Nikon shying from full-frame sensor

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by Siddhartha Jain, Jan 12, 2005.


    Nikon's much awaited D2X is finally hitting the stores soon.

    So Nikon isn't coming out at all with a 35mm full-frame sensor based
    dSLR? Does that also mean that they will also ditch the current line of
    lenses in favour of the DX series?

    That would be ironic given that Canon was supposed to be the one who
    broke backward compatibility to pursue new technology.
    Dang!! I had to say Canon and Nikon in the same post ;-)

    - Siddhartha
    Siddhartha Jain, Jan 12, 2005
    1. Advertisements

  2. Nikon doesn't have a full frame sensor to put into a D-SLR, nor are
    their any decent ones available for them to buy. Canon is probably not
    willing to sell sensors to Nikon, since this would end their
    stranglehold on the professional digital market.
    Steven M. Scharf, Jan 12, 2005
    1. Advertisements

  3. Siddhartha Jain

    Tom Scales Guest

    I still don't see why I care. 35mm is smaller than 4x5. So?
    Tom Scales, Jan 12, 2005
  4. Siddhartha Jain

    chris Guest

    The same reason why 4x5 is better than 35mm film?
    chris, Jan 12, 2005
  5. The question isn't about 4x5 vs 35mm vs DX vs APS.

    The question is whether Nikon will venture into making a 35mm
    full-frame sensor based dSLR? And if not, will they ditch the current
    set of lenses in favour of the DX series?

    - Siddhartha
    Siddhartha Jain, Jan 12, 2005
  6. Kodak does have one but I have no clue as how good it is and whether
    they are willing to sell it to Nikon. Again, Kodak's full-frame dSLR is
    based on Nikon's film SLR, takes Nikon's lenses and Nikon's new DX
    lenses won't fit them. Ironic.

    - Siddhartha
    Siddhartha Jain, Jan 12, 2005
  7. Siddhartha Jain

    the zorg Guest

    I don't see why. Think F6 for instance.....

    the zorg, Jan 12, 2005
  8. I thought this one was supposed to have full-frame capability as well as
    cropped. You mean this thing has crop and high-speed crop?
    Dave R knows who, Jan 12, 2005
  9. Siddhartha Jain

    TAFKAB Guest

    Form some of us, like me, the sensor size does matter. The reason for me is
    that I've got a bit of money tied up in Nikon gear, all of which was
    designed to work with a 24x36 frame size, and provide angles of view to suit
    that frame size. Change the size of the frame/sensor will either obsolete my
    gear, or change the angles of view to something I can't use. I paid a lot of
    money for my 17-35 because I wanted an ultra-wide zoom. Why would I want to
    turn it into a 28-50 (or there abouts)? And why would I want to turn my
    35-70 into a 50-100 (angle of view equivilants, or course)? If I bought a
    sub-frame DSLR, I'd have to also buy at least three more lenses to give the
    functionality of my film setup, and that raises the cost so much, it simply
    isn't worth it. I'm better off, financially, buying the Kodak full-frame cam
    since all my lenses work as I want. But it isn't good enough (yet) so I'll
    wait. I can't afford to keep that many different systems going, and haven't
    TAFKAB, Jan 12, 2005
  10. I think Nikon has a serious problem here, because the long back focus of the
    Nikon mount implies that it will always be harder to design DX lenses than
    to design 4/3 lenses.

    I think Nikon should do one of two things (or both!):

    1) Get cracking on full-frame sensor.

    2) License the 4/3 lensmount, and offer an adaptor that will allow Nikon
    DX-format digital bodies to accept either F-mount or 4/3-mount lenses.

    If Nikon does neither of these, I very much fear that they will be out of
    business in ten years.
    Andrew Koenig, Jan 12, 2005
  11. Don't know. But perhaps once Sony develop the technology then it
    would make sense to go full-frame for all the S/N advantages that

    Kulvinder Singh Matharu
    Website :
    Contact :

    "It ain't Coca Cola, it's rice", Straight to Hell - The Clash
    Kulvinder Singh Matharu, Jan 12, 2005
  12. The 4/3 format is much smaller than the DX format.

    Roland Karlsson, Jan 12, 2005
  13. Siddhartha Jain

    Darrell Guest

    Nikon's VP said last year Nikon wasn't planning on a full-frame sensor. Now
    everyone seems surprised? Nikon is committed to the DX sensor.
    Darrell, Jan 12, 2005
  14. Siddhartha Jain

    Darrell Guest

    Hmmm, red herring the Canon A75/85/95 or Nikon Coolpix 2200/3200/4100/5100
    (and Pentax et al) have a sensor smaller than 110 and Disc film, and they
    are superior in all ways. DX performs pretty close to 35mm negative film.
    APS film is a red herring, as it never even met it's own specs.
    Darrell, Jan 12, 2005
  15. Siddhartha Jain

    Darrell Guest

    The F6 is really a F200. It's an upgrade to the F100, it's not an F family
    Darrell, Jan 12, 2005
  16. Siddhartha Jain

    Darrell Guest

    DX sensor with a 1/2 area 6 megapixel crop.
    Darrell, Jan 12, 2005
  17. It's somewhat smaller, but not all that much smaller. The difference is
    less than the difference between DX and full-frame 35mm.
    Andrew Koenig, Jan 12, 2005
  18. I'm not surprised, just sad. I think that Nikon is slowly committing
    Andrew Koenig, Jan 12, 2005
  19. Except for the price.
    Andrew Koenig, Jan 12, 2005
  20. But - you cannot use 4/3 lenses on a DX camera,
    and the other way around (DX on a 4/3) is the same
    kind of problem, even if smaller.

    35mm = 24x36 = 864
    DX = 16x24 = 384
    4/3 = 13.5x18 = 243

    864/384 = 2.25
    384/243 = 1.58

    Roland Karlsson, Jan 12, 2005
    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.