 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| PhotoKB HomeDiscussion Groups Digital Photography Digital PhotoDSLR CamerasZLR CamerasPoint & Shoot CamerasFilm Photography 35 mmLarge FormatMedium formatDarkroomFilm and LabsOther EquipmentPhoto Technique Nature PhotographyPeople PhotographyTechnique GeneralGeneral Photo Topics General TopicsAustralian PhotographyUK PhotographyDirectoryPhoto Clubs |
Photo Forum / Digital Photography / DSLR Cameras / September 2007Nikon will not go to full frame...
Well Nikon has just turned the high end pro market over to Canon. "Nikon Denies Possibility of Making 35mm Full-Frame Sensor Industry watchers have been discussing if Nikon Corp., Tokyo, Japan, will come out with a 35mm full-size image sensor in pro-oriented digital SLR. A Nikon top official denied the possibility of making new full-size sensors, Photo Trade Express reports. "35mm is a film format, which I do not think is necessary in the digital era," says Makoto Kimura of Nikon. "We have been exploring the possibility of commercializing a 35mm full-size sensor, but it's not clear at this moment if we go for it. We feel that the 'DX' format or APS-C size will be the best for the DSLR and interchangeable lenses. Based on the assumption Nikon has been bringing up in number the lenses for the DX format, change in the size of the sensor would possibly puzzle some users in finding effective focal length related to angle of view," he says. He repeats that Nikon thinks the DX format will be the best for the DSLR, adding CMOS sensor "LBCAST" is also in preparation, reports Photo Trade Express. " http://www.steves-digicams.com/diginews.html#nikon_ff ********************************************************* "It looked like the sort of book described in library catalogues as "slightly foxed", although it would be more honest to admit that it looked as though it had been badgered, wolved and possibly beared as well." _Light Fantastic_ Terry Pratchett > Well Nikon has just turned the high end pro market over to Canon. Your statement is based on the assumption that high-end users must use 35mm sensors, which is nonsense. As a Nikon user, I truly hope they don't (need to) use 35mm sensors. We don't need them.  SignatureJeremy | jeremy@exit109.com >> Well Nikon has just turned the high end pro market over to Canon. > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >As a Nikon user, I truly hope they don't (need to) use 35mm sensors. >We don't need them. Your lose. High-end users don't have to use ff frame but for quality they demand they will. ********************************************************* "It looked like the sort of book described in library catalogues as "slightly foxed", although it would be more honest to admit that it looked as though it had been badgered, wolved and possibly beared as well." _Light Fantastic_ Terry Pratchett > Your lose. High-end users don't have to use ff frame but for quality > they demand they will. Thus far, the quality advantage of 35mm sensors has been theoretical. The Nikon D2x is every bit as good as the Canon 1Ds2, and has the advantage of not having to deal with edge softness issues at wide angle. And the whole price thing, of course. Plus, I don't really feel like having to buy new lenses just to get what I already have now, when they suddenly all become too wide. SignatureJeremy | jeremy@exit109.com >> Your lose. High-end users don't have to use ff frame but for quality >> they demand they will. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >of not having to deal with edge softness issues at wide angle. And the >whole price thing, of course. The D2X is not as good at high ISO's. Far nosier. ********************************************************* "It looked like the sort of book described in library catalogues as "slightly foxed", although it would be more honest to admit that it looked as though it had been badgered, wolved and possibly beared as well." _Light Fantastic_ Terry Pratchett > The D2X is not as good at high ISO's. Far nosier. You've used it, then? Because I don't see any noise problem. The people who go on about it tend to be people who haven't actually used the camera. SignatureJeremy | jeremy@exit109.com >>> Your lose. High-end users don't have to use ff frame but for quality >>> they demand they will. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > The D2X is not as good at high ISO's. Far nosier. Yes, this is the reason that Nikon will have to go to full-frame if they want to compete in the high-end professional segment. Everyone agrees that the D2x competes against the Canon 1D Mark II, not the 1Ds Mark II, though it's noisier that the 1D Mark II as well. The major reason you have some individuals dismissing full-frame, is not because they don't understand the benefits of it, but because they're afraid that their equipment will somehow be obsolete if something better comes out. This is a bad reason to be against Nikon coming out with higher-end products. Then again, there are still people complaining about Canon moving from the FD mount to the EOS mount, 20 years after the event occurred! Steve "http://digitalslrinfo.com" >>>> Your lose. High-end users don't have to use ff frame but for quality >>>> they demand they will. [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] >Steve >"http://digitalslrinfo.com" Makes more sense to worry about lenses you may have just bought going obsolete than expecting ancient 35mm lenses to be fully usable on modern digital cameras. You got your money's worth out of them a long time ago, move on. -Rich > Everyone agrees that the D2x competes against the Canon 1D Mark II, not > the 1Ds Mark II, That is only true if you define "everyone" as "you". No one else seems to think that. > though it's noisier that the 1D Mark II as well. I don't care if there is a measurable difference, when noise is not a visual issue at all. SignatureJeremy | jeremy@exit109.com >>>> Your lose. High-end users don't have to use ff frame but for quality >>>> they demand they will. [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > Canon moving from the FD mount to the EOS mount, 20 years after the event > occurred! I'm a professional video cameraman, and I've been using CCD imaging sensors since they first became commerically available (replacing tubes) in the late 1980s. There has been an unbelieveable evolution of the technology in a very short time. Today's video cameras have a full five to seven stops better sensitivity (compared to their brethren of 10 years ago) at the same noise levels. It may be true that full frame will always have an advantage over a smaller sensor, but it will become increasingly less important as the technology continues to progress. I wouldn't count DX out just yet... Toby >I'm a professional video cameraman, and I've been using CCD imaging sensors >since they first became commerically available (replacing tubes) in the late [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >smaller sensor, but it will become increasingly less important as the >technology continues to progress. I wouldn't count DX out just yet... Video has more less fixed resolution limits. There is no point in making a 10 Mpixel video camera when nobody has a display device that can handle that kind of resolution (of course, you can always print to film :-) For photography it is different. There are a lot of people who make prints on printers (and with large enough print sizes) that exceed the resolution of common digital cameras. So the question is, do we need more resolution or not. Do we want 30 Mpixels out of a 35mm format camera or not. If the answer is that 12 Mpixels is enough, then Nikon can just continue improving the D2X and can make sure that lenses are really optimized for that kind of resolution. If the answer is that we do want that kind of resolution, then it will be relatively easy for Canon to produce a fullframe camera with that resolution and it will become very hard for Nikon to produce something that matches a 30 Mpixel fullframe camera for the same kind of money. It is just a matter of physics. SignatureThat 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 > >I'm a professional video cameraman, and I've been using CCD imaging sensors > >since they first became commerically available (replacing tubes) in the late [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > that matches a 30 Mpixel fullframe camera for the same kind of money. > It is just a matter of physics. It's a matter of physics in relation to the current technology. However, there's no reason to believe that these obstacles are insurmountable. SignatureRegards, Matt Clara www.mattclara.com >> If the answer is that we do want that kind of resolution, then it will be >> relatively easy for Canon to produce a fullframe camera with that [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >It's a matter of physics in relation to the current technology. However, >there's no reason to believe that these obstacles are insurmountable. I think lens technology is quite mature. For dynamic range, who knows. The same applies to quantum efficiency. The main thing is that Canon can start today. 30 Mpixels at fullframe 35mm corresponds to 12 Mpixels at 1.6x crop. My guess is that Canon will have the technology for 12 Mpixels at 1.6x crop already for a future 30D. But 30 Mpixels at DX does rely on improvements in dynamic range and noise reduction otherwise it is pointless. SignatureThat 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 > >> Your lose. High-end users don't have to use ff frame but for quality > >> they demand they will. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > The D2X is not as good at high ISO's. Far nosier. Yeah. All the pros shoot their pictures at 12000 ISO. Or not. >>>> Your lose. High-end users don't have to use ff frame but for quality >>>> they demand they will. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > Yeah. All the pros shoot their pictures at 12000 ISO. Or not. That's a rationalization that makes no sense. No one is talking about ISO 12,000, we're talking significant noise at ISO 800. Even then, many pros, i.e. studio photographers will not need to shoot at even ISO 800, so the noise is a non-issue. But there are pros for whom the noise is a big issue, and for whom the $3000 difference between a D2x and an EOS 1Ds Mark II is not an issue at all. The fact remains, that without a low-noise/high-ISO body, Nikon cedes a low-volume part of the market to their competitor. It has less to do with full-frame versus a 1.5 crop factor than it does with the fact that larger pixels are less noisy. >> The D2X is not as good at high ISO's. Far nosier. >Yeah. All the pros shoot their pictures at 12000 ISO. Or not. That's an electric-fence/circular-reasoning trapping. If history had noisier film, you'd be saying sarcastically, "Yeah. All the pros shoot their pictures at 200 ISO. Or not." If history had quieter film, you'd be saying, "Yeah. All the pros shoot their pictures at 200000 ISO. Or not." You go ahead and define the future by the past. I'll move on, thank you. Signature<>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> John P Sheehy <JPS@no.komm> ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< >>> Your lose. High-end users don't have to use ff frame but for quality >>> they demand they will. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > >The D2X is not as good at high ISO's. Far nosier. Oddly enough, Popular Photography said the opposite. -Rich >>>> Your lose. High-end users don't have to use ff frame but for quality >>>> they demand they will. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > Oddly enough, Popular Photography said the opposite. Well that's good enough for me. They're kind of like GWB, anything they say, the opposite is true. >>> Your lose. High-end users don't have to use ff frame but for quality >>> they demand they will. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > The D2X is not as good at high ISO's. Far nosier. There are tradeoffs both ways. It is true that the pixel pitch makes it easier for full frame sensors to achieve low noise at high ISOs, but that is only one aspect of the overall picture, and one that will become increasingly less important as the sensors themselves are improved. As Jeremy points out, there is an issue with vignetting with full frame sensors, as the angle of the light hitting the sensor is far more critical than it is with film. Then there is the fact that a DX sensor uses the better part (center) of the lens in terms of resolution. You remind me of the scoffers who said that medium format would never fly in the days of view cameras ;-) And Nikon is far from dead in the pro market. I was recently on a shoot here in Tokyo for the Imperial new year greeting, and the Nikons still outnumbered the Canons among pros. Toby >As >Jeremy points out, there is an issue with vignetting with full frame >sensors, as the angle of the light hitting the sensor is far more critical >than it is with film. This story is told a lot. The 4/3 system is design in part based on this idea. But so far I did not come a cross a detailed comparison between fullframe digital cameras and (slide) film. Does anybody have a useful URL in this regard? >Then there is the fact that a DX sensor uses the >better part (center) of the lens in terms of resolution. But, a 1.5x crop sensor also demands a 1.5x higher resolution from the lens. Certainly for wide angle, I am not convinced that using the center of a lens is going yield better results than a corresponding longer lens on a fullframe camera. SignatureThat 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 >>As >>Jeremy points out, there is an issue with vignetting with full frame [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > a lens is going yield better results than a corresponding longer lens > on a fullframe camera. The D2x resolves more lpm than the full frame Canon D5. Using the center of the lens, which results in greater magnification, certainly tests the resolving power of the lens itself, but the drop in resolution is balanced by the exclusion of the lens edges. In practical terms, think of it as a perfect teleconverter. I don't know pro who is shy about using a 1.4x teleconverter with a good lens--the drop in quality is not great. Now you have a teleconverter that doesn't use glass--introduces no distortion nor transmissive loss. Certainly if you were to compare two 16x20 inch prints side by side with a magnifying glass you would be able to pick out some differences, but in the real world....? Toby >In practical terms, think of it as a >perfect teleconverter. I don't know pro who is shy about using a 1.4x >teleconverter with a good lens--the drop in quality is not great. I don't know when you last tried a 1.4x TC on a 35mm. Mine doesn't fit (it is designed for telelenses). Anyhow, I expect a 50mm lens to do better than a 35mm with a TC. >Certainly if you were to compare two 16x20 inch prints >side by side with a magnifying glass you would be able to pick out some >differences, but in the real world....? Take a look at the MTF graphs of some of the wide angle lenses and compare them to longer lenses. Certainly for more extreme wide angles it is quite possible that you don't need a 16x20" print. (And to get the same DoF, the longer lens is closed one stop extra, which improves performance considerably at the larger apertures). SignatureThat 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 >>In practical terms, think of it as a >>perfect teleconverter. I don't know pro who is shy about using a 1.4x [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >fit (it is designed for telelenses). Anyhow, I expect a 50mm lens to do >better than a 35mm with a TC. They crap out at about 60mm or so, in my experience, even thought he MFRs suggest 90mm or 100mm minimum. I get good corners with my Kenko Pro 300 DG 1.4x with my Tamron 28-75 at 75mm, but they are noticeably soft at 50mm, and horrible at 28mm (even though the corners are pretty good at 28mm without the TC). Signature<>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> John P Sheehy <JPS@no.komm> ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< >The D2x resolves more lpm than the full frame Canon D5. Using the center of >the lens, which results in greater magnification, certainly tests the [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >side by side with a magnifying glass you would be able to pick out some >differences, but in the real world....? That's certainly an advantage, if you have sufficient light. I wish there was a camera with a 12*8mm 8MP sensor and an EOS mount, instead of using TCs, so I could look through a brighter viewfinder, at the very least, but I would not expect to be able to use it at dawn or dusk, or on cloudy days with a 400mm lens. For that, I need my bigger pixels. Signature<>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> John P Sheehy <JPS@no.komm> ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< > Then there is the fact that a DX sensor uses the > better part (center) of the lens in terms of resolution. True, but with lenses you always need to trade edge quality against size/weight/price. The balance is far at the quality point with traditional "full frame" lenses and DX sensors. That is why Nikon now sells DX lenses that have a better balance for the "semi-pro" market. Now I am waiting for "pro" DX lenses (>300mm, <1.2) for journalists, that might weight and cost half of what the full frame lenses were, delivering the same edge quality as when using traditional lenses with 35mm film. -Michael >Then there is the fact that a DX sensor uses the >better part (center) of the lens in terms of resolution. Yes and no. When you magnify that center 1.5x or 1.6x to get the same size image, the resolution for a given MTF is then 1/1.5 or 1/1.6 what it is for the full frame, relative to the entire frame. Signature<>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> John P Sheehy <JPS@no.komm> ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< > Thus far, the quality advantage of 35mm sensors has been theoretical. > The Nikon D2x is every bit as good as the Canon 1Ds2, and has the advantage > of not having to deal with edge softness issues at wide angle. And the > whole price thing, of course. Jeremy- I'm surprised by the amount of rationalization I hear to justify smaller sensors. No doubt your "edge softness issues" may be a technical detail that may need some work, but that doesn't prove the adequacy of the smaller sensor size. Surely there will always be a situation where a small sensor could be reduced even further to eliminate some residual edge softness or other distortion. I might fall for the "good enough" philosophy if I hadn't played with medium format film cameras in the past. Even a mediocre lens used for a 60 X 90 MM negative requires less enlargement than 24 X 36 MM, producing a final image that is impressive by comparison. This is experience, not theory. Why would this not apply to the comparison between the APS and full frame sensors? Fred >> Thus far, the quality advantage of 35mm sensors has been theoretical. >> The Nikon D2x is every bit as good as the Canon 1Ds2, and has the [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > theory. Why would this not apply to the comparison between the APS and > full frame sensors? Actually not. The smaller sensors just pack more pixels in a smaller space, so the resolution remains (or can remain) high. The beauty of DX for me is that with the addition of a single lens at the wide end, my whole kit just covers 1.5x the range it used to, and at the same maximum lens aperture! My 1000 f11 just became a 1500mm f11. My 150-500 f5.6 zoom just became a 225-750 f5.6 zoom. As I do a lot of long work, this is a huge advantage. You can couple this with increased DOF at a given magnification (sometimes an advantage, sometimes not), and there remains much to be said for the DX decision, especially among nature photographers and sports photographers and a number of other pros. Toby >I'm surprised by the amount of rationalization I hear to justify smaller >sensors. Rationalization appears to be needed to justify 35mm sized digital sensors. The optimum *film* size and the optimum *sensor* size are not technically identical, despite all of the rationalizations... >No doubt your "edge softness issues" may be a technical detail >that may need some work, but that doesn't prove the adequacy of the [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] >theory. Why would this not apply to the comparison between the APS and >full frame sensors? Applying your logic... the clear answer is that for the precisely same reason that 35mm film is more popular than 90mm film, so it is that smaller digital sensors have a distinct advantage over larger ones. That is *not* to say that the larger formats, either for film or for digital sensors, do not produce technically better images. It merely says that the smaller formats produce technically *good* *enough* imagees, and have a host of other advantages for both the manufacturer and the end user. SignatureFloyd L. Davidson http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) floyd@apaflo.com > I'm surprised by the amount of rationalization I hear to justify smaller > sensors. No doubt your "edge softness issues" may be a technical detail > that may need some work, but that doesn't prove the adequacy of the > smaller sensor size. But the pictures do, and the larger sensor in the 1Ds2 doesn't produce pictures appreciably better than the D2x. > I might fall for the "good enough" philosophy if I hadn't played with > medium format film cameras in the past. Even a mediocre lens used for a > 60 X 90 MM negative requires less enlargement than 24 X 36 MM, producing a > final image that is impressive by comparison. And yet 24x36mm proved to be "good enough" for most uses. And of course people said the same thing about medium format. > This is experience, not theory. Why would this not apply to the > comparison between the APS and full frame sensors? Perhaps 24x36mm isn't enough bigger to matter. Medium format film is much larger than 35mm, not just a little. Why settle for the inherent limitations of a 24x36mm sensor? Larger ones are available, after all, larger enough to actually matter. We've already surpassed the quality of 35mm film, a level of quality that proved to be "good enough" for most. If you're into pixel-counting and bragging on the size of your sensor -- or you just like shooting at 12mm on 24x36 -- then use a 1Ds2. It'll cost you a couple thousand dollars more, and it'll get you your super-wide-angle if you need it, but it won't make your pictures any better. I might fall for the "bigger is better" philosophy if I hadn't shot a few thousand pictures with a D2x and never found any issue with noise. It baffles me why people are *asking* to pay more for basically no actual benefit. You already need to use the very best lenses to get the most out of a D2x or other high-end SLR; if that's not good enough, then Phase One has some digital backs you may be interested in. Not worth the trade-offs for me, but that's where bigger really will be better. The jump to 24x36mm might be "better" in theory, but the pictures don't show it, so why care? SignatureJeremy | jeremy@exit109.com > I might fall for the "bigger is better" philosophy if I hadn't shot a few > thousand pictures with a D2x and never found any issue with noise. It [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > -- > Jeremy | jeremy@exit109.com If you are interested in some good examples of what a PhaseOne can do then look here: http://camera.digitalguitararchive.com I realize that not all the sample images show a benefit over a D2x, etc., but look at the detail image and tell me if any Canon, Nikon, etc. can show that much detail without color artifacts from 10 feet away. > I realize that not all the sample images show a benefit over a D2x, > etc., but look at the detail image and tell me if any Canon, Nikon, > etc. can show that much detail without color artifacts from 10 feet > away. Er, isn't that what I said? SignatureJeremy | jeremy@exit109.com > I'm surprised by the amount of rationalization I hear to justify smaller > sensors. No doubt your "edge softness issues" may be a technical detail > that may need some work, but that doesn't prove the adequacy of the > smaller sensor size. Surely there will always be a situation where a > small sensor could be reduced even further to eliminate some residual edge > softness or other distortion. Often, there is an attempt to define the issue as "full-frame" and then go into a tirade about how 35mm has no bearing on digital. The real issue is the benefits of a larger sensor, with larger pixels, and lower noise, which no one disputes. The differences between a high-end professional camera such as the Canon EOS-1Ds Mark II, and a camera like the D2x are perfectly clear, as evidenced by the extensive numbers of reviews and comparisons. It's true that to some people, who never need to use an ISO speed over 400, that the differences in noise are inconsequential, but to many professionals the differences are deal-breaker for Nikon. While efforts at noise reduction in smaller sensors helps, you can't fight the laws of physics. Nikon made a perfectly ambiguous statement about larger sensors, couching it in 35mm terms to try to make it appear as if the issue were not simply about resolution and noise, and trying to turn it into an issue of lenses. The ability to use legacy lenses is indeed part of the appeal of a full-frame sensor, but only part of the appeal. Even a 1.2 crop factor would be sufficient for Nikon to play at the high end. Many professionals limit themselves to 80% or so of full-frame on full frame digital SLRs (and on film). This is to reduce chromatic aberration from the edges of the lens. This essentially means that they are imposing a 1.25 crop factor on themselves. This makes the Canon EOS-1D Mark II an attractive proposition, since it effectively enforces shooting through the center of the glass (though it appears that Canon isn't interested in continuing with the 1.3 crop factor). It's no secret that shooting center glass has always had advantages, even when using film. The reality is that the volumes for a full-frame, high-end, professional D-SLR are pretty small, due to the expense. Maybe Nikon just cedes this segment to Canon (like Boeing ceded the Super-Jumbo market to Airbus, believing that they couldn't sell enough of them to make a go of it). Steve http://digitalslrinfo.com/ > The differences between a high-end professional camera such as the > Canon EOS-1Ds Mark II, and a camera like the D2x are perfectly clear, > as evidenced by the extensive numbers of reviews and comparisons. No matter how many times you say it, this fantasy of yours isn't going to become true. > It's true that to some people, who never need to use an ISO speed > over 400, that the differences in noise are inconsequential, but to > many professionals the differences are deal-breaker for Nikon. The difference is noise is inconsequential, ISO 400 or not. > While efforts at noise reduction in smaller sensors helps, you can't > fight the laws of physics. And the laws of physics apparently say that 24x36mm isn't enough larger than APS-C to make any worthwhile difference. SignatureJeremy | jeremy@exit109.com >> Your lose. High-end users don't have to use ff frame but for quality >> they demand they will. > > Thus far, the quality advantage of 35mm sensors has been theoretical. Exactly. The market they lost is the group of engineers (which never studied the subject..) who mathmatically calculate image quality. Not a large group of people. SignatureStacey >>> Your lose. High-end users don't have to use ff frame but for quality >>> they demand they will. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >the subject..) who mathmatically calculate image quality. Not a large group >of people. Suppose that Canon would introduce a 50D. Same body as the 5D, same price as the 5D, only one difference, the sensor is a 12 Mpixel 1.6x APS-C sensor. And, of course we can assume that the viewfinder magnification is increased to match the view of the 5D. Now, what do you think is going to be more popular, the 5D or this hypothetical 50D? On average, the main attraction of a smaller format is the lower price. There are people who need small format because otherwise the lenses required would become too long. But when you can get a 35mm fullframe system for the same price as an APS-C system, I have no doubt that most of the market will go to the fullframe system. SignatureThat 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 >Exactly. The market they lost is the group of engineers (which never studied >the subject..) who mathmatically calculate image quality. Not a large group >of people. It is only theoretical in the sense that one of the most obvious uses of FF DSLRs is for full use of wide-angle lenses, and Canon's WA lenses are not stellar performers with FF sensors. When used with lenses that deliver nearly perpendicular light beams to the sensor, the advantages are clear, as in the low-light performance of the 5D. Bigger pixels made of the same material as smaller pixels *do* collect more electrons, and therefore have less random noise and more dynamic range. Signature<>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> John P Sheehy <JPS@no.komm> ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< >>> Well Nikon has just turned the high end pro market over to Canon. >> [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > Your lose. High-end users don't have to use ff frame but for quality > they demand they will. LOL so the Canon users can see how crappy their wide lenses are in the corners? SignatureStacey >>> Well Nikon has just turned the high end pro market over to Canon. >> [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >Your lose. High-end users don't have to use ff frame but for quality >they demand they will. That's what they said about 35mm film too. But here we are... Another point is that what Nikon actually said was *not* that they will never make a 35mm sized digital sensor. They said they are looking at it, but have made no decision. That is *sigificantly* different than the headline on the article or on the assumptions being made from the headline rather than what they actually did say. People need to be more logical and less emotional when analyzing this situation. SignatureFloyd L. Davidson http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) floyd@apaflo.com >>> Well Nikon has just turned the high end pro market over to Canon. >> [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > Your lose. High-end users don't have to use ff frame but for quality > they demand they will. There is a whole other reason for ff that I can't believe I am the only one affected by it and that is the DOF/FOV problem. Does nobody here shoot studio portraits at home except me? Either you need a larger sensor (so you'll have longer focal length lenses be "normal"), or you need faster lenses (larger maximum aperture and corresponding lower ISO sensitivity choices), or you need longer rooms. The third choice is out of the question (for me), the second choice require new lenses and either a new dslr body or a bunch of ND filters, while the first choice merely requires a less-stubborn dslr manufacturer and me to purchase the dslr body fitting my needs that they make. Any guesses on which I prefer? But if Nikon is hellbent on forcing number 2 on me (highly symbolic, I guess, though not intentional) then where is my 60mm f/1.0 lens and a dslr that has an ISO range of 25-400 (yeah, I know all of you dancing in the street about your 5000mm lenses now being 7500mm lenses really want the high end ISO at 25,000 but realistically the range I need is what I stated but wider would be nicer). > ********************************************************* > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > _Light Fantastic_ > Terry Pratchett >There is a whole other reason for ff that I can't believe I am the only one >affected by it and that is the DOF/FOV problem. Does nobody here shoot >studio portraits at home except me? It seem that your rather extreme use of shallow DoF is what you makes you different, not shooting portraits at home. At 50/1.4 does provide a shallow DoF at a DX format. Not as extreme as 85/1.4, but IMHO shallow enough. Some of Nikon's DX format cameras provide flash sync at 1/16000. But I have to admit that Nikon's more recent cameras seem to have lost that feature. SignatureThat 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 >>There is a whole other reason for ff that I can't believe I am the only >>one [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > have > to admit that Nikon's more recent cameras seem to have lost that feature. Hmm, actually I hadn't experimented with what that will do. I do know that the flash duration of my flash units (Bowens) is about 1/1200 sec so I am not sure what the ramifications are (and how repeatable) of capturing less than 10% of the entire flash. Do you have any idea? >Hmm, actually I hadn't experimented with what that will do. I do know that >the flash duration of my flash units (Bowens) is about 1/1200 sec so I am >not sure what the ramifications are (and how repeatable) of capturing less >than 10% of the entire flash. Do you have any idea? I played with it some time ago. A Metz 60 CT II on full blast at close distance (that's something like 1/200s) and a D1 set to 1/12000. It worked fine. Of course you have to experiment, but the whole thing is electronic, so repeatability is likely to be quite good. SignatureThat 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 >> Some of Nikon's DX format cameras provide flash sync at 1/16000. But I >> have [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >not sure what the ramifications are (and how repeatable) of capturing less >than 10% of the entire flash. Do you have any idea? If you tend to be creative with using flash for fill light, or use flash as the main light with any significant amount of ambient light, you'll definitely want to do some experimenting with your flash to see what the effects are! (And yes it will be repeatable.) Historically older SLRs had mechanical shutters which could sync to a flash at some relatively slow speed. Some focal plane shutters were only fully open at 1/30 or slower, many at 1/60th, and only really good ones went to 1/125 or 1/250th of a second. At speeds that were too fast only a slit between the front and rear curtains would be open when the flash fired, which would expose only that portion of the film uncovered by the slit. Hence it simply wasn't possible to use a shutter speed anywhere near the short duration of the flash itself. With a shutter that can sync all the way up to 1/16000th of a second, things change. For a scene that is illuminated _only_ by flash, the exposure will not change as the shutter speed is adjusted from the slowest possible speed up to being equal to the flash duration. But when the shutter speed is made faster than the flash duration the exposure will be reduced in direct relation to the shutter speed, just as with any other form of illumination. The real fun is when there is ambient light too! For example, think of a scenario where the correct exposure is with a shutter speed of 1/1000 of a second, the flash duration is also 1/1000 of a second, with there is ambient light that is 2 stops less than the flash. If the shutter speed is made faster and the aperture is opened up to compensate, there will be no change. (Which simply was not possible with shutters that could not sync as fast as the flash.) But, if the shutter speed is made slower and the aperture is closed down more, there will be different lighting ratios between the flash and ambient depending on how far we go. (This type of manipulation, which changes the balance between flash and ambient light, was historically available at shutter speeds up to the maximum X sync speed.) If the shutter speed is set to twice as long (1/500 compared to 1/1000 in the above example), the amount of flash exposure does not change, while the ambient light in doubled and is now only 1 stop less than the flash. If we set the shutter speed at 1/250, the amount of exposure from ambient and flash is equal. Note that to keep area that are illuminated by both light sources at the same exposure, the aperture would have to be stopped down something less than 1/2 an additional stop for 1/500 shutter speed and just less than 1 full additional stop at 1/250 shutter speed. The difference with a shutter that can sync all the way up to 1/16000 of a second is that you need to keep track of the relationship between the flash duration and the shutter speed in order to manipulate ambient vs. flash illumination levels. For folks that put the flash on auto, it makes no difference, except fast shutter speeds make it impossible for the flash to regulate exposure by changing flash durations, and hence should be avoided if the auto exposure is expected to work. SignatureFloyd L. Davidson http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) floyd@apaflo.com > There is a whole other reason for ff that I can't believe I am the only one > affected by it and that is the DOF/FOV problem. I don't seem to have any trouble getting so little depth of field that having focus off by half an inch will ruin the shot. SignatureJeremy | jeremy@exit109.com >> There is a whole other reason for ff that I can't believe I am the only >> one [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > having > focus off by half an inch will ruin the shot. Hi Jeremy, How much distance are you able to have between: a) subject and camera b) subject and background I know I could PP the background, but that would be a time wasting PITA, IMHO. George PS--Some additional info: Room is 11'-8" x 11'-4" (11' ceiling is nice though) and mostly open to dining room, i.e., I can steal a little space there. So, for me: a) about 7' b) from 2' at the shortest and about 4' if I move some stuff into the dining room Does this sound about ideal for the kind of problem I mentioned, or am I missing something? It worked fine with my 35mm equipment. > I know I could PP the background, but that would be a time wasting PITA, > IMHO. Yeah, that's definitely not the way to go. > Room is 11'-8" x 11'-4" (11' ceiling is nice though) and mostly open to > dining room, i.e., I can steal a little space there. So, for me: [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Does this sound about ideal for the kind of problem I mentioned, or am I > missing something? It worked fine with my 35mm equipment. I see no problem. At headshot-framing distance, for example, you won't even get the whole face (nose to ears) in focus at the same time without stopping down to maybe f/4. If you're going for the eyes in focus and gradual softening on everything else, just open up a bit. Beyond f/2 or so the effect starts to look deliberate rather than subtle; if *that's* what you're going for, then you've always needed somewhat "special" lenses even in 35mm. Get yourself the 50mm f/1.4 or the 50mm f/1.2 (if your subjects don't mind you being a little bit "in their face" and their faces can handle the perspective), or, a lot more expensive but more forgiving, the 85mm f/1.4, which will let you back off a bit but won't be short enough for a full-length shot in the space you have. If you're trying to completely blur away the background of a full-length or three-quarter person shot, your subject is too close to the background, even for 35mm. SignatureJeremy | jeremy@exit109.com Does Nikon offer any "big pro" lenses for Photo journalists (e.g. more than 300 mm, less than 1.2) for the DX format yet ? -Michael > Does Nikon offer any "big pro" lenses for Photo journalists (e.g. more > than 300 mm, less than 1.2) for the DX format yet ? Hmm. Longer than 300mm, less than f/1.2. Does *anyone* offer lenses fitting that description in SLR format? SignatureJeremy | jeremy@exit109.com >> Does Nikon offer any "big pro" lenses for Photo journalists (e.g. more >> than 300 mm, less than 1.2) for the DX format yet ? > Hmm. Longer than 300mm, less than f/1.2. Does *anyone* offer lenses > fitting that description in SLR format? No. AFAIK the all-time record at 35mm is the Nikkor 300/2 (no longer made, $29,000 list in 1983). And most of these were converted to motion picture mounts for the movie industry... Andrew. > Well Nikon has just turned the high end pro market over to Canon. Hardly. Nikon weren't producing full-frame DSLRs before the announcement. If one judges high-end-pro-market by sensor size, I believe that Leaf has the biggest penis (sensor, whatever) at the moment and I don't see people falling over each other to dump their 1DsIIs for 645AFDIIs. IME high end pros (incidentally i'm just going to throw that phrase about like it means something) tend to shoot what the hell they are told is good, and now more than ever there are enough dissenting voices out there creating doubt (forums) to make the high end pro market wide open. Martin >> Well Nikon has just turned the high end pro market over to Canon. > [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > Martin "High end pros" (whatever that means) shoot with whatever gets them the shot they need. Most of the news pros that I know are still shooting with D1x's. If a "high end pro" needs to do a lot of available light, then they are well advised to go Canon. If they need reach, they are well advised to go with DX. The only people who really care to debate non-issues like full-frame vs DX are insecure amateurs with equipment fetishes. Toby >> Well Nikon has just turned the high end pro market over to Canon. > [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > Martin "High end pros" (whatever that means) shoot with whatever gets them the shot they need. Most of the news pros I know in Tokyo are still shooting with D1x's and old Canons. If a "high end pro" needs to do a lot of available light work at very high ISOs (not a large market) then they are well advised to go with Canon full frame; if they need reach for sports or nature work then DX is clearly advantageous. The only people who seem to seriously care about the full frame vs. DX issue are amateurs with equipment fetishes ;-) Toby > Well Nikon has just turned the high end pro market over to Canon. Not necessarily. Look at the weasel words, "but it's not clear at this moment if we go for it." > "Nikon Denies Possibility of Making 35mm Full-Frame Sensor > Industry watchers have been discussing if Nikon Corp., Tokyo, Japan, [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > possibly puzzle some users in finding effective focal length related > to angle of view," he says. Nikon is in a difficult position. They desperately want to go to full frame, but they have no full-frame, low-noise sensor available yet. If they announce that they're working on full-frame, they will Osborne* sales of the D2X*. OTOH, if they absolutely deny that they'll ever come out with a full-frame camera, the pros will all simply abandon Nikon and move over to Canon. So the best option is for Nikon to do exactly what their doing, leave the door open for full frame, but don't promise that it will be available any time soon. *For those non-Silicon Valley people, 'Osborned' (or to 'Osborne' oneself), is to promise a follow-on product that is then delayed, but kills demand for the current product and sinks the company. This is what Adam Osborne did with his company. > > Well Nikon has just turned the high end pro market over to Canon. > [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > their doing, leave the door open for full frame, but don't promise that > it will be available any time soon. Pretty well reasoned, except the part where you claim that pros will abandon Nikon if they don't feel a ff sensor is forth coming. There are a lot of pros who could simply care less. SignatureRegards, Matt Clara www.mattclara.com >> Nikon is in a difficult position. They desperately want to go to full >> frame, but they have no full-frame, low-noise sensor available yet. If [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > Nikon if they don't feel a ff sensor is forth coming. There are a lot of > pros who could simply care less. Yes, I should have been more specific as to which sort of pros actually care about the benefits of larger sensors. It isn't so much full-frame, as being able to offer low-noise at higher ISOs, and being able to come out with professional lenses for the smaller sensors. Even though larger pixels will always be lower noise, if all else is equal, at some point it may be academic if the noise levels are low enough. Nikon (or more accurately, Sony) isn't there yet. It'll be interesting to see how the Cypress sensor in the Olympus E-330 fares. The early sensors from Fill-Factory (which Cypress took over) were pretty bad. Nikon has already lost all the early adopters that absolutely needed low-noise and a full line of professional lenses. These are the most profitable customers. If they come out with these products now, they'll be selling to a much smaller TAM. So maybe it's better to just forget it. Not every company can sell into all market segments. Still, it'd be good for consumers if Canon had some competition at the high end. > >> Nikon is in a difficult position. They desperately want to go to full > >> frame, but they have no full-frame, low-noise sensor available yet. If [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] > it. Not every company can sell into all market segments. Still, it'd be > good for consumers if Canon had some competition at the high end. I understand, you have to cut your losses at some point, but if Canon had "just forgot it" 25 years ago, they wouldn't be market leader today. SignatureRegards, Matt Clara www.mattclara.com > I understand, you have to cut your losses at some point, but if Canon had > "just forgot it" 25 years ago, they wouldn't be market leader today. I read a case study of Canon in Harvard Business Review once, on how they decided to leverage and expand their core competencies of optics, micro-mechanics, and electronics, to become the leader in cameras, photocopiers, and printers. The investment in sensor technology would probably never have been made, had they looked strictly at return on investment--they could have done as most other companies did and rely on sensors from a supplier. Nikon was stunned by the introduction of the EOS system, they'd had the 35mm pro market pretty much to themselves until then. >Nikon was stunned by the introduction of the EOS system, they'd had the >35mm pro market pretty much to themselves until then. Nonsense. There was nothing to be "stunned" by. For years from its introduction in 1987, the EOS system was a complete joke. Pros had not the slightest interest in the EOS system because it completely failed to address their needs. Canon merely wasted their time, effort and money in developing successive mediocre consumer grade EOS camera bodies and lenses. That began to change with the EOS-1, which was the first EOS camera that could be taken seriously for pro use. The EOS-1n began to earn Canon respect among pros for the first time since the demise of the outstanding Canon F-1. A wider range of L glass also helped. That respect increased considerably in 2000 with the successor to the 1N, the EOS-1V. Together with the EOS 3, which was introduced in 1998, Canon at last had two pro SLR bodies in 2000 that could compete on level terms with the Nikon F5 and F100. But from 1987 until 1998/2000, Nikon had no reason to see Canon as a real competitor, let alone to be "stunned". >>Nikon was stunned by the introduction of the EOS system, they'd had the >>35mm pro market pretty much to themselves until then. [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > But from 1987 until 1998/2000, Nikon had no reason to see Canon as a > real competitor, let alone to be "stunned". "Years" would be accurately "two and a half years." (March, 1987, intro of the 650 to Sept. 1989, intro of the EOS1.) The 1n was introduced in Nov. 1994, the 1v in March, 2000. Indeed, the 3 was introduced in 1998 (Nov.) SignatureSkip Middleton http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com >>>Nikon was stunned by the introduction of the EOS system, they'd had the >>>35mm pro market pretty much to themselves until then. [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] >"Years" would be accurately "two and a half years." (March, 1987, intro of >the 650 to Sept. 1989, intro of the EOS1.) Pros didn't buy the EOS-1. It was regarded as a good first attempt, but not anywhere near enough to tempt pros away from Nikon. The EOS-1n was better, but the EOS-1V was the first EOS body that pros took seriously, and that came in 2000. I rest my case. Canon enthusiasts may with to spin it another way, but that is how it really was. >Indeed, the 3 was introduced in 1998 (Nov.) I already stated that, Skip. >>>>Nikon was stunned by the introduction of the EOS system, they'd had the >>>>35mm pro market pretty much to themselves until then. [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] > EOS-1n was better, but the EOS-1V was the first EOS body that pros > took seriously, and that came in 2000. You're the one who said, "That began to change with the EOS-1, which was the first EOS camera that could be taken seriously for pro use." With the advent of the EOS1, I think the biggest issue was lens availablity. Some of the early lenses for the EF mount were lacking, sadly, in speed, focus speed, despite internal motors, and build quality. The 1n was taken pretty seriously, IIRC, focus was much better than it's predecessor, and built like a tank. It was really the first AF camera to be taken seriously by pros, the Nikons were still better MF than AF cameras, if reports were to be believed. > I rest my case. Canon enthusiasts may with to spin it another way, > but that is how it really was. I was just speaking for the sake of clarity. >>Indeed, the 3 was introduced in 1998 (Nov.) > > I already stated that, Skip. I know, I was acknowledging that... SignatureSkip Middleton http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com > Well Nikon has just turned the high end pro market over to Canon. > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > possibility of commercializing a 35mm full-size sensor, but it's not > clear at this moment if we go for it. That does not sound like the Nikon official is denying the possibility of making new full-size sensors. It instead sounds like a headline writer and news reporter who need a lesson in listening skills. Kimura is definitely leaving open the possibility of a 35mm sensor. Nikon will produce and sell a 35mm sensor the moment they think enough people will buy it to make it worthwhile. Heck, they will produce and sell a 4x5 sensor if they think there is enough demand for it. So will Canon. > Nikon will produce and sell a 35mm sensor the moment they think enough > people will buy it to make it worthwhile. Of course they will produce and sell a camera with a full frame sensor. They will produce a FF camera when they have one. Certainly they must be working on it. SignatureCharles >> Well Nikon has just turned the high end pro market over to Canon. >> [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > sell a 4x5 sensor if they think there is enough demand for it. So will > Canon. Why is everyone still going on about 35mm. This number has no meaning in digital photography except when comparing to film cameras. >Why is everyone still going on about 35mm. This number has no meaning in >digital photography except when comparing to film cameras. Not exactly. Most DSLRs have lens mounts that work with lenses that have reasonable imaging in about a 43mm circle, and for any given number of pixels, with any state of technology, the bigger the area those pixels cover on the focal plane, the higher the DR, and the lower the noise, so a sensor with a 36mm x 24mm area can make maximum use of the existing lens lines. Signature<>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> John P Sheehy <JPS@no.komm> ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< > Not exactly. Most DSLRs have lens mounts that work with lenses that > have reasonable imaging in about a 43mm circle, and for any given number > of pixels, with any state of technology, the bigger the area those > pixels cover on the focal plane, the higher the DR, and the lower the > noise, so a sensor with a 36mm x 24mm area can make maximum use of the > existing lens lines. Would not a larger, square sensor make even better use of it? That is, assuming the lenses are up to the task edge to edge (in which I suspect Nikon actually has a significant advantage). SignatureJeremy | jeremy@exit109.com >> Not exactly. Most DSLRs have lens mounts that work with lenses that >> have reasonable imaging in about a 43mm circle, and for any given number >> of pixels, with any state of technology, the bigger the area those >> pixels cover on the focal plane, the higher the DR, and the lower the >> noise, so a sensor with a 36mm x 24mm area can make maximum use of the >> existing lens lines. >Would not a larger, square sensor make even better use of it? Sure. Even a round one. >That is, >assuming the lenses are up to the task edge to edge (in which I suspect >Nikon actually has a significant advantage). Well, I've always heard that Nikon has better wide-angle lenses than Canon. Canon's forte lies on the longer end. Signature<>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> John P Sheehy <JPS@no.komm> ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< > Why is everyone still going on about 35mm. This number has no meaning in > digital photography except when comparing to film cameras. You're right. It isn't 35mm that's important, it's a sensor with pixels large enough for the noise to be low at high ISO, without sacrificing resolution. The only relevance of 35mm is all the legacy lenses. > The only relevance of 35mm is all the legacy lenses. And the legacy photographers who continue to identify field of view as a function of specific focal lengths. --/<eith >> The only relevance of 35mm is all the legacy lenses. > > And the legacy photographers who continue to identify field of view as a > function of specific focal lengths. > > --/<eith That whole statement form Nikon was rather bizarre. First, rather than a subject line of "Nikon will not go to full frame..." the Nikon statement really should have generated a subject line such as "Nikon doesn't Rule Out Full Frame D-SLR," based on ""We have been exploring the possibility of commercializing a 35mm full-size sensor, but it's not clear at this moment if we go for it." And of course that statement makes on sense at all if you believe the first statement of "35mm is a film format, which I do not think is necessary in the digital era." If it isn't necessary then why are they exploring the possibility? We all know the real reasons for the mixed messages. Nikon is feverishly working on full-frame, but they can't say so outright, because it would Osborne sales of the D2x. OTOH, they can't rule out the possibility of full-frame, since it would cause many professionals to move to Canon. In terms of raw market-share numbers, full-frame will help Nikon very little, other than giving new buyers a warm feeling that they'll be able to upgrade their camera body at sometime in the future. > And of course that statement makes [no] sense at all if you believe the > first statement of "35mm is a film format, which I do not think is > necessary in the digital era." If it isn't necessary then why are they > exploring the possibility? That's one guy saying he doesn't think it's necessary. He may be wrong. I don't think it's necessary, either; I may be wrong, too. So of course they're going to look into it, even if they don't think it'll turn out to be necessary. It would be terribly arrogant to rule it out just based on "well, I don't think it's necessary." SignatureJeremy | jeremy@exit109.com >> The only relevance of 35mm is all the legacy lenses. > > And the legacy photographers who continue to identify field of view as a > function of specific focal lengths. > > --/<eith See my reply to Steve. It's not that simple, or clear cut. SignatureSkip Middleton http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com >> Why is everyone still going on about 35mm. This number has no meaning in >> digital photography except when comparing to film cameras. > > You're right. It isn't 35mm that's important, it's a sensor with pixels > large enough for the noise to be low at high ISO, without sacrificing > resolution. The only relevance of 35mm is all the legacy lenses. In a way, yes, but in others, no. A legacy lens group would include the Canon 16-35 f2.8L. Canon does not make a lens that covers the equivalent FOV in as fast an aperture for the 1.6x crop cameras. So, a "legacy lens" and full frame is your only choice if you are looking for an FOV that is that wide and a lens that is that fast. Same with the 24-70 f2.8L. Yes, the 10-22 is as wide as the 16-35, but it's not as fast, same with the 17-85IS compared to that 24-70. SignatureSkip Middleton http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com >>> Why is everyone still going on about 35mm. This number has no meaning in >>> digital photography except when comparing to film cameras. [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > the 10-22 is as wide as the 16-35, but it's not as fast, same with the > 17-85IS compared to that 24-70. No professional grade super-wide-angle zoom lenses, that sufficiently compensate for the 1.5 or 1.6 crop factor, are available from either Nikon or Canon. If you want such a zoom range in a fast lens, you have to go with a larger sensor camera from Canon. The difference is that Nikon is likely to eventually come out with such a lens for the 1.5 crop factor, whereas Canon is not going to come out with one for the 1.6 crop factor. I.e. Nikon is likely to come out with a professional version of a lens similar to their 12-24mm f/4 lens (one that goes down to f/2.8), whereas Canon is not going to come out with an EFs 10-22 f/2.8. Canon would expect you to use a full-frame body, and use the existing EF 16-35mm f/2.8L for that sort of zoom range. > Well Nikon has just turned the high end pro market over to Canon. What they "turned over" is the market for gear heads and engineer types who DEMAND a full frame sensor without ever actually looking at image quality. They accept low quality lens performance in the corners just to be able to claim "I have a full frame sensor camera with larger photo sites!" and look at 100% crops at ISO 3200. Those aren't "pro" photograpghers. > "35mm is a film format, which I do not think is necessary in the > digital era," says Makoto Kimura of Nikon. Smart man. Sensor technology is improving all the time and lower noise sensors with higher densities have arrived with each new sensor. Why should this stop now? SignatureStacey > Well Nikon has just turned the high end pro market over to Canon. > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > digital SLR. A Nikon top official denied the possibility of making new > full-size sensors, Photo Trade Express reports. Or, they could have been looking at historical trends over the last 100 or so years. Every time there is a major change in image capture technology, the image size has also decreased. When they changed from glass plates to roll-film, big decrease. Why didn't everybody use medium format film 30 years ago? Because 35mm was good enough for most purposes. You don't need a full-frame 35mm digital sensor because an APS-C or 4/3 is good enough. Some people don't understand the concepts of good enough vs costs too much. > format film 30 years ago? Because 35mm was good enough for most > purposes. You don't need a full-frame 35mm digital sensor because an > APS-C or 4/3 is good enough. Some people don't understand the concepts > of good enough vs costs too much. Yes, for most purposes the smaller sensors are good enough, and they are cheaper. The debate really centers around the small segment of professional photographers that require both high resolution and low noise at high ISO. At this point in time, the only way to achieve this is with larger pixels. The only way to have larger pixels and higher resolution is with larger sensors. Whether it's 36x24, 29x19, 30x20, whatever, is immaterial. If Nikon came out with something even halfway between 24x16 and 36x24, and was able to achieve sufficiently low noise at high ISO, then they could play in the high end segment. They could even claim that it's an advantage, because you're not shooting through the outer area of the lens. The volumes are so low in the high-end, that maybe there's only really room for one player. >> Well Nikon has just turned the high end pro market over to Canon. >> [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > Some people don't understand the concepts of good enough vs costs too > much. What's good enough for you may not be good enough for me, or for several other people. One of the problems with this worl |
Enable EMail Alerts
Start New Thread
Reply to this Message