(1 to 100 of 175 replies)

Full frame Nikon

curved liquid [deleted] 1:05pm, 8 May 2006
So saturday was camera rep day at my local (and great) camera store and when I got a chance to talk to my nikon rep, the first question out my lips where "When is the full frame nikon coming out?" Her words: "This year will be a VERY good year for you if thats what your waiting for. I can't say anything, but don't upgrade your body yet."

Though I know everyone knows a nikon full frame dSLR is coming out, now there is offical word from Nikon themselves that its coming out here fairly shortly. When I asked her when this year she couldn't say, couldn't tell if its a "I don't know" or a "Its a secret" kind of answer.

In other news, in the next few weeks Nikon will be coming out with a new capture program that from what I hear will have some nice features. Like being able to adjust very small sections of colors or ojbects. As she said, it will be able to replace all your photoshop tasks. For that comment I scoffed at her, but still, we'll see very shortly.
(1 to 100 of 175 replies)
wirelessnic 15 years ago
ha! that probably means it is going to be expensive! and most likely a pro body as well.

i can't wait till Capture NX comes out :D i doubt too that it will replace Photoshop. but it will be nice to use though. i found that the current version of capture works better as a raw converter than using photoshop's. 15 years ago
Yah, the rumour is the D3 at Photonika this Fall will be full frame. And my guess is that it will be about the same price as the Canon 1Ds MK.II. They will probably keep the D2x and D2h just because they'll be half the price.

I have a D70 now. I can wait until there is a Full Frame DSLR in the D200 price range.

As for Capture NX. Can't wait. It's not a photoshop replacement. But I only need PS for about 10% of my photo work. 15 years ago
Now, what I REALLY want to know, is who is making the sensor? Kodak? Sony? Or has Nikon finally matured it's LBCAST technology? 15 years ago
heh.. had to do it.
The Nikon D3 group.
Ryan Brenizer 15 years ago
I find it extremely hard to believe that your local Nikon rep has any real idea about that. Few people even in Nikon corporate have a good idea about their long-term design plan. I wish they were open as … say … Pentax, but they're not.

To me, the D200 is a five-year camera, so I'm just hoping they have a D200-like 35mm camera in five years when I'm ready to upgrade, and that the current issues with 35mm sensors have been worked out by then.
curved liquid [deleted] 15 years ago
carpe icthus: not my local nikon rep, but a rep from nikon for product deminstrations, ect. and if its comint out this year, is it really long term?

as for capture, I find it pointless, doesn't matter how well it renders raw files, I still have to bring it into photoshop anyway to color correct it for various different outlets. Why open two different programs when I have to work on it in one of them anyway. Just an extra step. Then again, I'm a designer and seems most of my photography work right now is work related, so I live in either photoshop or indesign right now 15 years ago
This article talks aboutthe impending Full Frame Nikon DSLR. Though no name/time is mentioned.
hsu box 15 years ago
It would be nice, especially if they can cut the cost to a few thousand (not that I'll be able to afford one any time soon), but I'll believe it when I see it.
abaft ducks [deleted] 15 years ago
The only reason I really want Capture NX is for IPTC support. I love Nikon Browser way more than Adobe Bridge.
curved liquid [deleted] 15 years ago
@andrew alexander: I havn't been pleased with any image browser really. The one I've liked the most though is Picasa, though I don't like how it physicly orginized my images though.

I want to try aperture, but I don't have the 200 bucks to just try it out. My biggest complaint is if I virtualy orginize pictures, thats how I want it physicly stored as well, in a directory of my choice.

Anyone know of something like that for mac? and not iphoto?
towering mist [deleted] 15 years ago
@Chad, have you looked at Lightroom?
curved liquid [deleted] 15 years ago
since1968: yeah, not impressed yet, though its nicer then most. I don't wnt to get loving lightroom when in a few months I might have to pay for it. If it were to come with the next cs package, that would be great and I probaly would switch over. Its just hard asking your boss for money for a program thats not really needed
Phil Nesmith Posted 15 years ago. Edited by Phil Nesmith (member) 15 years ago
Sounds like you need to learn how to program and build your own app ;) You need to be combining the use of a browser and a catalog app (like iView Media Pro) into your workflow. This is pretty much what Aperture and Lightroom are doing (all in one app). Can you explain what you mean when you say "if I virtualy orginize pictures, thats how I want it physicly stored as well, in a directory of my choice"? Build your data structure then keyword and tag your files then place them into the structre. Your directory names should not contain any content data like "family vacation", "Portfolio" etc. You would kep track of this with your cataloging software in virutal sets via keywords etc.
Allen George Posted 15 years ago. Edited by Allen George (member) 15 years ago
I'll believe a full-frame Nikon digital when I see it ;~)

FWIW, I've been hearing these rumors ever since...well...since forever to be frank. I'm unsure how much stuff reps actually know and there haven't been any manual, image or other leaks that I know of yet.

Well, here's hoping that Nikon puts out newer, better, more competitive products. Oh, and fixes its supply issues!
RoninVision 15 years ago
It's nice that a full-frame body may be coming out for the pros. But it doesn't affect me directly since I won't be able to afford it.

I am very curious about Capture NX though...
curved liquid [deleted] 15 years ago
@NikonShooter: pretty much. Being a designer, I have a bad habit where if the program doesn't look nice, then it has a mark against it already.

what I mean by virtualy and physicly is: when I plug in my camera and start importing the pictures, and lets say they are all of the vacation. I want it to put it into a directory structure like: personal / family / vacations / place and when I start browsing the image program I want it in the same order or if it were for work I would want it to be work / client / subject.

If I were to orginize the images that way in a program, I want them to move the acutal files into the same file structure as well. I know it sounds weird but what I hate about iphoto is it will sort it into originials / date / roll or title in the photos / iphoto directory. When I was doing it in Picasa, it would make a directory, but it couldn't be called the same thing as anything else. Lightroom just manages the images and not the files themselves.

Maybe I'm just too picky. For the time being, iphoto is working, but maybe I can talk my boss into apurture later on....though I really wish they offered a demo
boodoo 15 years ago
It sounds to me like your ideal photobrowser is "Windows Explorer." Make your folders, place the images there, and tag them. You can then browse through based on those directories and that accomplishes everything I can understand you saying about your ideal.

The way the "virtually" arranged systems work is typically you would label your vacation photos with keywords like "personal, family, vacation, [place]" and instead of drilling down through a hierarchical directory structure to get there you start with everything displayed and filter for "personal, family, vacation, [place]" and have them in front of you in one step.

While I support your taxonomical approach to organizing your shots, it's archaic and not encouraged by any organizational wizards designing software for photo organization. And I think the rep you spoke to was a liar.
curved liquid [deleted] 15 years ago
boodoo: thats proablay why I like it like that, I've been using pcs since the dos days and recently how things are structured on the computer itself hasn't been that important.

Right now thats how I have my iphoto setup with smart folders, and I can deal with that as long as I don't open up finder and go at the files from there.

And in what way do you think shes a lier? Nikon does have the pattern of when cannon releases something, nikon releases their version about a year later. Cannon has their fullframe out, now its time for the nikon. Posted 15 years ago. Edited by (member) 15 years ago
@boodoo What possible benefit would a Nikon employee have for lying? It would just hurt their sales.

@chad long live DOS :)

@RoninVision sad but true, not like I could afford one either. I'm just a gear head and can't help looking.
I hope that they do release a FF body...there will be a flood of used bodies and great lenses on the market when people start making the switch. what an enormous expense that must be.
Phil Nesmith 15 years ago
Thanks for your reply. I hope you have good luck findind a solution for your needs. I can say that using content related naming for directories makes for poor digital asset management for pro photographers in the long run.

As for the FF would be nice but its over rated by the Canon crew. As someone who shoot more action and war than anything else I like the 1.5x conversion factor which allows greater reach with shorter glass. Its like your issue with the software.......everyone should use the tool that is best for what they do and not all people.
paul goyette 15 years ago
a full frame body would be nice, but for me the most exciting thing about it will be the reduced cost of the d200 and dx lenses that will inevitably come at the same time. the d200 is all the camera i can imagine needing at this point, and i'll be happy to pay less for it while other people buy full frame cameras that cost as much as my car!
Phil Nesmith 15 years ago
I had a D2h and D100.....and was about to get a D2x and retire the D100......I went with the D200 and over all im happy with the switch. Nice rig. I still use the D2h for action.
atomicShed 15 years ago
Have to say I'm looking forward to getting hold of the adobe lightroom beta, keep trying to get my Mac friends to give it a try but they can't be arsed! :-)

new body... really need that trip to singapore!
stroboscopic 15 years ago
@paul goyette: my thoughts precisely! D200 an DX lenses on the cheap. Pity there isn't a DX version of the 80-200VR :D
Jim O'Connell 15 years ago
Last year I was visiting with the Mr Kariya, the head of Nikon. It was a social visit, but we were of course talking cameras. I asked him about full frame sensors and he was telling me about the difficulties in making a sensor that would work up to their standards.
While he didn't say that there would never be a full frame Nikon digital, he didn't give me the impression that it was a priority, as the majority of Nikon DSLR users were pretty happy with their cameras.

Michio Kariya

I told him that the first full frame sensor should come in the form of a digital back for the original Nikon F, circa 1959...

They've put a lot of engineering into the DX series of lenses and I doubt they'd ask their customers to shelve a lot of expensive glass just yet. After all, the company is what it is because of lens compatibility.
Steve Webel 15 years ago
I sure hope the attitude attributed to the head of Nikon in regards to improving the Nikon line is incorrect. Just because the 'majority' are happy with status quo there is no priority to improve and innovate?

A FF body, done to Nikon's high standards, would be nicer than any smaller sensor for image quality. Yeah, if you like the 1.5 magnification, you're at a loss, but you can just go buy longer glass.

Anyone who says that a smaller sensor is just as good as a FF sensor (when both are made to the same spec) just doesn't understand the simple physics of it all.

Maybe a bunch of Nikon dSLR users need to get 'un-happy' before Nikon will make FF sensors a priority - but I hope it doesn't come to that...
LebronPhoto 15 years ago
"Anyone who says that a smaller sensor is just as good as a FF sensor (when both are made to the same spec) just doesn't understand the simple physics of it all."

I don;t think that is what people are arguing here. The ultimate goal is better image quality and at a reasonable cost. If advances in technology can acheive that with using the DX sensor, then you really don't need an FF sensor. To use an analogy, You can probably get great Horsepower out of an 8 cylinder engine. But many times, a more technologically advanced 4 or 6 can beat an 8 Cylinder. So that's the argument. If you can improve the DX chip using technology and keep the cost low, then there is little need for a FF sensor. Of course, if you use the same technology and improve the F sensor, it will outperform the DX, but using the same analogy, who needs an 8 cylinder to go 400 MPH. There is such a thing as overkill.

Granted, there are cases where people may need the added resolution and are willing to pay the cost. For those folks, there are always options, yet, I don't see many people spending $29K for the Hasselblad. 15 years ago
Overall your comments are correct.
But in one specific case, specifically for Nikons it's not so easy.

Because Nikon reduced the sensor size but DID NOT move the image plane (leaving the mount to sensor distance the same), making fast wide primes is more difficult.
Of course making teles is easier. To each their own I guess.

Most people, like me complain simply because our old lenses no longer work the way we want them to on a cropped sensor camera. Sure I can go buy more lenses (yay for Nikons bottom line)
I would seriously be willing to spend another $1k on a FF body over the cropped one if it means not having to buy (and lug around) a $1k lens. Of course
a. one doesn't exist from Nikon
b. if/when it does, it won't be $1k difference.
LebronPhoto Posted 15 years ago. Edited by LebronPhoto (member) 15 years ago
I think if the price of FF was the same to the DX Sensore, then most people would embrace the change. Those manufacturers who make Full Frame Digital SLRs offer them at a very high cost. Will that go down in the future, possibly. This is an evolving technology so who knows what will come down the pike in a few years.

I understand the lens issue. The whole point of buying a digital nikon for many is the ability to use the lenses they have. But with DX, you get more tele and are forced to buy wider lenses anyway.

BTW: I've used my D200 with Prime lenses and the quality is very good. Nice thing is you can use almost any lens made after 1977. I'm keeping my eyes open for a few manual focus primes.
atelier_nikon 15 years ago
i have heard a rumour about nikon FF dslr will use kodak's newly released full-frame CCD, but who knows! 15 years ago
You do not get more tele. You get crop.
If Nikon released a FF body with a 20MP chip. If you cropped, you'd get about the same resolution you get now with your D200.

There is reason Nikon isn't coming out with DX Teles.

So many rumours...
avidday 15 years ago
That new interline transfer Kodak CCD is aimed at industrial and scientific imaging applications. It most certainly isn't intended for professional still cameras. In terms of performance, it is inferior to Kodak's existing full frame transfer CCDs for still cameras that Olympus and Leica are using.
LebronPhoto Posted 15 years ago. Edited by LebronPhoto (member) 15 years ago,

I understand that, but the effect on the final product is a closer shot, which in effect acts like a digital zoom (which simply crops the image). The difference of course is that these cameras are made with that sensor (film size) so there is no crop over the standard image. What you see through the viewfuinder is the image you are getting (or at least close to it). If you want to use that same argument, then you can compare 35MM with 6 X 4.5 and simply say, you "get more crop because the 35MM is a smaller negative.

The fun ny thing about this argument is that it is very similar to the argument some pros made for using medium format cameras versus 35mm. The reality of it is that there was both a market and uses for both and as film and lens technology advanced the quality of the 35MM improved more rapidly because more resources were put into it. After all, it had more users than medium format.

The bottom line here is that technology progresses and there may be a time where sensors with less that full frame provide a superior image to full frame. Maybe it will be a totally different size sensor, even smaller, packing so much power, you can make a print the size of a large wall. I think people are getting hung up on FF and thinking of it in terms of film size without considering the role of technology. Posted 15 years ago. Edited by (member) 15 years ago

True, technology will eventually be able to produce amazing sensors. Look at the new sensor 1/1.25" 10MP in the new Canon PowerShot!
However, these cameras can't resolve that 10MP because the lens in front. This is happening with DSLRs too. Cameras like the Canon 1Ds MK II needs the highest end of glass, otherwise you're just wasting the power of the camera (if resolving power is why you got it).

I'm not saying that a reduced sensor size format is bad. I'm saying forcing a smaller sensor size into a format that was designed for 35mm is not ideal. It's done, it works, but it has drawbacks for some.

The medium format debate is a good one actually. Because believe me, if I could afford a Digital Medium format rig, I would have one. (aka, I was making money of photography) I chose the 35mm format because that was the consumer format, the format I could afford.That being said, if a FF Nikon came out, it would be some time before I could afford one (technology gets cheaper etc.).

As for the crop issue. There are systems out there, like the one in the D2x which lets you choose a crop factor in camera. So in that one you can do 1.5x standard or 2.x sports mode. I wouldn't be surprised if we had 1x, 1.5x and 2x in some future camera allowing you to frame. My point was, you have the option to crop, a lot of times I don't have the option to step back any farther.

Photosite density / area is also an issue, though this one I don't think is listened to by the manf. If you were to put a 10mp FF sensor into something like the D200, you would have amazing high ISO performance compared to the 1.5x cropped sensor. It's one of the nice things about the D2hs actually, since it's photosites are so big (low resolution), it's high ISO performance is excellent.

I think, overall what we have shown, is that the reduced sensor size format works for some, and not for others. It's not that it's bad, it's that for some people, a FF would suite them better.
avidday 15 years ago
I suspect that if/when Nikon announce a 24x36mm body, they will go straight to a 22Mp sensor with the same photosite pitch as the current D2X sensor. I am of the opinion that the ultimate performance question in Nikon's R&D decision making process between full frame and DX isn't high ISO performance, and it isn't wide angle lens availability. It is enlargement and ultimate sharpness.

Right now the D2X is diffraction limited at f/11. With the circle of confusion size of DX sensors, that isn't always enough to guarantee everything is in focus - there isn't always enough depth of field. The D2X is somewhat hamstrung between enlargement and diffraction. A 22Mp 24x36mm sensor would still be diffraction limited at f/11, but the CoC is larger for the bigger sensor and the total depth of field is bigger. At the diffraction limit, such a sensor not only has lots more resolution, it has more depth of field, and higher ultimate sharpness. That is what most professional shooters who waver between medium format digital and DSLRs want.

Canon's recent full frame whitepaper points out that the sensor is the single most expensive item in the bill of materials for building a DSLR, and their economic modelling suggests that full frame sensors will always be eight to ten times more expensive that APS-C sensors. One thing a full frame D3x won't be is cheap.
LebronPhoto 15 years ago

I think we can agree. For some, the full frame sensor does suit them better especially at this time. My point was that the drawbacks of the DX sensor will get better as technology advances. For example, noise has improved in the various enhancements to the DX cameras. At some point, it may get good enough that people looking for Full frame for this reason will not have to go Full Frame. Because of that, I think these Full Frame sensors will remain a bit of a pricey speacialty item in a similar way Medium Format cameras were in the past and are even more so now. We are onlyu speculating but I would be surprised if Full Frame becomes the standard. My guess is that they will continue to improve the smaller sensors since that will allow for more flexibility in the manufacture of the cameras in terms of size, etc.
brnpttmn 15 years ago
I think Nikon should release a 1.25 crop camera.
LebronPhoto 15 years ago

You mean with a sensor sized between DX and Full Frame? Posted 15 years ago. Edited by (member) 15 years ago
Interesting info, thanks for that.

One thing that being in the tech field has taught me, is that technology always gets cheaper.
Of course we're talking about a lot of years here, but 8-10x more expensive doesn't mean much when the sensors start costing under $10 :) (buy yah, who knows when).

Kind of like the M8 you mean?
I wouldn't be surprised if Nikon did do something like this. TO curtail the light falloff issue.
brnpttmn 15 years ago
@LebronPhoto: yes

@Tracer: The M8 is a Leica, right. I am not that familiar with it but probably something like it. 15 years ago
the M8 Is a REALLY interesting camera. Has some very good background on the sensor size problem, and how they got around it.
The reason they chose 1.25 is that FF had to many image quality issues for Viewfinder Cameras! :)
avidday Posted 15 years ago. Edited by avidday (member) 15 years ago
The "light fall off" issue, is, for the most part, a non-issue. The combination of mildly telecentric lens design (and recent pro wide angle lenses like the 17-35 f/2.8 and the 14mm f/2.8 are ground up telecentric designs), offset microlens for the sensor, and the decent register distance of the F mount take care of it, for the most part.

The best information I have says that current APS-C sensors are in the 50-150 US dollar range, depending on the process and resolution. The Canon 5D sensor is in the 600-700 US dollar range, and the EOS 1Ds Mk II is in the 1000 dollar range. Even with spectacular improvements in process economics, that is a huge slice of the cost of a camera. Probably a big enough slice to mean that full-frame bodies are always likely to be twice as expensive as their APS-C counterparts, however cheap the APS-C bodies get.

Edit: The reason Leica were forced to go for a 1.3x crop sensor is related to the very short register distance of the M lens mount. Most M mount lenses, even very wide ones, are almost symmetrical (this is why they are so physically small). This makes the angle of incidence of light in the corners of a full frame sensor very large (over 25 degrees in some cases). 15 degrees is a useful upper limit for most CCDs or high fill factor CMOS sensors. The only was Leica could get around the physical limitation of their lens mount was to use a cropped lens with offset microlenses. The issues for larger register distance mounts with retrofocal wide angle lenses (like modern SLRs) is completely different.
curved liquid [deleted] 15 years ago
Regardless, I think its fairly stupid to think that nikon won't release a full frame. It would be like looking at the Pentium proccesser days and saying there will never be 2 chips on a cpu. It might not happen this year (like I was lead to belive that day a longlong time ago), but it will happen, and evenutaly all cameras will be "full frame" and that will be the norm. Its really not that good in terms of marketing to have a cropped sensor, in terms of lenses, it leads to market confusion.

"18mm lens? sweet, super wide angle"
"well, not really, 18mm is really a 27mm lens..."
"say what now?"
LebronPhoto 15 years ago

The lens confusion is a non-issue. Of course, folks who only shot in 35MM may be confused, but photographers who shot in Medium and large formats already knew that 80mm on a Nikon FM is not the same as 80MM on a Hasselblad. People who came into photography using the smaller sensors only know the numbers as they are listed on the lens and as it affects the camera they have.

The processor analogy is different because Intel didn't build a bigger (full Frame) processor, They added 2 chips to a single CPU, added level 2 cache, etc. So that's like taking an existing DX chip and maybe making it twice the magapixels or making other improvements to it using technology, firmware, etc. I may be proven wrong in a few years but I don't believe Full Frame will be the standard sensor, just like medium of large format didn't become the standard even when everyone considered the quality to be superior to 35MM.
Vilhelm Sjostrom 15 years ago
I was shooting with a Canon 1DS MkII user today on a joint assignment. Rather than the usual chicken-egg debate about pro body tech specs that is so familiar to websites on photography he just commented briefly

"You're lucky since you don't need to crop out the vignetted area like I have to."

Light fall-off is going to be the new Nikonerd complaint once there is a full-frame out :-) 15 years ago
The processor analogy is bad.
Because our problem (or not ;) is that it's to do with physical size.
Remember, CPUs are getting faster and better all the time, but they're also getting SMALLER (not the whole chip, but the die, the expensive part).

Keep in mind that this IS happening. P&S cameras are getting more resolution in a smaller size for less money. Smaller size is the issue though.

Still, I believe that, as with all technological things, with enough demand, once camera makers can't figure out how to get joe six pack to buy another DSLR, the FF "feature" will be the next big selling point.

Of course the price will always be 2x more (if for no other reason than you have more than 2x the material to make the chip). 15 years ago

The mm conversion is mostly a non-issue. The broad consumer base doesn't know what the means really. They just want the new "10x zoom". The rest of use can do the math.
curved liquid [deleted] 15 years ago
the proccessor analogy was just for the fact that at the time, though there was dual proccessor rigs out there, and there was talk of a dual core proccessor even then, no one thought that it would happen.

Though there are full frame sensors out there, and there was talk of a full frame nikon camera even now, no one thought it would happen.

See how that was supposed to work?

Now, I want a full frame sensor. I love wide angle, I love the look you get from full frames (that slight bit of vinetting is rather nice at times) Its something that I would love to get....the cleanliness of the photo, the lowernoise, the higher megapixel (yeah, megapixels don't matter much, sure), the sharpness, the amount of detail, etc.

What supprises me though are sport photographers who are using the canon full frame systems, you would think they would want the 1.5 "maginification"

Dunno, rip me, flame me, etc, these are just my opinons
jwischka 15 years ago
"Canon's recent full frame whitepaper points out that the sensor is the single most expensive item in the bill of materials for building a DSLR, and their economic modelling suggests that full frame sensors will always be eight to ten times more expensive that APS-C sensors. One thing a full frame D3x won't be is cheap."

This is a point I don't think can be stressed enough. With a FF sensor occupying 2.25x the area of an APS-C sensor and the single greatest factor in chip production cost being physical size (even given same yields (which you don't have), you get less than 1/2 the amount of chips per batch), there will always be a huge price gap.

Added to that is the question of what percentage of the market these cameras are. I know one person with a 5D, and no one with a 1dMk2. While I am not a professional shooter by any means, nor do I hang out in their circles, I do know quite a few low-level pros and high end amateurs - many of whom shoot canon and almost none of whom have shelled out the extra money for the FF sensors. While I'm certain they are both fantastic cameras, I would wager Nikon has shipped *far* more D200's than Canon has 5D's.

Economics is currently in the driver's seat of this debate, and will continue to be for a long time.
Rune T Posted 15 years ago. Edited by Rune T (member) 15 years ago
Currently pulling 12mpix from a DX sensor (or 10 in the case of D200) is more than enough for the wast amount of photographers. Nikon will still support and push the limits for the DX format and we will no doubt se improvement in both quality, noise and the number of megapixels the DX sensors can deliver. My guess is that the next pro-model from Nikon will be DX-based but in the 16-20 mpix range. I think FF from Nikon is far into the future - if they ever release one.

My take on the whole debate is that FF sensors might appeal to to the same market that uses (or used) medium format film. In other words a more specialized and relatively small part of the totalt market that can and will pay good money for that extra resolution. However, Canon already covers this market with their FF models - I'm not sure if it is an economically good decision from Nikon to enter it.
nonchalant wax [deleted] 15 years ago
Nikon is at the mercy of someone else to provide them with a sensor. Canon makes their own. SO if they want FF they make FF. If Nikon wants FF they best hope Kodak or Sony want the same.

I'd love to see a Nikon camera with a Canon sensor. Best of both worlds.
avidday 15 years ago
Actually, they are not at the mercy of someone else to provide them with sensors. The current D2H uses an in-house developed and manufactured "LBCAST" sensor (effectively a CMOS process but using JFETs rather than MOSFET for faster read circuit response).

Incidently, Sony's semiconductor division (which is completely independent of Sony's imaging division) relies almost solely on manufacturing technology that Nikon provides for them. And the DX imaging sensors that Nikon use have a lot of Nikon design input in them. Nikon are Sony's largest customer for DSLR sensors and the relationship is pretty synergistic, much more of a partnership than a customer-supplier relationship. If when Nikon and Sony decide to go full frame it will be, for the most part, a joint decision.

The rumours trickling out of pro-photographer circles in Japan are that Nikon have been quietly field testing at least three different full frame sensors concepts from two different suppliers in prototype mules during the last 18 months or so. Nikon are a considerable way down the full frame R&D path. Whether any of them come to market, and when that might be is anybodies guess. 15 years ago

Kodak has had full frame sensors for some time. Kodak used to make FF DSLRs using Nikon bodies. These two companies have a relationship already, so it's not far fetched. Kodak is the same company who makes the medium format sensors for Phase One.
plastic mass [deleted] 15 years ago
What all this means for me is that I will have to very carefully evaluate whether I buy any more DX glass since it is not likely to work on a full frame body.
avidday 15 years ago
I would expect that whatever future full frame body appears will feature the same sort of high speed crop mode as the D2X has - so you could shoot at, say 22Mp full frame or 12Mp DX frame (probably at a high fps). The viewfinder would be cropped by LCD superimposition (like the D2X).
FullFrameFotography 15 years ago
Exactly, Larry.

I haven't bought a single DX lens. Not gonna do it. Besides, I still shoot 35mm film with an F100. There's no sense in having twice as many lenses as needed.
MerlinsMan 15 years ago
So DX lenses could be used in the high speed, cropped mode?
Now THAT would be interesting!
MerlinsMan 15 years ago
@EV Comp - so what do you do for wide angle on your Nikon DSLR?
curved liquid [deleted] 15 years ago
I thought I remember somewhere that nikon DID have a full frame sensor out there, it was one of their first digital I wrong?
Klifton 15 years ago
Kodak had the DCS/n ? which was a Nikon mount full frame. :)
curved liquid [deleted] 15 years ago
the nikon e3 was a 1.2 megapixel full frame camera based on the f4 body:
Klifton 15 years ago
Ahh. Wow, don't we miss those days? LOL
curved liquid [deleted] 15 years ago
lol, I dunno, if I could find one and had the money, I'd buy it
jazzmoose 15 years ago
Wow - what a long and interesting discussion. Killed off a good bit of my lunchtime reading it!

I've just bought the Sigma 10-20mm and did briefly consider the future-proofness of buying a 'digital' lens in the event of my buying a FF DSLR in the next 5 years.

My DX Lens FF/APS-C question (probably a stupid one as I've only been shooting SLR for a year now) is this:

- Given that the APS-C scale effectively crops the field of view of a standard (non-DX) lens to cause the 1.5 multiplication factor; on a (hypothetical) Nikon FF DSLR my DX lenses would perform exactly the same, save for the new requirement to crop the big black rectangle around the edge of the image in post.

This being the case, surely the resulting manually cropped image would be identical to that taken with an APS-C camera?

i.e. my 10-20mm lens is really a 15-30mm (in 35mm terms) and there would be no change on a FF camera other than I wouldn't be utilising the whole sensor - it's still a 15-30mm lens. A 'non-digital' lens on the other hand would become a true 10-20mm.

Additionally, as mentioned in the discussion, in all likeliness there would be a "digital crop" feature where you could set the FF DSLR to perform in "APS-C crop mode" so I doubt very much the DX lenses would suddenly become useless.

Nikon have to an extent built their reputation on lens compatibility (unlike Canon) and I don't see this changing.

Clearly for non-DX lenses, you would suddenly get back the wide field of view at the shorter focal lengths which would be a bonus.

Meanwhile however, there are many many shutter releases left in my D50! 15 years ago
Though your wording isn't technically correct, you do have the right idea.
Your 10-20mm lens stays as that way no matter what size sensor you put it on. You have the effective FOV from a 15-30mm now on your D50.
In fact, that particular lens is usable on a FF camera (like a film camera :) from 15mm onwards with no cropping. (there is light falloff though until about 18mm).
A lot of DX Zooms will fill the frame on the full size 35mm sensor/film after a certain zoom distance. The 17-55mm is another example.
LightsCameraAction 15 years ago

Your 10-20mm is always a 10-20mm, regardless of the size of the image. People talk about it becoming a 15-30mm on an AF-C sensor, but that isn't right either. It APPEARS to work as a 15-30mm because your angle of view with the 10-20mm on an AF-C sensor will be the same angle of view as a 15-30mm on a FF sensor. But don't forget the similarity stopes there. Even when attached to an AF-C sensor, the 10-20mm still behaves exactly as a 10-20mm. All the other issues such as perspective are the same.

Hope that helps.
Könrad 15 years ago
Imho 10-20 Sigma DX will be not fitted on a full frame because distorsion will be drammatically high. I have friends that have tried to apply 10-20 Sigma DX on a Canon 5D (FF) and the results was like a big fisheye with a sort of Holga Effect. By the way, any news from Nikon to know when they have intention to put it finally on sell ?
Have a great year all
(Sorry for my bad english)
K 15 years ago
@Könrad: The adapter used on the 5D makes a big difference on how much distortion you get.
I have taken a few shots on film using my F601 with the Sigma 10-20mm. No more complex distortion than what you already get on 1.5x cropped Digital. Mind you, my tests are not that exhaustive.

As for when the FF D3 will be coming out? Rumours had it coming out this past fall. So any time now?
spotless stocking [deleted] 15 years ago
I love the idea, not because I want a Full Frame but the hype, marketing and hoopla will drive the price of the products I really want lower.

I purposely have not purchased a new lense for my D200. My rationale is that if I get truly comfortable with the output from my D200 with the current manual and autofocus lenses I have, then my next decision will make more sense. So, off to eBay I go. Check out the awesome glass that users are selling! 85mm 1.4's, 135 f2.0's 180 f2.8's all at bargain prices.

So, keep the techno marvels coming, keep the consumers consuming, and most of all get those old products listed on eBay. I'm going to take some workshops and pictures, then outfit my kit with some awesome glass - cheap.

Gotta love it!
MrDAT 15 years ago
Yeah, Nikondude, I've seen a lot of people selling their "Film" lenses because they "just got a digital model". Posted 15 years ago. Edited by (member) 15 years ago
@MrDAT: I did that with one lens, the 24-120mm. But it really wasn't worth keeping. Otherwise, it's silly to get rid of "film" lenses.

Edited to fix typo.
MrDAT 15 years ago
@Tracer, yeah I understand. Some are just not worth holding on to.
johndohrn 15 years ago
I don't want full frame, that's right. I said it. Screw full frame. A d3h with up to 12 fps, multicam 3000 AF, 1.5 crop, 4 megapixels (yes, i said 4), sensor with no need for an AA filter, and a ginormous buffer for raw. That's what i want. That, and absolutely no color noise, which is practically what the d2h is now.
Beyond Forgetting 15 years ago
In the meantime, I will not be interested ... it is not going to improve on how I look like....of beautiful the people I take picture of .. they will remain as is. ...
Bo Eder 15 years ago
I agree with johndohrn and beyond forgetting: who cares?
I just live with what it looks like now and deal with it. I don't have any money problems so I'll get what I need when I need it. I rented the Hasselblad H1 with a d-back not too long ago and it was awesome. In fact, so awesome that's where I'd go next. If Nikon does or doesn't, it shouldn't matter. It wouldn't come close to that 'blad if they did.

If full frame is so important in a format that wasn't considered "professional" to begin with, I'm surprised those people aren't still shooting 35mm film and scanning it. At $550, the Nikon CoolScan V ED would be worth sacrificing another lens purchase!

I know, I apologize. This here is a digital forum and we don't speak of things like scanning film, or even buying film and having it developed (insert sarcastic tone here). But if you feel your images are suffering because they're not full frame (and whoever said 35mm is full frame? To me, anything smaller than 6x6 isn't close to full frame....but I digress), then maybe digital is not the way to go. Scan your film, you'll be glad you did. Then you'll notice how much money you're saving because you won't be buying new bodies every two or three years. You'll save more than enough to buy and develop all that full frame film.... ;)
Beyond Forgetting Posted 15 years ago. Edited by Beyond Forgetting (member) 15 years ago
I had seen a Hasselblad with digital back - the price is almost equal to a Hammer ... but it exist.

I was tempted into wanting it. Its full frame
Aardvark For Freedom 15 years ago
I would have to mortgage my house in order to afford a full frame Nikon.
Bo Eder 15 years ago
Temptation for gear is a good thing. At the very least it reminds us that whatever we use, there's always better out there. And that we must learn to make the best with what we do have.

And then again, if all your pictures suck anyway.....
what an education thread... i spent a good time reading most of it after finding this on google, yea google. :)
Brett F 14 years ago
Best browser/raw previewer/workflow speeder-upper (tech term that): In my opinion is Camera Bits' Photo-Mechanic. It FLIES.
OldUncleMe 14 years ago
From the OP (Original Post):

"This year will be a VERY good year for you if thats what your waiting for. I can't say anything, but don't upgrade your body yet."

That's been just over a year now. The report was wrong: a full frame Nikon did not come out within a year. Can I stop holding my breath?

LebronPhoto Posted 14 years ago. Edited by LebronPhoto (member) 14 years ago
I think you better (stop holding your breath). A little like film, but even more so, improvements in sensor technology are bound to resolve the noise and DR issues currently seen in digital cameras. Just like an 11X14 taken with 35mm film today rivals a image the same size taken on medium format 20 years ago, I predict APS-C sized sensors, and maybe even the 4/3rd sensors will improve to the point where their images will be better than todays full frame sensored cameras. I think the quality issue will be resolved by technology, not sensor size.
Tilden Katz 14 years ago
@LebronPhoto: you made a point. I think Olympus had good reasons choosing their form factor for the 4/3rds system.

This link gives some reading on recent advances in sensors.
LebronPhoto 14 years ago

I read that story regarding the Kodak Sensor. I think they have to get it to market before we will know if that is going to work as advertised. The foveon seems promising, but Sigma hasn't really been able to capitalize on the technology because Canon, Nikon and others are getting more out of their CCD and CMOS chips. The SD14 test I read compared the results to an 8MP camera not the 14 MP they claim. So there is a way to go, but technology will solve the problems without everyone having to go to Full Frame to resolve the noise and DR issues.
Axel Rietschin 14 years ago
I had a full frame, 8fps, 24MP Nikon with the best exposure meter and AF sensors to date for nearly two years already: my F6+MB40 and a CoolScan 5000ED ;-)
Andrew McKenna 14 years ago
I think there's another issue that people miss with Nikon dlsrs.
Forget for a minute about full frame sensors and go read every single review of the entire lineup.
Do you see the consistent negative points through the whole range?
Or rather lack of decent software you get with the camera.
I think sorting that problem out would win a hell of a lot of customers either back or over from other systems.
alterednate 14 years ago
LebronPhoto - I agree with you to some extent, however I wonder if there isn't some truth to the simple fact that in the end, size is a physical limitation. All of the technological improvements to an APS-C might get us farther than where current full-size sensors are, however the same improvements to a full-size sensor would, in the end, yield better results.
LebronPhoto 14 years ago

I agree, the issue is really at what cost and what level of quality becomes overkill. If you can get a high resolution/high quality 24-36 from an APS-C sensor at some point. with all noise and DR issues corrected, why would you pay for an FF sensor unless you are going to print larger. I'm not saying there will be no market for Full Frame. There is a market right now for it and for medium format D-SLRs, I think that will remain. But as the APS-C Sensors improve, many of the reasons some are craving for FF sensors and maybe even Medium Format sensors will go away and the market for those cameras will shrink. We saw it happen with 4X5, Medium format, etc. back in the film days.
crazyinthenight 14 years ago
About software: If I were Nikon, I would indeed give away the software bundled with the hardware. It would be a nice plus if you'd get a software to start with right out of the box (Capture). And then it's almost ridiculous that when you buy a camera for EUR 4000, you have to pay again for something like Camera Control. (A piece of software a trainee could put together in a few days...)

My attempt is probably naive from a business point of view, but I never get why major companies do not try to satisfy customers.
LightsCameraAction Posted 14 years ago. Edited by LightsCameraAction (member) 14 years ago
@Crazyinthenight, its fairly simple really - money. Nikon get a fair bit of revenue from their software, so they either have to ditch that revenue or increase the price of the cameras. And people that already have the s/w (or don't want it) won't want to pay twice for it if it were included in the camera body.
Axel Rietschin 14 years ago
@alterednate: agreed. Small sensors are just stopgaps, until the technology catches up and is able to produce full frame sensors at viable cost.
LebronPhoto 14 years ago
It will be interesting to revisit this a few years down the line and see what we are using. Smaller sensors or full frame 35mm size sensors or maybe medium format sensors. Somehow, given the way I've seen computer technology evolve, and this is closer to that, than it is to film, I think the smaller sensors will prevail, not only because of the cost of producing the sensors, but because you can also make smaller lenses and smaller cameras. There are savings to be had there too. From a business standpoint, looking at reducing costs over the long term, the smaller sensor makes sense even if you can make the larger one less expensive than it is today. The smaller sensor will always be cheaper which = more profit.
excited sun [deleted] 14 years ago
There is nothing magical about full frame IMO... just the arbitrary size standard of film SLRs. I pretty much agree with LebronPhoto's statement... "I think the quality issue will be resolved by technology, not sensor size." In fact, I bet $1300 on it just yesterday and purchased a 17-55mm f2.8. Will there be more FF sensors??? No doubt but I just don't think they will necessarily be the holy grail of high quality DSLRs.
weiran 14 years ago
When you have a 10MP DX sensor, and 10MP FF sensor, the FF will ALWAYS will no matter what the technology is, because there is always less noise in a full frame sensor with bigger pixels. I don't see us finding technology that gets rid of sensor noise any time soon.

FF also gives you more control over DOF, a 30mm DX lens will always give less DOF than a 50mm FF lens (both of which have the same FOV).
MerlinsMan Posted 14 years ago. Edited by MerlinsMan (member) 14 years ago
I think you will see this issue resolved in the next 2 months or so. The thing is: an $8000 FF DSLR with built-in software to correct lens aberrations will give Nikon back the pro end bragging rights but how much difference will it make to the rest of us?

Have to hope some of that technology will trickle down to the prosumer level eventually.
LebronPhoto Posted 14 years ago. Edited by LebronPhoto (member) 14 years ago
I think most of us understand that all things being equal, the FF sensor wins in terms of quality. The question really is how much quality is enough. I don't see people here clamoring for Nikon to make a Medium format sensored camera

Currently, the quality of DX sensors is good enough for most people, (including many professionals) to use and not pay the extra money for the full frame models from Canon.

At some point, as technology makes sensors better, the level of quality will satisfy more people and I see less need for the Full Frame. Will larger sensors always be better? Probably. In fact very likely. Will people move to the better larger sensors when smaller sensors will give them better quality than they have today at a lower cost? probably not. That's my point. If I can have a D200 with better noise reduction and DR. and if that fix could come with a slightly higher resolution, there is no need to switch to full frame.

As for lenses, DOF, etc. Pros have used medium format (and even large format) for years and the dynamics of those lenses are different than on 35mm. So you really have to look at the range of the lenses the same as when you look at cameras that used different film sizes. 50mm is the normal lens on a 35mm camera, on a medium format, it's usually an 80, on an APS-C camera its a 30 or 35mm. You just have to look at it like it's a different film sized camera.

Like I said, lets revisit this a few years down the line and we'll see where we are. Maybe the admins can put "Predictions" on the main group page and we can see who is right and wrong when the time comes.
Tilden Katz 14 years ago
@LebronPhoto: I see it similar like you. Nikons strategy will probably center around the DX sized sensor.

As far as I understand it, the DX format (or even smaller sensors like in the 4/3rds standard) present a sweet spot in the cost-performance of the whole system. For a photographer the sensor alone is useless. We can only work with a complete tool that includes optical glass, mechanics, sensor, signal processing and storage. All of this must be combined into what we call a camera.

No argument that a larger sensor presents a different point on the sensitivity-resolution plane. But it comes at higher cost, which affects the whole system. Larger image circle introduces border resolution and vignetting issues, afffects the lens mount and mirror box size and so on and so on.

So I wouldn't bet on a FF Nikon to appear any time soon.
excited sun [deleted] Posted 14 years ago. Edited by excited sun (member) 14 years ago
As Weiran says... "When you have a 10MP DX sensor, and 10MP FF sensor, the FF will ALWAYS win no matter what the technology is"... this is true enough but with that said, why stop at FF? Bigger is always better is one way of looking at it I suppose. Returning to FF will make long telephoto lens photography more expensive... last I looked, high quality long lens costs are astronomical... good ultra-wide angle glass (the other side of the equation) is pricey too but nowhere near the cost of the ultra-long lens. I hope technological advances will render the DX format to a level of quality that all can live with and I think that is possible (don't know enough about it but perhaps the new Kodak efforts will have some merit).
excited sun [deleted] Posted 14 years ago. Edited by excited sun (member) 14 years ago
As Weiran says... "When you have a 10MP DX sensor, and 10MP FF sensor, the FF will ALWAYS win no matter what the technology is"... this is true enough but with that said, why stop at FF? Bigger is always better is one way of looking at it I suppose. Returning to FF will make long telephoto lens photography more expensive... last I looked, high quality long lens costs are astronomical... good ultra-wide angle glass (the other side of the equation) is pricey too but nowhere near the cost of the ultra-long lens. I hope technological advances will render the DX format to a level of quality that all can live with and I think that is possible (don't know enough about it but perhaps the new Kodak efforts will have some merit).
(1 to 100 of 175 replies)
Groups Beta