Yep no cool stuff at all, like wireless flash that works, 200 f/2 VR, hi speed crop mode. Multiple exposures in camera "after" the shot. I line of digital SLRs that take ALL lenses Nikon makes. Sure they aren't going out on a limb as much with wild lenses, but no one bought them. As for plastic, my 17-55 G lens looks pretty tough. Also, sometimes in certain cases plastic bounces, metal bends.
You can't say this about cameras, the whole world is plastic. Look at an old chevy and a new one. Of course in a new one if you have a head on at 55MPH you probably won't die.
David R wrote:
Jack, you've probably said that before, and perhaps I've read it before. But that statement is huge. I was just considering dusting off some old MF or LF gear. Given what you say about the D2X it may make more sense to wait for used D2Xs to come down to my price range.
Yeah, I have said it before, and I should probably shut up I was showing some prints, and I did not tell the viewers anything about the prints, what type of camera, etc. After view the prints, I asked for their opinion as to which prints were 'better', e.g., color, sharpness, and things like that. I still didn't say anything about gear. Without exception, they picked the D2X prints, 16x24's, over the 6x7 prints, which were 16x20's. Just for fun, I had two larger prints, a 20x24 and 20x30, and again, they picked the D2X print. Now, I didn't think too much of that until later, at home, my wife was looking at the prints. She commented "these prints from your new camera are much better than the ones from your old camera". My wife doesn't have a clue about camera gear, and doesn't want to have one, and it struck me that she noticed the difference and related it to being a different camera. Anyway, after that print viewing that night, it clinched it for me.
SnaggS wrote:
Or if you ever have a chance, have a look at one of those old fisheyes. You obviously have no idea how far they have fallen.
I would actually disagree with that.
I think the DX fisheye is better than the old fishes from yesteryear. Having a 180 degree full DX frame lens is better than a 180degree lens that is a circular fisheye on 35mm film. The only exception is the 10mm fish that's designed for scientific measurement.
And also, price wise, the 10.5mm DX is only 600, as opposed to the 1600+ that I have seen the huge fishes go for.
In my opinion, gear today is superior to gear from yesteryear. We have autofocus, top notch coatings, and CAD design that makes good lenses easier and cheaper to make.
Talk about how the build quality has fallen all you want, I think Nikon and Canon have both made their gear a LOT better over the years.
I agree about the weight issue, my shoulders are killing me.Let some of the lenses be lighter. But as far as making the hightest quality, and or best designs, it should be at every price level. As an analogy, Toyota is kicking Detroits butt every year. It is not how much it costs, it is how it preforms. GM has not had a good design since fins on the Cadillac.And it shows in there bottom line. Nikon better not stray to much, for to long, it will come back and bite them.
spanishbayonet wrote:
I agree about the weight issue, my shoulders are killing me.Let some of the lenses be lighter. But as far as making the hightest quality, and or best designs, it should be at every price level. As an analogy, Toyota is kicking Detroits butt every year. It is not how much it costs, it is how it preforms. GM has not had a good design since fins on the Cadillac.And it shows in there bottom line. Nikon better not stray to much, for to long, it will come back and bite them.
After carrying the D2X around for awhile , I'm glad I've got a light weight 12-24 mounted. It doesn't have to be made out of concrete and steel for it to be made well, IMO. My Nikkor 80-400 is plenty heavy to carry, I can't imagine why I'd want it any heavier. Personally, I think the DX lens offerings of late has been a great design achievment, not 'straying'.
To further the car analogy, it's not all in the design. With an average of $750 added into the price of every GM vehicle for pension benefits, they are at a distinct disadvantage in pricing, considering that Toyota doesn't have a corporate pension plan, it's government funded. So, maybe they should bring the fins back....
jacko wrote:
Not to be argumentative , but I have 'old 35mm', 'new 35mm', 6x45, 6x6, and 6x7 from the last 30 years. The D2X bests all of them. I've taken my best drum scanned trannies, and viewing them at 100%, you just can't be in denial anymore. Of course, there are aesthetics in film that are endearing to me, and I still shoot film, but the print from the D2X blows away anything I can get from my 6x7. This is not scientific fact, just the clients choice
Jack
I thought that was what I said! New DSLR images slightly better than 35mm. The only reason I don't have a D2x is that I don't have the five grand to shell out. In the mean time, 645 is the most affordable high quality choice for me at this time. I have the 645 cameras, lenses, lighting, so developing is still a fraction of the cost compared to dishing out the five grand.
snegron wrote:
I thought that was what I said! New DSLR images slightly better than 35mm. The only reason I don't have a D2x is that I don't have the five grand to shell out. In the mean time, 645 is the most affordable high quality choice for me at this time. I have the 645 cameras, lenses, lighting, so developing is still a fraction of the cost compared to dishing out the five grand.
I guess I misunderstood you, my brain hasn't been in gear for a couple of days I never was able to get quality 24x36 prints from 35mm that I could get with the D100. They were good, but the D100 files were just so much cleaner, and in my mind they were much better. I'm still having fun with film, and kick myself ever so ofter for dumping my MF gear. I can't get away from the 'look' of film that I dearly love, which is one of the reasons I like to shoot the D2X at ISO 800, hehe.
For those of us still using film, the big Nikon news is the reissue of S rangefinders. The SP is just appearing on the market, while the S3 has been out since 2000. Even as a Leica M devotee, the S system has me drooling. In a real sense, these modern models from Nikon may represent the best cameras ever built since the beginning of time. Here's the SP main page (in Japanese).
The modern SLRs, DSLRs and lenses from all current companies are clearly driven by up-front price, rather than longevity. The only exception is Leica, and I don't know how they will transition their interchangeable-lens bodies to integrated sensor designs (digital M): building to last the owner's lifetime doesn't make economic sense (even for Solms).
SnaggS wrote:
I think what we are seeing is a change of the guard at Nikon. All the old guys who brought out some the most innovative products (many of which Canon or anyone has yet to match) are retiring. Theres just a few left from that era, and thats why Nikon still made an F6, the FM3a and the 45mm f/2.8P.
From the view of someone who switched to Canon 10 years ago and would like to come back (meaning I haven't paid attention to Nikon in a long time), I think there were two changes of guard at Nikon. First the removal of anyone who was not an accountant (i.e. why use a $.5 part when a $.4 might work too) and the birth of a lot of garbage equipment and deplorable corporate policy. Now I think they are so far behind Canon that (hopefully)they realize they need to pull out all the stops to get back in the game -- s**t or get off the pot so to speak. This is the attitude that gave birth to the D2x and 200/2 VR. I think Nikon was so concentrated on making money by cutting costs they completely lost sight of the market.
I don't think companies make that much money from pros, but I think that to some degree the pro cameras drive sales of consumer cameras, both through word or mouth and trickle-down innovation. Kind of like car companies that are invloved in racing.
Now I think they are so far behind Canon that (hopefully)they realize they
The only gap I see relative to Canon is prosumer DLSR in the middle of their lineup. This gap is filled nicely for me with a D1x. But most people won't be happy until they can buy an 8-12MP camera in this slot.
I don't want to debate you on whether or not Nikon is "so far behind," but other than the gap I noted above, I just don't see it. Be it a pro DSLR body, entry level DSLR bodies, lens line up, flash technology, or film bodies, I consider Nikon to more than competetive.
The problem with the Digital Era vs. the "Mechanical era" does not evolve around whether plastic or metal. Both have advantages as you gentlemen have said. The failures have been in the peripheral arena and the internal vendor supplied parts. Eg. Quality controls.
a) Deterioration of some plastics ersatz: the backs on Nikons, the grips that fall off, the rubberized paint that fell off, the film holders on the windup spool that snapped with age and so forth.
b) The electronics in mass production and the quality control. They do more and fail more and not robust enough.
A local photographer has written a Canon vs Nikon article on the web which he had updated over time, so sort of a running tally if you will. He currently shoots Nikon but has admitted to a wandering eye. No doubt, who hasn't?
His final conclusion (as should be in my assessment) was to stick with whatever you have because eventually, they will produce something you will want. It's paraphrased heavily but you get the jist.
Point is, if you made money with the gear you have over the last two years, no reason why it can't make money for you now. In that case it doesn't matter what they come out with, it will never be good enough. Bottom line is it doesn't matter.
I couldn't make a 2x lifesize log carving of a lumberjack walking his dog with the finest of carving tools yet some guy can do it with a chainsaw right down to the stitching in the doods jeans. You find the relavence.
A note on build. Let me ask this, who won the race on mass production and introduction of feather lite cameras made primarily of plastic? In order to be competitive who needs to follow? It's not that simple. Just like any armchair coach watching the game on TV we have an opinion but we don't bear pressure of a billion dollar decision. Our heads remain comfortably intact and thats what makes the bickering all so easy.
I'll put it another way, when all the threads about the D200 yammerings were floating full of comments and wants, one was fairly prominent. PRICE. That's right. What makes the D5 soooo attractive? thats right ... PRICE. Bottom line is we couldn't afford to buy cameras built in the manner they used to build them.
I look at the money I have spent on my bike parts (pedal bike) like cold forged cranks (qranc if you will) which cost almost as much as an entire D70. Just metal, sure engineered but that no big thing and it contains no electronics, no sophistaced moving parts etc. Just a metal shafts formed in a fancy way, in fancy shape.
The prices for a simple (compared to a digital device like a camera) high end tripod or a good top ball head. The price of a collar for my 80-200 AFS or even just the stinking mounting plates!
I don't think it's as much as an old guard passing on, we the consumer have dictated the market. You are responsible for this plastic because you won't buy it if they make it tank tough.
Bottom line is you should be able to get a good image with what you have. I've seen great shots from a brownie. There's no way I'd give up my D2X for my old F3. My old "metal" 55mm micro broke several times, my new 60mm micro just keeps on ticking.
uccmmcpo, snaggs always does this for whatever reason. Bemoans what is, talks about how Canon is so much better, it's pretty silly. Oh all the great Nikon designers are all gone, the lenses aren't what they should be. FF is where it's at, so on and so forth.
SnaggS wrote:
You are just too sensitive. It is very interesting to look at the history of Nikon, pickup an AIS lens, and btw, the link to my website is fine isn't it?
www.pbase.com/snaggs
I'm not whining, just pickup some AIS lenses, it was a hunch of mine that Nikon had cleared out some of the old guard, and my hunch has prooven correct already by a few of the more experienced members here.
And btw, I do post images, just not to often in the GEAR forums, because Mr Miranda and the moderators have spoken specifically about posting too many of them in these forums unless they are gear related.
I tihnk you'll find your the one who is at odds with the purpose of the forum.
I get a page not found on the FM link and the link you've supplied. Master..... I thought the purpose of the forum was to share information....not whine.....If you'd knew anything about todays plastics, you might realize the are just as good if not better suited than the metal of yesteryear.
I was showing some prints, and I did not tell the viewers anything about the prints, what type of camera, etc. After view the prints, I asked for their opinion as to which prints were 'better', e.g., color, sharpness, and things like that. I still didn't say anything about gear. Without exception, they picked the D2X prints, 16x24's, over the 6x7 prints, which were 16x20's. Just for fun, I had two larger prints, a 20x24 and 20x30, and again, they picked the D2X print. Now, I didn't think too much of that until later, at home, my wife was looking at the prints. She commented "these prints from your new camera are much better than the ones from your old camera". My wife doesn't have a clue about camera gear, and doesn't want to have one, and it struck me that she noticed the difference and related it to being a different camera. Anyway, after that print viewing that night, it clinched it for me.
, but I have 'old 35mm', 'new 35mm', 6x45, 6x6, and 6x7 from the last 30 years. The D2X bests all of them. I've taken my best drum scanned trannies, and viewing them at 100%, you just can't be in denial anymore. Of course, there are aesthetics in film that are endearing to me, and I still shoot film, but the print from the D2X blows away anything I can get from my 6x7. This is not scientific fact, just the clients choice 
New DSLR images slightly better than 35mm. The only reason I don't have a D2x is that I don't have the five grand to shell out. In the mean time, 645 is the most affordable high quality choice for me at this time. I have the 645 cameras, lenses, lighting, so developing is still a fraction of the cost compared to dishing out the five grand.