[JJ_SO]

If you went to a place like Nikon Rumors you would swear that every man and dog on earth used high-end DSLRs.

A  lot of people at NR are enjoying a big enough bank account - and also old enough to spend their money for expensive gear, but I don't get what you want to say with that sentence? I mean, after all it's their money, isn't it?

 

Well, I went to Asia last year and guess what? I saw only one (a westerner fool with a D4) running around Angkor Wat and the like. Everyone else were using small cameras. And believe me, there were literally thousands upon thousands as a cross section sample to make a comparison as to what the average person uses.

Depends on the places you look at and also on the safety someone feels - I thought more than twice to take a big D800 to a cycle trip in Lithuania and Russia, but what's the point of having a nice camera and take a point and shoot to holidays? Again, one can get great pictures with a small camera, too. And how much people do come to your place in Slovenia with small gear or with bigger stuff?

 

Similarly, you would think that everyone who had a D600 had this oil problem. I don't personally know anyone who had this problem. Do you?

Not everyone discovered the problem and it got better - but what are you thinking is the reason for a D610? When the shutter of that version is not interchangeable with a D600 shutter? Yes I do know people with those oil/dust spot problems, but even if I don't I see in lensrentals a very trustworthy site - and they got a huge batch of bodies which passed Nikon's quality control with no reason.

 

My first D800 had the left focus problem, which concerned me and took them quite a while until they exchanged the body.

 

On the other side, Nikon's FX cameras are comparatively cheap against Canon and not the only reason is lack of quality control. I don't expect them to deliver 100% failure free gear - but they just shouldn't deny there's a problem.

 

Going back to the 58mm lens, I have the 50mm f/1.8 AIS, AF, AFS and the AFS f/1.4. They all perform as expected. Now, how do you suppose that Nikon could get away with charging 1500+ for the 58mm if they themselves didn't truly believed that there was something special about it?

I wonder if they got away - on NR there's a big discussion 58 vs Sigma vs Otus.

 

See - if you like - here or here for the Sigma discussion in all this posts is a lot of hot air ("Probably I would buy it, if only.... [insert whatever you like]") but also good information.

 

And not many of the wealthy forum members said, "I pulled the trigger on the 58", a lot are waiting until Sigma becomes available. Also, I don't get the point you're about to point out: A soft lens at a high price for those who are only looking for excellent color rendering? Do I need 36MP for that? Do I pay 79% more for the soft Nikkor 58mm? I just don't see a reason for this extremely high price. Funny thing is, I do see good reasons for the Otus price but the Nikon price is beyond my comprehension. Maybe making the most expensive 50-58mm lens in relation to it's performance?

 

Personally, I think that only fools get bogged down with apparent differences in equipment.

I don't understand that sentence (no native speaker)