Nikon's D3x strategy decision - some thoughts

[TimF]

I think Sony have achieved something of a coup by introducing Carl Zeiss lenses which are fully integrated into the camera unlike the basic manual focus, aperture priority only primes for Nikon (and, I assume, Canon).

From what I've read the Zeiss ZE lenses have/will have electronic linkages, so apart from AF should be fully compatible with Canon's bodies. Why is this not the case with the Nikon-mount optics? (and will they be upgraded with such) Maybe those who developed the idea didn't consider that users outside of the old classic manual bodies would use them?

 

[etrigan63]

I don't know why not. Mr. Kobiyashi over at Cosina figured it out with the SL II line. Both lenses are chipped for Nikon in F-mount. Works like a champ!

 

[TimF]

Latest rumour is that the 35/1.8 is a DX lens, something equivalent to the 50/1.8 on FX, and aggressively priced. Makes sense if it's at least as good as the Sigma 30/1.4.

Regrettably the rumours are correct - £199 in UK, in shops March 6th. :talk028:

 

[fotografz]

I still do not grasp why the maker of a Professional level DSLR ... now with full frame capability in 2 of it's cameras, does not field a modern AFs 35/1.4. :angry:

It is a mainstay for wedding & event work, journalism and serious street shooters, and probably the most used prime lens of them all.:lecture:

Since I believe most folks who buy comsumer level cameras tend to use zooms, I'd hazard a guess that a 35/1.4 FX would outsell this new 35/1.8 DX ... and at approx. $1,000. (like Canon's 35/1.4L) compared to $200., it'd generate more revenue also. :wtf:

 

[Ben Rubinstein]

As even an FX/DX 35 1.8 would outsell the DX only 35mm I'm at a loss to understand why they crippled the lens?

 

[Jorgen Udvang]

As even an FX/DX 35 1.8 would outsell the DX only 35mm I'm at a loss to understand why they crippled the lens?

Probably because they needed a cheap lens to sell in large volume. If they made it FX, they would have been slaughtered for not making it good enough. The one they need for the high-end market will not be cheap.

 

[fotografz]

Probably because they needed a cheap lens to sell in large volume. If they made it FX, they would have been slaughtered for not making it good enough. The one they need for the high-end market will not be cheap.

I still don't get it. Does Nikon consumer cameras come bundled with a lens like this elsewhere in the world? It doesn't here in the US ... it's usually a crappy zoom.

 

[Jorgen Udvang]

I still don't get it. Does Nikon consumer cameras come bundled with a lens like this elsewhere in the world? It doesn't here in the US ... it's usually a crappy zoom.

No, they don't, but when you think of the number of 50/1.8 sales, it's a very easy business decision to make.