon D3 makes everyone's life better, even mine!!! 

This message is not archived
 >> Stay informed about: The Nikon D3 makes everyone's life better, even mine!!! 

TH O wrote:
> Tony Polson wrote:
>> TH O wrote:
>>
>>> And best of all, Nikon has introduced planned obsolescence into its
>>> line. We used to be able to use manual focus lenses on all cameras but
>>> now you need an $1800 camera or better (D300) since Nikon has removed
>>> metering and aperture coupling ability from lower end bodies. Which
>>> means that now the customers are more likely to buy new lenses. With the
>>> D40/D40x/D60, half of the autofocus lenses won't AF on the bodies, so it
>>> further limits the available used lenses, makes many AF lenses obsolete,
>>> and leads customers towards new lenses.
>>
>> Nikon has been doing this for years. I was very disappointed indeed
>> when the Nikon N80/F80 did not offer metering with AIS lenses. Within
>> a short time, the only Nikon SLR body options for a photographer
>> expecting to meter with AIS lenses started with the F100, at a price
>> not unadjacent to the equivalent value of today's $1800.
>
> As far as I can see there is no justification for dropping this backward
> capability except to increase Nikon's sales. Is there really any
> manufacturing cost for allowing a D80 to meter through AIS lenses that
> were stopped down? How much would adding the features for AIS lens
> coupling cost to the D80? $3? $5?

The relative aperture can be read by the camera in a 70/D80 (and
probably for D40), Nikon only needs to stop disabling the meter which
can do by installing a microchip from any broken lens. The camera
doesn't know what the actual apertures are but any errors in metering
due to this factor are minor.

>> So this is nothing new.
 >> Stay informed about: The Nikon D3 makes everyone's life better, even mine!!! 

"Tony Polson" <docnews2011 DeleteThis @googlemail.com> wrote in message
news:f9q5t35juqddjfrufq4hhcipls05e4p7ko@4ax.com...
> TH O <tho DeleteThis @tho.23.invalid> wrote:
>
>>And best of all, Nikon has introduced planned obsolescence into its
>>line. We used to be able to use manual focus lenses on all cameras but
>>now you need an $1800 camera or better (D300) since Nikon has removed
>>metering and aperture coupling ability from lower end bodies. Which
>>means that now the customers are more likely to buy new lenses. With the
>>D40/D40x/D60, half of the autofocus lenses won't AF on the bodies, so it
>>further limits the available used lenses, makes many AF lenses obsolete,
>>and leads customers towards new lenses.
>
>
> Nikon has been doing this for years. I was very disappointed indeed
> when the Nikon N80/F80 did not offer metering with AIS lenses. Within
> a short time, the only Nikon SLR body options for a photographer
> expecting to meter with AIS lenses started with the F100, at a price
> not unadjacent to the equivalent value of today's $1800.
>
> So this is nothing new. What Nikon did was to improve their lenses
> incrementally. First AI, then AIS, then AF (in two attempts), then
> AF-D, then AI-P, then AF-S, and now VR. Somewhere in there was AF-P
> also. So Nikon offered some backward compatibility, but not the sort
> of near-total compatibility that the Canon EF mount has offered.
>
> However, let us not forget that Canon abandoned its loyal FL and FD
> customer base (and largely alienated it) with the introduction of the
> EF mount. At least Nikon has avoided that, going for step by step
> changes that keep most Nikon users on board rather than Canon's one
> step change that turned off a whole community of loyal fans.
>

I wouldn't go quite that far.

I was an avid Canon shooter prior to the introduction of the auto-focus EF
lenses, happily running around with two Canon bodies that used the FD type
lens system.

But, when Canon introduced the new EF system, it also came out with bodies
like the A2 that added a great deal of functionality, better metering, ETTL
flash accessories, and built-in power-drives with great performance.
Upgrading to the newer cameras wasn't simply a change in lens mounts, it was
a whole-sale overhaul of the entire system at a reasonable cost. None of my
acquaintences were the least bit upset with the company.

Take Care,
Dudley
 >> Stay informed about: The Nikon D3 makes everyone's life better, even mine!!! 

On Mar 9, 3:49 pm, "The Dave©" <n... DeleteThis @no.com> wrote:
> > Tony Polson wrote:
> > That's certainly one way of looking at it.  Given Nikon's commitment
> > to some kind of backward compatibility, I think adding features on the
> > one hand and taking away some of the backward compatibility with the
> > other is probably inevitable, given the restriction of using the basic
> > F mount.
>
> > >> However, let us not forget that Canon abandoned its loyal FL and FD
> > >> customer base (and largely alienated it) with the introduction of
> > the >> EF mount.  At least Nikon has avoided that, going for step by
> > step >> changes that keep most Nikon users on board rather than
> > Canon's one >> step change that turned off a whole community of loyal
> > fans.
>
> > > Canon certainly abandoned their users with the change. That was
> > > what brought me to Nikon.
>
> > For me, the N80/F80 was the straw that broke the camel's back.  I also
> > had serious issues with the optical performance of some of my Nikkors.
>
> If everything you've said about this in this thread is true, and I have
> nothing with which to dispute it, then it seems that Canon actually
> made the better long-term choice in changing everything to EF as far as
> the customer is concerned.

I tend to agree. Canon made a bold choice and committed to the future
(being AF).

I must admit that I never gave it a second thought, AF was the best
thing since sliced bread back then and I was not at all interested in
my old MF lenses. There were those that were however (having made the
"choice" to stay with manual focus) and I got very good money the old
kit.
 >> Stay informed about: The Nikon D3 makes everyone's life better, even mine!!! 

TH O <tho.TakeThisOut@tho.23.invalid> wrote:

>In article <f9q5t35juqddjfrufq4hhcipls05e4p7ko.TakeThisOut@4ax.com>,
> Tony Polson <docnews2011.TakeThisOut@googlemail.com> wrote:
>>
>> Nikon has been doing this for years. I was very disappointed indeed
>> when the Nikon N80/F80 did not offer metering with AIS lenses. Within
>> a short time, the only Nikon SLR body options for a photographer
>> expecting to meter with AIS lenses started with the F100, at a price
>> not unadjacent to the equivalent value of today's $1800.
>
>As far as I can see there is no justification for dropping this backward
>capability except to increase Nikon's sales.


That was my feeling at the time. I wasn't happy.


>Is there really any
>manufacturing cost for allowing a D80 to meter through AIS lenses that
>were stopped down? How much would adding the features for AIS lens
>coupling cost to the D80? $3? $5?


I mentioned the N80/F80 film SLR, not the D80 DSLR. At the time I
think Nikon claimed the extra cost would have been about $80. The
camera needed a ring to engage with the aperture ring of the lens and
transfer aperture data to the camera's metering system.


>> So this is nothing new. What Nikon did was to improve their lenses
>> incrementally. First AI, then AIS, then AF (in two attempts), then
>> AF-D, then AI-P, then AF-S, and now VR. Somewhere in there was AF-P
>> also. So Nikon offered some backward compatibility, but not the sort
>> of near-total compatibility that the Canon EF mount has offered.
>
>My point is that many of these changes created unwarranted
>incompatibilities which Nikon has opportunistically used to make bodies
>and lens obsolete. Today, my concern is that they are consciously
>creating incompatibilities so they can increase lens and body sales.


That's certainly one way of looking at it. Given Nikon's commitment
to some kind of backward compatibility, I think adding features on the
one hand and taking away some of the backward compatibility with the
other is probably inevitable, given the restriction of using the basic
F mount.


>> However, let us not forget that Canon abandoned its loyal FL and FD
>> customer base (and largely alienated it) with the introduction of the
>> EF mount. At least Nikon has avoided that, going for step by step
>> changes that keep most Nikon users on board rather than Canon's one
>> step change that turned off a whole community of loyal fans.
>
>Canon certainly abandoned their users with the change. That was what
>brought me to Nikon.


For me, the N80/F80 was the straw that broke the camel's back. I also
had serious issues with the optical performance of some of my Nikkors.
 >> Stay informed about: The Nikon D3 makes everyone's life better, even mine!!! 

"Rita Berkowitz" <ritaberk2008.RemoveThis@aol.com> wrote in message
news:13t53c4godka836@news.supernews.com...
> Floyd L. Davidson wrote:
>
>>> Yup.....One of the reasons why I'm still a film shooter......I've
>>> still got my $1700 F5........
>>
>> Let's see, take a rough figure... 10,000 shots per year,
>> 20,000 shots per year? Even at only 5,000, a film
>> camera costs a *fortune* to use. If you only spent 50
>> cents per exposure with film, the top digital camera
>> will pay for itself in 2 years if you hardly use it.
>
> On the flip side of that coin, you won't see the film shooter waste as
> many
> frames as you would see some of the people we now have "machine gunning"
> 10,000 shots at a horse show with digital and praying for a single keeper.
>
>
>
>
> Rita
>
Yes.....Well, I also like having the "hard copy" of my slides. (I almost
exclusively shoot slide film) And, I rather like the brilliant colors of the
slides, too. I seldom project them. but I view them with a high quality
loupe against a special light box that I built just for that purpose. I also
play around with digital by scanning them into my computer and screw with
the images with Photoshop......Everything except take the images with a
digital camera to begin with......I just have a hard time laying out 3 or 4
thousand dollars for something that I know will be obsolete in 18
months......I know it's not very reasonable, but that's the way it is......
 >> Stay informed about: The Nikon D3 makes everyone's life better, even mine!!! 

Rita Berkowitz wrote:
> Chris Malcolm wrote:
>
>>> They're all overpriced these days. Time was (7 years ago or less)
>>> $1700 would have bought you arguably the best 35mm camera in the
>>> world, and those of us here were paying $500 or less for most of
>>> ours. Now the top camera costs $8000+
>>
>>
>> Because now you're in effect buying a lifetime's supply of film in
>> addition to the camera. It's actually a real bargain unless you rarely
>> take photographs.
>
>
> Now you are starting to see the real deal, but your timeframe is totally
> wrong unless you plan on only living 18-months.

So' you expect the camera to stop functioning after only 18 months?
I would call the camera lemon if that was the case.
 >> Stay informed about: The Nikon D3 makes everyone's life better, even mine!!! 

> dj_nme wrote:
> > Rita Berkowitz wrote:
> > Now you are starting to see the real deal, but your timeframe is
> > totally wrong unless you plan on only living 18-months.
>
> So' you expect the camera to stop functioning after only 18 months?
> I would call the camera lemon if that was the case.

Must've bought the 'Mission Impossible' model.
 >> Stay informed about: The Nikon D3 makes everyone's life better, even mine!!! 

> Tony Polson wrote:
> That's certainly one way of looking at it. Given Nikon's commitment
> to some kind of backward compatibility, I think adding features on the
> one hand and taking away some of the backward compatibility with the
> other is probably inevitable, given the restriction of using the basic
> F mount.
>
> >> However, let us not forget that Canon abandoned its loyal FL and FD
> >> customer base (and largely alienated it) with the introduction of
> the >> EF mount. At least Nikon has avoided that, going for step by
> step >> changes that keep most Nikon users on board rather than
> Canon's one >> step change that turned off a whole community of loyal
> fans.
> >
> > Canon certainly abandoned their users with the change. That was
> > what brought me to Nikon.
>
> For me, the N80/F80 was the straw that broke the camel's back. I also
> had serious issues with the optical performance of some of my Nikkors.

If everything you've said about this in this thread is true, and I have
nothing with which to dispute it, then it seems that Canon actually
made the better long-term choice in changing everything to EF as far as
the customer is concerned.
 >> Stay informed about: The Nikon D3 makes everyone's life better, even mine!!!