«

In article <>, Neil
Harrington <> wrote:

> > 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.

Well, if people keep buying DX lenses, they'll buy fewer full-frame
ones; and at some point a full frame body will wind up obsoleting too
many lenses; and therefore is far less likely to be produced.

I doubt I'll ever shoot more digital than film, and as it is, the
mental juggling of the same lens having two angles of view gives me a
headache. I spent several frustrated seconds the other day trying to
figure why my 80-200 was suddenly a LONG lens...

On Jun 24, 12:50 pm, 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

Yep its me Earl replying to myself. I couldnt reply to each of you
individually but I must say you all have very good takes and info on
the subject. I think you for your input.

By the way Im not going for the 17-35 as I've sold the 18-200 vr to
help finance my 17-55 purchase and just cant have less zoom coverage.
Hey I flipped a coin.

I researched all over the place on the web and have taken your answers
into consideration and believe APS-C is here to stay for quite a bit
even if they come out with a reasonably priced FF alternative et al
technology comes down ect.

Im not one to shoot targets and run graphs on chromatic aborations and
pin cushining. I like what I like and am more a harry eyeball on the
picture guy.

Thank you all for your feedback.

Earl

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.

Canon is abandoning that half-way step. It's true that obsessing about
FF is kind of a side issue, but the fact is that it's the larger sensor
with larger pixels that will solve the high ISO noise issue, and as long
as you need a larger sensor you may as well make it the same size as a
35mm frame. Nikon has been stuck, they can't or won't make their own low
noise full frame sensor, Canon obviously won't sell sensors to them, and
no one else makes a good full frame sensor. The best thing to happen to
Nikon was Sony entering the D-SLR business with the Minolta line,
because now Sony has more of a reason to develop a full frame sensor.

Nikon will come out with FF because to not do so means continuing to
hemorrhage customers at the high end of the market. While the quantities
are low there, it still drives business at the lower end because people
always dream of upgrading to higher end bodies and want to use their
existing lenses.

On Jun 25, 7:05 pm, SMS <scharf.ste...@geemail.com> wrote:
> 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.
>
> Canon is abandoning that half-way step. It's true that obsessing about
> FF is kind of a side issue, but the fact is that it's the larger sensor
> with larger pixels that will solve the high ISO noise issue, and as long
> as you need a larger sensor you may as well make it the same size as a
> 35mm frame.

The MKIII is 1.3x - and VERY low noise. Now, I'm no engineer, but if
this is all it takes, Nikon should have Sony make a larger
sensor...perhaps, like someone said earlier, a 1.2x which might entice
more D2x users to go w/ the D3 if it solves the high noise problems,
delivers 8fps or more at full res and doesn't break the bank - what a
wish list! Now that I think about it, they could produce a lower res
camera, say 10mp at 1.2x and get more fps...whaddya think?

In article <250620071909386855%>,
Scott Schuckert <> wrote:
>Well, if people keep buying DX lenses, they'll buy fewer full-frame
>ones; and at some point a full frame body will wind up obsoleting too
>many lenses; and therefore is far less likely to be produced.

Nikon has relatively few, mostly uninteresting DX lenses. I doubt
that this will be big problem.

>I doubt I'll ever shoot more digital than film, and as it is, the
>mental juggling of the same lens having two angles of view gives me a
>headache. I spent several frustrated seconds the other day trying to
>figure why my 80-200 was suddenly a LONG lens...

That's just a matter of more practice. For example, a couple of months ago
I was unpleasantly surprised that my 17-35 was not all that wide on DX.
The reason is that I use film most of the time, and digital only occasionally.


--
That was it. Done. The faulty Monk was turned out into the desert where it
could believe what it liked, including the idea that it had been hard done
by. It was allowed to keep its horse, since horses were so cheap to make.
-- Douglas Adams in Dirk Gently's Holistic Detective Agency

Ben Miller wrote:
> On Jun 25, 7:05 pm, SMS <scharf.ste...@geemail.com> wrote:
>> 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.
>> Canon is abandoning that half-way step. It's true that obsessing about
>> FF is kind of a side issue, but the fact is that it's the larger sensor
>> with larger pixels that will solve the high ISO noise issue, and as long
>> as you need a larger sensor you may as well make it the same size as a
>> 35mm frame.
>
> The MKIII is 1.3x - and VERY low noise. Now, I'm no engineer, but if
> this is all it takes, Nikon should have Sony make a larger
> sensor...perhaps, like someone said earlier, a 1.2x which might entice
> more D2x users to go w/ the D3 if it solves the high noise problems,
> delivers 8fps or more at full res and doesn't break the bank - what a
> wish list! Now that I think about it, they could produce a lower res
> camera, say 10mp at 1.2x and get more fps...whaddya think?

1.2x or 1.3x does have one advantage over full-frame, with regular full
frame lenses you're not using the edges and you get less vignetting.

In article <4680e1bd$0$27173$>,
SMS <> wrote:
>1.2x or 1.3x does have one advantage over full-frame, with regular full
>frame lenses you're not using the edges and you get less vignetting.

For the same angle of view you have to use lenses with a shorter focal length
which often provide less performance compared to full frame, and (for the
same number of pixels) you need performance at a higher MTF, which is
also a problem.

The only advantage of smaller sensors is that they are slightly cheaper.
(For really small sensors the overall camera can be made smaller, but that
apply to Nikon and Canon's DSLRs)


--
That was it. Done. The faulty Monk was turned out into the desert where it
could believe what it liked, including the idea that it had been hard done
by. It was allowed to keep its horse, since horses were so cheap to make.
-- Douglas Adams in Dirk Gently's Holistic Detective Agency

Philip Homburg wrote:
> In article <4680e1bd$0$27173$>,
> SMS <> wrote:
>> 1.2x or 1.3x does have one advantage over full-frame, with regular full
>> frame lenses you're not using the edges and you get less vignetting.
>
> For the same angle of view you have to use lenses with a shorter focal length
> which often provide less performance compared to full frame, and (for the
> same number of pixels) you need performance at a higher MTF, which is
> also a problem.
>
> The only advantage of smaller sensors is that they are slightly cheaper.
> (For really small sensors the overall camera can be made smaller, but that
> apply to Nikon and Canon's DSLRs)

Several folks (who've worked in the field) over the past year or so have
stated clearly that the economics of a full sized sensor plays a large
part in this game; that the small ones aren't just slightly cheaper.

However, we won't know until other besides Canon do full frame.

I do hope Nikon brings one out soon. Otherwise Canon isn't being pushed,
among other things.

--
john mcwilliams

"SMS" <> wrote in message
news:46805829$0$27205$...
> 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.
>
> Canon is abandoning that half-way step. It's true that obsessing about FF
> is kind of a side issue, but the fact is that it's the larger sensor with
> larger pixels that will solve the high ISO noise issue, and as long as you
> need a larger sensor you may as well make it the same size as a 35mm
> frame. Nikon has been stuck, they can't or won't make their own low noise
> full frame sensor, Canon obviously won't sell sensors to them, and no one
> else makes a good full frame sensor. The best thing to happen to Nikon was
> Sony entering the D-SLR business with the Minolta line, because now Sony
> has more of a reason to develop a full frame sensor.

Well, that's an interesting idea anyway.

>
> Nikon will come out with FF because to not do so means continuing to
> hemorrhage customers at the high end of the market. While the quantities
> are low there, it still drives business at the lower end because people
> always dream of upgrading to higher end bodies and want to use their
> existing lenses.

I don't think so. Amateurs and enthusiasts will always outnumber
professionals by about a gazillion to one (or anyway by a lot), and it's the
amateur-grade cameras that drive the market, not the professional.

I've owned an awful lot of SLRs over the last 45 years or so, not one of
them was what you'd call a "professional" model and I have never wanted a
professional model or left even slightly disadvantaged for the lack of one.

Since the smaller DX sensor will always provide more than enough image
quality to satisfy 99% of amateurs and enthusiasts, I think very few of them
will "dream of upgrading" to a larger format. The DX format will continue to
be analogous to 35mm was in film, and FF will mostly be limited in appeal to
those who'd have gone to medium format in film.

Neil

In article <>,
John McWilliams <> wrote:
>Several folks (who've worked in the field) over the past year or so have
>stated clearly that the economics of a full sized sensor plays a large
>part in this game; that the small ones aren't just slightly cheaper.
>
>However, we won't know until other besides Canon do full frame.
>
>I do hope Nikon brings one out soon. Otherwise Canon isn't being pushed,
>among other things.

I don't know if Canon is making a huge loss at the 5D, but if you take
the retail price of a 5D and add the price of a Nikon F6, then you end up
with the price of a D2X.

Assuming that Canon is not selling the 5D at a loss and enough demand,
Nikon should be able to produce a 'D3' with a FF sensor at the same price
as the D2X.

It is possible that you can't make cameras with a FF sensor for less than
$2000 retail. But that is still a big market.


--
That was it. Done. The faulty Monk was turned out into the desert where it
could believe what it liked, including the idea that it had been hard done
by. It was allowed to keep its horse, since horses were so cheap to make.
-- Douglas Adams in Dirk Gently's Holistic Detective Agency