200-400mm f/4G IF-ED AF-S VR Zoom-Nikkor

[daniel_ck_chan]

Sorry, I mean that I will not be tempted to buy DX lenses which only fit for 1.5x sensor.

[ilkka_nissila]

Currently, all the DX lenses are wide angles, which would otherwise be unavailable for 1.5x digital cameras at a reasonable price. Obviously they have no intention of making a full range of lenses for a small sensor, why would they? I agree completely with Bob: once more and more people start getting these 1Ds type cameras, the DX format becomes unacceptable for the majority of serious users. And no, you don't need an A0 print to see it like some people seem to believe.

[ilkka_nissila]

The 200-400/4G AF-S VR Nikkor and the EF 100-400/5.6L are in entirely different price classes, and so should the optical quality be. I believe you prefer the 300/4L to the zoom on grounds of optical quality (and possibly speed at 300 mm). What if the 200-400/4 is similar to the primes in quality (which it quite likely looking at the price). Personally I can't imagine using a soft 400/5.6.

[ShunCheung]

The main issue with full-35mm-frame DSLR is the cost. If a 1Ds costs $2000 and a 1D costs $1000, perhaps a lot of people can justify the extra $1000 to go for medium-format quality. If full-frame sensors remain costly while small sensors can deliver sufficient quality, small sensors could become the norm. A lot of us have been using 35mm for years even though medium-format has always been providing superior quality all along. It is a matter of what is "good enough" and cost.

 

DSLR is a fast changing field. It is difficult to predict how things will evolve even 3-5 years down the road.

[bobatkins]

Small frame sensors won't become the norm simply because there's an clear and obvious upgrade path. So you buy an EOS 10D now with a 6MP small frame sensor. If Canon want you to buy another camera they can do two things - give you more pixels or give you a bigger sensor. So they can bring out new models, first with more pixles, then with a bigger sensor. Now you've bought 3 cameras. Then they tempt you with more pixels AND a bigger sensor.

 

They can't to go more than full frame 35mm because the lenses won't cover any more but you can bet that they'll take full advantage of the "upgrade path". all the way to full frame as they try to part you from your money. There's absolutely no incentive to stay with small frame sensors once the price comes down (and it will). And if Canon do it, Nikon had better follow them or get left in the dust.

[ShunCheung]

Bob, the clear upgrade path makes sense only if it is cost effective. If a $1000 small sensor can give me good 16x20 prints, why should I spend $3000 on a full-frame sensor if I don't need larger prints? Of course I am merely making up those numbers, but you can see the point.

[ilkka_nissila]

I read somewhere that glossy photographic paper can resolve 20 lpmm (or was it 10). People can see the difference between that paper and softer ones, although they might not see all the detail without a loupe .. but the sharper paper still looks sharper. Now, how many MP do you need to make a 8x12 inch print which looks as sharp without artificial sharpness enhancement techniques (so that the detail you see is real and not a result of pixel manipulation)? Let's see: 8 inch * 12 inch * (25.4 mm/inch)^2 * (40 /mm)^2 = 99 million. So, in order to get an optimally sharp print of 8x12 inch size, you need about 100 megapixels.

[ShunCheung]

Ilkka, I am afraid that your math is way off. Generally speaking, you can get excellent prints at 300 dpi while 200 dpi is quite acceptable. A 6MP DSLR has a 3000x2000 sensor. That should give you very good 8x10's with little post-processing.