Nikon DX and lenses Full frame

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by surf_doggie, Jun 24, 2007.

  1. surf_doggie

    surf_doggie Guest

    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, Jun 24, 2007
    #1
    1. Advertisements

  2. 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.
    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.

    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
     
    Neil Harrington, Jun 24, 2007
    #2
    1. Advertisements

  3. Get the 17-35/2.8 since it is a much better lens.
    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.
    This is why most people stay away from DX lenses. The only DX novelty lens
    I have is the 18-200mm VR.





    Rita
     
    =?iso-8859-1?Q?Rita_=C4_Berkowitz?=, Jun 24, 2007
    #3
  4. You've got the marketing hype disease. You should see a doctor. It CAN be
    cured, no matter what others may say.

    DP
     
    Dennis Pogson, Jun 25, 2007
    #4
  5. Remember, every time you buy a DX Nikkor, it's like shouting: "Nikon,
    PLEASE don't ever bring out a full-frame body!"
     
    Scott Schuckert, Jun 25, 2007
    #5
  6. 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, Jun 25, 2007
    #6
  7. surf_doggie

    SMS Guest

    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.
    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.
     
    SMS, Jun 25, 2007
    #7
  8. surf_doggie

    Ben Miller Guest

    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...
     
    Ben Miller, Jun 25, 2007
    #8
  9. 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
     
    Neil Harrington, Jun 25, 2007
    #9
  10. 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.
    Anything over $5,000 grand and Nikon can shove it where the sun doesn't
    shine.





    Rita
     
    =?iso-8859-1?Q?Rita_=C4_Berkowitz?=, Jun 25, 2007
    #10
  11. 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...
     
    Scott Schuckert, Jun 26, 2007
    #11
  12. surf_doggie

    surf_doggie Guest

    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
     
    surf_doggie, Jun 26, 2007
    #12
  13. surf_doggie

    SMS Guest

    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.
     
    SMS, Jun 26, 2007
    #13
  14. surf_doggie

    Ben Miller Guest

    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?
     
    Ben Miller, Jun 26, 2007
    #14
  15. Nikon has relatively few, mostly uninteresting DX lenses. I doubt
    that this will be big problem.
    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.
     
    Philip Homburg, Jun 26, 2007
    #15
  16. surf_doggie

    SMS Guest

    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.
     
    SMS, Jun 26, 2007
    #16
  17. 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)
     
    Philip Homburg, Jun 26, 2007
    #17
  18. 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, Jun 26, 2007
    #18
  19. Well, that's an interesting idea anyway.
    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
     
    Neil Harrington, Jun 26, 2007
    #19
  20. 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.
     
    Philip Homburg, Jun 26, 2007
    #20
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.