The Nikon Thread: The D400 Will Literally Never Exist

The Something Awful Forums > The Finer Arts > Creative Convention > The Dorkroom > The Nikon Thread: The D400 Will Literally Never Exist

krooj: Dec 2, 2006

What is a fair price to pay for a used 24-70 f/2.8? They can be had locally for $1700 with tax.

# ¿ Nov 22, 2012 23:43

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ Apr 27, 2024 10:06

krooj: Dec 2, 2006

Anyone here using a Zeiss 35mm f/1.4? I'm looking for opinions on the lens, as that focal length seems to be my sweet spot for most city shots, and it's not as expensive as the Nikkor 35 f/1.4 (why is that lens so much?). I am also still contemplating between a good general zoom (24-70 f/2.8) and a high quality wide prime. I do a bunch of low light shooting so having a sharp lens wide open is nice, but that additional range from the zoom is nice to have on hand...

# ¿ Nov 29, 2012 03:23

krooj: Dec 2, 2006

^^ Hello!

I'm going to rent the Nikkor and Zeiss from Vistek and see how they work out. If the Sigma is highly reviewed, then I don't see why I would pay a $1000 premium...

# ¿ Nov 29, 2012 04:16

krooj: Dec 2, 2006

BonoMan posted:

Welp. D600 ordered. Time to jump on eBay and grab some AI-S lenses. Anybody have some here they are looking to sell?

Adding to this, and out of curiosity: how is the 35mm 1.4 AI-S? They run around $500 on eBay, which is significantly less than any other new fast prime at that focal length.

Good job on the D600 - it takes fantastic pics. How do you feel about the body size?

Paul MaudDib posted:

If you want manual focus, buy a Samyang/Rokinon/Bower 35/1.4. If you want autofocus, wait for the Sigma 35/1.4. Both of those outclass the Nikon at a fraction of the price point.

I went to a local shop to compare the build quality of a Samyang to a Zeiss, and there's no question: the Zeiss is built better. The focus ring on the Zeiss is much finer and smoother than the Samyang, which felt as though it had play in it.

Still need to rent some lenses and see how they compare, though. Also, still undecided between the 24-70 Nikkor and a 35mm fast prime.

krooj fucked around with this message at 14:11 on Nov 30, 2012

# ¿ Nov 30, 2012 14:07

krooj: Dec 2, 2006

BonoMan posted:

Well I haven't actually held it yet..ordered it from Amazon. I'm primarily using it for video so I'm eyeing those 35/1.4 ai-s' as well. If you get one before me, lemme know how it is!

Interesting - I don't do any video, but I remember overhearing something about how the D600 won't do automatic aperture adjustment while filming video. Supposedly, you have to step up to the D800 for that feature. Did you checkout the Panasonic GH3? It's just been released, so I'm not sure if it's widely available, but is supposed to do video _very_ well. Dunno squat about m4/3 lenses, though.

# ¿ Nov 30, 2012 16:38

krooj: Dec 2, 2006

BonoMan posted:

edit: Now the live view aperture change IS something that can maybe be upgraded in the future via firmware correct? (as opposed to my 1080p@60 dream which was crushed).

Firmware hacks :yarr:

TBH: assuming you use G or D lenses, I can't see what other than software is preventing automatic aperture adjustment in video LV.

# ¿ Nov 30, 2012 16:56

krooj: Dec 2, 2006

Paul MaudDib posted:

I'd be interested in seeing this since the the Samyang bested the Nikon and Canon L-series 35/1.4s in Photozone's test (they're my go-to for honest, rigorous testing). Lenstip had similar findings on the Sigma. All four of the lenses are excellent, modern lenses, the gains from going from Nikon/Canon to Samyang/Sigma can only be described as modest (not a whole lot of room to go up, they're all super-sharp across the whole field), and the differences between the Samyang and Sigma have got to be marginal given that.

Maybe if you are shooting a D800 or something like that you're starting to see the difference, but it's still got to be pretty close. I'll be real curious to see what Photozone has to say about the Sigma. Maybe they got a lovely copy or it got dropped in transit or something that hosed it up.

Interesting, because I'll be using whichever lens I settle on with my D800. Two shops have given me different variations on the same answer to the question of when the 35 1.4 Sigma will be in stock: one said probably in a couple months, and the other said there was a slight delay. Both said Sigma was late on delivery.

e: called another shop, and they said mid-Dec. Prices seem to be around $870-900 CAD.

krooj fucked around with this message at 20:50 on Nov 30, 2012

# ¿ Nov 30, 2012 20:31

krooj: Dec 2, 2006

Legdiian posted:

Been shooting with a D5100 for about a year and a half now and thinking about upgrading. Some of my gripes with the D5100 are :

- Not enough buttons. I have to dig into menus a lot to change settings

- Autofocus performance. Maybe I'm expecting too much from a camera but I find it hunts around alot

- Small. I think I have relatively normal sized hands but it still feels like I'm holding a toy.

I was originally going to look at a D7000 but when the D600 was released I starting playing the whole "Well for this much more..." game. And that's a dangerous game because then you start eyeing the D800.

I primarily take outdoor action photos of motorcycles. Stunt bikes in particular. The action takes place in parking lots and I have gotten away with only needing a 200mm zoom to get some pretty good shots.

I do this as a hobby, but I would like to produce the best pictures possible. Is the D800 (or even D600) overkill for me? The only thing that scares me about the D800, besides the price, is the 36 megapixel sensor. When I go out I end up taking a *lot* of pictures because the tricks happen so fast I like to get a bunch of different shots. I see myself filling up a lot of memory card and hard drives (I also have a terrible habit of keeping every picture I take).

Any advice?

Edit - I forgot to mention that video is fairly important to me also.

D800 does auto aperture in video mode, whereas the D600 doesn't.

If space is a concern, just dump everything to an external HDD. I guess you also need high burst rates, and I think the D600 is slightly faster than the D800, but once you add a grip, the D800 gains a slight speed advantage. If price is a concern, just look for a used body.

# ¿ Dec 3, 2012 04:25

krooj: Dec 2, 2006

I kinda, sorta want Nikon to release non-junk mirrorless bodies that take regular F-mount, akin to the X-series from Fuji. It would be doubly awesome if they could get a 20MP+ FX sensor in such a body, and I doubt it would harm their DSLR business.

Oh, and I finally bought a 24-70 f/2.8 for myself. It's a great lens, but holy gently caress, it's the size of a thermos.

# ¿ Dec 14, 2012 01:16

krooj: Dec 2, 2006

Beastruction posted:

You mean a Pentax K-01?

Kinda, but with less ugly.

# ¿ Dec 14, 2012 04:15

krooj: Dec 2, 2006

Musket posted:

No, let Nikon keep making lovely bridge cameras to fund FX consumer lines. If you want a fullframe compact from nikon in Fmount, get an FE and 40mm pancake or an Nikon S rangefinder. But only if that rangefinder is stamped Made in Occupied Japan, anything less is scrubtier.

None of these will work with my shiny new 24-70 :colbert:

# ¿ Dec 14, 2012 17:46

krooj: Dec 2, 2006

Dear Nikon,

Please design your grips with charging circuitry built in, such that they can simultaneously or successively charge both the battery in the camera and the grip rechargeable.

# ¿ Dec 20, 2012 13:07

krooj: Dec 2, 2006

evil_bunnY posted:

How do you supposed that will work? If you mean putting the power transforming board and an AC input in the grip, you can gently caress right off, poo poo's heavy enough as it is.

If you didn't know, the way you currently power a D800 with AC is with this adapter, which replaces the internal battery.

It would be nice if you could plug in the AC power block directly into the body, and charge any battery in the body/grip that way.

Yeah, on second thought, I wouldn't want the rectifier in the grip itself, but being able to plug a DC charger into the grip and have that charge both the internal battery and rechargeable in the grip would save the butthurt of removing the grip.

Dunno how heavy that poo poo is, cause I haven't bought one yet. Canon seems to have a different (better?) design, in that the grip goes right into the body's main battery compartment.

# ¿ Dec 20, 2012 14:52

krooj: Dec 2, 2006

Phanatic posted:

I started out with a D70, and then a few years ago I sold it and put the money towards a D300. I haven't even looked at the lineups since then, but I have started pondering selling the D300 and putting the money towards a newer camera. More megapixels doesn't mean much to me, but the D300 came out in March of '08 and I figure that the 4+ years between then and something like the D600 should make a big difference to noise and dynamic range.

So how's the DX mode on the full-frame sensors work? Is there a different grid in the viewfinder to let you composite if you have a DX lens, or do you just have to guesstimate? I only have one DX lens I use a lot, the 18-200mm VR one, and that's been my sticking point with going full frame. But if I can still use that lens with a full-frame camera that might change my feelings on the matter. I also have a 35mm DX but I could easily sell that, I also have a 50/1.8 and I got the 35/1.8 just because 50mm isn't the most useful focal length on an APS-C camera.

Can't speak for the D600, but my D800 does give a visual indication of the reduced FOV in the finder. It's a black box, outlining the frame area when you attach a DX lens.

# ¿ Dec 20, 2012 20:29

krooj: Dec 2, 2006

Cool - so street pricing ought to be around $1000 ~ $1100 for the body. This has to put even more pressure on Canon to get the 7DmkII out, especially when you consider that Nikon has had them whipped for the past year or so (D800/E, D600, D71k). How are Canon's entry level SLRs compared to Nikon's?

I still want Nikon to get serious about MILCs, but maybe they're convinced it will gently caress their DSLRs?

# ¿ Feb 21, 2013 12:53

krooj: Dec 2, 2006

^^ Yup. Updated D3x

Remo posted:

Shooting in compressed 12bit raw gives you a 14 file buffer which isn't too bad. If you really need a huge buffer just shoot jpgs?

That being said I do expect Nikon to come out with a D400, as there is still a sizable gap between D7100 pricing and D600 pricing.

Also interesting is the fact that Nikon first launched the D7000 with 16mp, and then later on an FX cam with the same pixel density (D800 with 36mp)

If they do the same with the D7100 we will be looking at a 54mp FX camera somewhere down the line (D4x anyone?)

I don't know if it will be an explicit product created by Nikon so much as a drop in the price of the D600 over time. I get the feeling that if Nikon could get MSRP at $1500 or so, it would be a small enough gap for people that were previously on the fence between APS-C and 35mm. AFAIK, the D4 is a totally different beast which is intended for speed, not necessarily raw resolution, and I think this is the reason Nikon keeps the D3x around: people that want a high(er) resolution sensor in a full size body. Maybe the D3x becomes the D4x with a D800/e sensor inside?

# ¿ Feb 23, 2013 21:20

krooj: Dec 2, 2006

doodle_duck_dandy posted:

Been using a D800 for sports and between that and a D4 the compromise comes really on the fps, the D800 is slow, even with the grip in raw. I find anything up to ISO 6400 completely usable even for print.

Compared to the D300s at the same ISO the D800 is way way ahead, but the D300s with the grip does all the fps I need. You just got to take that compromise.

I was at a camera club meeting a couple of days ago and the royal navy was in showing off there D800e and D4 modded up with a 400mm f/2.8, they use them for covert operations, helicopter to ground shots, desert ops etc.

They could have anything and they chose Nikon over Canon due to the low light, high ISO, and the VR performance, vibration in the helicopters is madness and it copes with it well.

So the answer is you need both if you really need that fps for what ever purpose requires it (night surveillance in a helicopter)

It's mind-boggling that they use stock equipment like that. I'd always guessed that anything used for reconnaissance would be totally custom. I mean, there are companies that are wholly dedicated to stuff like that, such as ELCAN - formerly Leica Canada - and Teledyne Dalsa.

# ¿ Feb 27, 2013 14:35

krooj: Dec 2, 2006

evil_bunnY posted:

Nikon: for when FLIR isn't enough.

There's a new thread title somewhere in there.

So apparently wikipedia says Nikon's parent company is Mitsubishi.

# ¿ Feb 27, 2013 14:54

krooj: Dec 2, 2006

Musket posted:

Buy 17-50 tamron 2.8, not a new camera body. Trust the dorkroom.

Yup. Or the Nikkor 17-55 f/2.8 or the 24-70 f/2.8 if you don't mind the offset focal range. You will poo poo a brick after seeing what quality glass can bring out of cheaper bodies.

# ¿ Mar 26, 2013 02:18

krooj: Dec 2, 2006

SoundMonkey posted:

This is good advice but holy poo poo both of those are so stupendously more expensive than the Tamron 17-50 2.8 that it's not even funny. Probably go with the Tamron, dude.

The Tamron is better value for money for sure, but the 17-55 can be had used for around $700, which is a few hundred more than the Tamron. Consider the poster was asking about a D7k body, tho. I guess the Tamron + 35 1.8 DX would be a good life choice as well.

# ¿ Mar 26, 2013 15:27

krooj: Dec 2, 2006

Ashex posted:

Not sure how but my 50mm took a hit to the thread Anyone know the cost of repairs or if it's even worth fixing?

It's all over. Time to switch to Canon :v:

# ¿ Apr 25, 2013 04:36

krooj: Dec 2, 2006

rebounded posted:

I'm looking to pick up an entry-level DSLR for home and work. I'd be shooting fieldwork and equipment in remote places/rough terrain and weather (no one bothers shooting the boring places). A lot of my work is site recon from the air. The "good" shots get blown up to poster size. The home stuff would be dog pics and a hiking carry.

I'm perfectly happy to go entry-level cheap, as I haven't used an SLR in 12 years. However my wife has two (old) Nikon-mount zoom lenses. They're buried in a storage locker and I couldn't say anything about the shape they're in or what they are, really.

I'd like to cap this at $800. I'd really appreciate some suggestions.

-used/refurb D90 with maybe the fixed 35mm that gets so much love here, hope I can use her old lenses?
-used/refurb D3100 with kit lenses and and just know I'd have to buy AF-S? Buy a better lens with the savings?
-something else?

I debated putting this in the "first DSLR" thread and ask about the Pentax workhorses, until wife remembered her old lenses. I won't be buying for a month or so, just feeling around now.

Check whether the lenses are D-type or older. If they are, you will need a body with screw drive AF. A used D7k is always a good idea, as it will support basically anything.

# ¿ Jul 4, 2013 02:12

krooj: Dec 2, 2006

Nikon DF photos :barf:

The black isn't so bad, but really, Nikon's contemporary design language is much nicer than this. I am reminded of:

# ¿ Nov 4, 2013 15:19

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ Apr 27, 2024 10:06

krooj: Dec 2, 2006

evil_bunnY posted:

Nikon nerds everywhere, the gods smile upon you. At least 1 person at Nikon realizes using 20 year old 35/2 lenses on their new crop of FX bodies doesn't really make sense.

http://nikonrumors.com/2013/12/16/new-nikon-af-s-nikkor-35mm-f1-8g-fx-lens-to-be-announced-in-early-january.aspx/

Goddamn, finally. The 35/2 has the cheap rear end feel of 90s AF-D lenses that makes you wonder how hard you have to grip to break it in your hand. Also remembering it's hood... lol.

# ¿ Dec 25, 2013 04:39

The Something Awful Forums > The Finer Arts > Creative Convention > The Dorkroom > The Nikon Thread: The D400 Will Literally Never Exist