Thom Hogan thinks a FF Nikon DSLR is coming

dylanear said:

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

Click to expand...

heh. Dunno, but I suspect that you're probably correct.

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

Doyle said:

I don't they can pack any higher pixel density into the current
size chip. At least not with current lens technology.

Click to expand...

I think the P&S cams pack a lot more pixels into their sensors than Nikon DSLR's.

Doyle46883 said:

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!

Click to expand...

yes, I wish they would ditto.

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

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



Cheers,

Darrell

Mario said:

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

Click to expand...

thats a correct wisedom from analog film days. Its not about sharpness of the lens!
Its about guding the light in the telegenice way.

Again, the sensor is anistropic. You need have the light shining perpendicular to the sensor. On the edges of the frame with a wide angle lens this will not be true with the present lens design which was made for 35mm film.

A 35mm sensor needs completely a new lens design for wide angle lenses. Everyone knows that. Thats why Nikon brought out the 17-55 DX even though they had aready the 17-35 which is a legend ... but only for film. Leica knows that, too. They came out with two crop cameras. If you look into the M8 design you can see that Leitz has a huge problem at the frame borders since the light comes in with the wrong angle. I bet they have their lenses coded because the camera contains software which partially corrects the vignetting.

The Olympus solution is the much better one. The problem they have is that they were ahead of everybody else and could only afford small sensors at the time they started.

I would like to advocate a clear cut. A 35mm sensor with medium format lenses. A MF crop camera. That would be a realy IQ progress if you insist on the 80 year old Leica 35mm film size standard which I personaly do not care the least about. Its just an convention which does not help you taking better pictures, or does it?

Sam Carleton said:

Storare said:

Sam Carleton said:

folks,

Click to expand...

Sam Carleton said:

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.

Click to expand...

A Nikon FF body at 2500$ would be OK

Click to expand...

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.

Click to expand...

My reasoning would be to do the opposite... I'd recommend they do as they did with the Flagship D2h 4mp and they introduced the D100 6mp. It would be more cost effective to sell a $2,500 D300 with a FF sensor as they'd sell a TON of them thereby lowering the FF chip cost as the production run would be huge. Compared to a small run of D3x at $8k per copy.

Sam Carleton said:

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/

Click to expand...

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

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



Cheers,

Darrell

FrithjofA said:

A 35mm sensor needs completely a new lens design for wide angle
lenses.

Click to expand...

Or perhaps a completely new sensor design. Seems to me like an easier problem to solve than introduction of bigger lens mount and lenses with larger exit pupil.

Why can't the sensor photo sites be oriented slightly inward near the edges, or perhaps entire senor plane curved a really tiny amount.

--
Mario

All this is only a speculation and vignetting with wide angles will not be nearly the issue that it is made to be in these discussions.

Remember, the wide angle vignetting on non-existent Nikon FF digital is only an excuse or justification for people who are opposed to Nikon users having a FF choice. Nothing more, and certainly not a factual statement.

--
Mario

It has been a looooong time that this has nothing to do with good photographs, sadly..

raul

Mario said:

Mario said:

A 35mm sensor needs completely a new lens design for wide angle
lenses.

Click to expand...

Or perhaps a completely new sensor design. Seems to me like an
easier problem to solve than introduction of bigger lens mount and
lenses with larger exit pupil.

Why can't the sensor photo sites be oriented slightly inward near
the edges, or perhaps entire senor plane curved a really tiny
amount.

Click to expand...

because consecutive lithography processes are used for masking an etching. You need to make 50-100 sensor from a single silicon wave in a simple standard semiconductor process.

As I understand the M8 uses a standard sensor with some distored microlenses on top.

But you want that your sensor works for wide angle AND tele lenses. If you optimise it for WA you might run into serious trouble with tele lenses.

Raul said:

It has been a looooong time that this has nothing to do with good
photographs, sadly..

raul

Click to expand...

yep... at the end, I not care. I only care about pictures.

Thats why personally I am very happy with the loose littly crop D200

Frithjof

P.S.: sometimes, I like to get involved in this stupid debate. The wether is bad and I am still waiting for my tripod to arrive..

Mario said:

Mario said:

A 35mm sensor needs completely a new lens design for wide angle
lenses.

Click to expand...

Or perhaps a completely new sensor design. Seems to me like an
easier problem to solve than introduction of bigger lens mount and
lenses with larger exit pupil.

Why can't the sensor photo sites be oriented slightly inward near
the edges, or perhaps entire senor plane curved a really tiny
amount.

--
Mario

Click to expand...

A FF sensor will not require a new lens mount. FF Kodak proved that and a lot of Canon users mount Nikkor glass on their FF cameras with no problem. FF won't be for everybody, and cropped sensors will still be there for the masses. FF will simply be another choice.
--
Respond to rudeness with civility, it really annoys them.

Regards,

JR