Nikon: No FF! - FM Forums

Moderated by: guardian

Visit the FM Store · Image Upload · Buy & Sell
FM Forum Rules
Nikon SLRs, primes, and zooms lenses reviews

FM Forums | Nikon-mount SLRs | Join Image Upload

2 3 4 5 end

Pavel
Offline
Image Upload: Off

p.1 #1 · Nikon: No FF!

Well out of the horses mouth ... finally! Nikon feels that FF is a 35m Film term ( didn't jacko say that already?

Feb 01, 2006 at 03:53 AM

jmcfadden
Offline
Image Upload: On

p.1 #2 · Nikon: No FF!

when FOV has been truly answered with incredible optics , only the whiners are left to .....well whine , I guess.

Perhaps now we can have some new primes

J

Edited on Feb 03, 2006 at 04:26 AM

Feb 01, 2006 at 04:04 AM

sl1200mk4
Offline
Image Upload: Off

p.1 #3 · Nikon: No FF!

The way I look at it... They can say whatever they want today and do the totally opposite tomorrow. If they really throw in the towel for real, then I guess they have realized that they can't keep up with Canon at least on the sensor front...

They can't/won't make it doesn't mean that FF is bad though...

Edited on Feb 03, 2006 at 04:26 AM

Feb 01, 2006 at 04:08 AM

sl1200mk4
Offline
Image Upload: Off

p.1 #4 · Nikon: No FF!

As far as lens goes... How about a DX 45-135mm f2.0 VRII.

Edited on Feb 03, 2006 at 04:26 AM

Feb 01, 2006 at 04:12 AM

Pavel
Offline
Image Upload: Off

p.1 #5 · Nikon: No FF!

Throw in the towel. Are you being tongue in cheek or is your head that tight in canons ... er um ... literature?

(respectfully)

I think of it as canon not having a clue. They should look at the competition and see the quality being produced ...and see the potential of the better sharper lighter lenses at work .... and get out of the prehistoric days.

What advantage to ff is there actually - in digital I mean. Stronger muscles in carrying that stuff around? Or the fact that you don't need to use that slow blur filter in PS anymore?

I think it's time for some primes ... new completely differnt focal lengths.
Gimme a huge 65 f 1.2 or a small 65 f 1.4 for a great portrait lens! Oh and the same with a 90 f 1.something. In DX they should be sharper, lighter and faster to focus ... all else being equal.

Edited on Feb 03, 2006 at 04:26 AM

Feb 01, 2006 at 04:13 AM

deapee
Offline
Image Upload: Off

p.1 #6 · Nikon: No FF!

sl1200mk4 wrote:
If they really throw in the towel for real, then I guess they have realized that they can't keep up with Canon at least on the sensor front...

Are you kidding?

Edited on Feb 03, 2006 at 04:26 AM

Feb 01, 2006 at 04:22 AM

Pavel
Offline
Image Upload: Off

p.1 #7 · Nikon: No FF!

Perhaps those FF canon glasses are fuzzy and the perspective is skewed

Kinda like the corners of the wides!

Edited on Feb 03, 2006 at 04:26 AM

Feb 01, 2006 at 04:28 AM

Pavel
Offline
Image Upload: Off

p.1 #8 · Nikon: No FF!

Hey ... I just realized ... the cool-aid ... it must be kicking in! :worried:

Edited on Feb 03, 2006 at 04:26 AM

Feb 01, 2006 at 04:30 AM

Tom Conte
Offline
Image Upload: On

p.1 #9 · Nikon: No FF!

This is exactly the kind of stance that Canon and Nikon thrive on. This is the you abandoned your lens mount! -- Well so what, you can't pull of a 50 f/1.0 with your teeny-tiny mount! -- Your momma! -- Can beat my my dad! -- Oh yeah! -- yeah!
...argument that we had 10 years ago.

Welcome to the past, back to the future, deja vu all over again.

Edited on Feb 03, 2006 at 04:26 AM

Feb 01, 2006 at 04:53 AM

rhyder
Offline
Image Upload: Off

p.1 #10 · Nikon: No FF!

FF is so last century...............These forums show that most people have no idea what Nikon is doing with this new format............I've been a member for about a year and a half (is that a 1.5 crop factor

) and the Canon folks have been trying to justify their purchases for all ( FF

) of that period. This whole ( FF

) subject is sooooooo stale. The whole ( FF

) subject smacks of the platform wars of the 80's & 90's (Mac vs PC). This isn't about photography as much as Gear Geekery ( is that a word

( I wonder if I could copyright that

) or would that be another ongoing argument

).

What's that

......I feel it too.....it IS the cool_aid..........:worried:

Edited on Feb 03, 2006 at 04:26 AM

Feb 01, 2006 at 04:54 AM

deapee
Offline
Image Upload: Off

p.1 #11 · Nikon: No FF!

I don't know, personally, I think it's close to corporate suicide to have so many different mount-types and sensor sizes...find something, stick with it, and improve upon it as time goes on.

--

Canon stays in business because of their marketing -- they are king there, no doubt about it.

anyway, I think I'm going to stay out of this discussion...I don't really care...FF or DX...whatever happens happens, and I'll determine my position, and move foward accordingly, when the time arrives.

Edited on Feb 03, 2006 at 04:26 AM

Feb 01, 2006 at 05:08 AM

voka_gsw
Offline
Image Upload: Off

p.1 #12 · Nikon: No FF!

deapee wrote:
Canon stays in business because of their marketing

Not to mention they make nice cameras as well.

Edited on Feb 03, 2006 at 04:26 AM

Feb 01, 2006 at 06:12 AM

Nicodad
Offline
Image Upload: Off

p.1 #13 · Nikon: No FF!

IMHO Things should be measured by what they yield. Did we see a substantial FF breakthrough in the artistic field of photog.? Mostly I saw the same fences, numberplates, and brickwalls I did after 10D, 20D, 300D, 350D. Only difference is corner vignetting at wideangle end. It´s the same thing as 386sx, 386, 486, pentium... being measured by the frame rate of Quake-kill-my-grandma-underworld-demon-IV-mode. Up to now I haven´t seen a FF photo that would not have been possible with the existing gear. And in the field where gear really counts, maybe high end advertising, the photogs. own Sinar or Leaf. New tools should make you go where you couldn´t go before, sizing up brickwalls from C to A size is not what makes me enthusiastic. Besides, there´s nothing wrong with buying new gear for the love of it, but with claiming that another frame size enables photog. at a higher level.
@Pavel: Ghenghis- that´s it! Only a poor, old, outdated D1X, but a great shot with every posting he mails!

Edited on Feb 03, 2006 at 04:26 AM

Feb 01, 2006 at 07:31 AM

jasin
Offline
Image Upload: Off

p.1 #14 · Nikon: No FF!

So the way I figure it if Nikon were to make a 35mm sensor at the current specs we would have a 18.6 megapixel beast.
Not sure I want that one, I mean a 70 meg tiff is way more than enough, wouldn't the new one be something like 105 meg.
Anyhow if I were a betting man, and I am, I would say Nikon will carry on with the way they have in the past and not give two hoots as to what canon are up to.
With that dog of a hasselblad out there I wouldn't be suprised if Nikon are by-passing the whole 35mm size thingy bob and designing a whole new format like say a 4x5 or something, and perhaps a new range of lenses to go with it.
I mean why try to steal some market from canon when they can take the whole damn thing and please everyone with two absolutley different formats not competing against each other.
Now that is a bussiness plan!
Zeiss is already working with Nikon so what is to stop them working even closer and bringing out a .5 crop mega super smooster of a sensor.
With Camera companies dropping like flies there is a huge market out there waiting for one of the traditionals to pick up the pieces and supply us hungry guys some new technology.
Any how what would I know.
Cheers,
Jasin.

Edited on Feb 03, 2006 at 04:26 AM

Feb 01, 2006 at 09:23 AM

Marli
Offline
Image Upload: Off

p.1 #15 · Nikon: No FF!

sl1200mk4 wrote:
The way I look at it... They can say whatever they want today and do the totally opposite tomorrow. If they really throw in the towel for real, then I guess they have realized that they can't keep up with Canon at least on the sensor front...

They can't/won't make it doesn't mean that FF is bad though...

I dont know. I shoot with a guy who has a Canon and he always looks at my nikon shots and wishes he could get the colour and sharpness I do..

Edited on Feb 03, 2006 at 04:26 AM

Feb 01, 2006 at 10:19 AM

sl1200mk4
Offline
Image Upload: Off

p.1 #16 · Nikon: No FF!

Marli wrote:
sl1200mk4 wrote:
The way I look at it... They can say whatever they want today and do the totally opposite tomorrow. If they really throw in the towel for real, then I guess they have realized that they can't keep up with Canon at least on the sensor front...

They can't/won't make it doesn't mean that FF is bad though...

I dont know. I shoot with a guy who has a Canon and he always looks at my nikon shots and wishes he could get the colour and sharpness I do..

Don't get me wrong, I won't still be with Nikon if Canon is so much better. They each have their weaknesses, and I am just hoping that Nikon will provide me a product that I will fit my needs and one that I will buy.

The D70 is one of them, and D200 being another. Still, everytime I mount my 70-200 VR on to the f80, I wish that I have a FF digital.

Edited on Feb 03, 2006 at 04:26 AM

Feb 01, 2006 at 10:51 AM

jasin
Offline
Image Upload: Off

p.1 #17 · Nikon: No FF!

SL why would an F 80 make you want a canon sensor?
Cheers,
Jasin.

Edited on Feb 03, 2006 at 04:26 AM

Feb 01, 2006 at 10:53 AM

nikt
Offline
Image Upload: Off

p.1 #18 · Nikon: No FF!

Pavel, come on. Lets be fair. Nikon did throw in the towel. Just look at the D200 and what a bomb that has been. No-one wants one, and they're really easy to get. If only the quality was any good. Yep, no D300 for us.

Edited on Feb 03, 2006 at 04:26 AM

Feb 01, 2006 at 11:01 AM

sl1200mk4
Offline
Image Upload: Off

p.1 #19 · Nikon: No FF!

jasin wrote:
SL why would an F 80 make you want a canon sensor?
Cheers,
Jasin.

The 70-200 VR had been the perfect portrait lens for me. Espeically on the F80. However it is just a tiny bit too long (effective FOV wise) for some indoor stuff on a 1.5X digital body.

I don't want to use a 50mm lens instead because I like the bokeh and flexibility that I get with my 70-200 VR.

Another good lens that I am interested in, the 105mm DC (defocus control). I think it would've been simply too long on a 1.5X body.

Of course I get by most of the time. But for people who needs 24mm tilt & shift lens, they can't really get by. I am glad that I ain't one of them though.

Edited on Feb 03, 2006 at 04:26 AM

Feb 01, 2006 at 11:31 AM

SnaggS
Offline
Image Upload: Off

p.1 #20 · Nikon: No FF!

So what are you all going to do in the future? Use nothing above ISO 200 as Nikons photosites get smaller and smaller....?

Daniel.

Edited on Feb 03, 2006 at 04:26 AM

Feb 01, 2006 at 11:39 AM

sl1200mk4
Offline
Image Upload: Off

p.1 #21 · Nikon: No FF!

SnaggS wrote:
So what are you all going to do in the future? Use nothing above ISO 200 as Nikons photosites get smaller and smaller....?

Daniel.

Trust me... while there might be a wall that we will have to eventually hit, I think that day is pretty far away.

While the size of the photosites are getting smaller, so is the sensitivity of the sensors getting better.

Of course, with the same level of technology avaliable, bigger sensors will have the advantage. They can in theory choose to have either smaller photosites, though high resolution, or larger photosites and better S/N ratio.

In the real world however, it is so much more complicated than that. First of all there is the issue of the optical performance of the lens around the corners. Though, bigger is not always better.

Also, I think the 4/3 camp was betting on the fact that it is easier to manufacture smaller sensors than bigger ones, though they could use technology that's one generation ahead of the bigger sensors and stay competitive. Too bad that they can't seem to find that sensor that's a generation ahead.

Edited on Feb 03, 2006 at 04:26 AM

Feb 01, 2006 at 12:04 PM

uccmmcpo
Offline
Image Upload: Off

p.1 #22 · Nikon: No FF!

Pavel wrote:
Well out of the horses mouth ... finally! Nikon feels that FF is a 35m Film term ( didn't jacko say that already?

) and they feel there are no significant benefits to a move to it.
Looks like the perennial question has been answered ... and I for one am glad.

So ...now we don't have to debate it ... and we can get on with life and take some (train) pictures ... or do like Genghis.

I think Nikon leaked the info out to those two secretly ... years ago. How else can we explain their contentment and propensity towards taking pictures ... rather than endless questions?

Perhaps the statement by the Nikon exec should be viewed this way............

"We at nikon would love to have a full frame sensor but we cant produce one currently at a cost that would make it a competive product so we keep saying that it isnt required" ...

--
Michael Salzlechner
http://www.PalmsWestPhoto.com

Edited on Feb 03, 2006 at 04:26 AM

Feb 01, 2006 at 01:12 PM

deapee
Offline
Image Upload: Off

p.1 #23 · Nikon: No FF!

SnaggS wrote:
So what are you all going to do in the future? Use nothing above ISO 200 as Nikons photosites get smaller and smaller....?

Daniel.

Go back to your Canon forums, troll.

Edited on Feb 03, 2006 at 04:26 AM

Feb 01, 2006 at 01:21 PM

Pavel
Offline
Image Upload: Off

p.1 #24 · Nikon: No FF!

Sorry Guys. It was late at night and I didn't think to post the original source.
Here is a cut and paste - and it was from Steves-digicams and I must have figgured everyone could read my mind

( SnaggS is no Troll btw)

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.

Edited on Feb 03, 2006 at 04:26 AM

Feb 01, 2006 at 01:25 PM

joesmith
Offline
Image Upload: Off

p.1 #25 · Nikon: No FF!

deapee wrote:
SnaggS wrote:
So what are you all going to do in the future? Use nothing above ISO 200 as Nikons photosites get smaller and smaller....?

Daniel.

Go back to your Canon forums, troll.

Troll or not sensor size does matter. Why else you thing some people pay 30K for a Phase 45 back? Here is the way I see how things might shape out. The current medium format backs will replace large format, 35mm (or FF) sensors will replace medium format, and APS-C sensors replacing 35mm film.

The fact is that companies are still in the megapixel race stage. Until that stops we will continue to have the sensor size debate. Can't optimize the sensor until one stop adding photosites.

I for one would like to have a square sensor, no more worrying about if I should shoot landscape or portrait.

Edited by joesmith on Feb 01, 2006 at 07:42 AM GMT

Edited on Feb 03, 2006 at 04:26 AM

Feb 01, 2006 at 01:31 PM


FM Forums \| Nikon-mount SLRs \| Join Image Upload 1 2 3 4 5 end