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?
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...
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.
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...
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.
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:
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.
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. Itīs 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 havenīt 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 couldnīt go before, sizing up brickwalls from C to A size is not what makes me enthusiastic. Besides, thereīs 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- thatīs it! Only a poor, old, outdated D1X, but a great shot with every posting he mails!
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.
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..
Marli wrote:
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.
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.
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.
) and they feel there are no significant benefits to a move to it.
) and the Canon folks have been trying to justify their purchases for all ( FF