«

Does anyone have any feed back on whether Nikon will go FF with its
cameras (dx2 excluded). I just bought a 105 micro with vr that is for
full frame cameras and am looking at the 17-55 2.8 which is DX.

I must say I dont understand why they manufacture a new 105 micro that
is a FF lense and a 17-55 that is a 1,200 DX lense. Anyone have any
sense what direction they are going with APS-C or Full frame?

Ill be really hot if I buy a 1200 dollar lense and in 3 years its
useless because they have change to FF for there prosumer cameras.

Earl

"surf_doggie" <> wrote in message
news: oups.com...
> Does anyone have any feed back on whether Nikon will go FF with its
> cameras (dx2 excluded). I just bought a 105 micro with vr that is for
> full frame cameras and am looking at the 17-55 2.8 which is DX.

One recent and reasonable-sounding rumor is that Nikon will bring out an SLR
that's *close* to full frame, about a 1.1x lens factor. That should be close
enough for all practical purposes, and still help with the (possibly only
theoretical) loss of performance in the corners that FF sensors are said to
have.

>
> I must say I dont understand why they manufacture a new 105 micro that
> is a FF lense and a 17-55 that is a 1,200 DX lense.

Probably because for a lens of that type, 105mm macro, it's just as easy to
make it for FF as for the smaller format. And of course there still are
people using 35mm. Not so many, admittedly, but Nikon 35s move briskly on
eBay when the price is right.


> Anyone have any
> sense what direction they are going with APS-C or Full frame?
>
> Ill be really hot if I buy a 1200 dollar lense and in 3 years its
> useless because they have change to FF for there prosumer cameras.

I think it's *very* unlikely that they will ever change to FF for such
cameras, since the DX cameras already have more than enough image
capabilities for at least 99% of all real-world mortal users. DX will always
be less expensive to manufacture, and therefore is here to stay. The near-FF
Nikon, when and if it does materialize, will be for that fraction of 1% of
users who think it's of some benefit to them and who can afford to pay for
it whether it is or not.

Neil

surf_doggie wrote:

> Does anyone have any feed back on whether Nikon will go FF with its
> cameras (dx2 excluded). I just bought a 105 micro with vr that is for
> full frame cameras and am looking at the 17-55 2.8 which is DX.

Get the 17-35/2.8 since it is a much better lens.

> I must say I dont understand why they manufacture a new 105 micro that
> is a FF lense and a 17-55 that is a 1,200 DX lense. Anyone have any
> sense what direction they are going with APS-C or Full frame?

If you wan't full frame you'll have to get an adapter for your Nikkors and a
Canon 5D. Did I mention that the 17-35/2.8 Nikkor is very sweet on the 5D.

> Ill be really hot if I buy a 1200 dollar lense and in 3 years its
> useless because they have change to FF for there prosumer cameras.

This is why most people stay away from DX lenses. The only DX novelty lens
I have is the 18-200mm VR.





Rita

surf_doggie wrote:
> Does anyone have any feed back on whether Nikon will go FF with its
> cameras (dx2 excluded). I just bought a 105 micro with vr that is for
> full frame cameras and am looking at the 17-55 2.8 which is DX.
>
> I must say I dont understand why they manufacture a new 105 micro that
> is a FF lense and a 17-55 that is a 1,200 DX lense. Anyone have any
> sense what direction they are going with APS-C or Full frame?
>
> Ill be really hot if I buy a 1200 dollar lense and in 3 years its
> useless because they have change to FF for there prosumer cameras.
>
> Earl

You've got the marketing hype disease. You should see a doctor. It CAN be
cured, no matter what others may say.

DP

Remember, every time you buy a DX Nikkor, it's like shouting: "Nikon,
PLEASE don't ever bring out a full-frame body!"

surf_doggie <> writes:
> I'll be really hot if I buy a 1200 dollar lense and in 3 years its
> useless because they have change to FF for there prosumer cameras.

1. It won't be useless. /If/ the rumoured D3 is FF, it will most
certainly come with a HSC mode that will let you use all your
DX-lenses.

2. Nikon will never abandon the DX-format for prosumer cameras.
The DX-format is lighter, cheaper to manufacture, and fits
the needs of most professionals and amateurs, and will
continue to be so. Any advance in technology that make
FF-sensors cheaper will make DX-sensors cheaper too. The
price of FF may come down, but the gap remains.

Btw. I shoot FF Nikon today (with am F-mount Kodak Pro 14n), but
unless the FF D3 comes out below $3000, (and it won't), my next
camera will be a D200.
--
- gisle hannemyr [ gisle{at}hannemyr.no - http://hannemyr.com/photo/ ]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sigma SD10, Kodak Pro 14n, Canon Powershot G5, Olympus 2020Z
------------------------------------------------------------------------

surf_doggie wrote:
> Does anyone have any feed back on whether Nikon will go FF with its
> cameras (dx2 excluded). I just bought a 105 micro with vr that is for
> full frame cameras and am looking at the 17-55 2.8 which is DX.
>
> I must say I dont understand why they manufacture a new 105 micro that
> is a FF lense and a 17-55 that is a 1,200 DX lense. Anyone have any
> sense what direction they are going with APS-C or Full frame?

LOL, it's pretty clear why they did this, and a good indicator that they
will be releasing a FF D-SLR. They've been stuck with no good FF sensor.
Obviously Canon isn't going to sell it to them, and the Fill Factory
full frame sensor used by Kodak isn't that great.

> Ill be really hot if I buy a 1200 dollar lense and in 3 years its
> useless because they have change to FF for there prosumer cameras.

There really is no question that Nikon will move to FF or close to FF if
they come out with a professional model D-SLR, though maybe not FF for
prosumer.

The lenses have pretty good resale value, at least 50%, so you wouldn't
be out the full cost, and of course you have the use of the lens in the
meantime.

On Jun 24, 11:50 am, surf_doggie <earl.r...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Does anyone have any feed back on whether Nikon will go FF with its
> cameras (dx2 excluded). I just bought a 105 micro with vr that is for
> full frame cameras and am looking at the 17-55 2.8 which is DX.
>
> I must say I dont understand why they manufacture a new 105 micro that
> is a FF lense and a 17-55 that is a 1,200 DX lense. Anyone have any
> sense what direction they are going with APS-C or Full frame?
>
> Ill be really hot if I buy a 1200 dollar lense and in 3 years its
> useless because they have change to FF for there prosumer cameras.
>
> Earl

If people would stop obsessing about FF and look at the real issue
with the professional line of Nikon cameras, we might get somewhere.
The consumer line is deeply entrenched in the DX format, and it
probably isn't going anywhere. The next logical step, IMO, for Nikon
is to address high ISO noise in the D3 line, and possibly introduce
something along the lines of the 1DMKIII in terms of crop factor -
1.3x, 1.2x instead of the 1.5x currently in play. More fps at normal
crop factor/resolutioin would be nice, too. Nikon is losing big time
on the sidelines, as it were. If Canon can put out a camera with
their own sensor that produces very low noise even at ISO 6400, Nikon
needs to rethink the Sony sensor idea, and get with the program. Many
will disagree, but IMO, w/o extensive post processing, Hi1 and Hi2 are
basically garbage off of the D2x. Flame away, I'm not interested. I
have a D2x, and FF is down the list of things that would move me to a
D3. In order of importance:

- more fps, or even 8 but w/o having to go HSC and losing frame/
resolution
- address high ISO noise, include 50 ISO
- 1.2x or 1.3x crop factor
- FF
- price - it won't debut under $5000, this much is clear...

"Scott Schuckert" <> wrote in message
news:250620070830482392%...
>
> Remember, every time you buy a DX Nikkor, it's like shouting: "Nikon,
> PLEASE don't ever bring out a full-frame body!"

Why? I buy DX Nikkors, and if Nikon brings out a full-frame (or
near-full-frame) body it makes no difference to me one way or t'other.

They'll still be bringing out more DX bodies for the 99% of users who
couldn't care less about full frame.

Neil

Ben Miller wrote:

> If people would stop obsessing about FF and look at the real issue
> with the professional line of Nikon cameras, we might get somewhere.
> The consumer line is deeply entrenched in the DX format, and it
> probably isn't going anywhere. The next logical step, IMO, for Nikon
> is to address high ISO noise in the D3 line, and possibly introduce
> something along the lines of the 1DMKIII in terms of crop factor -
> 1.3x, 1.2x instead of the 1.5x currently in play. More fps at normal
> crop factor/resolutioin would be nice, too. Nikon is losing big time
> on the sidelines, as it were. If Canon can put out a camera with
> their own sensor that produces very low noise even at ISO 6400, Nikon
> needs to rethink the Sony sensor idea, and get with the program. Many
> will disagree, but IMO, w/o extensive post processing, Hi1 and Hi2 are
> basically garbage off of the D2x. Flame away, I'm not interested. I
> have a D2x, and FF is down the list of things that would move me to a
> D3. In order of importance:

I agree that Nikon needs to get the high ISO bit worked out. You are
forgetting that the D2x is an ancient camera technologically speaking and is
on its way out. Even the D200 starts getting noisy at ISO 800. The other
issue that is important for getting decent and usable high ISO shots from
the D2x and D200 is to properly expose to the point of almost overexposing.
Too many people underexpose with these cameras and try to rescue the shot in
post.

I'm really skeptical that Nikon is going to address noise issues in the D3
to the point where it makes one lust for one. This is why I'm almost fully
on the Canon bandwagon and see the need to shoot both platforms.

> - price - it won't debut under $5000, this much is clear...

Anything over $5,000 grand and Nikon can shove it where the sun doesn't
shine.





Rita