Oh for a digital F100

[zakk92001]

Larry, The lens questions is one of the reasons why I am slow converting to a dSLR . Even when building a system from scratch (I have until now used my OM syste m which, as you pointed out, is dead, at least for digital purposes) becomes complicated, and keeping track of what can be useful and what can not is a real headache.

Fast wide-angles are of course the biggest problem. They are available, but the prices are prohibitive, since they used to be the really exotic lenses of long times past (like three years ago).

I also notice that many of the new "digital" lenses are rather slow. That i s nice from a size/weight/price point of view, and with increasingly better sensors with low or no noise at high ISO, they shouldn't represent too much of a problem. Except: sometimes you want a shallow depth of field and sometimes it would be nice to use the opportunities gained by HQ high ISO for more available light photography.

With all this in mind, Olympus approach may not be such a bad one. There is a limited number of lenses available, but all of them are closely matched and highly relevant for digital photography. When you look at the DX list i n the Nikon brochure, the list is so far rather limited.

Your views on EVFs and LCDs are interesting. So far, I haven't liked any of them. LCDs because I prefer the feeling of the camera as an extension of my eye or head or something like that. Like an integrated part of my body so t o say (I had the same feeling with my old Rolleiflex, which was the reason wh y I sold it). EVFs because of the lack of contrast, colour depth and resolution. I can't figure out how anyone can focus manually with one of those things.

Maybe I'm too picky, but I keep wondering what the reaction would have been to EVFs had they been launched on a conventional camera 20 or 30 years ago. I get a feeling that it's something we accept because it's a part of the digital revolution.

I guess these things will improve, and if I keep my views on this in 20 years time, I will probably be this old guy all the children with their 20M P mobile phones are pointing at, saying "look mom, that strange old man has a camera attached to his head". Oh well, I can live with that.

Jorgen

 

[lnbolch]

> Posted by Jorgen Udvang
> Larry, The lens questions is one of the reasons why I am slow
> converting to a dSLR . Even when building a system from scratch (I
> have until now used my OM syste m which, as you pointed out, is dead,
> at least for digital purposes) becomes complicated, and keeping track
> of what can be useful and what can not is a real headache.

Over the past half century, I have purchased an amazing amount of photo equipment - and never has a purchase disappointed me. Simply, I do not buy until I can define a need or a problem in want of solving. I never have bought a solution in search of a problem. Realize as well that each purchase was a business purchase and had to be justified as such.

My first digital camera was bought as a learning tool, and my expectations were low. I was amazed at the daunting learning curve, but also amazed at the capability of this camera once I became fluent with it.

My second camera was purchased to achieve a set of clearly defined photographic goals which have not changed. The camera purchased last month is almost identical in purpose, but benefits from two generations of evolution and a superb lens with two ED glass elements. It is incredibly sharp. Sharp to the point that all in-camera sharpening is turned off, and I need only a fraction of the sharpening in processing I used on previous images.

> Fast wide-angles are of course the biggest problem. They are
> available, but the prices are prohibitive, since they used to be the
> really exotic lenses of long times past (like three years ago).

I shoot with the equivalent of an 18mm f-2.6 lens. However, throughout my career, I shot with a Brooks VeriWide 100. It had an f-8.0 Schneider SuperAngulon over a 6x10 cm format - just about exactly what I see through the current f-2.6. To me it is a VERY fast wide angle lens. It cost $315Cdn - roughly $250US. It has only briefly been off the camera, and the image quality is extremely good. Interestingly, I found this component also fits my f-2.0 24mm Nikkor for the Nikon F3, giving me a fine 18mm lens. Too bad I don't shoot 35mm any more. (The basic lens in the CP8400 is the equivalent of a 24mm->85mm zoom)

The Brooks served for architecture, specially interiors, a lot of environmental portraits for publication and some epic landscapes. I worked around the slow lens by longer exposures for interiors, and multiple flash if needed for environmental portraiture. Since it had between the lens shutters, I could sync it to mix flash and ambient light in any combination.

I don't now use flash, but if I did, the current digital camera also has a shutter that will allow me to sync from 1/3000th of a second all the way to ten minutes.

> I also notice that many of the new "digital" lenses are rather slow.
> That i s nice from a size/weight/price point of view, and with
> increasingly better sensors with low or no noise at high ISO, they
> shouldn't represent too much of a problem. Except: sometimes you want
> a shallow depth of field and sometimes it would be nice to use the
> opportunities gained by HQ high ISO for more available light
> photography.

If I were stuck shooting with a dSLR, I would probably go with fast prime lenses and few if any zooms. The view through an f-4.5->f-5.6 zoom is pretty gloomy unless one is shooting in bright sun.

> With all this in mind, Olympus approach may not be such a bad one.
> There is a limited number of lenses available, but all of them are
> closely matched and highly relevant for digital photography. When you
> look at the DX list i n the Nikon brochure, the list is so far rather
> limited.

Of course, camera manufacturers are just now coming to terms with the NEED for special digital lenses. Designers were completely caught off-guard by the problems. No one had the slightest idea that digital would take hold so fast. Even worse, everyone in the executive suites knew only film cameras and in Japan, change comes slowly at the top. There IS a lot of confusion.

I notice more than a passing resemblance between the latest Oly digital and the little gem of my half-frame Oly Pen-FT SLR from many years ago.

> Your views on EVFs and LCDs are interesting. So far, I haven't liked
> any of them. LCDs because I prefer the feeling of the camera as an
> extension of my eye or head or something like that. Like an integrated
> part of my body so t o say (I had the same feeling with my old
> Rolleiflex, which was the reason wh y I sold it). EVFs because of the
> lack of contrast, colour depth and resolution. I can't figure out how
> anyone can focus manually with one of those things.

I feel that after a half-century, my face has finally been liberated from having a bloody big camera jammed into it. My first two digitals had optical viewfinders, and I can not remember using them for a single shot. My new camera has an EVF, which might be handy for viewing the settings in brilliant sunshine without having to shade the LCD. I will never use it to shoot.

I have never been one to dwell in viewfinders. When I see the image - with both eyes open - it is then a matter of quickly framing and shooting. I see those who dwell in the viewfinder with a single eye watching the movie on the screen, missing shot after shot.

Working away from the camera you can anticipate pictures so much better. I covered sports including NASCAR for more than a dozen years, and every bit of my success depended upon never closing my left eye. The viewfinder in the Nikon F... was more a gun-site than a viewfinder. Photographers all work with their eyes - not their cameras.

Perhaps I had the advantage of doing a lot of view camera work at the start of my career. I have never felt that my eyes needed an extension - just some hardware to accurately capture what I see with them.

With the tiny sensors and lenses so short, manual focus is rarely necessary. One of the major complaints is that it is so difficult to throw the background out of focus!

My camera has a focus-confirmation feature that looks a lot like the microscreens I have in some SLR focusing screens. One can clearly see that which is in and out of focus. I also can select nine sectors of the screen for both a spot exposure reading, and selective focus - a feature I use all the time. The camera is very quick and positive to focus and I keep the focus turned on all the time - which does shorten battery life - but by the time I have the shot composed it is locked on.

My camera focuses to 3cm, so for macro, I set an approximate distance manually and slowly move the camera back and forth until I get the focus I want - exactly as I would with the Nikon F and its MicroNikkor lens. In fact, I still have the focusing rail I used for almost all the macros I have ever shot.

> Maybe I'm too picky, but I keep wondering what the reaction would have
> been to EVFs had they been launched on a conventional camera 20 or 30
> years ago. I get a feeling that it's something we accept because it's
> a part of the digital revolution.

Every time I have had to add a new piece of equipment, I have had to practice with it until I become fluent with it. Part of the job. Again, I am absolutely neutral about the EVF. It is the LCD screen that has revolutionized the way I work and has been the biggest boost to my photographs - EVER.

Realize that Gordon Moore's Law applies to digital cameras, since they are at heart digital electronic devices. There is a vast difference between my first - the CP990 announced in the first days of this century and the awesome camera I bought last month. It is in no way a cosmetic change, it is a dramatic advance that shows up in my images. With Moore's Law in action, LCDs will continue to grow in resolution and sharpness. However, they are much more easy to use than the ground-glass on my Linhof even now.

Why I have not gone dSLR would be best illustrated by my photography. What I am doing now simply could not be done with one. If I were still shooting 35mm, I probably would go for the Contax G2 system, or remain with my Leica. SLRs are intrusive cameras, and I do not wish to impose upon those I photograph. Please review the work at
http://www.larry-bolch.com/ephemeral/ and browse the text as well. It tells a lot about why these cameras are perfectly suited to this role.

I have only had the CP8400 since the middle of last month, and have not had a lot of opportunity to use it. However, readers in my Yahoo forum have been asking for something to see, so I did put up a page of the first attempts. Luckily, I had the chance to shoot under some of the most difficult of circumstances, and was able to produce exceptional quality with the new camera. No masterpieces yet, but I think you will agree that it would be most difficult to equal this with film. I used no flash on any of these - they are purely with ambient light from a great variety of sources.
http://www.larry-bolch.com/CP8400/

larry!
http://www.larry-bolch.com/
ICQ 76620504

 

[tom_rains]

> Larry, for the record, I have a Nikon D70 with an arsenal of lens purchased within the past 3 years. I have a 28-70mm f2.8, a 28-105mm, a 75-240mm. I use these on the D70 and have seen no problems at all. In fact, I get some incredibly sharp images with that 75-240mm consumer lens (makes me think that Nikon let that piece of glass slip past the pro lens inventory). I know there is a lot of discussion about film lenses on digital cameras, but can you really see the problems at 10 feet with the naked eye? >

 

[ian_craigie]

[The discussion has taken an interesting, and for me, unexpected turn, with discussions of non-changeable lens digital cameras such as the Coolpix versions Larry has mentioned. It has made me think carefully about how and where I would be using a digital camera, and trying to select the camera for the task, rather than the task for the camera.

What do other people think of the whole concept of digital SLRs, such as the D2X and D70, in comparison to the "all-in-one" concept of the CoolPix range? I find myself trying to weigh up the relative pros and cons of each type of system, and wonder if the age has moved on to see a new concept of image recording replacing an old. Am I approaching the debate regarding the lack of a "digital F100" wedded to a prejudice born of many years of use of an SLR system that is rooted in old technology? Is there anything about the "F" series concept that, apart from the use of excellent lenses, means that a similar form is superior to the different "CoolPix" all-in-one model?

In my travels, I have used separate lenses, as I believed all zoom lenses to have inherent compromises in image quality and distortion to some degree. I therefore eschewed the typical 28-300 single zoom, despite its obvious convenience. Perhaps intellectual snobbery, but I felt from my reading of reviews and others' experience that it would be better to take separate zooms (perhaps primes would have been better, but I felt I could compromise to some extent...) than to try for one lens to suit all. I therefore have lugged a 20mm f2.8 (my favourite), a 28-85mm f3.5-4.5, and a 75-300mm f 4.5 along with my two camera bodies (one my trusty FM2).

However, perhaps the concept of having separate lenses is less critical when considering the form factor of the current Nikon image sensor. Maybe I have been looking to a digital "F"type SLR because this is what I know, and am comfortable with. But just as I made a choice between Olympus and Canon and Nikon in the late 80's, perhaps I should be reassessing the whole idea of using such a form-factor, and choosing between the D2x concept and the Coolpix concept. I find Larry's arguments to be very interesting, and rather compelling.

I freely admit to being a digital novice (I have a Pentax digital P&S, but nothing more sophisticated), and appreciate that I have much to learn. I have read the debates regarding image sensor size with interest, as it would seem there are problems inherent in using both small and large sensors. The concept of using a "full-size" sensor seems to me to possibly harken back to the era of film, and perhaps compromises are made in order to satisfy the desire of photographers to gently migrate from what they know to what they need. Because of the way light at more extreme angles strikes the periphery of such a sensor, it seems that this introduces significant problems for image quality.

Olympus seem to have dispensed with the "legacy" concept, by adopting the "4 thirds" system, and abandoning all links with the OM- range. Rather, they have assessed what they consider to be the best way to utilise the concept of digital light capture, and considered the principles and limitations of current digital image capture technology to produce an entirely new system - one that is smaller in form and significantly lighter than Canon's or Nikon's concepts of the digital "SLR". There is an initial penalty to be paid in the cost of purchasing a whole new range of Zuiko lenses, but this is now the choice for a Nikon owner such as myself - the change in sensor size has seen me now considering a new "DX" type of wide angle lens, where my wonderfully-wide 20mm has now been compromised by the "cropping factor" to a less-than-spectacular 30mm or so.

If I must purchase new lenses to use my digital SLR, why not consider using an entirely new system? For the reasons I outlined in my initial post, the "legacy" features that had seen me initially choose Nikon have been systematically eroded by Nikon engineers. The aperture ring, the battery type, the shutter release, have all gone now, and while the newer "DX" lense may indeed be usable on a standard film SLR, they have been made for a new range of camera all together. There is no longer a compelling reason to continue with the form-factor that I have known and used for so many years. Rather, I would have to make a compromise even I were to continue with film cameras.

What do others think? I wonder if I am simply "comfortable" with what I know - a typical "F" SLR concept - and hang on to this because it is easier to migrate slowly to quality digital image capture than to break all ties with past experience. I look at the D2X and marvel at its capabilities, but as we have discussed, this is not about cameras but about images. Who amongst us would continue to lug separate zooms and bodies around if a point and shoot camera could give us the image quality and overall control of the image-capture process that an SLR affords? If an "all-in-one" concept digital camera produces images of similar quality (at least up to the size I would normally be printing - say, 8"x10") to that of a D2X, or even a D70, with an equivalent focal length range from 28mm up to almost 600mm with additional components, why consider staying with this older format?

At present, there is little to keep me tied to the Nikon digital SLR platform, other than I will still be able to use my current lenses. However, even these will not have the effect for which I purchased them, with a change in apparent focal length due to the cropping or "magnification" of the image sensor Nikon now use. I have looked at the CP 8800, and find it an interesting concept. Further, I have now also read of cameras such as a Minolta Z5 - a 5MP, 35-420mm lens f2.8-4.5 "Anti-shake" or "VR" lens camera, powered by 4 AA batteries, and an amazing 340g in weight! I have no idea whether this is as capable in its imaging abilities as say, a CP8800, but if Nikon have broken links with the past, maybe I should indeed by exploring a different future.

Maybe, my desire for a "digital F100" reveals an obvious prejudice, and a lack of understanding of the choice before me. I find Nikon have left me with little to lose, as they have systematically removed from their system the very items that I found compelling.

Maybe, it is time for me to make a choice even more radical than when I abandoned my OM-system for Nikon in the 15 years ago.

Maybe...

I'd love to read your thoughts on breaking with the past, and breaking with more traditional form-factors. Jorgen, do you aspire to the concept of a digital SLR as I did? What advantages do you perceive in waiting for a "digital F100"? And Larry, you have added some interesting posts regarding the longevity of concept - a modified Moore's law - that possibly makes the retention of individual lenses, with upgrades to more sophisticated bodies, a sound principle. Why renew your lens/lenses every couple of years, when it is only the light-recording and processing mechanism that needs to change? Perhaps the interchangeable lens system is not such a bad idea after all, but something like the Olympus system is a better direction to take (for both me and Nikon!)

Thanks again, and best wishes,

Ian]

 

[lnbolch]

Since I have sounded off at length on the photographic aspects, perhaps a few hardware observations may be in order.

When one changes lenses in a dusty environment with film, most lands on the mirror, but some may land on the film when the shutter opens. Then the film moves on for the next shot - one frame that needs a bit of spotting - that is all. With a dSLR, even a microscopic piece of dust landing on the sensor will be embedded in EVERY image until it is removed - a doable but delicate operation.

So, there is a substantial contingent who buy a dSLR body and a zoom lens and never change it. Result - you got a very expensive and bulky Coolpix - in effect. What is the point of putting up with reflex viewing and the bulk of the camera, if you never change the lens?

While my new CP8400 has a built-in lens equivalent to 24->85mm, I have an additional component designed to become part of the the optical system that converts it into an 18->64mm zoom. There is also a 183° fisheye that can be used as both one that casts the typical round image, but can also be zoomed out to full frame - roughly a 16mm fisheye.

I have a legacy 2x component from my CP5000 that gave me an additional 139->170mm lens though I have not tried it on the CP8400. Plus there are two 3x components to choose from - a large one with ED glass and a much more compact and lighter component using fresnel optics. Since these lenses are designed to be part of the Nikon optical system, I have been extremely pleased with the performance of those I have used.

Even with the built in lens, I have lens choices from 8mm fisheye to a substantial 255mm telephoto. While there are gaps, anyone who shoots with primes on either 35mm or all medium format cameras will tell you, zooms are not always a great trade off. It has not bothered me in the least that I don't have a focal length between 85mm and 139mm - that is just two steps back or two steps forward. No sweat.

If the gaps were a problem, I can add a CP8800 for much less that the equivalent zoom on a dSLR. The complete camera with a zoom range from 35mm to 350mm with an image stabilized lens is under $1,000US. The two cameras together would give continuous coverage from 18mm to 350mm with an overlap from 35mm to 85mm. Since they use nearly identical controls and operating systems, it is one single learning curve with the exception of a couple of details unique to a camera optimized for wide angle work and another for telephotography.

For extreme telephotography, there is also a 600mm equivalent component for the CP8800, which also takes advanage of image stabilization. So for a relatively small investment, one has many options to cover from fisheye to super telephoto. Check the price of equivalent coverage with a dSLR.

All you are really missing is the joy of removing microscopic bits of dust from a delicate sensor. Eye surgeons do this sort of thing all the time, but I would rather not.

If you checked my images at the URL posted earlier, you will see that I have no real problems with available darkness shots with my Coolpix cameras. However, this is a point I will concede to dSLRs. There are times when I would love to have an f-1.4 28mm, 35mm, 50mm and 85mm prime for dim light shooting. Unfortunately unless one can mortage the wife and kids to buy a Canon 1Ds body plus the lenses, the cropping factor comes into play. When you have a 1.5x factor, fast wide angles become a real problem. On the full frame Kodak, some wide angles were disasters due to internal reflections.

There is no camera that is perfect for everyone, everytime, everywhere. If there were, only one camera would be necessary. In the end it comes back to what will allow me to make the images I am making. No matter what I chose, there would be compromises. In going with my current camera, I have minimzed the compromises as they impact my images. Most of the weaknesses are in areas of low priority and the strengths are where I need them.

larry! http://www.larry-bolch.com/ ICQ 76620504

 

[lnbolch]

> Posted by Tom Rains (Tom_rains) on Tuesday, March 08, 2005 - 3:06 am: > >> Larry, for the record, I have a Nikon D70 with an arsenal of lens > purchased within the past 3 years.

And all my lenses were purchased for my largely manual Nikon F3 when it was new decades back. The question is whether an AIS lens functions on cameras expecting D, G or DX lenses that couple directly to the electronics of contemporary cameras.

> I know there is a lot of discussion > about film lenses on digital cameras, but can you really see the > problems at 10 feet with the naked eye?

Vividly. Outrageously! I saw a shot taken with a Kodak 14n where a table l& was ghosted at least fourfold in the shot as the image of the light reflected back and forth between the sensor and the rear element! It was industrial-strength, major-league, weapons-of-mass-destruction-level bad. In the same article there were shots where the reflections between sensor and rear element were non-specific - no singe bright object - but diffused and repeated enough to make it look like shooting on fogged film. Low contrast and unsaturated polluted colours.

Not subtle - not in the least. Totally ruined photos. Worse, since the camera had only optical reflex viewing, it could not be anticipated. It happened when the miror was up and the shutter was open. No matter the distance, the images were completely trashed and unusable.

Some film-lenses work fine - others do not.

larry! http://www.larry-bolch.com/ ICQ 76620504

 

[zakk92001]

These are many of the considerations I have been doing myself. The dSLRs ar e immature to say the least, and we have been through some of the drawbacks alread during this discussion. Except for situations where you need very large formats or for other reasons need the quality of the bigger sensor of the dSLR, multiple digicams seems to be an interesting solution, particularly since each camera would have a similar price to one good quality SLR lens.

There are limitations of course, but with the current speed of development, many of them will be overcome fast. It's a pity they haven't installed larger sensors in some of the advanced digicams. If you look at the Pentax ist Ds (size and functionality of that camera is very much like a digicam, you just have to glue the lens to the camera to finalize the conversion), it's obviously possible to do it in a small box.

All the pixel and feature counting that is going on in different forums gives me the same feeling as the discussions around top end hi-fi equipment a few decades ago: they had nothing whatsoever to do with music.

More than 80% of my pictures are taken with a 30 year old OM-1 with a 50mm and a PowerShot A95. This is where the FM-3d idea came in: I would still like to have an SLR for some kinds of pictures, but it should be small, simple and unobtrusive like the FM or OM series cameras. To complement that , 2-3 digicams would do the trick.

It has crossed my mind that all the "helpful" technology in many ways have made it more complicated to take good pictures. Point-and-shoot has improved, but access to manual control is mostly hidden behind stacks of menus, and since there is no standard set-up, not even within one brand, we are much more dependent on reading manuals than before.

A few weeks ago, I tried an F4 for the first time. It looks rather scary to start with, but since all functions are laid out with switches and dials that are clearly marked, any reasonably experienced photographer will understand the basics of the camera right away. In my hands, it was easier to use than using the A95 manually, not to speak about some of the "consumer" dSLRs.

Many claim that digital photography is another kind of art than the traditional way. Still, the target is the same, the still photo. We have just been given some new tools that increases our possibilities. However, some of the tools seem to obscure the target more than helping us to reach it.

Which brings me back to the list from a few mails ago: I miss the simple, no-nonsense kind of camera that puts the object and the photographer in focus rather than more or less usable technology.

I agree that cameras like the CP 8400 and 8800 have the potential for great pictures, but if I compare the 8400 to a 30 year old Yaschica GX, I get a feeling that the only real functional gains are the zoom and the AF, and on the way, we lost the simplicity, the fast lens, the tiny size, the modest battery consumption etc. Yes, the CP is digital, but digital is just a film substitute. Except for being simpler to use, and a natural development, it doesn't do anything more than film.

All this being said, I still admire Nikon for trying to offer solutions tha t work for photographers. I think the launch of the F6 says it all. If I had too much money, I would buy one just to say thank you.

And by all means, don't misunderstand me: I think digital photography is great. I just wish the manufacturers of the equipment didn't hide the beaut y of it behind so much stash.

Jorgen

 

[gjames52]

Olympus system is a better direction to take (for both me and Nikon!)>

Ian:

As in the 70's when Olympus blazed their own innovative system with unique, simple, reliable designs, and common sense features: they continue those traits in my view, with a self-cleaning sensor system, and a small but wide range lens system designed for digital sensors. If the rugged feeling body holds up as the 30+ year old OM's you will be served well! My OM 2n worked as well the other day as the day I bought it new 25 years ago.

Regards:

Gilbert

 

[ian_craigie]

Gilbert,

Thanks for your comments on the Olympus system. I gave my original OM-1 to my sister when I decided to take up with an autofocus system (F-801), and it is still being used to take wonderful photos to this day. It was small and light and rugged, and the Zuiko lenses were the same. She eventually bought an OM2 SP as well, and I have to admit to feeling pangs of regret when I compare what I carry around to her far more portable (though, admittedly, manual focus) system.

Similar to Jorgen, I can appreciate the beauty and appeal of a small, light camera body, and would be very interested in his suggested FM3D! However, I imagine that having now released their film tour-de-force, the F6, this will continue the inevitable decline in such camera development for Nikon (odds for an F7 being released in another 8 years or so, anyone?) I have seen the Pentax ist D, and it seems incredibly small and light, too, while somehow managing to retain the AA battery system that allows it to be so versatile. As has been mentioned, yes, it can be done (although, possibly, at the cost of reliability/dependability. The N90 was relatively compact, and pretty rugged, but you could not call it "light").

I have indeed read of the new Olympus line of "E" cameras, and idly wondered whether the ultrasonic sensor cleaning method actually worked as intended, or not. Certainly, I imagine if the tradition of the OM-mounted Zuikos is continued, there would be no concerns re lens quality on such a system. It would be very interesting to learn more about this system, too, and as you have suggested, this is perhaps one direction Nikon should investigate.

The fact remains, though, that many people do feel that "frames per second" and "megapixel count" are what makes for a better experience/image, and so I imagine Nikon will continue to respond to this market pressure. Olympus have no "baggage", as their excellent OM system was so clearly different from an autofocus, electronic storage, digital media system. It was easy to start with a clean slate, and begin with the image and work out, rather than look first at your proprietary lens mount, and work towards the image. Unfortunate that the Olympus designers seem to have stayed with a proprietary power source, but they are in the majority of camera manufacturers.

It would seem the Nikon CoolPix "all-in-one" system is perhaps the nearest ex&le of Nikon redesigning the camera to suit the medium. Its development runs parallel to the "D" series of SLR's, which continue with the famed "F" mount. I wonder if, or when, the CP series will equate or even surpass the D series in capability. I imagine the investment in lenses and the Nikon "F" and "D" system made by so many PJs is the major driving force behind Nikon SLR development, but this may not be sustainable. If someone can produce a simpler, lighter, equally responsive, equally capable light-gathering tool, then whether you have invested in a fancy system of detachable lenses or not is irrelevant, surely. Pragmatism would dictate the selection of the compact system, other factors (with image quality paramount) being equal.

Brand loyalty is one thing, but if the tool for the job no longer suits, then it is time to change the tool. From my understanding of the introduction of the EOS system, many pro photographers and photojournalists chose Canon over their existing Nikon F3-based systems as they saw it would suit them better. Of course, it meant leaving behind a venerable range of manual focus lenses, but if your job depended on getting the right shot at the right time, then you could pay for your new investment very early on. And the rest, along with those MF-lenses, is history. "System loyalty" means little in such circumstances.

This discussion continues to broaden my thoughts regarding my ideal choice for travel (and other) photography. Thanks again to all who have replied.

Best wishes,

Ian

 

[innocent]

Speaking about the all-in-one digital (otherwise the point-and -shoot system) vs. the dslr, with the level of current technology there can't be any comparison. While the CP series may excel in terms of perceived convenience its competency has not developed further than my Nokia 6630 mobile phone, and in many respects, the Nokia has an edge over and above th e Coolpix range. Perhaps Nikon should be considering such Nokia range of cameras.

It is bad enough that we now have with the digital technology, the film permanently affixed to the camera, what I personally don¹t want to see is t o embed the lens as well, leaving you with limited choices. Speaking from my little experience, I have owned and used Minolta all-in-one digital, owned and used Canon 6i handy-camcorder but it didn't take me that long to realiz e that an all-in one system has many compromises which the members of this forum need not be reminded. So I moved on to Canon XL1s digital camcorder with interchangeable lens, 3 CCDs and an array of custom manoeuvre easily accessible and of course also moved on to the Nikon dslr range whose deficiency if any, are being remedied consistently to become more efficient in terms of shutter lag, noise reduction, sensitivity, power efficiency, ergonomics among others.

Mention had been made about the range of converters that are available for the CP range, so also there are converters for both the F- mount lenses. We also know that converters add extra layers of glass (or plastics) to the already multi-element lenses such as the 70-200VR which impairs their optical performances. So there cannot be any advantage to use any lens converter over and above the prime or the high-end zoom. If the photographi c situation requires a fisheye, simple pullout your fisheye lens and stick to your camera. If it is wide angle you want there's the 12-24mm DX which work s quite fine in an F5 or similar body. I own and use my Nikon 28mm f/3.5 PC i n my dslr, which when used to capture panoramas I utilize the lens' shift and rotate capabilities to later stitch the images in Photoshop. If the scenery is really that engaging I will always use my F5 and later scan the images i n my Coolscan 5000ED and voila the marvel enfolds.

Having said al the above, Nikon seem to have something for everyone and their needs and only for that reason I have remained loyal to them.