Nikon FX Sensor on "affordable" cameras?

Discussion in 'Nikon' started by Carlos Moreno, Sep 3, 2008.

  1. Is there anything out there like some sort of a "petition" to Nikon
    release more models featuring the full-size FX sensor?

    By that, I mean more non-professional models --- I have to say, I
    sort of offended by Nikon's announce of the D3 (first model featuring
    full-size sensor), talking about (I'm paraphrasing, off the top of my
    head) how the DX being ideal for most users, but they were convinced
    that the *professionals* need the additional quality, etc. etc.

    I felt insulted --- just because I don't make a living out of taking
    photographs I am not allowed to want the additional quality? Pfftt!!

    Well, the other issue is: well, it's simple: you want full-size
    You got it! It costs $5000 (well, $3000+ with the release of the

    I guess my complaint has two parts:

    1) You look at Nikon's web site (the Canadian one at least), and they
    present three categories: Essential DSLR (D40 and D60), Advanced
    DSLR (D80, D200, D300 and now the new D90), and Professional
    DSLR (D3 and D700 only, IIRC). Why don't they have a model in the
    Advanced category that has a full-size sensor?

    2) Compare the D300 and D700 --- they have a price difference of
    a little above $1000 ... Then look at the D90 --- at a glance it
    like all the features of the D300 and several more (I may be mistaken
    there --- please do tell me!): GPS-tagging, video capture at
    720p ...
    Not saying that these are necessarily good features, but they seem
    like *expensive* features.... And yet, the D90 is priced far below
    D300... So, why not a "D90 with full-size sensor" that costs around
    $1000 more than the D90? That would bring it to what I consider
    the reasonable price threshold for an "advanced/serious amateur".
    At least from my point of view, I would most definitely *jump* to a
    model with full-size sensor that goes for around $2000. The $3000
    figure already makes my pocket hurt...

    Any comments? Any petitions from Nikon users already in place, or
    should I start one? Would I be the only one sending such a petition
    letter to Nikon? Or, will I simply get a nice response from them
    me, "Oh, you want a camera with full-size sensor? Oh yes, we have
    two models available, feel free to drop by any of our authorized
    dealers and get yours" ??


    Carlos Moreno, Sep 3, 2008
    1. Advertisements

  2. Thanks for your comments!

    A couple of additional points:
    Of course --- that part was clear to me. I was analyzing the price
    in the existing models, and noticed what I believe to be an
    when it comes to FX vs. DX sensors; in any case, estimating an
    of $1000 in the cost *just because of the sensor*, that still leaves
    possibility of a full-size sensor camera in the order of $2000
    similar features as the D90)
    Agreed. I guess this is, in a sense, the central point of my
    I know --- at the risk of sounding immodest, I like to believe that I
    taken some more or less amazing ones with my D70. The thing is, with
    a full-size sensor, I would be able to take the exact same ones,
    amazing, plus a few others that I may have simply passed at some
    point given the impossibility to take with my D70. (the key detail
    being *wide-angle*)
    This may be offset by the fact that many people may have a stock of
    lenses from the time of their film cameras (that's my case at least;
    at the time I got my D70, I already owned an F80 with three lenses,
    so I held on to those)

    But then, my frustration level rises when my 18-35mm zoom lens
    a pedestrian 27-50mm, severely limiting the wide-angle capability.
    I'll agree that you are right, but you're probably overstating your
    case a bit;
    the D90 shoots at High-Definition, 720p quality ... P&S cameras do a
    lousier job... (for a suitable definition of "lousy", that
    is!! :) )
    Oh no! I didn't mean to equate those two!! I was just comparing
    in which those extra features would, if anything, add to a price
    I may have overestimated how much they would do.
    Well, sort of ... I would have to then pay for the new lenses :-
    ( (the key
    detail being, I already have a nice trio of Nikon lenses)
    *sigh* ... Yeah, that was my other case for which I was considering
    a petition... You know, or something like
    that ...
    Careful here ... I have a quite serious objection to the above being
    said as a
    blanket statement ... The camera *alone* does not make good photos;
    while a good photographer with crappy equipment would take better
    than a bad photographer with an excellent camera, the camera still
    limit* the quality and the type of photographs that you can take.

    As some say, the only thing that the camera has to do is stay out of
    way and let us take the photograph that *we* decide that we want to
    But then, that's the same about saying that the camera *does*
    If a D700 stays out of my way 99% of the time (as an example), I
    claim that a D300 would stay out of my way only 90% of the time
    as an example --- don't take these numbers as precise figures)... In
    for people that mostly want to take wide-angle images, the D300 would
    get in their way 90% of the time, whereas a D3 or D700 would stay out
    of their way most of the time.
    See above --- I would be able to take *more* photos that are about as

    And anyway, strictly speaking, the answer is *yes*, I'm *absolutely
    that I would take better photos with a D700 than with a D300 --- that
    photographer counts? Of course --- then again, the photographer is
    same in both cases; the comparison is: me with a D700 vs. me with
    a D700. What I guess you meant to ask is one of the following two
    valid) questions:
    - Will the photos that you take with a D700 be *significantly better*
    those that you'd take with a D300?
    - Are the photos that you take with a D300 *not good enough*?

    Anyway, trying to stay away from the philosophical discussion of "the
    camera doesn't count, it's *only* the photographer that counts" ...
    my main concern is with the *extra* capabilities that I would have in
    of being able to shoot wide-angle images that a DX sensor would
    not allow me to... ISO 25600 is just a bonus... ;-) (though again,
    translates into photographs that I *could* take with a D700 that I
    not have even attempted with my D70 or with a D300).

    *I want my wide-angle photographs*!!!!! I want my full-size
    (when do we want it --- NOW!!! :) )


    Carlos Moreno, Sep 3, 2008
    1. Advertisements

  3. Carlos Moreno

    Frank Arthur Guest

    Whichever camera you buy a newer model will come out a short time
    later. Usually at roughly the same price you will get higher
    resolution, additional features and, unless some totally revolution in
    technology occurs, and more choices. If you are a person who finds
    unhappiness because next weeks model
    has more pixels, larger CMOS or greater capability I am sorry for you.
    I have a (now ancient) Nikon D80 with a 24-120mm DX VR lens in which I
    do 75% of my work with plus a number of other Nikon lenses through
    80-400mm VR. I am extremely happy with my results and make excellent
    images- usually about 8 x 12 inches but sometimes as large as 11 x 14
    I watch readers here who gave up their D80 to uprgrade to a D200 and
    later upgrade to D300 and now still unhappy with their lot are
    perplexed that they may buy a D700 only to find a D90 with movies. Oh
    Why don't you just use your existing camera body and lenses to the
    maximum potential bearing in mind that other peopl make prizewinning
    knockout images using that same equipment and enjoy photography?
    Frank Arthur, Sep 3, 2008
  4. Carlos Moreno

    trouble Guest

    Your ability to use your camera will improve greatly if you upgrade from
    your D70 to a D80 or D200 due to the improved viewing system. The D70 can
    make high quality images but you have to be able to see what you are taking
    a picture of, a difficult task through the D70.
    Wide angle lenses for APS sized sensors are equally good or bad as their
    full frame bretheren as are any issues due to the use of a wide angle lens
    with a digital sensor. The aesthetic quality of the image is more important
    by far than the lens or capture medium with the gear that is available
    trouble, Sep 3, 2008
  5. Carlos Moreno

    Noons Guest

    I doubt the difference is that big. After all, the d700 and the
    d3 have the same sensor and look at the price difference. Look
    also at the price diff between d300 and d700 for a better gauge of
    the *real* diff in price between fx and dx.

    Entirely agreed. That's always been the case with dslrs, even
    in the film days: the "pro" word is always associated with
    a premium price, even though the proportion of pros to
    normal users is minimal. It's the cachee of the word.

    Wait for Sony's reaction on this: they have already caused a huge
    drop in price of the DX camera bodies since they entered the dslr
    market. The day they start selling affordable FX, which is not far
    away, is the day all this "pro=expensive" stuff vanishes.
    Nothing like a disruptive factor!

    Ah! Do you REALLY need a dslr at all? A good photographer
    can take great shots even with the lowliest of the p&s.
    Does that mean only "bad" photographers buy dslrs?
    Wait for the mini-4/3 to take off, that will definitely
    cause a huge drop in dslr demand, fx or otherwise.
    Noons, Sep 4, 2008
  6. *Very* nice way to put it!!

    I understand that there are a lot of people *obsessed* with having to
    have the best possible equipment without there being any reasonable
    justification for that. I hope that I was not confused with one of
    but I also find equally unreasonable going to the other extreme of
    putting such excessive emphasis on the photographer and dismissing
    almost entirely the role of the camera (the role being, *letting you
    the photos that you want to take --- yes, the camera won't decide for
    you, but it will definitely *affect your decision* in that it won't
    let you do
    what you want if the camera is not good enough)

    Coming back to the I'm not one of those [people obsessed with always
    having to buy the latest and greatest gear because that, and that
    is what makes great pictures] --- what part of "my D70" did you guys
    miss?? :)

    I got my D70 when it was just released (April 2004), and I have
    a happy owner (*) since then... I paid $1400, and in no way I get
    or pissed off that 6 months later, or 1 year later, the same model
    going for half the price, or whatever new model with whatever amount
    of entirely irrelevant megapixels was now available for less money,

    The thing is, *at that time*, when I bought it, knowing how new
    would come and go, with newer and better features and better quality,
    decided on a definitive and sole criterion for my decision to upgrade
    camera, which was... (three guesses??) ... yep, you guessed: full-

    To me, *that* is *the one, big, important* feature that justifies
    the camera... Again, the important keyword being: *wide angle*
    photographs. (well, *wider* angle anyway)

    The thing is, well, I had already kind of given up hope that they
    ever go that way... Now, I started to see signs that maybe things
    finally go that way, but then I keep seeing the "pro" aura associated
    to it...
    Well, what do you want from me, guys --- I'm human: of course it
    me off!! :)

    So I guess the conclusion is that we're talking a marketing thing;
    (and other companies) taking advantage of what they see as an
    opportunity to inflate their prices and get away with it...

    So, ok, I'll either wait or see if I can give my pocket an analgesic
    alleviate the pocket-ache that $3000 for a new camera causes.... :)

    Still, makes me wonder if voicing our concerns might accelerate the
    natural process of those prices coming down or equivalently, non-pro
    cameras with FX sensors becoming available... I mean, it's a matter
    of letting them know that there would be an important market for
    it ...
    That is, maybe they would get a far larger number of people replacing
    their D70's and D80's for a $2000 camera with full-size sensor, than
    they get by offering $1000 - $1500 models with increased irrelevant
    features such as the resolution.

    Anyway, thanks for all your comments!

    (*) I actually now have a D70*s*, but it is accidental --- during a
    warranty service, there was a confusion with my address, and
    the package got returned to them twice! They [Nikon Canada]
    felt so bad that, as a courtesy, decided to replace my repaired
    D70 with a brand-new D70s ... Not bad!
    Carlos Moreno, Sep 4, 2008
  7. *sigh* The irony is so unbelievable!! You know, you complaining that
    is no way that others understand what you wrote when you clearly
    completely the "metaphor/analogy" nature of that comment --- even
    I didn't write it, I feel the pain.

    As you give someone the argument about wanting a D700 as opposed to
    a D300, well, someone could come and apply the exact same reasoning
    and claim that: "hey, do you think you'd take better pictures with a
    as opposed to a P&S" ... You dismiss the need of a D700 as opposed to
    D300 arguing that it's the photographer that counts --- so, by the
    argument, one would dismiss the need of a DSLR as opposed to a P&S,
    arguing that it's the photographer that counts.

    The example/analogy comes to show that the argument about the D700
    as opposed to a D300 is just stated as a blanket statement that can
    be valid on its own.

    So yes, you now are more specific and say "well, there is a certain
    of quality that is required" (where quality includes flexibility and
    of course).

    Well, as you claim that that minimum is somewhere between the P&S's
    and the DSLR's (a solid argument, yes, given that professionals have
    using cropped-sensor DSLRs for a while), well, one could say that
    minimum is somewhere between the cropped-sensor and the full-size
    sensor --- at least the argument is valid if you take into account the
    of photography that you take; if you're a professional that takes
    architectural pictures, then the lack of ultra-wide-angle capability
    make such camera *useless* for you.

    What I'm saying is, as much as there is an important jump from P&S to
    DSLR, in my opinion, there is an important jump from a cropped-sensor
    to a full-size sensor; in terms of flexibility, mostly --- with a
    D300, I can
    not catch a 114 degrees angle using a 14mm lens; with a D700 I can.

    Does that justify the extra money? Well, that's each person's
    I used to dislike wide-angle shots, and my style was usually oriented
    telephoto shots... But then, a few years ago, a couple of fellow
    enthusiasts convinced me about the beauty of wide-angle photography.

    Also, in my case, enjoying astrophotography, including wide-angle
    of the night sky, well, it's a no-brainer that I would definitely like
    to have
    the benefits of Digital photpgraphy combined with the wide-angle that
    I used to enjoy with my F80 film camera!

    Why is that so hard to accept? Why does that trigger bitterly
    comments like the following:
    Which BTW brings me to: and again with completely missing what was
    before ... Do read my previous post (well, if you want, of course)
    talking about
    my D70, which I have chosen not to replace for four and a half
    Well, let's see... Once upon a time, I had my Nikon F80 with a few
    With that, I once took the following pictures (you can see the dates
    the URLs):

    Look at the last two, taken with an 18mm lens... You see, those, I
    can not
    unfortunately take with my new great DSLR that has a cropped
    Yeah, ok, I can take *many other pictures* that I enjoy, such as:

    Yes, ok... But why is it so hard to understand that as much as I
    taking pictures like these, I would enjoy *even more* if I could take
    *in addition to* others like the ones of the Milky Way above??

    Anyway, I'm sorry that you don't want to know any more about this
    I'm quite happy with what I've read so far (even when not agreeing
    what I read), and would definitely welcome additional comments...

    Carlos Moreno, Sep 4, 2008
  8. Carlos Moreno

    Noons Guest

    Dan wrote,on my timestamp of 5/09/2008 3:54 AM:
    Around 1000 here, the difference. I'm eagerly waiting for Sony
    to deliver their version of FX: could almost guess that it's gonna
    put the cat amongst the pigeons for fx, on price...

    or even better, one of these: small.jpg
    relax, just kidding!
    Noons, Sep 5, 2008
  9. Carlos Moreno

    Paul Furman Guest

    Top posting for simplicity in this case.

    There are 4 levels, not 3 (though they are mixing).
    D40 - D60 is level-1 (small, AF-S only, no manual lens compatibility)
    D70 - D90 is level-2 (medium, AF all, no manual lens compatibility)
    D200-D700 is level-3 (medium-large, AF all, manual lenses)
    D3 is level-4 ( very-large, everything )

    You want level 2 with full frame and it probably will come but maybe not
    because the sensor itself is a lot of cash and always will be because
    Moore's law about decreasing computing costs/increasing performance
    assumes miniaturization and full frame opposes that assumption.

    Remember that DX has a huge advantage for telephoto and that FX lenses
    on DX give shallower depth of field as long as you are able to back up
    from the subject.

    who just got a D700 and kept his D200, and would like a D90 :)
    -and who liked his D70 till it broke on a rock
    -and whose 20-year-old car is in the shop for going on 3 weeks now!

    Paul Furman

    all google groups messages filtered due to spam
    Paul Furman, Sep 6, 2008
  10. Carlos Moreno

    Paul Furman Guest

    Your messages are too wide, causing strange word wrap formatting.
    See comments below...

    11.88mm, closely replicated with a Tamron 12-24 zoom (or Nikon: more $).
    Sigma 10-20 will exceed that significantly.
    Sigma 12-24 on full frame goes further but that's really extreme,
    though, yeah none of those at f/3.5.

    Just wait a couple years. Get a Canon 5D for your Nikkors if you can't wait.

    Paul Furman

    all google groups messages filtered due to spam
    Paul Furman, Sep 6, 2008
  11. Carlos Moreno

    Paul Furman Guest

    Yes this is true, that was the main thing I noticed moving up from a D70
    to D200, and full frame is a whole next step up in big bright viewfinders.

    Paul Furman

    all google groups messages filtered due to spam
    Paul Furman, Sep 6, 2008
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.