-
Welcome to the new forums! Please read this first. For known issues we are working to resolve, click here.
Full Frame DSLR for under $2,000?
- Thread starter f2zoom
- Start date
biff levi
Well-known member
Dan Frederiksen
Leading Member
- Messages
- 570
- Reaction score
- 0
....
Wouldn't it be great if Nikon would finally share their premium SLR bodies (F100 & F5) with Kodak and Fuji?
The resulting Kodak FF DSLR would be sensational!
Nikon might be willing to do this, once their updated F(6?) is rolled out.
(BTW, I totally agree with you. Today, it looks like Kodak will be first.)
The resulting Kodak FF DSLR would be sensational!
Nikon might be willing to do this, once their updated F(6?) is rolled out.
(BTW, I totally agree with you. Today, it looks like Kodak will be first.)
Dan Frederiksen
Leading Member
- Messages
- 570
- Reaction score
- 0
I don't think so honey : )
Are you aware that the DCS14n uses Nikon's midline N80 (film) SLR body -- instead of one of the two premium Nikon SLR bodies? One of the principal complaints I've seen with the Kodak DSLR involves the N80-based autofocus system. The F5's AF is superior to the N80's.
All of the DSLRs that I'm aware of are based on SLR bodies originally designed for film.
This could change over time: As EVFs evolve, the SLR as we know it could disappear (no more flipping mirror), and what could evolve would essentially be an EVF with interchangeable lenses.
Oh, and one more thing, Dan. I'm many things, but I'm definitely not your honey. You're not my type!
that would be nice
--
Your Creative Station - http://www.clubmedia.com
Overflowing with Design Links - http://www.mixinvisuals.com
--
Your Creative Station - http://www.clubmedia.com
Overflowing with Design Links - http://www.mixinvisuals.com
Marccuba
Forum Enthusiast
Dan Frederiksen
Leading Member
- Messages
- 570
- Reaction score
- 0
I find it difficult to believe that a company that can make full frame cmos sensors wouldn't be able to make a decent auto focus sensor
autofocus was difficult in 1950. today different film 'bodies' are only maintained to sucker the provinsial mind of the pro photographer
They maintain similarities for the same reason
no doubt
Give it a chance, you never know : )Oh, and one more thing, Dan. I'm many things, but I'm definitely
not your honey. You're not my type!
But for now, many of us with extensive 35mm lens collections want to be able to enjoy the full field of view of those lenses, the enhanced image quality, and increased dynamic range that FF can provide with the inevitable refinements that are sure to develop with the technology.
The fate of 35mm format DSLR's should be no worse than what happened to medium format as 35mm improved in quality; maybe a die back, but I doubt it will ever die off. Even if, in the future, the only photographers who care about 35mm format are the users of fast portait lenses for extremely shallow DOF, the portrait market is probably big enough to keep some pro 35mm format DSLR models going.
H
harry
Guest
The FF field would be much narrower than the APS field in terms of DSLRs, at least for the short term. One major consequence of FF is extremely large file size, even at JPEG. Even hardcore amateurs would be hardpressed to invest all the gears necessary to embrace the FF with lots of PC power and storage space.
FF would make sense with true professionals which include a relatively small population.
Having said that, who would have thought that a 4-head HiFi VCR + DVD combo could be had from Sony for about $150 nowadays? Once the world is flooded with DSLRs in a few years, Nikon/Canon/Kodak, etc. would make more FFs to the mass public even 0.00001% of them would use the FF on a regular basis (to save memory space).
Harry
Harry
FF would make sense with true professionals which include a relatively small population.
Having said that, who would have thought that a 4-head HiFi VCR + DVD combo could be had from Sony for about $150 nowadays? Once the world is flooded with DSLRs in a few years, Nikon/Canon/Kodak, etc. would make more FFs to the mass public even 0.00001% of them would use the FF on a regular basis (to save memory space).
Harry
--But for now, many of us with extensive 35mm lens collections want
to be able to enjoy the full field of view of those lenses, the
enhanced image quality, and increased dynamic range that FF can
provide with the inevitable refinements that are sure to develop
with the technology.
Harry
Hmmm...two of the most respected names in photodom. Could be a lot worse.
Yes, I've heard that achieving shallow DOF is a real problem with the smaller formats. Maybe someone will come up with a 50mm APS f0.25 "portrait" lens just for bokeh. (Where's the old Canon f0.095 50mm, when you need it")
Another thing I wonder about is distortion. How do the new 12-24 "replacement" zooms fare in this respect? (In fairness, I've never seen ANY 35mm ultrawide zoom have
And, I would really miss the 50% loss of resolution -- particularly in print sizes beyond 8x10 -- using the sub-35mm format with my 35mm lenses, and particularly as the pixel count inevitably rises, and enables digital to surpass the imaging capability of film. And I seriously doubt that the new crop of APS lenses have 150% of the resolution of my 35mm lenses.
Exactly one year ago, I bought a 16MB memory key from Dell for $40 (discounted from $60, because I bought it with my computer), and today, you can get a 40MB, or more, key for the same price. And, have you looked at the prices of external hard drives -- 120GB and up?
Yeah, and that would eat even more into Nikon DSLR revenues. Whatever money Nikon makes from selling Kodak or Fuji their parts is a fraction of the money Nikon makes from selling its own Nikon bodies. There's definitely money in selling DSLR bodies. Otherwise, why would Fuji and Kodak even bother with the substantial R&D and marketing investment? And with the rise of Kodak and Fuji, that comes at the expense of Nikon. Sure, some say Nikon still makes money off of the sale of lenses with those Kodak and Fuji bodies. But that's an empty savior. After all, whether you were going to buy a Kodak body or a Nikon body, you were going to buy Nikon lenses anyways, right? So in a case like that, the sale of lenses does not make up for the lost revenue that would have come from the sale of that Nikon body that was instead passed up for a Kodak body.
Think about it. If what Kodak and Fuji offered were as good or better than what Nikon offered, but in the same premium Nikon bodies, would you still buy Nikon? Probably not. So while today, Nikon are making $100 million from Nikon DSLR bodies and $100 million from Nikon lenses (hypothetically), eventually it becomes $33 million from Nikon DSLR bodies (because $33 million went to Fuji and $33 million went to Kodak), while $100 million was still made from Nikon lenses. So in this example, Fuji and Kodak bled off $66 million dollars of Nikon's revenue. And only a small fraction of that $66 million dollars comes back to Nikon in the sale of parts to Fuji or Kodak.
So there's a definite reason why it would not be to Nikon's advantage to offer Nikon premium bodies to Kodak or Fuji.
You're assuming that all FF sensors would have very high pixel counts like 11MP or 14MP. But what about FF sensors that are 6MP or 8MP? The day may come in the future when those may certainly be a possibility and a relatively affordable price. (Imagine what low noise those sensors could potentially offer?) Also, storage is getting cheaper and cheaper. And you can fit plenty of information on a DVD to archive away. Plus, we'll eventually have blue-laser CD-ROM and DVD-ROM, which will allow us to store even more information on optical disks. So I don't think large file sizes are going to be much of a negative factor in the future, even with 11MP or 14MP (or higher) FF sensors. Judging things by today's standards is simply being shortsighted. Who would have ever thought you could store 1000's of songs on something as small and convenient as an iPOD?
Plus, we have yet to see how an APS-sized sensor is going to perform at 11MP or 14MP. That kind of high pixel density is probably going to be pretty noisy. The photosites become exceedingly small, causing all kinds of optical problems. So FF high-resolution sensors will have that advantage. The detail resolved from a 1Ds or a 14n just blows away what you can get from a 6MP APS-sized DSLR. You can really feel the limitations of 6MP APS when shooting highly detailed landscapes.
Marccuba
Forum Enthusiast
I'm sorry to say, but a ff DSLR (like the 1Ds) will always require the best glass around. The question is not: give is ff, then we can keep using our lenses the way we used to, but the question is: "how can we make ff so we can achieve the same quality as with APS.But for now, many of us with extensive 35mm lens collections want
to be able to enjoy the full field of view of those lenses, the
enhanced image quality, and increased dynamic range that FF can
provide with the inevitable refinements that are sure to develop
with the technology.
In its' issue of Chasseurs d'Images (www.photim.com) where they test lenses/body combinations, they state very clearly that ff demands top optics. If not then optical performance will be low compared to APS DSLR's. With a ff you've got more distortion, more CA, more vignetting, and less corner sharpness.
That compared with the price of making ff makes me predict the silent death of it...
Marccuba
Forum Enthusiast
Marccuba
Forum Enthusiast
You mean f/0.95, right. Well, Canon has a f/1.0 50mm L USM in its range. At that price, you might consider buying it...
Maybe you are not aware, but the APS DSLR's of today already surpassed film. If you want to get even with say a Fuji S2 then you only can use Velvia, Astia, etc...
Dan Neufeld
Well-known member
What do you mean by finally? Me thinks you are a bit behind the times...Wouldn't it be great if Nikon would finally share their premium SLR
bodies (F100 & F5) with Kodak and Fuji?
The resulting Kodak FF DSLR would be sensational!
Nikon might be willing to do this, once their updated F(6?) is
rolled out.
(BTW, I totally agree with you. Today, it looks like Kodak will be
first.)
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/specs/Kodak/kodak_dcs720x.asp
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/specs/Kodak/kodak_dcs760.asp
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/specs/Kodak/kodak_dcs620x.asp
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/specs/Kodak/kodak_dcs660.asp
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/specs/Kodak/kodak_dcs620.asp
--
Dan
Take some pics.
Keyboard shortcuts
- f
- Forum