Nikon D2x will be full frame!

alshamsi · Nov 25, 2003

Nikon compared to Canon is a small company, Canon has more money to develop new glass and Cameras, this makes Nikon work harder to live,

that said……Do Nikon wants its costumers to continue using there 35mm lenses giving them making the money from new FF SLRs or should they push them to go for the new 1.5 ones ”DX”…or should Nikon make its money from selling more cheap SLRs like the Canon 300D ….Play it right Nikon, we hate to change Brands..

alshamsi · Nov 25, 2003

sorry to repeat, title change...

Nikon compared to Canon is a small company, Canon has more money to develop new glass and Cameras, this makes Nikon work harder to live,

that said……Do Nikon wants its costumers to continue using there 35mm lenses giving them making the money from new FF SLRs or should they push them to go for the new 1.5 ones ”DX”…or should Nikon make its money from selling more cheap SLRs like the Canon 300D…or make the life saving money from the point & shot Digitals........Play it right Nikon, we hate to change Brands..

Ursus · Nov 25, 2003

alshamsi said:
Nikon compared to Canon is a small company, Canon has more money to
develop new glass and Cameras, this makes Nikon work harder to live,
that said……Do Nikon wants its costumers to continue using there
35mm lenses giving them making the money from new FF SLRs or should
they push them to go for the new 1.5 ones ”DX”…or should Nikon
make its money from selling more cheap SLRs like the Canon 300D
….Play it right Nikon, we hate to change Brands..
...

A point of fact, you don't need to use DX lenses ona camera with a DX size sensor. The Nikoor AF/AF-S lenses work just fine. You onle need to get a DX lens if it does something for you that a non-DX lens can't do. For example the 12-24DX and the 10.5DX fisheye.

Lens don't go bad when you buy a new camera.
--
-----Bear

Timage · Nov 25, 2003

Bear said:
I actually like the DX sensor size and don't mind at all that the
D2X will still most likely be qa DX sensor size. I care about the
picture quality, not the sensor size.

I totaly agree with you Bear. In the end it's the picture quality that counts of course.

I also have no problem with the DX sensor size. It was all about sharing some info and some thougts about the future path of nikon.

I also would be happy if the D2x would not be a full frame. So we all can keep our orders for the DX lenses placed.

Soon we sill see

Tim

Marco Frissen · Nov 25, 2003

who knows?

:-D

ResIpsaLoquitur · Nov 25, 2003

It is simply not credible that Nikon would launch a whole range of DX lenses, only to render them obsolete by the introduction of a new body they cannot be used on.

I therefore doubt that your Nikon contact can be right. My guess is an 11 or 12MP 1.5 crop factor DSLR based on the D2H body.

RIL

timage said:
Bear said:

I actually like the DX sensor size and don't mind at all that the
D2X will still most likely be qa DX sensor size. I care about the
picture quality, not the sensor size.

Click to expand...

I totaly agree with you Bear. In the end it's the picture quality
that counts of course.
I also have no problem with the DX sensor size. It was all about
sharing some info and some thougts about the future path of nikon.
I also would be happy if the D2x would not be a full frame. So we
all can keep our orders for the DX lenses placed.

Soon we sill see

Tim

BobHo · Nov 25, 2003

That makes more sense to me. The D2H and D2X together are the comparatively inexpensive digital F100s and the F6 is the modular flagship. Maybe they can even figure out a way to allow film use in the F6, although that might not be worth it.

Somebody mentioned a 34MP APS-sized sensor. That results in 3.36 micron pixels, which seems awfully small. Even 14MP results in 5.24 micron pixels. But an 8MP APS D2x sensor (6.93 microns) expanded to FF would result in 18MP. Assuming that the pixels are at least as noise free as the CURRENT Kodak 14n, that would make Canon 1Ds users sit up and take notice.

--
Bob

Ron Baskin · Nov 25, 2003

Marco,

Couldn't resist supporting your post. Many a great image has been recorded by what we would now consider to be technologically inferior cameras. I believe technological advances, if not carefully considered and applied, can actually ****** our growth as photographers. A badly composed, poorly thought out image is just that. No technology can overcome that little shortcoming. As opposed to waiting for the next great camera, I'm going to concentrate on capturing the next great image.

This isn't a knock on those accomplished photographers who yearn for higher resolution. It has its place. But, give me a hammer and nails and some lumber and I'll produce one of the greatest messes you've ever seen. Put those same tools in the hands of an accomplished carpenter and you could end up with a beautiful house!

Marco Frissen said:
will photographs be any better?

I think this full-frame stuff is way, way overrated. heck, the
medium format digital backs are not full frame either (many are
35mm format), ever thought of that? I don't hear anyone complaining
overthere.
add to that that technology is advancing, and the LBCAST sensor
will be much better in the next iteration.

Go out and take photographs and make your creativity grow instead
of being worried about a new gadget (I'm starting to believe a lot
of people here have too much spare time and too much money to
spend..) which isn't even announced yet.

If it's full-frame or not, it will be just another camera body .

--
Ron Baskin

Joseph S Wisniewski · Nov 25, 2003

ResIpsaLoquitur said:
It is simply not credible that Nikon would launch a whole range of
DX lenses, only to render them obsolete by the introduction of a
new body they cannot be used on.

Why do people kep saying this. One new body doesn't render DX lenses obsolete. Although pricy, they are approachable, even for those of us who own the lowly D100 (not the mention the forthcoming D200 and D70). As well as useful tools for the D2H owners. I'm not expecting an approachable ($1500 or $2000) full frame camera in the next couple of years. I've got a lot of pictures to take between now and then.

Look at Canon, they have the full frame 1Ds, but still sell outrageous numbers of reduced frame "s" lenses for the 300D.

ResIpsaLoquitur said:
I therefore doubt that your Nikon contact can be right.

Now that I agree with. We seem to be getting more and more of these brand new users, with flame bait posts...

ResIpsaLoquitur said:
My guess
is an 11 or 12MP 1.5 crop factor DSLR based on the D2H body.

Seems like a very reasonable guess.

--
Ciao!

Joe

http://www.swissarmyfork.com

Tim Chakravorty · Nov 25, 2003

Timage said:
Of course he told me not to tell to many people about it ....

And the first thing you do is put it up on the most widely read digital
photography forum on the planet !
Shame on you !

(...ok, what else did he tell you ?)

-Tim

marek k · Nov 25, 2003

Joseph,

I agree that DX's wont become obselete overnight. Ever? They work in a limited capacity (except a prime I guess 10.5mm fisheye) on fiull frame.

As for hte EF-S lens. Its only sold with the 300D kit, so they have sold less of these than the body. Anyway, at a surcharge of only 100$ over the body only its a throwaway lens pretty much. Compare that to a 12-24DX at 900 odd or whatever it is.

Joseph S. Wisniewski said:
ResIpsaLoquitur said:

It is simply not credible that Nikon would launch a whole range of
DX lenses, only to render them obsolete by the introduction of a
new body they cannot be used on.

Click to expand...

Why do people kep saying this. One new body doesn't render DX
lenses obsolete. Although pricy, they are approachable, even for
those of us who own the lowly D100 (not the mention the forthcoming
D200 and D70). As well as useful tools for the D2H owners. I'm not
expecting an approachable ($1500 or $2000) full frame camera in the
next couple of years. I've got a lot of pictures to take between
now and then.

Look at Canon, they have the full frame 1Ds, but still sell
outrageous numbers of reduced frame "s" lenses for the 300D.

Joseph S Wisniewski said:

I therefore doubt that your Nikon contact can be right.

Click to expand...

Now that I agree with. We seem to be getting more and more of these
brand new users, with flame bait posts...

Joseph S Wisniewski said:

My guess
is an 11 or 12MP 1.5 crop factor DSLR based on the D2H body.

Click to expand...

Seems like a very reasonable guess.

--
Ciao!

Joe

http://www.swissarmyfork.com

--
-marek

Equipment list in profile.

http://www.pbase.com/mkrol/
http://www.usefilm.com/browse.php?mode=port&data=14298

alshamsi · Nov 25, 2003

forgot to say that i know the multiply fact, or should i?

would you still like to use the 28-70 2.8 as a 42-105 2.8 lens or maybe you 14mm as a 21mm? i dont that is why they made me pay for the 12-24 and orderd the 17-55, unless they realy come out with the FF then i will continue using my none DX lenses, but i am happy to use the 70-200VR as a 105-300 2.8

Ursus said:
A point of fact, you don't need to use DX lenses ona camera with a
DX size sensor. The Nikoor AF/AF-S lenses work just fine. You onle
need to get a DX lens if it does something for you that a non-DX
lens can't do. For example the 12-24DX and the 10.5DX fisheye.

Lens don't go bad when you buy a new camera.
--
-----Bear

BJL · Nov 25, 2003

Hamstor said:
If they use the same technology of sensor sensitivity, but decrease
the sensor size to increase the res above 9.3MP, then there would
be more noise for the same exposure (would there not?)

Yes and no, but mostly no, I believe. The signal to noise ratio of each pixels would be lower, but on prints of the same size, more pixels contribute to a given region of the image, so there is more cancellation of the random noise fluctuations: the nett effect is the same degree of visible noise in a print of the same size.

As far as I can tell, the 1D and D2h have relatively few big pixels in order to keep the pixel count down to alevel that can be read at the high 8fps rate desired, NOT to decrease visible noise levels.

P. S. Be sceptical of extremely surprising and controversial claims from brand new members of the forums!

Ted Johnson · Nov 25, 2003

French and he was put in because Renault bailed Nissan out of what appeared at the time to be an almost certain bankruptcy. As the largest stockholder, they have a lot of clout and they sent an experienced French troubleshooter in to turn the company around. He did a remarkable job!

marek k said:
exe said:

Joachim Gerstl said:

thank you but I know - it was a joke! Because a can´t get this
swiss high execcutive out of my head.
I know japanese companies and the only real executives they have
are japanese - no italian, german, french or swiss or american or
whatever nationality.

Click to expand...

True for the most part, except for Nissan, has a non Japanese head
in Japan.

Click to expand...

--
-marek

http://www.pbase.com/mkrol/
http://www.usefilm.com/browse.php?mode=port&data=14298

Timage · Nov 26, 2003

Tim Chakravorty said:
Tim Chakravorty said:

Of course he told me not to tell to many people about it ....

Click to expand...

And the first thing you do is put it up on the most widely read
digital
photography forum on the planet !
Shame on you !

(...ok, what else did he tell you ?)

-Tim

Hello Tim

in Switzerland there are a lot of photographers that have heard about the full frame thing . We swiss photographers are all talking about buying DX lenses or waiting..., or what to do now. Many people here want/need mor MPs. Most Nikon users here would like to buy DX lense...but now they want to wait and see. Alldough I would like to take pictures with a 17-55 mm DX right now. You see the dilemma?!
That 's the reason I wanted to share with a "few more people".

And I know nikon won't be to happy about me. But I don't care any more. Because nikon has to show us the way finaly. But they don't. Kinda bad marketing for over 12 month now.

By the way, the nikon manager said don't tell......but the way he told me was more like "just give everyone a hint, we don't care anymore, because everything is all set and done for the show". Maybe to post it here is a bit hardcore, but I've told you why I had to.

So it better be true or I have to keep reading instead of writing around here.

Tim

Marco Frissen · Nov 26, 2003

They have something spectacular up their sleeve.

the dutch nikon rep also was being kinda smug and vague, they know something, and it's probably going to be a nice 2004 for nikon users..

I hate those vague grins on their faces..

Tim Chakravorty · Nov 26, 2003

Relax Tim, I was only joking !

Didn't you read the last line of my post ?

-Tim

timage said:
Tim Chakravorty said:

Timage said:

Of course he told me not to tell to many people about it ....

Click to expand...

And the first thing you do is put it up on the most widely read
digital
photography forum on the planet !
Shame on you !

(...ok, what else did he tell you ?)

-Tim

Click to expand...

Hello Tim

in Switzerland there are a lot of photographers that have heard
about the full frame thing . We swiss photographers are all talking
about buying DX lenses or waiting..., or what to do now. Many
people here want/need mor MPs. Most Nikon users here would like to
buy DX lense...but now they want to wait and see. Alldough I would
like to take pictures with a 17-55 mm DX right now. You see the
dilemma?!
That 's the reason I wanted to share with a "few more people".
And I know nikon won't be to happy about me. But I don't care any
more. Because nikon has to show us the way finaly. But they don't.
Kinda bad marketing for over 12 month now.
By the way, the nikon manager said don't tell......but the way he
told me was more like "just give everyone a hint, we don't care
anymore, because everything is all set and done for the show".
Maybe to post it here is a bit hardcore, but I've told you why I
had to.
So it better be true or I have to keep reading instead of writing
around here.

Tim

Tim Chakravorty · Nov 26, 2003

Maybe its only me. But I have a strong gut feeling that Nikon is going to reclaim the DLSR market with a BIG BANG. They have had their secret soup brewing for nearly 2 years now.. and I can already smell it !

"CAN -YOU -SMELL- WHAT (THE) NIKON- IS -COOKING ??"

-Tim

Marco Frissen said:
They have something spectacular up their sleeve.
the dutch nikon rep also was being kinda smug and vague, they know
something, and it's probably going to be a nice 2004 for nikon
users..

I hate those vague grins on their faces..

Joseph S Wisniewski · Nov 26, 2003

marek k said:
Joseph,

I agree that DX's wont become obselete overnight. Ever? They work
in a limited capacity (except a prime I guess 10.5mm fisheye) on
fiull frame.

You're assuming that full frame will become the dominant DSLR format. I believe that it will not, that it will ultimatly occupy a smaller niche than reduced frame DSLRs, whatever you call them, "DX", "four thirds", etc.

Look at it this way. There is a market for film SLRs ranging roughly from $300 (rebel, N65) to $2000 (F5, EOS 1V). At the high end, people buy them because of all the capabilities of an SLR, speed, AF capability, ruggedness, accurate finder, etc.

At the low end, it's mainly about interchangable lens.

DX sized SLRs have demonstrated their ability to excell just about anywhere you'd use full frame film. 6mp cameras are delivering most satisfactory results, and higher pixel counts in DX size are jsut around the corner.

The camera manufacturers are finally catching up to this, and making some of the DSLR components (mirror, pentaprism, etc) smaller and lighter. This frees up more weight and space budget for things like electronics, storage, and batteries.

Show someone pictures that they can't tell apart, and the average amateur is going to go for the smaller, lighter camera.

There will be some pros who go on about the heavier camera having better heft, being steadier, or better balances (all pretty much wrong, incidentally), but the magority want a bit less "ball and chain".

marek k said:
As for hte EF-S lens. Its only sold with the 300D kit, so they have
sold less of these than the body. Anyway, at a surcharge of only
100$ over the body only its a throwaway lens pretty much. Compare
that to a 12-24DX at 900 odd or whatever it is.

Personally, I love my 12-24 to death, but I believe it's rather overpriced. It's not a $1000 piece of optics. More like a $600 lens with a $400 "novelty charge" tacked on.

And there's plenty of room inbetween a pro like $1000 Nikkor and a $100 "throwaway" Canon.

Look at the whole Oly 4/3 system.

--
Ciao!

Joe

http://www.swissarmyfork.com

rnimos · Nov 26, 2003

Why does it have to be either a FF or a 1.6 crop sensor? Why can't it be a 1.2 crop? Wouldn't that be the best compromise and make everyone happy?

Nikon D2x will be full frame!

Active member

Active member

Senior Member

Member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Well-known member

Forum Pro

Forum Enthusiast

Senior Member

Active member

Veteran Member

Leading Member

Member

Senior Member

Forum Enthusiast

Forum Enthusiast

Forum Pro

Well-known member

Keyboard shortcuts