ilkka_nissila Posted September 15, 2004 Share Posted September 15, 2004 I also think the D1X would be a good idea once it pops up on the second hand market. The battery life worries me though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nikos peri Posted September 15, 2004 Share Posted September 15, 2004 Ain't no plastic in my F100.<br> And if this is correct, get your hands of my F5! Nice "upgrade" that F6 would be... not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Richard Williams Posted September 15, 2004 Share Posted September 15, 2004 Oh great - an upgraded F100 for the price of an F5 (and close to double the price of the F100). Sounds more like a way of reducing production costs by sharing components between the D and F series than a major step forward for film photographers. It makes sense to have a removable battery pack, however - the size and weight of the 'monobloc' design always put me off the F5 (let alone the price!). It will be a shame if they discontinue the F100 and leave a similar gap between the F/N80 and the F6 as already exists between the D70 and D2 series. But perhaps semi-pro cameras don't sell well enough... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bill_chiarchiaro Posted September 15, 2004 Share Posted September 15, 2004 Pierre, << do you say "monobloc" in english ? >> It's more British English, but it is coming into American English too. Actually, it's been familiar to photographers since at least the 1970s, as in Balcar Monobloc strobes. Anyway, it's not difficult to guess that it means "one piece." Your English certainly does not suck. --Bill Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ilkka_nissila Posted September 15, 2004 Share Posted September 15, 2004 If this is true, then the F6 sounds like a sensible way for Nikon to continue producing a pro film camera for special needs yet not have to deal with two separate pro models - surely it will help them maintain production of the camera into the future. The F5 did have a poor contrast in the AF markers and a new AF sensor is great news. If the sensor is spread out for the full-frame it basically means that it's not really the same sensor as in the D2H or they use some new optics to do the spreading. Unlikely as they could have used optics to make the AF sensors of the D70 be in sensible positions but they didn't - and it's a much higher volume camera. Also, they'll have MLU in a lighter body and won't have to continue producing all the esoteric accessories of the F5 and separate screens for F100 etc. I am not really surprised as I can see plenty of use for a film camera for many years. Try to go to -30 C with your digital cameras and see how many pictures you can get even with several batteries. Also, film has special uses (high-contrast high saturation (Velvia 100F), low contrast B&W (C-41 black and white) for use in sunlight where digital blocks up, C-41 colour film for flash photography where the exposure and colour balance are problematic with digital, more reliable storage of images on a trip (IMHO, YMMV)), and wide angle photography. I'll keep my F100 and F5 and have already started saving for the D2X. The megapixel count seems excessive in such a small sensor - I'm sure that the zooms typically used these days won't give the sensor's worth of data. One reason I gave up my 80-200/2.8 was that the D70 made it look so far behind the 180 in image quality (with film I could see it as slight fuzziness but with D70 it was really obvious). I can't imagine there being much use for 12 MP in a DX format camera when zooms are used. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
arnabdas Posted September 15, 2004 Share Posted September 15, 2004 PArdon my lame approach to all this but -- Is my understanding correct -- if the sensor size stays the same, then *in practical shooting conditions* the increased pixel count may not always make a big difference because even small camera/subject movements would be more magnified (as compared to a bigger sensor)? And once this happens, the extra megapixels may not be of much help? Lets take an example -- suppose you are shooting a tightly composed face portrait. If the face moves 3-4 mm at the time of shooting, the resulting blur will be more obvious on a 12 MP DX sensor than on a 6 MP F/F? Am I missing something here? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ShunCheung Posted September 15, 2004 Share Posted September 15, 2004 Arnab, presumably you are using a fast enough shutter speed or your main light is a flash such that subject movement is not an issue in portrait photography. If your subject is not still, you'll problems in portrait work, regardless of format. If your subject is a child who doesn't stand/sit still, you need fast shutter speeds, but the bigger problem will be the composition. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
roto Posted September 15, 2004 Share Posted September 15, 2004 Shun, I don't know if my interpretation of what Arnab wrote is correct, however I understood the following: assume you want to make a full frame portrait of someone and you want to print this at, for example, 10"x15". Clearly, if your sensor if APS size, the required enlargement will be higher than if it was a full size 35mm sensor. Thus the same amount of subject movement translates in more apparent motion blur. In the end, it all comes down to the (in)famous 1.5x magnification factor: if with a full frame camera you need, let's say, 1/200 sec to "freeze" your subject, with an APS sized sensor you need 1/300 sec to obtain the same apparent level of sharpness at the same display size. Alternatively, if you shoot handheld, the "1/focal length" rule becomes "1/(1.5*focal length)". Frankly, I'd like to see soon a full frame sensor Nikon DSLR, but for other reasons (DOF and wide angle work). I know, I know... There is the Kodak... Full frame sensors are expensive... The Canon 1Ds is a commercial failure... (is it?) However, while we're still in the pseudo-official-rumours phase, I guess I am still allowed to express illogical and economically unsound desires. :-) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ilkka_nissila Posted September 15, 2004 Share Posted September 15, 2004 That is incorrect. Sensor size does not affect motion blur provided that the fraction of the frame that is occupied by the subject is the same for the images taken with different sensor sizes. However, larger sensors (and more dense sensors) have the ability to reproduce finer detail which in turn may require higher shutter speeds to be used to obtain the advantage. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
arnabdas Posted September 15, 2004 Share Posted September 15, 2004 >provided that the fraction of the frame that is occupied by the subject is the same for the images taken with different sensor sizes No, that is why I specifically said "tightly composed". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
subhasis_laha Posted September 15, 2004 Share Posted September 15, 2004 "D2X : 12.4 MP, 5 fps, 15 NEF picts buffer. -- Crop x2 = 8fps / 6.9 MP" - from the original post: If I believe these numbers, then crop of x2 matches up with the figures in the followin way: assuming it is 12.4 MP using Nikon's regular 1.5x multiplier, if I apply 2x focal length multiplier on the same sensor, I get 12.4 x (1.5/2) x (1.5/2) = 6.98. So, it could be really a 2x multiplier of focal length (same as 2x crop) to get to 8fps. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
roto Posted September 15, 2004 Share Posted September 15, 2004 Illka, you are right: I did not consider that you have to use a different focal length to have the same framing (or you have to be farther away from the subject). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ilkka_nissila Posted September 15, 2004 Share Posted September 15, 2004 Arnab, you're kidding, right? If you have the same angle of view, the angular speed of motion of the subject with respect to the camera origin has the same effect on the image irrespective of the actual sensor size. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vivek iyer Posted September 15, 2004 Share Posted September 15, 2004 This motion blurr confusion on smaller sensor is a variation of the "1.5X factor". Another myth taking shape? Vivek. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brandonhamilton Posted September 15, 2004 Share Posted September 15, 2004 who cares.. the D2X is on its way :) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chuck Posted September 15, 2004 Share Posted September 15, 2004 I don't understand why Nikon need to add another 2X crop factor to achieve higher frame rate. If they need to reduce number of pixels in play to improve frame rate, they could just turn off every other pixel in either horizontal or verticle direction, leaving the frame size unchanged. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chuck Posted September 15, 2004 Share Posted September 15, 2004 BTW, since D2X can achieve the same frame rate as D2H, and do so at 6.9Mp vs 4.0Mp, does this mean D2X really supercedes D2H? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ilkka_nissila Posted September 15, 2004 Share Posted September 15, 2004 Again, if the above info is correct, I would assume that the price of the D2H would just go down a bit. And there may be differences in the buffer when shooting fast. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vivek iyer Posted September 15, 2004 Share Posted September 15, 2004 I would have liked to see a 0.75X crop factor instead of 2X -:) Vivek. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
richard_ennis2 Posted September 15, 2004 Author Share Posted September 15, 2004 http://akam.no/images/nikon/digitalkamera/d2x/d2x_english.pdf Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
arnabdas Posted September 16, 2004 Share Posted September 16, 2004 Got you, Ilkka. Me still naive about digital stuff :( Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ansel_ho Posted September 16, 2004 Share Posted September 16, 2004 Well...Just think F6 is similiar to F5, but has function of digital camera cuz' you may use CF card to record what you took. Anyway, I'm die-hard of film", and won't change to be a DSLR user if films are still available in the market...sorry for my stubborn..!?! ...so, F6 will be my next axe..!! Thanks Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now