PDA

View Full Version : Wave your NAS magic wand...



Rooz
10-26-2008, 03:47 PM
so...if you could wave your magic wand and made Nikon listen to its customers, (God forbid !), what would your kit look like ? i've been saving pretty hard and every cent i've made over the last few months has been going to the af-s warchest.

for me this is where i want to be at the end of next year.

D300
i cant do without a crop body.

D700
i dont need, nor want 24mp. my files are big enough as it is without worrying about double the MP's. maybe by next year there will be a d800 with more MP's and video which means the d700 will be a steal.

14-24/2.8
YAY !! i got me one of dem !

35/2 af-s
the jordan lens needs af-s. alot of people want a 1.4 version but i would prefer an f2. why ? cos it will retain its light, small build and wont come with a 1.4 price tag.

50/1.4 af-s
i have it pre-ordered.

60/2.8 af-s macro
this one's already out but i wont buy it until there is a 200/4 update.

85/1.4 af-s
looooooooooongggg overdue. but highly likely to be out soon. again, alot of people are speculating and wanting a 1.2 version like canon, but it will be bigger, heavier and much more expensive as a 1.2. i'd be more than happy just for an af-s version. VR would be nice, but again, if it has VR it will likely push the price too high so i can live without it but i cannot live without af-s.

200/4 af-s macro
for anyone thats used the existing af-d version. this is a macro shooters dream. its such a magnificent macro lens. but the lack of af-s means its too slow on the AF and far too noisy. this is my ideal bug macro lens. when its released, i'll sell the 105VR and use the 60mm macro for handheld flower shots and non-bug work and use the 200/4 for bug macros.

70-200/4 af-s VR
much like the 24-70/4. i want the 70-200 is an f4 version. smaller, lighter and cheaper. again, i have no problem sacrificing the extra stop for the other advantages.

300/4 af-s VR
my beautiful 300mm just needs VR and its my ideal tele. i dont need a huge redesign, all i want is VR and maybe a little faster AF-S.

i think they are all very likely lens' except for the 70-200/ f4 version. unfortunately i dont think nikon are going to make it which is a real shame.

K1W1
10-26-2008, 04:10 PM
VR would be nice, but again, if it has VR it will likely push the price too high so i can live without it but i cannot live without af-s.


I don't think simply adding VR would add as much as you think to a lens. I assume that the basic workings and components of VR are common from one lens to another so by now the capital and development costs will be well and truly paid off.

rawpaw18
10-26-2008, 04:30 PM
Obviously want what I can't have, Body with full frame clean ISO with the crop factor of the DX, But not at the downgrade of mp to 5.

No video in that camera, and keep the pixel race in check. 12mp should suffice with dx. If a ff camera came out where the mp for dx mode is 12, I may be in love.

Visual Reality
10-26-2008, 07:00 PM
70-200/4 af-s VR
much like the 24-70/4. i want the 70-200 is an f4 version. smaller, lighter and cheaper. again, i have no problem sacrificing the extra stop for the other advantages.

i think they are all very likely lens' except for the 70-200/ f4 version. unfortunately i dont think nikon are going to make it which is a real shame.
I totally agree. For the reasons you stated it definetely has its advantages over the f/2.8 (smaller, half the weight, 2/3 the price) but we have no signs that they intend to give us one :(

Turo
10-26-2008, 08:48 PM
I'll be honest, I'm one of those who would like the 35mm f/1.4 lens. Mainly because I am staying DX for a while, and on it I like the 35mm focal length better than the 50mm (now if I had a D700, that would be different!). But you do make very valid points Rooz, so I wouldn't get rid of the current f/2 one.

And while I'm waving this magic wand, I'd also like the price of the 14-24 f/2.8 to go down while not sacrificing any performance or quality, AND adding support for lens filters! Am I asking too much? Probably :(

But honestly all I REALLY want right now is a D300. Unless someone else is paying, in that case I'd like a D700. So, by the end of next year I want my kit to look like: D300, 28-70 for walking around (already own), 70-200 f2.8 for low-light sports (replacing the 70-300), and a 50 1.4 in for good measure :).

ssil2000
10-26-2008, 09:25 PM
70-200 f4 would be a dream lens for me... 35f2 afs would be pretty interesting too...
xmas 2009 i would like to have
70-200 (unlikely unless new version creates a massive price drop on the old one)
35f2 (almost a guarantee, may even be this xmas)
an UW (not sure which one yet)
and a f2.8 zoom in the 17-35ish range (probably before the UW)
2 more sb600's
and a monopod

achuang
10-27-2008, 12:49 AM
What I want, but will definitely not happen by the end of next year (maybe in 5 years time) is this:

D700, 14-24 f/2.8 with filter threads, 24-70 f2.8, 70-200 f/4 VR, 35/2 AF-S, 50/1.4 AF-S, 85/1.4 AF-S, 105 VR macro (just got this).

For a crop camera: D300, a 12-24 f/2.8 DX, 17-55, 70-200 f/4 VR, 35/2 AF-S, 50/1.4 AF-S, 105 VR macro, and my perfect portrait lens on DX - a 60/1.4 AF-S


The realistic kit at the end of next year looks like: D300 (possibly), Tokina 11-16 f2.8, my current 18-70DX, 35/f2, 50/1.4 AF-S, 105 VR macro (just acquired), and 70-300 VR.

K1W1
10-27-2008, 01:06 AM
I'd rather just have an end to the financial madness caused by the greedy f***king idiots who have been in charge of OUR money and who have completely failed to remember that.
When this is resolved I may be able to get back to thinking about some new toys rather than whether I am booking a park bench or a tram stop as my bedroom in retirement.

Visual Reality
10-27-2008, 03:55 AM
Hey hey, Credit Default Swaps (a JP Morgan idea) and Sub-prime teaser loans (a Democrat idea - homes for everyone!) were supposed to be good for everybody! :rolleyes:

Well, ok but it looked good on paper...

eddie_dane
10-27-2008, 06:35 AM
I basically agree with Rooz about the primes. I think all the main ones need to be updated to AF-S with a standard sized metal filter thread. You may have seen my discussion about what lenses to buy for my D700 and the conclusion I came up with is 17-35 for the wide and 70-200 VR for the long and I will use my 35-70 for the middle and I may even just leave that at home and use my 50mm 1.8. So if the new AF-S 50 turns out nice, I will probably pick one of those up eventually.

aparmley
10-28-2008, 04:31 PM
I want a D700 paired with a 14-24, 24-70, 70-200.

I'd want to see a 35 f/2 AF-S, I'd want to update my 50 1.4 with the AF-S version - you may ask why - cause I've been using a friends 60mm AF-S and the contrast/color/sharpness are unreal.

Bring back the SB-800s at $219.99 USD.

Golden.

Visual Reality
10-28-2008, 04:45 PM
AF-S has nothing to do with contrast/color/sharpness...its merely a focusing system.

XaiLo
10-29-2008, 09:29 PM
May all your NAS dreams come true :) and a riding lawnmower for Kiwi's retirement 16-85mm full frame f2.8-4 :D

Dread Pirate Roberts
10-30-2008, 04:48 AM
My NAS dream is for the lenses to be made in Australia (with the same quality) so they don't all go up by 40% with our currency depreciation.
That 70-200F/2.8 AFS + 28-70 F/2.8 AFS just got really dear.

K1W1
10-30-2008, 05:08 AM
so they don't all go up by 40% with our currency depreciation.

It's going to be interesting times.
I suspect that all importers will be hurting badly at the moment but with the economic doom and gloom none will want ti raise prices significantly especially on things like cameras or DSLR's in particular that fall squarely into the luxury bracket rather than the needs bracket.
There is also a double whammy here as not only has our dollar depreciated significantly but the Yen has gone ballistic against the US dollar so Japanese companies like Nikon and Canon and the major car manufacturers are being hit at both ends financially plus facing falling demand.
The most likely thing to happen MO is that the flow of new products and product development will slow to a trickle so I would not be holding my breath for the D300 and D700 replacement cameras to come out as quickly as we would have otherwise expected and things like the rumoured new lenses that are not actually in the final stages towards production may well slip as well.
From a manufacturers point of view most will be battening down and going into survival mode to ensure that they get through the next 3 years or so intact and viable.

Dread Pirate Roberts
10-31-2008, 08:01 PM
I'd like to agree K1W1 but the other way to look at it is with a longer term "Japanese" metality. Now don't call me a racist here as I'm not trying to be. But the Japanese as a culture are often applauded for taking a long term market penetration view of things and wearing a short term loss to gain market position.

What I'm getting at is that they could decide they're going to position themselves with killer new products to be ahead of the competition and get what sales are there at the same time. Taking a loss by keeping up R&D in the short term. By not firing and rehiring they also have the advantage of not having to rebuild a shattered R&D department when the economy picks up.

e_dawg
11-05-2008, 08:52 PM
Things I Wish Nikon Would Make

1. I'd really love to see a premium UWA zoom with filter threads. It's kinda silly not being able to use filters with WA lenses, as a proper landscape setup basically demands the use of grad ND filters. And a UWA doesn't need f/2.8 either. It makes the 14-24 quite a bit bigger and heavier than it needs to be. Let's have a 14-24/4 with filter threads. That would be fantastic for travel too.

2. Add VR to the 24-70/2.8. Sony's got built-in IS in the A900, and I find it extremely useful. An extra 2 stops is an extra 2 stops. It may not be that useful at 24 mm, but it gets progressively more useful above say 35 mm to where it is very useful at 70 mm, especially with the crop factor of APS-C. Some might say that it's a fast lens; you can just shoot at f/2.8 (or crank up the ISO with FF). Sometimes you want to shoot at f/4 or 5.6 for DoF reasons and the light is poor, and sometimes you don't want to incur the penalty of high ISO (esp. w/APS-C). VR just gives you 2 stops more flexibility, and that's always useful IMO.

3. 70-200/4 VR. I have no idea why Nikon is so stubbornly refusing to build this lens, as it's obvious that this lens just makes sense to anyone that has any experience with SLR systems. A lot of people would want this. There is no question there is a market for it. What's the problem, Nikon?

4. 17-40/4 VR. Canon's f/4 zoom series is a brilliant idea. Give us a wide f/4 zoom that we can use as a walkaround lens for travel. The 20-40 mm "octave" is by far my most used focal length range on vacation. Give us VR so we can use it indoors / in low light in cathedrals, museums, restaurants, and anywhere else there's not much light too. I'd prefer if the focal length range were actually 20-45 mm on FF or 14-30 on DX, but 17-40 seems like a good compromise, and Canon already has one, so we know it can be done.

5. 35-120/2.8 VR. It would be the perfect range for weddings and indoor events in regular rooms or small reception halls with a DX body, IMO. The 70-200 is just way too long on a DX body for receptions IMO, and the Sigma 50-150 is still too long in my experience and doesn't have VR (and it's DX only, so it doesn't really work well with an FX body). You just can't shoot anything that's remotely close to you, always having to back up into another table, a waiter, or have to stand behind everyone else because your lens is too long. And the 24-120/3.5-5.6 VR that's the closest thing is too slow and too soft in the corners.

6. 50-150/2.8 VR. See above, but for FX bodies.

7. 100-300/4 VR. Sigma's 100-300/4 is a fantastic idea, but Sigma's lenses just don't AF lock on as solidly as Nikon lenses do, and there is no VR. Show them how it's done, Nikon!

8. D800 with 16-18 MP and a tilt/swivel LCD. 12 MP sometimes just isn't enough resolution, but as Sony's A900 shows, 24 MP is just a bit too much of a reach with today's technology. Sure, they made it work, and the noise issue is honestly overblown, but I am sure that every aspect of performance would be better at 16-18 MP. It would be a worthwhile bump in resolution, but without the diminishing returns of going to 24 MP. Win-win. A tilt/swivel LCD would also be very useful not only for the D800, but for every Nikon. I have gotten used to it on my E-3, and have to say that it's quite useful (assuming a decent Live View implementation) for shooting over crowds or from a low angle closer to the ground for dramatic shots, and for macros or other tripod work.

K1W1
11-06-2008, 12:04 AM
[U]7. 100-300/4 VR. Sigma's 100-300/4 is a fantastic idea, but Sigma's lenses just don't AF lock on as solidly as Nikon lenses do, and there is no VR. Show them how it's done, Nikon!

For me how about a 150-450 F4 VRII
The cricket grounds are getting bigger and 200mm just does not cut it any longer so why not go for broke. :D

K1W1
11-06-2008, 12:07 AM
[U][B]

8. A tilt/swivel LCD would also be very useful not only for the D800, but for every Nikon.

With Live view and movie mode this is a certainty IMO. It's an obvious upgrade for a D90s or maybe even the D40/40x/60 replacement when it arrives.

achuang
11-06-2008, 01:42 AM
For me how about a 150-450 F4 VRII
The cricket grounds are getting bigger and 200mm just does not cut it any longer so why not go for broke. :D

Nikon already make a 200-400 f4 VR for around $9000 so there's your cricket lens if you're wanting to go broke:D

K1W1
11-06-2008, 03:29 AM
Yes I was actually thinking of something that may fall into the "more realistically priced" bracket. :D

Visual Reality
11-06-2008, 04:13 AM
Things I Wish Nikon Would Make

1. I'd really love to see a premium UWA zoom with filter threads. It's kinda silly not being able to use filters with WA lenses, as a proper landscape setup basically demands the use of grad ND filters. And a UWA doesn't need f/2.8 either. It makes the 14-24 quite a bit bigger and heavier than it needs to be. Let's have a 14-24/4 with filter threads. That would be fantastic for travel too.
Try the bracketing feature. HDR has done away with and superceded the need for GND filters.

Dread Pirate Roberts
11-06-2008, 05:44 AM
1. I'd really love to see a premium UWA zoom with filter threads. It's kinda silly not being able to use filters with WA lenses, as a proper landscape setup basically demands the use of grad ND filters. And a UWA doesn't need f/2.8 either. It makes the 14-24 quite a bit bigger and heavier than it needs to be. Let's have a 14-24/4 with filter threads. That would be fantastic for travel too.


Surely 90% of users of this lens don't need it fast, they just want affordable, light, sharp and filterable.

e_dawg
11-06-2008, 07:33 AM
Try the bracketing feature. HDR has done away with and superceded the need for GND filters.

Sorry, but I really have to disagree with that. I have tried HDR and I don't like it. It's just not very efficient use of my time, it's not practical if there is movement / people in your scene, it often requires the use of a tripod and bracketing (or at least having to be very still and careful when shooting), and it has a tendency to be a bit less realistic than a non-HDR image.

It has always been a best practice to get the shot right (or as close as possible) at the time of exposure, and just because we have the digital darkroom available to us, doesn't mean we have to use it any more than truly necessary (as opposed to using it before exhausting other methods of getting the shot right at the time of exposure, as filters easily facilitate).

Check out some of pics I took with the GND... minimal post-processing required; these are basically straight out of the camera JPEGs. Easy-peasy. Point & shoot and it's done:

http://scpublicgallery.smugmug.com/photos/398249290_i4ARi-M.jpg http://scpublicgallery.smugmug.com/photos/398251175_Qny9N-M.jpg
http://scpublicgallery.smugmug.com/photos/398251725_zcU4N-M.jpg http://scpublicgallery.smugmug.com/photos/398252329_MxDgG-M.jpg

Visual Reality
11-06-2008, 07:45 PM
I understand the time argument, but "less realistic" is definitely false if they are processed correctly. The whole point and goal of an HDR image is to capture the entire dynamic range of a scene to accurately reproduce what your own eyes saw. If it turns out less realistic, the approach to processing needs to be changed.

BTW I do all of my HDR brackets hand-held and they all line up perfectly with PS CS3. It even worked perfect with the slower D80.

Speaking of GND's, check this out:

http://tv.adobe.com/#vi+f1512v1392

K1W1
11-06-2008, 08:59 PM
"less realistic" is definitely false if they are processed correctly.


Oh boy now the gloves are off. :D
Rather than clutter this thread why doesn't somebody start a thread where people can post their opinions of what is a "realistic" photograph and whether "realistic" really matters or is indeed required.
It should be good for a few pages of fun.

Visual Reality
11-07-2008, 03:58 AM
That's beside the point - and doesn't need to take this thread further off-course.

The goal of HDR is full dynamic range to represent realistically the scene you saw. Complete, accurate exposure. What you choose to do with it after that, is up to you.

Rooz
11-07-2008, 04:30 AM
1. I'd really love to see a premium UWA zoom with filter threads. It's kinda silly not being able to use filters with WA lenses, as a proper landscape setup basically demands the use of grad ND filters. And a UWA doesn't need f/2.8 either. It makes the 14-24 quite a bit bigger and heavier than it needs to be. Let's have a 14-24/4 with filter threads. That would be fantastic for travel too.

1. you can use square mount filters with the 14-24.
2. who says you dont need f2.8 ? firstly you are assuming that the lens is only for landscapes and secondly, inside a church, inside a dark room, at a sporting venue etc when light aint so good. the 2.8 comes in very handy.
3. its actually not as big and heavy as you would think. its an extremly comfortable lens to use. much more so that the 24-70 imo.



2. Add VR to the 24-70/2.8.


agreed. rumour has it that canon's new 24-70 will have IS. it only makes sense to me. personallym i dont see it happening gfor a few years. not when the 24-70 is brand new.



6. 50-150/2.8 VR. See above, but for FX bodies.


70-200 is a better option imo.


7. 100-300/4 VR.

80-400 is a better option imo.



8. D800 with 16-18 MP and a tilt/swivel LCD.

i assume you are talking FX here. yepp, agreed. not so much about the MP but certainly the tilt/swivel LCD. add video aswell please. :)

eddie_dane
11-07-2008, 06:03 AM
Bring back the SB-800s at $219.99 USD.

YES YES YES!!!. Why not ditch the SB-600 and drop the price of the 800. I just bought a new 600 to use as an off-camera strobe and I had to get the shoe adapter for the PC connection.

Nikon would sell tons of them and I don't think it would cannibalize the sb-900 sales much either.

e_dawg
11-07-2008, 07:18 AM
1. you can use square mount filters with the 14-24.

True, but not as easily with that hood, and I'm not a fan of square filter systems. Round screw-in filters are much more convenient IMO for carrying in your bag, especially since you don't have to mount/unmount them whenever you put your camera back in the bag.


2. who says you dont need f2.8 ? firstly you are assuming that the lens is only for landscapes and secondly, inside a church, inside a dark room, at a sporting venue etc when light aint so good. the 2.8 comes in very handy.

Sure, f/2.8 may come in handy. Faster lenses always add that extra capability, but at the expense of weight and portability. I'm just saying that usually, one doesn't need f/2.8 on a UWA. Why not f/4 and VR, for example? How often do people actually use a 14-24 lens at sporting venues when you need fast shutter speeds in low light?


agreed. rumour has it that canon's new 24-70 will have IS. it only makes sense to me. personallym i dont see it happening gfor a few years. not when the 24-70 is brand new.

I think you're right, unfortunately.


70-200 is a better option imo.

80-400 is a better option imo.

we already have these options in the lineup. Why not have more options for those of us who feel that there are better focal length ranges out there? there are dozens of 70-200/80-200's out there, but no 50-150's or 35-120's. Lots of people shoot indoors where 70 mm is just too long on the wide end, but the only other options that are fast enough are the 24-70, 28-70, and 35-70. Can't go longer than 70 mm on the long end. There's no overlap here, which is silly, forcing one to use 2 lenses on 2 bodies when all you need is "a better mousetrap". Non-overlapping zoom ranges drive me up the wall.


i assume you are talking FX here. yepp, agreed. not so much about the MP but certainly the tilt/swivel LCD. add video aswell please. :)

Video? Canon lover! :D