Nikon Full Frame Digital

[richard_rowe2]

35mm has been around for a lot of years and we are using it for the standard that we compare digital to. SLR when we here that we go on auto and think 35mm well thats not what SLR means is it? It is a format or film plane size. What if we went bigger than the 24 x 36mm chip? Would this not give us better pictures? Just as large format cameras give us better enlargements? Just a thought in the other direction. Now as to my understanding when using a standard 35mm lense at any focal length lets just say 28mm on a 1.5x crop factor DSLR you do not really get 28 x 1.5 = 42mm lens. What you get is the same angle view as the lens is 28mm and are taking the center of the image and croping out the outside edges. So the mm size of the lens does not change you only get the center part of the image. Like using the crop tool in Photo Shop. But as to your question I think there will be a 24x36 Nikon in the near future because fo the want (maybe not the need) of most photographers. I you don't think so just look at the replys when a post like this is started. Richard Rowe

[ellis_vener_photography]

<I> 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.</I><P>

Okay, those are legitimate concerns. Partly the distortion issues can be addressed by

software like Adobe Photoshop Cs and the Lens Fix & Panotools plug-in from

<A href = http://www.kekus.com> www.kekus.com</a>.

<P>Another problem with architectural interiors, depending on how you are doing them,

is long exposures. The "full frame" Kodak DCS Pro SLR/n DSLR addresses this problem at

least as well as well as any other DSLR and better than most.<P>Yes manufacturing prices

for a CMOS or CCD sensor array will likely fall -- but I suspect that will mostly be

cancelled out by advances in other areas of camera performance and the price won't come

down as much as most of us hope they might. (sigh...)<P>If you are really serious about

doign architectural interiors you will be better off using a true view camera with a digital

back or film.

[kelly_flanigan1]

Here I would'nt mind getting a full frame digital Nikon; that will meter with any Nikkor made. I fear the price and time will be a long wait.

[chris haake]

Extremely well put, Guy.

[harvey_edelstein1]

I'm with Steve on this subject. Steve uses a great zoom the 20-35 (which I also have) and just like me he sees that if he could avoid buying another even wider angle zoom only to compensate for the 50% crop factor he could use the $1000 he would save on towards the purchase of the larger sensor camera. I see Canon use several size sensors and if Nikon would only swith to the 1.3 crop factor sensor they would probably satisfy most of us who want to use our present lenses and get better resolution , more vivid colors and less noise at the higher ISO speeds than these APC sensors give us.

 

If you factor upgrading you camera every 24-36 months versus having a camera that does a decent job and is built to last longer and uses your present lenses at the prespective you bought the for you see the real economy of having a larger sensor. If I have an 85mm F1.4 I don't want it to become a >120mm tele since this is not as good for portraits. This may be good for selling lenses but not in my interest. Bottom line is if Kodak improves their offering with better write speed and less noise at higher ISO I will have an alternative to Nikon and there small sensors that make me buy all new lenses.

[johne37179]

I do miss the extreme wide angle view...I do want everything out to the corners. Having said that, I love my D1 (with all of its shortcomings) and have gotten rid of my last F series film based Nikon and am now all digital.

[harvey_edelstein1]

I hope you have adjusted to having your 35mm lens made into a normal lens and portrait lenses made into tele. The only thing on the good side about this issue is that a 200mm becomes like a 300mm saving on using a TC for most purposes.

 

I have a strategy that would work for those who didn't sell their film gear. Use your 20-35mm on your film body for wide angle work, then use your 50-58mm fast normal lenses on the small sensor digital for portrait and tele work. When you want to have use fast lenses like the f1.4 28mm; 35mm; 85mm and f2.0 105mm use a film slr until there is at least a 1.3x crop factor digital camera. If enough of us don't buy into Nikons and Fujifilms small sensor strategy we may see a change in strategy. Any who attends the PMA show in Vegas should let a Nikon rep know we want some choice of when it comes to the size of the sensors. Your influence counts use it!

[david_h._hartman]

<em>"If enough of us don't buy into Nikons and Fujifilms

small sensor strategy we may see a change in strategy." --Harvey

Edelstein<br>

</em><br>

No, No, No! Lets all resolve defend the equipment we own

now and deny that there is anything better nor ever will be.

[wilfred_wong]

The (only?) reason i prefer full frame sensor is the nikkor lineup. most lens are designed for 36x24 size.

 

I don't like long lens so the 1.5x crop is not a plus to me.

 

with the 1.5x crop. There are fast wide angle. 28 1.4 became expensive normal. 35 f2 became a slow normal.

 

70/80-200 is too long FOR ME with 1.5x.

50 1.4 is fine on DSLR for portrait, but not as good as 85 on film.

 

I think there are many missing nikkors for 1.5x DSLR. I think we near a lot of new lens OR FF body. and the problem is...if my current nikkors is not good anymore as they did on film and i 've to spend quite a bit on new selection of lens... should I stay with nikon? (need to spend $$ on flash, new lens, incompatible lens and flash, no compatible ring flash on DSLR, lack of intermediate digital body say, digital F100 class body). uhm.... i feel like my nikons are not nikon system...but nikon bodies, lens, flashs.... Well, I could live with that for a short while...and I don't complain too much about quality but...i don't know Nikon's direction about their whole system...that makes me don't feel comfortable to invest more on nikon gear.

 

about the ff body price.... uhm...price of all technology stuffs will go down... i believe.

[arachnophilia]

why i want a full frame digital camera:

 

format size is a visible difference, and more important than quality. a normal lens looks different on an aps size sensor, 135, 120, 4x5, and 8x10, even if the focal lengths are all exactly equivalent.

 

this is partly a product of the fact that wider lenses have larger depths of focus than longer lenses. a 90mm lens on my mamiya resolves the same range in total sharpness at f/4 as a 90mm lens on my nikon fm2n at f/4. but for my mamiya, that's normal, and for my nikon, it's long. a normal lense on my nikon would be my 50mm, but that resolves more in focus than the 90mm. on an aps-sized sensor, a normal lens would resolve ever more.

 

this has the overall effect of flattening the image out. the smaller the format, the flatter the image at the same range of focal lengths.

 

some people like this effect, because they are sharpness nuts. i am not. i like my subject matters to be mostly flat, but not the images. i rely already on relative prominence for my pop. 28mm on 135 works great for me, and i don't want to have to go wider and flatter to get the field of view that i like.

 

in other words, it'd be forcing me to make a compromise i wouldn't want.

 

this is currently my only picture-quality objection to the digital format. i used to hold on to film tonalities and whatnot, but i've been wowed enough times to know better now. and megapixels mean very little to me. just the physical size.

 

my other two turn-offs are view-finder size (i like to, you know, see what i'm taking a picture of) and physical controlls. i want something that works like an older camera with real manual features. i don't like scroll wheels, i want an aperture ring, a shutter dial, and a focus ring.

 

other than that, i'm all for digital. film is getting to be such a pain nowadays.

[johne37179]

The longer I have been in photography (about fifty years now), the wider my point of view has become. I leave my 20mm lense on the camera as the grab and shoot lense. I used a 14 for a while, but finally went back to the 20 because of the weight.

[tapas_maiti5]

Hi

 

Jeff - I'm with you all the way; getting a digital back for my blad kit was out of the question - price! I like the look of the larger formats for exactly the reasons you say and I think that 35mm with very fast lenses is the minimum that can achieve it.

 

Ideal camera - full frame digital FM3A (proper screen for manual focussing!), shooting raw and metering with well made manual focus lenses, I can then use my 35 1.4, buy a 58 1.2, 24 F2 and 85 1.4 and be totally set. I'm fairly certain Nikon will not oblige but can live with any full frame Nikon body that can meter the manual focus lenses.

 

When my Kodak dies, as all computers will, I will look for the closest solution to the above.

 

Tapas

[miles escow]

Interesting discussion this. It seems that there is a market for a full frame dSLR from Nikon, regardless of the sense in it. Personally I think that some very good reasons have been presented here for why it is a valid idea. I have always felt that some users here and the manafactures themselves have simply ignored people who don't want to buy into APS sized sensors. I like others here, don't want to have to change my lenses because of a change in 'sensor' size. Worse than that, if APS sized sensors become normal in the next decade, how are we all going to refer to lenses? Will it make sense to use the old focal length (mm) terminlogy when most of use are used to thinking of the angle of view for 35mm 'sensors'.

Just to clear things up, what full frame dSLRs are available for the Nikon mount and what do they cost. Is there just the Kodak SLR/n for the moment?

[ilkka_nissila]

It's quite obvious that there will be a wide variety of sensor sizes in the future just as there are film sizes. Nikon's DX plan is for the immediate future (3-5 years), not necessarily forever. It depends on the market. If people start buying Canon 1Ds Mk II bodies in volumes, they cut into the market of the Nikon D2X and only then will Nikon realize they need to make a full-frame camera. They're working on it of course, but a product is probably many years off.

[matt_spitzer]

Several posts in other threads have claimed that Nikon have a technical issue with full frame digital sensors, having to do with corner sharpness using wide angle lenses. Doesn't seem to ring of truth, but I'm no expert on digital optics. Since there are plenty of people out there using full frame digitals, my question to them is have you noticed any problem of the sort? How do the images you get with wide angle lenses compare to what you get with film?

 

If it's true that Nikon have no plans to develop a full frame digital camera, as some have suggested, I suppose the question is when will they produce a real wide angle DX lens that a non-pro can afford? My favorite 35 mm lens is the AI 20 mm f/4 which cost me $240 used. Currently my only option to get the same perspective is the 12-24 f/4 DX lens which, at $940 is out of reach of the average photo hobbyist. One of the marketing points made about the new smaller digital format was that it would be possible to make lenses not only smaller and lighter, but CHEAPER. Anyone think it will happen?