Nikon & APS-C

[jgoeden]

Anybody have any opinions on why Nikon isn't releasing any full frames? Someone pointed out that the D2X is an APS-C. I don't know how true it is but I always thought that Nikon was the leader in wide angle (and Canon in sports) so why do you think they haven't worked on any full frames?

Just food for discussion. (friendly discussion...no Canon vs. Nikon)

[JDArt]

Because they don't have the resources that Canon does to be able to produce cameras with several different sensor sizes? I really have no idea.

It's a shame, however, because great lenses such as the 85mm f/1.4 just aren't the same on a 1.5x sensor.

[cyclohexane]

I've heard lots of reasons.

The most compelling and reasonable one, to me, was Nikon's assertion that they are unhappy with the corner performance with current full-frame sensor designs. The current grapevine information (that's usually fairly accurate) is that Nikon has no less than three different full-frame prototypes undergoing testing. Whether one of these will ever see production is up in the air, but the general consensus is that Nikon- from even just a marketing standpoint- had better release one of them.

No Nikon vs. Canon below intended, but I figured I'd address your assumptions:

I don't know how true it is but I always thought that Nikon was the leader in wide angle (and Canon in sports) so why do you think they haven't worked on any full frames?

Yes, between Nikon and Canon, Nikon has better wide angles (oh, the 17-35mm when stopped down...) and Canon has better supertelephotos (cheaper and they have IS). As for sports, well, Canon won the sports market in the 90's with their EOS-1, USM, and free gear if you let them take your Nikon stuff and destroy it or whatever they do. With the D2H, Nikon bridged the gap and pushed ahead with their then-new AF system, so honestly, they're about matched for sports right now. I don't think you can go wrong with either of the current sports cameras: the D2HS or 1D Mk.IIN, as both are matched in essentially everything except shutter lag and resolution. Personally, for my newspaper work, the 25% reduced resolution of the D2H/HS is an advantage (thought it's bridged by simply adjusting the output on the 1D Mk.II).

[cyclohexane]

Cute new avatar, Jay. =)

[badpickev]

its because fuji has not yet perfected its FF chip. and thus nikon alows the canon folks to feel good about themselves.

[Max@Home]

Originally Posted by cyclohexane

Cute new avatar, Jay. =)

yeah!

Max@Home

[cameraguy21773]

Nikon won't release a FF sensor in a camera until they are sure they have overcome the problems with edge softness and other issues that a sensor that size might pose. The reason is probably that the non-DX F-mount optics currently in production cannot adequately produce a proper light path to all the photosites on the larger sensor. That might mean a whole new line of optics and perhaps a new mount. My guess is that Nikon is committed to the F-mount and that their prototype FF DSLRs may not ever go to production.

[Nikonfreak]

The real question is "Is it really needed"?

Another question is "What is 'full frame'?"

Is it medium format?* Is it 35mm?* Is it large format?

What exactly IS full frame?

(I'm playing devil's advocate... There are those that really need a digital with a 35mm frame size sensor but I suspect that the majority of those pining for this full frame sensor don't really know why they'd need one or want one).

The one obvious category would be landscape photographers.* A 35mm size sensor wouldn't make any difference to me.* Nature photographers would certainly miss the 1.X crop factor.

So I'll ask this second and third question..

A) What photographic segment of professionals need such a camera
B) How large of a market is it really?* (Obvious question since it'd take a good deal of research dollars to make it a reality so knowing how big a target market is must be known to decide whether or not creation of such a camera would pay off)

After all, companies are in business to make money...

Another question which I'm sure Nikon is asking it's professionals is "How much difference would a FF camera make to your business?" and they are probably surveying professionals to see what really guides their purchase decisions.

I suspect Nikon will bring one of these out at some point, but they are heavily invested in the DX format right now...especially at the lower end of the scale.* A FF camera would likely be aimed at the professional market and would obviously be in the $5,000 or higher neighborhood.* There would be some enthusiast purchasing it of course...but...it's a high price tag.

This seems to be the first time in recent history where Nikon's marketing strategy has made sense.* They are going after the base of the pyramid and attacking the market where there is the largest opportunity to gain market share.* Right now that's at the low end of the scale.* So they have the D40, D50, D70s is still out there, and the D80... A heck of a lineup.*

I would say most potential buyers of D40 and D50 have no clue what "full frame" is and don't care.* I would guess that most D70 and D80 owners are more than likely aware of the issue and most probably don't care either way as long as the camera works well and provides quality images (Except for those using D70s or D80 units as a backup to a D200 or a D2Xs.

Julio

[badpickev]

come on we all know its because Fuji can not get the chip right. I read the open net interview with the niokn ceo talking about the FF nikon. He said the Fuji ccd was amazing with its colors, resolution and speed.

knowing Fuji i am guessing he was amazed at how slow it is.

[Nikonfreak]

Well they can't buy the sensors from Canon

[badpickev]

Originally Posted by Nikonfreak

Well they can't buy the sensors from Canon

why would anyone want a sensor from canon.

[Nikonfreak]

Originally Posted by badpickev

why would anyone want a sensor from canon.

exactly. LOL

Even you agree.

You walked into that one.

[cyclohexane]

The reason is probably that the non-DX F-mount optics currently in production cannot adequately produce a proper light path to all the photosites on the larger sensor

Actually, starting with the 17-35mm f/2.8D AF-S, they should be more or less just fine. It was the first "digital friendly" Nikkor, with a telecentric design. Try sticking it on a 1Ds Mk.II; when stopping down, its corners sharpen much faster than the EF 16-35mm f/2.8L.

[cyclohexane]

"How much difference would a FF camera make to your business?"

Not enough, but then I'd also like a new lens: a 45-135mm f/2.0G AF-S IF ED DX. Yes, this can be done without making it obsessively large. This would replace the traditional view, essentially, of the 70-200mm, indoors for sports like basketball, which has been infringed on a little by the APS-C sensor size. I've managed to adapt to continuing to use the 70-200mm for basketball, but I do miss being able to go a bit wider without grabbing a second body with a shorter lens.

It'd also be nice to get a DX-equivalent of the discontinued (handmade) 28mm f/1.4D AF for our low low light wide-angle work, but I'd be perfectly happy with AF-S updates of the 24mm f/2.0 AIS and the 35mm f/1.4 AIS if it saves R&D.

They are going after the base of the pyramid and attacking the market where there is the largest opportunity to gain market share.

Yeah, but you'll have to take care of the top every now and then. It also helps the "shoot with what the pros use" image, and the image that Nikon is the finest manufacturer of photographic equipment today. People aren't always the smartest, and even if they could care less about 24x36mm "full frame" sensors, they hear/see Canon touting "full frame" and think that's better.

[jgoeden]

But they need to think about their high ISO users as well. From what I've read and seen (in the d70) Nikon's high ISO performance isn't the greatest. and have a full frame chip (i'm talking 24mmx36mm) you'd have better high iso performance.

the reason i've opened this can of worms is that i'm crosstraining in the air force into combat camera and all they use is nikon equipment. from scanners to film bodies to digital bodies. they're using D2x's up at my base and....i'm a huge canon fan. i ESPECIALLY love their awesome HIGH quality glass and if i'm going to be shooting nikon at work, then do i really want to invest in canon stuff to shoot at home? i mean learning both camera bodies and different layouts might take a while to learn or to be blunt, it could be just a big pain in the ass. any thoughts? i've shot with canon before where their aperture wheel is right in front of the shutter and when i borrowed a friend's D70, i kept turning it off, which really turned me off to nikon to put the power switch in such an easily tripped place. that's one of the main and only things i don't like about nikon (other than fun rivalry) and i really don't mind shooting nikon at work, i just won't want it to be a pain to shoot one then switch to the other at home..

know whatta mean?

[cyclohexane]

Nikon's high ISO performance isn't the greatest.

Check out the D80. It's on par with the 400D/XTi. Check out the D40 and D50; they're very clean. Check out the D1H and D2HS... they're also really clean.

Hell, my "noise machine" classic D2H looks pretty good at ISO 1600 with good exposure; my D70 is better than the D2H. Remember high ISO film?

and have a full frame chip (i'm talking 24mmx36mm) you'd have better high iso performance.

This is making the mistaken assumption that because of the 24x36mm sensor, you automatically get high ISO performance. Having A does not automatically give you B. While larger photosites is an advantage for high ISO performance, Canon owes a lot of it's high ISO performance to their DIGIC "black box" ASIC processing. Nikon's doing a good job of refining their ASIC in recent bodies.

i mean learning both camera bodies and different layouts might take a while to learn or to be blunt, it could be just a big pain in the ass. any thoughts?

Not as bad as you might think, though your mileage will vary. I personally think I could definitely use Canon at work and not have issues with my Nikon system at home. I wouldn't want to carry them side-by-side if I don't have to, though. More on this later, as I have to go.

[jgoeden]

Anybody know where I can learn about Nikon's abbreviations?* AF-S, G, ED, IF, etc?* I'm looking on the site, not seeing it.

Edit: Nevermind found it.

[Nikonfreak]

Originally Posted by jgoeden

But they need to think about their high ISO users as well. From what I've read and seen (in the d70) Nikon's high ISO performance isn't the greatest. and have a full frame chip (i'm talking 24mmx36mm) you'd have better high iso performance.

the reason i've opened this can of worms is that i'm crosstraining in the air force into combat camera and all they use is nikon equipment. from scanners to film bodies to digital bodies. they're using D2x's up at my base and....i'm a huge canon fan. i ESPECIALLY love their awesome HIGH quality glass and if i'm going to be shooting nikon at work, then do i really want to invest in canon stuff to shoot at home? i mean learning both camera bodies and different layouts might take a while to learn or to be blunt, it could be just a big pain in the ass. any thoughts? i've shot with canon before where their aperture wheel is right in front of the shutter and when i borrowed a friend's D70, i kept turning it off, which really turned me off to nikon to put the power switch in such an easily tripped place. that's one of the main and only things i don't like about nikon (other than fun rivalry) and i really don't mind shooting nikon at work, i just won't want it to be a pain to shoot one then switch to the other at home..

know whatta mean?

I wouldn't worry about the High ISO noise talk. Don't under expose and watch that noise issue disappear.

That being said, each generation of camera seems to get better with respect to noise. I would never make a choice on brand based on a single issue. Both Nikon and Canon cameras will do what they need to do and that includes low light shooting.

Julio

www.pbase.com/JulioSPhotography

[rootrider]

Originally Posted by jgoeden

i've shot with canon before where their aperture wheel is right in front of the shutter and when i borrowed a friend's D70, i kept turning it off, which really turned me off to nikon to put the power switch in such an easily tripped place.* that's one of the main and only things i don't like about nikon

just to note.. this has been changed on newer Nikon bodies.


As for high ISO.. this is a snapshot from earlier today taken with my D70:


ISO 1600.. no noise reduction or clean up at all.
I know it's kind of unfair to show you a severely resized image, but trust me, the noise isn't very visible at full size either. The point is that, in the real world, and in all but the most extreme noise producing conditions, Nikon's do very well (certainly a lot better than a lot of Canon users like to say)

[Jon]

From my Nikon rep earlier this year:

Nikon has no plans to release a full-frame 35mm digital body. Nikon is instead developing appropriate lenses for the APS-C sensors.

Like I said, this was earlier this year. I think it would be silly, from a marketing standpoint alone, to not release or develop an FF unit. A Nikon with a FF Foveon sensor might be interesting...

And...Um...Why would the non-dx glass, the finest 35mm glass in the world, have problems with the size of the imaging point that they were designed for?