Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
We are going to go for something a lot more portable and convenient than a FF DSLR.Agreed. Full frame dSLR's will not be a niche or pro only market.
They may remain out of reach for most consumers, price wise, for a
while, but as manufacturing continues to improve, the sensors will
drop in price, especially as the next higher density sensors
replaces it at the top end of the market. So eventually, we will
have full frame sensor dSLR's that will be affordable to the masses.
Declan
I think most pros will want faster,smaller and lighter lens. These
DX lens could stretch to designs not yet thought about for 35mm
DCs. I can't help thinking the Canon 1Ds and others like it coming
to the market may turn out to be dinosaurs. I also believe Nikon
have stated that the 1.5x sensor is the best performing sensor of
'any size'. Maybe that's why there was a big jump in megapixels
without milking the potential 8-10 mps market.
I think Nikon has taken everyone by surprise.
Michael
I don't agree. And I'm quite happy now that my System is Canon EOS. I've been waiting for that FF camera for a long time. Now let the price come down to a reasonable point and I will finally go completely digital. Comparing cell phones/electronics and cameras/optics is comparing apples to oranges.Michael, I totally agree with you.
If DX lenses mean smaller & lighter lenses & bodies, I would go for
them. I just went on a 3 weeks' holiday carrying my CP 5000, WC-E68
& TC-E2 everywhere and taking about 1200 pics. The camera bag was
reasonably light . I guess the fatigue would have been much more
with a D100 & 3 lenses.
A digital camera is largely a piece of electronic equipment, where
bigger size does not necessarily mean better results. Remember the
size of the first generation of hand phones? Were they better?
I also think Nikon is targeting at a feminine category of DSLR
users . Everyone knows women hate those huge cameras even if they
like better picture quality.
35mm is the standard for the film camera, not the DSLR.
Talking about convenience, I'd prefer my heavy EOS 1N over an Ixus/Elph sized camera any day. Most 35mm cameras already are a little too small for my liking. Ok, when set up on a tripod, it would be as steady as an 1N and I might be able to use a pen to operate the small buttons. But handheld? I don't mind carrying a heavy 35mm camera and f/2.8 zooms or some primes when taking real photographs. And for the snaps and family shots, even my G3 does a pretty good job, I don't need an SLR for that.We are going to go for something a lot more portable and convenient
than a FF DSLR.
The volume of sales in the smaller form factor will drive down
costs, even apart from the inherent cost advantages.
So an APS sezed sensor will win out over the 35mm format for the
same fundamental reasons as the 35mm beat the medium format - cost
and convenience.
I fear you may well be right.The good news is that we should be able to get quality very
comparable to 35mm film from future APS sized sensors.
But 35mm will end as a specialised market.
Just my take on it.
--That announcement of a Nikon DX lens line came just a few monthsI wondered what the announcement of the DX lens line may mean for
Nikon's digital stratgegy in the next time. I hope the DX lens does
not mean that they won't come out with a FF camera. Instead I think
a double strategy (or even a tripple strategy) would be wiser and
give all users the best solution:
after Canon full frame DSLR the 1 Ds ... I think it's interesting.
So Canon seems to chose the FF way and Nikon the special digital
lenses line.. I found that move rather surprising : it would have
been less surprising to hear it the other way round :
a) Nikon, well known as the professional tool and who has always
being paying attention to keep compatible lenses choosing to go
full frame and
b) Canon who is more geared at the advanced amateur than the pros
and who has already changed its lenses system more radically when
AF came, who until now was offering more competitive prices ..
should have issues the Digital lenses first in that logic.
It seems that Canon is targetting the Pros market with its FF
sensor.. and beating Nikon at it now..
I don't care for the FF sensor; it calls for huge, heavy equipment.
I'd prefer to get smaller lighter lenses adapted to the size of the
smaller sensor : the quality I have from the D60 is enough for me.
But I want to be light to wander in the streets. What I'd really
like is a digital body for the Contax G line of lenses .. or for
the Leica M lenses .. that would be wonderfull I wonder whether it
will come one day.. if not, then the Nikon solution f Digital
lenses will be great.. I'm just hoping that Canon will make the
same move and offer lenses of great qualities... The Nikon DX lense
Max aperture is only F4, which isn't enough.
BTW, did anyone make a test of that new NIkon lens ? is the lens
selling now ? or was it only an announcement ?
--
Christiane
Agreed.I don't agree. And I'm quite happy now that my System is Canon EOS.Michael, I totally agree with you.
If DX lenses mean smaller & lighter lenses & bodies, I would go for
them. I just went on a 3 weeks' holiday carrying my CP 5000, WC-E68
& TC-E2 everywhere and taking about 1200 pics. The camera bag was
reasonably light . I guess the fatigue would have been much more
with a D100 & 3 lenses.
A digital camera is largely a piece of electronic equipment, where
bigger size does not necessarily mean better results. Remember the
size of the first generation of hand phones? Were they better?
I also think Nikon is targeting at a feminine category of DSLR
users . Everyone knows women hate those huge cameras even if they
like better picture quality.
35mm is the standard for the film camera, not the DSLR.
I've been waiting for that FF camera for a long time. Now let the
price come down to a reasonable point and I will finally go
completely digital. Comparing cell phones/electronics and
cameras/optics is comparing apples to oranges.
While a digital camera is may be just another piece of electronic
equipment, the lenses are above all pieces of optical equipment. An
the physical laws of optics don't change just because the image is
digitized by the camera. Optical properties like DOF change
(increase) with smaller sensors/shorter focal length lenses. While
this is a good thing for some applications, it isn't for others.
Sure. And I quite appreciate the position you and a lot of people are in. But the converse of that argument is that you are maybe not in the best position to judge at what point someone who hasn't as yet bought eqpt will sacrifice the extra resolution of FF to the greater convenience of a small form factor. At some stage this essentilly conservative argument will have run it's course and the basic trade-offs wiil have to be dealt with.Another (old) argument is of course, that I'm much more willing to
shell out some $$$$ for a digital camera that makes the best
possible use of my $$$$$ lenses I already own ;-) Starting from
scratch again is painfully expensive.
Again, only applies to those people who already have eqpt.Yes, it is easier to carry smaller lenses, I would probably
appreciate that. But I prefer the pain of carrying my heavier and
bigger lenses to the pain of having to sell them off and replace
them with new ones (and lose quite a bit of money in the process).
Why? If you have a film 35mm lens you put up with the chromatic aberation etc of existing lenses.Don't think the new lenses will be any cheaper just because they
are smaller ... They will rather be more expensive, because they
have to be manufactured even more precise than 35mm format lenses!
Anyway, I'm sure we'll both have lots of fun!Another old argument I have heard and read over and over is: The
big sensor size leads to problems because the light rays hit the
sensor at a bigger angle. Hehe, the angle is the same for all
sensor sizes. If you use a 20mm equivalent (to 35mm format) lens
(same field of view), the angle of the light hitting the sensor is
the same, no matter what sensor size.
Well, to each his own. I understand your point of view, but I'll go
the FF route. Cudos to Canon that they will allow me to do just
that.
Thomas Bantel
You're right of course. Well, kind of, anyway. For someone starting from scratch, the situation is different, and everyone has to make his own best compromise. All else being equal, bigger (sensors) will always yield better quality. Either more pixels or less noise / higher ISO. And having tons of used 35mm lenses around sure helps to build up a complete system for someone with limited money ressources. ;-) OTOH, less weight and bulk IS tempting, especially with long lenses ... I may well end up with two DSLRs some time. One with a smaller sensor for the long shots, one with a FF sensor for wide angle shots (landscapes, cities etc).Sure. And I quite appreciate the position you and a lot of people
are in. But the converse of that argument is that you are maybe not
in the best position to judge at what point someone who hasn't as
yet bought eqpt will sacrifice the extra resolution of FF to the
greater convenience of a small form factor. At some stage this
essentilly conservative argument will have run it's course and the
basic trade-offs wiil have to be dealt with.
Yes. But lenses for smaller sensors have to be even better corrected and to be sharper to get the same resolution / image quality out of a smaller sensor with same amount of pixels. If you sacrifice resolution, then of course they will (can) be cheaper.Why? If you have a film 35mm lens you put up with the chromaticare smaller ... They will rather be more expensive, because they
have to be manufactured even more precise than 35mm format lenses!
aberation etc of existing lenses.
You will have to do that in order to get similar quality than with a larger sensor.Producing lenses at a smaller size is inherently far less costly.
If you choose to sacrifice that saving to produce lenses of
unheard-of quality instead, fine.
True. But I won't need that quality as I have a bigger sensor / bigger pixels.But it would cost you far more to get the same quality in anFF lens.
Definitely!Anyway, I'm sure we'll both have lots of fun!
