Does Nikon Make a Full-Frame dSLR?

[steve williams]

I know the D70 is not full-frame, but are any of their higher-end

cameras full-frame?

 

Is the Canon 10D a full-frame?

 

Am I correct in assumming a full-frame dSLR produces better images

than a smaller frame (such as the D70)?

 

Thanks,

Steve

[photograph-ng]

Nikon does not make a DSLR with a full-frame 35mm sensor. However, Kodak does make a full-frame Nikon-mount DSLR.

 

The Canon 10D is not full-frame.

 

Just because a DSLR is full-frame does not mean it inherently produces better images than a non-full-frame DSLR. But if what you are looking for is higher resolution to resolve fine details in your photographs and/or to make very large prints then the full-frame DSLR will help you do those things.

[ellis_vener_photography]

Brian has it. the sensor in the Canon 10D is actually slightly smaller than the sensor in the

D70.

[gary_woodard]

Nikon will soon be introducing a new full-frame sensor camera in early

2005 that will send Canon back to the copying buisiness, keep your eyes open.

[Greg M]

....with a Sony-made sensor...

[peter_phan]

<i>Nikon will soon be introducing a new full-frame sensor camera in early 2005 that will send Canon back to the copying buisiness, keep your eyes open.</i>

<p>

Nikon has made no indication that they are remotely interested in or capable of introducing a full frame DSLR any time soon. Meanwhile, Canon is reported to be preparing for the introduction of their second generation full frame body, the 1Ds MKII, either at Photokina in September, or at the very latest, by PMA in February.

[andy_piper2]

"Does a full-frame sensor produce better images....?" We report. You decide...

 

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canoneos1dmkii/page20.asp

 

However the MAIN advantage of a full-frame chip is to allow full use of the covering power of lenses originally designed for 35mm film - thus a 28mm delivers a true wide-angle view instead of a cropped "normal" view, and telephotos deliver the same balance of blur and cropping that they did on film.

 

There are or have been 5 "full-frame 35mm" DSLR cameras: the mostly extinct Contax ND, the Canon EOS1Ds, and 3 flavors of Kodak: 14N, Pro/N and Pro/C. The 14N and Pro/N take Nikon lenses.

[ravi_swamy]

Unless you just won the lottery you probably can't afford the full frame DSLRs. I know I can't...

 

If you did win the lottery then the Canon 1Ds is full frame at $8000.

The 1D Mark II is not full frame but it's only $4500. The 10D and Digital Rebel are a lot cheaper ($1400 and $900)

 

I've read a lot of bad things about the Kodak full frame cameras. Slow startup time, bad quality at high ISOs, and expensive.

 

I myself bought a Nikon D70 and love it but that's mainly because I have tons of other Nikon gear. It's cheaper to buy that and new

DX lenses for the wide angle/fisheye shots (made for the smaller sensor) than to buy a full frame sensor camera.

[gsbhasin]

Here is something i dont understand. People who CAN and NEED full frame DSLRs know the differences. I dont know why others troll about it? Do you have 5 big ones or 1 big one?

<p>Sure the Ferrari Enzo is faster than the Subaru WRX, just by 1 second. Whats ur budget? You can argue endlessly the merits of the Mark II versus the 10D (or 20D) or D70 or whatever, bigger question : why do u want it?

<p>Full frame so far DOES produce better image (since its larger) but with lower ISO limit, and so on so forth? This question comes here so often. I dont know why moderators want to keep them archived.

[david_lau3]

<<Unless you just won the lottery you probably can't afford the full frame DSLRs. I know I can't... >>

 

This is because Nikon and others (except the strange looking Kodak) are not capable to make a DSLR with a full frame sensor, so there is no pressure to Canon at all to lower the price. I wish that Nikon will have a full frame DSLR coming soon. I don't care if Canon only make photocopiers since then but I am sure the price of 1Ds will come down.

[ilkka_nissila]

Everything is based on what is expected that the market is willing to pay.

 

Once there is a substantial group of people who can afford a full-frame DSLR and want one, all the major makers will make them. Unfortunately, the advantages are so minor compared with the disadvantages that this may never happen. To say that any of the major manufacturers is not "capable" of doing something is just silly; it's all a question of economics.

[peter_phan]

<i>Once there is a substantial group of people who can afford a full-frame DSLR and want one, all the major makers will make them. Unfortunately, the advantages are so minor compared with the disadvantages that this may never happen. To say that any of the major manufacturers is not "capable" of doing something is just silly; it's all a question of economics.</i>

<p>

There is a substantial group. And they're mostly all buying Canon now, and to a much lesser degree, Kodak. In terms of cost, Kodak charges a mere $1500 to upgrade the 14n to the SLR/n's newer, better sensor. Mind you, that's not their cost for the sensor. That's what they charge for the entire replacement service, including the new sensor! Not bad, when you consider a complete SLR/n sells for $4500! So if you look at that, you have to agree that there is probably a fair amount of profit in there for them. Even more so when you consider that Canon sells their 1Ds for $8000, and pros are still scooping them up! You gotta imagine there's a very healthy profit margin in there for Canon. Especially since they basically are the only source for a true pro-caliber full frame high-resolution camera that performs well. Canon is reportedly selling the 1Ds at a rate of 2,000 units per month. 2,000 x $8000 = $16,000,000 in sales each month. Whatever the profit margin on that is, it's 1000% more than what Nikon is making with their FF DSLR. And on top of that, they are capturing a lot of high-end users who probably spend significantly more per capita than your average D70 user.

[p_l_jensen]

"You gotta imagine there's a very healthy profit margin in there for Canon. Especially since they basically are the only source for a true pro-caliber full frame high-resolution camera that performs well. Canon is reportedly selling the 1Ds at a rate of 2,000 units per month"

 

 

That rate makes it the slowest selling DSLR curently available. In addition, these number are possibly also the initial production figures. In modern times, no film slr from any major manufacturer has sold in so small numbers. A DSLR typically cost $20-30 million dollars to develop and that for the D100 class of camera. If any DSLR's are generating money it is the D70 and the Rebel. The reason the market isn't flooded with full frame DSLR's is that the market for an $8000 camera is small indeed and that not everyone is prepare to manufacture a loss leader.

[peter_phan]

It should not cost any more to develop a new FF DSLR than it does to develop a 1.5x DSLR. In fact, if you consider the years under which the D2X has been under development, with no return on Nikon's investment in sight, the cost of developing the D2X may very well be MUCH higher than the cost to develop the 1Ds, which is soon to be on to its next generation. And do you think the D2X will be able to command the $8000 that high end pros are willing to spend for the 1Ds? Of course not. And believe me, there are many pros using the 1Ds. For one thing, Sports Illustrated makes extensive use of the 1Ds. Read the this article: http://www.robgalbraith.com/bins/multi_page.asp?cid=7-6453-6821

 

"Staff photographer Bob Rosato's collection of gear is fairly typical. To a football game he takes four or five EOS-1D bodies and 600mm f/4, 400mm f/2.8, 300mm f/2.8, 70-200mm f/2.8, and 50mm f/1.4 lenses. For basketball, he adds five or six EOS-1Ds cameras and dispenses with the 400 and 600mm lenses. Of the ten or so camera bodies that he takes to a basketball game, many are of course mounted overhead or around the basket for remote operation."

 

Yes, that's 5 or 6 1Ds bodies used by a single SI photographer, for a single basketball game.

 

And the 1Ds is extremely popular amongst studio, commercial, catalog, advertising, and fashion photographers. The volume of 1Ds sales may be small relative to the 300D, but it still probably constributes an appreciable sum to Canon's coffers. The 1Ds probably outsells the sum total of all medium format film SLRs, as well as medium format digital backs. Plus, while the 300D may sell a lot more, margins are probably pretty small. And they'll probably get even smaller as Pentax and Olympus soon introduce their own entry-level models, causing competition to increase. And the average 300D buyer is probably going to spend considerably less on lenses and accessories than the average 1Ds buyer. All this adds up. The 1Ds is by no means a loss leader product. In fact, it has the potential to have the highest profit volume per unit of any DSLR on the market. And even at a lower profit level, it pays dividends in terms of prestige, mindshare, and respect for Canon's brand and technological prowess.

[qdb]

"Am I correct in assumming a full-frame dSLR produces better images than a smaller frame (such as the D70)?"

 

No, not really.

 

Nikon clearly believe you can get better quality witout mimicking the frame size of 35mm film. This means that their D1x replacement will not be full-frame.

 

Nikon don't have a direct competitor to the Canon 1Ds at the moment, but that is not because they don't use full frame. Full frame can cause problems, because DSLR bodies were not designed with digital in mind. You can get around these problems, but maybe a better alternative in the medium term is to do what Olympus have done, and opt for a whole new system, the 4/3 system, which actually uses a smaller sensor that then D70 or Canon 10D, but which promises very high resolution alternatives down the line.

 

In other words, you need to look at the total package, and not get hung up on so-called "full-frame"

 

By the way, I use a Kodak 14nx which *is* full frame, but although the qualty and resolution can be mind-blowing, the firmware, and software has to work hard to overcome the limitations of the legacy body design (e.g. chromatic aberations at the frame edge). Of course, I would have been happy to buy Canon, but I don't need a new photocopier at the moment :-)

[p_l_jensen]

"Full frame can cause problems, because DSLR bodies were not designed with digital in mind."

 

This is not due to the body but lens design and the angle light fall onto the sensor at its edges. Pentax have recently released two new "D" lenses, that are part of a new lens line-up covering the full 35mm frame, that remedies these problems indicating that Pentax at least plan for full frame 35mm based DSLR. I'm certain Nikon (and Minolta and Sigma for that matter) plan the same whenever they feel that it makes economic sense of doing so. The timing of these has probably everything to do with costs.

[ilkka_nissila]

Nikon doesn't actually believe that you can get better quality by using a smaller sensor, this would be very silly and against basic physics.

 

What they do believe is that for most applications, the quality / cost of a camera using the DX format is better than that for a digital camera using the 24x36 mm format. And there they are absolutely right. Even without any consideration of the cost of telephoto lenses for larger formats.

[qdb]

"This is not due to the body but lens design and the angle light fall onto the sensor at its edges"

 

Actually its due to both. Anyone can produce a lens that covers the full 35mm frame, but to achieve the objective of minimising chromatic aberrations, light falloff etc you are a lot better off if the system is designed from scratch.

[ilkka_nissila]

Which part of the current DSLR bodies was not designed from scratch? Apart from the bayonet.

 

There is absolutely no evidence that the E-1 is superior to the current D70 or 10D. In fact, there is plenty of evidence that the Nikon and Canon cameras produce better image quality.

[qdb]

"Which part of the current DSLR bodies was not designed from scratch? Apart from the bayonet."

 

Pretty much the whole thing - body, shutter, bayonet, metering focusing etc etc. The only new bit it the digital module. We are stil using a legacy system designed for 35mm film, and its way out of date.

 

"There is absolutely no evidence that the E-1 is superior to the current D70 or 10D. In fact, there is plenty of evidence that the Nikon and Canon cameras produce better image quality."

 

To the contrary, the E1 system uses lenses with higher resolving power, optimised for the new format, and also offers correction for lens aberrations. No more barrel and pincusion distorion, and the body is much lighter and more compact. The limiting factor at present is not the format or design (which is what we are debating), but the sensor used by Olympus. I don't own nor do I intend to own a four-thirds system in the forseable future, but the concept is admirable.

[ilkka_nissila]

Have you looked at the image quality comparisons on dpreview.com? I see higher noise and Phil thinks the image quality of the E-1 is disappointing. How do we know that the lenses have higher resolving power? I sincerely doubt they do. An E-1 at iso 100 is about the same in terms of noise as a 10D at iso 400. Those lenses would have to be pretty good indeed to compensate for that, and their obscenely high price for the focal length.

[peter_phan]

The E-1 measures 660 grams, 5.6 x 4.1 x 3.2 inches. The 20D measures 685 grams, 5.6 x 4.2 x 2.8 inches. So the E-1 is not exactly "much smaller and more compact." The difference isn't much at all. And I'm sure subsequent models from Olympus and Canon will get even smaller and lighter. The real question is if the 4/3 system will be able to keep up with the image quality of much larger sensors.

[qdb]

"Have you looked at the image quality comparisons on dpreview.com?"

 

You're getting hung up on one camera. Its the system and its future that matters. I have handled an E1 and it is superbly built.

[ilkka_nissila]

The system just happens to consist of that one camera and a set of lenses. There aren't that many lenses and IMHO they're really expensive. Why spend so much money on a system which we don't know if will take off or not? At present the image quality is not on par with the competition. At least it makes sense to wait until they have something real to offer instead of just unfounded and misleading adversiting.

[ferenczy]

http://www.geocities.com/phanbusters/