G
Gregg Humphrey
Guest
Take a look at Thom's latest poll. He believes there is strong evidence and rumors that Nikon will eventually build a FF DSLR.
-
Welcome to the new forums! Please read this first. For known issues we are working to resolve, click here.
Rav77
Forum Enthusiast
Eventually I think there will be one too, when that is is anybodys guess.
mballent
Senior Member
I can also predict that there will be sub $500 50MP DSLR too 
Just a question of when. Digital photography has changed the entire landscape... Just remember back to when 1 gig of RAM cost a small fortune.
--
-Michael
Just take the picture =)
Equipment in profile
Gallery: http://www.ballentphoto.com
Blog: http://ballentphoto.blogspot.com
Just a question of when. Digital photography has changed the entire landscape... Just remember back to when 1 gig of RAM cost a small fortune.--
-Michael
Just take the picture =)
Equipment in profile
Gallery: http://www.ballentphoto.com
Blog: http://ballentphoto.blogspot.com
The soon to be announced 10-500/1.8 AF-S VR III IF-ED N...
Matt_Anderson
Senior Member
and I quote ; )
"It's more of a Plasma type liquid filled lens. It has quantum characteristics the enable the medium to be suspended and shaped by a local electro-magnetic fields. The fields are dynamic in respect to size, shape, color, and have inherit vibration resistance. The plasma like "Gel" can also be partitioned within the chamber to offer exactly the optical characteristics needed for the task at hand. The manufacturer recommends not dropping the lens. Also, given the power requirements, the battery technology will be the limiting factor given an average of 10 shots can be fired off before the batteries threshold drops below the minimum required 1.2 Megavolts needed to maintain robust magno-eletric field."
"It's more of a Plasma type liquid filled lens. It has quantum characteristics the enable the medium to be suspended and shaped by a local electro-magnetic fields. The fields are dynamic in respect to size, shape, color, and have inherit vibration resistance. The plasma like "Gel" can also be partitioned within the chamber to offer exactly the optical characteristics needed for the task at hand. The manufacturer recommends not dropping the lens. Also, given the power requirements, the battery technology will be the limiting factor given an average of 10 shots can be fired off before the batteries threshold drops below the minimum required 1.2 Megavolts needed to maintain robust magno-eletric field."
mballent
Senior Member
All I am saying is that the march of technology will continue forward. We are in the middle digital photograpy's infancy. Right now you can go out and buy a 39MP camera (Hasselblad H3D) 50MP is 11 MP away... so I would presume that Hasselblad would make such a lens. I do not own one, and I certainly cannot afford it but it exists and like all technology it will drop in price because other manufacturers will be nipping on their heels. It's just a matter of time when we will see it. Remember all the scientific "truths" that have existed throughout history... only to be found out to be false.
--
-Michael
Just take the picture =)
Equipment in profile
Gallery: http://www.ballentphoto.com
Blog: http://ballentphoto.blogspot.com
Zensu11
Senior Member
You don't know how close you are to reality (25 years from now)!
Morphing liquid lenses will be the next phase, and I am predicting this on Nostradamus's birthday.
Doyle46883
Leading Member
I don't they can pack any higher pixel density into the current size chip. At least not with current lens technology.
After my experience with the D2x in relation to the Kodak SLRn there is no way I would purchase a higher pixel density chipped Nikon.
Of course maybe Nikon has decided they are not going to produce a higher megapixel camera than the D2x or they are going to be able to produce a better lens. But still the whole issue of camera shake and or shooting moving objects has to be addressed as well if the want to go with higher MP.
Kind of simple don't you think, JUST MAKE A BIGGER CHIP!
After my experience with the D2x in relation to the Kodak SLRn there is no way I would purchase a higher pixel density chipped Nikon.
Of course maybe Nikon has decided they are not going to produce a higher megapixel camera than the D2x or they are going to be able to produce a better lens. But still the whole issue of camera shake and or shooting moving objects has to be addressed as well if the want to go with higher MP.
Kind of simple don't you think, JUST MAKE A BIGGER CHIP!
Sam Carleton
Senior Member
folks,
All you have to do is read what Nikon themselves are saying about producing a Nikon body that has a 36mm x 24mm sensor. They keep saying:
"It is too expensive right now."
I don't know the price of the DX sensor verse the 36mm x 24mm sensors, but it is my understanding that a BIG reason the Canon 5D is $2500 and the D200 is $1300 is largely because the bigger sensor.
The day Nikon can get the larger sensor at close to the price of the sensors they are currently using, we will all be able to buy a Nikon body that has a 36mm x 24mm sensor.
When exactly will that be? I don't, my guess is sometime in 2009, maybe, just maybe 2008, but not in 2007, that is for sure.
--
Sam
http://www.miltonstreet.com
http://www.sportsshooter.com/scarleton
http://photos.miltonstreet.com/
All you have to do is read what Nikon themselves are saying about producing a Nikon body that has a 36mm x 24mm sensor. They keep saying:
"It is too expensive right now."
I don't know the price of the DX sensor verse the 36mm x 24mm sensors, but it is my understanding that a BIG reason the Canon 5D is $2500 and the D200 is $1300 is largely because the bigger sensor.
The day Nikon can get the larger sensor at close to the price of the sensors they are currently using, we will all be able to buy a Nikon body that has a 36mm x 24mm sensor.
When exactly will that be? I don't, my guess is sometime in 2009, maybe, just maybe 2008, but not in 2007, that is for sure.
--
Sam
http://www.miltonstreet.com
http://www.sportsshooter.com/scarleton
http://photos.miltonstreet.com/
Evan Effa
Senior Member
explanation...
not good enough corner/edge quality maybe, but not the too expensive line.
Expense hasn't stopped them producing 600 mm lenses that run into the 5 digits.
-evan
--
D200
I do know how to spell. I'm just a lousy Tipyst!
http://www.pbase.com/eheffa
not good enough corner/edge quality maybe, but not the too expensive line.
Expense hasn't stopped them producing 600 mm lenses that run into the 5 digits.
-evan
--
D200
I do know how to spell. I'm just a lousy Tipyst!
http://www.pbase.com/eheffa
Sam Carleton
Senior Member
Storare, if you read what the Nikon reps are saying, Nikon does not what to sell a US$2500 body with FF. I think it all stems from the fact that the first FF Nikon will be it's flagship body and they don't want to make it US$8000 like the Canon.
I do have a funny felling that if we had access to the actual sales numbers of the D2X/s and the US$8000 Canon, there are will be a lot more D2X/s out there then Canon's, simply because of the price difference.
--
Sam
http://www.miltonstreet.com
http://www.sportsshooter.com/scarleton
http://photos.miltonstreet.com/
Sam Carleton
Senior Member
evan,
Are you bothering to listen to what the the marketing folks at Nikon are saying? They are saying it is because of price. Why would they lie? Ok, it is the job of marketing people to lie, but why this lie? What could they be covering up? Maybe, just maybe, they have spent the big $$$ to do the market research and it shows them that folks simply don't want to spend more then US$4500 for the flag ship Nikon and as long as the FF cost more then that, Nikon will not produce it.
Meanwhile maybe the market research shows that folks don't mind spending US$10,000+ for a 600mm f/4, so they continue to produce them.
Why would they lie about this? What do they have to hide? We all know that it CAN be done, the only true explanation is that it is all about price, nothing else.
--
Sam
http://www.miltonstreet.com
http://www.sportsshooter.com/scarleton
http://photos.miltonstreet.com/
cloudbuster
Forum Enthusiast
As I stated the other day the Nikon UK rep replied to the question, FF dSLR, "Nikon have never said never, currently the price point is too high." He sugested that tecnology improvements will overcome this.
I wonder if the Real problem is the new sensor just out performs so many of the current lens line up as his next statement was, "There is some really exciting technology going on with optics."
For me, Yes some of the work I do would benifit from a bigger sensor.
--
Its always Sunny above the clouds!
I wonder if the Real problem is the new sensor just out performs so many of the current lens line up as his next statement was, "There is some really exciting technology going on with optics."
For me, Yes some of the work I do would benifit from a bigger sensor.
--
Its always Sunny above the clouds!
[email protected]
Veteran Member
If people clamor for a FF Nikon, Nikon will deliver.
I am happy with what I have.
maljo
I am happy with what I have.
maljo
Phil Flash
Senior Member
Now that they are in the game, they might finally realize the stakes and make a nice FF chip to rival Canon's FF chips.
Then again, their Alpha may not be selling as well as they'd hoped. I was at Calumet a month ago and they had a big sale with all the reps there. The poor Sony guy was all alone. Nobody was even interested in talking to him or handling the Alpha.
--
Phil Flash
SF, CA USA
Be loyal to your picture taking style, not to any brand or sensor size.
Stuff I own in my profile.
Then again, their Alpha may not be selling as well as they'd hoped. I was at Calumet a month ago and they had a big sale with all the reps there. The poor Sony guy was all alone. Nobody was even interested in talking to him or handling the Alpha.
--
Phil Flash
SF, CA USA
Be loyal to your picture taking style, not to any brand or sensor size.
Stuff I own in my profile.
Doyle46883
Leading Member
You have probably hit the nail on the head there. How many Nikon lens could you use with the Kodak FFs. Not very many.
Craig Gillette
Forum Pro
The "market" isn't the few pros and amateurs that could benefit from one and who may well have stockpiles of ff film lenses around.
There are very few users of the multi-kilobuck long pro monster lenses compared to the number of people going to buy a D40, D50, A100, etc., For the really middle of the bell curve user, an FF camera doesn't do much for them. Sure, there is some esoteric advantage, but at just what point does the consumer find a FF necessary? They don't.
In fact, I'd expect that it would not be necessarily welcome in the consumer field. What's one of the driving forces in going to a dslr for the digicam crowd? Sports, zoos, vacations, etc. They aren't taking monster landscapes - if they were, they'd already be dealing with the advanced technical issues. They want to get little Joey on the football field, playing soccer, etc. So when you offer an FF, you try to sell that this will make impressive, noise free enlargements much larger and better than the $.29 4x6s and even the $3 8x10s, 8x12s. Oh yeah, the $300 consumer 70-300, now performs like a consumer 70-300. Slower optically and mechanically, than the 70-200 or 80-200 which they avoided buying for 2x-4x the consumer lens, and now it isn't going to be any longer, and you sold the added reach.
So for a significant price bump, you get less utility and require much higher cost lenses to get the results.
There are very few users of the multi-kilobuck long pro monster lenses compared to the number of people going to buy a D40, D50, A100, etc., For the really middle of the bell curve user, an FF camera doesn't do much for them. Sure, there is some esoteric advantage, but at just what point does the consumer find a FF necessary? They don't.
In fact, I'd expect that it would not be necessarily welcome in the consumer field. What's one of the driving forces in going to a dslr for the digicam crowd? Sports, zoos, vacations, etc. They aren't taking monster landscapes - if they were, they'd already be dealing with the advanced technical issues. They want to get little Joey on the football field, playing soccer, etc. So when you offer an FF, you try to sell that this will make impressive, noise free enlargements much larger and better than the $.29 4x6s and even the $3 8x10s, 8x12s. Oh yeah, the $300 consumer 70-300, now performs like a consumer 70-300. Slower optically and mechanically, than the 70-200 or 80-200 which they avoided buying for 2x-4x the consumer lens, and now it isn't going to be any longer, and you sold the added reach.
So for a significant price bump, you get less utility and require much higher cost lenses to get the results.
As near as I can tell, none of this makes any sense. Why won't Nikon lenses work with FF but Canon lenses will? Canon shooters are wiling to pay for FF but Nikon shooters aren't? When was the last time anyone heard someone say "I want an affordable camera, therefore I'm going to buy Nikon." And the D200 doesn't compete with the 5D (which has an entirely different sensor size), it competes with the 30D. Nikon doing market research?? The cry for FF has been loud and long--it's been going on for YEARS.
I'm going to suggest that the reason nikon hasn't put out FF is because of sensor technology. Nikon is behind in this area, period. They've been relying on colaboration with Sony for everything but the D2h, and that sensor pretty clearly showed they hadn't caught up to Canon either. They put out smaller sensors so that they could try to compete on a price basis, because they couldn't compete on an IQ/noise basis. For professionals, the difference of 3k in a body that you'll use for 2-4 years is nothing. It's utterly rediculous of nikon to feed the "it's too expensive" line to the professional segment.
I'm going to suggest that the reason nikon hasn't put out FF is because of sensor technology. Nikon is behind in this area, period. They've been relying on colaboration with Sony for everything but the D2h, and that sensor pretty clearly showed they hadn't caught up to Canon either. They put out smaller sensors so that they could try to compete on a price basis, because they couldn't compete on an IQ/noise basis. For professionals, the difference of 3k in a body that you'll use for 2-4 years is nothing. It's utterly rediculous of nikon to feed the "it's too expensive" line to the professional segment.
Keyboard shortcuts
- f
- Forum