 Pete H |
Hello Nikon! Hey Nikon; just in case you're listening...when will you decide to build a Full Frame DSLR? ARRRGH! LOL
Pete
|
|
|
|
||
|
W. |
The continuing absence of a FF dSLR proves Nikon doesn't care one bit about what their loyal customers think or want. Loyal Nikon owners apparently are masochists.
|
|
|
|
||
|
Todd Bennett |
Hey Pete, I did a search on Google for nikon full frame DSLR and here are a couple of interesting links: http://www.digitaldarrell.com/DDBlog-ShouldNikonMakeA35mmSizedSensor.php http://www.dslrphoto.com/2006/03/02/interview-with-nikon-executives-about-dslr-future-plan/
|
|
|
|
||
|
Alan N. Marcus |
Hi all, The so called full frame dimensions stem from: Thomas Edison, inventor of motion picture technology conferred with George Eastman and together they decided on a film width of 35mm. This was an economic discussion as Kodak was already producing a 70mm film for roll film cameras. Kodak slit the 70mm roll into a production run with a 35mm width. The cine film needed sprocket holes on both sides. The image area was therefore allocated to that space that remained between the holes. This worked out to a 24mm width image. Edison selected 18mm for the height. For years, Hollywood shot using a 18x24mm motion picture frame. In 1913 Leica/Leitz chief engineer selected the 35mm cine film for his new camera design. The film was abundant, plenty of surplus on the market, because motion picture photographers tended to load fresh roll rather than run out during a scene shoot. The remaining unexposed film was sold on the open market. In 1923 the Leica model A was introduced. Max Barnack (engineer) retained the sprocket holes thus the frame width was fixed at 24mm. Max doubled the18mm height making the frame into a rectangle 24mm x 36mm. As time passed this frame, that was a departure from all existing format ratios, became popular. The focal lens required to yield a human prospective is one equal to the diagonal measure. This yields a prospective (view angle) of 53°, judged the human experience. In this case the 24x36 frame the diagonal measure is 43.3mm. Mr. Barnack affixed a 50mm to the Leica model A; this was the closest prevalent lens. From the beginning the 35mm frame produced sub-standard results when compared to larger formats. This was due to the inherent laminations of a small frame size. As film technology progressed the 35mm format became suitable. The popularity of the 35mm and the widespread availability of interchanable lenses for the format creates the demand for a 24 x 36mm chip for the digital. Consider that there is no technical reason why a manufacture should stick to this format. If digital had never appeared it is likely that film technology would continue to evolve and further miniaturization of the camera would result. Why handicap a camera maker forcing retention of a specific format size when there is no technical pitfall? Alan Marcus
|
|
|
|
||
|
Pete H |
Thanks Todd, The first link was written by a "I think I know the answer" person. He's comparing apples and oranges by using a Di" micro lens on a FF sensor! ...amd "W" is right, Nikon has seemed to turn a deaf ear to what photographers want in the name of $$$'s. The Nikon exec answers the question of "the biggest obstacle to Nikon in the manufacturing and selling a full frame camera?" Look at part of his answer. "...the picture quality of the DX camera can already sufficiently produce a satisfying photograph." Notice his words carefully. He (does not) say "as good as a FF sensor. Todd, thanks for the links. They add to my dashed hopes that Nikon will not be producing a FF sensor camera anytime soon. I guess I will soon have some new Canon friends. LOL Pete
|
|
|
|
||
|
Pete H |
Alan,
There (IS) a handicap when comparing FF Sensors to the Nikon and other similar sensor sizes. If I want even better I would fork over $37,000 to Mamiya! Not quite ready to do that yet! LOL To get better in sensor quality, we don't go smaller, we go bigger! It is a mathmatical FACT that a FF sensor, properly designed will shame the Nikon sensor in ALL areas! Resolution, noise, color rendition... How much tech education do we need to know that it is far superior to place 12 million pixel sites on a 35mm sensor than to do the same on one that measures 23mm x 17mm on a side? The history of 35mm has NOTHING to do with Nikons unwillingness to produce a FF camera. Insert opinion here!: Nikon has rested on their financial and quality laurels for many years, and seem to feel this will propel them to continued success. I don't think so. Good grief! Look at the price of the new Nikon D2Xs..It is MORE than the 5D! Pete
|
|
|
|
||
|
Todd Bennett |
Yeah Pete, I pretty much read it the way you did. Nikon seems to be happy catering to the average consumer and not worrying about the pros.
|
|
|
|
||
|
robert G. Fately |
Pete, as Alan has painstakingly pointed out, the "ful frame" concept is not rooted in anything technical - and there are in fact technical reasons why a so-called FF DSLR is not so great. First, why does anyone whine about it? Because 35MM SLRs became so ubiquitous that most shooters (at least us "serious" types) are quite familiar with the lenses, what focal length relates to what angle of view, etc. Plus, of course, many have sizeable investments in lenses. So, froma marketing perspective, a FF DSLR sounds groovy - full use of wide angle lenses without that annoying crop factor getting in the way, and shallower DOF. While the latter is of value, the former is arguable - sports and nature shooters like the "free" telephoto they get by useing a 300MM f2.8 lens and actually seeing things like they would be with a 450MM lens on a FF camera. But that's an aside. There are a number of CCD sensors larger than the 24x36MM size that would be required for FF use. Kocak makes a couple, used in backs that go on medium format bodies like Hasselblads, that are somethign like 36x48MM. OF course, those backs are rather pricey. But the real argument against rushing to put a FF sensor in s 35MM format body type is this: vignetting and color aberration as you approach the edges of the frame when wide angle lenses are used. This has to do with the angle of incidence at which the light rays hit the edges of the frame, when passing through a very wide angle lens. Unlike film, which is essentially flat, on a mircroscopic level a CCD's individual photosites (the ones that it has 10 million of) are like tiny wells, or depressions, surrounded by similarly tiny walls. If light impinges the sites at the edges or corners at too oblique an angle, then it actually diffracts as it passes over that photosite wall. Canon forums are replete with complaints to this effect. Without trying to cause a religious flame war here, I will say that over the decades it has been commonly accepted "wisdom" that Nikon is an engineering company that tries to do marketing, while Canon is much the opposite. So in essence, Nikon has been refusing to respond to the wailing of those who insist that they need FF, out of fear that the results will not be up to snuff. And from what I have heard, when it comes to wide angle performance, they have not been wrong. Canon, though, inventive as it is (they did invent IS, which Nikon licenses as VR for instance) has put out a couple of FF cameras. To date, I have not heard anything marvelous about them, and again, my Canonite friends tell me their woes (the grass is greener syndrome is in effect there too). Kodak sold a Nikon-body based and Canon-body-based FF camera for a while as well, but they dropped it a couple of years ago. The former would take Nikon glass, yet it didn't do so fantastically in the marketplace. And lest you think it's because Kodak doesn't know what they're doing, remember that they manufacture the CCDs that go into the Leaf and Sinar Braun $20,000+ medium format digital backs. So, Pete, you might have to wait a while - rightly or wrongly, Nikon seems to stick to its engineering roots (and any MBA will tell you that's wrongly, but then again that's because MBAs are tought that marketing is everything). And as I recall, Nikon's not doing all that well financially, so this is not a case of them laughing all the way to the bank. Rumors from self-professed "insiders" have foretold the FF Nikon camera for 3 years that I know of. Don't hold your breath. I get great looking posters from my D200; hardly discernable from the Velvia/CS4000 scans I used to do. Change to Canon, or enjoy what you've got (get a wider angle lens if need be), but when Nikon is ready they'll do it. And not until then.
|
|
|
|
||
|
Pete H |
Bob, Thanks for a well thought out response..very refreshing indeed. As far as quality of a FF vs the smaller sensors; I totally disagree. So from a money point of view, once you purchase the "required glass"; for a FF DSLR, one has quite an investment. To me, it is well worth it as I do make a living from shooting. Please don't misunderstand me. I love Nikon products, but one on one FF vs smaller sensors, there is no contest, as long as we mate the right glass with it. All the best, Pete
|
|
|
|
||
|
Raymond H. Kemp |
Pete, most editorial pros don't shoot with full frame cameras. Most are shooting with company equipment and you will find the Canon Mark II EOS and Nikon D1 and D2 series are both heavily used by the print media. Especially Canon in the sports markets. Owning a pro body doesn't mean you'll be taking pro images! The D70 is not built to take a beating in the field like the D2 series or D1 series. The D200 is built very well and has a weather sealed body which the Canon 5D does not. I'm a full time photojournalist and almost bought the Nikon D2xs and then backed out at the last minute when the D200 was announced. The D200 is a damn good camera and works very well in a pro environment. I was able to get 2 D200s for the price of one D2x. For my line of work, these bodies work very well for me. But there is one big reason (actually two) that keeps me to Nikon. One, the quality of Nikkor lens and the Nikon flash system, which is far superior to Canon's. I’ve used both Canon and Nikon’s and both are great cameras. Most complaints that I have seen about the lack of full frame was in regards to wide-angle lenses. I too was disappointed with my 24-700 ED 2.8 lens not going wide enough but that changed when Nikon introduced the 12-24 DX ED lens. A great piece of glass and I use it about 60% of the time. I’ll be surprised to see if Nikon goes to full frame considering they have introduced several DX lenses. But if they do, they do. The slight differences between full frame and DX just don’t justify the cost of full frame. And I prefer the CCD chip over the CMOS. Won’t go into the reasons why, there is plenty of data on the internet to support that debate. I’m sure you will enjoy your new Canon camera! They are damn good and will give you results as good as your Nikon! Ray
|
|
|
|
||
|
Pete H |
Hey Ray, Oh; I'm not giving up my Nikons..too many lenses bought over the yrs..I may even opt for a D2xs eventually, but certainly not before I get into a FF DSLR. I'm sure you do shoot with what you say...but I too make at a living at this; not photojournalism, rather bridal portraits and commercial stills for a few stock agencies.Ya; I still shoot some med format for one agency, but will probably drop them soon...just too much time in scanning, lab time etc... I've spoken with some sports shooters for S.I and NFL.com..even went and watched them work a game...I was struck by the FACT that not one of these guys/gals were shooting with smaller sensors. ..and yes, I too have read the data sheets on CMOS vs CCD..Both have strengths and weaknesses; so I won't get into that debate either..it all depends HOW the MFG wishes to present the data and how we interpret it. I get the feeling some think I am Nikon bashing? Hardly; as this is what I currently own in DSLR's...all Nikon; but the next time I photograph a bride in studio with a DSLR, it will be full frame...I've seen the tests and the results. In this application, the smaller sensor can not hold a candle to the subtle nuances a FF can and does capture. Pete
|
|
|
|
||
|
Pete H |
Just in case one opinion isn't enough. ;) http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/cameras/5d-announce.shtml http://www.completedigitalphotography.com/index.php?p=326 http://www.dphotojournal.com/do-you-need-a-full-frame-dslr/
|
|
|
|
||
|
John H. Siskin |
Hi All, I have the Kodak DCS Pro 14n. Nikon lenses, full frame sensor. Significant problems. I wanted full frame, and still want it in order to have shift lenses that are still wide angle. While you can take care of most perspective problems in Photoshop, you can’t do this while shooting. If you are shooting with an art director I can tell you that you do not want to have to repeat “oh I’ll fix this later in Photoshop” like some demented mantra. After most of my film stuff was stolen in 2004 I had the choice between the Kodak and a group of lenses and a Canon and a body cap. I choose the Kodak, which was a pretty good choice. BUT, here are some of the problems. Color shift on the sides of the sensor. My maximum ISO with out significant noise is 160. My Maximum ISO with noise is 400. If I use a 50mm lens at f8 or smaller I get an orange dot in the middle of the frame. This only seems to happen with fixed focal length lenses. There are other problems, but they do not seems to be unique to the camera. I don’t know what this means for other full frame cameras using Nikon lenses, but Kodak has given up. Thanks, John Siskin
|
|
|
|
||
|
Pete H |
Hello John, You might also mention that the Kodak DCS Pro was released in 2002!...AND with sensor technology from 2000! Yikes. The DCS series was always plagued with problems, as you listed, not to mention some serious banding problems at high ISO's. Pete
|
|
|
|
||
|
Who Me? |
"Well another one down, and another down, and another one bites the dust." I've heard that Nikon will merge with another company soon or have to go out of business. That could be just a rumor but it was out there at the last convention. Don't get me wrong I use Nikon, its the bag they give me at the photo/equipment store to carry out my Canon accessories in...LOL.
|
|
|
|
||
|
John H. Siskin |
Hi Pete, it was the best choice at that moment. I’ll be making an additional choice soon. The hazards of an emerging technology. Thanks, John Siskin
|
|
|
|
||
|
Pete H |
John, Keep us informed if you will as to your candidates in camera choice. I totally agree; emerging technology seems to attempt to force us into a position we do not invite and often times do not welcome. I suppose if I were to be 100% honest; the crux of my post was dis-satisfaction with the current crop of digital cameras as far as image purity is concerned. I have contemplated going back to med format, or at least use it as a supplement to my digital. The "lab" work we now do with Adobe, would cost a fortune 20 yrs ago with film and printing. ARRGH! All the best, Pete
|
|
|
|
||
|
This old forum is now archived. Use improved Forum here
Report this Thread |
||