Nikon full frame? No way!

[ShunCheung]

I am afraid that your numbers are off. According to Thom Hogan, in 2005, Canon has roughly 50% and Nikon 33% of the DSLR market: http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1021&message=18195831

 

I know you are talking about 2004, but I sure don't think Canon's share has dropped by 14% in 2005. Please also keep in mind that these are approximate numbers because every company's fiscal year is different so that it is hard to make exact comparisons.

 

Additionally, Nikon sure has made its own share of niche-market products such as the F6, FM3a, S3 rangefinder .... I happen to be not interested in those items, but they make some people happy.

[bob_katz1]

"<i>Bob, have you done any actual shooting with a 5D or 1Ds and Canon lenses?</i>"<p>

 

As a long-time Canon pro user and CPS member, yes I have.<p>

 

"<i>I have no trouble getting outstanding results even with $300 to $400 Canon lenses on a 5D</i>"<p>

 

Good for you. I guess it proves that if you set your standards low enough, you'll never be disappointed...

[david_h._hartman]

Its time for Nikon to get its act together and

bring out some DX primes to fill the many voids. Nikon does not

offer a full system of lenses for DX cameras. No fast wide angle

prime lenses for DX, no short portrait telephotos. Its been

five or six years since the D1. This is a pathetic situation.<br>

<br>

<u>Nikon does not even have a DX counterpart for the mid 60s

35/2.0. The lens should be a 23.5mm f/2.0. There is no

counterpart for the late 50s 10.5/2.5. To get adequate

background blurring this lens should be a 70 to 72mm f/1.4.

Where the hell are these most basic lenses!</u><br>

<br>

Its pass time for Nikon to offer a 24x36mm format DSLR.

This is a failure of management. Nikon needs to take their

Chairman and CEO out and draw and quarter him.<br>

<br>

Dave Hartman.

[ilkka_nissila]

David, remember when in happier times ten years ago we were complaing about no AF-S in most lenses. Now we have no lenses so we'd be happy with manual focus and screwdriver ones :-) Isn't the life of a Nikon user grand.

[bob_katz1]

"<i>It�s time for Nikon to get it�s act together and bring out some DX primes to fill the many voids. Nikon does not offer a full system of lenses for DX cameras. No fast wide angle prime lenses for DX, no short portrait telephotos. It�s been five or six years since the D1. This is a pathetic situation.

 

Nikon does not even have a DX counterpart for the mid �60s 35/2.0. The lens should be a 23.5mm f/2.0. There is no counterpart for the late �50s 10.5/2.5. To get adequate background blurring this lens should be a 70 to 72mm f/1.4. Where the hell are these most basic lenses!</i>"<p>

And the reason is simple - no one buys lenses like this any more.

[ilkka_nissila]

For Nikon, no, because 1) these primes don't exist, and 2) because Nikon has lost most of those customers who did buy such lenses, 3) the current primes have optical designs from the 80s or 70s for the most part.

 

Canon FF users do seem to use primes enough for Canon to produce them (and in fast versions, too). Funny how life is full of coincidences. Nikon discontinued their 28/1.4 because no one would pay such a price for a lens which isn't really even wide on DX.

 

If you produce an inferior product (most Canon primes have USM and their longer primes IS, yet they sell typically for a lower price), and sell it for a very high price, the buyers will go elsewhere.

[ilkka_nissila]

I would also like to point out that a little bit of extra precision adds a lot to the credibility of a message. "No one" is a pretty strong expression when we know that this forum has dozens of active members who regularly use f/1.4 glass (and many of us new, too).

[ky2]

Ilkka, as I noted before, MANY people buy the DX-Specced Sigma 30/1.4, and seem to love it. It's about $400, thats a cool $1k less than the Nikkor 28/1.4... Nikon is definitely missing out on those DX-primes.

[kelly_flanigan1]

Dslrs are a minority slice of the digital capture devices available. Full frame dslrs are a dinky slice of the dslr market. Just because one person in your neighbor wants pink flamingos on all yards doesnt mean it will happen. Just because folks want a full frame low cost dslr doesnt mean there is a way to magically make them profitable with a low selling price. <BR><BR>Digital cameras with a removable lens are a market with alot less growth than fixed lens digital cameras. Removeable lens digital camera owners have a higher warranty cost, they whine more too, they have a tighter criteria for a noisy pixel than a care free typical P&S digital camera user.<BR><BR> What if a low cost full frame dslr never arrives? <BR><BR>What if you are asking this decade old question 5 years from now? What if alot of the removable 35mm camera lenses get discontinued, due to lack of sales? What if it arrives 5, 10 or 15 years from now? Alot of younger folks dont have all this emotional "full frame" desire, and just use what tools are available now. If a magical XYZ full frame Acme lens mount dslr comes out tommorrow, how much would you be willing to pay for it.?<BR><BR>In tools such as circular saws, folks can dream of a 35 dollar worm drive 10" saw, like their Kmart 7 1/4" they sleeve bearing non worm drive. ONCE yields get good, big 10" worm drive saws should get cheaper. ? Since they dont believe in Big Foot, they ask "when will a full size saw come out, that is reasonably priced?. Good tools for thin markets tend to have higher prices. <BR><BR>There is alot of 35mm gear now being disposed of, because alot of folks leapfrogged the dslr and went to the high end P&S digital.<BR><BRI want a low cost full frame dslr Nikon too, but wonder about when or if they really will magically be soon in bubble packs at Walmart, made in India. :)

[Gup]

And, to add to Kelly's bit, some of those that opted for digital P&S to replace their old film SLRs are now on their 2nd and 3rd P&S. I've given up even trying to keep up with all the models from all the companies that are on the shelves. HP and Casio and Sanyo and all the phone companies. Someone knows something about consumer trends!

 

Gup.

[david_h._hartman]

<em>Alot of younger folks dont have all this emotional

"full frame" desire, and just use what tools are

available now. --Kelly Flanigan<br>

</em><br>

But Kelly, if a photograph doesnt have emotional impact

what the hell is it for? Nikon needs to give me a FF DSLR or a 70

to 72mm f/1.4 DX lens. I need one or the other. For me this is

not an emotional desire, it is a requirement. A

requirement so my photographs can have emotional impact.<br>

<br>

Ive owned a 105/2.5 Nikkor since the winter of 1970~71. I

cannot be fooled. All I have now is a 35~70/2.8D AF Zoom-Nikkor

and it cannot do on DX what my 105/2.5 AIS Nikkor can do on film.

The hole in my DX system is about as deep and wide as the Grand

Canyon.<br>

<br>

Ill have to start processing my own E-6 if I can still get

the chemicals. I don't really want to but don't care to wait a

week for processing. I've processed E-4 so I guess I can handle it.<br>

<br>

Regards,<br>

<br>

Dave Hartman.

[ellis_vener_photography]

<I>Bob, have you done any actual shooting with a 5D or 1Ds and Canon lenses?"<P>

 

As a long-time Canon pro user and CPS member, yes I have.<P>

 

"I have no trouble getting outstanding results even with $300 to $400 Canon lenses on a 5D"<P>

 

Good for you. I guess it proves that if you set your standards low enough, you'll never be disappointed...</I><P>

Bob, I'm extremely critical, I'm also a professional shooter and I get great quality images with both the 35mm f/2 & 85mm f/1.8 lenses on my 1Ds Mk.2. Both of those lenses cost less than $400.00

[mike dixon]

<i>I am afraid that your numbers are off. According to Thom Hogan, in 2005, Canon has roughly 50% and Nikon 33% of the DSLR market:</i><P>

First, I should have said over 62% of the American market (I was typing from memory) in 2004. Below is a quote from a Canon press release (admittedly not an unbiased source) citing figures from the retail market research firm The NPD Group.<P>

 

<i>America has spoken, and it has chosen Canon as the leading brand for digital cameras in 2004, according to recently released retail sales data from The NPD Group, one of the leading providers of retail market information.<P>

 

The NPD Group reports that the Canon brand captured the number one position in Total Digital Camera Sales in 2004, with a market share of 20.4 percent, based on unit sales of both compact cameras and digital SLR cameras combined*. In addition, Canon was the number one brand in both NPD's Digital Point-and-Shoot and Digital SLR categories, with market shares of 18.6 percent and 62.8 percent, respectively.</i><P>

 

Bob Katz said: <i>Good for you. I guess it proves that if you set your standards low enough, you'll never be disappointed...</i><P>

Other people have closely examined the shots I've made (close inspection of big enlargements), and they were very satisfied (sometimes even impressed) by the results. There are thousands of other pros who also use Canon gear because it delivers the quality they need. Perhaps our standards are no match for yours, but it's not really accurate to claim that they're "low."

[larry n.]

(1) I really don't understand why people who are happily shooting with Canon are reading these Nikon threads. Silly Nikon threads I might add.

 

(2) Who cares what size the sensor is if it delivers the results you want? I remember the days before the 1Ds came out, when Canon evangelists were of the unwavering opinion that sensor size didn't matter.

 

(3) The major advantage of "full frame" is that wide is wide. However, I understand that ordinary wide angle lenses don't perform so hot on the 1Ds. Isn't that why Canon shooters (who have the money) are flocking to Leica lenses?

 

(4) Is wide really worth $8,000 plus $thousands for the Leica lenses, when an F100, a roll of Provia and a $900 scanner can do the same job?

 

(5) Who ever said that "full frame" is the holy grail? Why not a "medium format" or heck, a large format digital. They exist, for a steep price.

 

At the end of the day, if you're not happy with the pictures you are getting out of your DSLR, Canon or Nikon, it's probably the photographer's fault.

 

Adios Amigos.

[stwrtertbsratbs5]

"Robert, I am not a venture capitalist and I couldn't care less about how much profit Nikon makes by selling consumer gear if the equipment doesn't meet my needs."

 

Nikon management will focus on meeting needs and on making a profit. Companies that don't focus on making a profit die. And what Nikon has done makes financial sense - their cameras meet the needs of many (not all) photographers.

 

I hope Nikon does really well in the p&s segment so that they have the financial resources to expand their line. They'll get a FF DSLR out the door at some point. Until then, my D200 is a damn nice camera.

 

I also hope that Canon and Sony do well. Competition will benefit everyone.

[ilkka_nissila]

Norman, your points are a couple of years out of date.

<p>

<i>(1) I really don't understand why people who are happily shooting with Canon are reading these Nikon threads. Silly Nikon threads I might add. </i>

<p>

Nikon offers some things Canon does not, such as better viewfinders (in the higher end models), better general ergonomics, some specialized lenses (e.g. PC, Zoom and VR Micro-Nikkors) and better compatibility with manual focus lenses. Many people who don't use Nikon in the absence of FF DLSRs have an interest in Nikon eventually coming up with such cameras.

<p><i>

(2) Who cares what size the sensor is if it delivers the results you want? I remember the days before the 1Ds came out, when Canon evangelists were of the unwavering opinion that sensor size didn't matter. </i><p>

Who cared what the quality difference between disc cameras and 35 mm or medium format film? A lot of folks did. DX would be good if it had a full lens line to support it, but currently there are just three lenses worth considering.

<p><i>

(3) The major advantage of "full frame" is that wide is wide. However, I understand that ordinary wide angle lenses don't perform so hot on the 1Ds. Isn't that why Canon shooters (who have the money) are flocking to Leica lenses? </i><p>

Few people need to use off-brand lenses on Canon FFs, and even those just use perhaps one or two. And those lenses are only a little more expensive than the equivalent Canons really. The main advantage of FF is that you get access to specialized lenses available only for the 35 mm size, such as T/S/PC wide lenses, fast wide angles, portrait lenses, sensible ranges for telephoto zooms, and generally better image quality across the board. A lot of people also appreciate the 1 stop additional sensitivity that FF gives you with equivalent noise and dynamic range.

<p>

<i>

(4) Is wide really worth $8,000 plus $thousands for the Leica lenses, when an F100, a roll of Provia and a $900 scanner can do the same job?

</i><p>

This is bizarre. A Canon 5D costs <$3000, not $8000! And film looks totally different and has a different workflow.

<p>

<i>(5) Who ever said that "full frame" is the holy grail? Why not a "medium format" or heck, a large format digital. They exist, for a steep price. </i><p>

Take a look at the prices: a decent DX DSLR can be finally had for $1700, a decent FF DLSR for $3000, and a medium format cropped sensor digital SLR for, what? $10000? Or $30000. Where do you think the sweet spot is, eh? IMO DX is brilliant for telephoto applications but not so good for wide angle or low light work.

<p>

<i>

At the end of the day, if you're not happy with the pictures you are getting out of your DSLR, Canon or Nikon, it's probably the photographer's fault. </i>

<p>

Sure, photographer is more important than the equipment but not all things can be done as well with all equipment. Most pros seem to think something is wrong with Nikon's approach, and they should know.

<p>

And I forgot to mention the viewfinder size. FF DSLRs can actually be reliably focused manually. How do you focus on the eyelash with an f/2 or faster lens? It's easy with a 35 mm SLR, but very erratic on even the best of DX cameras. And autofocus doesn't work for applications where depth of field is shallow and the subject is 3D.

[ptkeam]

Good Grief!! Some of you people need to get a life. This is one of the longest threads I've ever seen on photo.net.

What a tempest in a teapot. I made my living exclusively as a photographer for over 25 years -- started out using 4x5 for full-length bridal & family portraits. Then I switched to the "little" medium format cameras. Over the years I used 35mm sparingly. I've now switched exclusively to ditital -- Nikon --

I have no problem with the DX format. Using D70's now & plan on adding a D200 in near future.

Quality is excellent as far as I'm concerned. The 1.5 lens factor is really only a problem for ultra-wide angle shots.

OK people, how often did you REALLY use an 18mm lens on a 35mm film camera???

Geez, stop the navel-gazing and go out and take some pictures.

[mike dixon]

I've been out shooting with 20mm/f1.8 (on a full-frame sensor camera) for much of the afternoon, and I'm planning to keep shooting with it when I head out to the bars in an hour or two (something I couldn't do with a f4 zoom). [i'm in East Asia--Friday evening here.]

[harvey_edelstein1]

Someone should send this thread and all discussions to Nikon in USA and Japan. Many good points were made here and the other two threads on Full Frame made today. Can anyone supply the best email addresses at Nikon to send them to. This issue is going nowhere but for years these points have been stated and Nikon has raised the level of frustration voiced here to the highest level I have seen regarding Nikon products direction. Teeing us off. Send this thread to Nikon.

[fourfa]

just an update for those in Nikon land, a motivated buyer can obtain a 5D from Dell for $2400 after rebate, $2600 from B&H after rebate. Just FYI for those frequent price comparisons.

[ilkka_nissila]

Peter, believe me when I say I would like nothing more than be pleased with the DX format. If you can work with it and have no trouble, don't make the automatic assumption that everyone who doesn't like it is a fool who doesn't know what they're doing. They might be doing different kinds of photographs, eh?

[larry n.]

What photographs can only be made with a digital camera having a 24x35 sensor?

[ivsimler]

Any wideangle shot using an already owned Nikkor 20mm 2.8 is one shot I can think of that can only be made with a 24x35 sensor....

[larry n.]

George: that was a serious question. I appreciate a sense of humor, so I like your answer. But if anyone has a serious answer, I would really love to learn:

 

With today's technology, what types of pictures can you do with a "full frame" DSLR but not with a D2X? Does anyone have examples?

[ilkka_nissila]

All my wide angle pictures taken with the D200 are soft, the wider I go the muddier they get. This was true on film also, but as George mentions, an iso 100 slide film (e.g. astia or velvia 100f) shot taken with a 20 mm Nikkor is something that cannot be replicated (in quality) with any DX format camera (well, certainly not with the D200). This is even more so true if you look at wide angle shots taken on medium format film (and since medium format film cameras cost about the same as DX digital cameras these days, the comparison is valid for small volumes of pictures).

 

I am not sure if a Canon FF DSLR could replicate the quality of film wide angle shots, but I do know for sure that in available light photography FF is much better. If you take a 17-55/2.8 DX you can probably take shots at iso 400 without too much noise. That's f/2.8. On a FF DSLR you can pick an f/1.4 lens and you gain two stops of aperture over the zoom, and you also gain one additional stop because of the larger pixels of the 5D over the D200 (or D2X). So you can shoot in 1/8th of the light and get reasonable quality pictures. Just because 1) the 5D is full-frame, and 2) because fast wide angle primes exist for it, as they did/do for Nikon film cameras. If you don't care for shallow depth of field, then you don't gain as much but I certainly find fast lenses very useful.