Nikon Digital & the Full Frame Image Sensor

[harvey_edelstein1]

Has anyone read the D5 test report on dpreview? Their were positive and negative comments made and favorable and less favorable comparisons made to other canon and Nikon models. The positive point made for the full frame models was in dynamic range and espectially the ability of FF sensors to do better than the Dx2 in the area of latitude the FF models had 3.5 stops vs. about 1 stop measured for the D2x. For me blown highlights or loss of shadow detail is as much an issue as viewfinder image, buying extra lenses because of the loss of wide angle range due to cropping or high iso noise on smaller sensors cameras. I urge everyone to read this detailed test.

 

The test failed to use Zeiss or Leica wide angle lenses on the Canon cameras, but some pros say that good wide angle lenses cure corner light falloff due mostly to Canons poor wide angle lenses performance.

 

On cost of ownership and equipment funding. I as an amateur can't expense and depreciate equipment as a busines would. However, as a hobbiest I can wait until what I want is available. I use my D70 for long lens work the 1.5x crop and my 1.7x tele converter make my VR 70-200 a 500+mm lens at a fairly fast f stop.

 

My F100 does my wide angle work with my 20-35 nikkor f2.8, and does my portraits with my 50mm 1.2, 45mm f2.8p and 85mm f1.4. If the F6 ever comes down in price I will gladly waste my money on it even if film is not arround for the next 15 years. I figure an F6 would hold me until Nikon comes out with a FF dslr.

[patricks]

more speculations...

 

of course Nikon will develop a FF DSLR. rationales: a) the market/competitive situation demands it, b) sensor real-estate. there comes a time where one cannot cram more pixels onto a APS sensor without compromising the quality of the output, no matter how much post-processing one does.

 

when? who knows? my bet is that the D2X replacement will be a FF.

 

who cares? it will cost more than i care to spend a DSLR body.

[lex_jenkins]

It's probably safe to say that Nikon's plans and timing for any introduction of a 24x36 sensor will be influenced by the *financial* success of the Canon 5D. Not the *critical* acclaim or technological breakthrough, but whether the 5D proves to be a serious profit making machine.

 

Flagship model 35mm and digital SLRs don't make a company, tho' they can break 'em. The flagship models are purchased by relatively few photographers, but strongly influence the buying patterns of consumers of low end and midrange cameras.

 

IMO, The 5D is an oddball. It isn't fast enough to be considered competitive with other PJ-oriented dSLRs, including Canon's own new EOS-1D MarkIIn. There's no way yet to know whether it will prove to have the durability of a 1Ds MarkII or D2X, so there's some question as to how popular it will become among pros and serious amateurs.

 

And some might consider it too expensive for what you get. I don't know where I rank among prospective dSLR users, but I'd rather have the 1D MarkIIn for approximately the same money. Many folks who might otherwise consider the 5D for superior imaging potential will also consider the fact that they could buy a 20D (or keep the one they already own) and put the money toward better lenses.

[antonius]

This subject has become boring. There are very good reasons for the smaller sensor but the point is, we Nikon user's comfort zone has been shaken a bit. We are all use to 35mm format and change is a difficult thing for everyone. Although FF users may feel happy with their sensor, if you read scientific test analysis you will see that the edges are not sharp at all and that is the Achilles heel of FF. As a matter of fact, on many forums some pro?s are even suggesting that the cropped sensor would actually suit them better. This is especially true in landscape images where the whole frame must be sharp. However, in sports the main subject is usually in the centre so the edges need not be sharp.

 

The sensor size is not the final factor in image quality. All the algorithms and paraphernalia surrounding the image formation processes play a significant role. Then there is the camera settings such as in camera sharpness, white balance etc. and finally I think the most important the lenses used. Spend more $ on glass than yapping about techno rhetorical issues. In the days of film I had 3 camera?s and 3 lenses. I sold everything, decided on Nikon and now have 1 camera and 5 lenses. And I can tell you, I don?t give a rats backside about sensor size, I have more freedom with more glass than I would ever have with 1 lens and a FF camera !

 

 

Want a good review, have a look at: http://www.imagepower.de/IMAGES/imgEQUIPMENT/D2X.htm

[dean_tomasula1]

Don't be fooled by all the marketing hype Canon throws out about their full frame bodies. I've shot full frame and 1.5 (Kodak DCS Pro 14nx, Nikon D100, Nikon D70 and Nikon D2X) and the only appreciable difference between the two is that on a full frame body your 28mm wide angle is a 28mm wide angle. That's the only difference. When using a full frame and a Nikon body, you will not be able to tell the difference between images once they are printed. You can't even tell the difference between the RAW images, unless you look at the EXIF data.

 

Besides, Nikon is developing new DX lenses (both wide angle and others) so the point will be moot soon.

[bruce_wilcox2]

A couple of FF vs. smaller sensor issues for me:

 

1) I like the depth-of-field control and viewing angle a fast 50mm lens offers. The 35mm-ish lens I would end up using on a digital camera as an equivalent to a 50mm has more depth-of-field at similar apertures, so I have less control. (Yes, I know that if I move up to medium or large format I'd have even more DOF control, but 35mm offers the best balance of control and portability and I've been really happy with the DOF on my 50mm and 85mm lenses.)

 

DOF has become really important to me, and limiting DOF can really add to a photo's effectiveness. Shorter focal lengths for normal and tele lenses seems like a step backward to me.

 

2) I love my fast and compact 20mm f2.8 Nikkor. I don't want it to effectively turn into a 30mm (with more distortion than my 35mm Nikkor?), nor do I want to lug around a huge zoom or even a super-wide prime with twice the filter size and smaller aperture to get the same angle of view.

 

Because of these I haven't made the switch from film to digital on the camera side. Give me a dSLR that allows me the DOF control that I enjoy now and lets me use small, fast superwides with 52mm or 62mm filters and I'll take the plunge. In the meantime, I'll keep shooting film and scanning the negatives.

[ron_adar1]

I wish Nikon had a better way for photographer to interact with them. Personally I shoot both digital and film and I hate to have to buy two sets of lenses, just too damn expensive.

 

Thanks to all.

[ilkka_nissila]

You don't have to buy separate lenses for film and digital. I have 13 Nikkors from 14 mm to 300 mm and they all work well with both formats.