Nikon will not go to full frame...

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

  1. John A. Stovall

    JPS Guest

    In message <[email protected]>,
    They crap out at about 60mm or so, in my experience, even thought he
    MFRs suggest 90mm or 100mm minimum. I get good corners with my Kenko
    Pro 300 DG 1.4x with my Tamron 28-75 at 75mm, but they are noticeably
    soft at 50mm, and horrible at 28mm (even though the corners are pretty
    good at 28mm without the TC).

    JPS, Feb 4, 2006
    1. Advertisements

  2. John A. Stovall

    Andrew Haley Guest

    What for? Kodak bought their sensor from Fill Factory. Nikon could
    surely have done the same if it had been good enough.

    Andrew Haley, Feb 4, 2006
    1. Advertisements

  3. John A. Stovall

    Skip M Guest

    Frankly, I didn't, either. Which is why I only bought a Sigma 17-35 f2.8-4
    EX HSM, back in 1999 or so. I couldn't see spending 3x that for the Canon
    version, since WA wasn't really a big part of my repertoire. But then came
    the weddings. We needed something wider than the 24-70L, and the Sigma,
    frankly, sucked on our 20Ds. So we got the 16-35 f2.8L. Still wasn't wide
    enough, and the 10-22 wasn't fast enough along its entire zoom range.
    So...when Canon announced the 5D, we pounced. Now, we find ourselves using
    the 16-35 very little, since the 24-70 is wide enough for most
    circumstances, since the 24mm focal length behaves like a 15mm would on the
    Skip M, Feb 5, 2006
  4. 24mm (on 35mm film) is about the widest that I use regularly. The problem
    I have with using the 24/2.0 wide open is that the DoF is too shallow.
    My wide angle shots tend to have too many interesting details at various
    distances from the camera, that shallow DoF is not really an option.
    Philip Homburg, Feb 5, 2006
  5. John A. Stovall

    Skip M Guest

    See, there's where a 35mm sized sensor would help you. There's not a 15mm
    f2 on the market, currently. There's the Nikon 10.5 fisheye, and don't they
    make a 14mm f2.8? (Canon does, anyway.) So you can't get as wide as your
    24mm and still stay within a stop, without extra steps in Pshop. Even if
    you don't use the speed, there aren't many lenses that wide, at any
    aperture, as an option.
    Skip M, Feb 5, 2006
  6. John A. Stovall

    SMS Guest

    That'd be a very expensive lens, limiting the market for it, so I doubt
    if it'll ever appear. In fact, when Nikon does come out with a D-SLR
    with a larger sensor, that may be the face-saving reason that they use.
    SMS, Feb 5, 2006
  7. John A. Stovall

    Charles Guest

    I show 120 posts about a quote from an article that appeared in 2003.
    That was then. Nikon will come out with a DSLR with a full frame
    sensor. There is no reason not to when you can, and many reasons to do
    it when you can.
    Charles, Feb 5, 2006
  8. John A. Stovall

    SMS Guest

    The question is "when?" not "if?"
    SMS, Feb 5, 2006
  9. I didn't know my command of English was that bad. Let me try to rephrase it:
    my 24/2.0 is too *fast* on 35mm film.

    I probably don't need anything faster than 16/4.0 on DX because anything
    faster will not give me the DoF I need.
    Philip Homburg, Feb 5, 2006
  10. John A. Stovall

    Tony Polson Guest

    That comment seems to suggest that you *always* use your lenses wide
    open. Have you really never tried to use your 24mm f/2 at f/4?
    Tony Polson, Feb 6, 2006
  11. John A. Stovall

    george Guest

    What a difference a year and a half makes! Now, you see a lot of posts from
    people afraid that Nikon will abandon DX (like they did APS film cameras).
    I think DX will remain around for at least 5 years as many sports/nature
    photographers love the benefits as much as those of us doing portraits hated
    the drawbacks of the format.
    george, Sep 26, 2007
  12. Nikon had their fingers crossed ;)
    Not Disclosed, Sep 27, 2007
  13. John A. Stovall

    Toby Guest

    And we're still looking for those WMDs too...

    Toby, Sep 28, 2007
  14. John A. Stovall

    C J Campbell Guest

    If you don't want to talk about photography, stay off this board.
    C J Campbell, Sep 28, 2007
  15. John A. Stovall

    ASAAR Guest

    If we didn't already know, it would be quite easy to guess your
    political leanings, but still . . . your already thin skin is now
    nearly transparent.
    ASAAR, Sep 29, 2007
  16. John A. Stovall

    C J Campbell Guest

    You don't see me ranting about the treasonous behavior of or
    Brian De Palma, do you?

    Now I suppose we will see how thin the skin of Al Qaeda West, er, Democrats is.
    C J Campbell, Sep 30, 2007
  17. John A. Stovall

    ASAAR Guest

    You just did, with your bizarre, dangerously partisan definition
    of "treasonous". I guess that I'm not as attuned to politics as
    you, or I might say, attuned to your right wing political fanaticos,
    since I have no idea about whether Brian De Palma is or isn't a
    traitor, having not read or heard anything about him or his films
    for many years. What was his crime? Did he say something
    inappropriate in the land where "free speech" means much less than
    it once did to those who are aging ungracefully? Or are those that
    don't think as you do automatically deemed to be traitors? Did you
    dream it all up, and if not, which loon have you been listening to?

    Do you have any idea how insanely creepy you sound? And not for
    the first time.
    ASAAR, Sep 30, 2007
    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.