Full 24 x 36 frame

[accardo]

Its along time I keep waiting for a Nikon full frame 24 x 36 mm digital body.
Nikon increases the number of lenses for smaller sensors and there is no sign of an answer to owners of their traditional 24 x 36 mm capable lenses.
Canon has the answer and the quality but the migration means a big asset loss to Nikon lenses owners.
We all know that it is not a matter of pixels or resolution and that DOF control is important for creative photographers. Larger sensors will always be required as much as larger film formats have been.
I'm very close to give up the Nikon brand, taking the expensive move to Canon. And I would do that with some hard feelings about Nikon's silence on this important issue.
Any reason to delay my decision?

Accardo

[DarkPenguin]

You're better off trying the dpreview.com boards.  See if Thom Hogan has posted any speculation.

What is your time horizon?

[accardo]

You're better off trying the dpreview.com boards.  See if Thom Hogan has posted any speculation.

What is your time horizon?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=58127\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Thanks.
I will look for Thom Hogan's news.
I wish to move into full frame 24 x 36 by this yearend. If by that time there is a good reason to give Nikon a few more months, I may do it as well.
Writing-off expensive and high quality lenses is painful.

[bob mccarthy]

Why is FF so important. It should be the final print. There are advantages and disadvantages to both FF and DX but in the final print, they are very compariable when looking at prints side by side.

A few weekends past I had a personnal shoot, that put to rest, in my mind anyway, that my D2x was lacking in any way. I got around to printing yesterday the scans and Raw captures

I shot some snaps around the museum district with my F5/Velvia, Hass 500CM/Velvia and the D2x. Same boring brick,ivy,puffy clouds etc.

Ok, all issues are over with me. The 35mm Velvia was last and the D2x and Blad for all intents tied. When I laid out 16x24 prints on the conference table, everyone picked out the 35mm Velvia (even though they looked pretty good to me, just not as good). Everybody had the 2&1/4 and D2x prints up there noses looking for differences.

The digital files offered more DR than film and other issues were mapped out and I used a PS plug in that emulates various film types. The velvia one does a remarkable job at matching film Velvia, at least with this brief experience.

The grass is not greener on the other side. If you must have FF, buy a cheap Kodak and test the waters.  At iso100, the sony/nikon CMOS has the best pixels in photography IMO. I would kill (!!) to have a full frame version of this chip but then I'd be bitching about my lenses not keeping up.

If you want a world class portrait lens buy the old 58mm F1.2 asph and you will have an 85 equivalent with shallow DOF. My personnal reason for wanting FF is superwides, but no one offers a good solution "Yet".

Actually waiting with you, but there is no good solutions out there yet. Its all about new lenses we haven't seen yet.

For what its worth,

Bob

[BJL]

Its along time I keep waiting for a Nikon full frame 24 x 36 mm digital body.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=58112\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Nikon has said over and over again, in both words and deeds (high end lens and body releases) that it is dedicated to a single SLR format for digital, DX, just as Nikon, Canon, Leica, Olympus, Minolta etc. dedicated themselves to a single format for film, adopting the newer, smaller 35mm format instead of also offering medium format film cameras.

... there is no sign of an answer to owners of their traditional 24 x 36 mm capable lenses.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=58112\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

There are not only signs but answers from Nikon: a combination of
- DX for lenses reaching focal lengths of about 50mm and below
and
- 35mm format lenses for longer focal lengths, where there is little or no difference between optimum optical design for DX and optimum optical design for 35mm.
This combination seems to work quite well; well enough to make the D2X and D200 sell in good numbers, and presumably to fairly demanding photographers, given their prices.

Canon has the answer
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=58112\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Yes, if you want 24x36mm format, Canon has the only digital answers that you are ever likely to get.

We all know that ... DOF control is important for creative photographers.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=58112\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

And many of us in this forum also know that DX format can match FOV and DOF so long as it can  use a lens of focal length 1.5x shorter and an aperture about one f-stop lower.  And when such lenses are available for use with DX format, they are typically of similar cost and weight to the 35mm equivalents (e.g 135/2 for 35mm vs 85/1.4 for DX).
The main exceptions are when you want to use 35mm format at f/1.4, or with f/2.8 from a zoom rather than a prime; then there are no corresponding lenses for DX.

Larger sensors will always be required as much as larger film formats have been.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=58112\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Yes, there is a need for 35mm and medium format digital just as there is a need for medium and large format in film. But there is usually no need to use the same format with digital as with film: the differences in resolution, sensitivity and cost at equal format size are huge, so that in most cases, substantially smaller formats fill the same role with digital.

Any reason to delay my decision?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=58112\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Only for the time it takes to save $3000 for an amateur level body or $8,000 for a fully professional one, plus the cost of all those f/1.4 primes and f/2.8 zooms that are needed to get the low DOF that you seek.

And I would do that with some hard feelings about Nikon's silence on this important issue.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=58112\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Nikon has not been silent: it has spoken often and consistently, in both words and deeds, about its DX direction.

[BernardLanguillier]

Nikon has said over and over again, in both words and deeds (high end lens and body releases) that it is dedicated to a single SLR format for digital, DX, just as Nikon, Canon, Leica, Olympus, Minolta etc. dedicated themselves to a single format for film, adopting the newer, smaller 35mm format instead of also offering medium format film cameras.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=58357\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

BJL,

There was a recent interview in Japan of a top Nikon executive who said that:

- he fully understood the market expectation for FF,
- Nikon had been seriously working on this option for some time,
- they were convinced that a FF body had to be released with a coherent set of lenses.

Now, there wa obviously no date...

Regards,
Bernard

[pchaplo]

Canon has the answer and the quality but the migration means a big asset loss to Nikon lenses owners....
Any reason to delay my decision?

This IS a Landscape Forum, where AF is not an issue, and using a tripod is the usual MO, so I can say without reservation that you need to get a used Canon 1Ds and a Cameraquest or Novoflex Nikon>EOS adapter. In this way, you can do your work with your existing Nikon lenses and a FF camera. The results are excellent, and there is no need to delay.

Currently, you can find a used 1Ds for under $3000 USD. I have seen them for $2500 in excellent condition. An adapter costs $175 for the best one in the world. get a couple (?) You can use your Nikon lenses immediately on the Canon body! No need to replace your Nikon lenses, and you can be creative while you wait to see what Nikon will do. If they introduce FF, you still have your lenses, if not, in a couple years, you can upgrade your Canon body and still use your Nikon lenses and adapters.

No asset loss... Just joy  The most important thing is to be making images.

Paul

[BJL]

Bernard,
   those recurring stories about Nikon planning a return to 35mm format contradict everything I have actually read that directly quotes Nikon executives like Makoto Kimura, Nikon's General Manager of Strategic Planning Department, Imaging Company & General Manager of Marketing & Merchandising Management Department, Imaging Company. Indeed, Kimura has repeatedly issued denials of incorrect media reports of Nikon plans to make 35mm DSLR's, like this one:
http://www.popphoto.com/article.asp?sectio...&article_id=751

Most recently, there was a  January 31 news story on Steve's Digicams, quoting the Japanese trade weekly "Photo Trade Express". (Aren't you in Japan? If so, do you know of that publication?) Since Steve's January 2006 archive is not available yet, I will quote the story here.

1/31/2006

Nikon Denies Possibility of Making 35mm Full-Frame Sensor

Industry watchers have been discussing if Nikon Corp., Tokyo, Japan, will come out with a 35mm full-size image sensor in pro-oriented digital SLR. A Nikon top official denied the possibility of making new full-size sensors, Photo Trade Express reports.
"35mm is a film format, which I do not think is necessary in the digital era," says Makoto Kimura of Nikon. "We have been exploring the possibility of commercializing a 35mm full-size sensor, but it's not clear at this moment if we go for it. We feel that the 'DX' format or APS-C size will be the best for the DSLR and interchangeable lenses. Based on the assumption Nikon has been bringing up in number the lenses for the DX format, change in the size of the sensor would possibly puzzle some users in finding effective focal length related to angle of view," he says.

He repeats that Nikon thinks the DX format will be the best for the DSLR, adding CMOS sensor "LBCAST" is also in preparation, reports Photo Trade Express.

[benInMA]

Nikon will keep saying "Buy DX" until the day they introduce their 24x36mm sensor camera.

If you have trouble believing that I have to question if you understand how corporations work or if you've ever worked for one.

I have to deal with this exact kind of issue day in, day out at work, I get to be one of the people saying "No" up to the day we make customers happy and suddenly say "Yes".

It's been a long time but I don't remember Canon talking about it's full frame sensors ahead of time either.  Why on earth would they give people any reason to delay buying a camera with a smaller sensor?

I guess we knew the 5D was coming because of the existence of the 1Ds/1DsII but the 5D was still a bombshell and they did not announce it a year ahead of time killing 20D sales, that's for sure.

Original poster: Rent some Canon gear for a weekend and give it a try.  That should answer your question.  Rent some canon lenses, and try and rent one of the EOS->Nikon F adapters as well.

[Ray]

I guess we knew the 5D was coming because of the existence of the 1Ds/1DsII but the 5D was still a bombshell and they did not announce it a year ahead of time killing 20D sales, that's for sure.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=58701\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

That's a good point which resonates with me personally. I didn't see reason to upgrade from the D60 to the 10D, but the 20D seemed to offer worthwhile improvements. If I'd known the 5D was just round the corner at a price not much greater than the 20D plus EF-S 10-22mm lens, I would likely not have bought the 20D which now sits in a box largely unused. However, I have no incentive to sell it because it does potentially extend the reach of my longest telephoto lens.

[kbolin]

However, I have no incentive to sell it because it does potentially extend the reach of my longest telephoto lens.

Extend the reach?  The 20D simply has a crop of a full frame.  Use your 5D and crop the image.  You will get virtually the same results as shooting with a 20D.

Read Michaels article on this point.  Understanding the DSLR Magnification Factor

Kelly

[Ray]

Extend the reach?  The 20D simply has a crop of a full frame. [a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=58754\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

No it doesn't. The 20D has significantly higher pixel density than the 5D and that's the reason for the 'effective' extension of telephoto reach. Crop a 5D image to the same size as a 20D image (both shots using the same lens from the same position) and you're comparing an 8mp image with a 4.8mp image. Why would you expect the 4.8mp image to be just as sharp? If it was, then that would be a clear indication that your lens is of low quality.

I'm quite sure Michael would not disagree with this point.

[kbolin]

You're point was effective reach.  That would be like saying that 100 ISO film has more reach than 400 ISO film using the same lens or vice versa.  The only thing that is different is the noise (or grain in the film world) and the number of pixels in the resulting image.  Your lens doesn't reach further.

[Ray]

You're point was effective reach.  That would be like saying that 100 ISO film has more reach than 400 ISO film using the same lens or vice versa.  The only thing that is different is the noise (or grain in the film world) and the number of pixels in the resulting image.  Your lens doesn't reach further.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=58765\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I think you might be engaging in a little 'conversational terrorism' here, as currently being discussed on another thread   .

'Effective' is the key word, but notice I did not put a figure to that. It's true (absolutely true as far as I can see) that a 400mm lens on a 20D has a field of view 'exactly' the same as a 640mm lens on a 5D. But I'm not claiming that the 20D/400mm image will be as sharp as the 5D/640mm image. I've got enough nous to realise that a 12mp image is likely to be better than an 8mp image, just as you should realise that an 8mp image is likely to be better than a cropped 5D 4.8mp image.

The comparison with ISO 100 film and ISO 400 film is also a conversationally terroristic red herring   . It's already been established on another current thread (How Big is Enough) that film is a different paradigm to digital sensors. There are, however, similarities. Fine grain films really are higher resolving than fast, coarse grained films. I would therefore expect a good 300mm lens with T-Max 100, tripod mounted, to deliver equally detailed results (or perhaps sharper, I've never carried out the test) than a 400mm lens with an ISO 800 color slide or negative film, after cropping the 300mm shot to the same size as the 400mm shot.

Essentially, the final photographic results we see are 'system' results. It is of academic interest to some of us whether or not the cropping was done through lens design or sensor design. However, if a 400mm prime on my 20D produces equally sharp and detailed results as a 500mm prime on my 5D (after a bit of cropping), then I consider it a truthful statement to say the 20D has extended the 'effective' telephoto reach of my 400mm lens (in relation to the 5D, of course. Everything's relative to something.)

Or to put it another way, if you want to drag up the old paradigms, 35mm T-Max 100 film will beat 6x4.5mm ISO 800 positive or negative color film any day, with regard to resolution   .

[kbolin]

Well... being from Canada (a peace loving nation) I don't want to fall victim to Conversational Terrorism.    

Happy Shooting!!

Kelly