Goodbye, NPhoto

[greenwing]

Well, Issue 7 just dropped on my mat, and I have to admit defeat. The insistence on using the terms APS-C and full-frame when DX and FX are more appropriate and succinct and the usual repetition of the confused crop-factor rubbish. Now we get a bald statement that DX lenses can't be used on FX cameras but hold on - 'some' FX cameras have a DX crop mode. Come into Nikon land, guys. All DX lenses can be used on all FX cameras. All FX cameras (thus far) have DX crop mode, but you can use the DX lenses in FX mode if you want, and are willing to crop the image yourself.

Then, in his long term test, Matthew Richards repeats the assertion that first version of the 18-200 VR lens had a different type of VR than the MK II version of the lens. As discussed on this forum when the superzoom test was published, that assertion is incorrect. It shows that the staff don't know the features of their own equipment, and don't pay attention to their own forums.

I'll be cancelling my subscription PDQ.

Chris

[Rod Lawton]

Sorry you feel that way, greenwing. Please bear in mind that many readers come to the magazine from other camera brands or from magazines where 'APS-C' and 'full-frame' are the most commonly-used terms. The generalisation about 'some' FX cameras having a crop mode was wrong. It should have been 'all' FX models - sorry. As far as the Nikon 18-200mm VR review is concerned, Nikon's own information is ambiguous, both in its original press release and the product information on its website. The original lens was indeed listed as having the VR II stabilisation system, however, and we're grateful you've brought that to our attention. RL

[Ashleyj]

Personally I can understand why there is some confusion over the VR on the original 18-200mm lens.
I bought one a few years ago and I was convinced that it did not have the second generation VR. That was one of the things, along with the zoom lock, that was tempting me to upgrade to the latest version.

As you stated the information available is a little ambiguous.

[greenwing]

Rod, I don't think there's anything ambiguous about the original press release of 1/11/2005 for the 18-200, as far as the VR system is concerned. enhanced Vibration Reduction (VR II)

Chris

[NikonYankee]

Originally Posted by greenwing

Well, Issue 7 just dropped on my mat, and I have to admit defeat. The insistence on using the terms APS-C and full-frame when DX and FX are more appropriate and succinct and the usual repetition of the confused crop-factor rubbish. Now we get a bald statement that DX lenses can't be used on FX cameras but hold on - 'some' FX cameras have a DX crop mode. Come into Nikon land, guys. All DX lenses can be used on all FX cameras. All FX cameras (thus far) have DX crop mode, but you can use the DX lenses in FX mode if you want, and are willing to crop the image yourself.

Then, in his long term test, Matthew Richards repeats the assertion that first version of the 18-200 VR lens had a different type of VR than the MK II version of the lens. As discussed on this forum when the superzoom test was published, that assertion is incorrect. It shows that the staff don't know the features of their own equipment, and don't pay attention to their own forums.

I'll be cancelling my subscription PDQ.

Chris

If this is the bigest problem in your life, you need to be greatfull. Cut these people some slack, they are just starting off and have to get the kinks out. FYI, all the US photomagazines and photo websites use aps-c and full frame because dx and fx are nikon terms only. As nikonians we know what they mean and what dx and fx are.We don't need to have it spoonfed to us. I haven't seen an issue of this mag yet, but if it is anything like their version for canon users, i expect it will be first rate.