brunobarolo wrote:
AIS lenses will be useless while a 1.4/50G rocks...referring to a camera with medium format backs... which will be very popular...sorry, that's beyond my imagination.
i can imagine that not all AIS lenses but some will be useless. Wide angle comming to mind.
Steve Perry wrote:
Wow, Nikon MX, we've heard that before.
Biggest problem I see is the current lenses. They aren't made for MF format use - too small, not a big enough image circle. Yes, a teleconverter (or wideconverter) could be used, but that begs the question, why would someone buy a MF camera and use a set-up that degrades resolution?
Or why would anyone buy a large MF camera body and basically use it in FX crop mode?
If Nikon does do it, they will need a host of new lenses to boot, so what's the difference if you shoot Nikon or not (kind of the premise of this thread)? You'll still have completely new lenses to buy, that, sure, via adapter will work with your existing equipment (of course, they'd be half-again as big as their FX counterparts).
So, if you're hinting at MX, yeah, it would be cool, but not something every photographer would need or want.
fkhfineart wrote:
you are forgetting important things. one is, that optical converter can be made so that it dont damage quality.
Really? So things like teleconverters never degrade image quality? Any time you put another piece of glass into the equation, you're going to lose some measure of quality. Plus, the converter for this would have to be more of a wide-converter (like a .6x or something) so you're essentially stretching the image circle out to fit it onto a larger sensor. Think we have corner problems now? Ain't seen nothing yet!
Steve Perry wrote:
Really? So things like teleconverters never degrade image quality? Any time you put another piece of glass into the equation, you're going to lose some measure of quality. Plus, the converter for this would have to be more of a wide-converter (like a .6x or something) so you're essentially stretching the image circle out to fit it onto a larger sensor. Think we have corner problems now? Ain't seen nothing yet!
and? imagine you have 10 Eur spyglass and to focal point you stick high quality doublet. Will you see damaged quality of resulting image by adding the doublet?
If there is somebody who knows how to do optics, it is nikon. Keep in mind that adding three lenses to objectives which have 8+ is not really big deal. more like new revision :-)
And when price wont matter, anything can be done. Besides there are some combinations of TCs and lenses where i cannot see any damage in quality even on D3x, and they cost few hundert dollars.
Dont think a MX system could ever take off in this world unless it was priced right (<10,000). You can buy a MF system right now that does plenty of nice things. I know for one, I will continue to use DSLRs and never need MF. I need speed, not excess resolution.
and say it warms up in our segment... just warms. you know yet nothing. but you will scream.
and i sold three my AIS lenses where was laying lot of moneys and which will be useless in single digit months later and bought 50 1.4G because it rocks
god, now i hope that somebody dont get heart attack because of me
Weird...indication point to an SLR...if that is the case I am not going to be happy. I want lenses not bodies. I am happy with my D700s and I have the 50 1.4 G Unless it is a replacement for my D700s then maybe, just maybe I will find the money to upgrade.
only sony will not, they could do it even afordablerer while specs on paper will look similar and keep offering higher margin for retailers to convince them to brainwash their customers
fkhfineart wrote:
and? imagine you have 10 Eur spyglass and to focal point you stick high quality doublet. Will you see damaged quality of resulting image by adding the doublet?
If there is somebody who knows how to do optics, it is nikon. Keep in mind that adding three lenses to objectives which have 8+ is not really big deal. more like new revision :-)
And when price wont matter, anything can be done. Besides there are some combinations of TCs and lenses where i cannot see any damage in quality even on D3x, and they cost few hundert dollars.
I don't know. I see a diff with my D3x and teleconverters, even on my 300 2.8 and 500 F4. It's slight, but it's there. The difference is noticeable enough on my zooms that I even stop down a bit to help.
I think the fact that any optical element stuck in between the rear element and the MX format camera would have to essentially stretch out the image makes me think we wouldn't be getting everything we could out of the lens anymore.
Besides, if it were a good way to go, why wouldn't we already have some kind of adapter for DX to FX? For that matter, why doesn't everyone shooting medium format use Nikon glass with adapters?
Not saying they won't do it, but seems unlikely to me. I think what you will see IF Nikon goes for an MX format (and I personally think it will happen eventually just to fight pixel density) is a FX crop mode similar to our current DX crop modes.
Anyhow, at this point I'm going to say we're going to have to agree to disagree.
dougjk wrote:
Oh goody, that AF-S 10-500mm f/1.8-2.8 VR (I'm not greedy, don't need constant aperture) I've been wanting! I was wondering when they'd announce it.
I like Guiness, but even single digit months might be too long in a chair, especially since I got my D700 stolen and want something new soon...
Is "single digit" the most precise you wish to hint at?
Is the "lifechanger" changing the life for all Nikon shooters, or only sports or landscapers
.
