Nikon announces new products on Sep. 1

fishcatcher said:

What you say is very plausible, and there are obvious problems with
light falloff in the previous FF implementations, and we will soon
learn how much if any that was improved from an engineering
standpoint in the D5.

Click to expand...

fishcatcher said:

shot at taming that problem than Nikon for several reasons, the new
CMOS technology (and serial improvements to come) and the fact that
they have been dealing with the enginerring problems and actually
producing FF for several years. New implementations take several
iterations before they begin to mature. If your assumptions that
it would be easier to get a new lens mount, rather than tackle the
problem with algos is correct, then any Nikon full frame is likely
to be not only more costly but, therefore, likely to be aimed at
the high end pro level, and not any time soon (two years or more
down the road).

Click to expand...

fishcatcher said:

The more I research this issue, the more I am convinced that there
are likely only two options in the near future to satisfy my need
for FF (or larger), switch to Canon like a lot of my colleagues
have, or bite the bullet on a back for my MF gear. I have been
putting off a move to another system on the presumption that Nikon
would offer FF sooner than it looks like they will. Thanks for you
perceptive reading of a part of the problem.

Click to expand...

Mario said:

History of how the full frame came about is somewhat irrelevant.
The fact still stands that once the format was adopted, everything
was built and optimized around it, including some really fine
lenses, which are not so fine any more on smaller format. And
another huge thing is viewfinder. Ever tried manually focusing a
macro shot with D70/D100 in fairly low light. Can't be done.

Click to expand...

Mario said:

Another reason for perhaps moving forward to full frame would be
ever decreasing photo site sizes, which somewhat reduces the ISO
range of the sensor.

Click to expand...

Mario said:

DX sensor might as well stay around for decades to come as a
cheaper alternative, but full frame digital sensors will be
perfected and exceed film in wide angle edge performance
eventually. The sooner Nikon and other start investing into some
serious R&D, the sooner we will see better technology.

Click to expand...

T3 said:

Canon's FF DSLR cameras have been widely used and accepted in the
professional photographic community since Canon introduced their
first FF DSLR back in 2002. If FF DSLR bodies had not been met
with acceptance and success by many of the top, discriminating
commercial photographers in the world (willing to fork over $8000),
there would have never been a 1Ds MKII nor a 5D now. Canon would
still be sitting on their 1Ds. Canon has had considerable time to
gauge the opinion and needs of professional photographers
worldwide, as well as the market potential of FF DSLR sales.
Remember, Canon is a money-motivated company, and buyers willing to
spend large sums of money for a body are quality-motivated
photographers. If photographers didn't think FF DSLR was good
enough, they wouldn't be spending their money on Canon FF DSLR
cameras, Canon would not be making money with their FF DSLR
cameras, and there would be no motivation to produce a 1Ds MKII and
5D. Money and success drives it all. And whatever success Canon
has reaped from the 1Ds and 1Ds MKII bodies in the photographic
community, they are likely to continue-- deeper and broader-- with
the much more affordable 5D. So don't treat Canon's FF digital
bodies as if they are some new experimental phenomenon. Their FF
bodies have been around for a while. And it ain't for nothing that
Canon continues to expand their FF line of offerings.

Click to expand...

Karl Jacobs said:

But is the Canon FF the best science?... or is it more
marketing?... It's clear to me that the Nikon sensors would
perform worse than the Canon at the same sensor size, due to the
smaller photosites.

But I have a question for those using MF glass with adapters on
their Canon or Nikon bodies. How do those lenses perform in
edge-to-edge sharpness?

Click to expand...

Karl Jacobs191778 said:

a greater distance of the rear element from the sensor plane, it
would seem that a different approach to lenses and camera bodies is
inevitable, and our view of 35mm film size as a standard will be a
distant memory in 10 or 15 years.

Click to expand...

Yamil R. Sued said:

You are correct in your statement.

canon's have been very well accpted, but..

They are more accepted by PJ's using the 1D MKII!!

IMHO the best body for Sports Photography out there!!

I have shot the 1DSMKII, But I hae achieved better results with the
D2X, maybe it's me and I'm more used to the Nikon Post Processing,
but my 1DSMKII Images (with thir 70-200 2.8 IS Lens) lacked
something!!

BTW many of us cmplain about capture and it being slow, please DO
NOT TRY Canon Phot Professional!! It's 4 to 5 times slower!!

Click to expand...

Yamil R. Sued50621 said:

I did 400 + Images at an Air show last may with a 20D, in RAW, and
it took over 18 hours to process them!!

Y

T3 said:

Canon's FF DSLR cameras have been widely used and accepted in the
professional photographic community since Canon introduced their
first FF DSLR back in 2002. If FF DSLR bodies had not been met
with acceptance and success by many of the top, discriminating
commercial photographers in the world (willing to fork over $8000),
there would have never been a 1Ds MKII nor a 5D now. Canon would
still be sitting on their 1Ds. Canon has had considerable time to
gauge the opinion and needs of professional photographers
worldwide, as well as the market potential of FF DSLR sales.
Remember, Canon is a money-motivated company, and buyers willing to
spend large sums of money for a body are quality-motivated
photographers. If photographers didn't think FF DSLR was good
enough, they wouldn't be spending their money on Canon FF DSLR
cameras, Canon would not be making money with their FF DSLR
cameras, and there would be no motivation to produce a 1Ds MKII and
5D. Money and success drives it all. And whatever success Canon
has reaped from the 1Ds and 1Ds MKII bodies in the photographic
community, they are likely to continue-- deeper and broader-- with
the much more affordable 5D. So don't treat Canon's FF digital
bodies as if they are some new experimental phenomenon. Their FF
bodies have been around for a while. And it ain't for nothing that
Canon continues to expand their FF line of offerings.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

rayman 2 said:

Yamil said:
.......Forget that, try Slapping a 1DSMKII on a 4x5 camera and
using a good Large Format Digital Lens!!.........

so the distance does matter ...... you know what matters too ?
Its the diameter that the lens covers ! ; )
NOT THE LENS MOUNT DIAMETER !

Click to expand...

rayman 2 said:

..... you know how poor a super angulon would perform on that same
setup ........bad !

Click to expand...

rayman 2 said:

A lens that only covers 35mm and does not cover a full frame MF
like the phase like the sinars and the FF Imacons can perform even
better ....

Click to expand...

rayman 2 said:

Nikon is constantly improving and changing it lens design towards
digital ......... even on long lenses that cover the FF and short
lenses
that cover FF : )

Click to expand...

rayman 2 said:

There is a limit ...... its money !

Click to expand...

rayman 2 said:

........ and PLEEEASE STOP THAT MYTH...... a FF Nikon would have
lower pitch then Canon ........ this is the worst of all !

Click to expand...

rayman 2 said:

The only company to have the highest pitch is FUJI ........
because they were smart enough to look at what the bees do ........

Click to expand...

rayman 2 said:

yes sometimes it pays off to look at some biology ...

Click to expand...

David Martin said:

Yamil R. Sued said:

You are correct in your statement.

canon's have been very well accpted, but..

They are more accepted by PJ's using the 1D MKII!!

IMHO the best body for Sports Photography out there!!

I have shot the 1DSMKII, But I hae achieved better results with the
D2X, maybe it's me and I'm more used to the Nikon Post Processing,
but my 1DSMKII Images (with thir 70-200 2.8 IS Lens) lacked
something!!

BTW many of us cmplain about capture and it being slow, please DO
NOT TRY Canon Phot Professional!! It's 4 to 5 times slower!!

Click to expand...

No-one, but no-one, uses it!
At least Canon realise that their own brand software is rubbish - I
don't think even they expect anyone to use it!

Click to expand...

Member said:

Member said:

I did 400 + Images at an Air show last may with a 20D, in RAW, and
it took over 18 hours to process them!!

Click to expand...

Click to expand...