Am I the only one who wishes Nikon would produce a full frame slr camera?

Yves P. · Dec 23, 2002

Seriously, wait to see what will come up in the next 18 months, ...

I would like one for the D-100 price tag ...

Doglover said:
I just read the Canon 1DS review of Phil's. I can not help but
want it, but it is way out of my price range. I am new to digital
slr photography and have only had my D100 for 3 months. However,
since I have already spent a small fortune on Nikon glass and have
read a little about the advantages and minor disadvatages a full
frame sensor in a digital slr I believe I really would want a
camera with a full frame sensor so I could use my lenses as they
were designed. What am I supposed to do? Am I going to want to
sell the lenses I have now to buy Nikon's new glass designed for
the 1.5 cropping factor? Since I am new to digital slr photography
and I have no real loyalty to any particular manufacturer, I almost
feel that if Nikon does not produce a full frame somewhat
affordable digital slr with similar flexebility to the Canon 1DS, I
will have to seriouly consider dumping Nikon.
Even as a beginner, Canon's technological superiority seems to be
becomming clearer and clearer all the time. I am not trying to
rock the boat or or put Nikon down. This is just how I feel and I
was wondering if I was the only one. I could be totally wrong.
Sincerely,
Ross

--
If you don't snap it, nobody will snap it for you ...
Kafrifelle (Yves P.)
Nikon D-100/MB-100 grip with
AF 18-35 ED Nikkor
Sigma AF 15-30 D
AF 50mm 1.8 D
AF 35-70 Nikkor
AF 80-400 ED VR Nikkor
AF 60 Micro ED Nikkor
Kenko Tube ext
Tamron 2X converter
SB29s and SB 22 flashes. Vivitar 283 flash
Assorted Tiffen/Cokin/Hoya filters
Sony DSC-S50 (2.1 MP that is working great)

http://www.pbase.com/kafrifelle

Tom May · Dec 23, 2002

baruth,

Strictly speaking, the DX lenses are not available. Neither have they been reviewed, and the image quality has not been assessed. These lenses have been announced. As I recall, these are supposed to be available sometime this spring or summer, but that too is conjecture at this point.

As a fact. Canon manufactures a FF camera, the 1Ds, which reviewers have noted as being superior to anything else out there at this time, excepting perhaps medium format digital backs. I suspect that it will still be superior to the APS format cameras at the time that the DX lenses are released. Kodak has restated that they will have 14n samples before the end of the year, which is, by my reckoning, about a week away. This camera may meet or exceed the Canon in image quality, though at a lesser build and price, and it too will most likely exceed the image quality of the APS format cameras.

Nikon has not explicitly stated that they will not develop a FF camera. Anything to the contrary is conjecture.

In the meantime, there are individuals that appreciate the qualities of a full frame image, and are willing to pay for it. Nikon may choose not to develop a full frame camera, and should they not, Canon and Kodak will surely be pleased to sell to those that find need or desire for such a camera.

So, I agree, it doesn't really matter to me as an individual if Nikon does or doesn't provide a FF camera, as I, and everyone else, have sufficient options.

tom

baruth · Dec 23, 2002

" I suspect that it will still be superior to the APS format cameras at the time that the DX lenses are released"

Yes you suspect!! the only thing we can do now is suspect. We just saw phil's 1Ds review, after many of waiting. We don't know about Nikon WA lens yet. We do know that Nikon does have history of producing quality lenses, but one never knows until the real thing comes out .

Tom May said:
baruth,

Strictly speaking, the DX lenses are not available. Neither have
they been reviewed, and the image quality has not been assessed.
These lenses have been announced. As I recall, these are supposed
to be available sometime this spring or summer, but that too is
conjecture at this point.

As a fact. Canon manufactures a FF camera, the 1Ds, which reviewers
have noted as being superior to anything else out there at this
time, excepting perhaps medium format digital backs. I suspect that
it will still be superior to the APS format cameras at the time
that the DX lenses are released. Kodak has restated that they will
have 14n samples before the end of the year, which is, by my
reckoning, about a week away. This camera may meet or exceed the
Canon in image quality, though at a lesser build and price, and it
too will most likely exceed the image quality of the APS format
cameras.

Nikon has not explicitly stated that they will not develop a FF
camera. Anything to the contrary is conjecture.

In the meantime, there are individuals that appreciate the
qualities of a full frame image, and are willing to pay for it.
Nikon may choose not to develop a full frame camera, and should
they not, Canon and Kodak will surely be pleased to sell to those
that find need or desire for such a camera.

So, I agree, it doesn't really matter to me as an individual if
Nikon does or doesn't provide a FF camera, as I, and everyone else,
have sufficient options.

tom

--
baruth

Tom May · Dec 23, 2002

baruth,

True enough, though to assume that the FF cameras would not benefit from the same technological evolution as the APS format cameras, and hence maintain a consistent advantage would be folly, at least for the forseeable future.

I see the DX lenses as what they are. A measure to provide WA lenses for APS format cameras, of which there are large numbers. If this is a measure to supplant FF cameras, I certainly have not seen any evidence to that effect, though everyone is free to speculate.

tom

TomGallo (AKA RacerX) · Dec 23, 2002

Hey, I'm not sweating, dude. Not at all.

I'm happy with my choices and I don't chase technology.

I kept my E-xx gear until the next step up was at a price point I could afford. Nikon could come out with a $2000 full frame camera tomorrow and I wouldn't be in line to get one.

-T

Ger Bee said:
They certainly seem to be sweating to my eyes, or chasing their own
tail. But you bring up a very good point, I should stay very quite
or only post platitudes as I am considering selling my gear so I’d
want the best price for it, I’d hate to sell at a loss greater than
natural depreciation.

Of course you know most of my comments are about the pro series
gear, I paid IR£7,500 for my D1x or €9,523 in today’s money (read
dollars) so my camera of consideration right now is no more than
this, cheaper actually considering the extras lenses I’ll swap
second-hand item for item.

Ger Bee said:

And I'm sure Nikon is really sweating it.

Maybe when you make the switch we won't have to hear you bad
mouthing stuff here any more.

What a joke.

Click to expand...

Peter Phan · Dec 23, 2002

Full frame is to 1.5x as medium format film is to 35mm film. In both cases, the larger format provides more real estate than the smaller format. With digital you are filling that real estate with pixels and with film you are filling that real estate with grain. So within that context, FF is not a "fetish". It's simply a goal for those that don't wish to settle for what they consider to be less. Currently that goal costs more to attain, but in time that will change. The important thing is that the manufacturer is continuing development of that goal, because in doing so costs will decrease and someday we will wonder why we were so crazy about 1.5x to begin with. A few years from now when full frame cameras are the norm because they cost the same or less money than today's 1.5x cameras, which would you choose? It's like choosing between a floppy disk and a CD-ROM. It wasn't long ago that CD-ROMs were pretty expensive but today they cost pennies.

baruth said:
Nop, the FFsensor is some thing that one can't see nor touch. But
some how it is psychologically so important to know that it is
there, that these "FF folks" still are trying to argue.

Do they want the physical FF sensor or the images that it can create?

It is quite a phenomenon: are we photographers who try to create
good images or 35mm has magically become fetish? Only 35mm would
do, the hell with the images? "

baruth

Clark Hampton said:

I think digital (APS sized sensors to full frame) all do VERY well.
The key now is the work flow so that we can all get the best images
without tons of post processing. That's what I want. Easy color
management and dead on results. I also want a Frontier printer in
my den

I love my D100 (so does she):
http://www.pbase.com/image/9269844

Doglover said:

I just read the Canon 1DS review of Phil's. I can not help but
want it, but it is way out of my price range. I am new to digital
slr photography and have only had my D100 for 3 months. However,
since I have already spent a small fortune on Nikon glass and have
read a little about the advantages and minor disadvatages a full
frame sensor in a digital slr I believe I really would want a
camera with a full frame sensor so I could use my lenses as they
were designed. What am I supposed to do? Am I going to want to
sell the lenses I have now to buy Nikon's new glass designed for
the 1.5 cropping factor? Since I am new to digital slr photography
and I have no real loyalty to any particular manufacturer, I almost
feel that if Nikon does not produce a full frame somewhat
affordable digital slr with similar flexebility to the Canon 1DS, I
will have to seriouly consider dumping Nikon.
Even as a beginner, Canon's technological superiority seems to be
becomming clearer and clearer all the time. I am not trying to
rock the boat or or put Nikon down. This is just how I feel and I
was wondering if I was the only one. I could be totally wrong.
Sincerely,
Ross

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

--
baruth

baruth · Dec 23, 2002

Peter Phan said:
Full frame is to 1.5x as medium format film is to 35mm film. In
both cases, the larger format provides more real estate than the
smaller format. With digital you are filling that real estate with
pixels and with film you are filling that real estate with grain.
So within that context, FF is not a "fetish". It's simply a goal
for those that don't wish to settle for what they consider to be
less. Currently that goal costs more to attain, but in time that
will change. The important thing is that the manufacturer is
continuing development of that goal, because in doing so costs will
decrease and someday we will wonder why we were so crazy about 1.5x
to begin with. A few years from now when full frame cameras are
the norm because they cost the same or less money than today's 1.5x
cameras, which would you choose?

I still would choose 1.5x that would give me you know what advantage as photographer of wildlife

Peter Phan said:
floppy disk and a CD-ROM. It wasn't long ago that CD-ROMs were
pretty expensive but today they cost pennies.

baruth said:

Nop, the FFsensor is some thing that one can't see nor touch. But
some how it is psychologically so important to know that it is
there, that these "FF folks" still are trying to argue.

Do they want the physical FF sensor or the images that it can create?

It is quite a phenomenon: are we photographers who try to create
good images or 35mm has magically become fetish? Only 35mm would
do, the hell with the images? "

baruth

Clark Hampton said:

I think digital (APS sized sensors to full frame) all do VERY well.
The key now is the work flow so that we can all get the best images
without tons of post processing. That's what I want. Easy color
management and dead on results. I also want a Frontier printer in
my den

I love my D100 (so does she):
http://www.pbase.com/image/9269844

Doglover said:

I just read the Canon 1DS review of Phil's. I can not help but
want it, but it is way out of my price range. I am new to digital
slr photography and have only had my D100 for 3 months. However,
since I have already spent a small fortune on Nikon glass and have
read a little about the advantages and minor disadvatages a full
frame sensor in a digital slr I believe I really would want a
camera with a full frame sensor so I could use my lenses as they
were designed. What am I supposed to do? Am I going to want to
sell the lenses I have now to buy Nikon's new glass designed for
the 1.5 cropping factor? Since I am new to digital slr photography
and I have no real loyalty to any particular manufacturer, I almost
feel that if Nikon does not produce a full frame somewhat
affordable digital slr with similar flexebility to the Canon 1DS, I
will have to seriouly consider dumping Nikon.
Even as a beginner, Canon's technological superiority seems to be
becomming clearer and clearer all the time. I am not trying to
rock the boat or or put Nikon down. This is just how I feel and I
was wondering if I was the only one. I could be totally wrong.
Sincerely,
Ross

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

--
baruth

Click to expand...

--
baruth

Search

Am I the only one who wishes Nikon would produce a full frame slr camera?

Yves P.

Forum Pro

Tom May

Senior Member

baruth

Senior Member

Tom May

Senior Member

TomGallo (AKA RacerX)

Well-known member

Peter Phan

Senior Member

baruth

Senior Member

Keyboard shortcuts