1.2x crop factor try it on for size compromise.

[harvey_edelstein1]

Many here say FF is not ready for prime time, because, CA fringing, vignetting

edges of frame on wide angle lenses and cost of a FF sensor. The other side

says that DX makes almost all our wide and portrait lenses too long and not as

usable effective focal length as when used FF on film. Also, FF allows higher

iso with less noise, greater exposure latitude and better oof separtion.

 

Each company that makes less than FF sensors decides on its own cropping factor

from Leica 1.33x to Canon 1.6x. These still requires at least one extra wide

angle lens to fill out the bag full of lenses.

 

I have listenned to both sides and reason would say there must be a compromise.

A cropping factor of 1.2x has a lot going for it. First the lens lineup.

 

FF ///// 1.2x ///// 1.5x

 

17mm // 20.4mm // 25.5mm

 

20mm // 24mm // 30mm

 

24mm // 28.8mm // 36mm

 

28mm // 33.6mm // 42mm

 

35mm // 42mm // 52.5mm

 

85mm // 102mm // 127.5mm

 

105mm // 117.6mm // 157.5mm

 

With a 1.2x crop factor, our wide angle lenses are still wide without needing to

buy 12mm dx lenses and our 85mm lens becomes a very acceptable 102mm lens.

 

Vinetting, and CA are helped as they are with dx cropping by dropping that part

of the sensor coverage that has not been thus far a great success of FF sensor

designs on 35mm dslrs. On the flip side on the other hand since the sensor is

substantially larger it should have better noise and exposure latitude and oof

characteristics like FF sensors. Cameta is selling the Canon 5d for $2,900 and

Canon brings the price to $2600 with their $300 rebate. I bring this up to

point out that prices are comming down for larger sensors and while we await the

perfect sensor we could use our present equipment better with the 1.2x cropping

factor as a comprimise in the meanwhile.

[Karim Ghantous]

I don't have a problem with your idea but I wouldn't want to see it implemented. I think you either have DX (1.5x) or FF. 1.2x is, as you say, a compromise, and also as you say, something that wouldn't have to last long. For the latter reason I say Nikon shouldn't consider it.

 

Canon had three multipliers going last time I checked (FF, 1.3 and 1.6). Too bad Kodak, with all its collective intelligence, couldn't make a FF equivalent to a D1 or D2 series camera (applying a compulsory median filter as NR in hardware is inexcusable). Perhaps Nikon is, anyway, happy for third parties to make FF cameras for their lenses. Fuji could do it but it probably sees the same problems as Nikon sees.

 

Ironically: Nikon's F mount has the longest lens-to-image plane distance of all popular 35mm cameras, making it more suitable for a FF sensor than the shorter EF mount.

 

Perhaps Nikon is thinking that unless it can be done properly it shouldn't be done at all. Apple was late to the MP3 player game and yet dominates it. Okay, so I'm going on a tangent, but it shows the validity of Raymond Rubicam's belief that it's better to be right than to be first.

[ShunCheung]

More "standards" will only lead to even more confusion. With a 1.2x crop factor, all of a sudden the DX lenses people bought recently cannot be used any more. Just that alone will lead to endless complaints. Meanwhile, the focal lengths people were used to from the 35mm film era are still "not correct."

 

Instead of a compromise, you'll simply have more complaints from both sides.

[vivek iyer]

Anything larger than 1.5X crop is fine by me. Confusion caused by 1.5X or 1.1X is always going to be there.

[malcolm_farrow]

I must admit, I've often wondered whether this sort of option would be a good one. Having

used a variety of formats for both film and digital I really don't feel very wedded to the

24x36mm format anymore and, as time goes by, I think most people will feel pretty

comfortable with the simple mental gymnastics involved. Increasingly, it's a non-issue for

most people, it's performance that matters.

 

Having briefly used a top of the range Canon, I have to say I wasn't very impressed with

the corner performance of the 17-40mm L lens attached. So the slightly cropped sensor

size might have a lot of merit - avoiding the poorest performing area of many existing

lenses while gaining the many theoretical benefits of a larger sensor, just as Harvey

describes. It might help to keep the cost down too - both in terms of the camera itself and

the lenses as you wouldn't necesarily be limited to using the best glass available.

 

So I say... good idea! ...just by two pence worth.

 

Best wishes to all

[therion256]

Luckily for you guys, someone has already implemented the lens factor described above (and done it slightly better.)

 

Enter the Mamiya ZD...a medium-format DSLR camera I would dream of owning. It has a 1.16x lens crop factor.

 

Its cost and the cost of the lenses make Nikon D2X and the Canon full-frame offerings seem really cheap (as in cost-effective) by comparison.

 

Huge 48mmx36mm 22MP CCD.

 

Not really that great for action shooting though.

 

See http://www.dpreview.com/news/0603/06030903mamiyazd.asp

[charles_miller]

Harvey,

 

For what it is worth, I would definitely consider a 1.2X body, and just for the reasons you mentioned. But as you can see, optimal designs don't please everyone.

[robert_potts1]

A D1200 sounds good to me. 12mp 1.2x!

[mark_chappell]

I have a Canon 1DII (1.3X) and I think it's a nice compromise compared to the high cost of a

full-frame sensor and the restricted view of an APS/DX sensor. 1.3X provides a nice

viewfinder, some boost in telephoto magnification (not as good as APS or DX of course), but

only a modest reduction in wideangle FOV: for example, a 17 mm lens acts like a 22 mm

lens, which is

still pretty wide.

 

Unfortunately (IMO), Canon seems to be planning on doing away with the 1.3X sensor size. I

hope the keep it for a while, at least.

[sean_flanigan]

I am fed up! Just give me a FF DSLR and I'll be happy. I have sooo much Nikon gear that I'm ready to trade in for Canon. As much as I love Nikon they are neglecting the fact that many of their loyalist do want a FF.

 

1.2, 1.3, I don't want it! Give me a FF.

[mark_chappell]

<I>1.2, 1.3, I don't want it! Give me a FF.</i><P>

 

Let me guess: you don't do much work with long teles? You're not a wildlife photographer?

Because for those purposes, less-than-full-frame sensors are extremely helpful.

[vivek iyer]

How is 1DMkII (1.3x) more helpful than the 1DsMk3 (1x)? It is not the smaller sensor, it is the write speed.

 

You can always crop down from a larger frame but cannot crop up from a smaller sensor, I think.

 

May be NX has a fix for that?

[mark_chappell]

<I>It is not the smaller sensor, it is the write speed.</i><P>

 

It's also a matter of efficent image storage (~8 instead of ~ 16 megabytes per RAW) and

almost a factor of 2 in cost. Why bother with 16 megapixels if you're only going to use half

of them due to cropping?

[vivek iyer]

That is why, Mark, Nikon has its flagship sports shooter in a D2Hs.

 

4MP. Even some antiquated PC can handle that. :-)

 

Beat that Canon!

[harvey_edelstein1]

I also would rather have a FF sensor, if one can be made to work well without the wide angle problems I mentioned in my first post.

 

It is not really a higher magnification that is helping your nature shots its simple cropping and you could alway crop a FF image to make it look like it was made with a more powerful lens. There is even uprez software that does a great job adding virtual pixels.

 

The reverse is true when MF shots are cropped at the top and bottom to come up with the "pano" look. They look wider and of course are not.

 

All I am saying is until the FF sensor are cheaper and clearly better performers, lets enjoy much larger sensors that allow us better use of our existing lenses, work better in low light, more exposure latitude and lets do what is possible now at affordable pricing.

[mark_chappell]

<I> you could alway crop a FF image to make it look like it was made with a more powerful

lens. There is even uprez software that does a great job adding virtual pixels.</i><P>

 

Not as good as having a higher number of pixels in the original image. I know this from

experience, comparing cropped images from a 1DII (1.3X) to full-frame images from a 30D

(1.6X). Uncropped images from the 30D beat identically composed but cropped images from

the 1DII -- the latter have 50% fewer pixels when cropped to the same composition.