Nikon will not go to full frame...

Discussion in 'Nikon' started by John A. Stovall, Feb 1, 2006.

  1. Well Nikon has just turned the high end pro market over to Canon.

    "Nikon Denies Possibility of Making 35mm Full-Frame Sensor
    Industry watchers have been discussing if Nikon Corp., Tokyo, Japan,
    will come out with a 35mm full-size image sensor in pro-oriented
    digital SLR. A Nikon top official denied the possibility of making new
    full-size sensors, Photo Trade Express reports.

    "35mm is a film format, which I do not think is necessary in the
    digital era," says Makoto Kimura of Nikon. "We have been exploring the
    possibility of commercializing a 35mm full-size sensor, but it's not
    clear at this moment if we go for it. We feel that the 'DX' format or
    APS-C size will be the best for the DSLR and interchangeable lenses.
    Based on the assumption Nikon has been bringing up in number the
    lenses for the DX format, change in the size of the sensor would
    possibly puzzle some users in finding effective focal length related
    to angle of view," he says.

    He repeats that Nikon thinks the DX format will be the best for the
    DSLR, adding CMOS sensor "LBCAST" is also in preparation, reports
    Photo Trade Express. "

    http://www.steves-digicams.com/diginews.html#nikon_ff
    *********************************************************

    "It looked like the sort of book described in library
    catalogues as "slightly foxed", although it would be
    more honest to admit that it looked as though it had
    been badgered, wolved and possibly beared as well."

    _Light Fantastic_
    Terry Pratchett
     
    John A. Stovall, Feb 1, 2006
    #1
    1. Advertisements

  2. John A. Stovall

    Jeremy Nixon Guest

    Your statement is based on the assumption that high-end users must use
    35mm sensors, which is nonsense.

    As a Nikon user, I truly hope they don't (need to) use 35mm sensors.
    We don't need them.
     
    Jeremy Nixon, Feb 1, 2006
    #2
    1. Advertisements

  3. Your lose. High-end users don't have to use ff frame but for quality
    they demand they will.


    *********************************************************

    "It looked like the sort of book described in library
    catalogues as "slightly foxed", although it would be
    more honest to admit that it looked as though it had
    been badgered, wolved and possibly beared as well."

    _Light Fantastic_
    Terry Pratchett
     
    John A. Stovall, Feb 1, 2006
    #3
  4. Hardly. Nikon weren't producing full-frame DSLRs before the announcement. If
    one judges high-end-pro-market by sensor size, I believe that Leaf has the
    biggest penis (sensor, whatever) at the moment and I don't see people
    falling over each other to dump their 1DsIIs for 645AFDIIs.

    IME high end pros (incidentally i'm just going to throw that phrase about
    like it means something) tend to shoot what the hell they are told is good,
    and now more than ever there are enough dissenting voices out there creating
    doubt (forums) to make the high end pro market wide open.

    Martin
     
    Martin Francis, Feb 1, 2006
    #4
  5. John A. Stovall

    Jeremy Nixon Guest

    Thus far, the quality advantage of 35mm sensors has been theoretical.
    The Nikon D2x is every bit as good as the Canon 1Ds2, and has the advantage
    of not having to deal with edge softness issues at wide angle. And the
    whole price thing, of course.

    Plus, I don't really feel like having to buy new lenses just to get what I
    already have now, when they suddenly all become too wide.
     
    Jeremy Nixon, Feb 1, 2006
    #5
  6. The D2X is not as good at high ISO's. Far nosier.


    *********************************************************

    "It looked like the sort of book described in library
    catalogues as "slightly foxed", although it would be
    more honest to admit that it looked as though it had
    been badgered, wolved and possibly beared as well."

    _Light Fantastic_
    Terry Pratchett
     
    John A. Stovall, Feb 2, 2006
    #6
  7. John A. Stovall

    Jeremy Nixon Guest

    You've used it, then?

    Because I don't see any noise problem. The people who go on about it tend
    to be people who haven't actually used the camera.
     
    Jeremy Nixon, Feb 2, 2006
    #7
  8. John A. Stovall

    SMS Guest

    Not necessarily. Look at the weasel words, "but it's not clear at this
    moment if we go for it."
    Nikon is in a difficult position. They desperately want to go to full
    frame, but they have no full-frame, low-noise sensor available yet. If
    they announce that they're working on full-frame, they will Osborne*
    sales of the D2X*. OTOH, if they absolutely deny that they'll ever come
    out with a full-frame camera, the pros will all simply abandon Nikon and
    move over to Canon. So the best option is for Nikon to do exactly what
    their doing, leave the door open for full frame, but don't promise that
    it will be available any time soon.



    *For those non-Silicon Valley people, 'Osborned' (or to 'Osborne'
    oneself), is to promise a follow-on product that is then delayed, but
    kills demand for the current product and sinks the company. This is what
    Adam Osborne did with his company.
     
    SMS, Feb 2, 2006
    #8
  9. John A. Stovall

    SMS Guest

    Yes, this is the reason that Nikon will have to go to full-frame if they
    want to compete in the high-end professional segment. Everyone agrees
    that the D2x competes against the Canon 1D Mark II, not the 1Ds Mark II,
    though it's noisier that the 1D Mark II as well.

    The major reason you have some individuals dismissing full-frame, is not
    because they don't understand the benefits of it, but because they're
    afraid that their equipment will somehow be obsolete if something better
    comes out. This is a bad reason to be against Nikon coming out with
    higher-end products. Then again, there are still people complaining
    about Canon moving from the FD mount to the EOS mount, 20 years after
    the event occurred!

    Steve
    "http://digitalslrinfo.com"
     
    SMS, Feb 2, 2006
    #9
  10. Jeremy-

    I'm surprised by the amount of rationalization I hear to justify smaller
    sensors. No doubt your "edge softness issues" may be a technical detail
    that may need some work, but that doesn't prove the adequacy of the
    smaller sensor size. Surely there will always be a situation where a
    small sensor could be reduced even further to eliminate some residual edge
    softness or other distortion.

    I might fall for the "good enough" philosophy if I hadn't played with
    medium format film cameras in the past. Even a mediocre lens used for a
    60 X 90 MM negative requires less enlargement than 24 X 36 MM, producing a
    final image that is impressive by comparison. This is experience, not
    theory. Why would this not apply to the comparison between the APS and
    full frame sensors?

    Fred
     
    Fred McKenzie, Feb 2, 2006
    #10
  11. John A. Stovall

    cjcampbell Guest

    Yeah. All the pros shoot their pictures at 12000 ISO. Or not.
     
    cjcampbell, Feb 2, 2006
    #11
  12. John A. Stovall

    cjcampbell Guest

    That does not sound like the Nikon official is denying the possibility
    of making new full-size sensors. It instead sounds like a headline
    writer and news reporter who need a lesson in listening skills. Kimura
    is definitely leaving open the possibility of a 35mm sensor.

    Nikon will produce and sell a 35mm sensor the moment they think enough
    people will buy it to make it worthwhile. Heck, they will produce and
    sell a 4x5 sensor if they think there is enough demand for it. So will
    Canon.
     
    cjcampbell, Feb 2, 2006
    #12
  13. John A. Stovall

    Rich Guest

    Oddly enough, Popular Photography said the opposite.
    -Rich
     
    Rich, Feb 2, 2006
    #13
  14. John A. Stovall

    Rich Guest

    Makes more sense to worry about lenses you may have just bought
    going obsolete than expecting ancient 35mm lenses to be fully usable
    on modern digital cameras. You got your money's worth out of them
    a long time ago, move on.
    -Rich
     
    Rich, Feb 2, 2006
    #14
  15. John A. Stovall

    Charles Guest

    Of course they will produce and sell a camera with a full frame sensor.
    They will produce a FF camera when they have one. Certainly they must
    be working on it.
     
    Charles, Feb 2, 2006
    #15
  16. John A. Stovall

    SMS Guest

    That's a rationalization that makes no sense. No one is talking about
    ISO 12,000, we're talking significant noise at ISO 800.

    Even then, many pros, i.e. studio photographers will not need to shoot
    at even ISO 800, so the noise is a non-issue. But there are pros for
    whom the noise is a big issue, and for whom the $3000 difference between
    a D2x and an EOS 1Ds Mark II is not an issue at all. The fact remains,
    that without a low-noise/high-ISO body, Nikon cedes a low-volume part of
    the market to their competitor. It has less to do with full-frame versus
    a 1.5 crop factor than it does with the fact that larger pixels are less
    noisy.
     
    SMS, Feb 2, 2006
    #16
  17. John A. Stovall

    Battleax Guest

    Why is everyone still going on about 35mm. This number has no meaning in
    digital photography except when comparing to film cameras.
     
    Battleax, Feb 2, 2006
    #17
  18. John A. Stovall

    JPS Guest

    In message <>,
    That's an electric-fence/circular-reasoning trapping. If history had
    noisier film, you'd be saying sarcastically, "Yeah. All the pros shoot
    their pictures at 200 ISO. Or not." If history had quieter film, you'd
    be saying, "Yeah. All the pros shoot their pictures at 200000 ISO. Or
    not."

    You go ahead and define the future by the past. I'll move on, thank
    you.
    --
     
    JPS, Feb 2, 2006
    #18
  19. John A. Stovall

    JPS Guest

    In message <>,
    Not exactly. Most DSLRs have lens mounts that work with lenses that
    have reasonable imaging in about a 43mm circle, and for any given number
    of pixels, with any state of technology, the bigger the area those
    pixels cover on the focal plane, the higher the DR, and the lower the
    noise, so a sensor with a 36mm x 24mm area can make maximum use of the
    existing lens lines.
    --
     
    JPS, Feb 2, 2006
    #19
  20. John A. Stovall

    Jeremy Nixon Guest

    Would not a larger, square sensor make even better use of it? That is,
    assuming the lenses are up to the task edge to edge (in which I suspect
    Nikon actually has a significant advantage).
     
    Jeremy Nixon, Feb 2, 2006
    #20
    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.