Nikon all digital?

[BJL]

While it is true that NIkon has not updated their 500 and 600 mm lenses to VR, I am wonderintg if that is because of their switch to almost all-digital SLR's.   With the smaller sensor that Nikon uses (and the D200 has proven that the small sensor can give all the quality needed) they might be redesigning their big lenses to take advantage of the smaller sensor.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=58938\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

In a sense yes; for the smaller sensor, they are covering the FOV of those 500mm and 600mm f/4 lenses with lenses offering 350mm to 400mm, and everything in between: the 400/2.8 and above all the 200-400 f/4 VR. The latter is significantly smaller, lighter and far cheaper than either the Nikon 500/4 or 600/4, and Canon's IS versions are heavier still.

With DX format, the market for 600/4 is like the market in 35mm format for the equivalent lens, a 900mm f/5.6. And in the rare cases that it is needed, it will be got the way that 35mm users get 900mm FOV: by using a 1.4x TC (on a 400mm lens for DX), or by using a sensor with enough pixels and then cropping.

[Ray]

The point is occasionally made that the crop factor of the smaller format does not effectively extend the reach of the telephoto lens. It's just a crop, no more. Now currently, that's not true because some smaller format sensors, the D2X in particular, have greater pixel density than full frame 35mm sensors such as the 1Ds2.

However, if the trend towards greater pixel density continues (and it seems likely that it will) we shall soon arrive at the position where the APS-C format really is  no more than a crop. The same resolution and FoV will be possible with the same lens attached to a FF camera by simply cropping the FF image in post processing, but the FF camera will retain the advantage of greater FoV with the same lens, whatever the lens, if desired.

[LeifG]

In a sense yes; for the smaller sensor, they are covering the FOV of those 500mm and 600mm f/4 lenses with lenses offering 350mm to 400mm, and everything in between: the 400/2.8 and above all the 200-400 f/4 VR. The latter is significantly smaller, lighter and far cheaper than either the Nikon 500/4 or 600/4, and Canon's IS versions are heavier still.

With DX format, the market for 600/4 is like the market in 35mm format for the equivalent lens, a 900mm f/5.6. And in the rare cases that it is needed, it will be got the way that 35mm users get 900mm FOV: by using a 1.4x TC (on a 400mm lens for DX), or by using a sensor with enough pixels and then cropping.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=58945\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Bird photographers need all the reach they can get. And no the market for the 600 F4 on DX bodies will not be like the market for the 900mm F5.6 on 35mm bodies. That latter lens would be huge and prohibitively expensive. The 600mm F4 is still lusted after because it is just about portable and just about affordable, and works well with a teleconverter. A bird photographers greed for reach knows few limits.

BTW This is one of the most interesting threads I've read for some time, due to the absense of the "But a FF sensor is bigger so it must be better" nonsense. The argument that current Canon FF users will migrate to digital MF is interesting, especially given how many seem to complain about Canon's wide angle lenses.

But there might well be a market for FF 35mm digital once pixel densities get high enough that a DX offers no telephoto advantage. Assuming that they can reduce noise levels. The D200 is rather noisy at ISO 1600 and above.

Leif

[bob mccarthy]

But there might well be a market for FF 35mm digital once pixel densities get high enough that a DX offers no telephoto advantage. Assuming that they can reduce noise levels. The D200 is rather noisy at ISO 1600 and above.

Leif
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=58968\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Optics technology moves much slower than sensor tech. I really doubt whether well see high density sensors (aka D2x) in full frame anytime soon. A new suite of lenses would need to be introduced to accompany the body release.

The explanation that Nikon is using  (advantage of smaller sensors is the cropping of the sweet spot of the lens) really rings true. Optical performance really does fall off substancially as one reaches the limits of the image circle.

To me, it really cements the hold on the pro market that Nikon and Canon have, as they are the most likely to develp a broad array of digital FF "super" lenses.

Can the ultimate advantage in the digital world, be the old fashion art of building optics??

Bob

[MrIconoclast]

Can the ultimate advantage in the digital world, be the old fashion art of building optics??

[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=58979\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I don't know, Bob.  That sounds like pretty radical stuff to suggest that optics might eventually be more important than electronic bells and whistles or how many pixels can be crammed onto a chip.     Good Grief!  The next thing you know, lens speed will start to become important as well as the ability to control depth of field.   More dangeriouis ideas!!!