law guy said:
Emerson - Earlier on I voted for a modified option 3. But that raises an interesting issue in my mind - is there a non-DX lens that you might consider instead?
http://www.nikonusa.com/template.php?cat=1&grp=5 What's your view on getting the digital specific now given that lens can last so long and the industry seems to be on the move to full frame (and indeed Nikon still has 42 non-digital specific lenses (not counting manual focus) to 7 DX series)? Is your view buy now, trade it later? Just a point of curiosity.
The common element in each of Emerson's packages was the 17-55 2.8. From Nikon the only real alternative in a non-DX lens is the 17-35 2.8 IMO. And for someone going all digital the 17-55 2.8 makes more sense.
There is no guaranty that Nikon will ever go FF. There have been a few 35mm sized sensors that found homes in MF cameras over the past few years. Most of these sensors had been gotten by the MF manufactures on the "open market", meaning that unlike Canon they did not make the sensors themselves.
So in the end, Nikon has not been unable to bring a FF DSLR to market, but chose for their own reasons not to do so at this point. For there would be more than enough Nikon pro users IMO for Nikon to offer a FF DSLR in the $10K to $15K range, with enough takers to make it worth their while.
What Nikon may be banking on is the next major shift in how the pros see the DSLR format. As I mentioned in other posts, the chosen format of photography has changed over time.
In the very early days, LF (large format) ruled. This was because prints were made from paper negatives. So if you wanted a 11x14 final print, you shot a 11x14 paper negative.
Fast forward a bit, to the time that negative film made its way to popular use amongst the "pros". This gave the ability to allow an 8x10 or 4x5 negative to be made as large as one had an enlarger and the paper to print in on.
That changed when Kodak came out with their original roll film camera ("You take the picture, we will do the rest"). Till that time, quality photos required a massive investment in LF cameras. As this format caught on, "pros" found the format easier to handle than the bulky LF stuff.
I am sure there was great discussion among those that "knew better" that LF would rule over this "up start" roll film camera. But in the end the ease of use of the forerunner of MF cameras gave way to to complexity of LF cameras. For now one was not tied down to using a tripod to take pictures!
But the roll film camera soon became a popular format for the pro and consumer alike. And for the consumer, would prove popular till the introduction of the Kodak Instamatic 126 cameras of the '60's.
Yet in the '30's we had Ernest Lietz come up with the idea of using 35mm motion picture film as the basis for the what we now know as the 35mm camera. These smaller cameras allowed more frames per a roll, but more importantly - smaller. and easier to use cameras. No longer was the photographer limited to single sheets of film, or just 12 shots on a roll of film. Or a camera that screamed "here I am".
Yet each step of the the way, there were those that said that with each new "standard"; there goes the craft of photography. From those that "embraced" LF photography as it gave way to MF. As those that embraced MF, gave way to 35mm. And today we have those in 35mm film not wanting to yield to the APSC format of the digital era.
But guess what? There are still those that shoot LF and MF, as well as 35mm. Why? There is a different "feel" in the final print. Just as there are those that hold on dearly to carbon or platinum printing for prints from film stock.
In the end what does it mean for the "rest of us"? For those that know and love film, it will be harder and more expensive to find supplies. For the others it will mean better quality at lower prices.
I am reminded of this in looking at the consumer market in the '60's and '70's. For the consumer the Kodak Instamatic 126 camera was the end all, be all. Yet there was a great market for 35mm RF (rangefinder) cameras that offered more than the 126 format offered.
This continued till the '80's with the first Canon Sureshot 35mm AF (autofocus) cameras. Ease of use, with the quality of 35mm. This caused a major shakeup of who was represented in the camera market place at the time. Many names went by the wayside during that time; Miranda, Exacta, Petri, Soligar, Kiron, among others.
Just as Canon caused a shift in what consumers could expect in film photography in the '80's, digital is doing the same now. We have camcorders that now allow for decent 11x14 prints. We have cell phones that can do decent 8x10's. Heck, we are maybe not far off from our toaster from doing decent 4x6's....
The point is that our expectations of photography is a moving target based on our own needs. This past week I did a test print from a customers miniDV camcorder (IIRC, just about 1+mp). He was thrilled with the results. Some of you here, myself included, would have said it was "OK".
Sure I shoot digital with DSLR's from both Canon and Nikon. But there are times that I will also go out with my "old" Leica M6's - just because of the look and feel of the format. Heck, there is a Fuji 645 camera that just came in to our shop, that seems to be calling me each time I pass by it.
Maybe I will relent in this post 9-11 world, and breakdown and take my Leica or this Fuji 645 out - just to show that there is more to life than 1's and 0's.
