[Matsu]

This is actually quite brilliant on Sony's part. If there's any place where native lenses don't matter much, it's digital cinema. Everything is manual focus anyway, and the ultra short register means you'll probably be able to get mount adaptors for everything from old manual focus nikkors, to true cinema lenses, and a range of aperture and zoom controls to mount to your specific application. Wild. They say they use the whole width of the frame, but that can't be right, since the 4K (actually UHDTV) resolution is 3840, and the sensor reads 4240 pix across, so it chops about 10% from the horizontal, and chopped down to 16:9 proportions, it should be about 70% the size of a "full frame", or 1.2X crop. (Weird how that keeps coming back.) Anyway, it means the UHDTV "full-frame" comes in about 32.6x18.3. And what's the nearest film stock for that?

It's larger than academy 3 or 4 perf, and maybe a smidge larger than Red Camera 6K ! Do 35mm Cinema lens image circles top out somewhere around APSH, or do they push closer to 35mm stills? I don't know enough about cinema lenses to know which ones you buy/rent for this application, but the next size up takes you to the larger vertical travel 65mm stock, or I think somewhat rare horizontal travel 35mm-8perf (basically run the same 35mm still stock, just longer spools, a bit like baby IMAX). There have been so many formats in use by various film houses it's hard to keep track, and even the 35mm based stocks call for very expensive lenses.

However, this new Sony is very interesting nonetheless 'cause it lets those on a budget access a big film look with nothing more than a cheap body and some old manual focus primes...

{EDIT} The caveats:

Firstly, see early review here: fstop academy

Sony seems hell bent on destroying file integrity with these cameras. They have some weird oversharpened psuedo-RAW on the stills side - it chops the file down to something like 11bits plus some extra tags that don't fully restore the garbaged bits, and that's the way it records and there's nothing you can do about it but learn how to process out artifacts. And now, on a sensor which should have excellent dynamic range they've restricted its output to 8bits, which may end up negating most of the DR advantages of the sensor.

[PB PM]

So what do you all think of the touch screen interface of the Leica T camera, and how it basically removes the need for many buttons? Frankly I'm sitting here thinking, how is itt that a company like Leica, not really known for innovation, was the first company to making a decent touch screen interface for a dedicated camera?

[Dorian Gray]

Do we know the Leica T’s touchscreen interface definitely is “decent”? I’d hope so, and it looks promising, but I’d like to try it first.

Although I realise many photographers think of Leica as not innovative, I personally see Leica as having a long history of innovation, obscured only by the fact that they’ve also continued to make the M system for decades, basically with as few changes as possible. (Since it’s perfect! )

But the R cameras were innovative, with the arguable exception of retaining manual focus. The R8 was as innovative as it looked. The lenses have been innovative optically (e.g. inventing countless glass types over the years), mechanically (e.g. Tri-Elmar, a lens so complicated even Leica had trouble assembling it), and in how they were made (e.g. Leica’s process for making aspherical surfaces affordably).

The S2 is innovative. Lots of oddball – but innovative – compacts and other products have come out of Leica, e.g. the S1.

One thread running through Leica’s history has been innovation of the user interface. Against this backdrop, it doesn’t surprise me that Leica has made a strong effort to change the interface with the T system.

That said, I don’t want the Leica T. The last thing this world needs is another lens mount for APS-C sensor cameras! That is pointless innovation – like an awful lot of things in the camera industry.

Besides, I’m doubtful anything can beat an aperture ring and a shutter-speed dial, for the way I use a camera. (Then again, I was doubtful a touchscreen phone could beat a keypad and T9!)

[PB PM]

Originally Posted by Dorian Gray Do we know the Leica T’s touchscreen interface definitely is “decent”? I’d hope so, and it looks promising, but I’d like to try it first. Although I realise many photographers think of Leica as not innovative, I personally see Leica as having a long history of innovation, obscured only by the fact that they’ve also continued to make the M system for decades, basically with as few changes as possible. (Since it’s perfect! )

Which is why I said "not really known for innovation." Leica has introduced some interesting stuff over the years, but because Leica is a premium brand these days not many people think about them that way.

Watch this video by Steve Huff, he walks you through the menu and other features of the camera. He starts going through the menu at 7:40. He rightly describes the UI as very Apple like.

Personally I don't find the T, or other Leica products, overly interesting, but I do like the UI.

As for the lens mount, I suspect Leica made a new mount so that they could use auto focus, since the M-mount doesn't really have room for it. Frankly considering how many mounts there are now days, what difference does it really make if there is yet another one? Anyone thinking that the industry is heading for universal mounts is dreaming.

[Matsu]

Sensor maybe too small, lens choice too limited for the moment, and expensive too, though cost is not a consideration for them. We'll have to see what the mount spec allows, will it take a future full frame design, or is that an M-only proposition.

I think it may be a step too far into boutique design. They machine the little thing out of a 1KG block of Aluminium, surely a less wasteful hunk of alloy could be sourced. I went to a Hermes design exchange exposition a year ago and watched the artisans talk about the exacting detail of their bag construction. Leica's promotional work appears to follow a similar narrative. Fine. And, a simplified interface is welcome. However, the may have gone a little too simple. The S2 looks so right in operation, I think they should have stolen the four shoulder buttons from it and the clickable scroll wheels. A touch interface seems fine for casual use, but making quick selections under pressure will require an exceptional well designed interface and very well tuned touch sensitivity. What happens in extreme cold, or if the camera gets some rainfall on it? How will it register user touches in those environments, with gloves, or dirty hands, for example?

As it is, they may have both halves of a perfect (modern) user interface spread across two cameras: The S and the T.

Here's what I would do when I fantasize about being an engineer or designer:

Use the touch screen and the twin dial concept from the T.
Enclose the dials and make them clickable like the S (which only has one)
Put the four corner buttons back around the touch screen and use the menu concept from the S to access "shooting" parameters.
Allow for touch screen usage of "playback and interconnectivity (wifi/NFC) parameters.

Allow for two touch screen shooting controls.

Select focus point and metering point(s) in the live view. Tap the screen once to choose a spot metering point, tap again to average it with one or two additional points. Tap while feathering the shutter to selected a focus point independently of the metering. Since the camera has no eye level viewfinder built in, this makes sense for and "arms outstretched" device. Using an eye level viewfinder, a way to move the focus point quickly around is required. Direction pads hand that on a DSLR, how do these cameras get around that?

[PB PM]

Originally Posted by Matsu They machine the little thing out of a 1KG block of Aluminium, surely a less wasteful hunk of alloy could be sourced.

Not wasteful at all. Anything they cut out of that block would simply be melted down again and used to make another camera.

Sensor maybe too small, lens choice too limited for the moment, and expensive too, though cost is not a consideration for them. We'll have to see what the mount spec allows, will it take a future full frame design, or is that an M-only proposition.

Nothing inherently wrong with the sensor size, and there is no way Leica is going to make a competitor in their own lineup to the M series.

[Dorian Gray]

I am allergic to Steve Huff, but I had a glance at bits of that video. The interface looks okay. What’s particularly Apple-like about it, though? It’s too clunky for that comparison, in my view. Even the font choice, the icons, black everywhere, etc. are not at all Apple-like.

The unibody construction is Apple-like, though the design (by Audi) isn’t particularly. This video is a little Apple-like. This one is fun, if ultimately boring. But Kaufmann is brilliant, isn’t he?

Why do you say APS-C may be too small, Matsu? For me it’s too big! Four Thirds is where it’s at for a camera system meaningfully smaller than legacy 135 format, or for a camera with good-enough image quality for any conceivable use by non-experts, i.e. with the emphasis on other things (like the user interface).

Of course Leica would never want to slum it with the Micro Four Thirds boys. And no doubt the T mount has been designed with full-frame in mind. That’s the way Leica thinks, for better and worse.

For me, the most interesting thing about the T system was the hint of a new 35 mm Summicron-M in the press photo.

[Matsu]

Leica basically invented 35mm and made is usable for reportage, but the SLR really popularized it. Since then, the 35mm film world was split between SLR and RF proponents. That is at least until the advent of AF., when slrs ran away from everything else. I get that what people like about the M system is the manual focus assist provided by the parallax range finder, but the whole world has moved on. If there's only one automatic function worth having, focus is it. I find it a little odd that Leica, who made 35mm/135format, refuses to offer AF in the format. You can get bigger, you can get smaller... Odd.

Why create all the unnecessary mount proliferation? Add AF contacts into a full frame M system, delete the rangefinder on the AF models, and allow for focus assist for vintage M lenses via EVF (simulation of RF if necessary).

Of course, my opinion hardly matters here since I'm unlikely to afford a Leica system - no matter how intriguing they are.

[PB PM]

Originally Posted by Dorian Gray I am allergic to Steve Huff, but I had a glance at bits of that video.

He is kind of annoying and fan boyish isn't he? Every camera he touches is the best camera since sliced bread.

[Matsu]

Dorian, is that how Kaufmann always talks? He seems a little affected, but in an entertaining way, like a man who's always performing - in both senses of the word - from the moment he gets dressed in the morning. Not fake, just performing - a person who's not happy unless he's playing a part. Still genuine, but a salesman and a actor?

About the sensor size. I have a hard time letting go of digital 135 format. I'm addicted to the detail, noise and dynamic range. Which, I must admit, I often use simply to save my own ass when I make mistakes, but still... It was possible to make small 135 format cameras and lenses with film. It's not impossible now, though it is harder and involves both some old compromises, and some new ones.

I get it. In a way a smaller sensor is entirely appropriate for Leica. They thrust 135 format into a world of medium (and even large) format press cameras. Why not thrust T into a world of gigantic F mount and EF mount beasts?

One interesting not is that the lenses are supposedly 100% optically corrected, which is bound to make them either larger or slower than they can be, but an entirely appropriate design goal nonetheless.

I fully applaud the idea of a smaller simpler camera. Still, a full frame T, with highly corrected primes or small ratio zooms, would certainly be tastier than an APSC T.

[Dorian Gray]

Damn it, I lost a post I’d written about Kaufmann (auto logged out while I was distracted with dinner).

I can’t write it again, and it wasn’t interesting anyway. The man, though, is very interesting. There was a remarkably personal interview in Der Spiegel last year, a machine translation of which is here. He’s fantastically wealthy and quite important and somewhat creative. People like that often develop a personal style that may seem affected, but which may be more charitably interpreted as expected eccentricity. I like him, from what little I know of him. Certainly he has been good for Leica (literally saving it, though who’s to say no-one else would have saved it had he not come along).

[Matsu]

He seems happy and pleasant; his CV explains why...

[Matsu]

There's a new story about the Leica T lenses that puts the lie to the "optically corrected" claims made at launch. They in fact seem highly digitally corrected for distortion. Pretty standard practice for most of the new ILC systems. I always wonder to what extent people look through "Leica coloured lenses" when reviewing anything with a red dot on it...

In any case, I have need of a Nikon F system wide angle lens. I don't see buying a DX version, though there are a couple of good ones around when you include 3rd parties.

I'm doing a series of images for a yearly report and I know the company fairly well. They liked a bunch of 24mm stuff, they'll love 20mm and wider.

The usual suspects apply.

The ur-wide, 14-24 f/2.8. Ridiculous front element, wonderful image sharpness, correction, width otherwise. Taming flare and using filters requires new levels of commitment.

The 16-35VR f/4. Much more convenient. Image quality gets bashed by some, but I think I've seen enough good looking stuff from it.

The 17-35 f/2.8. Old design, still available new. One of the sharpest image centres anywhere. Shitty corners until stopped down. Compact, fast AF, would work for events and street work too...

The 18-35 AFS. Slow aperture, cheap, distorted, but actually quite good at 18mm...

It' hard to decide. Naturally, I don't want to spend the money for a single purpose device, unless I end up doing a lot of single purpose work. There's a legitimate, if ever so slightly perverse case for owning at least two ultra-wide angle zooms, or more...

[Dorian Gray]

Originally Posted by Matsu There's a new story about the Leica T lenses that puts the lie to the "optically corrected" claims made at launch.

As far as I can tell, though, those claims weren’t made by Leica. Someone just invented them, or heard them from a Leica dealer, or something along those lines.

Originally Posted by Matsu I always wonder to what extent people look through "Leica coloured lenses" when reviewing anything with a red dot on it...

I guess it works both ways: the optics are gushed over whether truly deserving or not, but innovations are ignored or downplayed - since everyone knows Leica can’t innovate. There’s also the usual problem of reviewers being techno-geeks but not necessarily being knowledgeable or opinionated about the value of different materials, ergonomics, or the usefulness of generous depth-of-field and distance scales, i.e. the very things that make Leica cameras (T excepted) useful and appealing for documentary photography.

The Leica brand is certainly a powerful draw, but it also repels some photographers for no good reason (a little like the Apple brand, actually).

The wide-angle zooms are hard to decide on, certainly. I still haven’t! I’d be reluctant to go with the the 17-35 mm f/2.8 since its SWM is prone to failure and expensive to repair.

[Matsu]

Just the other day, an old photographer friend of mine, who rarely shoots anymore, he runs a small printing company, were talking about images. I showed him some documentary stuff and a couple of images I took just for me. ISO 10000, f/1.8 or f/2, dark. I said, one of my cameras wouldn't even find focus (D7000) and the other struggled (D800). He says, use manual focus. I laughed. Not a strength of mine, or any of my AF lenses. My AI lenses might be OK, but neither of my cameras are of any use behind them. And, as unfortunately noted, the photographer behind the camera isn't of much use either. Hopefully, it's only for lack of experience/familiarity with manual focus.*

I image that the first truly modern Leica documentary camera, in the model of M, in whose spirit the T is sized, would enhance the ability to focus manually with some really slick implementation of focus peaking and a digital rangefinder accurate enough to tell the user the distance to subject and help apply zone focusing and or hyper-focal distances both visually through a high resolution viewfinder as well as mathematically by showing the appropriate scales in said viewfinder...

*It may not be long before we needn't bother, go check out the GH4 focusing in -4ev darkness :WOW: This hardly solves every AF problem, but it's still pretty amazing. A handy system would combine AF with enough information to make effective (quick and correct) manual focus overrides.


Ah, the wides.

If I could find a used 17-35 at about 700-800, I might take a chance on it, it's very expensive new.

Strictly for architectural, I'd get a 14-24 and do all the movements digitally. I'd be tempted to at use it at events too, but it's perhaps a bit too cumbersome for that.

Don't get me wrong, I think it's glorious that they just decided to make the 14-24 as fast, wide and sharp as they did, but they have gotten the apertures the wrong way around as far as ultra-wides. Looking at Sigma's full frame 12-24 f/4.5-5.6, we see the possibility of a very wide, reasonably sized rectilinear zoom, once you trade for smaller apertures, and admittedly soft edges. I don't expect a trade off on corner sharpness on a modern wide, but a different ultra-wide combination might have made more sense. A sharp, well corrected f/4 or f/4.5 14-24, or even a 12-21 as more practical than the 14-24? For those shooting vistas, buildings, highly convergent images... And, for the fast option, a 16-35 f/2.8VR that does events, video, low light, and general purpose travel/doc ultra-wide work... Perhaps more sensible?

[PB PM]

Originally Posted by Matsu In any case, I have need of a Nikon F system wide angle lens. I don't see buying a DX version, though there are a couple of good ones around when you include 3rd parties. I'm doing a series of images for a yearly report and I know the company fairly well. They liked a bunch of 24mm stuff, they'll love 20mm and wider. The usual suspects apply. The ur-wide, 14-24 f/2.8. Ridiculous front element, wonderful image sharpness, correction, width otherwise. Taming flare and using filters requires new levels of commitment. The 16-35VR f/4. Much more convenient. Image quality gets bashed by some, but I think I've seen enough good looking stuff from it. The 17-35 f/2.8. Old design, still available new. One of the sharpest image centres anywhere. Shitty corners until stopped down. Compact, fast AF, would work for events and street work too... The 18-35 AFS. Slow aperture, cheap, distorted, but actually quite good at 18mm... It' hard to decide. Naturally, I don't want to spend the money for a single purpose device, unless I end up doing a lot of single purpose work. There's a legitimate, if ever so slightly perverse case for owning at least two ultra-wide angle zooms, or more...

While all of those lenses are good, they really have different purposes.

AF-S 14-24mm F2.8 and 17-35mm F2.8 are great for mixed use between events and landscapes. The 18-35mm and 16-35mm really shine for landscapes. While neither will blow your mind wide open, stopped down to F8 both will give great results. If you want to shoot hand held, the AF-S 16-35mm F4 VR is the better choice, or if from a tripod the AF-S 18-35mm will do the trick. If you really want to get into architecture photography you want mostly need a PC lens. Sadly Nikon does not offer a super wide PC lens. Of course that is easily overcome by stitching shots to make a larger file.

Don't get me wrong, I think it's glorious that they just decided to make the 14-24 as fast, wide and sharp as they did, but they have gotten the apertures the wrong way around as far as ultra-wides. Looking at Sigma's full frame 12-24 f/4.5-5.6, we see the possibility of a very wide, reasonably sized rectilinear zoom, once you trade for smaller apertures, and admittedly soft edges. I don't expect a trade off on corner sharpness on a modern wide, but a different ultra-wide combination might have made more sense. A sharp, well corrected f/4 or f/4.5 14-24, or even a 12-21 as more practical than the 14-24? For those shooting vistas, buildings, highly convergent images... And, for the fast option, a 16-35 f/2.8VR that does events, video, low light, and general purpose travel/doc ultra-wide work... Perhaps more sensible?

I think Nikon has the wide angle lens lineup great the way it is. The 16-35mm F4 VR is great for video, due to the greater depth of field. If it was any narrower it would be hard to focus manually. Would it have been better for Nikon to kill the 17-35mm production and just make one 16-35mm F2.8G VR? Most likely, but as long as they keep the former available there is no need for the latter.

As for a wider zoom, I cannot say I've found need yet to go wider than the 16mm on my 16-35mm VR. I remember putting the old Tokina 12-24mm F4 on my D700 when I first switched from DX to FX and couldn't see myself needing anything that wide. You would have to be extremely close to the subject to need 12mm on FX.

[Matsu]

I agree that for just about anything the lenses are wide enough. However, one could be faster (16-35) and the other could be smaller (14-24). Here's why.

The 16-35 range is a perfect match to a two lens kit with a 70-200; 14-24 isn't.

f/2.8 suits a reportage kit of this kind perfectly, and the gap between 35mm and 70mm is not really missed. 35 is just normal enough for a wide, and 70 is just short enough for a tele. 17-35 plus 70-200 and two bodies isn't light, but set up that way, one never has to swap lenses to be either very close, or somewhat far from the action. You could throw a 50 into your camera bag for really low light and almost not feel it, but you don't really need that focal length for composition if you have both 35 and 70 covered.

The 14-24 doesn't really work as part of a two lens kit. It's more a dedicated wide angle proposition or part of a three lens set up. But now you're carrying 14-24, 24-70, 70-200 f/2.8 and two bodies and swapping lenses ever so often. The lens burden multiplies. You can carry 3 bodies, but only if you really want to suffer, and I think there's a point after which carrying more actually slows down your reactions. The stuff is just heavy, and even if it wasn't you have to think a bit too hard about which one to shoot, and keep track of settings, and keep stuff from getting tangled up all around you, etc... You can absolutely carry a 14-24 for action work. Wide angle depth of field, plus fast aperture should make for instant focus. It's just that you can't just carry the 14-24.

I might still buy it, but I have to admit that if the goal is extreme wide angle compositional freedom, then f/2.8 isn't really needed. f/4 is probably enough, and the payoff in size, weight, and filters is likely worth it for people heading out to shoot landscapes, interiors, and architecture.

[Matsu]

Interesting tidbit about the 17-35 motor failure. There's a certain camera reviewer who I won't name, but who nonetheless will reveal something useful from time to time. Sometime in 2008, Nikon made ever so slight changes to the external markings on the 17-35, and that while they reported the weight of the lens the same, it's actually lighter from 2008 on. This suggests a change to some of the internal substructures, circuits, electrical connects, etc. It's an ever so slight weight difference. It's hard to imagine a change in the optics, but they might have made changes to address the electrical/mechanical weaknesses... It's worth investigating further to see if the bulk of reported SWM failures originate from pre 2008 lenses...

[PB PM]

I think the issue affects many early AF-S lenses, like the AF-S 17-35mm F2.8D IF-ED, AF-S 28-70mm F2.8D IF-ED, AF-S 80-200mm F2.8D IF-ED, AF-S 300mm F4D IF-ED. The AF-S motor of the 300mm F4 I owned died after four years of use, although the lens did get used a lot. The irony was that the motor started to die shortly after the lens was serviced by Nikon. The motor was replaced before I sold it, but I fear the day I hear that screeching sound coming from another one of my AF-S lenses.

[PB PM]

Heads up to D800/D800E users, major firmware update came out today! Looks like they fixed trap focus, at least in AF-S mode from my testing. They also claim to have fixed the issue where the memory card access light stays on, and the camera freezes.

Oh and my third party battery and lenses still work. So much for all the conspiracy theories that Nikon purposely goes out to kill your third party stuff.

[Dorian Gray]

Originally Posted by PB PM Heads up to D800/D800E users, major firmware update came out today! Looks like they fixed trap focus, at least in AF-S mode from my testing.

Cheers, I’ll go get it. By the way, is that focus-trap feature the thing you had a row with Eugene and Matsu over, a few months ago? (Not to bring that up again! )

Originally Posted by PB PM Oh and my third party battery and lenses still work. So much for all the conspiracy theories that Nikon purposely goes out to kill your third party stuff.

They might be afraid to try that trick on D800 owners, while still doing it to owners of cheaper cameras.

[PB PM]

Originally Posted by Dorian Gray Cheers, I’ll go get it. By the way, is that focus-trap feature the thing you had a row with Eugene and Matsu over, a few months ago? (Not to bring that up again! )

Yes.

They might be afraid to try that trick on D800 owners, while still doing it to owners of cheaper cameras.

Either that or the negative feedback over the issue made them change their minds about doing it with future updates.

[Matsu]

Hmmm... I don't remember arguing with anyone, but how is focus trap going to work now. I assume it will affect only AF-S in focus priority. Will it make a difference which button is being used to find focus, shutter half press vs af-on, for instance? This is almost confusing enough to drive me to manual focus.

BTW, I do think Nikon sometimes breaks 3rd party implementations. They for sure broke the 18-50 Sigma EX f/2.8 HSM post D300. This lens was fine on D300, but became a marginal performer on the D7000. It would hunt and miss focus quite a bit until a firmware update from Sigma straightened it out.

[PB PM]

From my understanding of the release notes, trap focus only works with AF-ON. I haven't tested it though, since I only use AF-ON for focus.

We all know that Nikon has made firmware changes in the past that effects lenses and batteries. I just thought I would point out that this update does not, at least not with the third party stuff I have.

Sigma 120-300mm F2.8 EX DG HSM (non OS)
Upstart: EN-EL15 equivalent battery.

Note: I did run the update with the OEM Nikon battery, just to be on the safe side.

[Matsu]

The E lenses are coming. We have 5 now. The three PC-E lenses, the 800mm f/5.6E and the newly redesigned 400 f/2.8E. So far they seem employed where some degrees of freedom are required in design. Canon and Nikon both now claim greater precision, but has this ever been an issue in the metering of G lenses? Probably helps live-view or video implementations, which I may have to train myself to care about at some point, but not today, or next year.

As long as they're taking mechanical linkages out of the lens and moving things over to electronic control, why not use a little of that newly won design freedom for something really useful, like a leaf shutter. A couple of well chosen lenses with such a shutter could almost certainly command a healthy premium, and people would pay... If a Mamiya leaf can hit 1/1600 of sec, 1/2000 should be possible in a 35mm platform.

[PB PM]

The $3k price bump on the new 400mm F2.8E was a little shocking to say the least. Considering that Nikon's imaging division reported major losses over the last year, one has to wonder if all the price increases will help matters.

As for the benefits of the electronic Aperture, not sure. Canon has been using electronic apertures for years and it isn't really beneficial for video work. For video work you want a de-clicked aperture, for smooth transitions, something that neither Canon or Nikon offers for SLR lenses at this time.

[Matsu]

Maybe they can get finer gradations with a electronic actuation? Once you get to 1/10th stops, it might be fine enough for video work? But I know nothing in this area. I really think Nikon's change has more to do with degrees of freedom for certain lens designs, though if they wanted to make bodies cheaper still at the bottom end, they could someday remove the aperture lever/prong from the body. Then they'd have a camera that only works with some of Nikon's most expensive and largest glass :LOL: Clearly, a few more iterations of standard primes and zooms would be required.

But seriously, it might be helpful in making some smaller lenses too? It doesn't immediately seem like it to me, since having a few mechanisms in the body rather than the lens should make some designs easier, like a pancake*, but I really don't know enough, and it's probably nice to have options so long as most of the bodies sold can utilize them.

They don't have to, and, from a user's perspective, shouldn't neuter future bodies, but if they're looking for pennies through a progressive series of iterations, a little strategic gelding makes sense... Never break the mount, just bend it a little from time to time :erm: ...

I expect that in the future, only FX cameras will retain full compatibility with all (or most) of the F-Mount's AF and metering variants.

*Speaking of pancakes. I think a couple of AF pancakes would be nice, but maybe the people who buy these prefer to focus manually...

EDIT, just a little more on mount compatibilities going forward:

If you look at the compatibility list for the TC14e III, it's very short compared to the 14e II. Could just be Nikon doing the usually shoddy corporate web updates, but then I read that the new TC is missing two contacts compared to the old one and I wonder what they might have taken out of legacy interoperability. Nikon only list the two new E super-teles in the compatibility list...

Speaking of: I don't begrudge them a price increase on the super exotic stuff. New design, better body, better coatings, and two pounds lighter. I could never afford one anyway. If I were in the market, I'd probably go for something like an older 300mm f/2.8 and a 1.7TC., or Sigma's 120-300. But I'm a cheap poor bastard. Rental companies will do fine with this lens.

[Dorian Gray]

Originally Posted by Matsu Maybe they can get finer gradations with a electronic actuation?

I think repeatability may be a bigger concern than absolute accuracy. A bunch of mechanical linkages – especially ones that must be extremely light – are always going to have appreciable backlash. The amount wouldn’t matter for any one photo, but if you take five photos in a row at 10 fps the exposures might vary in a noticeable way.

But I agree a more important reason for this move is likely to free up space taken by the mechanical linkages. When it trickles down to cheaper lenses it may also reduce costs by enough to matter to Nikon.

Originally Posted by Matsu Speaking of: I don't begrudge them a price increase on the super exotic stuff. New design, better body, better coatings, and two pounds lighter.

Fluorite! They’ve managed to go from much heavier than the Canon 400 mm f/2.8 to a claimed 50 g lighter. That’s only possible because of fluorite’s light weight (though I’m repeating myself).

Still, three grand is a lot.

[Dorian Gray]

On the big price increase, I think this also reflects a new price inelasticity in demand for super-teles. In the past, buyers included many small-town sports journalists, wildlife stock photographers, etc. Those buyers are almost entirely gone; indeed, those jobs are almost entirely gone.

Today, the buyers are wealthy amateurs buying super-teles (often several!) for pleasure, really large news/sports outfits like the BBC, and the new breed of enormous (online) rental companies. Said buyers purchase the lens because they need it, and a few thousand dollars here or there has little bearing on their decision. The enormous rental companies probably wish for higher prices!

Furthermore, I imagine these buyers are unusually interested in saving weight (the amateurs because they’re sixty-year-olds with bad backs, the corporate buyers because they have expert buyers choosing the equipment). When Canon slashed the weight of its teles it was inevitable that Nikon would follow soon, or risk people switching to Canon purely to save weight.

[PB PM]

I suspect the real push for lighter weight gear came from the NPS types, who complained they couldn't get their 400mm F2.8's on planes, due to weight limits.

As for the price increase, I don't buy the argument that there are fewer people buying them today. If anything there are most likely more super-telephoto buyers today than in the past, as sports and wildlife photography continues to grow in the amateur community. I see a lot more amateurs with big glass (400mm+ focal length) than I did when I started out 6 years ago. Then again, when I started getting into wildlife shooting 6 years ago, there were not as many people shooting the subject matter either. Back then it seemed like 1 in 20 photographers had something larger than the 300mm F4, 400mm F5.6L or Canon 100-400mm L. Now that ratio seems to be more like, 1 in 10. Keep in mind I'm speaking of the serious crowd, not soccer moms who bring a camera along on a nature walk. Maybe Greater Vancouver is a strange area, due to how many wealthy people live here, but still there are lot of people big glass around here! There are still lots of people running around with Bigmas, and I've seen a sharp rise of a amateur users with last years 80-400mm VRII.