![]() That is why I have been advising those who spend $2500 to $5000 on D700 to D3S to reserve some money on newer, better lenses, although plenty of people seem to be unable to tell the difference between good and bad lenses.High-quality electronic viewfinders are now found on many mirrorless cameras – and what you see in the viewfinder is exactly what you would see in live view on the rear screen. That is among the best AI-S lenses and yet, its chromatic aberration is as poor as the consumer-grade $199 35mm/f1.8 DX AF-S. They are much much better than those old lenses designed for the less-demanding film several decades ago.įor example, I still own the 35mm/f1.4 AI-S I bought back in 1987. Today, plenty of modern mid-price lenses take advantage of aspheric elements, ED elements, super integrated coating, nano coating, etc. Lens design has changed drastically since the AI/AI-S era 20, 30 years ago. Your statement is not true at all and there are numerous examples that counter your statement. Shun Cheung, I hope you were kidding when you said "Forget about those old AI/AI-S lenses on your shelf they will not perform well on your high-end DSLRs." You do know you just opened a can of worms. They've found a size/feature formula that works for them and they're not about to change. The major dSLR (and rangefinder!) companies are busy making digital models that are close in size to the film cameras they were making a decade ago for each segment of the market. We also know, as Stuart points out, that a full-frame digital Leica isn't much bigger than a film Leica. We know that full frame film SLRs can be made very small (never mind the FM2, how about the Pentax ME?), so it's not just the constraints on the mirror box and prism that makes the D700 as large as it is compared to the low-end DX models - the D700 (like the almost equally big DX D300) is a 'digital F100', not a 'digital F65', with a similar form factor targeted to much the same group of users. Nikon's expensive cameras have always been big and heavy, and right now FX is a premium feature that they only put in expensive cameras. ![]() To answer the original question, I don't think there is any good technical reason, just marketing reasons. IMO, Nikon's CEO is right on that is why he is the CEO of a successful camera company while Hogan is not. The CEO asked Hogan how many of those he personally would buy because Nikon couldn't sell that to a whole lot of other people. There is simply no way that Nikon will further carve out a tiny niche market out of the current FX niche to meet the demand of a small number of people.Ī few months ago, Thom Hogan wrote in his blog that he proposed something along the line of a digital FM3A to the CEO of Nikon. Their focus is clearly in consumer DX-format DSLRs and mirrorless cameras with 2.7x sensors. The current estimate is that only 5% of Nikon DSLRs is FX. The D3S is the "latest" model introduced 2 years ago in October, 2009. Nikon has 3 current models: D3X, D700, and D3S. It is not even clear whether Sony will remain in the full frame market. Sony effectively has only one, the A900 they added an almost identical A850 as an economy model and then discontinued it. Canon only has two current FX models: the 1Ds III is over 4 years old and the 5D II is over 3. The entire FX format DSLRs is somewhat a niche market to begin with. Forget about those old AI/AI-S lenses on your shelf they will not perform well on your high-end DSLRs.įorcing an FX sensor into a body that has no AF motor, dual memory card slots, weather sealing, a large back LCD for image review, a large, durable battery. ![]() If you want a small camera, buy a DX DSLR or one of those small mirrorless cameras it does not have to be a Nikon.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |