How come no full size sensor?

Was wondering why Nikon doesn't have a full size sensor for any of thier dslrs. Are

they planning to make any? Or maybe I'm wrong, does Nikon make a dslr with full size

sensor?

You find this question discussed in this forum xy times. Why should Nikon bring a full format sensor? Because Canon has one? How does it sell? The DX format already delivers better quality than 35mm film. Questions like this show that we still have only traditional formats in our head. You can't compare apples with pears. Im glad of the cheaper and lighter DX lenses.

Money Honey --Elvis Presley

Try Kodak. DCS Pro SLR/n, 13.8 Megapixel, $5K.

why, do you need one?

Three words: depth of field. Specifically, it's very hard to throw backgrounds out of focus with a DSLR that uses a smaller sensor.

thats complete bs...

<BLOCKQUOTE><I>Three words: depth of field. Specifically, it's very hard to throw backgrounds out of focus with a DSLR that uses a smaller sensor.</I></BLOCKQUOTE>

I have had no problem with this using my 50mm/1.8 or 105mm/2.0 mounted on my D70. Using the 105 wide open sometimes gives me way too shallow DOF, but it is fun! :-)<P>

 

Personally I would rather pay these kind of amounts of money for good glass than the extra increase in sensor size. YMMV.

I would like a full size sensor because I have a 28 1.4 and and 85 1.4 and they are the best lenses I've ever had my mitts on and perfect for street/travel photography, and I don't want a 41 mm and a 137 mm or whatever. And DOF is greater with a smaller sensor, for a given angle of view.

Depth of field?!?

 

Have you ever used a 110 camera or, heavens forbid, one of those 007 ones? Difficult to get out focus regions from these formats?

(Well, it is difficult to get focused regions sometimes).

 

Vivek.

how come no one takes this seriously?

 

physical sensor size is a lot more important that megapixels, which everyone always seems to rave about. people like the degree of control over focus and depth of field 35mm gives them. why is it so wrong to want a 35mm-size digital camera?

tell that to sports photogs...

Of course it is not wrong to want one. But very few seems to want to pay for one. Kodak makes a full-sensor camera for the Nikon mount for those that are willing to pay.

 

Sure, I would like to see (and own) one with the Nikon logo on it, but I still don't think that I would pay for one with the prices of today. But as technology evolves and larger sensors become cheaper this will change.

Kodak DCS Pro at $5,000? I'll take 4 please. One to keep in my NYC SoHo loft, one for

my villa near Volterra, one for my ski chalet in the Swiss Alps and one for my beach

bungalow in Fiji.

 

Yeah, that's it, that's the ticket.

 

No, I ask because I really like the lenses and their focal lengths I use now (24, 35, 50)

and rarely go beyond. That would mean I would have little to no use for my absolute

favorite 50mm f1.8. As well, I'm not a professional, so I can't really write off these

expenses, so it would be preferable to keep the dollar count down and I doubt that

there is a 16mm f2.8 lens out there anywhere near a price I could handle in addition

to the cost of a dslr body.

Yes, pay $5000 for the Kodak DCS Pro, you will get a "full frame" DSLR in the Nikon F mount, based primarily on the $300 Nikon N80 body and you will be able to use your $100 50mm/f1.8 without any crop factor.

Keep in mind that the Canon 1Ds is not cheap either. Listed at $7999 I have seen a price at $7195. I do not doubt that this is a great camera, but these amounts are way out of my league. Other full-frame sensor cameras seem to be in the range $4000 to $7000.

 

Perhaps this answers the question to why at least I am not very sorry for Nikon not having a similar camera. In my world such a camera would have a similar price tag, at least for some time to come. Sometimes I think I was born a century to early... :-)

Benefits of a full size sensor.

 

1) Lens compatability with 35mm framing and it's NOT just the the lens multiplier, it's also the "on print" resolution. Magnifying an image by a factor of 1.5 also reduces the "on print" line count by the same amount. Nikon will either have to produce DX lenses with 1.5 times higher resolution than the typical 35mm lens or go with a larger sensor so that more detail can be captured with current lens technology. From what I have seen with my D70, most lenses are limited out at 6mp, a higher pixel count won't yield more detail because the lens can't resolve it. The only lens that I currently own that could take advantage of a higher pixel count is my 105 micro, it could probably use 8 or 9 mp.

 

2) Larger surface area/pixel resulting in lower noise for a given resolution. If anyone had the guts to make a 4mp full frame sensor it would probably be almost noise free at ISO 800 and at ISO 1600 would exhibit very low noise levels.

 

3) Ability to produce quality that EXCEEDS that of 35mm film, perhaps even approaching medium format.

 

Why doesn't Nikon build one? COST. Full frame sensors are currently very expensive and I believe that when the manufacturing cost drops to a reasonable level we WILL see a full frame Nikon. I don't care what Nikon is saying right now, when Canon starts making a full frame Drebel for a 1000 dollars (maybe in 4 or 5 years), Nikon will have to respond or just go out of business. If the D2X isn't full frame I expect that the generation following will be full frame.

Nikon <b><i>has</i></b> a full-frame sensor. Its dimensions are 23.7 x 15.6mm.

The first time I played around with a Canon EOS 1Ds was in November, 2002. The suggested retail price was $8000 then, almost two years ago. Today, the retail price is still $8000 with an actual "street" price at $7200.

 

The Kodak DCS 14n was introduced a year and half ago at $5000 or so. It had so many problem that it was pretty much a disaster and Kodak replaced it with the DCS Pro/SLRn after a year. The current street price for the new model is still $5000.

 

The prices for "full frame" DSLRs have hardly dropped in the last two years while prices for small-sensor DSLRs have been cut in half in roughly the same period (comparing D100 vs. D70). As I have pointed out over and over, if you are waiting for "affordable" full-frame DSLRs, be prepared to wait for a long time.

<em>"Nikon has a full-frame sensor. Its dimensions are 23.7

x 15.6mm." --Bob Katz<br>

</em><br>

Full frame is 24x36mm, half frame is 18x24mm. This terminology at

least 40 years old. The D70 is 23.7x15.6mm while the D2H is 23.3x15.5mm;

neither is full format. Those who are desperate to believe that

Nikon will never make a full frame DSLR make statements like

those above. Its absurd to believe that Nikon is not

developing a full frame DSLR now. Its survival depends on it. <br>

<br>

If the quality and economy of a silicone wafer was not

continually improving the computers we all use today would not

exist, could not exist.<br>

<br>

Why are DX format camera owners so insecure? Do DX format camera

owners believe the worlds patient offices should close? Why

didnt DSLR development stop with the 2.5x factor? This is

the same thinking that said no one will ever break the sound

barrier. The name "Sound Barrier" implies that it cant

be broken. This is the same thinking that said man will never

walk on the moon. Nikon will break the DX Barrier. Its only

a matter of corporate survival. Its only a matter of time.

Simple: if/when the target market would require a full-frame (read 35mm size) sensor, then Nikon would come out with one. Up to now, I believe that Nikon has gone through considerable marketing models that show that A full frame (35mm size) sensor :

 

a) is not worth the effort with current technology (read-- smaller sized sensors are much more attractive to the market at their current price)

 

b) is not marketable with a reasonable profit margin

 

c) costs too much to design/manufacture

 

 

The same answers apply to: (replace full-frame sensor with these)

 

a) A real prism on the D70

 

b) AI/AIS metering with consumer-level cameras

 

c) A Nikkor 105/2.5 AFD

 

 

etc.

The problem relates to the economics of the rest of the semiconductor industry. For all other purposes, the important issue is scale and yield. Smaller features on the die lead to higher performance. Therefore the industry has gone to incredible lengths to make each transistor smaller, while the cost per square inch has soared.

 

Also, wafers are round (with one straight edge), and efficiency in terms of the number of dice that can be cut out of a circle increases as the size of the rectangles decreases.

 

Now, it seems to me that a camera with a 4MP full-frame sensor would be of great value for a whole lot of shooters. It wouldn't be ideal for 30 x 40 prints, but it would be awesome for someone with a bag full of wide Nikkor glass who was working in real estate or journalism - any market where most images end up on the web and in print at less than full page.

 

Unfortunately, most semiconductor costs are now driven by area, not by device count. The only difference in cost between a 14MP sensor and a 4MP sensor is that the yield would be slightly higher on the lower-count unit. Personally, I have no need for digital images beyond 2MP, but I would dearly love to have the same image in all my cameras. However, until someone decides to take an older fab line and dedicate it to low-res sensors, it isn't going to happen except at the very high end. Since I generally have to wait a few years before I can afford this stuff used, it's going to be a long time before I have a full-frame digital.

 

Van

Those little Nikon "DX" lenses are just stop gaps. They'll be practically worthless in 5 years. Sorry if you don't see this coming and you ran out and got a bunch of these already.

<em>"They'll be practically worthless in 5 years."

--Andre Noble<br>

</em><br>

Or not. When a full frame Digital Rebel appears DX lens owners

will surely have at least three years to sell their lenses. Photo

equipment is almost always an expense anyway not an investment.

We only say "Im going to invest..." in this or

that to fool ourselves. When you run a business you put the stuff

in a depreciation schedule and today youd better fund that

reserve for deprecation fully. Most items that apparently

appreciate do not do so in CPI adjusted dollars.

Apparently Nikon is unable to produce a solution to the optical problems that a CCD of that size would produce when current 35 mm lenses are used. There is no question that a full-frame camera is dearly missed by many. Reasons are obvious:

 

1. ability see the image with detail in the viewfinder.

 

2. ability to manual focus and evaluate image sharpness without resorting to a laptop to focus

 

3. much more detail than with dx format sensors

 

4. no need to buy expensive dx lenses, huge base of lenses designed for 35 mm could be used as they are

 

It is quite clear that for those who need the resolution, either Canon 1Ds or a medium format system would be the way to go. Of course, this is much more expensive for users with existing Nikon systems because the lenses for F mount have sunken in value on the second hand market because there is no quality full-frame to take advantage of them in sight. Also, new specialized lenses for F mount get more and more expensive because of diminishing volumes.

 

A lot of people want small sensors, they need it for bird photography, sports photography or whatever. Nikon is becoming a specialized brand for action/news photographers, but since they dont' provide enough AF-S and VR lenses, those users go with Canon as well. It's a pity as competition is always a good thing.

 

I just hope that they would make a full-frame Nikon body with otherwise similar specs to the D2H. If they don't, at least one with a proper size viewfinder.