Nikon D40 shipping today

On 02 Dec 2006 09:50:58 -0800, Paul Rubin
wrote:


Well, there's THAT mass market, which is not the entry level DSLR market.
The prediction was about non-entry-level DSLR's, which is $1000-1500 I guess.

OK, in that market, FF may have a future... but it will still
take some major price reductions before the majority
of buyers will spring for it.


But FF is a "feature" just like 3CCD in camcorders, which in fact has made
its way to the consumer level.

I suppose that's one way to look at it...

And FF lets you use those nice wideangle
primes which are useless on the D40/Rebel-D.


They're not useless at all... they're just not nearly
as wide as they'd be with a FF sensor.

OTOH, because APS sensors have been the norm
in DSLRs so far, we've seen a proliferation of super-
wide zooms that never existed before.

Do understand, I'm *not* arguing against the merits
of full-frame, in the least. In fact, I'm a more than a
bit disappointed that they're still so expensive.

I've been practicing photography for forty years now.
I've spent mucho $$ on this hobby, but I've never
spent $2500 on a camera body.


rafe b
www.terrapinphoto.com

"Raphael Bustin" wrote in message
...
On 02 Dec 2006 08:43:26 -0800, Paul Rubin
wrote:

[ . . . ]

Why would we expect it to not do keep coming way down in price again
and again, just like any other high tech device?


Why? Because the vast majority of the "mass market"
is already well-served by existing digital cameras, both
P&S and DSLR.

I expect them to get cheaper, faster, lighter. I expect
them to get more and more "features." But in terms of
image quality, they're already delivering what the
"mass market" needs, and then some.

Well and truly said.

Neil

"Paul Rubin" wrote in message
...
Raphael Bustin writes:
[ . . . ]

I expect them to get cheaper, faster, lighter. I expect them to get
more and more "features." But in terms of image quality, they're
already delivering what the "mass market" needs, and then some.

But FF is a "feature" just like 3CCD in camcorders, which in fact has made
its way to the consumer level. And FF lets you use those nice wideangle
primes which are useless on the D40/Rebel-D.

Yes, but I wonder if there aren't some problems with using those older 35mm
camera lenses on a full-frame digital. I'm thinking of the angularity of the
image-forming rays as you get nearer the corners -- angularity which is said
to be problematic with sensors and their microlenses. Lens makers for
digital cameras have been telling us for years how important it is to keep
those rays as close to perpendicular as possible. Maybe some of that is
hype, but . . . ?

That's surely an advantage of using the so-called APS-size sensors with 35mm
camera lenses: keeps the corner angles down -- and uses the
highest-definition part of the image circle besides. These are things you
must have to trade off when you go to full frame.

Neil

Raphael Bustin writes:

Can you give me a cite for that statement by Canon?

Chuck westfield in a Pop Photo(?) interview a few months back It is
echoed in the Canon Digital whitepaper.

Honestly, it's surprsing to me. How far into the future are they
talking about?

That they where a bit vague about.

FF is going to have to come **way** down in price before it reaches
any sort of mass market.

Main issue is mask steppers with a parger recticule size so they only
need a single step to expost each chip. At the moment it is 3, and
that will push up cost, and reduce yeild.

--
Paul Repacholi 1 Crescent Rd.,
+61 (08) 9257-1001 Kalamunda.
West Australia 6076
comp.os.vms,- The Older, Grumpier Slashdot
Raw, Cooked or Well-done, it's all half baked.
EPIC, The Architecture of the future, always has been, always will be.

On 02 Dec 2006 05:44:53 -0800, Paul Rubin
wrote:

I decided to not be interested in a D200 given that there has to be a
comparably priced FF model coming (or else Nikon will die).

I agree. If the D300 is FF, about the size of the D40, meters with MF
lenses, autofocuses with AF-D lenses, and priced like a D200, I'd buy
it in an instant.

In article ,
Neil Harrington wrote:
That sounds about right to me. While I don't really know what percentage of
SLRs sold the high-end Nikons and Canons made up, it must have been pretty
small. I've owned a lot of SLRs since about 1960, *none* of them high-end
professional bodies. And never felt the desire for one.

Funny, I a complete range of F, F2, F3, F4 and a few models below
professional (Nikkormat, FE2, FA) and I very much prefer the F4.
Would I have bought an F4 at list price? Probaby not.

I'm quite sure that I would like a D2X much better than a D200.


--
That was it. Done. The faulty Monk was turned out into the desert where it
could believe what it liked, including the idea that it had been hard done
by. It was allowed to keep its horse, since horses were so cheap to make.
-- Douglas Adams in Dirk Gently's Holistic Detective Agency

In article ,
Raphael Bustin wrote:
In fact, the mass market doesn't buy camera bodies, it
buys *cameras.*. Tiny, cheap ones. Disposable ones.

About 7% of the sales by Japanese manufacturers in US and in Europe
is DSLRs (from dpreview's summary).

I expect them to get cheaper, faster, lighter. I expect
them to get more and more "features." But in terms of
image quality, they're already delivering what the
"mass market" needs, and then some.

We are talking about more than 3 million DSLRs a year.

Nikon and Canon can either go for the trouble of designing a lot
of high-end wide angle lenses or they can simply build FF DSLRs for those
customers that want fast wide (and normal) glass.

Canon already went for FF. So far Nikon didn't do anything, they don't
have to high-end wide angles and they don't have FF.

My guess is that if they can make FF happen, they go for it.

The people who are now buying D200s will be in the market for a FF camera
during the next upgrade cycle.

If Nikon can APS-C cameras as cheap as the D40, then sub-$2000 FF cameras
should in theory be possible.


--
That was it. Done. The faulty Monk was turned out into the desert where it
could believe what it liked, including the idea that it had been hard done
by. It was allowed to keep its horse, since horses were so cheap to make.
-- Douglas Adams in Dirk Gently's Holistic Detective Agency

Philip Homburg wrote:

Nikon and Canon can either go for the trouble of designing a lot
of high-end wide angle lenses or they can simply build FF DSLRs for those
customers that want fast wide (and normal) glass.


OK, but if the argument is a) a stop faster wide lenses, b) one stop
better high ISO noise, then it's not much of an argument, if you ask
me. If I have to pay 50-100 euro more to get a FF sensor fine, but any
more and it's not worth it for me. And a bigger sensor means bigger
mirror, prism etc., too.

Even point (a) (faster wides) is, to me, irrelevant. I have a Sigma
10-20 lens, which is f/4 at 10mm. I can handhold usually to around a
stop or more faster than 1/f would suggest, and I indeed handhold this
down to 1/10 or slower routinely (at night). It's wider than anything I
could ever get on film for comparable prices (well, as far as I know,
at least). So basically for me FF would carry the advantage of one stop
better noise. As I said, I'd pay for this 100 euro max. Actually, a
flexible, programmable remote control would be worth more than 200 euro
for me, so if this was included instead, I'd prefer it.

Not everybody values a slightly bigger sensor equally.


Canon already went for FF. So far Nikon didn't do anything, they don't
have to high-end wide angles and they don't have FF.

My guess is that if they can make FF happen, they go for it.

The people who are now buying D200s will be in the market for a FF camera
during the next upgrade cycle.

Well, not everybody! But certainly, when I do change the D200, I can't
really think of much that could be improved on the camera. Maybe the
AF, the outer sensors could be more sensitive in low light. I'd prefer
that over FF, again. Or vibration reduction in the sensor, that would
perhaps be useful. Again, prefer it to FF.

If, on the other hand, I had lots of wide lenses already, which were
rendered not-so-wide by smaller sensors, I'm sure I'd want a 35mm sized
sensor. Or if I desperately needed better noise performance. Or if, in
general, I preferred wider fields of view.


If Nikon can APS-C cameras as cheap as the D40, then sub-$2000 FF cameras
should in theory be possible.


--
That was it. Done. The faulty Monk was turned out into the desert where it
could believe what it liked, including the idea that it had been hard done
by. It was allowed to keep its horse, since horses were so cheap to make.
-- Douglas Adams in Dirk Gently's Holistic Detective Agency

On Sat, 02 Dec 2006 23:23:01 +0100, Philip Homburg wrote:

In article ,
Raphael Bustin wrote:
In fact, the mass market doesn't buy camera bodies, it
buys *cameras.*. Tiny, cheap ones. Disposable ones.

About 7% of the sales by Japanese manufacturers in US and in Europe
is DSLRs (from dpreview's summary).

I expect them to get cheaper, faster, lighter. I expect
them to get more and more "features." But in terms of
image quality, they're already delivering what the
"mass market" needs, and then some.

We are talking about more than 3 million DSLRs a year.

Nikon and Canon can either go for the trouble of designing a lot
of high-end wide angle lenses or they can simply build FF DSLRs for those
customers that want fast wide (and normal) glass.

So let's see, sell new bodies or sell new bodies and new lenses to go with
them, which makes more money?

Canon already went for FF.

And for wide angles as well. So which strategy will they pursue or will
they continue to pursue both?

So far Nikon didn't do anything, they don't
have to high-end wide angles and they don't have FF.

Perhaps they don't percieve this to be the issue that you do.

My guess is that if they can make FF happen, they go for it.

Unless they don't.

The people who are now buying D200s will be in the market for a FF
camera during the next upgrade cycle.

Or not as the case may be.

If Nikon can APS-C cameras as cheap as the D40, then sub-$2000 FF
cameras should in theory be possible.

If someone can sell them in enough volume for economies of scale to
manifest.

--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

Raphael Bustin writes:
Well, there's THAT mass market, which is not the entry level DSLR market.
The prediction was about non-entry-level DSLR's, which is $1000-1500 I guess.

OK, in that market, FF may have a future... but it will still
take some major price reductions before the majority
of buyers will spring for it.

I don't think anyone is claiming the majority of buyers, or even the
majority of DSLR buyers, will spring for it. They will stay with the
entry level models.

Do understand, I'm *not* arguing against the merits of full-frame,
in the least. In fact, I'm a more than a bit disappointed that
they're still so expensive.

They're coming along nicely, and there's every reason to expect them
to keep coming along nicely. It's ridiculous to say that the DSLR
market is satisfied by the current situation. You and I are very
typical, we both want FF cameras but are not hardcore enough to
be willing to pay what they currently cost. There are a lot of us
out there, the mfgrs recognize it, and they are trying to get the
cost down so they can sell us more cameras.

I've been practicing photography for forty years now.
I've spent mucho $$ on this hobby, but I've never
spent $2500 on a camera body.

Me neither. Though you may have spent $500 on an F3 or something and
then put $2000 worth of film and processing through it in a couple
years or less. The logic is sort of inescapable though. I looked at
a D50 and D80 side by side in the store and the D80 had a nicer
viewfinder, but not $500 nicer. Maybe $50-$75 nicer. Other than that
they're roughly the same camera. The D80 has more pixels on the same
sized sensor, which I wouldn't pay a lot more for, any more than I'd
pay extra to have the same size pizza cut into a larger number of
smaller slices. So I wouldn't buy a D80. That leads to a big gap
between the D50 and the D200 (I count the D70 as basically
discontinued) and the main improvement that I see making such a big
price jump palatable is FF. (They're instead crippling the D50 by
replacing it with the AFS-only D40). This is where things are now,
the 5D is in the $2100-2200 range after rebates, so I have to think
(maybe wishfully) the coming models are going to be in the $1500
range, which starts getting to be in reach.