Nikon Full Frame, when?

[mawz]

Yaron: Compare 20D/30D sales to the 5D's sales. I don't think a 5D equivalent from Nikon would hurt D200 sales all that badly, unless it also offered the D200's other performance (5fps, weather sealing, pro-level build, excellent AF, none of which the 5D has). The 5D pretty much has been taking sales from the 1DsmkII not the 30D/20D.

 

Vivek: 3fps body with adequate AF and high-end amateur build pretty much describes both the 5D and D70s. The 5D's advantages are all in the sensor, and the viewfinder that the FF sensor permits. The 5D's AF isn't significantly better either (it's slightly better than a 20D/30D, but not as much as some make out). Yeah, the sensor in the 5D is nice, if you have the glass to take advantage of it, and once you're looking at $6K+ in lenses, that 30D or D200 with a DX/EF-S lens or two aren't looking so bad now (especially since the 10-22 EF-S is actually sharper in the corners on a 30D than the 16-35L is on a 5D).

 

FF has its place. But there's also major issues with it. DX isn't going anywhere, especially at the low/mid end of the market.

[klix]

<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. -- Arnab</i>

<p><p>

Arnab - true enough that a $3k FF Nikon would outsell a $7k FF Nikon. However, if Nikon marketing folks went to business school at all, they would know that a $3k FF Nikon would have a huge negative impact on the sales of the D2X and D200 and likely the D2HS, and their evolution.

<p><p>

So, from a product stratification perspective, Nikon will likely try to protect the D2X and D200, which then makes a $7k-$8k FF body more feasible.

<p><p>

Of course this is all a SWAG - since no one really knows... But conjecture is harmless fun, isn't it?

<p><p>

KL

[mawz]

Yaron: Also the D2x offers plenty that the 5D can't hope to match. Build, AF performance, weather sealing, fps (especially in crop mode), extra reach with long lenses, battery life, metering, WB adjustability.

 

There is a lot more to a camera than just the sensor. The sensor in the 5D is superb. The rest of the package is adequate, but it's a $500 film camera or a $900 APS-C DSLR. If you can live with 3fps, no weather sealing, average build quality and decent AF but need very high resolution and incredible high-ISO performance the 5D is for you. But if you need the features of a pro body, there are better options. Including the D200 and D2x, bith of which offer far more performance outside of the sensor than the 5D does.

[ky2]

<i>"There is a lot more to a camera than just the sensor"</i> -- I agree. But with DSLRs, a sensor is most of the camera. I don't care much for high speed AF, I manual focus my lenses on my D200 too. But I believe 3fps covers MOST needs, professional too. There would always be the odd task that requires 8fps, but its NOT a deal breaker for most (read, 99%) DSLR shooters outthere.<br><br>

The point is, would you pick DX over FF, if FF was slightly more expensive? DX thrived because of the $8k 1Ds... the 5D is 8 months old now-- and is outselling _D2Xs_ 1 to 5 (according to Calumet SF) right now.

[ilkka_nissila]

The main problem with the D70 is its viewfinder (one of the worst in any SLR), and the 5D has one of the best viewfinders of any digital SLR. This is a major difference.

 

The sensor is a major part of image quality and most tests published so far indicate that the 5D image quality is generally speaking above the more expensive D2X. Obviously, good lenses used, which most people here use anyway. Now, if you have the screen to focus reliably, and the camera has no obvious defects, and the image quality is at the top what more could one ask? Yes, so it's slow but time will take care of those problems. It's not "slow" as in medium format or large format camera kind of slow. I never use continuous mode shooting. Not once with the D200. Makes no difference - I take individual pictures.

 

My only reason not to get the 5D is not even my Nikon lenses, but Canon's inability or unwillingness to make a high eyepoint viewfinder. That in my priority list goes even above image quality because the operational pain of low eyepoint viewfinders make the shooting experience such that I'd rather not pick up the camera at all.

[ShunCheung]

Yaron, why did you recently buy a D200 instead of a Canon 5D to replace/upgrade from your Canon 20D?

 

Moreover, you have mentioned several times that the 5D out-sells the D2X by 5:1. Do you have any actual sales figures to support such a claim? Exactly which period was covered and how many of each were sold?

[arnabdas]

"So, from a product stratification perspective, Nikon will likely try to protect the D2X and D200, which then makes a $7k-$8k FF body more feasible. "

 

I agree to that logic. Nikon is already far too invested in DX-sized pro bodies and a budget FF like the 5D would badly shake up the lineup. However, the 5D is able to coexist with 1.3x 1D/II.

[ky2]

<i>"Yaron, why did you recently buy a D200 instead of a Canon 5D to replace/upgrade from your Canon 20D?"</i> -- Oh that was a simple decision. I like my FM3a very much, and was using my Nikkors on the 20D anyway.

[ky2]

<i>"Do you have any actual sales figures to support such a claim?"</i> -- according to a friend of mine at Calumet SF, since the 5D has been announced and is has been made readily available (October?) he has sold five 5Ds to a single D2x. These are ofcourse, his claims, I have no proof what-so-ever.

[greg s]

"Should I wait or just get D200?"

 

Are you an amateur or a top of the line photographer making your living from your images (at which point you wouldn't be asking the question). No matter how much back_and_forth there is over DX vs FF, unless you are doing nth degree quality work, the D200 will almost certainly meet your needs.

 

Here's a folder I found from someone who shoots with a D70.

 

http://www.photo.net/photodb/member-photos?user_id=1128538&include=all

 

Looks OK to me. :)

[photo5]

Peter,

 

The company I work for doesn't process RAW files, we accept Tiffs from photographers already processed. The stuff I see coming from Canon 1DSMKII bodies are cleaner and more easily ingested than the stuff from D70s or even D2X's.

 

Dave

[paul_sauer]

Nikon will make FF as soon as I give in to my temptation to switch to the Canon 5d for its

low noise properties, big viewfinder, and the ability to have fast prime wide angle lenses

again and a fast zoom if I so chose.

 

So I'll let you all know when I buy the 5d, then you can get your preorders in because

Nikon will anounce the next day.

 

I will kick myself because I love my AI primes on my FM bodies.

[mars790]

this thread has gotten interesting hasn't it? too bad some nikon vs. canon emerged. look,

just get the D200. i just added the 10.5 fisheye and love it. i chose the 17-35 over the 17

-55 just in case (i think the 17-35 outperforms the DX lens anyway). when/if Nikon comes

out FF, i will prob get one but will i throw away my D200? not a chance. it will be a superb

backup/alternative and will have the telephoto length that the FF won't- as said above. any

serious shooter will want both formats anyway. for the money the D200 is insane. enjoy

what's in front of you...

[tekkie]

The fact is, that if Nikon were to introduce a full frame, they will sell more D200's. Display of

technical capability more often than not wins customers over to established technology....at a

better price. They do need to offer a choice.

[ilkka_nissila]

Dan, I believe you're absolutely correct.

[chris m., central florida]

Photographers who are very good at what they do will produce stellar images regardless if they shoot a camera with a FF or APS sized sensor. Photographers who produce mediocre images will continue to so so regardless of the FF or ASP sensor issue.

 

Half the advanced amateur photographers out there don't blow anything up past 11X14 anyway and 95% of the general public wouldn't even see the differences present in each brand, so the arguments are really pointless when comparing a D200 to a 5D. Yes, I know that's a broad generalization, and there are no stats to back it up, but in my years of interacting with serious professionals, amateurs and clients alike, that seems to be the case.

 

Some of the arguments I hear have merit. When it gets beyond discussing the technical strengths of a particular camera and into picking on a camera brand because it's "inferior", I see that as simply an ineffective attempt to justify spending a bunch of money on a camera and then trying to prove it's better. We've got quite a few Canon shooters in my neck of the woods running around with $8K cameras strapped to their neck producing nothing better than I can with my D70S in the bottom of my bag. And then we've got a few 10D users who really know what they're doing. And there is one guy out near St. Augustine that uses a $150 TLR and produces jaw dropping work.

 

Buy the D200 WJ, because it's not going to make a difference in the short term. Just enjoy the images and the process of capturing them, and please get a few wall prints done at 16X20 or larger so you know you spent money on something worthwhile to produce the image.

 

Chris

[elliot1]

Wait about 10 years and there will be even more improvements that you haven't even thought of. But if you can't wait that long, nothing beats the D200 today. Think about all the awesome pictures you will miss if you don't have the D200 now?

[dale_keith]

WJ, purchase the D200 and have a great time shooting whatever you like. Don't humor the

Canon/Nikon comparison writer's. Are such comparisons really necessary? I have used both

and enjoyed the features of each. I have been using the Nikon 200-400 VR lens more than

any other I own regardless of brand. I like it better than the Canon 100-400. If you select the

D200, give yourself plenty of time to play with it and try different combinations of the

camera's settings. After a while you will develop your own personal likes.

[wj_lee]

Thanks for all the suggestions. It seems like I have started the great Nikon vs Canon debate, which I had no intension of doing. I will get a digital Nikon body because of the collection of Nikon lenses I already have. I just wanted see whether it will be worth while to wait for FF, really because of the unavailability of inexpensive ultra wide angle lenses. All the opinions seems to point me towards buying D200 now and needless to say I am mighty tempted. As Tito said, buy now and use a lot and have no regrets seems to be the best thing. Because I konw that once you start the waiting game there is no end to waiting.

 

WJ

[kelly_flanigan1]

Some of us waited almost forever and never got the C or D mount moderate cost Super-8 camera, for all those lenses we had for older 8 and 16mm movie cameras.

[patricks]

Shun: "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" </p>

 

That is utter nonsense! Have you ever used one!?! </p>

 

I've owned/used a D200 and 5D side by side. I completely agree that in terms of intuitiveness, ergonimics, menu design etc. the D200 is a better camera. I also prefer the D200 AF-system (but that may just be due to lack of experience with Canons) but image quality wise - the Canon 5D wins hands-down. Although the D200 performs rather well up to ISO 4000 after that it is game-over. Also the resolution power and details achievable with the 5D surpasses the D200 by far. </p>

 

I have no idea why Nikon isn't willing/capable/able to produce a FF DSLR at the right price. As much as I liked the D200 initially when comparing the files side by side - for my type of available light people shooting - the files from the 5D are much better, and at the end it is the print/final product that counts. </p>

 

I really don't understand this brand fundamentalism, use what gets the job done, who cares if it is Nikon or Canon? </p>

 

By the way, I found <a href="http://www.digitalcamerainfo.com/content/Nikon-D200-vs-Canon-EOS-5D-Head-to-Head-Review-.htm">this review comparing the 5D and D200</a> to be the most complete one to date.

[ShunCheung]

Patrick, unfortunately, you cut off two important words in my comment. I said, "to me, the Canon 5D is pretty much a useless DSLR ...."

 

Of course I have used a 5D. Even on the 20D, the AF points are in a diamond shape close to the center of the frame; that is acceptable on the small 20D sensor. When Canon puts the same things on a much larger sensor, the AF point are really crowded in the center, with only 1 cross type AF point. Practically, we are back to the early 1990's style single point AF: AF and recompose. That problem is very obvious in this viewfinder image from dpreview.com: http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/CanonEOS5D/Images/viewfinderdiag.jpg

 

If you shoot studio portraits, fine art or landscape, 3 frames/sec is fine. For many other types of photography, that is pretty poor in today's standards. To me, 5 frames/sec on the D2X is still not sufficient and I am looking forward to getting an 8 frames/sec action DSLR in the future.

 

There is no way I would pay near $3000 for a camera with those problems, but there are people who stils use manual focus. It all depends on what you shoot and what you need.

[berg_na]

Sample images shown on this page:<a href="http://www.studiosamikulju.fi/playground/index.html" target=blank>http://www.studiosamikulju.fi/playground/index.html</a> show that the image quality of the 5D, and even the 1DsMkII, is anything but superior to the D2x. If anything, they don't even come close to the D2x in terms of detail resolution (look in the 'tabletop' gallery). <p>These examples hardly support the argument for the 35mm format sensors...

[patricks]

sorry if i misquoted you, shun, but the bottomline remains the same:

 

- do you own test with the lenses you use in the conditions you shoot. (some online test done in Finland with various lenses with various optimal performance (I hardly think that the Canon 85/1.2 reaches it optimal peformance when stopped down to f/11...))

- i completely understand that 3 fps is not enough for some shooters, just as others need weather sealing etc.

 

My simple point is that both Canon and Nikon makes excellent cameras, it all depends on your application and purposes which model/lens/solution may be the optimal, I just don't believe in brand fundamentalism, some religious devotion to either Canon or Nikon "just because".

 

I mean, I was in getting a passport photo at the Ritz camera store by my office and the owner said he sells - by far - more Nikons than any other brand. Then again, I know dozens of pros that have switched to Canons because of FF and their AF system (don't ask me what the advantage is on the latter point) but I have yet to find any pro going from Canon to Nikon at this point...

 

In WJ case - DX/APS sensor will not die out for a very long time, it will be available in consumer product offerings while I fully expect pro models to become FF. Unless you spend significant time at higher ISOs, the D200 is one of the best cameras/values on the market today.

[ilkka_nissila]

Berg, there are many people who have used both cameras and get quite different results. Any one test is meaningless by itself unless it was carried out by you in those conditions you intend to use it. Shooting aperture, lens, post-processing etc. affect the results. See dpreview.com for another test with a different result. I don't think anyone would claim that 35 mm film yields better results than APS film, although APS size digital is better than same sized film, the same basic phenomena give the edge to the larger sensor in the digital domain. I think it's pretty silly to argue about it really.