Whats this about Nikon going all digital? Can someone please explain a little more than the website says (you have to check the uk site here). Does this mean lenses like the 70-200mm 2.8 and other good pro lenses will no longer be available or are they referring to manual focus lenses? So much for a full framed Nikon sensor....

The lenses listed are manual focus lenses.

Nikon is not withdrawing any AF lenses if I understand well.

Regards,
Bernard

Nikon UK says Nikon is cutting their film camera line to just the F6. Outside Europe, they will also continue to sell the FM10 "manual student camera", which is made for them by Cosina anyway. So the last of their high level manual focus bodies are going, and along with them they are cutting some manual focal lenses. No discontinuations of AF lenses was mentioned.

The end of the F3 manual focus line makes the new Zeiss manual focus lenses in Nikon F-mount seem even more quixotic.

For what it's worth, most of Nikon's AF lenses will work fine on a manual body (just without autofocus, obviously).


--
Daniel Bell

I suppose they are keeping the F6 around because:

1. It is relatively recent;

2. It uses shared components with their top DSLRs;

3. And it is full-frame! That will cater for people out there with 14 and 16mm Nikkors that do not like cropping factors.

There are some rumours that Nikon will announce a full frame DSLR, in the 18 megapixel range, using a 3-colour Foveon chip which will be based on the F6 body.

If it happens, expectations are that the announcement might be at the Fall PMA show.

But Nikon plays this stuff close to the vest, so the rumours could be hogwash.

Other rumous said 24 MP...
more rumours said that Nikon would release 2 full frame bodies, one in the 13MP range, and the other one around 18...

What a amazing information World we live in.

Cheers,
Bernard

Nikon's abandoning manual focus lenses is a presage of what will come.. which is that Nikon will NOT release a Full Frame (FF) digital SLR. Ever.

Their intention is to keep the Reduced Frame (DX) format and start making smaller lenses for that format, which will be cheaper and lighter. The advantage will come with the long telephotos with large apertures (f2.8 and f4), which should cost significantly less than their full-frame equivalents. They will do this because Canon is stretched having to maintain two distinct lines of lenses, the EF for FF and the EF-S which only works with reduced frame cameras, and they will be able to compete and create a distinctive product, instead of trailing behind Canon on the FF megapixel war.

Nikon has sensed that the advantage of FF is coming to an end, as Medium Format digital backs come down in price and become more common. Many working pros have opted for the FF Canons because the MF alternatives are simply too expensive, as well as the range of lenses that Canon has. However the cost differential will eventually come down, and FF has very little more to give as pixels are getting pretty small. I expect that 25mpixel will be the maximum practical resoluton the FF chips will be able to give.. beyond that it's diminishing returns because of signal to noise ratio unless a radical new technology is used (such as the much touted Foveon.. that up till now has just been a pipe-dream). Medium format however has only touched the iceberg of pixel miniturisation.. so the advantages that MF film had over 35mm film will be replayed in the near future with MF digital backs, and working pro's in studios the world around will start ditching their FF Canons in favour of the higher quality, which is not just a function of the larger chip size of MF backs, but also because of the fact that most of these are 16 bit capture, not 12 bit like the Canons (16 bit files are created, but capture is only 12 bit, so less dynamic range).

So, Canon having lost that market back to the MF digital back manufacturers will have to turn to it's usual clients once more.. rich amateurs, sports photographers, photojournalists.. Many of these however might actually prefer a camera with a smaller sensor and smaller lenses, that however mimic the field of view of larger lenses on a FF camera.. Nikon will not be split between two product lines, and will therefore be able to concentrate all resources on this new line of lenses. The second attraction to buyers will be that traditionally expensive and unwieldy lenses become smaller, lighter, less obtrusive but just as powerful. Less may actually end up meaning more, even in the digital race.

The D200 is the tip of the iceberg for Nikon's new strategy.. A relatively cheap but FULL FEATURED camera to knock the socks off the competition (as well as competing with it's own line-up of cameras such as the D2X, D2H, D70s etc).
With lens manufacturers like Zeiss taking up the slack where they have left off (manual focus Nikon F mount lenses), they can comfortably dedicate all their resources to coming up with new DX lenses that will compete with Canon on price as well as quality.

Well, this is all my opinion anyway.. Were I Canon at the moment, I would be very worried indeed.. as Nikon's strategy may prove right.

Though I agree with the rest of your post, I don't see the connection here. High end FF camera users are typically using high end lenses with fast auto-focus, embedded CPU's, vibration reduction and more.

The quantity of manual focus lens users that also use the 1DS Mk2 and/or D2X models is probably so small as to be an insignificant market segment.

The elimination of marginal market products (like manual lenses) by Nikon might make a FF model even more likely in the future, since it frees up management, design and production resources that could be devoted to such an endeavour. And they have kept the F6, which is the rumoured platform for an FF model. Though they might have only kept the F6 because it's so new and dropping it would be a PR disaster.

Time will tell...

A well-reasoned argument I think. In a nutshell one might say that Nikon have made a thorough examination of the Olympus 4/3rds system, and, if the strategy you lay out is correct, are adopting the advantageous parts of that - eg, smaller, lighter glass (with perhaps a more telecentric design, not a full one of course as the lens throat is a limitation), but with the added pluses of a larger sensor. They could well slay two rivals if it works out!

I would not give Olympus and their FourThirds idea credit for Nikon's DX course: for one thing, Nikon started on DX earlier. But I agree that both companies have fairly clearly decided that the DSLR market will be dominated by formats significantly smaller than any of the film SLR formats, and so have pursued DX and FourThirds formats single-mindedly, leaving the high end, low volume larger format niches to companies like Canon, Mamiya and Hasselblad/Fuji. And with most other SLR systems heading towards control by consumer electronic product makers like Sony and Samsung, it seems likely Canon, Mamiya and Hasselblad/Fuji will continue to have the "digital large formats" to themselves.

I still see a small possibility of Nikon launching a very expensive high end 24x36mm format DSLR, while continuing to do the vast majority of their SLR business with DX (in the way that Pentax continued to offer both 35mm and medium format film cameras), but now that Nikon is reducing the economies of scale of sharing lenses and components with 35mm film cameras, this looks even less likely than last week.

The Nikon anouncement was entirely expected. Film has been dead for years. The marketplace just wasn't told. I'm certain it was the issue of significant inventories being in place that required selling off. Much of this inventory was on the shelves of the retailer and without trashing the retailer community the camera companies kept the lines in the catalogs. I'm sure much of the inventory has been sold off or certainly reduced significantly.

The Nikon manual focus lenses (most of the lines discontinued) are competing with the used market which has become fairly efficient since Ebay showed up. In switching from Canon Fd to Nikon a while back, I found it easy to sell my FD lenses and reacquire Nikon manual focus. I have a brace of supurb Nikon MF lenses and not one was bought new from Nikon.

With the AF line only 6 lenses are designated DX, 2 of them being cheap kit lenses, 1 a premium kit lens, and three wide premium lenses. 4 of the 6 roughly overlap. And they have continued to introduce new FF 35mm lenses, primarily normal to long in FL. But they are already "very" well covered with wide FF lenses. The 17-35 F2.8 is a supurb lens.

This is a small portion of the lens universe Nikon offers. To me this supports the idea that Nikon will match Canon at FF at some point in time. Why introduce the 200/F2.0 and 200-400/F4.0 lenses to cover FF. These are very low volume premium products.

I awaiting the Nikon FF. I suspect the holdup is sensor related. Sony in bed with Minolta has to worry Nikon management. I believe all but the D2h is based upon Sony sensor designs. As good as the D2x chip is and I can testify it is an excellent chip when used within it's envelope, the other Sony chips are worrysome. BGLoD and the banding issues (d200) have tagged Nikon users much like software is Canon's archilles heel. Repairable sure, annoying, you bet. There was a rumor about a Fuji/Nikon connection. I was hoping, without any real proof, that it was true. That would be a heck of a marriage in my mind.

Bob

Because for focal lengths much longer than about 60mm, there is almost no difference between an optimal DX format design and an optimal 35mm format design, and so there would be nothing to gain from modifying those lenses to prevent them from working with the many Nikon 35mm film cameras in use, or the F6. The 200/2 in particular is very clearly targeted at doing for DX roughly what a 300/2.8 does with 35mm format: there is a demonstratedly inadequate market for 200mm primes faster than f/2.8 in 35mm format (remember the Canon 200/1.8?)

For the rest, Nikon simply continues to sell existing 35mm format lenses, many of which are also fine choices with DX format, with no recent sign of product developments oriented specifically to 35mm format. One notable Nikon decision is not updating the 400/2.8, 500/4 or 600/4 to VR versions, as would probably be needed to compete with Canon in 35mm digital format.

I haven't seen anything regarding nikon "not" planning to update the longish teles, but rather, haven't done it yet. They only have so much design capacity, and are scrambling to get the DX versions out.

Would Nikon address the FF issue with a new camera, I would "not" ditch my D2x. It is the best telecentric camera out there in my opinion. I would surely love to have a FF for very wide to long normal (100mm or so). They are mutually complimentary.

I can only dream<G>.

Bob

Exactly: it is simply a matter of lots of visible effort and investment that benefits and advances at DX format and not a single sign of any product development efforts addressed to 35mm format for some years now. At most, products that benefit DX and also 35mm.

It is a case of the dog that does not bark, suggesting that nothing is going on. I suppose that only if and when Nikon discontinues some very 35mm oriented lenses like the 28-70 f/2.8 that we will know for sure.

The current 3 formats, APS-C, full frame 35mm, and cropped 6x4.5 as in the P45(actually 47x39mm), are simply different sized formats, each one having an inherent 'picture' resolution advantage in proportion to the sensor size, but not it seems in proportion to price.

The size difference between APS-C (with the 1.5x crop factor) and FF 35mm is actually greater than the size difference between the P45 and FF 35mm.

All else being equal and assuming that lens and sensor technology is exploited to the full, you cannot expect any sensor to ultimately compete with one that is 2.5x the area. 2.5x the area might not always deliver the theoretical 58% increase in resolution, but I see no reason to suppose that the difference need be any less than the current difference between the 39MP P45 and the 16MP 1Ds2.

You can be quite sure if the price of MF backs falls to affordability for the masses, the difference in price between APS-C and FF 35mm bodies will be so inconsequential in relation to the price of lenses, it won't matter. Any undeniable picture quality, resolution or ultimate picture size advantage that can be bought for a few hundred dollars more, will ensure the continued viability of FF 35mm.

I believe Nikon's coming out with a FF sensor at 24 megapixels. I'm nearly certain of it.

Am I the only one who thinks smaller and lighter isn't a good thing? Although I use the 70-200 VR lense, I still prefer the feel of the 80-200 because it feels much more rugged and all. That and I could get it in a push zoom .

4. And it's perfect!!*

*except for the unfortunate fact that the recording medium requires processing in chemicals before it can be read




Edit-- oh yeah: and it doesn't run on AA's unless you mount the grip.

... STILL PERFECT THOUGH!!

Yes, I could have phrased that better. The overall strategy of the two is similar though. FF is, dare I suggest, really only lusted after by ultra-wide fans.

Given that for the vast majority of users, around 21mm is plenty wide enough, and the increasingly common specialist 'digital only' wides down to 10 or 12mm can fill the gap for those desiring a wider view (perhaps more important for Nikon users due to the standard x1.5 crop factor than for Canon, where there is a x1.3 option available), the position of FF is slightly undermined.

While it is true that NIkon has not updated their 500 and 600 mm lenses to VR, I am wonderintg if that is because of their switch to almost all-digital SLR's. With the smaller sensor that Nikon uses (and the D200 has proven that the small sensor can give all the quality needed) they might be redesigning their big lenses to take advantage of the smaller sensor. A 500mm or 600mm equivalent digital only lens would be much smaller and lighter than one designed for 35mm film.

I have no idea if this is true, but it is a tempting scenario.

In a sense yes; for the smaller sensor, they are covering the FOV of those 500mm and 600mm f/4 lenses with lenses offering 350mm to 400mm, and everything in between: the 400/2.8 and above all the 200-400 f/4 VR. The latter is significantly smaller, lighter and far cheaper than either the Nikon 500/4 or 600/4, and Canon's IS versions are heavier still.

With DX format, the market for 600/4 is like the market in 35mm format for the equivalent lens, a 900mm f/5.6. And in the rare cases that it is needed, it will be got the way that 35mm users get 900mm FOV: by using a 1.4x TC (on a 400mm lens for DX), or by using a sensor with enough pixels and then cropping.

The point is occasionally made that the crop factor of the smaller format does not effectively extend the reach of the telephoto lens. It's just a crop, no more. Now currently, that's not true because some smaller format sensors, the D2X in particular, have greater pixel density than full frame 35mm sensors such as the 1Ds2.

However, if the trend towards greater pixel density continues (and it seems likely that it will) we shall soon arrive at the position where the APS-C format really is no more than a crop. The same resolution and FoV will be possible with the same lens attached to a FF camera by simply cropping the FF image in post processing, but the FF camera will retain the advantage of greater FoV with the same lens, whatever the lens, if desired.

Bird photographers need all the reach they can get. And no the market for the 600 F4 on DX bodies will not be like the market for the 900mm F5.6 on 35mm bodies. That latter lens would be huge and prohibitively expensive. The 600mm F4 is still lusted after because it is just about portable and just about affordable, and works well with a teleconverter. A bird photographers greed for reach knows few limits.

BTW This is one of the most interesting threads I've read for some time, due to the absense of the "But a FF sensor is bigger so it must be better" nonsense. The argument that current Canon FF users will migrate to digital MF is interesting, especially given how many seem to complain about Canon's wide angle lenses.

But there might well be a market for FF 35mm digital once pixel densities get high enough that a DX offers no telephoto advantage. Assuming that they can reduce noise levels. The D200 is rather noisy at ISO 1600 and above.

Leif

Optics technology moves much slower than sensor tech. I really doubt whether well see high density sensors (aka D2x) in full frame anytime soon. A new suite of lenses would need to be introduced to accompany the body release.

The explanation that Nikon is using (advantage of smaller sensors is the cropping of the sweet spot of the lens) really rings true. Optical performance really does fall off substancially as one reaches the limits of the image circle.

To me, it really cements the hold on the pro market that Nikon and Canon have, as they are the most likely to develp a broad array of digital FF "super" lenses.

Can the ultimate advantage in the digital world, be the old fashion art of building optics?????

Bob

I don't know, Bob. That sounds like pretty radical stuff to suggest that optics might eventually be more important than electronic bells and whistles or how many pixels can be crammed onto a chip. Good Grief! The next thing you know, lens speed will start to become important as well as the ability to control depth of field. More dangeriouis ideas!!!