A New "Digital" DX Series Lens w/ a Smaller Image Circle

Shun, the reason I (and probably others) don't like this proposed change in the image size is simply the concern for the value of my existing investment. It has little to do with not liking changes. I want Nikon to optimize the value and improve the quality of the photographs that I can take with the lenses that I've already paid for.

Ilkka, I don't at all understand why you (or anybody else) has concerns about the value of your current (lens?) investment. Nikon is shrinking the sensor size, not enlarging it. Therefore, all your current 35mm Nikkor lenses will continue to work with the smaller format. That has been the case since they introduced the D1 three years ago. This is nothing new.

 

If Nikon were (1) enlarging the sensor area so that the image circle of the old lenses cannot cover the new area or (2) made a Canon FD -> EF type switch that effectively screws all their existing customers, I can see your point. But that is not the case here.

A lens renders a certain amount of detail within the image circle it produces. A part of this detail is lost when the image is cropped to the size used by Nikon's current digital SLRs. That's the part of my investment that is lost. It's not like the resolution of lenses were infinite and pixels only counted.

 

I'm not interested in getting narrower angle of views. A 300 mm lens is enough for all my purposes. However, I would be interested in improving the quality of the images I can obtain, which could be done by introducing a 24x36 mm sensor.

I think no one seriously believe Nikon did the right thing. Even those who defend the move to smaller image circle are merely pointing out that some redeeming qualities exist even om what is overall a very bad decision.

Chunk, in my mind there is absolutely no doubt that Nikon is making a very wise and much demanded move. One of the main issues with the current D1/D100 cameras is the lack of a true super wide angle. The 12-24 will immediately solve that problem even though f4 may not be sufficient in certain applications. I think Canon will likely be forced to follow. Moreover, if you read the Nikon Mailing List or the D1 Discussion List, people there are a lot more open minded and the responses are far more positive. (If you don't subscribe to those mailing lists, I'll be happy to forward some messsages.)

 

The Canon EOS 1Ds and Kodak DCS 14n full-frame DSLRs are intended to be studio type cameras to compete against medium format, for applications such as wedding. They have very large data files and at full resolution, a fairly slow frame rate, which is not sufficient for news or any action photography. Whether Nikon also competes in the wedding/portrait arena remains to be seen. If so, Nikon will probably have two digital format standards, just like Mamiya and Pentax make both 6x4.5 and 6x7 camears.

 

But for a lot of traditional 35mm type applications, clearly an APS-type format and 6PM is sufficient. Therefore, in the longer term, the smaller CCD will likely be the standard format, at least for the cheaper DSLRs, which will lead to the more convenient smaller cameras and lenses. If Nikon doesn't make the move, someone else will take over the void and we may see a repeat of Canon's superior AF taking over a lot of Nikon's market share 10 years ago, when a lot of "traditionalists" simply dismissed the then more premitive AF as useless. That was essentially how Nikon went from by far the most dominent SLR manufacturer to a more secondary role behind Canon today. If Nikon gets bumped further down the hierarchy, it is not going help protect our lens value either.

 

The gradual move to smaller formats is merely natural progression. When the norm changed from 4x5 to 6x6 and from 6x6 to 35mm, people had to change all these lenses. We are actually quite fortunate that the 35mm Nikon lenses will continue to work in the digital era. However, unless you are very firm about using film for years to come, it is quite unwise to buy any non-CPU lenses at this point. In my case, the last time I bought an AI/AI-S lens with no CPU was back in 1987, over 15 years ago.

For what its worth...My local camare shop had a Nikon Rep in for

two days. Handed out lots of nice Nikon goodies. I

questioned him on Nikons digital direction. Here are some of his

remarks.

1) Nikon wont have a full frame cmos or ccd sensor soon.

2) Yes, more G lenes to come. He stated the N90s was the last camera

that needed them. (I quess he means modern, elctronic bodies)

3) Q:What about Canons full frame sensor, wont that hurt NIkon?

A:Our CCD sensor is still better

4) My statment to him...I like having aperture rings on my lens.

His response was basically "too bad".

5) They still make thier own glass. That came up somewhere along

the conversation so I thought I'd throw that in...haha.

How about the FM3a? That one needs an aperture ring. If that Rep really represent Nikon, then Nikon is full of it.

 

A Big reason for me when choosing Nikon was the ability to use MF lenses on all bodies. I was puzzled by some compatibility issues but with the F100, it turned out it wasn't so hard to figure out. Now, they have bodies that won't even meter with them, lenses that can't be used with bodies currently production. And now, this DX lens. Don't get me wrong, I think it's good news for those who need a wide angle on current DSLR. I also think it's a good idea to keep making camera with a smaller sensor to keep cost down.

 

But the wide range is the only place where the DX lens is beneficial. I certainly hope they won't be making an entire line with the smaller image circle. Oh well, frankly, I don't care because by the time they this lens out, I'll be shooting with a full frame sensor DSLR made by Canon, Kodak or Fuji.

Although people are happy to "progress" down to smaller formats, technical quality isn't keeping up. Landscapes taken 50 years ago on 120 and large format are untouched by todays 35 mm in quality. Well, maybe with the present rate of genetic degeneration, the eyes of those that come after us won't be able to tell.

 

That's very funny about Nikon's CCD sensor being better than that of the 1Ds. Really? I guess this kind of bullshit is what marketing people are trained for.

What about the DOF variations due to change in CCDs. I guess DOF becomes shallower with small frame. Is it an issue?

Don't worry Sunil. Nikon will develop an AF-S DX DOF xx-xx/fxG EDIF to adress this problem. Available in 2009... maybe.

STUPID! to be introducing 'new' lenses for a dying breed of system cameras with no future and no hope. Just look at the tremendous rebate programs on the DX1, an overpriced relic even after the rebates. Pity the poor suckers that invest in this obsolete tiny-frame technology if only because they feel secure in designer labels! Nikon should think a lot more on their customers and a lot less of their ego. Marketing moves like these can only provide nails for the coffin of their brand name. Pity also the technical types at Nikon being steered by such a bunch of ludite digi-marketers.

Sunil,

 

My understanding is that having a smaller image size actually ends up giving you more DOF, because you use a shorter lens for any given angle of view.

 

This was one of my complaints with my (non-DSLR) digicam before I sold it: even setting the aperture at f/2 didn't isolate the subject to my liking.

Depth of field is related to aperture and magnification. To make a long story short, the format (sensor size) change doesn't really affect the depth of field as long as you are covering the same scene.

Shung Cheung is correct in theory. The DOF does not change if the aperture, focal length and magnification do not change. However because of the shorter focal lengths used in present day digital photography (to compensate for the size of the sensor).. the magnification is different and therefore one is unable to obtain the out-of-focus backgrounds if needed.

Exacta, Miranda, Topcon, Ikon, Nikon......

Ravi Nagpal, please read what I wrote earlier again, "Depth of field is related to aperture and magnification." Focal length itself is not part of the equation. Frequently long focal lengths yield shallow depth of field only because they create high magnification, but so does macro/close focusing.

Shun,

 

I do believe there is truth to the notion that dof is higher on digital cameras with a smaller sensor.

 

Consider this example: You want to fill the frame with a certain object, say a small tree. Standing 10 feet away with your 35mm camera, you find that with a 50mm lens the tree just fills the frame. It's exactly 34mm wide on the film.

 

Standing at the exact same spot with your D100, you find that a shorter lens does the job. But guess what else? The image of the tree that measured 34mm on your F100, now measures 22.6mm on your D100 sensor (or whatever the size of the senor is). Hence, the MAGNIFICATION level has dropped. Lower magnification, same distance from subject gives you greater depth of field.

Naji, I see what the problem is. If your final image is the sensor, then of course a smaller sensor has smaller magnification. However, I am thinking about the final image is a print or a Jpeg for the computer monitor. To obtain the same size print, say 8x10, you need to magnify the image from the smaller sensor some more to obtain your 8x10, and you are back to the same magnification.

 

I have to admit that I am no expert in this area. Maybe there is something incorrect in my logic.

I see the compelling need for the 12-24mm. However, I think that the a full blown DX line is also a dead-end path.

 

Film cameras may well become non-mainstream in 2-3 years. From Nikon's point of view, why cater to these guys who buy and trade old cameras instead of marching to the times. The DX lens does have the advantage of being smaller size, and lighter, whch would appeal to the rank amateurs.

 

However, why stop there. In 3-5yrs time, technology may have evolved where we can still get decent resolution on a even smaller sensor. Furthermore, why insist on a D-SLR whose mirror just takes up place. My view is most amateurs would be happy with an electronic View finder (such as the one you find on the Sony). After all, no one complains about the EVF on DV machines.

Indeed, one of the most compelling features of a EVF will be its ability to be detached from the camera body...

 

Anyway, by the time Nikon has introduced the DX line, many people would have moved on to the next best thing.

 

Johnson

<p>Dpre****.com has a <a href="http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canoneos1ds/page16.asp">new article</a> covering the new 1DS beast from Canon... here's a small excerpt:</p>

 

<p><i>"The EOS-1Ds has a full size 35 mm sensor, that means it's using more of the glass of a lens than previous digital SLR's which 'cropped' a portion of the center of the lens (the 'sweet spot' as it's sometimes known). This means that the 1Ds is more likely to reproduce lens effects which are normally to be found near the edges of the lens, such as chromatic aberrations. In addition to this the interaction of the lens and microlenses on the sensor surface, especially at high angle of incidence (wide angle lenses) can introduce or amplify such artifacts."</i></p>

 

<p>And indeed, there are artifacts. Even with the famed 28-70L.</p>

So I talked to my Nikon guy and I feel a bit more releaved. He, of course, couldn't give away all the details, but he is an industry veteran and we had a rationale discussion about things.

 

Nikon will, to the best of our knowledge, definitely go forward with a dual strategy, that is with a APS frame and a full frame versions. Thinking long and hard about it, it actually makes lots of sense. Amateurs like me who are willing to spend $1,000-2,000 for a digital body will get pretty much all the milage we need out of the smaller sensors, which can be produces/sold at much lower cost. For the rugged pro who needs FF - power to them! - and can spend $7-8,000 on a body to get those extra % out of digital.

 

There will be a small number of DX lenses, mostly on the wide angle side, to cover those of us who won't be going to a FF anytime soon. Let's face it, it's a lot cheaper to pick up one G DX lens and use your old ones, than going for a FF pro body.

 

All and all, I am still confident that we will see great things going forward from the Nikon/Kodak/Fuji camp that will be on par or better with whatever Canon can produce (even if it at the moments looks like Canon have their ducks aligned very well indeed).

 

Cheers,

I for one welcome the new DX lens concept. As a couple of people have said before, it will allow for smaller, lighter lenses and cameras. What a relief it will be to carry 2 lbs of gear instead of 5, to be able to get the same shots! (And a smaller tripod and head to go with them).

 

Having worked in the computer industry for 7 years, I can tell you what is going to happen here with digital cameras. First, technology will insure that as many pixels as necessary can be crammed onto any size of sensor. Second, there are other technologies besides CMOS and CCD - witness the Foveon sensor: imperfect so far, but with great promise at only 3 megapixels.

 

The new lenses are not designed for older cameras, so why all the fuss about them not working on the FM series? You already have the 17-35. These lenses are designed to work on digital camera bodies, which are basically all-electronic. These bodies DEMAND a new type of lens, to maximize their effectiveness. That's why Olympus etal. are trying to develop a new standard.

 

If Nikon can develop new lenses to work on their new cameras, and if those lenses can be optically as good as the old ones, while at the same time being lighter, smaller, cheaper and faster - then I think that is a boon to everyone who is willing to evolve with the technology. No one said that photography would be cheap. Anyway, you can always use your older lenses and still get great results.

 

My 2c - having seen what has been going on with computers for the last 10 years or so.

 

Jim

You know, I would like to get a D100 and a 12-24, followed later on by the 70-200VR that has the detachable tripod foot and such. I figure I'd keep my wonderful 28/1.4 for a 'normal' lens, maybe my 50/1.4 or the 85/1.4 for the F100 (which I plan to keep -- love the 'look' of Velvia and Provia and TMZ). All of those sick-fast primes have done me right with the F100, but the instant gratification of a digital camera combined with the speed and control of an SLR... well, it is getting very hard to resist, when KEH is selling them for $1,699 in EX+ condition! So I heard good things about the similarly-designed AF-S 24-85 lens and tried it out.

 

The goddamn thing has that stupid reversed-style focus and zoom rings! I tried out a 24-85 in the store and COULD NOT stop knocking the focus out of whack! It was terribly irritating -- I'm sure it's a great lens and all, but I couldn't lock it into 'autofocus only' and I couldn't override my muscle memory that made me grab the closer ring for zooming. It appears that the 12-24 lens is being made exactly like the 24-85, completely opposite to all other Nikkor zooms, and in particular, different from the 70-200 AF-S G VR lens that is targeted at professionals.

 

It's a real bugger... like they're doing this to piss all of us with existing fast Nikon zooms off. Infuriating!

 

Perhaps a 17-35 and a 70-200 when it comes out, and an off-brand wide-as-hell prime, will be what I end up with? I just take issue with the ergonomics. If the 12-24 was to be constructed like the 20-35 or 18-35 I'd run right out and buy it, along with a D100 to stick it on!

 

Bah.