Hacker News Reader

Comment by giuliomagnifico | Hacker News Reader

PR reasons on a DSLR camera now?! I don’t think so.

This makes Nikon look like a company that supports all its products in the long term. That's some seriously good PR.

They do just that, though.

Yes I agree, a PR for the company, not for the camera. Indeed is a good thing this support, for that I posted it. A firmware update for a 10y old camera, and a DSLR camera that also the lenses are discontinued. Well, I’m glad for it.

> This makes Nikon look like a company that supports all its products in the long term.

Not "look like", that's how they operate. I love it, wish all companies were committed to quality and longevity, it would be the kind of world I'd like to live in.

Nikon is also pretty obsessive about compatibility, I can mount lenses from the 70s on my D7100 and the features work.

https://kenrockwell.com/nikon/compatibility-lens.htm

Using a FTZ adapter you can those lenses on a Z9 as well. Not sure about image quality so, those old film era lenses seems, from what I read since I have zero experience, to underperform on modern digital bodies. Doesn't make the lenses any worse or the compatability any less imoressive.

There's a thin filter on top of the sensor of every digital camera that can affect lenses designed for film, but I personally only know of 1-2 lenses where it makes a marked difference.

In terms of underperforming, it's hard to define underperforming. Regardless of what some guy on a blog thinks, I have had many clients comment about how impressed they were with portraits I took of them with lenses from 1971 and 1993, and 0 complain about how the same lenses' corners look soft when shooting a test chart wide-open then blowing it up to 400%.

Couldn't agree more, the beauty of a picture cannot be meassured in a lab. That beinh said, apparebtly lab tests show that some old f-mount lenses don't use the full resolution of 36 MP plus sensors. Whether or not that is actually bad, or if you would notice the difference with the naked eye, is something different.

Thay being said, I'd never replace a lense unless it either broken or I see negative impacts on image quality. If none of that applies I don't see a reason to spend a fortune on new glass just because. Unless of course I want that lens.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com