Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: « 1 [2]   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: Nikon MX rumours  (Read 13900 times)
Dustbak
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2372


« Reply #20 on: September 19, 2008, 10:51:24 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
I just want nikon to make a new 85mm f/1.4
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=222668\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


Right-on! Update the 1.4 line with AFS & VR (including VR on the 28 please) and I am very happy.
Logged
revaaron
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 333


« Reply #21 on: September 19, 2008, 10:58:11 AM »
ReplyReply

I seriously doubt they would upgrade the 28 f/1.4
it's like the 50mm f/1.2, a dying race.
Sigma updated their 50mm f/1.4 with an updated (x2) price point so I think nikon is definitely looking at the 50mm f/1.4 for an update, but the price tag will be probably $800-$1000.

An updated 85mm with VR would price it $1200-$1700.

I would love to see the MX work on FX cameras with a converter. this would mean that a 70-200 MX wouldn't vingette so bad.  Actually, I love the 70-200VR, but the vingetting on the FX sensor should be nikon's #1 priority right now.
Logged

Dan Wells
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 355


WWW
« Reply #22 on: September 19, 2008, 11:07:58 AM »
ReplyReply

I hope the rumored electronic viewfinder camera is true - for a lot of landscape/nature applications, it would be absolutely perfect - assuming that the screen is good enough, but a 4-5 inch version of the present D3 screen (resolution scaled with size, so 1024x768 or so) would be great. Such LCDs already exist in the video world. The only really new technology in it would be how to get the sensor to read out full time without heating up (sensor heating has inspired some MF digital back makers to put fans in their backs, and that's without live view). Unless they do something radical, it will also have a prodigious appetite for batteries, leaving that huge sensor in live view (I'm sure it'll use some sort of reduced resolution readout, so it doesn't have to process huge images for the live view).
       Also remember that this will be a SLOW focusing camera unless they rig some sort of beam-splitter for phase-detect AF. The advantage of the contrast AF for more deliberate work would be that it could effectively HAVE thousands of focusing points - put the cursor wherever you want it and it'll focus there. It may turn out to be a mostly manual focus camera (fine with me), with AF (or perhaps more accurately called semi-automatic focus - it focuses, but you decide exactly where) as an assist. I hope they come out with some tilt/shift lenses for it, because that big screen would sure make a nice ground glass for the world's first one piece all-digital view camera. Unlike phase-detect AF, contrast detect would even work on a T/S lens if they wanted it to (due to the flexible focus points). Of course the great advantage is that it could also be shot on a monopod or handheld, just like a Graflex, but unlike just about any view camera since then. What's old is new again, if Nikon manages to introduce a camera that is really a cross between a Mamiya 6 and a Graflex or Linhof (with a bit of Phase One DNA as well!)...
 
                                                  -Dan
Logged
bob mccarthy
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 372


WWW
« Reply #23 on: September 19, 2008, 11:13:48 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
I would love to see the MX work on FX cameras with a converter. this would mean that a 70-200 MX wouldn't vingette so bad.  Actually, I love the 70-200VR, but the vingetting on the FX sensor should be nikon's #1 priority right now.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=222681\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

No reason to need a converter. F Mount would work great on a larger format camera, as long as the lenses are reasonable speed. High speed lenses are the only ones unworkable on the full frame of a MX sensor. Nikon knows how to make lenses with a large image circle. My large format nikkors are spectacular on 4x5.

The f-mount could be used intact. Any older lens would work and the camera would only use the appropriate area of the sensor for FX and DX  lenses.

And MX lenses should also work in the reverse way (MX on FX camera).

come on Nikon,

bob
Logged
bob mccarthy
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 372


WWW
« Reply #24 on: September 19, 2008, 11:21:35 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
I hope the rumored electronic viewfinder camera is true - for a lot of landscape/nature applications, it would be absolutely perfect - assuming that the screen is good enough, but a 4-5 inch version of the present D3 screen (resolution scaled with size, so 1024x768 or so) would be great. Such LCDs already exist in the video world. The only really new technology in it would be how to get the sensor to read out full time without heating up (sensor heating has inspired some MF digital back makers to put fans in their backs, and that's without live view). Unless they do something radical, it will also have a prodigious appetite for batteries, leaving that huge sensor in live view (I'm sure it'll use some sort of reduced resolution readout, so it doesn't have to process huge images for the live view).
       Also remember that this will be a SLOW focusing camera unless they rig some sort of beam-splitter for phase-detect AF. The advantage of the contrast AF for more deliberate work would be that it could effectively HAVE thousands of focusing points - put the cursor wherever you want it and it'll focus there. It may turn out to be a mostly manual focus camera (fine with me), with AF (or perhaps more accurately called semi-automatic focus - it focuses, but you decide exactly where) as an assist. I hope they come out with some tilt/shift lenses for it, because that big screen would sure make a nice ground glass for the world's first one piece all-digital view camera. Unlike phase-detect AF, contrast detect would even work on a T/S lens if they wanted it to (due to the flexible focus points). Of course the great advantage is that it could also be shot on a monopod or handheld, just like a Graflex, but unlike just about any view camera since then. What's old is new again, if Nikon manages to introduce a camera that is really a cross between a Mamiya 6 and a Graflex or Linhof (with a bit of Phase One DNA as well!)...
 
                                                  -Dan
[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

if the rumored lens list is right they already have the first 3 lenses done on the form of PC T/S. Wonder how much coverage it has? Anyway the glass is done, may need to go into a new lens barrel.

AF-S MX Nikkor 24 f4.0G
AF-S MX Nikkor 45 f2.8G
AF-S MX NIkkor 85 f2.8G
AF-S MX Nikkor 135 f2.0G ED
AF-S MX Nikkor 200 F2.8G ED
AF-S MX Nikkor 65-180 f2.8G ED IF"


also, they introduced a touch screen on a P&S at 'kina.

[a href=\"http://asia.cnet.com/reviews/digitalcameras/0,39001469,62044626-2,00.htm]http://asia.cnet.com/reviews/digitalcamera...044626-2,00.htm[/url]

S60

bob
Logged
revaaron
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 333


« Reply #25 on: September 19, 2008, 11:34:02 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
I hope the rumored electronic viewfinder camera is true - for a lot of landscape/nature applications, it would be absolutely perfect - assuming that the screen is good enough, but a 4-5 inch version of the present D3 screen (resolution scaled with size, so 1024x768 or so)
I HATE ELECTRONIC VIEWFINDERS. they are terrible. I got DSLRs and MF to be able to see through the optics. Also a 1024x768 would be an energy hog. Video cameras and UMPCs that have these screens power them off sizeable batteries to get 1-2 hours and MASSIVE batteries to get 3.5hrs.  A MF, rangefinder, or DSLR with this screen would be either hindered but 1/3 the weight in batteries or very short battery life.
Logged

Mort54
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 590


WWW
« Reply #26 on: September 19, 2008, 11:53:22 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
I hope the rumored electronic viewfinder camera is true
To the best of my knowledge, there is no mention anywhere in all the "published" rumors of an electronic viewfinder. If you're referring to the post from me earlier in this thread where an electronic viewfinder was mentioned, that was just me dreaming. I made it up. It's what I would like to see. I did say "as long as we're having fun" to preface my comment.
« Last Edit: September 19, 2008, 11:59:48 AM by Mort54 » Logged

I Reject Your Reality And Substitute My Own
Mort54
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 590


WWW
« Reply #27 on: September 19, 2008, 11:59:01 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
I HATE ELECTRONIC VIEWFINDERS. they are terrible.
True, they have their problems. But they also would simplify some things if they were used in this rumored MF camera. An optical rangefinder-type finder would have problems with framing all the different focal lengths, and framing zooms would be a nightmare. Electronic viewfinders solves this problem. Alternatively, if you go with a more traditional mirror and pentaprism viewfinder, you add considerable cost, size and weight. Electronic viewfinders solve this problem as well. So yes, they have their negatives. But they also have some compelling positives. And LCD technology for use in electronic viewfinders is getting better and better everyday, with very high pixel densities.
Logged

I Reject Your Reality And Substitute My Own
Mort54
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 590


WWW
« Reply #28 on: September 19, 2008, 12:04:12 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
I would love to see the MX work on FX cameras with a converter
Possibly, but that's not what the rumors are saying. The rumors are saying an MX body with a converter to allow it to use FX and DX lenses with in-camera cropping. Of course, if you like your version better, simply post that you heard it from your third cousin, and it will become part of the "official" rumor :-)

Rumors are rumors and nothing more. They're fun, but they're no substitute for reality :-)
Logged

I Reject Your Reality And Substitute My Own
bob mccarthy
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 372


WWW
« Reply #29 on: September 19, 2008, 12:36:08 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
I HATE ELECTRONIC VIEWFINDERS. they are terrible. I got DSLRs and MF to be able to see through the optics. Also a 1024x768 would be an energy hog. Video cameras and UMPCs that have these screens power them off sizeable batteries to get 1-2 hours and MASSIVE batteries to get 3.5hrs. A MF, rangefinder, or DSLR with this screen would be either hindered but 1/3 the weight in batteries or very short battery life.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=222696\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I agree wholeheartedly, but the LCD on the back of the D700 et al are really good. I don't think we talking the P&S crappy EV viewfinder, grain and all. I'm working with a ground glass on my Technika and I can see this being the modern equivalent (the LCD) if it were larger (4x4 or 5x5). You could auto loupe by doing the iphone 2 finger trick to closely examine a portion of the screen. Fixed focus points or my preference, touch the screen for point of perfect focus. Now that would be really useful.

Admittedly, I'm thinking like a view camera user here, but the camera would be a great tool for the landscape and studio user.

bob
« Last Edit: September 19, 2008, 12:57:39 PM by bob mccarthy » Logged
Dan Wells
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 355


WWW
« Reply #30 on: September 19, 2008, 03:30:39 PM »
ReplyReply

I was wondering about the battery issue as well - other than batteries, an electronic rangefinder seems to make a lot of sense (nice light camera with a huge sensor). I bet it would have to run off of something like the D2/D3 battery, and it would still go through them! While a D300 size battery would be nice, it would run down very quickly. It might not be as bad as the UMPC example suggests, though - a camera spends a lot of time idling between shots (LCD and sensor off, almost no power), and the only time it's actually doing anywhere near as much processing as an UMPC is when it's actively processing a shot. I wouldn't be at all surprised to see it get something like 500-600 shots (running for a day with average screen use) off of a D3 battery - not great, but not unworkable either.

                                      -Dan
Logged
bob mccarthy
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 372


WWW
« Reply #31 on: September 19, 2008, 03:40:04 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
I was wondering about the battery issue as well - other than batteries, an electronic rangefinder seems to make a lot of sense (nice light camera with a huge sensor). I bet it would have to run off of something like the D2/D3 battery, and it would still go through them! While a D300 size battery would be nice, it would run down very quickly. It might not be as bad as the UMPC example suggests, though - a camera spends a lot of time idling between shots (LCD and sensor off, almost no power), and the only time it's actually doing anywhere near as much processing as an UMPC is when it's actively processing a shot. I wouldn't be at all surprised to see it get something like 500-600 shots (running for a day with average screen use) off of a D3 battery - not great, but not unworkable either.

                                      -Dan
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=222733\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Even in metal, w/o the big mirror, mirror box and support structure, it would have to be fairly light and compact (compared to other MF dslr's). maybe it uses 2 D2x type batteries. Even with, I think it's a win-win.

bob
Logged
revaaron
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 333


« Reply #32 on: September 22, 2008, 08:33:14 AM »
ReplyReply

nikon's new 50mm f/1.4
http://nikonrumors.com/2008/09/22/bang-bang.aspx
Logged

Pages: « 1 [2]   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad