| Page 1 of 2 | 1 | 2 |
|
|
|
Noct: Nikon subrand for FF MILCs?
They seem to have put a lot of effort in getting this right from the
start. I'll probably won't get me one but am truly exited to see how this will push the envelope for MILCs! :-)) Via NR. https://nikonrumors.com/2018/06/02/n...as-a-new-noct- trademark-for-cameras-and-lenses.aspx/ -- teleportation kills |
Noct: Nikon subrand for FF MILCs?
On 3 Jun 2018 04:53:46 GMT, android wrote:
They seem to have put a lot of effort in getting this right from the start. I'll probably won't get me one but am truly exited to see how this will push the envelope for MILCs! :-)) Via NR. https://nikonrumors.com/2018/06/02/n...as-a-new-noct- trademark-for-cameras-and-lenses.aspx/ Given how far behind they are in mirrorless they can't afford to screw this up. But a separate brand? Makes no sense to me. The Nikon brand is knows world wide, so why not leverage that name? Unless it's just a product line name. |
Noct: Nikon subrand for FF MILCs?
In article , android
wrote: They seem to have put a lot of effort in getting this right from the start. I'll probably won't get me one but am truly exited to see how this will push the envelope for MILCs! :-)) Via NR. https://nikonrumors.com/2018/06/02/n...as-a-new-noct- trademark-for-cameras-and-lenses.aspx/ Given how far behind they are in mirrorless they can't afford to screw this up. But a separate brand? Makes no sense to me. The Nikon brand is knows world wide, so why not leverage that name? Unless it's just a product line name. A sub brand is not a separate brand. iPhone is Apples sub brand for feature telephones, just like Xperia is Sonys for smart phones... Nikonos, Nikkormat and Nikkor are other Nikon subs, so it's not like it's new to them... nikon used 'noct' more than 40 years ago, with the legendary 58mm f/1.2 noct nikkor lens: http://www.mir.com.my/rb/photography...oresources/50m mnikkor/aesenal58mmf12NOCT.jpg http://www.mir.com.my/rb/photography...oresources/50m mnikkor/Nico_threelenses.jpg |
Noct: Nikon subrand for FF MILCs?
In article ,
RichA wrote: nikon used 'noct' more than 40 years ago, with the legendary 58mm f/1.2 noct nikkor lens: http://www.mir.com.my/rb/photography...oresources/50m mnikkor/aesenal58mmf12NOCT.jpg http://www.mir.com.my/rb/photography...oresources/50m mnikkor/Nico_threelenses.jpg Except this time they won't be hand-grinding aspherical elements, no need to do that anymore. lens technology has advanced a *lot* since the 1970s. also, an f/1.2 lens isn't needed because digital cameras can shoot at much higher isos than what existed in the 1970s. iso 1600 is not an issue and 3200 is quite good. an f/2 or even f/2.8 lens is fine for low light. |
Noct: Nikon subrand for FF MILCs?
On 6/3/2018 7:14 PM, nospam wrote:
In article , RichA wrote: nikon used 'noct' more than 40 years ago, with the legendary 58mm f/1.2 noct nikkor lens: http://www.mir.com.my/rb/photography...oresources/50m mnikkor/aesenal58mmf12NOCT.jpg http://www.mir.com.my/rb/photography...oresources/50m mnikkor/Nico_threelenses.jpg Except this time they won't be hand-grinding aspherical elements, no need to do that anymore. lens technology has advanced a *lot* since the 1970s. also, an f/1.2 lens isn't needed because digital cameras can shoot at much higher isos than what existed in the 1970s. iso 1600 is not an issue and 3200 is quite good. an f/2 or even f/2.8 lens is fine for low light. Once more you prove your superior knowledge of photography. in many images shallow DOF is used to enhance the image. But then, since we have never seen a photographic image claimed by you to be yours, we validly assume you only take snapshots, if any at all. -- PeterN |
Noct: Nikon subrand for FF MILCs?
On Jun 3, 2018, PeterN wrote
(in article ): On 6/3/2018 7:14 PM, nospam wrote: In , RichA wrote: nikon used 'noct' more than 40 years ago, with the legendary 58mm f/1.2 noct nikkor lens: http://www.mir.com.my/rb/photography...oresources/50m mnikkor/aesenal58mmf12NOCT.jpg http://www.mir.com.my/rb/photography...oresources/50m mnikkor/Nico_threelenses.jpg Except this time they won't be hand-grinding aspherical elements, no need to do that anymore. lens technology has advanced a *lot* since the 1970s. also, an f/1.2 lens isn't needed because digital cameras can shoot at much higher isos than what existed in the 1970s. iso 1600 is not an issue and 3200 is quite good. an f/2 or even f/2.8 lens is fine for low light. Once more you prove your superior knowledge of photography. in many images shallow DOF is used to enhance the image. But then, since we have never seen a photographic image claimed by you to be yours, we validly assume you only take snapshots, if any at all. First one has to establish ownership of, or access to a camera. Then we have to have evidence that an image, any image has ever been captured. We wait, and the World wonders. -- Regards, Savageduck |
Noct: Nikon subrand for FF MILCs?
In article , PeterN
wrote: nikon used 'noct' more than 40 years ago, with the legendary 58mm f/1.2 noct nikkor lens: http://www.mir.com.my/rb/photography...oresources/50m mnikkor/aesenal58mmf12NOCT.jpg http://www.mir.com.my/rb/photography...oresources/50m mnikkor/Nico_threelenses.jpg Except this time they won't be hand-grinding aspherical elements, no need to do that anymore. lens technology has advanced a *lot* since the 1970s. also, an f/1.2 lens isn't needed because digital cameras can shoot at much higher isos than what existed in the 1970s. iso 1600 is not an issue and 3200 is quite good. an f/2 or even f/2.8 lens is fine for low light. Once more you prove your superior knowledge of photography. yep. in many images shallow DOF is used to enhance the image. it's razor thin at f/1.2 and was not the goal of the noct nikkor. low light was, thus the name *noct* nikkor, not shallow-dof nikkor. But then, since we have never seen a photographic image claimed by you to be yours, we validly assume you only take snapshots, if any at all. ad hominem. |
Noct: Nikon subrand for FF MILCs?
On Sun, 03 Jun 2018 22:24:26 -0400, PeterN
wrote in : On 6/3/2018 7:14 PM, nospam wrote: In article , RichA wrote: nikon used 'noct' more than 40 years ago, with the legendary 58mm f/1.2 noct nikkor lens: http://www.mir.com.my/rb/photography...ikkoresources/ 50m mnikkor/aesenal58mmf12NOCT.jpg http://www.mir.com.my/rb/photography...ikkoresources/ 50m mnikkor/Nico_threelenses.jpg Except this time they won't be hand-grinding aspherical elements, no need to do that anymore. lens technology has advanced a *lot* since the 1970s. also, an f/1.2 lens isn't needed because digital cameras can shoot at much higher isos than what existed in the 1970s. iso 1600 is not an issue and 3200 is quite good. an f/2 or even f/2.8 lens is fine for low light. Once more you prove your superior knowledge of photography. in many images shallow DOF is used to enhance the image. But then, since we have never seen a photographic image claimed by you to be yours, we validly assume you only take snapshots, if any at all. With his corporate issue iPad Pro... -- teleportation kills |
Noct: Nikon subrand for FF MILCs?
On Sun, 03 Jun 2018 19:32:07 -0700, Savageduck
wrote in : On Jun 3, 2018, PeterN wrote (in article ): On 6/3/2018 7:14 PM, nospam wrote: In , RichA wrote: nikon used 'noct' more than 40 years ago, with the legendary 58mm f/1.2 noct nikkor lens: http://www.mir.com.my/rb/photography/companies/nikon/ nikkoresources/50m mnikkor/aesenal58mmf12NOCT.jpg http://www.mir.com.my/rb/photography/companies/nikon/ nikkoresources/50m mnikkor/Nico_threelenses.jpg Except this time they won't be hand-grinding aspherical elements, no need to do that anymore. lens technology has advanced a *lot* since the 1970s. also, an f/1.2 lens isn't needed because digital cameras can shoot at much higher isos than what existed in the 1970s. iso 1600 is not an issue and 3200 is quite good. an f/2 or even f/2.8 lens is fine for low light. Once more you prove your superior knowledge of photography. in many images shallow DOF is used to enhance the image. But then, since we have never seen a photographic image claimed by you to be yours, we validly assume you only take snapshots, if any at all. First one has to establish ownership of, or access to a camera. Then we have to have evidence that an image, any image has ever been captured. We wait, and the World wonders. No. It awaits to be amazed! -- teleportation kills |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 12:51 AM. |
|
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
PhotoBanter.com