Nikon announces new products on Sep. 1

I would only add that you were conservative in stating how the difference between a well engineered quality FF would differ from the DX format, which I certainly agree is fine for those who do not find it limiting. FF offers the potential of cleaner, less noisy, higher ISOs at larger resolution (13 MP and above) than it would appear that APS does in DX format. There are a lot of pro, semi pro, and serious amatuers wating for Nikon to meet the challenge that Canon, with the D5, has apparently signalled. I need FF for my work, and as soon as a quality FF camera establishes itself in the market, I will move to it. I hope that it is a Nikon, of course.
 
I know all the story about the center part of the glass yada yada yada.

Still you did not get my point (or perhaps I wasn't clear enough). There is nothing magical about 24X36mm (or 35mm format). The only magical thing is that things evovled around it. At the same time MF developed with different standards.

Different standards exist and will continue to exist. This just proves my point that DX is here to stay.

In addition, in the world of electronics, where you measure things in microns, it is almost immaterial if you have a 23.5X15.6 sensor or 24X36, and this is what Nikon banked on. They will be at least 5-6 years behind Canon (that is if they decide on FF).

As for the viability, marketability and business sense of Canon, I can't predict it, but big companies make big mistakes too (how did IBM cease the PC software development to Microsoft? In 1985 there was practically only one hardware/software maker in the world)

If at all, and I'm sure you've noticed, Canon plays on all angles (pun intended), FF, 1.3, 1.6 etc. so they surely don't put all their eggs in one basket.
 
Well, not quite, but the Norwegian publication "Fotografi", a well
respected photomagazine, has an online article at http://www.fotografi.no
about the new releases from Canon. The article is dated 25th of
August. In the same article, they mention that Nikon will probably
answer Canon next week (fits with September 1st):

"Samtidig har Interfoto varslet en verdensnyhet i neste uke. Vil
Nikon utfordre Canons nye modell allerede før den er i salg?"

English:
"At the same time, Interfoto [The official Scandinvian Nikon
importer] are announcing they will reveal something extraordinary
next week. Will Nikon step up to the plate and challenge Canon's
products even before they're released?"
"verdensnyhet" is a stronger expression than "extraordinary", literary "world news"
--
http://www.pbase.com/interactive
 
Thomas, I certainly respect your opinions and I agree!!

But...

It seems that most of the folks that are requesting the FF are not PRO's, not even serius amateurs, just someone with enough cash to buy a $5K camera!!! And want something they really do not need, but they think they need to make better images!!

Now, if Nikon would come out wiht a FF body, with Greta resolution and not having the Fall-Off problems seen in the Kodak FF, I WOULD BUY!!

Sure, my 17-55 DX lens could not be used efectively with it, but WTH, I cna get a 17-35 2.8!!

Look, I started with Digital with a 2x2 Megavision back on a 4x5 camera!! talk about limited use of the 4x5 format!!!

But... I made the best of it!! I worked at The Cabela's Photo Studio for 3 years and we made great Images with this system!! Cabelas since has sold/Trades all Megavisions ans went with Imacon 22 MPIX multile exposure backs!!

Look, I'm just making the pint that yes, the FF is OK, but if you don't really need it, I mean REALLY need it, shy soend the $$, just to impress your buddies!!

I just shot a big Architectureal interior this afternoon, tomorrow some editorial job, and Sunday a little editorial. The DX was just fine, if I had a FF, I would have just use a different lens!!

as a Pro, i have to see how long is going to take me to pay off a piece of gear, so i measure my expenses very tightly. This is why I sometimes I get un-nerved wiht some guy with $$ that argues all day long about the merits of FF, and repeats all day long what someone posted on the net, but they really DO NOT need the FF body, but they actually believe they do!!

Sorry for the rant!! And sorry if I sounded nasty on my post!!

also, thanks for your eloquent post.

Y
Will it Make me more money?? or just cost me more money??
That depends on your style of photography and which way the various
advantages/disadvantages of the two formats effect it. From the
tone of your message it seems not, and there is no problem with
that, however there are different people out there with different
requirements.

It won't cost you any money if you choose to stay away from it, and
it could easilly make other people more money if the advantages
line up with their desired photographic style.
What can it do that I'm not acomplising right now??
Depth of field isolation for one - if you're style doesn't push you
to shoot with wide apperatures, then it isn't an issue for you, but
for those of us who do then it is a very significant one. Nikon
can certainly remedy this by making lenses with larger apperatures
(ie f2.8-> f1.8, f1.8-> f1.2, f1.4-> f0.9, etc.), however given the
choice it would be a lot less expensive for me to get full frame
bodies than replace my lens line. Naturally, I'll take what I can
get but that won't stop me from pushing for my desired solution ;)
Either way, at this stage the vast majority of those lenses do not
exist so we are currently in the lurch until one of these paths are
taken :(
DX works just fine.
For you purhaps, but for others it does not. Naturally, we work
around the limitations that it presents to us and get the job done
  • however our results would certainly be improved if we didn't have
to resort to work arounds. I'm certainly happy that the
limitations of the format do not effect you, but that doesn't mean
they aren't significant for others.

Of course it has to be said that there are certainly limitations of
the full-frame format that HF resolves - however for some of us
they are much less significant than the advantages. They are
legitimate issues, it's just that given my style they don't come up
as often as they do for you. I have no interest in belittling
those issues, just saying that my interests do not necessarilly
mesh with yours ;)

The key here is that most people who want FF recognise that HF has
it's place and will continue to for the forseeable future. We
aren't asking Nikon to switch exclusively to the larger format, we
are simply asking for a suitable model to give us the choice.
Either that or get to work in producing more lenses that resolve
those problems with the smaller format - the 200f2.0 is certainly a
good first step, but we need a lot more before we pipe down about
it ;)

With that said, I will certainly agree that this is not the time
for such an announcement. The professional cameras have recently
been refreshed, and the D100 has been without a refresh for a while
  • a HF D200 makes perfect sense at this stage. Any move toward
full-frame will most certainly be made at the high-end first, and
given the recent releases it doesn't make a whole lot of sense at
this time.
 
Pleas see my response, I don't want to re-explain myself again.

Y
I would only add that you were conservative in stating how the
difference between a well engineered quality FF would differ from
the DX format, which I certainly agree is fine for those who do not
find it limiting. FF offers the potential of cleaner, less noisy,
higher ISOs at larger resolution (13 MP and above) than it would
appear that APS does in DX format. There are a lot of pro, semi
pro, and serious amatuers wating for Nikon to meet the challenge
that Canon, with the D5, has apparently signalled. I need FF for my
work, and as soon as a quality FF camera establishes itself in the
market, I will move to it. I hope that it is a Nikon, of course.
 
Thom,

The forecast on your page lays out the D80/90, but not the 200. What do you see the key features, and differences, of these two models?
--
Radu
http://www.pbase.com/raduray

 
D100s, same as D100 in body (Nikon loves the N80 body) and
focusing, viewfinder, etc., but LBCAST sensor 4.1 mp.
That would frustrate so many shooters dying for a real upgrade in
MP and improvement in Noise with higher ISOs in the next body. If
Nikon did that Canon would be laughing all the way to the bank.
Nikon has done some dumb marketing moves, but this one would likely
earn them an award for lack of market perception. Hey, maybe you
are right after all.
If Nikon did do this... and I am fearful they might, then I won't be buying any new camera gear, will slowing be selling the gear I do have, and then making a switch to Canon or Leica or Hass late next year. I'm tired of waiting, and if I am going to invest a large chunk of $$$, I'm going to invest in a system where the company actually has a plan that shows market awareness.

For much of my art work, I need higher ISO capability. I also need the MP for selling as stock or large prints.

Also, if the quality of Nikon WA glass doesn't improve, then I may switch as well. They gotta do something for landscape shooters.
 
It seems as though those that continue to go on and on about how 24 x36 is full frame would still be using 5 1/4 inch floppy disks rather than the jumpdives and flash cards we have today. After all 5 1/4 is bigger therfore it must be able to store more data more reliabley. How can you possible expect to pack as much (or a fe orders of magnitude more) data into a smaller space and still expect to retrieve it...

What leads one to assume that camera manufacturers won't figure out how to get great dynamic range, color, and low noise out of a DX sized (or smaller)sensor?

In all markets pardigms and formats change, I simply can't understand this allegiance to 24x36mm sensors.

I understand that with current technology 24x36 offers some advantages over dx, but I don't think that will be the case in a few years.

I would much rather see Nikon put their R&D dollars into the next "thing" rather than the previous "thing"
 
I am a loyal Nikon user, and I have many Nikkors and Nikon film bodies, as well as a D70. I really wish that Nikon would develop a FF sensor DSLR.

As an architectural photographer, wide angle lenses are my primary tools. I see a marked difference in perspective between my 12mm, my 14mm, 17mm and 18mm lenses. At times, any one of the three can give me the look that I want. But for other pictures, the wider lenses needed for the DX sensor can cause problems. As you all know, the 18mm on FF is NOT the same as the 12mm on DX. They cover the same field of view, but the angle is very different.

The extremely wide lenses required by the DX sensor can cause walls and floors to tilt at disturbing angles in some pictures. In those instances, I go with a slightly longer lens on the F100, and the problem is solved. I still reach for my F100 when I am wedged into tight spaces and needing every last bit of coverage. For my work, it would be great to have a digital FF camera at a reasonable price point.

Given the choice, I like digital oiver film for my professional work. It's faster, costs less, easier to work with after shooting. But the DX sensor size is an issue for me, and I would love to see a Nikon FF alternative at a price close to that of the Fuji S3.

--
Enough talk, now log off and go shoot some pictures!! :)

JG
http://www.pbase.com/jgphoto
 
My wish List:

D200 body - take a D70s, add a 2.2-2.5" LCD, 8-10 Megapixels (for the "gotta have more" crowd - Personally, I can live with 6mp myself), Mirror Lock-up, ISO 100-3200, Optional Battery Grip with shutter and command dial, and 9 focus points. Allow it to meter with older lenses. Body Only price around $1,750 - $1,950. Nikonians are willing to pay a premium for Nikon gear - Nikon doesn't have to beat Canon or even "answer" them. But a few warning shots over the bow never hurt anyone.

14-24mm f/4.5-5.6DX AF-S ED Lens - $550.00 - give us a less expensive alternative to the $950 12-24 DX!

70-200 f/4 AF-S VR Lens (Not DX). Make it compatible with the af-s converters, and price it around $800-$900 (street). Canon's 70-200 f/4L is a GREAT lens - esp on the APS sensors! Beat Canon to the punch on this one - the Canon rig does not have IS/VR!

DX Primes:
12mm f/2.8 DX (AF-S optional) ED Lens - $900.00
14mm f/2.8 DX (AF-S optional) Ed Lens - $750.00
16mm f/2.8 DX (AF-S optional) ED Lens - $450.00
18mm f/2.8 DX PC Lens - $1,200.00
And just for the heck of it...
300mm f/4 DX AF-S VR - $1,200. Build it - they will come!!!

Update the 70-300 ED to AF-S and add VR - again, this would help to fill a big gap in the line and stop a few "switchers" or perhaps even invite a few to the Nikon camp.

For anyone that questions the last one - if Nikon could do this right, make it smaller and lighter than the current 300mm f/4 lens, it would sell like hotcakes - my opinion.

If Nikon is truly dedicated to the DX system, give us some ammo! The 5d looks great on paper, but only time and testing will tell us the whole story. The D2x at $5k is a Great camera, but there is a serious gap for the seious amatuer/Semi-pro between the D70 and the D2 cameras!

Just my humble $0.02 USD worth - take it for what it is worth.

Dave
 
I am a loyal Nikon user, and I have many Nikkors and Nikon film
bodies, as well as a D70. I really wish that Nikon would develop a
FF sensor DSLR.

As an architectural photographer, wide angle lenses are my primary
tools. I see a marked difference in perspective between my 12mm,
my 14mm, 17mm and 18mm lenses. At times, any one of the three can
give me the look that I want. But for other pictures, the wider
lenses needed for the DX sensor can cause problems. As you all
know, the 18mm on FF is NOT the same as the 12mm on DX. They cover
the same field of view, but the angle is very different.

The extremely wide lenses required by the DX sensor can cause walls
and floors to tilt at disturbing angles in some pictures. In those
instances, I go with a slightly longer lens on the F100, and the
problem is solved. I still reach for my F100 when I am wedged into
tight spaces and needing every last bit of coverage. For my work,
it would be great to have a digital FF camera at a reasonable price
point.
Canon 5D (13mp, full frame, mirror lock up) and Canon Tilt Shift lenses (24mm, 45mm, and/or 90mm TS-E) are an architectural photographer's. dream.
 
i totall agree that there is a serious gap between d70 and d2x range!! i would be so so touched if nikon delivers what u're asking for =P
 
It seems as though those that continue to go on and on about how 24
x36 is full frame would still be using 5 1/4 inch floppy disks
rather than the jumpdives and flash cards we have today. After all
5 1/4 is bigger therfore it must be able to store more data more
reliabley. How can you possible expect to pack as much (or a fe
orders of magnitude more) data into a smaller space and still
expect to retrieve it...
That is a stupid analogy. It is not just quantity, but quality that counts. The problem is that as it appears from general discussions about the differences between large and smaller sensors, the ability to squeeze more and more out of APS sensors at the same quality (low noise, higher ISO at large resolutions)willl be more difficult than getting the same and more out of FF with the newer CMOS processes.
What leads one to assume that camera manufacturers won't figure out
how to get great dynamic range, color, and low noise out of a DX
sized (or smaller)sensor?
What leads on to assum they will? Just what evidence can you offer that such processes or the possibility of them exists? If they do, fine. But what we have as relative immediate prospects now for the camera body sizes we have--many are revamped FF body designs--are FF and APS, and the latter in its higher res implementations does not have the lower noise at higher ISOs or DOF that is possible with FF. I am looking to replace my digital bodies no later than about a year from now. I can't plan on the vaporware that you postulate. If the 5D is a quality implementation of FF, or if Nikon offers something that is competitive in FF, then I will be buying it, not because I am 'stuck conceptually' on 24x36. I have shot every format from 8x10 down to half frame film, and presently still use 6x6, 6x7, and 35 film.
In all markets pardigms and formats change, I simply can't
understand this allegiance to 24x36mm sensors.
It is not an allegiance matter. If someone were to produce a 4.5x6 cm sensor at a decent price with a decent lens range, I would buy it. Your problem is that you perceive that DX is somehow perfect because it occurred after 35 mm film, and therfore, like, bigger capacity CF cards must be the leading edge. That anaolgy won't hold up. Storing 1s and 0s is a whole lot easier than engineering smaller and smaller photosites to get greater resolution at the quality that the market is demanding. FF offers tha possibility NOW.
I understand that with current technology 24x36 offers some
advantages over dx, but I don't think that will be the case in a
few years.
You have a right to think that, but what do you base it on. Faith. Name some technology with the prospect of that?
I would much rather see Nikon put their R&D dollars into the next
"thing" rather than the previous "thing"
FF in DIGITAL is not the previous thing. Your inability to perceive that FF film and FF digital are two completely different formats appears to be the case.. Sure, I know you understand that, but you argue as if you didn't realize that it is the DIGITAL FF that those who argue for it in these forums are talking about, not some nostagia for a particular negative size. Another previous poster predicated his dismissal of those who want FF as just throwbacks who need some use for their 35mm film lenses tha were being catered to by Nikon and Canon.

DX is right for some shooters. FF is the right choice for others. Each offers distinct advantages that the other does not have. So does MF with a $20,000 digital back, ETC.
 
It seems that most of the folks that are requesting the FF are not
PRO's, not even serius amateurs, just someone with enough cash to
buy a $5K camera!!! And want something they really do not need,
but they think they need to make better images!!
That's certainly an issue, and marketing rehtoric is certainly a large part of these things - but that's always been the case, it's just that now the product cycles are much shorter and we see a lot more of it. How many people bought F-series or 1-series cameras for no other reason than they wanted to buy a 'professional' camera ;) My point was simply that there is legitimate demand for such a product, and the fact that there is a lot of people driven by marketing alone doesn't diminsh that point.

The biggest problem with these types of arguments are people talking in absolutes. Once one person does that, it tends to get parties on the other side riled up who typically fire back with the same type of absolute comments and things just get worse. The bottom line is that FF is not superior to HF, as HF is not superior to FF - they are different formats with different sets of advantages and disadvantages. To make things more complicated, technology can often be used to combat those inherent characteristics (on both sides) so even those points aren't always as black and white as we'd like. This is a complex issue and it needs to be treated as such in discussions - while one might be vastly superior for one shooter, it may be a vastly inferior to another ;)
But... I made the best of it!! I worked at The Cabela's Photo
Studio for 3 years and we made great Images with this system!!
Cabelas since has sold/Trades all Megavisions ans went with Imacon
22 MPIX multile exposure backs!!
As any good professional must be able to do - I get tons of work done with my HF gear and adjust to shoot within the constraints of that. I simply adapt to a different style and do what I can - if I have a shoot that I feel really needs the DoF isolation I can always revert to film. That doesn't change the fact that I would rather not have to do those things, and would gladly pay for the equipment necessary if/when it becomes available ;)
Look, I'm just making the pint that yes, the FF is OK, but if you
don't really need it, I mean REALLY need it, shy soend the $$, just
to impress your buddies!!
I certainly agree - however all I am trying to say is that a lot of people do need it and if they can rationally justify the expense that is all they really need. If they are buying based soully on marketing falacies or specmanship I certainly agree that there is a serious problem there. However if a rich doctor likes the OOF background style and has the money to pay for a FF camera, I don't really see a problem with him chasing it ;)
as a Pro, i have to see how long is going to take me to pay off a
piece of gear, so i measure my expenses very tightly. This is why I
sometimes I get un-nerved wiht some guy with $$ that argues all day
long about the merits of FF, and repeats all day long what someone
posted on the net, but they really DO NOT need the FF body, but
they actually believe they do!!
As a pro as well I have to do the same math - for me the price of the 1Ds-II for a FF Nikon camera would be easilly justified. I bought the fastest lenses available because of the DoF isolation they provided wide open, now I don't have that so the value of that gear to me is diminished. A FF camera would resolve that, and the cost of the body would easilly be justified by that alone. However, I can't justify the cost of replacing my entire system so I'm reliant on Nikon to make me that offer...

For an ammeteur, however, they don't necessarilly need to justify their expense in the same manner. If they want a creative aspect that a format gives them, as long as they can afford it and feel that it is worth the opportunity cost that's all that's necessary. I'd certainly love to be in that boat, but photography is a business for me so I need to work out the economics just like you ;)
Sorry for the rant!! And sorry if I sounded nasty on my post!!
No problem, I certainly understand how these types of discussions can easilly get deep under your skin ;) I always enjoy a good civil discussion about this matter (which is so rare these days) so I thank you for your last reply!
 
Hmmmm. If it is not an issue in the least, why would you care if
they make full frame bodies, since it is super likely that they
will also continue their DX lines for a long time. Anyone with dx
lenses can continue to use them on the present Nikon line of
bodies. So, why would you be really peeved if you 'don't really
care about FF'?
--If it were the only option I had in a digital body and I'd invested a lot of money in DX lenses, yes, I'd be pretty upset that Nikon did an about face on the technology. Wouldn't you? And if you had purchased a 17-55 DX lens, (Yes, I know you can use it on a FF body) BUT, given the factors of vignetting, I don't think that's the intended use of the 17-55 lens and if I'd wanted a 28-55 for FF, I'd have bought something else rather than a 17-55 DX. I know you understand this, but we can belabor this point if you wish.
I don't understand this whole balogna with FF. It's almost
nonsensical that marketing hype can make people want something that
they don't really know that they don't need. You have a viewfinder
and you know what you're getting with each shot. What is the
problem?
It is relatively evident that you don't realize that FF, in a
quality implementation, does offer certain advantages over DX. All
the pros that have been wanting FF (in high quality) are not just
being hyped by Canon or anyone else. Perhaps you can explain to us
what it is we ' don't really know that they(we) don't need" as you
so precisely put it. Anyone who reduces the discussion to "You
have a viewfinder and you know what you're getting with each shot.
What is the problem?" is being simpleminded.
Yes yes, this is something we have yet to see is it not? And the key is a "Quality implementation". I hardly would expect to see it in a higher end amateur body first. Do you? If we are to see this, I would expect to see it in the pro model offering first.

And I may be over-simplifying, but in reality, it's the truth isn't it?
There are far too many threads and posts already out there to
repeat it here. Do some reading.
Been there, read it and while there are some compelling reasons and some good arguments for it. There are also some good arguments against it.

It still doesn't matter to me at all. I work with the tools that I am given and I'm not going to devote a lot of time moaning about what some measure of an ideal camera would be and why can't Nikon give it to me.

If you want full frame (Whatever that is--medium format? 35mm equiv?) then you have options out there. Film is still out there and scanners are still available. Talk about range, you can still get down to ISO 50 with film. I believe you can still pick up a Mamiya or Hassleblad or even a shiny new F6

All these tools will get the job done as well.

My point was, we can get it done with the tools available and if the D200 has some shortcomings, well, we'll learn to live with them and get around them just as we have with every prior camera model released (Except the F5... for the life of me, I could never figure what else I would want in a film camera other than it being digital).

There are reasons to consider different cameras, one being FF is not one of them in my opinion, but opinions vary.

Julio
 
...soon or later. I bet they are working hard together with SONY to make a bigger than DX sensor commercially feasible. It may not be a FF but they need it. The heavy noise reduction on a high pixel density sensor still leaves its trail behind. It is always visible. But if in the meantime they manage to develop a better NR algorithm.... When they say they are "committed to DX" it's just marketing strategy. In fact they want to have at least one FF camera model to offer to its clients so that they are to choose. Just like Canon was able to do with 3 different crop sensors. Different pros and cons to each. Only the photographer can decide what is best to his needs.
--
Andre
 
...
DX Primes:
12mm f/2.8 DX (AF-S optional) ED Lens - $900.00
14mm f/2.8 DX (AF-S optional) Ed Lens - $750.00
16mm f/2.8 DX (AF-S optional) ED Lens - $450.00
18mm f/2.8 DX PC Lens - $1,200.00
You might see one or two of these DX, but not all 4. Actually Nikon already makes a rather good 14mm and a DX lens wouldn't save that much so you might see a wide (10 or 12mm) DX prime, but that's about it.
And just for the heck of it...
300mm f/4 DX AF-S VR - $1,200. Build it - they will come!!!
...
DX doesn't save much on the longer lenses.... the opening to allow light in needs to be the same size whether it is DX or 35mm frame. Nikon's better bet is just adding VR to the current 300mm f/4 AF-S lens. It'll require a 77mm filter either way.
--
-----Bear
 

Keyboard shortcuts

Back
Top