Nikon D2X announced - 12.4 million pixels, DX size CMOS sensor

"Alan Browne" wrote in message
.. .
William Graham wrote:


New or not, it's still music to my ears.....I am always afraid that
Nikon
will discontinue the F mount, and obsolete all my old glass..........

Don't worry ... this has been Nikon's one point of long standing
honor (with its many exceptions...). If they changed mounts now
they would have a stampede heading for Canon and they know it.

That doesn't sound like honor.
That sounds more like hanging on for dear life!

"Alan Browne" wrote in message
.. .
William Graham wrote:


New or not, it's still music to my ears.....I am always afraid that
Nikon
will discontinue the F mount, and obsolete all my old glass..........

Don't worry ... this has been Nikon's one point of long standing
honor (with its many exceptions...). If they changed mounts now
they would have a stampede heading for Canon and they know it.

That doesn't sound like honor.
That sounds more like hanging on for dear life!

"Mark M" wrote in message
news:biN2d.301235$Oi.35758@fed1read04...

"Alan Browne" wrote in message
.. .
William Graham wrote:


New or not, it's still music to my ears.....I am always afraid that
Nikon
will discontinue the F mount, and obsolete all my old glass..........

Don't worry ... this has been Nikon's one point of long standing
honor (with its many exceptions...). If they changed mounts now
they would have a stampede heading for Canon and they know it.

That doesn't sound like honor.
That sounds more like hanging on for dear life!


It hangs on to me.....I would hate to have to only buy the latest AF glass
for my camera.....I don't even use the AF when I have an AF lens attached. I
love the old glass. Partly because it's so cheap, and partly because those
old lenses have no plastic in them....They are all glass and brass, and they
feel solid to the touch....I actually had a Nikkor AF lens once that had a
cardboard lens mount! - Ugh!!! Fortunately, it was broken, and I only bought
it so I could take it apart to see how it was constructed.....(Not too well,
I can assure you.)

"Mark M" wrote in message
news:biN2d.301235$Oi.35758@fed1read04...

"Alan Browne" wrote in message
.. .
William Graham wrote:


New or not, it's still music to my ears.....I am always afraid that
Nikon
will discontinue the F mount, and obsolete all my old glass..........

Don't worry ... this has been Nikon's one point of long standing
honor (with its many exceptions...). If they changed mounts now
they would have a stampede heading for Canon and they know it.

That doesn't sound like honor.
That sounds more like hanging on for dear life!


It hangs on to me.....I would hate to have to only buy the latest AF glass
for my camera.....I don't even use the AF when I have an AF lens attached. I
love the old glass. Partly because it's so cheap, and partly because those
old lenses have no plastic in them....They are all glass and brass, and they
feel solid to the touch....I actually had a Nikkor AF lens once that had a
cardboard lens mount! - Ugh!!! Fortunately, it was broken, and I only bought
it so I could take it apart to see how it was constructed.....(Not too well,
I can assure you.)

"Mark M" wrote in message
news:biN2d.301235$Oi.35758@fed1read04...

"Alan Browne" wrote in message
.. .
William Graham wrote:


New or not, it's still music to my ears.....I am always afraid that
Nikon
will discontinue the F mount, and obsolete all my old glass..........

Don't worry ... this has been Nikon's one point of long standing
honor (with its many exceptions...). If they changed mounts now
they would have a stampede heading for Canon and they know it.

That doesn't sound like honor.
That sounds more like hanging on for dear life!


It hangs on to me.....I would hate to have to only buy the latest AF glass
for my camera.....I don't even use the AF when I have an AF lens attached. I
love the old glass. Partly because it's so cheap, and partly because those
old lenses have no plastic in them....They are all glass and brass, and they
feel solid to the touch....I actually had a Nikkor AF lens once that had a
cardboard lens mount! - Ugh!!! Fortunately, it was broken, and I only bought
it so I could take it apart to see how it was constructed.....(Not too well,
I can assure you.)

In article rEP2d.210255$mD.1162@attbi_s02,
"William Graham" writes:

It hangs on to me.....I would hate to have to only buy the latest AF glass
for my camera.....I don't even use the AF when I have an AF lens attached. I
love the old glass. Partly because it's so cheap, and partly because those
old lenses have no plastic in them....They are all glass and brass, and they
feel solid to the touch....I actually had a Nikkor AF lens once that had a
cardboard lens mount! - Ugh!!! Fortunately, it was broken, and I only bought
it so I could take it apart to see how it was constructed.....(Not too well,
I can assure you.)

Hmm, something to note when people are Cosina/Sigma bashing.

--

http://www.petezilla.co.uk

In article rEP2d.210255$mD.1162@attbi_s02,
"William Graham" writes:

It hangs on to me.....I would hate to have to only buy the latest AF glass
for my camera.....I don't even use the AF when I have an AF lens attached. I
love the old glass. Partly because it's so cheap, and partly because those
old lenses have no plastic in them....They are all glass and brass, and they
feel solid to the touch....I actually had a Nikkor AF lens once that had a
cardboard lens mount! - Ugh!!! Fortunately, it was broken, and I only bought
it so I could take it apart to see how it was constructed.....(Not too well,
I can assure you.)

Hmm, something to note when people are Cosina/Sigma bashing.

--

http://www.petezilla.co.uk

On Fri, 17 Sep 2004 14:25:54 -0400, Alan Browne wrote:

Bad strategy unless you really go on an end run like Olympus and the 4/3"
sensor and the (filmless) E-1 line.

If Nikon introduced a 100% F-incompatible, pro-destined line, it would
have a limited market. Pros would need new bodies and lenses. At that
point the pros would sit back and say, 'well, while I'm changing, what
else is there ...' That stampeding noise would be them running to Canon.
Most certainly since, according to a few pj's I've talked to around here,
Canon treat them well, offer to sell them eqt. at a discount (whether for
pro or personal need) ... whereas Nikon really don't give a **** about the
pj's ... they appear to take for granted that they have the market in hand
... the sidelines at many sporting events seem to indicate that Nikon have
lost it with the pro sports pj's.

Nikon have frittered away their strong position by resting on their
laurels, that's all their is to it.

I don't know so much about that. As I mentioned recently, the game I shot
last Saturday saw an equal number of Nikon and Canon toting photographers.
I also see that television programs like CSI Miami have the characters
only using Nikon equipment (cameras, binoculars, microscopes, etc). They
must have paid the producers to do that, so perhaps they are adopting a
different drawcard.

I also see a lot of Nikons at press conferences on television. This may
mean nothing, but then again it may mean something.

In my personal opinion, I was mad at hell with Nikon when they took so
long to come out with a DSLR that I could afford. It resulted in me moving
to Canon, which I was quite happy with for a long time (about 2 years
IIRC). The only thing I was dissatisfied with as a Canon operator was that
their pro glass was so frikking expensive - and almost impossible to find
used. Moving in the circles I do, all my contemporaries were using L glass
and when you see the quality difference compared to the consumer stuff,
you can get pretty dispondant.

--
Dallas www.dallasdahms.com
"Going down a dirty inner city side road I plotted
Madness passed me by, she smiled hi, I nodded"
- Sixto Rodriguez

On Fri, 17 Sep 2004 14:25:54 -0400, Alan Browne wrote:

Bad strategy unless you really go on an end run like Olympus and the 4/3"
sensor and the (filmless) E-1 line.

If Nikon introduced a 100% F-incompatible, pro-destined line, it would
have a limited market. Pros would need new bodies and lenses. At that
point the pros would sit back and say, 'well, while I'm changing, what
else is there ...' That stampeding noise would be them running to Canon.
Most certainly since, according to a few pj's I've talked to around here,
Canon treat them well, offer to sell them eqt. at a discount (whether for
pro or personal need) ... whereas Nikon really don't give a **** about the
pj's ... they appear to take for granted that they have the market in hand
... the sidelines at many sporting events seem to indicate that Nikon have
lost it with the pro sports pj's.

Nikon have frittered away their strong position by resting on their
laurels, that's all their is to it.

I don't know so much about that. As I mentioned recently, the game I shot
last Saturday saw an equal number of Nikon and Canon toting photographers.
I also see that television programs like CSI Miami have the characters
only using Nikon equipment (cameras, binoculars, microscopes, etc). They
must have paid the producers to do that, so perhaps they are adopting a
different drawcard.

I also see a lot of Nikons at press conferences on television. This may
mean nothing, but then again it may mean something.

In my personal opinion, I was mad at hell with Nikon when they took so
long to come out with a DSLR that I could afford. It resulted in me moving
to Canon, which I was quite happy with for a long time (about 2 years
IIRC). The only thing I was dissatisfied with as a Canon operator was that
their pro glass was so frikking expensive - and almost impossible to find
used. Moving in the circles I do, all my contemporaries were using L glass
and when you see the quality difference compared to the consumer stuff,
you can get pretty dispondant.

--
Dallas www.dallasdahms.com
"Going down a dirty inner city side road I plotted
Madness passed me by, she smiled hi, I nodded"
- Sixto Rodriguez

On Fri, 17 Sep 2004 14:25:54 -0400, Alan Browne wrote:

Bad strategy unless you really go on an end run like Olympus and the 4/3"
sensor and the (filmless) E-1 line.

If Nikon introduced a 100% F-incompatible, pro-destined line, it would
have a limited market. Pros would need new bodies and lenses. At that
point the pros would sit back and say, 'well, while I'm changing, what
else is there ...' That stampeding noise would be them running to Canon.
Most certainly since, according to a few pj's I've talked to around here,
Canon treat them well, offer to sell them eqt. at a discount (whether for
pro or personal need) ... whereas Nikon really don't give a **** about the
pj's ... they appear to take for granted that they have the market in hand
... the sidelines at many sporting events seem to indicate that Nikon have
lost it with the pro sports pj's.

Nikon have frittered away their strong position by resting on their
laurels, that's all their is to it.

I don't know so much about that. As I mentioned recently, the game I shot
last Saturday saw an equal number of Nikon and Canon toting photographers.
I also see that television programs like CSI Miami have the characters
only using Nikon equipment (cameras, binoculars, microscopes, etc). They
must have paid the producers to do that, so perhaps they are adopting a
different drawcard.

I also see a lot of Nikons at press conferences on television. This may
mean nothing, but then again it may mean something.

In my personal opinion, I was mad at hell with Nikon when they took so
long to come out with a DSLR that I could afford. It resulted in me moving
to Canon, which I was quite happy with for a long time (about 2 years
IIRC). The only thing I was dissatisfied with as a Canon operator was that
their pro glass was so frikking expensive - and almost impossible to find
used. Moving in the circles I do, all my contemporaries were using L glass
and when you see the quality difference compared to the consumer stuff,
you can get pretty dispondant.

--
Dallas www.dallasdahms.com
"Going down a dirty inner city side road I plotted
Madness passed me by, she smiled hi, I nodded"
- Sixto Rodriguez