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.
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? ...Show more →
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" ...
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.
deapee wrote:
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
The title of the above article from Nikon is far from accurately conveying the content of what was written.
"It`s not clear at this moment if we go for it" is certainly not a denial . He left a lot of wiggle room.
John
You are right of course Joe ... but aside from looking with magnifying loupes - the point is that the Nikon (or Olympus) way is superior on the balance of all the points.
Crop gives advantages and FF gives advantages. The 35mm film cameras had advantages and 8x10 viewbacks or fraflexes had advantages. Image quality on one side - convenience on the other side. Which side btw won the film wars? There the image quality factors were startling.
On digital the quality advantage is miniscule and growing smaller and smaller each year. Non photographers can't tell anymore - and neither can photo pro's most of the time by the time the pixels hit the print paper.
The cropped cameras have their advantages being felt very strongly - and growing.
Just go to a soccer game and shoot with a canon 20D next to a 1Ds. If you need the same reach you have a 70-200 on the 20D and are doing the same work as that guy with the 1Ds who needs that huge 300 for the same reach. The 70-200 is now used by many sports shooters on a budget or for caryability - due mostly to the cropped sensor making it a viable length. Thats convenience.
Convenience and miniaturization wins every time.
So yes there are advantages to FF. If that quality thing is really so important canon needs to redesigh their lenses pretty bad. I was all about the quality of FF. Heck then I saw the results and couldn't swallow the poor lens performance. It makes a mockery of the quality claim with FF. You would have to have an ever bigger mount and even larger lenses.
If that happens two percent of photographers in twenty years will be lugging these new canons around. Why? Because the croped guys would have pictures indestinguishable from these monster cameras with equiptment that will make more sense. THey will be smaller, smaller lenses - and sharper at the same price point. That argument about needing large photosites has fallen flat on it's face already. The 20D has great image quality. Five models from now it's sucessor will be better yet. Sure a larger sensor of the same generation may be better in theory .but few folks are willing to spend three times the bucks for 2 percent more improvement - especially when it requires a large loupe .... or a healthy dose of imagination to see it.
THis is the begining of the digital age only. As the 8x10 view cameras got marginalized by 35 mm and swept away so will smaller sensors make the 24x36 size into a footnote to history in thirty years. Convenience is where it's at. If Canon does not get on the ball and see the change - eventually you will see as many white lenses at football matches in the year 2034 as you currently see view cameras at these events. Sure the view camera gives you a great picture - but ....
I am thinking of switching to Canon for compatibility with my shooting partner.. But unless you buy a 1D series cameras they are just small, plasticy and have no features..
Oh well, a 1D it may have to be.. Trouble is my shooting partner loves the Nikon colour and sharpness compared to his 1D series Canon.. He is thinking of switching to my side
The little bit of reading I've done about the future of sensors leads me to believe that we're only 2-3 generations away from a transparent layer sensor that will capture 3-4 layers of detail, one per color and one general detail layer.
If that is were things end up, your APS-size sensor will produce 40mp images with the quality and dynamic range of a medium format. A full-size sensor will rival a large format camera.
I have no opinion on this issue. But I don't think you can have a complete debate without taking future developments into consideration, especially the ones which are around the corner. If somebody came out with a tiny sensor that did a 10x better job than today's sensors, I'd buy that.
Pavel: You are right, convenience and portablity are some of the most imporatant aspect of a camera. How else you going to take a picture if you can't carry the camera with you?
My main concern with APS sensor is that will advance in sensor design outpace the problems from smaller photosites?
Right now the market have not reach to a point where the megapixel vs. image quality vs file size are in equilibrium. Until that happens we will not know what is the best size for a sensor.
Medium format back, FF, APS, I think each serves a distinct segment of the market with pros and cons. Its up to the photographer to weights the pros and cons and choose the right tool for the job.
Mad Artist:
I would love to have a Foveon type sensor in all my cameras. If someone comes out with a tiny sensor that can capture image at iso 3200 like the 20D. I'm all over it.
sl1200mk4 wrote:
As far as lens goes... How about a DX 45-135mm f2.0 VRII.
You're speaking my mind man!!!
Something in that range would be the killer.
Maybe a DX 55-155mm f2.0 VRII. That would put the plug between 17-55 and 70-200.
I cant even imagine ... 2 D200's with effectively covering from 17-155 ... wow!
Pavel wrote:
If Canon does not get on the ball and see the change - eventually you will see as many white lenses at football matches in the year 2034 as you currently see view cameras at these events. Sure the view camera gives you a great picture - but ....
Wow, Pavel, too much coffee this morning? It's 28 years from now! It's like predicting the state of today's photogear in 1978!
Pavel wrote:
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.
Well I'm not sure it's so much of Canon not having a clue, more along the lines, as that Canon wants the short term market share, with the potential of long term losses. Like it or not there is a small vocal minority that ascribes magical powers to a 35mm sensor size. Canon is assuaging that vocal minority. However don't forget that Canon is also still very much in the APS-C format, with their "Amateur" Lines. Basically is presents a calculated risk on Canon's part. If you are right, Canon temporarily finds itself back in the same location as they were in their early years, in that they were considered a good non-professional option. However if Canon guesses right, and recognizes that there will always be a "niche" group that at best tolerates the new Digital standard. Then they have cornered a niche market that will always generate them revenue.
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?
.
Obviously 35mm give you some additional "potential", just like medium format gives you additional Potential, just like Large Format gives you the same.
Are there types of photography where having a 35mm sensor will be an advantage? Absolutely, however there s no real guarantee that the advantage will be worth the overall cost of owning a 35mm sensor.
I would love to have a Foveon type sensor in all my cameras. If someone comes out with a tiny sensor that can capture image at iso 3200 like the 20D. I'm all over it.
Not exactly Foveon, but something much better is most certainly coming. I know people need to make glass decisions today, not when that something new comes out. So it's not as simple as just waiting on the sidelines.
My personal call is that APS will take hold at the consumer and pro level and FF will just not be needed, so I plan to buy glass accordingly. But please don't make any decisions based on what I say. It would be a case of the blind leading the blind.
One of the major reasons that there will be a place for large format, whether digital or film, is perspective control. No matter how big the sensor gets in a DSLR you don't have the availability of shift, tilt and rise. Perspective control lenses from Nikon and Canon afford a little help, but in no way do they offer the range of movement or ease of preview as the same image on a view camera.
Yes, there is a need for larger sensors, but at this time not for Nikon.
Too much coffee? I don't consider myself properly awake in the mornings unless everything looks extra vivid and contrasty after a few cups
Of course I hope it's obvious that I'm exagerating my stance just to make a point. Subtle points stated with keyboards don't tend to work very well - but the extremes that I'm using are just that - extremes to outline a point.
Marli wrote:
I am thinking of switching to Canon for compatibility with my shooting partner.. But unless you buy a 1D series cameras they are just small, plasticy and have no features..
Yes that's why I switched to Nikon. The 5D was the final straw. For over $3k, that's not nearly as many features nor build quality as it should have. The D200 beats it hands down. I felt like Canon was playing a marketing game and I was the pawn.
Oh well, a 1D it may have to be.. Trouble is my shooting partner loves the Nikon colour and sharpness compared to his 1D series Canon.. He is thinking of switching to my side
There are two Canons that hold a special place in my heart for out of camera picture quality, and they are the 1D ("mark I") and 1Ds (also "mark I). Both have their operational shortcomings on the digital side, namely the 1D has no zoom in image review and the 1Ds is slooow when reviewing images (although not Oly E-10 slow, that was silly-slow... the 1Ds is liveable, just not up to the standards of today).
That being said, I do like the "Nikon look" quite a bit.
Bottom line here is MEASUREBATION. It seems that Canon users have trying to justify their expenditures on equipment forever!! How many of these Canon pposters acutually have a MK II ? The 5D isn't a true FF (check your dimensions).
I find it truly amazing how hung up we are about sensor size!! Give me a break!! I've seen some great images on this site taken with 4 and 5 mp equipment. How many of you guys really have the talent, skills and clients that require a MK II? How many of you have a 350D and are crowing about how great Canon is due to the MK II ? HELLO!!....Its a rebel !! its not FF either!
Its kind of like the golfer who blames his game on his clubs.
My advice..............Shut up and SHOOT a picture. Use what you have. Most DSLRs will take an excellent image when its in the right hands.
) and they feel there are no significant benefits to a move to it.
