Share
(101 to 175 of 175 replies)
Sticky 

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.
2
(101 to 175 of 175 replies)
LightsCameraAction 14 years ago
@knips_r @LebronPhoto - I agree completely that the future for Nikon is DX. The question is whether they can resist the temptation to compete with Canon for high-def Pro photographers in the short-term.
LebronPhoto Posted 14 years ago. Edited by LebronPhoto (member) 14 years ago
It wouldn't surprise me too much if Nikon comes out with a full size sensor until the time the DX sensor can satisfy most of it's critics at a lower price. But I think the long term strategy will be DX (APS-C sized) sensors. The FF 35mm and Medium formats will probably stay out there for those needing the extra resolution and willing to pay the price. But the rules of supply and demand dictate that as APS-C sensor get better and demand for Full Frame sensors drop, the cost of the cameras will also rise and at some point, manufacturers may choose to eliminate them in order to meet demand for the more profitable DX cameras.
tracer.ca 14 years ago
LebronPhoto :

DOF. The larger the sensor, the more DOF control you have.

It's not about quality, or resolution (at least for me).

It's about Low Light performance and DOF.
A Full 35mm sensor at the same resolution as a DX size sensor will always have lower noise (physics). It will also have a shallower DOF (also physics).

As with 35mm film before it. DX is the new 35mm. The Cost of 35mm is what made it the mass consumer format over medium. Same with DX. FF is the new Medium format (for that price point anyways, Medium format digital is just silly expensive right now :)

The other reason I like the idea of a 35mm sensor is wide and fast lenses. Now this doesn't have anything to do with the sensor size. However, because Nikon et all chose to keep the film plane to mount distance the same, while reducing the sensor size. Getting wide AND fast lenses becomes more difficult. I want my 14mm f/2.8 and 17-35mm f/2.8D to be a full 35mm FOV. Their digital counterparts just don't cut it.
brnpttmn 14 years ago
I agree with tracer. I also think the sensor size debate thing gets dichotomized in an either or argument when everyone should be looking at it as "the more sizes the merrier." I hope nikon puts out a full frame. I also hope they put out a 1.25 crop. None of these formats is going away any time soon, they'll just fit themselves in to different markets.
MerlinsMan 14 years ago
I also agree with tracer - wide angle performance is the main thing that would attract me to FF (if I could afford it). The 17-35 f/2.8 is a superb lens and it would be so nice if it functioned as a really wide angle lens as it does on FF Nikons. Ditto the 14mm.

And wouldn't it be great if Nikon produced a 24mm f/1.4 as Canon does. Think of that on a FF camera. Maybe the D3 will prompt the release of some new technology wide angle primes from Nikon.
jazzmoose 14 years ago
axelr
nice post : )
LebronPhoto Posted 14 years ago. Edited by LebronPhoto (member) 14 years ago
I don't disagree that there will be a market for Full Frame. Heck, there are people who use film medium format (as I did), 4 X 5s, 5 X7s and even larger cameras. All have their own very good reasons to stick with what they do. I just think it will be a bit selective and expensive and that most pros will choose to stick to the crop sensors, especially if quality improves. At some point, Nikon and the others will have to start providing more pro quality, fast lenses for these cameras also. But ultimately, they will be the dominant camera out there. As for the future of full frame, as with everything, how many camera manufacturers make 4X5s now versus 70 or 80 years ago? How many make medium format now versus 40 or 50 or 60 years ago? How many even make 35mm versus 10-20 years ago? As DX quality gets better and demand increases for it, manufacturers will make choices and I believe the choices for FF will be few as they are today. I don't see Nikon or anyone offering a full line of Full Frame cameras, just a model or two to satisfy the smaller market of folks that demand it and are willing to pay for it. After 30 years in Photography, I probably know nothing about cameras, but I can base my predictions strictly on my business experience and education. Business are there to make money. You make money when you can sell a lot of product at a good price, manufactured inexpensively. Sometimes you have to cater to smaller markets for the purpose of prestige, even if you make less money, but not with a full line of product. I don't expect those products to be within the same price range as the D200.

Why hasn't Nikon jumped on the FF wagon yet with an antire line, or at least 2 FF cameras? Why have they not embraced other formats with 1.2 or 1.3 crop? Probably for the same reason auto manufacturers use common platforms, engines and transmissions in their vehicles. It makes manufacturing them more efficient and cost effective.

BTW Tracer, you seem to be doing a pretty good job with the camera you have now. Imagine improved DR, resolution, noise, and maybe some faster primes designed specifically for the DX sensored cameras.
Axel Rietschin 14 years ago
Why stop at FF? Eh, maybe because there are million over millions of FF lenses and accessories out there. Enlarging the sensor further would make all those obsolete.

One more thing to the debate:

10MP on DX (i.e. 1.5x) sensor means that your are diffraction-limited at around f/8. Everything above that and you start to get diffraction blur no matter how sharp your lens is (i.e. at f/11, and a "1-pixel light spot" partially hits the 8 surrounding pixels because of diffraction and it gets worse and worse as you stop down further).

The effect of diffraction is a function of aperture, wavelength and the diaphragm-to-focal-plane distance. The smaller the sensor (and thus the denser the pixels) the more it affects you.

The thing about that is that no advances in sensor technology will ever cure this problem, the only way out is to use larger sensors if you want to be able to take sharp pics above f/8.

Nice reading here:

www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/diffraction-photograp...
LebronPhoto Posted 14 years ago. Edited by LebronPhoto (member) 14 years ago
I'll add the diffraction issue to the list of things someone said can only be fixed one way. This is especially funny in the context of Photography, especially when you consider all of the imperfections we correct through image processing in and out of the camera. I imagine that before King Kong, 1932 version, no one thought you can take a clay character and film him in a way that he looks larger than life. Those folks could not conceive the advances today in special effects. I was reading where a modern car has more computing power than the first spacecraft that went to the moon. Problems like this are resolved by people thinking outside the box (that are usually smarter and get paid more than us). So maybe there is no way to correct the actual physics of diffraction, but there may be a way to determine the amount of the diffraction and to correct the effects of it using image processing software in the camera. When I look at the things we have today and the things I had as a kid, I realize that I should never say never about what the future and technology will bring.
Computer Science Geek Posted 14 years ago. Edited by Computer Science Geek (member) 14 years ago
I want a voice-activated cell phone the size of a Star Trek NG insignia/communicator that clips to my chest pocket protector... :)
LebronPhoto 14 years ago
@Computer Science Geek,

LOL! You'll probably be able to get one of those at some point. Nokia, Samsung and Motorola have to cater to the demands of Trekkies.
excited sun [deleted] 14 years ago
Some good physics arguments for a larger format are made above... maybe 1.25, maybe FF is the size needed to make a quantum leap forward, maybe just a little larger yet than FF... who knows what the future brings. Looking back to VHS vs Beta, the decisions will likely not be made on a strictly technical basis. I am a bit of an audiophile and the present day popularity of MP3s combined with the low interest in formats with higher resolution than standard CDs is another reminder that not everyone will get what they want short of perhaps existing like the photographer shooting a 4x5 format has. Time will tell.
James Kaarremaa 14 years ago
There are limits to science. How far do you want to push something? The people that invent this stuff are brilliant but you can only go so far with a piece of technology before it needs to evolve.

Given the choice between a 4 cylinder engine and a 8 cylinder engine both have potential for high performance. You can push a 4 cylinder engine to 600 horsepower or more but it becomes quite complicated and reliability becomes an issue. Using an 8 cylinder you can easily push 600 horsepower and still have room for growth and reliability is much less of an issue until later.

@LebronPhoto: Comparing King Kong claymation to modern special effects is not really the same. Clay models are not used anymore, models were used but have become less common, CGI is mostly used now. This in essence is moving away from the original technology and embracing a new one. Sure it's all special effects but it's done with completely different technology because the original technology has been surpased. I'm sure current APS-C sensors can be pushed much further but a bigger sensor is inevitable to easily improve beyond the limits.
Axel Rietschin Posted 14 years ago. Edited by Axel Rietschin (member) 14 years ago
@LebronPhoto: I think you missed the part about the Rayleigh criterion in the article I pointed out. Here is a more detailed explanation for that specific part: hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/phyopt/raylei.html

The key words are: no, longer, resolvable.

So, yes, maybe the future will offer a solution to this problem, we'll see, but the short term solution to push the diffraction limit away, one that works fine and now, is to enlarge the sensor and use comparatively larger sensing elements.

DX will be dead the instant FF sensor's cost gets below a certain threshold and it becomes viable to manufacture mass market FF cameras. You say Nikon has not embarked in FF, well, it has certainly not embarked in DX either, with only a few consumer-oriented DX zooms in the lineup, and one single special-effect prime. Were is the 85 f/1.4 DX?, the 200 f/2G DX? the 300 f/2.8 DX? the 600 f/4 DX, those would be much ligher and cheaper but they are nowhere to be found. What about the rest of the 60+ Nikkor lenses? IMHO DX is a stopgap, just to have something so sell until the FFs gets viable. Time will tell (and according to the latest rumors we might find out as early as June 26...)
James Kaarremaa 14 years ago
@jak2photo: Luckily industries usually provide the tools to create the highest quality content it's the content they don't provide for some reason.
LebronPhoto Posted 14 years ago. Edited by LebronPhoto (member) 14 years ago
I'll put this very simply. Here's the current reality:

1. Most DSLRs sold have smaller than FF Sensors
2. FF and Medium format Sensors are available today to anyone willing to pay the price to get one.
3. FF and Medium format sensors may get cheaper to manufacture in time, but APS-C sensors will always be cheaper and the cameras they are in will be less expensive.
4. If sensors get better and cheaper, the APS-C Cameras will be even more attractive to users because they will be able to get better quality for less money, which they can put into lenses accessories etc.

I think there will be FF and Medium format cameras and there will be a market for them. i've said that clearly. However, they will always be more expensive than the smaller sensored cameras and the market for them will be smaller.

That's all I'll say on the subject. I'll revisit this topic sometime in the future if we are all still here in Flickr. Only time will solve this discussion.

BTW: Anyone think of the possibility that the sensor technology will be replaced by something totally different? Who thought in 1950 that film would be replaced by CCD and CMOS sensors (for most users, I know some people still use film) within the next 50 years?
thrillscience 14 years ago
You know why I want a lower-cost Full Frame DSLR? So I can get a round picture with a fisheye lens!
LebronPhoto 14 years ago
Wwoohhooooha! Let's get that done cheaply, we all need round pictures. Let's take over the country where Canon makes their Full Frame DSLR-s, turn it into a communist state, nationalize the factory, and sell the cameras to folks at cost. LOL!

If anybody wants Full Frame 35mm or Medium Format cheap, it's here today......film. Other than that, be prepared to pay twice as much as DX or more for Digital.
plastic mass [deleted] 14 years ago
I expect the same breakthroughs in sensor technology that we have seen in other kinds of digital technology, such as RAM, CPU speed, CPU density, hard drive capacity. First first hard drive in 1986 was 5 MEGABYTES and was the size of a large phone book which attached to my Apple IIe with an enormous cable. I just loaded my new MacPro with four 750 GIGABYTE drives, each the size of a small paperback. I can't imagine similar manufacturing breakthroughs won't be applied to sensors, which are used in a lot more than just DSLRs. We could even see entirely new light capturing technologies with far greater sensitivity. Even film evolved over time. I can remember when Kodachrome had an ISO of 16. By the time it was phased out there was a 200 ISO version that was far better. Incidentally, for all the folks complaining about "noisy" 1,600 ISO images, there was a time not long ago when many pros limited themselves to shooting only Velvia rated at ISO 60. I love technological progress!
auspicious stream [deleted] 14 years ago
I heard once that if automobiles had followed the same price / feature/ performance curve that computers have... a Chevy would now cost 6 cents and the only thing a mechanic could do, would be to open and close windows...

If all that comes true and I'm still around in 20 years... you should be able to get a "life size frame" sensor nikon for a few bucks... I just hope I'll be able to sell my "Vintage" d200 on ebay for enough to buy one... for now, I'm happy...enough.

Hoping to kill this thread...

Cheers!

Jeff
Brentan. 14 years ago
If they were to go with a FF camera, I think there may be some angry people who paid good money for some expensive DX glass. just to turn around and have it rendered useless if they want to Upgrade. Alot of Nikon's older glass would work on it, But alot of the older stuff doesn't have silent wave technology.

Nikon would really have its work cut out for it trying to revamp their lens lineup to match their supposed new FF sensor.

All those proud owners of the 17-55 F/2.8 will have some Sweet looking paper weights for their desks : P
brnpttmn 14 years ago
it rendered useless if they want to Upgrade


I'd imagine any FF Nikon camera would have a crop mode to accommodate the one professional DX lens Nikon has produced.
TinyTitian 14 years ago
Its not just about the model of lenses, its the volume of sales.

Over the last few yrs, the majority of the market has being pushed with a DX sized glass. While a crop mode will be great, the main problem would be the reduction of pixels. The shot would simply loose so much.

I would be more in favor of a Adaptor tube that changes the DX to full frame mode to ship with the body, that would be the best solution.
DSP (Digital Soft Paw) 14 years ago
@cosmic_jesus --

"I'd imagine any FF Nikon camera would have a crop mode to accommodate the one professional DX lens Nikon has produced."


Clearly you must be referring to the world famous and sought after 18-200mm VR?

.
crazyinthenight 14 years ago
Haha. There won't be FF by Nikon... As they don't want to disappoint their loyal 18-200mm VR power users.
tychay 14 years ago
Here is my take. Although it is half a year old, It hasn't changed.

In general if you want quality then you are already making a compromise in sharpness by buying a FF lens. There is really no 35mm lens on the market that is designed for a FF digital sensor so the vignetting on them is quite severe. I mean look at an unprocessed shot from a 5D sometime… the vignetting is obvious at a glance.

I'm not saying there aren't advantages to "full frame" I just find it ironic that on one breath some people are claiming about "full frame quality" and in the same breath they're talking about how "price is no object."

I keep thinking, dude, you can get a Mayima MF kit for $10 that will blow it away.

@larrygerbrandt : Full frame sensors will not get cheaper at the rates people imagine. Why? We are talking about increasing sensor size not sensor density. Big difference!

@Brent Shawn: No, that's true for Canon EF-S. As others have pointed out, Nikon already has a hi speed crop mode in the D2X, there is nothing preventing them making one for a FF Nikon that would have an APS-C crop. I suspect (but don't know) that the smaller register distance in Canon EF-S is why the Canon 10-22mm and 17-55mm IS are better than their Nikon counterparts. Of course, that makes the lens absolutely worthless on anything but a 20D, 30D, and Rebel, XT, XTi.

@crazyinthenight: If FF Nikon is economically viable, Nikon would come out with it. Your argument is an argument against a sensor stabilized Nikon body, than it is against a FF Nikon.
crazyinthenight 14 years ago
@tychay: just kidding
Axel Rietschin Posted 14 years ago. Edited by Axel Rietschin (member) 14 years ago
18-200mm VR f/3.5-5.6 is a consumer lens, like most of the (few) other DX lenses. The "majority of the market" is not a handful of 3.5(or 4.5)-5.6 zooms and a DX crop mode would offer a nice upgrade path. Heck, Canon changed the lens mount a half dozen times and as a result, they just sold more lenses. Here we are talking about reduced functionality for a handful of low-cost lenses. If Nikon comes up with a FF camera and you own one such DX lenses, just stick with your current body, it won't magically cease to work overnight.

IMHO, a few years from now, DX / APS-C will just be distant memories, just like the first generation of 2.6x crop factor sensors are long forgotten nowadays.

@tychay: The Canon FF vignetting is a sensor problem, not a lens problem. When the sensor is a 35mm film no such vignetting exists with the very same lens (well, I don't really know about Canon lenses anyway, but none of my Nikkor primes exhibit any level of visible vignetting). When the sensing elements are moved closer to the surface of the sensor, and/or the microlenses are improved, the fading will be reduced. Whathever remains can be corrected in software in the camera.

All other things being equal, a larger, less dense sensor is automatically sharper as it's less sensitive to diffraction.
brnpttmn 14 years ago
Wouldn't Nikon's longer distance between lens and sensor potential help the light falloff issue?
tychay Posted 14 years ago. Edited by tychay (member) 14 years ago
@axelr: Want to bet a case of beer on APS-C being a "distant memory" s in three years? If you bothered to read what I wrote you’d see why this is unlikely—even Canon’s engineering/marketing documents don’t predict this.

It is a lens problem because 35mm lens design does not consider the angle of the primary rays. If it is a sensor problem, it is a problem with all sensors. Simply put, digital sensors are thick and will always be thick because of three factors: the need to put a hotmirror to cut off IR sensitvity, the need to put a bayer filter, the need to put a microlens to focus light on the photosensitive part of the sensor. The last part goes double for CMOS sensors which will be replacing CCD.

The improvement of the microlenses you are implying is the tilting of the microlens which is a Kodak patented technology. All I have to say is that it mitigates the problem it doesn't solve it.

As for why you Nikon doesn’t vignette it's because you're using them on an APS-C body or using them on a film body.

Just go rent a Canon 5D and some lenses (even L lenses) and shoot it. Open it in Photoshop or in Preview and you’ll see the vignetting. It is obvious and severe. Vignetting means a loss of contrast on the edges and contrast means a loss of sharpness. That’s simple physics.

I’m not saying that there aren't advantages to full frame. I’m saying that you can’t have your cake and eat it too.

And no, a less sensor density is not necessarily "sharper". If you are near the nyquist limit of the sensor then obviously the denser sensor is automatically sharper. Whether or not the lens can resolve that sharpness is another issue. I have no doubt a stopped down prime with mirror lock up on a stable tripod looked at the center of the frame shot in good lighting at low ISO will hit the sampling limit. The fact that every test on dpreview can measure this is proof of that.

By the way if you look at my photostream, you’ll notice that I really don’t care much about sharpness near the edges, but I’m arguing facts, not artistic preferences here.
It’s all about the Jacksons
Axel Rietschin Posted 14 years ago. Edited by Axel Rietschin (member) 14 years ago
@tychay:

I never said three years, but DX/APS-C will get forgotten. It's just a matter of time.

As for why you Nikon doesn’t vignette it's because you're using them on an APS-C body or using them on a film body.

That's what I'm saying ;-) Strictly a sensor problem, more specifically a Canon FF sensor problem. Film has no big issue with rays coming at an angle, but current Canon FF sensors do, due to their current physical construction. Expect improvements in that area, from Canon and other manufacturers.

less sensor density is not necessarily "sharper".

Less dense and larger helps push the diffraction limit away. 10MP sensors in APS format hits that limit at f/8. Larger sensors (and film) suffer less.

nyquist limit? I'm not sure what you are referring to. Digital camera's sensors do not sample the lightwaves as far as I know, maybe I'm missing something?

I'm refering to the diffraction limit... something to do with what happen to light rays when they pass through a hole, and how much of that effect you can tolerate before your image cannot be considered sharp anymore.
tracer.ca 14 years ago
larrygerbrandt :

Using the Compute analogy with Cameras is kind of apples to organges.

Computers got Cheaper and Faster because they also got SMALLER! (remember, this is what we're talking about here, size).

BrentShawn :

Show me one lens out now from Nikon that doesn't have an equivalent FF version except for the 18-200mm (which I would hardly call an expensive piece of glass, or good one for that matter)

DSP (Digital Soft Paw)

hehe... :)

tychay :

There is really no 35mm lens on the market that is designed for a FF digital sensor so the vignetting on them is quite severe.

Actually, the 17-35mm Nikkor was built with Digital in mind.
In fact, mounted on a Canon 5D, it's performance is stellar!.
Poke around that site, you'd be surprised.

digital sensors are thick and will always be thick

Well yes, but this is technology we're talking about. Who knows what the future has in store.
TinyTitian 14 years ago
Well we will know who is right in the next few days....

Even if they move to FF, I can still shoot with my D200, I only got to be careful with Wide angel and Fish eye.

But I expect the price of those lenses to drop like a rock if Nikon annouces a FF sensor.
Letsemgo 14 years ago
Here ya all go..Its no secret. Just a matter of when?? Hope you have the cash!!!

www.photographybay.com/?p=33
crazyinthenight 14 years ago
I don't care a lot about all these rumors. You can find them about any time and they show that people are either not reliable or just make fun of others telling nonsense.

It's for sure that there will be something like a D3, and it's also pretty much expected to see a "35mm sensor" sooner or later. But then you can find "reliable" statements on the net a year old which announced this to happen soon.
Julie Edwards Uk 14 years ago
I think this debate is similar to the 35mm vs Medium format etc etc. IE. we are now debating digital formats.

Its interesting to hear what you all want out of FF and the reasons for it. IMO FF has to deliver BOTH less noise AND more pixels (as with MF vs 35mm). If it does not deliver both, why pay the increased cost for lenses etc. (In fact only one of my good lens is DX format anyway).

The improvement must also be VERY significant. i.e.: To me a lower noise FF 10MP sensor is just not worth the cost, but a 20MP ......

If it does not deliver greater resolution (pixels) then it still has a quality limit for publication. Noise? I would like to know for how many the noise on the current DX sensors is really an issue and at what ratings.

Ok, I have limited knowledge of the technical aspects of sensors, all I know is what I need as an end product that the client will pay for vs the kit needed to achieve that so my comments are from this view point.
Brentan. 14 years ago
I agree that its a tad bit ridiculous to think that in the next couple of years everyone will be able to buy FF cameras for for under a grand. I doubt we would ever see FF Rebels because that would make Canons pro lineup pointless to a degree. Plus, as FF sensors become less expensive to produce, So do the smaller cropped sensors that We are all accustomed too. So Naturally either brand would continue to put crop sensors into their consumer bodies. I doubt that Canon users who are waiting for a replacement to the 30D (they are referring to a 40D) I think they will be unpleasantly surprised to see that it too will be a cropped sensor.

I believe that cropped sensor technology is good enough to appease the masses and cheap enough to attract buyers. FF cameras are really only appealing to pros or consumers who read about em in magazines. I think its more tech lust than it is a matter of actually needing FF sensors.....
TinyTitian 14 years ago
Sounds like a reasonable assumption.

When we get a 25 mp camera with FF, the smaller frame may be 16 to 18mp by then.

I mean 10 Mp is more than enough for at least 80% of us here. We can print up to A3 without too much problems.
Axel Rietschin Posted 14 years ago. Edited by Axel Rietschin (member) 14 years ago
I print up to 50x75 (20"x30") from my 4.1MP D2Hs (e.g. the image below), so the pixel count is not really an issue. I just don't see the need for 20MP, but maybe it's just me? I want FF so my 18mm is a 18mm again, and my 300 a 300. To me a "double" LBCAST with something like 8.2MP would be absolutely great.

Siłek The Cat
judsonc 14 years ago
more megapixels means a lot more photoshopping---every correction throws away pixels... i'd rather be able to go nuts with correecting things and have pixel room to spare

especially since i generally suck at taking pictures
tracer.ca Posted 14 years ago. Edited by tracer.ca (member) 14 years ago
judsonc :

<_<

I have no idea what you are talking about

>_>
judsonc 14 years ago
haha... basically, its not all about how large a print you can make, if you're correcting, say, for distortion, or sampling one area to replace another, it helps to have MORE pixels...

i didn't read all the posts, its 102 degrees in my room/office right now
Axel Rietschin 14 years ago
judsonc: every correction throws away pixels:

Not really. What you need is more bit depth so the rounding errors have less impact on your dynamic. Newer file format (like HD-Photo) supports up to 32-bit per color channel + alpha, i.e. 128 bits per pixel, for extended dynamic range. The idea is to perform all the transformations in "wide pixels", then convert to the usual 24-bit RGB as the very last step of the process. I don't know what image editor currently supports those pixel formats, CS3 goes up to 16-bit / channel if I recall correctly.
judsonc 14 years ago
i understand the physics of it... but i've always been able to do more/ get away with more/ with a larger (pixel dim) file...

cs3 does 32bit
KestrelYI 14 years ago
But photoshop isn't really photography now is it ;)
LebronPhoto Posted 14 years ago. Edited by LebronPhoto (member) 14 years ago
Why isn't Photoshop photography?

To me, Photoshop and other editing software represent the digital darkroom. Just a technologically more advanced way of processing your images. IF you don't see it that way, then you would have to consider digital photography the equivalent of instant photography where everything is done in the camera. The problem with that is that at least you had a print in the end. With digital you don't until you use a computer to make the print. Hence, Computer, Photoshop, printer = Darkroom.
KestrelYI 14 years ago
Point being that many tend to go beyond what is possible in the darkroom let alone actual reality... I'd consider it digital art but not photography.
judsonc 14 years ago
oh god who cares

if photography is a hobby--then why should it matter if you use photoshop or not

if photography is a business--- you damn well better be able to compete with those knowing photoshop :)

if photography is the manifestation of your pretention---you might hate photoshop....
LebronPhoto 14 years ago
@kestrelyi,

I remember doing double exposures and many of the things done in photoshop today (I worked as a lab technician in a pro lab). I also recall seeing a photo of a car driving into a pool in a magazine. That wasn't real and was done using the darkroom. That was still photography and photography is also art. It doesn't have to be a static recording of a scene. Photoshop is just another tool to facilitate our interpretation of the scene we are recording.
MOD
Tilden Katz Posted 14 years ago. Edited by Tilden Katz (moderator) 14 years ago
Anyone saying a photograph shows reality, does not have the slightest idea about photography. A photograph represents a series of decisions the photographer has drawn to record his/her view of what he/she felt in the moment of capture. Photoshop may be one - albeit powerful - step in this process, just like shutter speed or ISO choice.

The point that kestrelyi brings up I think is about pictures were the expression is lost due to excessive editing. Some badly constructed HDR shots with overly poppy colors come to my mind. When we can relate to the emotion expressed in an image, the picture is right, whether or not it was heavily edited during post-processing.

[edited for typos]
Axel Rietschin 14 years ago
@judsonc: cs3 does 32bit

Great. Do all edits in 32-bit/channel then. You can try HDPhoto from CS3, too:

www.microsoft.com/downloads/details.aspx?FamilyID=b157ca0...
judsonc 14 years ago
i can't even find a power button on a windows system
ive been with apple since the I I c

i still dont know what hdphoto is
anything like it for mac?
Axel Rietschin Posted 14 years ago. Edited by Axel Rietschin (member) 14 years ago
@judsonc: hdphoto is an all-emcompassing format that can do lossy and lossless compression and store all bit depths, in short, the ACME of image file formats. Its lossy compression algo creates much (I mean much) smaller files than JPEG, i.e. a 15MB JPEG weights between 3 and 7MB in hdphoto, without any visible difference in quality. I've tried it on several images including huge and professionally taken EOS 1Ds MkII pictures that I found on the Canon website and the result is simply incredible. There will certainly be a Mac implementation soon, I also suspect that camera manufacturers might be very interested in storing at least twice as much images within the same storage capacity.
RBerteig 14 years ago
HDPhoto is another pixel container format, along with some codecs that come out of Microsoft's research group. It also supports several existing codecs.

I'm not entirely clear why the word needs another container for pixels... we already have TIFF and PNG which are both pretty general and support lots of codecs officially and are also extensible in various ways. The open raw file format DNG is based on TIFF, for instance.

The HDPhoto marketing hype I've seen also talks about non-destructive edits like it is something brand new and invented by MS, which is hardly the case at all. Adobe Lightroom does the same thing, and although they are proud of the feature, they hardly claim it to be revolutionary.

If HDPhoto does have a place in the workflow, it is as a public standard to serve the niches that are now served by PSD (Photoshop) files. I don't see it replacing proprietary RAW files in cameras. And I don't see it replacing JFIF (JPG) files mandated by DCF and EXIF in cameras either. And the web really doesn't need more ways for browsers to display pixels... just look around for JPEG2000 images... or look at how unsuccessful PNG was at repacing GIF.
Axel Rietschin 14 years ago
I don't know about the non-destructive edits you mention. I got a grand total of 3 Google hits for HDPhoto non-desctuctive edits so you must be refering to something else. HDPhoto has you said is an image file format, I have the spec in front of me right now and it says nothing about image editing.

From Chapter 1:

1.1 Objectives for Introducing a New Still Image Format
Today’s file formats for continuous tone images present many limitations in maintaining the highest image quality or delivering the most optimal system performance. HD Photo was designed to remove these limitations. The design objectives include:
• High performance, embedded system friendly compression
- Small memory footprint
- Simple, integer-only operations (no divides)
• Industry-leading compression quality
• Lossless or lossy compression using the same algorithm
• Support a very wide range of pixel formats:
- Monochrome, RGB, CMYK or n-Channel image representation
- 8 or 16-bit unsigned integer
- 16 or 32-bit signed integer
- 16 or 32-bit floating point
- Several packed bit formats
-- 1bpc monochrome
-- 5 or 10bpc RGB
-- RGBE Radiance
• Simple, extensible TIFF-like container structure
• Planar or interleaved alpha channel
• Embedded ICC Profile
• EXIF and XMP metadata

HD Photo is the only format that offers high dynamic range image encoding, lossless or lossy compression, multiple color formats, and performance that enables practical in-device implementation.


HDPhoto (the codec) offers unprecedent compression vs. quality and this is not mere allegations or marketing hype, as you put it. The codecs were released months ago, along wich a CS2/CS3 plug-in so it's easy to verify for yourself as I did, if you have Photoshop and Windows.

That said it would be foolish to assume that MS just came out with a new format all on their own, without first talking to the industry. Also note the emphasis on embedded systems friendliness, put at the top if their design objectives. Time will tell.
Barry Pearson 14 years ago
Microsoft are clearly promoting HD Photo as an alternative to JPEG (and possibly JPEG2000 too).

They believe it should be offered as an option in-camera, and have been talking to chip-developers in the expectations that there will be offerings next year for support in-camera after that.

The novelty for HD Photo is really the compression technique, (which, by setting a suitable value, can also be lossless). The compression is designed to be computationally-efficient in-camera. But it can also use floating point to give a lot of head room.

The overall file structure is TIFF-like, and it supports EXIF and XMP metadata.

I am tracking it at:
www.barrypearson.co.uk/articles/hdp/
robust powder [deleted] 14 years ago
Isn't one of the main reasons that Microsoft wants an alternative to JPEG is because of the license fees they and everyone else have to pay to Forgent Networks.
tychay Posted 14 years ago. Edited by tychay (member) 14 years ago
@crazyinthenight: My bad. Sorry!

@axelr:
Here was the quote: “IMHO, a few years from now, DX / APS-C will just be distant memories, just like the first generation of 2.6x crop factor sensors are long forgotten nowadays.” The case of beer bet still stands if you or anyone is open to it. I guess you must have been meaning something else when you wrote that.

As for Nyquist limit. Just look it up. I understand what you’re talking about with diffraction when things are shot very stopped down, but at the extreme level (e.g. acuity or "resolution"), sharpness is also a function of the sensor, just like it would be a function of what type of film you shot.

@tracer.ca: Okay I'll buy that a lens that nobody I know uses might be digital 35mm specific. I'll even buy that "always" is too harsh a word. But as long as the photosensitive area on sensors is small, there will be microlenses and thus thick sensors. And that’s true for the foreseeable future.

@phototext: I believe Forgent gave up. They pretty much ruined their company suing other companies on a baseless patent claim.

My guess is Microsoft is doing this because that is what Microsoft does. They haven't woken up to the 21st century where people are on to that game. I wish them luck, but it’ll be easier to get manufacturers to adopt JPEG2000 than it will be for them to adopt HDPhoto which probably contains a bunch of buries patent traps on the algorithm. A few % isn't going to cut it as a file format.
Axel Rietschin 14 years ago
@tychay:

No, no, f-o-r-g-o-t-t-e-n, as in long gone and erased from memory.

Definitely, sharpness is also a function of the sensor, the point is APS-C @ 10MP limits you to f/8, not "very stopped down" but just 1 or 2 stops from wide open on consumer lenses. Higher APS-C resolutions (16MP, 20?) will inevitably lower the diffraction limit, to f/5.6 at least, maybe even f/4, clearly not acceptable at any rate. APS-C is a kludge and will be instantly displaced when cost-effective FF sensors appears.
judsonc 14 years ago
oknow that i know about hdphoto
aside from web work, we dont have to worry about file sizes
the future is not about low file sizes
its not about near lossless or lossless compression
its about no compression

using camera raw as far along as possible in the processing is the key
Brett F 14 years ago
Could it be this thread needs to be split into about 10 new ones? Full Frame Nikon doesn't really seem relevant anymore...
MOD
Tilden Katz 14 years ago
Guity, Sir. But I would argue this is an indicator for the relevance of a FF Nikon ... :-)

However, when discussing resolution limits, let's not forget that the size of the airy disc is foremost a function of the exit pupil size. So that the diffraction limit is not only determined by the f-stop number.
aak97 14 years ago
I think Nikon might have something even BETTER than a Full Frame body. Canon already did FF years ago, knowing Nikon, they're gonna 1up Canon.

What would be cooler than a Full Frame body? 3CCD/CMOS body :) Just like those camcorders, one sensor each for R,G and B. With 3CCDs you can have higher sensitivity , no more brayer filter crap and 3x the resolution (marketing). The only problem is to make it fit in a decent size body and work with existing DX lenses.
tracer.ca 14 years ago
aak97 :

You mean the Foveon sensor.?

tychay :

That lens nobody you know uses is one of one of the best nikon has ever made. And wide angle is the issue. Telephoto lenses aren't as affected by the telecentricity issue.

"But as long as the photosensitive area on sensors is small, there will be micro lenses and thus thick sensors. And that’s true for the foreseeable future."

Err. You mean microlenses for larger sensors. DX sensors don't have microlenses do they? (I really don't know)...
aak97 14 years ago
tracer.ca:

not really. Foveon seems more like a hype, review has been quite poor.
Letsemgo 14 years ago
Wow!! All this talk goin on over an $8000.00 camera. I better keep buying lenses for when an under $1-1500.00 full frame camera comes out :)
tracer.ca 14 years ago
aak97 :

What are you referring to then? It's three sensors with no bayer pattern.

Letsemgo :

How long ago was it that people talked about DSLRs as some distance future. Keep in mind that lenses last much longer than a DSLR body does.
aak97 14 years ago
tracer.ca:
I'm referring to what high end camcorder uses. 3 separate CCDs and using a prism to split light on to them. Camcorders with 3CCD has been producing much better IQ even in low light compare to single CCD/CMOS camcorders.
jazzmoose 14 years ago
The D300 (or whatever) will be interesting if it ever comes out.
Do you think Nikon are back to the drawing board since the Fuji S5 pro came out?
R Landry 14 years ago
they never left the drawing board
NTconcepts 14 years ago
I just got my new FF nikon....... funny it says Canon on it.

*Neil peeks out from behind cover* ; )
Operative216 14 years ago
Do we really need a full frame sensor or do we just need a better sensor? Nikon does make some really nice DX lenses, 12-24, 17-55, 10.5 Fisheye.... The Sensor in the S5 pro is still concidered an APSC sized sensor, the dynamic range and noise handling isn't bad at all. I think the idea of keeping up with the Jonses (Sensor size) is silly, all Nikon really needs to do is build a better DX sensor and offer a few fast DX primes. Also there are way too many discussions on the next new toy and not enough about what we are doing with the toys we have.
Дон Андре 14 years ago
The FF debate becomes pretty irrelevant once Nikon releases a body that half of us find too expensive and the other half brags about how cool it is... While still the Photoshoppers get all the comments and favourites.

You shouldn't be asking for FF cameras, you should ask for a new version of Photoshop that features the "Awesomize" button (I guess that's what most of you want anyway).

I predict that camera technology is not the future hot topic. Sure they'll get better and such, but eventually post processing has a lot more potential for a lot cheaper price. The influence of the camera output towards the final picture will degrade over time. It just has to be that way, think about it: Anybody with a DSLR can shoot pictures like a Pro currently and the only thing where the Pro really shines is in Photoshop and that's time consuming -> it's less for people who dedicate their time working at something else.

Post processing is the really cool thing. Several of you already decide to diss the noise reduction algorithm of the camera and use NeatImage or NoiseNinja, you shoot RAW because you're not satisfied with the JPEG output, you want more and more control and PP is the only thing that will give you exactly that. FF will only go so far, PP has (almost) no limits. Take DOF: I think what cameras will serve us in the future is depth information of each pixel, so you can in PP define the amount of background blur and DOF that you'd like to have. You shoot everything at f/16 and get portraits as if shot at f/1.4 where you can place the focal point exactly where you wish _in post production_! How cool would that be for a change!?
robust powder [deleted] 14 years ago
"The FF debate becomes pretty irrelevant once Nikon releases a body that half of us find too expensive and the other half brags about how cool it is... While still the Photoshoppers get all the comments and favourites."

Too true.

And you don't need full frame to shoot sunsets and kittens. :-)

But, although it would be something out of my price range for a while, cutting edge tech eventually trickles down to the poor plebs like me, maybe in ten years time.....
brnpttmn 14 years ago
I just got my new FF nikon....... funny it says Canon on it.

...mine says FM3a on it.


...so you can in PP define the amount of background blur and DOF that you'd like to have. You shoot everything at f/16....

*shudders*
2
(101 to 175 of 175 replies)
Groups Beta