Latest Thread Images

The NIKON Thread (Talk About Nikon Stuff here)
Oct 17, 2008 at 11:26 PM Post #2,596 of 5,895
I'm waiting to see if MX is a reality. I will then skip FX.
biggrin.gif
 
Oct 18, 2008 at 2:51 AM Post #2,597 of 5,895
Quote:

Originally Posted by dj_mocok /img/forum/go_quote.gif
Anyone uses the CBL white balance lens?

I am interested in getting one to have as a backup when the AWB of my camera in incorrect. But I am not sure if it's worth the money though.


I got one of those Robin Meyers digital gray cards for $14.99 US, and it's quite effective for setting a custom white balance.
 
Oct 18, 2008 at 4:48 AM Post #2,598 of 5,895
Quote:

Originally Posted by lan /img/forum/go_quote.gif
I'm waiting to see if MX is a reality. I will then skip FX.
biggrin.gif



You would skip FX? Your typical FX camera sells for 2800-4500$, while I wouldn't expect MX to be less than 10k, for the body alone. Don't expect MX lenses to sell less than 1500$ each!

Still, I could be 101% wrong, and if I am that would be so sweet!
 
Oct 18, 2008 at 6:56 AM Post #2,599 of 5,895
Quote:

Originally Posted by Towert7 /img/forum/go_quote.gif
Don't expect MX lenses to sell less than 1500$ each!


Base price for lenses for a Nikon medium format digital camera would probably be closer to 2 to 3 times that amount. I heard someone mention that a FF sensor costs nine times as much as a DX sensor to manufacture. You can imagine how much the MX sensor is going to cost.

DX ain't dead yet. All those folks who are dumping their DX lenses are going to have fun replacing them. FF is never going to be cheap, and MX is never going to be accessible to normal folks. Non-professionals just don't require a camera like that.

See ya
Steve
 
Oct 18, 2008 at 2:26 PM Post #2,600 of 5,895
I guess it depends which market segment they're going for.

I'm going to photoplus expo here in nyc next week. Let's see what I can dig up.
biggrin.gif
 
Oct 19, 2008 at 5:19 PM Post #2,601 of 5,895
Quote:

Originally Posted by dj_mocok /img/forum/go_quote.gif
Anyone uses the CBL white balance lens?

I am interested in getting one to have as a backup when the AWB of my camera in incorrect. But I am not sure if it's worth the money though.


I know there is some old filter from the film days that can be used for white balance. Its surface looks somewhat like quilted TP...I just can't remember what the hell it is called, or what it is used for. It might have been used for incident exposure. Bah.
 
Oct 19, 2008 at 6:38 PM Post #2,602 of 5,895
Quote:

Originally Posted by dj_mocok /img/forum/go_quote.gif
Anyone uses the CBL white balance lens?

I am interested in getting one to have as a backup when the AWB of my camera in incorrect. But I am not sure if it's worth the money though.


Use the translucent lid from a Pringles tube or shoot RAW.
wink.gif
 
Oct 19, 2008 at 10:53 PM Post #2,603 of 5,895
Quote:

Originally Posted by bigshot /img/forum/go_quote.gif
Base price for lenses for a Nikon medium format digital camera would probably be closer to 2 to 3 times that amount.


I'm going to call you on that one steve.
Lenses | B&H Photo Video
I think my figure is the correct estimate.
 
Oct 20, 2008 at 12:16 AM Post #2,605 of 5,895
So much attitude in this thread... sheesh.
 
Oct 20, 2008 at 1:14 AM Post #2,606 of 5,895
Quote:

Originally Posted by philodox /img/forum/go_quote.gif
So much attitude in this thread... sheesh.


Tell me about it, this notion of a medium format by Nikon is just a rumor. I think the announcement is a 20-24 mp 35mm full frame DSLR. A medium format plus lenses is another line Nikon would have to support, very expensive for a small market. Anyway, we will find out soon enough.
 
Oct 20, 2008 at 1:21 AM Post #2,607 of 5,895
Quote:

Originally Posted by Towert7 /img/forum/go_quote.gif
I'm going to call you on that one steve.
Lenses | B&H Photo Video
I think my figure is the correct estimate.


I was talking about a Nikon branded medium format lens. Any Mamiya lens is going to be considerably less. A better comparison would be the difference between a Nikon DX lens and a Nikon FF lens. Then factor up for the difference in proportions between sensor sizes.

See ya
Steve
 
Oct 20, 2008 at 5:47 AM Post #2,608 of 5,895
Quote:

Originally Posted by bigshot /img/forum/go_quote.gif
A better comparison would be the difference between a Nikon DX lens and a Nikon FF lens. Then factor up for the difference in proportions between sensor sizes.


That's hard to do since there isn't a similar lens in a similar class in both.

Closest off the top of my head is DX 17-55 2.8 @ $1200 and FX 17-35 2.8 at $1500.

There's no other pro dx vs. pro fx. There's no dx nikon prime to compare to fx nikon prime.

Going to consumer glass. What is the DX version of FX 24-120VR?
 
Oct 20, 2008 at 10:26 AM Post #2,610 of 5,895
Quote:

Originally Posted by bigshot /img/forum/go_quote.gif
FF is never going to be cheap, and MX is never going to be accessible to normal folks. Non-professionals just don't require a camera like that.


You know that isn't true
wink.gif


Quote:

Originally Posted by lan /img/forum/go_quote.gif
Going to consumer glass. What is the DX version of FX 24-120VR?


None exists. The 18-70DX more or less covers the same focal range, but doesn't have VR. The 18-105VR DX has a different focal range.


One of my best efforts yet! I'm so pleased with it: There's some good colour on 'em shells.

[size=xx-small](D300/35f2; 1/4s - F/2.8 - ISO200)[/size]

beerchug.gif
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 2 (members: 0, guests: 2)
Back
Top