Thom Hogan thinks a FF Nikon DSLR is coming

[dylanear]

Different strokes for different folks. AF performance is not a
factor. Heck it got "good enough" for me with the N90S and
everythign since has been gravy. I'm exagerating, but not by much.
I focus manually much of the time and rarely at things that are
moving much at all.

Thus I want a better viewfinder and more wide angle options. More
pixels, better noise and dynamic range would be welcome. FF would
deliver that.

Then why haven't you bought a canon? I simply can not understand
why you, or anyone else, would "do without", if it was that
important to you. I notice that you didn't mention wanting it at
"any price", so you're apparently not willing to spend the big
bucks that a nikon pro FF is likely to command.

If my criteria were like yours, I certainly would own a 5d. Canon
makes good stuff. Sitting around, complaining about not having what
you want, instead of getting a solution that is available, makes no
sense to me.

Whoa man. Peace.

I wasn't trying to discredit your choices and what matters to you. Just contrasting my priorities with yours. I thought we were having a freindly conversation here. Either I misjudged your tone or your misjudging mine.

Was it "AF performance is not a factor."? I should have said/meant to say "is not a factor FOR ME." For others I don't doubt it is a very big factor.

I consider adding a 5D to my Nikon gear all the time. More than anything else I just don't like the feel of the thing. I have tons invested in Nikon gear and I love most of it. Are there things I wish they'd make and don't. Yep. And I'm not a pro. An avid personal photographer I guess you could say. I do use my camera for work at times and I am a pro invoved in imaging. But I'm not a pro photographer by trade. If I was I undoubtedly would own a FF Canon among lot's of other gear by other brands as well. That said I'm a NIkon nut and have been for years. I simply love the brand. In a year or so if no Nikon FF, then I'll probably get a 5D or something like it and a few lenses to hold me over until there's a Nikon FF. If a few more years beyond that there still isn't, I'll keep my classic Nikon gear, sell the new (digital and DX) stuff and get a full Canon outfit as my main outfit. And lament that Nikon and I simply diverged.

 

[dylanear]

If a few more years beyond that there still isn't, I'll keep my
classic Nikon gear, sell the new (digital and DX) stuff and get a
full Canon outfit as my main outfit. And lament that Nikon and I
simply diverged.

And I should mention then I'll get yelled at in the Canon forums for bitching about wanting Canon to improve their screwy ergonomics.

 

[Darrelll]

Hehehe I was just comparing to something newer... My first
computer was a Kaypro 1 Z80 Processor and CP/M and 64K or 128K of
RAM and 2 DD floppies So if that makes you feel any better

I overclocked my Kaypro II from 2.5mhz to 4.5mhz. It was unstable at 5mhz... lol. My 1st box of floppies for my Kaypro cost me $60 for 5.25" floppies.

Darrell

--
-Michael
Just take the picture =)
Equipment in profile
Gallery: http://www.ballentphoto.com
Blog: http://ballentphoto.blogspot.com

--
My glamour gallery - Comments appreciated. Link below...

http://www.pixs.ws/gallery2/Models



Cheers,

Darrell

 

[Slough]

The optimum mirror size, to get maximum image brightness, is the
same for an APS sensor camera as a FF camera assuming you use the
same lenses. In practice many APS digital cameras have small
mirrors, which in part explains the dim viewfinder. The other
reasons are of course the use of a pentamirror (in some cases) and
the smaller frame.

Sorry, but that is plain wrong. The mirror size closely matches the
sensor size. You don't get a dimmer view with a smaller mirror, you
get a clipped view. With a bigger bigger than the sensor you just
waste resources. A dimmer view would result if the mirror was
situated near the optical center (where the aperture is), and made
smaller, it does not. You get the dimmer view in APS because the
magnification needs to be bigger - you are simply looking at a
smaller image on the ground glass. You are right about the
pentamirror, that dims the view a little compared to a prism,
because the prism works with total reflections, which is a bigger
advantage than the disadvantage of loosing light through the glass.

Actually it is plain right. The mirror acts as a stop on the lens. Reducing the size of the mirror does NOT clip the view. It makes it dimmer. I encourage you to do some reading on optics. In a similar manner, if you use an 8x40 bright binocular in daylight, your iris stops down the 5mm exit pupil to about 2mm, as if you are using an 8x16 binocular.

I can't speak for others but I prefer the current solution of using
the existing F mount, and preserving compatibility with old lenses.
Even if the actual bayonet and contacts remain the same, your
solution changes the lens to sensor distance, making existing
lenses incompatible. Had Nikon gone to a new lens mount, then I
would have had no reason not to move to Canon, and ditch my Nikon
gear.

No, not incompatible, a simple extender will suffice. No optical
loss at all.

However, Leica are having problems because the lens to sensor
distance is very small, and hence there are rays incident on the
sensor at acute angles.

Leicas sensor to lens distance is much smaller than any SLR can
ever obtain.

At a not insignificant cost and compexity, and more stuff to carry
around for no gain. I would chose Canon rather than a new Nikon as
per your description.

The extender would need the bayonet in each end, and transfer of
signals (easier with Canon, only electrical signals then). It is a
simple extender, in fact you can buy it right now for macro
purposes, it doesn't cost much compared to lenses, and weigh little.

I think there is a reason why the key established manufacturers
chose to maintain compatibility with existing lenses. Small players
such as Olympus had little to lose and a lot to gain.

That reason is money. Cheaper to do it that way, if the customers
take it. And they do.

IMO the current APS cameras perform very well and satisfy all of my
photographic needs. Clearly I am not everyone. There IS a need for
FF for some people and some uses, and if Nikon do not market a FF
camera in the near future, they will lose customers and credibiity.
But they are doing remarkably well with APS. Although there is life
in the old dog yet, it must learn some new tricks.

Agreed, APS is a fairly good solution, and it works well. But not
optimal.

Nikon has lost much of the professional market partly because of
not having FF. Probably the most money is in the APS/amateur
segment, but many amateurs tend to select the manufacturer which
also has the most convincing professional program.

--

• Jan

Well it is a matter of opinion and wording as to whether or not you consider a lens compatible if you need an adaptor. Nikon would either have to sell all lenses including existing consumer ones with an adaptor, adding to the cost, or design new lenses. Why do you think they cut back features on the D40 and D50? To reduce costs. Look at how much they charge for extension tubes! It would not make sense. I suspect most people would agree but I am not most people, so that is conjecture.

 

[Harry Lime]

Hehehe I was just comparing to something newer... My first
computer was a Kaypro 1 Z80 Processor and CP/M and 64K or 128K of
RAM and 2 DD floppies So if that makes you feel any better

--
-Michael

Timex / Sinclair 1000 with 2kb (yes, two kilobytes) of RAM and monochrome 24x39 graphics. Storage was on audio tape and I saved an entire summer to buy the 16kb RAM expansion pack.

Weeeeee!
;-)

 

[Dave Oddie]

I saw this at PhotoPlus Expo: there were a few people curious about
Sony's dSLR, but that was it. Pentax was attracting more people.

I think the announcement of the new Pentax is hurting alpha sales
more than any other dSLR.

If you're ready to buy from another vendor than the 2 market
leaders, Canon & Nikon, than I don't see any reason to buy the
alpha over the Pentax: the latter is cheaper,

No its not!

is a much better
body,

It is weather sealed and heavier as a result. Take the weather sealing away and the ergonomics are similar with Sony better in some ways, Pentax others but it isn't clear cut.

and both systems have their pluses and minuses, one not being

really better than the other.

That depends on what country you are in and how the cameras are distributed.

In the UK the Sony is available in bog standard electrical retailers simply because it is a Sony whereas there are even specialist camera shops that don't handle Pentax at all. The Sony has the opportunity to sell to a much wider public in the UK than Pentax.

The K10 is only just available now and is more expensive than the A100 and as to lens availability the only telephoto zoom you can buy in the UK for Pentax is the 50-200. While the Sony lenses are also rare the point is Pentax does not appear to have the infrastructure or product to challenge an organisation like Sony who can sell its wares to a wider public.

Dave

 

[Jan Madsen]

Actually it is plain right. The mirror acts as a stop on the lens.
Reducing the size of the mirror does NOT clip the view. It makes it
dimmer. I encourage you to do some reading on optics. In a similar
manner, if you use an 8x40 bright binocular in daylight, your iris
stops down the 5mm exit pupil to about 2mm, as if you are using an
8x16 binocular.

Wrong, sorry. Completely wrong. The aperture is at the afocal point of the optics (optical center) the mirror is not. The mirror is closer to the focal point than the optical center, especially the top part of it. Try putting a really long lens on your camera (long lens, not telephoto construction) so that the exit pupil of the lens is very far from the mirror. You will then see that the top of the viewfinder image is missing, because the mirror is not quite big enough (varies from camere model to camera modal).

Your binocular comparison is correct, however, but that is because the iris of the eye is at the optical center, not of the binocular, but of the eye. Your own personal aperture. And closing the iris down (in e.g. sunshine) wastes the outer parts of the binocular obejctives, just as you describe. In fact only young people can get up to the full 6-7mm opening in the eye.

I have written programs for optical construction, and know quite well the basics of this field.

Well it is a matter of opinion and wording as to whether or not you
consider a lens compatible if you need an adaptor. Nikon would
either have to sell all lenses including existing consumer ones
with an adaptor, adding to the cost, or design new lenses. Why do
you think they cut back features on the D40 and D50? To reduce
costs. Look at how much they charge for extension tubes! It would
not make sense. I suspect most people would agree but I am not most
people, so that is conjecture.

That's our opinions, so be it. But Canon changed the hole thing when going from FD to EOS mount, not impossible.

--

• Jan

 

[Alejandro Daz del Ro Fery]

Hehehe I was just comparing to something newer... My first
computer was a Kaypro 1 Z80 Processor and CP/M and 64K or 128K of
RAM and 2 DD floppies So if that makes you feel any better

--
-Michael

Timex / Sinclair 1000 with 2kb (yes, two kilobytes) of RAM and
monochrome 24x39 graphics. Storage was on audio tape and I saved an
entire summer to buy the 16kb RAM expansion pack.

Weeeeee!
;-)

Mine wins yours, HP with 4 Kb of RAM, also storage in HP cassettes of two tracks
--
Best of luck, wish, light...

 

[FrithjofA]

Take a look at Thom's latest poll. He believes there is strong
evidence and rumors that Nikon will eventually build a FF DSLR.

After reading some many debates on the so-called "FF" better 35mm sensor DSLR, I still do not understand why people want them? Are all the present APS-C format cameras so bad?

There is a very critical issue often overlooked. The picture IQ is influenced by the body/lens combination. That a 35mm lens illuminating a 35mm (> 20MP) sensor does not imply a good high resolution image. Following the lens forum, we have already now a cleary visible limitation of the picture IQ by the lenses people use on the present APS-C senor bodies.

Much could be gained in terms of resolution and IQ with present lenses if we would replace the Bayer type sensor and real 10MP/color = 30MP resolution is provided.

A 35mm sensor DSLR requires excellent lenses otherwise the resolution is just wasted and no IQ is gained. IMOP, concepually it would require a mount change with a larger lens mount diameter to get the maximum out of a 35mm DSLR.

This will not happen because there would be an outcry my many people who just want to mount their antique 200 Dollar 28-400mm super-zoom on a "new" 35mm sensor DSLR.

I still wait for the FF advocates to propagate a lens mount change. Only if thats comming, I take the demands seriously, because it would indicated some understanding of the underlying optics and semiconductor physics constrains which cannot be overcome.

But that will not happen. The market will win, we will get 35mm sensor Nikon and then the big whining will start in the forum, how Nikon can dare to but such a camera on a market with all its imperfection, loosly consumer service , etc.... while it is just the laws of physics which the laws of the market cannot bent.

good look with your pledges

 

[Slough]

Actually it is plain right. The mirror acts as a stop on the lens.
Reducing the size of the mirror does NOT clip the view. It makes it
dimmer. I encourage you to do some reading on optics. In a similar
manner, if you use an 8x40 bright binocular in daylight, your iris
stops down the 5mm exit pupil to about 2mm, as if you are using an
8x16 binocular.

Wrong, sorry. Completely wrong. The aperture is at the afocal point
of the optics (optical center) the mirror is not. The mirror is
closer to the focal point than the optical center, especially the
top part of it. Try putting a really long lens on your camera (long
lens, not telephoto construction) so that the exit pupil of the
lens is very far from the mirror. You will then see that the top of
the viewfinder image is missing, because the mirror is not quite
big enough (varies from camere model to camera modal).

Your binocular comparison is correct, however, but that is because
the iris of the eye is at the optical center, not of the binocular,
but of the eye. Your own personal aperture. And closing the iris
down (in e.g. sunshine) wastes the outer parts of the binocular
obejctives, just as you describe. In fact only young people can get
up to the full 6-7mm opening in the eye.

I have written programs for optical construction, and know quite
well the basics of this field.

You can stop down a telescope (and a binocular is in essence two telescopes) at any point in the optical path. That is what is done in cheap instruments to mask out aberrations from the edges of the objective.

Some old people can dilate the iris to 6-7mm, and some young ones can't. The general trend is a reduction with age.

 

[Andrew dB]

Take a look at Thom's latest poll. He believes there is strong
evidence and rumors that Nikon will eventually build a FF DSLR.

After reading some many debates on the so-called "FF" better 35mm
sensor DSLR, I still do not understand why people want them? Are
all the present APS-C format cameras so bad?

There is a very critical issue often overlooked. The picture IQ is
influenced by the body/lens combination. That a 35mm lens
illuminating a 35mm (> 20MP) sensor does not imply a good high
resolution image. Following the lens forum, we have already now a
cleary visible limitation of the picture IQ by the lenses people
use on the present APS-C senor bodies.

A larger sensor (or film) is less demanding from a lens for the same pixel count. Granted if a FF sensor was used with a finer pixel pitch than current APS cameras, it might be easier to see any flaws in the lens but even that would still give higher resolution images. Lens limitations are not some kind of 'brick wall' where further sensor improvements are useless and good lenses are easily capable of much higher resolutions than current sensors.

Much could be gained in terms of resolution and IQ with present
lenses if we would replace the Bayer type sensor and real
10MP/color = 30MP resolution is provided.

A 35mm sensor DSLR requires excellent lenses otherwise the
resolution is just wasted and no IQ is gained. IMOP, concepually it
would require a mount change with a larger lens mount diameter to
get the maximum out of a 35mm DSLR.

What is the limitation of the F mount (other than f 1.0 lenses or faster) that would cause problems for a hypothetical Nikon FF DSLR? It's not as though the lenses wouldn't illuminate the whole frame and the image quality is there so why would there be any need for a change?

 

[spt_gb]

After reading some many debates on the so-called "FF" better 35mm
sensor DSLR, I still do not understand why people want them? Are
all the present APS-C format cameras so bad?

No, but that doesn't mean that they're perfect or best for everyone

There is a very critical issue often overlooked. The picture IQ is
influenced by the body/lens combination. That a 35mm lens
illuminating a 35mm (> 20MP) sensor does not imply a good high
resolution image.

If the image is acceptable using a FF lens on a 10M pixel APS camera then you'll get 20+M pixels of detail out of it on a 35mm DSLR. Conversely lens MTF is challenged by high pixel density, so for the same number of M pixels in APS and FF formats you demand less of the lens using the FF sensor and get better results.

Following the lens forum, we have already now a
cleary visible limitation of the picture IQ by the lenses people
use on the present APS-C senor bodies.

The limits are not "clearly visible" on a D2X, which is the current highest density APS sensor and can still extract good, sharp images from a good lens. Cheap lenses fair less well though.

Much could be gained in terms of resolution and IQ with present
lenses if we would replace the Bayer type sensor and real
10MP/color = 30MP resolution is provided.

Switching to a Foveon type sensor only increases effective resolution by between about 1.6-2x compared to the number of photosites used. A 10M pixel foveon sensor would only be equivalent to about 16-20M pixels of bayer data.

A 35mm sensor DSLR requires excellent lenses otherwise the
resolution is just wasted and no IQ is gained. IMOP, concepually it
would require a mount change with a larger lens mount diameter to
get the maximum out of a 35mm DSLR.

I think you'll find a whole bunch of 5D and 1Ds/1DsII owners who'll contradict you on this one. Some very inexpensive 35mm lenses work very well on these cameras.

This will not happen because there would be an outcry my many
people who just want to mount their antique 200 Dollar 28-400mm
super-zoom on a "new" 35mm sensor DSLR.

The kind of person who is prepared to pay extra for a 35mm sensor is highly unlikely to use a lens like that.

I still wait for the FF advocates to propagate a lens mount change.

??? WHY. The current F mount is designed for 35mm, why would 35mm digital need a new one?

 

[TomEG]

What is the limitation of the F mount (other than f 1.0 lenses or faster) > that would cause problems for a hypothetical Nikon FF DSLR? It's not as > though the lenses wouldn't illuminate the whole frame and the image > quality is there so why would there be any need for a change?

The current F mount is designed for 35mm, why would 35mm
digital need a new one?

The F mount is, like you both said, made for 35mm and will illuminate the whole 35mm frame just perfectly. That is if the surface of the frame is flat, like in the surface of film. The surface of a digital sensor can be seen as a whole lot of buckets or small tubes (photo sites) that the light has to pass through, before it is recorded. Towards the edges the light reaches these tubes at various angles, reducing the amount of light that will pass through. This will produce light falloff in the edges (vignetting). Canon have a mount with a wider diameter, but still have problems with vignetting with most of the lenses.

I'm not saying that the Nikon engineers won't be able to overcome this obstacle, because they're much more innovative and clever than the Canon engineers ;-)

But there have been one or two rumours of a new, wider, mount for the upcoming Nikon 35FF. If these rumours are bulls* or not??? In a few months we will know...

Tom

--
http://www.sportsshooter.com/tomeg
http://www.digipixweb.com
http://www.digipixpro.com
http://www.sportsdigipix.com

 

[Vieri Bottazzini]

Gregg,

Forget about 28-400 zoom buying people - how about the outcry of quite a number of pro people who spent, say, 10-20.000 US in Nikon pro glass?

A change of mount IMO is not going to happen, and as other pointed out the F mount having been designed for 35mm film there isn't really a reson for a change. Better glass is the solution, together with angled microlenses on the sensor's corners & edges.

Best regards,

Vieir

Gregg Humphrey wrote:

A 35mm sensor DSLR requires excellent lenses otherwise the
resolution is just wasted and no IQ is gained. IMOP, concepually it
would require a mount change with a larger lens mount diameter to
get the maximum out of a 35mm DSLR.

This will not happen because there would be an outcry my many
people who just want to mount their antique 200 Dollar 28-400mm
super-zoom on a "new" 35mm sensor DSLR.

I still wait for the FF advocates to propagate a lens mount change.
Only if thats comming, I take the demands seriously, because it
would indicated some understanding of the underlying optics and
semiconductor physics constrains which cannot be overcome.

But that will not happen. The market will win, we will get 35mm
sensor Nikon and then the big whining will start in the forum, how
Nikon can dare to but such a camera on a market with all its
imperfection, loosly consumer service , etc.... while it is just
the laws of physics which the laws of the market cannot bent.

good look with your pledges

--
equipment in profile

http://www.madshutter.com

more stuff here:
http://www.pbase.com/vieripbase

 

[Mario]

The larger the sensor, less sharp or resolving the lens needs to be.

With tiny sensor you need incredibly amazingly sharp lens to get the same results as with mediocre lens on a large sensor of the same pixel count.

--
Mario

 

[bikinchris]

The current F mount is designed for 35mm, why would 35mm
digital need a new one?

The F mount was made for a manual focus 35mm camera. When it was designed, there was no concept of an autofocus camera. The lens contacts take out some of the room required for optics. If Nikon wants to produce f1.0 optics, they have a challenge to overcome it with current technology. Canon really had to change their mount because they had even less room for the contacts.

But there have been one or two rumours of a new, wider, mount for
the upcoming Nikon 35FF. If these rumours are bulls* or not??? In
a few months we will know...

I wonder about this myself. I am betting for it being B$. But I have been wrong before.

--
Chris, Broussard, LA

 

[Darrelll]

I guess we know who us O.F. are...

Back in 1981 just before the IBM PC was introduced, I was the first RE Broker to computerize in my area and with my Kaypro II I was doing personalized mail merged letters, had my territory setup on a database, spreadsheets for closing costs, etc. My mail merged letters would receive up to a 20% response rate, which was phenomenal considering the normal response rate is usually less than 1/2 of 1 percent. I usually had about an 18-24 month technology lead over the other companies. That machine was $1800 for 2.5mhz of power, but it paid for itself 100x over. Today, everybody has a machine that can do most everything, it's just how many seconds faster they can do a task...

Darrell

Hehehe I was just comparing to something newer... My first
computer was a Kaypro 1 Z80 Processor and CP/M and 64K or 128K of
RAM and 2 DD floppies So if that makes you feel any better

--
-Michael

Timex / Sinclair 1000 with 2kb (yes, two kilobytes) of RAM and
monochrome 24x39 graphics. Storage was on audio tape and I saved an
entire summer to buy the 16kb RAM expansion pack.

Weeeeee!
;-)

Mine wins yours, HP with 4 Kb of RAM, also storage in HP cassettes
of two tracks
--
Best of luck, wish, light...

--
My glamour gallery - Comments appreciated. Link below...

http://www.pixs.ws/gallery2/Models



Cheers,

Darrell

 

[FrithjofA]

A larger sensor (or film) is less demanding from a lens for the
same pixel count.

so you would opt for a 10-12MP 35mm sensor? Why don't buy a 5D excellent
camera and affordable?

A 35mm sensor DSLR requires excellent lenses otherwise the
resolution is just wasted and no IQ is gained. IMOP, concepually it
would require a mount change with a larger lens mount diameter to
get the maximum out of a 35mm DSLR.

What is the limitation of the F mount (other than f 1.0 lenses or
faster) that would cause problems for a hypothetical Nikon FF DSLR?

Wide angle! Film is isopropic and does not care under which angle the light comes in, silicon sensors are highly anisotropic. You want the light hitting the sensor perpendicular which is easy with tele lenses but horrible for wide angle once.

IMOP you need a complete new lens design which is much more demanding with the present lens mount. The technical best solution would be a enlarge lens mount with a 35mm "crop" sensor. The most challanging solution would be complety redesigned WA lenses.

Again, you can get the 5D which is an excellent camera. It all depends on you personal expectation of the IQ. Do you realy believe the 5D and the 1D give you better IQ than the D2X for landscape? If so, go for it. But I doubt it.

 

[Kerry Pierce]

I wasn't trying to discredit your choices and what matters to you.

I didn't think that you were, nor was I trying to discredit your desires. I understand the benefits of FF for the photography that you want to do.

Just contrasting my priorities with yours. I thought we were having
a freindly conversation here. Either I misjudged your tone or your
misjudging mine.

Apparently you misjudged my intent. I truly don't understand why people continue to complain about nikon not having FF, when there have been solutions available for quite a while. The 5d is over a year old now. This is especially true, when taken with your criteria. Were I in your position, I'd have either a kodak or a 5d.

NIkon nut and have been for years. I simply love the brand.

I guess that this is the part that I don't get. I like my gear, but I don't have any special affinity for the brand. So long as nikon continues to provide tools that meet my needs, I'll be happy using nikon. But, I'd not stay with them, if they didn't meet my needs or another brand proved to be significantly superior, in the areas of my needs. Had the d200 not been a very significant improvement over the d70, I'd have been looking at canon. As it is, I'm quite content. Even though I expect the d3h to be a significant improvement over the d200, I don't expect or have a real need to upgrade anytime soon.

--
my gallery of so-so photos
http://www.pbase.com/kerrypierce/root

 

[Darrelll]

Just remember back to when 1 gig of RAM cost a
small fortune.

800$ Can for two x 512 Megs chips on my 1st Pentium 4 computer

Back in the early 80's, we never heard of a gigabyte... my 1st PC HD was 10mb and cost me $800 around 1983. I'd guess a 1gb or Ram would have cost... well, priceless for the size of chip and speed of today's stuff.

--
My glamour gallery - Comments appreciated. Link below...

http://www.pixs.ws/gallery2/Models



Cheers,

Darrell