Nikon Full Frame, when?

Hi,

 

Despite a lot of people with Nikon gear saying that full frame will

die out in few years, I just cannot see that happening. On the

contrary I believe that the opposite will happen, i.e. dx will die

out. To me DX was not born out of photographic needs but from the

cost issue. I think Nikon made a conscience decision that full frame

will be too expensive for a good while so they'll make DX sensor which

will be affordable to more people.

 

There are many arguments for DX sensor sizes but except the pricing

argument just about all of them, I believe, are nothing more than a

make believe. Say it enough times and you end up believing it. I'm

not a sensor expert but fundamentally it isn't deficult to see that

FullFrame with the same resolution as DX will always have better noise

perfermance because the pixel sizes on FF sensore will be bigger.

Also given the same pixel size on FF as DX sensors, FF will always

have higher resolution. There is no getting around this fact.

Another thing that bothers me is that DOF using DX sensor. 35mm f2

lens used to create 50mm equivalent on FF will not have the same DOF

as 50mm at f2 on FF and there really aren't any prime lens coming out

for DX sensor from Nikon to address this. Not only that, actually

there are no specific DX prime lens in mid focal lenth to support the

argument that Nikon are totally abandoning FF. Only primes lenses

release specifically for DX are wide angles, came about out of

absolute necessity.

 

Seriously nikon only needs to put "two" DX sensors in a body to get a

fullframe and I can't see that being very deficult. And since prices

of the sensors are coming down fast I can't help but thinking that

there will be a FF in the near future.

 

I'm saving up to buy a D200 but cannot help thinking that as soon as I

buy D200, Fuji or Nikon might just release a FF. I can wait for about

a year since I don't have enough money yet but if I was to know FF

will never happen or it won't happen for the next 2-3 years for then I

might just push the budget a bit and can buy a D200 in next few months

or so. The thing is that it will be a big investment for me and I

really do not want to be suckered into getting a D200 if there will be

a FF waiting around the corner.

 

Should I wait or just get D200?

 

WJ

Get the D200. IT's graet camera!:)

Unless you're shooting professionally in some way that precludes it, you could always shoot film until the answer to the question is clear.

 

I like wide angle lenses and I can't afford to buy new lenses and a digital SLR... so I haven't. I also happen to enjoy the film photography process more, which doesn't hurt... but if Nikon had full-frame DSLRs, I'd be a lot more tempted to add digital to my arsenal.

 

Would a DSLR help your shooting? If so, would the disadvantages of the smaller sensor outweigh that shooting advantage? (There are also some advantages, particularly if you use long telephoto lenses frequently.) Think about it all in context.

 

Unless you're a pro that needs digital to keep up with the competition, make the change if and when it makes sense for you. Your current gear works as well as it ever did.

Just get a D200 and start taking pictures.

 

Speculating when and whether Nikon will introduce any full-frame DSLR and how digital technolgy will evolove is, IMO, a complete waste of time. Just because Nikon releases a FF DSLR some day doesn't mean you'll necessarily like it. We have no idea about price, features, performance .... For example, to me, the Canon 5D is pretty much a useless DSLR because of its slow 3 frames/sec rate and AF system designed for the 20D/30D.

WJ, I know the feeling. I waited and waited and finally bought a D50. I was so hooked on the results that I was fortunate at the time to find a D200 and bought it. I love it. The results are pristine and consistent between every exposure I make with it.

 

As a medium and large format fanatic--only recently reunited with my Nikon equipment--I believe, as you do, that FF is inevitable, and I think you lay out good reasons for it. I have committed no money to DX lenses at this point; I've purchased all AF-D for full frame. I'm just being cautious because I also see signs that make me wonder if Nikon is really committed to DX. Although, I understand the technical limits of DX sensors will allow for a very high pixel density.

 

All I can say is that the images from the D200 take my breath away the very same way it does when I look at a new image from my Hasselblad or LF photos. I wouldn't wait, if for no other reason that I have learned (or relearned) more about my photography from digital in the last several months than I had since my early days shooting Tri-X, Verichrome, and Ektachrome with my Mamiya Sekor 1000 DTL!<g> It has really made my medium and LF work much better too.

Buy what you need and what you can afford today (or relatively near today). Buy the things we know are here and are a good value, and then, use them A LOT. Worrying about the prospects of a full frame (Nikon) camera will only give you frown lines. Also, if you believe your argument that full frame is vastly superior, perhaps you should wonder why more people don't just buy the Canon offering?

 

Hmmmm....on reflection, I think you should wait. In the meantime, could you move a little to your left? You're in my frame. (My old 24mm (AOV=36mm) is still managing to see you. I've taken 10 shots since weﾒve been chatting.)

If you need a larger sensor than the D200's, why not consider getting a Hasselblad or Mamiya? They make digital friendly medium format equipment. The sensors typically start at twice 35 mm full frame in area, so it's about four times as big as DX. Should give nice detail and tones.

 

I use 35 mm and 6x7 film along with D200 ... I don't get enough thrill from my D200 images for some reason. All my Nikon lenses cover FF. I guess DX lenses give better performance but they don't make the kind of DX lenses I would be interested in buying so I wait.

Many of us waited a long, long time to get an F100 equivalent DSLR. Rumors about the

upcoming D200 started more than a year before the camera was released. I couldn't wait

and bought a used D70 to start learning the digital tricks. I now have a D200. With

retrospective it was a great move. All my film equipment has now been sold except for my

large format field camera (I am still border line on that one, may be gone soon as well).

I agree that Nikon will have a full frame DSLR in the future, no question. But I am

convinced FF will only be part of the high end line (D3, D4???) thus it will comment a high

price. Will it be justifiable for amateurs to get one of these? If you are a medium or large

format shooter, yes. Otherwise the current DX format has already reached 35mm image

quality, resolution wise. I would rather see improvement in current size sensors (wider

color depth, better tonal range) than increasing their size.

Honestly I can only recommend the D200. You are missing the fun that is available right

now. You will have to buy a DX wide angle but keep using FF lenses to covers yourself

when a FF becomes available at your targeted budget.

<em>There are many arguments for DX sensor sizes but

except the pricing argument just about all of them, I believe,

are nothing more than a make believe. --WJ Lee<br>

</em><br>

I agree with your first paragraph but this one I do not. I find

very real advantages to the DX formats. For example you gain DOF

for macro. I find 35mm (24x36mm) sits at a sweet spot for lens

variety and the ability to blur backgrounds with its short

telephotos. The first feature I welcome, the latter is a major

problem for me. Super telephotos are another plus for DX, it

gives and it takes.<br>

<br>

<em>I'm saving up to buy a D200 but cannot help thinking

that as soon as I buy D200, Fuji or Nikon might just release a FF.

--WJ Lee<br>

</em><br>

Dont worry too much about this. Since you are saving up to

buy the D200 you wont be able to afford the first Nikon FF,

DSLR unless they, you or both wait a long time. In the meantime

buy that D200 but, Do not go digital, add digital.

There are a number of us here who shoot both DX and FF, 35mm film.<br>

<br>

<em>As a medium and large format fanatic--only recently

reunited with my Nikon equipment--I believe, as you do, that FF

is inevitable, and I think you lay out good reasons for it.

--Michael Axel<br>

</em><br>

This is kind of true of me except that I dumped Nikon back in

1975 or so to start a Hasselblad system then returned as planned

when Nikon had a full catalog of multi-coated lenses. But

dropping Nikon as soon as Pentax started advertising its multi-coated

lenses I cut my losses on my single coated Nikkors. I have my

first lens from the second Nikon system, a 55/3.5 AI Micro-Nikkor

that works just fine on my D2H. I bought that lens in 1978.<br>

<br>

I think those who shoot multiple formats are less inclined to

rationalize one particular format or another and just use what is

best for a given subject or type of photography.<br>

<br>

<em>Should I wait or just get D200? --WJ Lee<br>

</em><br>

I waited nine year from my first enquiry into a Nikon DSLR, the

Nikon/Fuji E2 and E2s. My advice is check out the camera, if the

format is the only major objection and you see many pluses, then

get it. I bought a D2H on firesale knowing I really wanted a

Nikon D2X but that camera was and still is out of reach. I'm

still very pleased with my purchase.<br>

<br>

Best,<br>

<br>

Dave Hartman.<br>

<br>

Postscript: again I recommend that you add digital, not go

digital. For example my 15/5.6 AI Nikkor is a very inconvenient

24mm replacement on DX but its still a super, super wide

angle lens on 24x36mm (FF 35mm).

Get a D200. If you wait, then you might have to wait another 3 years before Nikon make another move. By that time Nikon might not have FF since Nikon is not promising FF. You might wait forever for FF!

You want a full frame DSLR, yet you're **saving up** to buy a D200.

 

You know that even if Nikon comes out with a full frame DSLR next week it's likly going to be priced... what, $7k-8k?

 

SO WHAT GOOD DOES THAT DO YOU?

 

Other than pros, who can write it off or are subsidized or the few rich amateurs on this forum, I wonder how many people whining about a full frame Nikon DSLR will ever really get one?

 

KL

The Canon 5D costs about 3k and it's fully featured, not fast, but capable DSLR. There are many of us who would buy such a camera without second thought if it were a Nikon. The price is no longer a problem. If Nikon is incapable of producing such a camera at such a price, that's Nikon's problem, not the problem of the intrinsic cost of making FF sensors.

 

I think talk about 35 mm format digital SLRs being expensive forever is just silly. There are now cameras with twice as large sensors which have reasonable price tickets (Mamiya ZD). Nikon's entry in the field is likely to be in the $5k ballpark - if they're able to get those sensors from somewhere. There will be much larger sensors than that in the ZD in the future, perhaps as large as 6x9 at some point as stitching technology advances. How many years this will take, who knows? The advantages are real enough, just as with film. Don't get caught in what is avaialable now, plan for the future. Of course, for present photographic needs you need to use something, which could be a D200 or film or both.

The 5D is essentially a D70 equivalent for 4x the money, apart from resolution. Canon had to cut down a lot to be able to hit that price point with FF. Performance-wise the 5D offers little that the D70 doesn't. It's nice resolution-wise, and has an excellent high-ISO performance but apart from the viewfinder the body itself isn't all that impressive.

 

The other issue with full-frame is how demanding FF sensors are for edge performance and light fall-off. It's not as big an issue for Nikon users as the 17-35 AF-S is distinctly better than the 16-35L at the edges (I've even seen one 17-35 Nikkor on a 5D for this reason) but it is still an issue, especially for those who don't have the latest and greatest glass.

<i>The 5D is essentially a D70 equivalent for 4x the money, apart from resolution.</i>

<p>

Thanks for the laugh, Adam!

<i>"Performance-wise the 5D offers little that the D70 doesn't..."</i> -- following that analogy, the D2x offers even less.<br><br>

If Nikon came up with a FF D250 for what the 5D is selling right now ($2500, 3fps, 13mpixels), there would very few D200/D2x sales. I own a D200, and I still want fullframe-- in a D200 form factor.

<I>"The Canon 5D costs about 3k and it's fully featured, not fast, but capable DSLR. There are many of us who would buy such a camera without second thought if it were a Nikon. The price is no longer a problem. If Nikon is incapable of producing such a camera at such a price, that's Nikon's problem, not the problem of the intrinsic cost of making FF sensors. </I> - Ilkka Nissila.

<P>

You nailed it, Ilkka.

<P>

If Nikon had come out with a 5D-equivalent, many of us here (myself included) would have been enticed and ecstatic. But there's no point knocking the 5D just because Nikon couldn't make it. Sour Grapes Syndrome as I call it.

"Should I wait or just get D200?"

 

What you get with the D200 is the culmination of all the Nikon DX sensor knowhow packaged into an incredibly affordable DSLR (performance for money).

 

IF Nikon does happen to do the FF sensor thing, be prepared to wait N years for that knowhow and technology to find its way into a $1700 product. (N years is equivalent to past the end of this decade)

 

Buy a D200 and be pleased it's available, if in stock. :)

Well better resolution , high ISO performance, a slightly better viewfinder, better AF, better MF and a FF sensor for the medium wide angle lenses like e.g. the 28mmF2.0 AIS et. may not be important for all people - but certainly for quite a few, including myself :-)

Of course, the prevailing conjecture on this thread is that Nikon's first FF DSLR will be a 5D like body at around $3k.

 

My own conjecture is that it will be along the lines of a

1Ds Mark II, which is hovering around $7K (?). With that assumption, how many on this forum would actually be **seriously** tempted by a 1DS Mark II with a Nikon badge for $7k or higher?

 

KL

"Of course, the prevailing conjecture on this thread is that Nikon's first FF DSLR will be a 5D like body at around $3k. " - KL

 

Which is a plausible conjecture, because that's where the competetion has found a niche. 5D came out almost a year after 1Ds/II and dpreview already shows 53 reviews for the 5D (vs. 50 for the 1Ds/II).

 

If Nikon MR folks think they can make more money from a 1Ds-class 7k$ FF body, they probably have more promising careers as deep-sea divers.

<i>"If Nikon MR folks think they can make more money from a 1Ds-class 7k$ FF body, they probably have more promising careers as deep-sea divers."</i> -- and that is why, Nikon isn't announcing a FF. They simply can't compete at that segment YET.

Face it, Canon is beating the pants off of Nikon in digital, period. Not only in consumer, but pro as well. I've seen droves of Nikon shooters move to Canon over the years. Canon is a far larger company and has more capital to invest in Research and Development. Canon has a lot of fantastic lenses and there really isn't anything Nikon has that Canon doesn't have a better version of, that is, unless you want to put a manual focus lens on an AF body which is where Nikon leads over Canon.

 

I had a D70 and I didn't like it so I sold it. Period end of sentence. My Canon Pro1 beats it quality wise (at ISO 50 compared to ISO 200 on the D70), and a film scan from a well-exposed slide does too. I shot RAW format on the D70 and I thought they looked terrible as well.

 

I'm really hopeful Nikon will get with it and produce a good full-frame dSLR. If they don't, they will become less and less a player in the high end photography business.

 

The company I work for accepts hundreds of digital images a day from photographers, and the Canon full frame cameras absolutely produce the nicest looking images that come through the Imaging Lab here. The Nikon D2X is behind. It's the best Nikon can offer but Canon has it beat, not only with one camera, but two.

 

I shoot with an F3HP and love it. I'll never sell it. Just picked up an 8008s for cheap and consider it a bargain. But for digital, right now I am a Canon shooter.

 

The DX format sucks as far as I am concerned. It's the APS of 35mm and it's a compromise. Anyone who like tunnel viewfinders needs to look through an F100 viewfinder, or F3, and realize the torture that those DX tunnel finders put us through.

 

Dave Lee

I get a kick out of how much activity is generated by any thread that says "full-frame" in the subject.

 

"I'm not a sensor expert but fundamentally it isn't deficult to see that FullFrame with the same resolution as DX will always have better noise perfermance because the pixel sizes on FF sensore will be bigger."

 

 

To me, the issue is only partly that a larger pixel will always be better. It's also partly (at least in this market) driven by this question: at what point is the difference meaningless for most people? Clearly, as shown by good tests, the sensor size still makes a difference in image quality, especially at high ISOs. But it is also clear that all cameras are better now than they used to be.

 

At some point, the performance will be good enough that few people, even highly critical people, will see the difference. Since it is likely the producing a smaller sensore will always be cheaper than producing a larger one, what will THAT mean for the sensor size that people use? Will we go back to be driven primarily by lenses, like we were for the 50 years before we got to where we are, in digital capture's adolescence?

FF may be nice but Nikon would have to design almost all lenses from scratch, considering that too many EF lenses are unuseable for Canon FF DSLRs. But as for DX size sensors, Nikon only need to develop new lenses for wideangle category, which seems more realistic.

 

Digital world changes ten times more quickly than the film world, including the lenses. Worrying about the future (even near future) when buying digital cameras and lenses makes less sense than in the film era.

Some Canon 5D and 1Ds Mk II users report good performance of Nikon lenses using an adapter, in some cases better than Canon's own wide angles. The need to redesign all lenses for FF DSLR is no more true of FF than DX DSLRs (or equally true). The 35 mm lenses have been optimized to cover 35 mm area. The DX lenses cover only half of that, and yield better performance within that area but nowhere near what a larger area gives with a slightly softer optic. I have many lenses which give strong purple fringing on the D200 because of the tiny pixels and optics in front of them. These artifacts happen in the middle of the image, so the corner argument is just ... well, I don't know what to say about it - I'm sure it's true for some lenses but many it's not. The artifacts would be scaled in visibility by a factor of 2 down by using a larger area. If the corners using some lenses are poor, so you use better lenses. With DX it's eventually the same result. New zooms designed and optimized for DX format beat primes designed for 35 mm film when DX sensors are used. The primes used to be (IMO) a lot better than the zooms when the whole 35mm area is used. I believe this to be the case again with 35 mm FF digital sensors. Yes, some lenses will be poor but none of the 35 mm format AF-D wide angle primes gives very good results on my D200. These include 14mm, 20, 24, 28 mm. All so-so on DX digital. The 17-55 and 12-24 DX are a bit better but not nearly as good as what the image quality of 35mm and longer lenses on the same camera is. Long way to go before a DX format camera is good for wide angle or fast apertures. If Nikon waits another 5 years (already about 7 years of DX format) before bringing out high quality prime wide angles instead of stalling, Canon's FF DSLRs will probably sell at $1500 at entry level.

 

Considering that if you want to go higher in digital capture image quality you need to pay at least $10k and lose the ability to use fast lenses, zooms and autofocus in most cases, it's not difficult to justify investment in their stock, even if you don't use their cameras.