Full Frame is the wrong term, and Jasin is correct in asserting Nikon is full frame. It's ludicrous to even being having this discussion again. The DX is only a 'cropped' camera in 35mm terms. The 4x5 is only a cropped camera in 5x7 terms, the 5x7 is only a cropped camera in 8x10 terms....................................................
The 24x36 format certainly has compellng arguments, just like any other format has compelling arguments. I can use narrow dof, do studio work, and architecture with the DX sensor, it's a matter of lens choice and f-stop. 24x36 is by no means the be-all-end-all format in professional photography, no more so than the DX is, or any other format for that matter.
jacko wrote:
Full Frame is the wrong term, and Jasin is correct in asserting Nikon is full frame. It's ludicrous to even being having this discussion again. The DX is only a 'cropped' camera in 35mm terms. The 4x5 is only a cropped camera in 5x7 terms, the 5x7 is only a cropped camera in 8x10 terms....................................................
The 24x36 format certainly has compellng arguments, just like any other format has compelling arguments. I can use narrow dof, do studio work, and architecture with the DX sensor, it's a matter of lens choice and f-stop. 24x36 is by no means the be-all-end-all format in professional photography, no more so than the DX is, or any other format for that matter.
You forgot that 24x36mm is cropped compared to medium format...
I think it's fair to use the term "cropped" when talking about adapting lenses designed for a larger format for use on a smaller-format sensor, such as Canon's adaption of their EF lenses for use on their amateur DSLR cameras, or Nikon's film-era lenses on their DSLR's, or adapting Pentax 67 lenses to a Pentax 35mm film camera. The resulting field of view is "cropped" from what it was designed for.
On the other hand, Nikon's DX lenses are not cropped, just as the Olympus 4/3 system lenses are not cropped - both are providing "full frame" coverage on the sensors they were designed for.
Whether or not it competes head to head with the 20D is irrelovent IMO. Nikon don`t seem to compete or follow on Canon`s terms anyway.
They go off in their own direction and do their own thing within their own time frame.
That might not be a bad thing either other than leaving that 20D price point hole wide open for what appears as too long.
However as I stated in an earlier thread, the profits could be higher at the D50 level of dslrs and thats where they decided to concentrate their interest first along with the top end D2X.
Their way of doing things could be unique and possibly be showing a better return for them than attempting to leapfrog Canon on Canon`s time table.
For example, although a bit late it`s obvious that the D50 leapfrogged the Drebel and can still compete with Canon`s other entry level stuff and the DX2 might be the best or at least equal to anything else in the pro class .
You could say that Nikon eventually ends up leapfrogging Canon depending on your purchasing timetable even though Canon releases models more frequently.
And surely the Nikon brand recognition is still so well known being carried down from past generations still rings loud (maybe loudest) with those who purchase a dslr. Nikon has not let anyone down regardless of how well Canon is doing and simply cannot be overlooked , it has to be considered.
Yet there`s no question there is plenty of room for both, and then some.
John.
Speaking of leapfrogging Canon, the one are where Nikon has certainly leapfrogged Canon is in service. I, for one, am very happy to be able to obtain prompt and reliable service for my equipment, something that does not seem possible with Canon these days.
I would be really annoyed with Nikon if they go back to a full frame sensor. We all know it was a mistake for them to even produce cameras with the current smaller frame sensor, but some of us spent serious money on these digital, smaller sensor compatible lenses. Only reason I started buying these lenses is because I was under the impression that Nikon would be producing DSLRs with the smaller sensor for awhile. Even independent lens makers such as Sigma started making lenses for these newer DSLRs.
Whatever Nikon comes up with I am sure we will all find something to complain about. I also think Nikon will add some features they think will be cool, but not the rest of the civilized world. Probably more custom functions for the self timer, a few extra program modes (like two people portrait mode, potrait of person with moustache mode, quarter moon on cloudy night mode, etc). I also predict they will make it smaller than the D50, because Nikon knows that there are no people out there with large hands. I am also sure their keen research team informed them that the viewfinder on the D70 was too bright, therefore they will probably make it smaller as well. After all, why would anyone need an HP viewfinder? Sadly, I will be one of the first to go out and buy the D200. I guess I too need something to complain about.
There was a nikon/kodak hybrid a few years ago, right around the time the D1 series started sprouting that was based on an F5 body, there was a 2 mpx & 6 mpx version, they both had a 1.3x crop factor. You know, even a 1.3 is nice. 20mm on my 1D is an honest 27mm, I'm OK with it. It's a nice lens too, that takes 52mm filters. Kinda bad that on the 1.5 bodies you need ultra-ultra wide lenses to get "wide enough" I'm just surprised that nikon didn't move in that direction. I guess the SLR/n system is the closest to full frame nikon will ever be able to have...
jasin wrote:
So, I hear the D200 wil be anounced in the next month and aparently it has something on/to it that no current pro DSLR has.
Any suggestions?
One I had heard was that it has dual card slots, one would assume CF and SD.
Cheers,
Jasin.
Dual SD and CF slots is hardly new -- the "Other" make uses this "feature" on the 1D2 etc.
In any case if you want to use SD cards there are plenty of CF==>SD adapters around including one I believe is actually made by Nikon.
A current problem with SD is that compared with CF the maximum capacaity is less -- if you want to shoot maximun size RAW / (?NEF) images and do a lot of shooting a 1GB SD card might not be enough --currently CF sizes are up to 6GB and possibly even more soon. -- Of course future technology may change all this but I wouldn't be excited over this one.
What would be interesting is possibly in areas such as better in camera noise reduction obviating the use of Software during post processing and even the possibility of building some type of Image Stabilisation mechanisms into the camera itself --- a difficult one since each different Lens you attach to the body will alter the weight and Centre of Gravity of the combined Body+ Lens.
The current MP level is probably sufficient now for the 35 MM format so any camera with 8 / 12 /16 MP resolution will be fine for any area where you don't specifically need the MF format.
This is all about numbers...You guys keep calling it the D200.
I suppose the way to tell really whats coming is to see in the Federal records department of copyrighted names who currently owns the "D200" label?
It was rumored last couple years someone had taken a copy on "D200" to foil those Nikon guys and perhaps or try maybe to make some money on the name.
I would of called it the "D220" and be done with it. D2 series combined with bigger pixels numbers just like 220 was a longer roll than 120.
Of course D2005 could work, with a 25% increase in printing costs using a fourth didgit will probably drive the bean counters nuts. They have used four digits in the past 2002, 4004, 6006, 8008.
Nice to know the year of it's birth, why not use it as the model number. DUH! Guranteed no duplicates either. 'The new "2005". Just like the car guys. It's only fair and the resale value is about the same percentage wise. In four years nothin's worth nothin whether it's a car or a camera. When Nikon lowered the boom of the D2H, car guys invented employee pricing.. See no difference.
Chrysler went from the doghouse to a bigger doghouse when the realized 14 month new model introduction and production using a Catera system of computer for design sells more cars than the usual three to five year model announcements. People do starve for upmanship.
The major theory buster is that this is still an import and may not be subjective to US copyright laws on a model number, I don't do international laws, I have enough trouble with speed laws and parking tickets right here in Tampa.
Breaking News: Hockey Fans Note ; we just lost our best goalie Kabeb-ooooooulin to Chicago for $27,000,000 for four years. Now those are great numbers, 27 million.
This could eventually really cloud things in the US where we are very sensitive to numbering things. We'll have to look into various treaties with other countries to allow use of our numbers on their soil!
Like the NAFNUT.... North American Free Numbering Utilization Treaty or the Treaty of Numerical Transfer..... TNT or the Free Arithmatic Relationship Treaty... FART.
Oh well whats in a number...our President will Ok any number policy I guess unless Canon comes out with a new model called the 666 or a P&S called the 69. That dog won't hunt....
Hope you guys get all the options on your wishtickets.. especially those wanting "power options" like adjustable rubber grips and "power whiz wheels" like on the accelerated mouses we have.
In another thread Jacko mentioned getting a new F5, Many Congrats Jack, it a great tool. Hopefully a rebirth of film might take place.
I used one of my old film cameras the other day to keep it in backup trim. I dropped the film at the last Pro Lab here in this part of the world.
One hour to shoot, possible construction flaws in a new project. 1/2 hour travel and two days later delivered the job. 25 8x10's right on target no work and made $$$$. Day fee plus printing and Never Touched "Post Processing". The prints were gorgeous and full of life.
Hmmm, maybe this numbers games might have a few kinks in the process. Film isn''t that bad after all....
In another thread Jacko mentioned getting a new F5, Many Congrats Jack, it a great tool. Hopefully a rebirth of film might take place.
Hey Al, I read an interesting article the other day (I want to say Shutterbug, but I'm not sure), but there does seem to be a lot of people turning back to film. Maybe that's an overstatement, and not enough to turn the tide, but certain models of film camera's are hot right now. Anyway, the article was something to the effect of, the film vs digital cround has formed into two camps and are fighting like dogs, but hey, the enemy ain't us, it's the market/marketing/manufacturer et al.
It's great to hear that you can actually still shoot a job with film and get paid for it
jacko wrote:
Hey Al, I read an interesting article the other day (I want to say Shutterbug, but I'm not sure), but there does seem to be a lot of people turning back to film.
Jack
I use two vendors for my professional film needs. A local camera store and a larger vendor called DM Carlick in NYC. My work is wholly film-dependent, with all the attendent chemicals, paper, etc.---that are needed for a film workflow. Yesterday I went to the local store, which is more convenient than ordering by phone with DM Carlick. I needed some Dektol, hypo and Photoflo. Guess what? The local store has stopped selling all chemsitry. The reason? The stuff was sitting on the shelves and expiring without much sales. The noose is tightening, and it can only get worse. The handwriting's on the wall.
I use two vendors for my professional film needs. A local camera store and a larger vendor called DM Carlick in NYC. My work is wholly film-dependent, with all the attendent chemicals, paper, etc.---that are needed for a film workflow. Yesterday I went to the local store, which is more convenient than ordering by phone with DM Carlick. I needed some Dektol, hypo and Photoflo. Guess what? The local store has stopped selling all chemsitry. The reason? The stuff was sitting on the shelves and expiring without much sales. The noose is tightening, and it can only get worse. The handwriting's on the wall. ...Show more →
I'm not really dreaming, I think I overdosed on the aspirin.... there are a good number of people going back to film, not switching from digital, but going back to what they think will save them from the sterility of digital. In the grand scheme of things, I'm sure this is really a small number of people.
No doubt that film is going to be relegated to specialty stores in the not-to-distant future. Just as an example, just a few years ago, our local Walmart had a huge selection of film, now it's just the basics, mostly color print film, and very little inventory. As to chemicals, it's been going that way for years. I've been having to mail-order chemicals because the local shops (60 and 80 miles, if you can call that local) just don't carry what I need anymore.
hmm well chemicals arent really my problem however I did switch back to film. I am defineatly going against the grain though. It is logical to go digital for a lot of reasons. err back on topic
