Nikon Full Frame Digital

I have been waiting for Nikon to develop a full frame 24x36mm

digital chip. Canon and Kodak have introduced them. When will

they??

Why would they??

Let's assume that you, steve johnson, really have need for one because the forthcoming

12.8mp d2X just doesn't have enough resolution for you and further let's pretend that you

are also one of those clueless gits (which clearly you are not) who are incapable of

understanding that a 12mm lens on the Nikon DX size chip projects the same angle of

view onto that size sensor array that an 18mm lens does on 24x36mm media.

Now tell me what your budget is.

 

Is it a.) $8,000 (price of a Canon EOS 1Ds mark )?

 

or is it ...

 

Is it b.) $4500 (approx price of the Kodak DCS Pro SLR/n)?

 

Can you explain to me in simple English why you NEED a DSLR with a 24x36mm sensor

array.

 

My completely uninformed guess is that Nikon may, if they see the market demand is

there, introduce a 24x36mm sensor equipped DSLR late in the summer of 2005 or in the

fall of 2005.

The smaller sensor used by my Nikon D70 does not really bother me, but the small image in the viewfinder and the tunnel vision do. I would be glad to have a small sendor DSLR that could give me the same view I have in my F90X or my F2 (even better). Why cant Nikon magnify the darn image a little (with some internal lens or somethimg else) and give me the perception of a full frame DSLR with a larger image? After all it seems a simpler task than to make a complex DSLR itself.

Folks,

 

Buy a Canon or a Kodak camera. Bigger sensor, better view finders.

Wow, four answers in 41 minutes. I do a lot of interior architectural work. I currently use an F100 with 20-35 and 28-70 Nikkor Zoom Lenses. If I were to go to a wider angle lens the distortion and line convergence possibilies become a problem, no matter the latest lens technology. My hope is that Nikon will ultimately come out with a full frame 35mm digital, comparably priced to the F100, that will be compatable with my existing lenses. In the mean time I will use film and get a CD back from my processor.

I don't know nothin', but I think it's gonna be a while before we see a full-frame digital camera at an F100 price.

" If I were to go to a wider angle lens the distortion and line convergence possibilies

become a problem, no matter the latest lens technology. '

 

Herein lies a misunderstanding...

 

There is no optical or technical reason why 12mm lens on a Nikon digital body has any

more distortion than an 18mm lens on a full frame 35mm body. It is the angle of view of

the lens that creates inherent distortion, not the focal length. For example, designing a

"normal" lens for any given format is a well understood optical problem. So a 43mm lens

on a 35mm film camera is easy. So is a 5mm lens on a 3mm x 4mm format digital sensor,

or a 180mm lens for a 4"x5" camera.

 

There is no good reason for dictating a 24mm x 36mm sensor digital system, other than

maintaining consistency with the lens focal length to angle of view relationship. On the

other hand, cost of the sensor goes up exponentially with size because of the

fundamentals of semiconductor device production. IMHO, there is a better argument for a

larger image sensor related to depth of field.

"I would be glad to have a small sendor DSLR that could give me the same view I have in

my F90X or my F2 (even better). Why cant Nikon magnify the darn image a little (with

some internal lens or somethimg else) and give me the perception of a full frame DSLR

with a larger image? After all it seems a simpler task than to make a complex DSLR itself."

 

This is the exact reason my D100 has been relegated to e-mail and ebay activities, and my

main camera is a trusty old F3HP with some fast AIS Nikkors!

 

Of all the camera types, rangefinder, TLR, view, SLR, etc, it is viewfinder that sets the SLR

apart. Why, oh why, have photogrphers allowed the camera manufacturers to get away

with the disgraceful degradation of SLR vewfinders in recent years? It's like making a

feature rich telephone terminal withh crappy audio quality (come to think ot it, cellular

already done this too!).

 

Oh well.

And I would like a Phase One PH25 for the Hassy H1 to be the same price as the N80.

 

I've been a good boy, Santa.... really!

Steve,

<p>Why wait for Nikon or bother with full-frame, when you can build your own Nikon large-format digital kit yourself:</p>

<p>Canon full-frame = $8,000<br>

Nikon D70 = $ 999</p>

<p>Buy eight D70's for the same price as a Canon, and arrange them in an array of two rows of four to have your very own 48 megapixel IANDC (Integrated Array of Nikon Digital Cameras). </p>

<p>The bonus here, is that by simply changing the configuration to a single row of eight D70's, you've got yourself a mean panoramic digital kit.</p>

<p>You will probably need to budget some duct tape to keep the cameras in your chosen configuration aligned properly.</p>

<p>Remember, you heard it here first! Be the first in your neighbourhood to own one! </p>

<p>Best regards,</p>

<p>Rubens.<br>

<a href="http://www.theimagenation.com">Travel stock photography at www.TheImageNation.com</a></p>

My D2h has a larger view in the viewfinder than either the d100 or the D70. This probably has to do more because Nikon chose those two cameras to have the builtin idiot flash. My D1x and the Kodak DCS760 each have a bigger view finder image as well.

 

Re. Full Frame --- as Ellis stated earlier , if you want full frame you pay money for it. You dont get full frame on a D70, D100 or F100 budget which it sounds like you wnat. No goin to happen this year even from Kodak and Canon.

 

So what you ( and some of my shooting buddies) are actually saying - "When will Nikon introduce a full frame sensor in a digtial camera that is cheaper than the current offerings and make it priced like the camera I am currently using."

 

The Answer - NOT GOING TO HAPPEN SOON!

Ive been waiting for a DSLR that meets my needs. Its

been too damned long. I first looked into a Nikon DSLR back in

1995 or 1996. Well the price and performance of the Nikon/Fuji E2

and E2s just didnt cut it especially at about $9,500.00 and

$12,000.00.<br>

<br>

Why jump all over those who want a full frame DSLR? Yes there is

problem with the cost of the components but these will be worked

out. Its only a matter of time, too much time for some of

us, yes. It will be worked out. Its not a matter of if,

its a matter of when.<br>

<br>

Back in 1985 or 1986 I bought my first hard disk for my IBM PC.

The price was about $450.00 for a paltry 20MB. A friend paid

about $600.00 a few months before for the same drive. Last

Wednesday I bought a 256MB xD Picture Card for $46.95. This full

frame v. APS-C format thing will be worked out. Its not a

matter of if, its a matter of when.<br>

<br>

Why the hell would anyone want a full frame DSLR? Maybe for the

finder of the F6, the low light capabilities of the D2H with the

file size of the D2X? Oh, Hell! No one would want that would

they?<br>

<br>

OK, Pessimists, lay it on me! Why will the future never get any

better than today?<br>

<br>

Best, (or at least the best I can afford)<br>

<br>

Dave Hartman.<br>

<br>

Postscript: can someone spare 32,000 dimes? Thanks in advance!

You probably don't need a larger sensor for the purpose of taking better wide angle pictures. The better DX specific ultrawide lenses have pretty decent properties with low barrel/pincushion and other distortion. Even if they aren't good enough for your application, you're forgetting that it's possible to correct these distortions with very high accuracy using tools like ptlens.

 

Even the 18-70 lens in the D70 kit generates excellent architectural shots at 18mm when the output is run through lens correction software. I use the command line clens program as part of my batch workflow to automatically correct my wide shots based on the exif tags.

The day that Nikon releases an affordable full frame DSLR is the day when they'll gain a sale from me. But I don't see the price for full frame DSLR's going down below the stratosphere until the technology moves to the point where the sensors can be produced economically. $8,000 is an outrageous amount of money for something that's going to depreciate rapidly.

Considering that Mamiya has introduced a digicam with something like double the size and mp of anything offered by the other major players, the question isn't so much when or why with Nikon. If you *really* think you need a bigger sensor and more megapixels, buy the Mamiya. If I'm recalling correctly it's got at least some compatibility with the 645 series lenses.

 

In my opinion, the other players like Nikon, Canon, etc., should concentrate on making the existing cameras more compact and lighter without sacrificing quality. Make that the dividing line. I think it's ridiculous that we're expected to abandon the 35mm paradigm in terms of film format to camera size (which was already getting out of hand with AF/AE SLRs) in exchange for dSLRs closer to the size of medium format cameras. I ain't buying it.

Give digital sometimes and it'll be there.

<p>

It took film 100+ years to get to where it is today. Digital, on the other hand, is 10+ years old.

Somewhere on this very site I read Canon hopes to have full frame cameras doing 8fps and selling for <$5k in a couple years. Yes the price of semiconductor fabrication will drop and eventually you can get yourself your very own full frame camera (with an AA filter unlike the Kodaks) for under 5k. Granted the price on everything else may drop by then but at the moment it's basically a specialty product and there's no reason to say it's good or bad. Perhaps Nikon will wait a while, or perhaps they'll just stay at the lower size, marketing will likely determine that more than anything else.

The brightness and clarity of the viewfinder is a function of the mirror and the prism, not the sensor!

The original Nikon-Fuji digital cameras were marketed as having a full frame image. They used a prism; that remapped the image to a full frame sensor. This seems to bother folks on this board; that Nikon had a full frame response digital; before Canon did; long ago. The local newspaper bought one ; and used the Nikon lenses; some going back decades in age. The Nikon's rep demo for the local paper pushed the about full frame response. Since the local paper had an investment in Nikon lenses; they bought a Nikon digital. Later they junked their internal C41 lines; and just farmed out the dribble of film being processed. They have since moved on to 2 or 3 generations later Nikon digitals; which are sub 24x36mm sensors/response. The few super super wide angle images for a Sunday house-tour story/article is sometimes done with film; and scanned. They use little film anymore. <BR><BR>Many in marketing see "full frame 35mm digital" as not a real big money area; more of a weird niche market; for oddballs. Most all 35mm gear is bought by amateurs; not pros. Thousands and thousands of sub "full frame" cameras are sold; for each high buck; super pro; 24x36mm sensor digital. Joe-Six pack wants a beer at a buck or less. Joe-Amateur photographer wants a decent digital; but is rarely going to pay the price of a car; for a full frame sensor. <BR><BR>By the time a "low cost 24x36mm sensor" is available; most all folks in Amateur will not even know what "full frame" means. With all the complaining about a tad of dust on a sensor; many camera makers like the less bitching customers; who use non removeable lens digitals; ie a way less warranty expense. <BR><BR>What if a low cost "full frame digital" never hits say 600 bucks; even 2 decades from now?

They used a prism; that remapped the image to a <b>SUB</b> full frame sensor.

Lex wrote: "In my opinion, the other players like Nikon, Canon, etc., should concentrate on making the existing cameras more compact and lighter without sacrificing quality."

 

This is a more important point, and thanks, Lex, for making it. A more compact, APS-C sensor based camera is not as glamorous as a full-frame sensor based camera, but it's more important for more people AFAIK.

<em>"The brightness and clarity of the viewfinder is a

function of the mirror and the prism, not the sensor!" --Guy

Hammond<br>

</em><br>

The size of the sensor determines the size of the focus screen so

the sensor is certainly involved in the design and over all

performance of the viewfinder. What really hobbles the N80, D100,

S2, D70 and similar Nikon cameras is a module that provides the

focus points, on demand grid line and the dull red glow from

these when you first press the shutter release. Im told if

there is dust inside it cant be cleaned as the module

sealed. Its probably made of optical acrylic and Im

dubious about what is inside. A best it presents four unnecessary

air to acrylic surfaces. Im sure its a major

contributor to the mushy viewfinders of these cameras. The D70 is

further hobbled by the mirror prism and BrightView Mk V focus

screen. Dont be fooled by brightness, look for clarity.

This is just bad engineering and for good reason, price point

and profit.<br>

<br>

Even the F100, D2H and D2X have inferior engineering in their

viewfinders compared to the F3, F4s, F5 and notably the F6. The

first three do not have condensers and so an acrylic focus screen

with the included Fresnel lens has to do all the correcting for

the angle of incident of light from the lens and delivery to the

eye. I said "notably the F6" because Nikon still finds

it necessary to include a condenser in their top model.<br>

<br>

In photography to get something you usually have to give up

something. When it comes to high quality, high performance

equipment that something is money.<br>

<br>

Regards,<br>

<br>

Dave Hartman.

There are two reasons to want a full-frame sensor. The first is because you already own high-quality wide-angle lenses that you want to continue using. The second is that the physically larger the individual photosites, the easier it is to produce clean signals, simply because you have more photons of light per photosite to play with. The first is becoming less and less of an issue (I wonder if/when Nikon will release a 12-24 f/2.8 DX to match my 17-35 f/2.8). The second, well to quote one famous engineer, ye cannae change the laws o' physics, cap'n. At a given level of signal processing technology, bigger photosites will always mean better photographs in an absolute sense.

 

However, no-one works in an absolute sense. I don't know who I'm quoting here, but they say that a photo made with the camera in your hand is infinitely better than a photo you didn't make with a camera that you don't even own. If DX format can provide acceptable quality (and there is plenty of evidence it can, even at 13x19 or 16x20 inches, with suitable post-processing) at an acceptable price, then it is good enough. I know that I can realistically afford a D2H, I can't justify buying a 1Ds-II, so the only question is, is a DX sensor good enough to match the quality I get from fine 35mm film in my F5? I think it is.

 

Can a 1DS-II full frame sensor exceed that quality? If I took every shot on a clear calm day on a tripod with a prime lens, a cable release and MLU, probably yes. But I mostly shoot handheld, in dreadful light, and on the move. I doubt I ever get more than 2-3MP of real resolution anyway. Full frame is a lot of money and no benefit to me.

I have a Kodak DCS pro SLR/n and I believe that there is another key reason to go for full frame sensors - depth of field or lack of it.

 

I have used mainly medium format before getting the Kodak and I love the shallow depth of field available using faster lens on the bigger format cameras.

 

With the Kodak I can use a 35mm 1.4/2 and I want to get the 85 1.4 or the 105 F2 DC. I like the look of these types of lenses and they are not available in the DX format, a 24mm lens is roughly the same FOV but has a much greater depth of field and they don't make an AF 1.4 or even F2 version.

 

With the current trend for zooms I don't see Nikon making a 24 1.4 and 60 1.4 (the 58 1.2 in AFS would be good!)

 

Tapas