D2X is FF after all?

Dave Harpe · Apr 12, 2004

Maybe Nikon could come up with a device similar to a teleconverter that lets you move lenses between formats? Not being a physics major, I don't know how hard this would be or if it's even feasible. But it could be an "out" for them if they are considering FF...

Dave

Romantic warrior · Apr 12, 2004

Don't u think possible upgrade D2h? Nikon did with his D1X for ram and few thinks, Kodak do for new FF camera, the old 14....can be upgraded with new sensor!

Anyway Nikon can't stay on the market with 4MP at that price, while Canon is 8Mp. If I were Nikon, I didn't come out with Dx lenses. They did marketing confusion! I don't buy more any lenses becouse AF-D are old, AF-S are not G, and DX is out! You can buy only two pro lens AF-S 70-200/2.8 VR (I bought) and 200-400/4 VR, other lenses may be replaced (the old AF-S) or may become "obsolete" (the DX line).

At this point what Nikon should do?

1) Upgrade D2H to X, built D2X (may be also DX, 8fps, 8MP) for a competiotion with Canon and built F6 with film, digital back all FF and high MP.

2) D2H about 2000 euro/dollars (I would buy this one and not D70), a D2X still DX (for those who bought lens!) positioned between 1D2 and 1DS with 10Mp and 4,5 Fps and a FF F6 for high end.

D2X 8MP should be the upgrade for D2H or the new D200, not the high end camera!

Anyway Canon is 1X and 1.3x, while Nikon is 1.5X...Canon is better with image quality (less noise and more MP) at the moment, don't u think the dx sensor is too small for quality?

I have never loved DX lenses and now neither too small DX sensor! That stupid Nikon marketing...they have to learn from Canon!

Only my opinions, what do u think?

Walter Freiberger said:
But maybe there is room for an F6 with a digital FF back....

Walter

jeff-c said:

My usual reliable source gave me a surprise phone call with a piece
of surprise news: D2X is FF after all.

Now before you discount this as the usual my-cousin-ancle-neighbor
heresay, my source has been very reliable in the past, only missing
a few small details. You could completely discount this post if you
don't care.

The leak could be part of Nikon feeling out the market reaction as
the form of the leak itself is rather unusual which I wouldn't go
to details. Suffice to say it's a type of formal survey involved
with the pro's in certain market.

Or it could be Nikon's way to check out who are the leaks which is
why I couldn't reveal too much details.

Needless to say I am happy with this surprise as D2X needs enough
pixel count to be competitive and doubling pixels with D2H's LBCAST
in the DX format isn't going to make it, especially when
considering the noise issue with D2H.

I have been told within Nikon there have been rather emotional
discussions about DX vs. FF, one camp with concern of cost whereas
the other concern with competition.

Now that Kodak finally brings a quite competitive FF 14mp SLR/x to
the market at a competitive price, it seems the FF camp within
Nikon finally win, or let's hope so.

For what is worth, I got to play with a friend's new SLR/n this
weekend and seeing the results even on a laptop (IBM T30) is really
amazing. The only drawback with the SLR/n is the body itself, no
where near to what my D2H can give me.

Go FF, Nikon!

Click to expand...

--
RW

maxz · Apr 12, 2004

actually has one built-in in the camera body so all lenses get 'converted' to project their 'FF' image onto a much smaller sensor.

Dave Harpe said:
Maybe Nikon could come up with a device similar to a teleconverter
that lets you move lenses between formats? Not being a physics
major, I don't know how hard this would be or if it's even
feasible. But it could be an "out" for them if they are
considering FF...

Dave

Arun Sharma · Apr 12, 2004

ANY RELEASE DATES?

Jason Busch · Apr 12, 2004

Derrick Siu said:
Derrick Siu said:

I have been told within Nikon there have been rather emotional
discussions about DX vs. FF, one camp with concern of cost whereas
the other concern with competition.

Click to expand...

I've commented before about Nikon's internal conflicts about FF and DX. The hesitation of the D2x being released could only fit into two categories, which were 1) Sensor issues and 2) FF or DX sensor size, or both. Why? Because you just cannot create a 10+MP DSLR on the current DX size chip. It's too small, and you get noise due to smaller pixels. This is why Canon went with a 1.3x size sensor which enables a little room to breathe. But realistically, anything over 10MP must be a FF DSLR.

--
JB
http://www.digitaldingus.com
http://www.digitaldingus.com/forums

Mel · Apr 12, 2004

I wonder sometimes where people come up with this D2H is replacing the D1X and the D2X will replace the D2H. Heck, I even remember when someone said the D100 replaced everything to that point.

Call Nikon please people. These cameras are/have been made for a specific purpose and targeting a specific group. Don't take my word, ask Nikon directly, they will be happy to explain the grouping.

The only camera to date that Nikon has officially replaced is the D1 and they will tell you that also.

Walter Freiberger said:
But maybe there is room for an F6 with a digital FF back....

Walter

jeff-c said:

My usual reliable source gave me a surprise phone call with a piece
of surprise news: D2X is FF after all.

Now before you discount this as the usual my-cousin-ancle-neighbor
heresay, my source has been very reliable in the past, only missing
a few small details. You could completely discount this post if you
don't care.

The leak could be part of Nikon feeling out the market reaction as
the form of the leak itself is rather unusual which I wouldn't go
to details. Suffice to say it's a type of formal survey involved
with the pro's in certain market.

Or it could be Nikon's way to check out who are the leaks which is
why I couldn't reveal too much details.

Needless to say I am happy with this surprise as D2X needs enough
pixel count to be competitive and doubling pixels with D2H's LBCAST
in the DX format isn't going to make it, especially when
considering the noise issue with D2H.

I have been told within Nikon there have been rather emotional
discussions about DX vs. FF, one camp with concern of cost whereas
the other concern with competition.

Now that Kodak finally brings a quite competitive FF 14mp SLR/x to
the market at a competitive price, it seems the FF camp within
Nikon finally win, or let's hope so.

For what is worth, I got to play with a friend's new SLR/n this
weekend and seeing the results even on a laptop (IBM T30) is really
amazing. The only drawback with the SLR/n is the body itself, no
where near to what my D2H can give me.

Go FF, Nikon!

Click to expand...

--
Mel

Stan Disbrow · Apr 12, 2004

Hi,

This is what you are referring to. I have one that I still use. It isn't a very good idea, though. That explains why the later D1 dispensed with it.

The first problem is that it makes the camera a lot larger. The E2 is the size of a 645 medium format SLR.

The second, and worse, problem is that the Reduction Optical System loses two stops of light. There is nothing like turning that nice f1.4 lens into an f4 one.....

The worst problem is the vignetting. The camera is pretty much restricted to using lenses with f2.8 or faster maximum apertures. The ROS optics magnify the light falloff issues, causing dark corners with lenses slower than f2.8.

This discussion comes up every so often. The concept sounds like such a great idea, but it just does not work out so well in practice.

Stan
--
Amateur Photographer
Professional Electronics Development Engineer

Once you start down the DSLR path, forever will it dominate your destiny! Consume your bank account, it will! Like it did mine!

More info and list of gear is in my Posters' Profile.

Ronny Poelmans · Apr 12, 2004

Release the D2x.. and get it over with.. (aps 8mpix, 100-800 native iso)

one year later Drop the h and x story.. and release the D3 .. full frame or whatever.. no h or x.. one body will do.

it doesn't make sense to release top of the notch dx lenses (17-55) and then release a full-frame D2X at Photokina.

another solution would be giving an empty D2 body to Fuji and Kodak.. and let them put their sensor.. their actual bodies suck, but they have good image-sensors (this will never happen).

My wish would be a $2500 D2H-look camera but cutt off the lower part.. so it fits the hand like an F100.. put some extra mpix in it and call it D100.. but they already ruined this party by giving the name to a body which should have been called D80..

..pffhh in the mean time I will enjoy my D2H ... althoud my 3.5 times cheaper D70 produces better image quality.. sigh..

Ronny (Belgium)

Ron Frank · Apr 12, 2004

I've been told by Nikon reps that the current layout of the D2h/D1x does NOT work for FF. There just is not enough room.

So while they would not comment on if D2x or any Nikon in the future would be FF, they DID say that IF Nikon wanted to go FF, then some body redesign would result, they could not just stick a FF sensor in the current layout.

I'm still not thinking the D2x will be FF necessarily. It would be nice if it was FF for many reasons, and nice if it remained APS sized for other reasons. I guess I'll be happy with whatever Nikon does as long as it's an improvement over the D1x by enough margin to make it a worthwhile upgrade.

IMO the one mistake Nikon could make would be to present a camera FF ala the original Kodak 14n. If it has more mpix than any camera to date, but the image quality out of camera is limited to low ISO settings, and daylight, or studio storbes, I'd be rather upset.

An 8mpix LBCAST sensor in an APS sized chip with features similar to the D2H would be a very nice camera indeed. But I KNOW that many people would consider that a failure on Nikon's part not getting in the 10mpix + sensor game.

Ron

Jason Busch said:
I've commented before about Nikon's internal conflicts about FF and
DX. The hesitation of the D2x being released could only fit into
two categories, which were 1) Sensor issues and 2) FF or DX sensor
size, or both. Why? Because you just cannot create a 10+MP DSLR on
the current DX size chip. It's too small, and you get noise due to
smaller pixels. This is why Canon went with a 1.3x size sensor
which enables a little room to breathe. But realistically, anything
over 10MP must be a FF DSLR.

--
JB
http://www.digitaldingus.com
http://www.digitaldingus.com/forums

Memphisto · Apr 12, 2004

First: "full frame" sensore have a two advantages:

number of pixels can be incrased easiest
no crop factor with existing lenses

But thats all.
"full frame" sensor have many disadvantages:

-very high cost of productions (problem is in inperfect structure molecules of silicon...(bigger sensor area=.more wastes =much much more costs

This technology (cost of production "big chips" was not changed especialy for about 20 yrs..."big chips" was always high priced) A good way to reducing cost is in miniature. (this same way is in micro-chips...it's that same technology)

-film area is smooth....the sensor is not. It looks something like it:

The light on sensor not like this: ,
but something like this: \\\\ . Some rays of lighs are
stopped on "walls" and don't hit in photo diodes.
And so what? well....digital cameras on "full frame" sensors

have vignetting. Look on some samples from 1Ds and Kodak 14n...pictures taken at F2.8 have quite nice vignete. Wide angle and fish eye gives much worse effects....

I used both of this cameras and i know something about it.

1Ds + lenses 28-70L at f:2.8 vignetting.( you should look on dpreviev test) On wide angle lenses i've

seen vignette + artifacts..due to angle of light on sensor is too big.

This isn't a new problem...this problem was indicated by Kodak at 1995....so, many producers abadoned "full framed" sensors. and gone into 4/3 standard. Kodak planning new cameras in 4/3 standard too.

You should not worry about DX format.

Sorry guys for all my mistakes....im not powerfull in English, i tried to explain it best as i can.

best regards

--
Greets
Michael

Steven Noyes · Apr 12, 2004

vignetting is a function of the lens and not the sensor. With digital, however, we get to see the edge of all of our images making this much easier to see.

The single BIGGEST advantage of FF over the APS size sensor is... Image quality. It has 2.25X the area and will consistantly produce better images.

Steven

Memphisto said:
First: "full frame" sensore have a two advantages:

number of pixels can be incrased easiest

no crop factor with existing lenses

But thats all.
"full frame" sensor have many disadvantages:

-very high cost of productions (problem is in inperfect structure
molecules of silicon...(bigger sensor area=.more wastes =much much
more costs

This technology (cost of production "big chips" was not changed
especialy for about 20 yrs..."big chips" was always high priced) A
good way to reducing cost is in miniature. (this same way is in
micro-chips...it's that same technology)

-film area is smooth....the sensor is not. It looks something like it:

The light on sensor not like this: ,
but something like this: \\\\ . Some rays of lighs are
stopped on "walls" and don't hit in photo diodes.
And so what? well....digital cameras on "full frame" sensors

have vignetting. Look on some samples from 1Ds and Kodak
14n...pictures taken at F2.8 have quite nice vignete. Wide angle
and fish eye gives much worse effects....

I used both of this cameras and i know something about it.

1Ds + lenses 28-70L at f:2.8 vignetting.( you should look on
dpreviev test) On wide angle lenses i've

seen vignette + artifacts..due to angle of light on sensor is too big.

This isn't a new problem...this problem was indicated by Kodak at
1995....so, many producers abadoned "full framed" sensors. and gone
into 4/3 standard. Kodak planning new cameras in 4/3 standard too.

You should not worry about DX format.

Sorry guys for all my mistakes....im not powerfull in English, i
tried to explain it best as i can.

best regards

--
Greets
Michael

--
---
New and Updated!!!
Fall 2003: http://www.pbase.com/snoyes/image_a_week
Winter 2004: http://www.pbase.com/snoyes/animage_a_week_winter

Michael T. Jones · Apr 12, 2004

Oops, make that 50% more resolution given 2:3 aspect ratio. I did the math wrong in my haste to post this morning.

Resulting image size for square sensor:
8M -> 12M pixels
9M -> 13.5MP
13.5-> 20.25M, approaching the 22M of medium format digital backs
12M -> 18M

As stated before, this would also allow my beloved 6MP D100 to become a 9MP D200... ;-)

--
Michael T. Jones
(equipment in profile)

Greg Gebhardt · Apr 12, 2004

--
Greg Gebhardt in
Jacksonville, Florida
http://www.pbase.com/greggebhardt

Memphisto · Apr 12, 2004

Steven Noyes said:
vignetting is a function of the lens and not the sensor. With
digital, however, we get to see the edge of all of our images
making this much easier to see.

Yes, because light dont hitting a sensor on straight angle. TO avoid this problem, bayonet size on FF camera must be much bigger. (or smaller sensor) )(that's why nikon designed DX lens format)

Steven Noyes said:
The single BIGGEST advantage of FF over the APS size sensor is...
Image quality. It has 2.25X the area and will consistantly produce
better images.

Higher resolution images with vignetting, and artifacts on wide angles.

I think LBCAST was designed especially for DX format l . Less transistors (sharing funcions)..area of photodiodes can be incrased.

I think It can be very good 12 MP D2X on DX senros using LBCAST technology
You really need more?

sorry for my poor english

vernix · Apr 12, 2004

or speculatobators

Shutzman · Apr 12, 2004

Not sure about this analysis, the last 3 weddings and one Bar Mitzvah I attended, they all had 1Ds. The high-end weddings are done with MF.

I believe most of the pros that wanted to turn digital have already done so and if not, it is budget concerns and this is not getting any better.

If someone didn't buy a D1X for $3500, why would they buy D2X for $5000? As we all know 6MP is a 'sweet' point, at which the pro world has been for quite a number of years( Kodak)

Nikon - Techno-geeks, this is a joke, how many of them can spend $5K on a camera? Let's take a survey here...

DSLR is a small market to begin with. Why do you think Nikon rolls out 12 coolpixes in between 2 DSLRs?

Ron Frank said:
1. Nikon D1x. I see more wedding photographers profiled in Studio
photography & Design using the D1x than any other DLSR camera.

2. Fuji S2 Pro - This camera is liked by many professional wedding
photographers. It has GREAT out of camera .jpg.

3. The rest.

I see very few wedding photographers profiled that shoot DSLR's
shooting Canon. Not really sure why, and there certainly are a few.
But the D1x is a very popular wedding camara.

This is by no means a comprehensive study, just an observation
based on the past couple years of equipment lists based on featured
photographers.

So there's at least ONE big market....

Then there are the Nikon Techno Geeks that will keep up with
EVERYTHING that is Nikon.

THEN, least we foget...There is a RATHER large market of film
shooters left out there who honestly believe that digital NEEDS
more resolution.

These guys WILL make a switch to digital at some point (or many of
them will). I still have to show some film tyro's prints from my
D1x BEFORE they even begin to consider digital as a real medium.

Generally if I show them ONE 8x10, the become VERY interested. Not
sure what rock these guys keep themselves under....

I certainly have been waiting a while to see what the D2x will be.
More as I consider future lens choices vs. actually needing a D2x.
The ONE reason I'd like the D2x to be FF, is that I'd not bother
with a purchase of a 12-24mm lens. If the D2x remains aps sized,
I'll purchase the 12-24mm Nikon as I want to go wider.

Ron

Shutzman said:

Who will be the customers for the D2X, if it is this year? My
conclusion: FF or not, It's not this year (and I would hate to be
right)

Michael Worley said:

. . . so I think he knows.

Or maybe he thinks that from his silence we’ll think that he knows.

Or maybe he thinks that we’ll think that he thinks that we think
that he knows.

Or maybe . . .

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Steven Noyes · Apr 12, 2004

I routinely stitch to get between 20 and 72MP. If I can dothis with fewer frames, this is a big win. I find the 1.3X crop about ideal because that is when most lenses start to have edge issues that make stitching a bit harder. But FF at f8-> f11 poses absolutly no problems either.

In my work with the 1Ds (limited but I have used it), I have not found the edge issues to be much, if any, worse than what I got out of film.

Steven

--
---
New and Updated!!!
Fall 2003: http://www.pbase.com/snoyes/image_a_week
Winter 2004: http://www.pbase.com/snoyes/animage_a_week_winter

Yves P. · Apr 12, 2004

Not in Nikon's plans at the moment. Not for a near future.

jeff-c said:
My usual reliable source gave me a surprise phone call with a piece
of surprise news: D2X is FF after all.

Now before you discount this as the usual my-cousin-ancle-neighbor
heresay, my source has been very reliable in the past, only missing
a few small details. You could completely discount this post if you
don't care.

The leak could be part of Nikon feeling out the market reaction as
the form of the leak itself is rather unusual which I wouldn't go
to details. Suffice to say it's a type of formal survey involved
with the pro's in certain market.

Or it could be Nikon's way to check out who are the leaks which is
why I couldn't reveal too much details.

Needless to say I am happy with this surprise as D2X needs enough
pixel count to be competitive and doubling pixels with D2H's LBCAST
in the DX format isn't going to make it, especially when
considering the noise issue with D2H.

I have been told within Nikon there have been rather emotional
discussions about DX vs. FF, one camp with concern of cost whereas
the other concern with competition.

Now that Kodak finally brings a quite competitive FF 14mp SLR/x to
the market at a competitive price, it seems the FF camp within
Nikon finally win, or let's hope so.

For what is worth, I got to play with a friend's new SLR/n this
weekend and seeing the results even on a laptop (IBM T30) is really
amazing. The only drawback with the SLR/n is the body itself, no
where near to what my D2H can give me.

Go FF, Nikon!

--
Yves P.
PBASE Supporter

Some pictures I like:
http://www.pbase.com/yp8/root

Yves P. · Apr 12, 2004

For the moment at least ...

--
Yves P.
PBASE Supporter

Some pictures I like:
http://www.pbase.com/yp8/root

Yamil R. Sued50621 · Apr 12, 2004

John,

I agree with you 100%!!

It would be stupid of Nikon to change sensor formats right now!!

Just loke you said, the DX lenses just came out & IMHO gaing back not only would be difficult, but expensive!!

that would be the death of nikon digital to us Pro's who just spent big $$$ in DX lenses & wouldn't be able to use them in FF Digital cameras.

Just my other $.02!!

Y

John Arnold said:
It would be pretty hard for Nikon to present the market with an
inconsistency in the "pro line" of cameras....by issuing a FF D2x
after having just released the D2h.

We'd be flopping around a bit with our lens selections, etc....
Ugh, let's see, I'm shooting with my D2h so it's 1.5 times
28mm....wait, wait, I'm taking along the D2x for the tabletop shot,
and that is 1.0 times 60mm...no, no, wait, should I use the DX or
not...is the "sweet spot" the same"....Oh, uhu, yup,
nope,...geeeee, just what we need!

And after all the whoopla about the DX lenses being made
specifically for the present Nikon sensor format, what a hoot to
switch horses in mid-stream.

Just my opinion...

For real evidence, we'll truly have to wait for an OFFICIAL Nikon
press release....

Cheers,
John

D2X is FF after all?

Senior Member

Well-known member

Veteran Member

Active member

Veteran Member

Mel

Guest

Veteran Member

Well-known member

Senior Member

Active member

Forum Pro

Forum Enthusiast

Forum Pro

Active member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Forum Pro

Forum Pro

Forum Pro

Veteran Member

Similar threads

Keyboard shortcuts