If people don't know the difference between a complete ripoff $8000 1Ds camera.... and a medium format camera , then there's no way anyone's going to be able to explain it.
The 1Ds is not ripoff. You get the highest resolution (well, until yesterday) on a body that will actually do a lof of other things you get from an SLR, unlike a digital back which will give you more resolution and something like 0.5fps and ISO 400 tops. Different things for different people.
Hate to say this, but $10K for a 48x48 sensor? You've got to be joking - look around, any MF sensor even close to that size is at least $30K. Nikon might be good at keeping prices low, but does anyone realistically think that they are going to put out a sensor that's arguably better than the majority of current medium format sensors for 1/3 the price?
eonflux wrote:
Okay, I'm a little confused. People have a HUGE problem with Canon's pricing...$8k for the top of the line camera. Now all of a sudden, if Nikon has a $10k camera, people are willing to sell their children to get their hands on it. I'm really confused now...What do you people want...or do you even know!!!
Steve Perry wrote:
Hate to say this, but $10K for a 48x48 sensor? You've got to be joking - look around, any MF sensor even close to that size is at least $30K. Nikon might be good at keeping prices low, but does anyone realistically think that they are going to put out a sensor that's arguably better than the majority of current medium format sensors for 1/3 the price?
I'd love to see it, but I just don't see how...
~Steve
They could, those Mamiya ZD backs go for under $10K and Nikon's a bigger company company. If they get their manufacturing down with Sony and don't go for stratospheric megapixels there'd be nothing stopping them from hitting those numbers.
Jammy Straub wrote:
They could, those Mamiya ZD backs go for under $10K and Nikon's a bigger company company. If they get their manufacturing down with Sony and don't go for stratospheric megapixels there'd be nothing stopping them from hitting those numbers.
That's the thing though - they are talking about a 49MP back here. The Mamiya ZD was only 21, and it was / is $10K - and honestly, I remember reading about all manner of QC issues with it (purple worms comes to mind). Look at 39MP backs and you're $25-30K - still smaller! Plus, it's only been very recent that they can actaully do an actual full frame (pardon the term) 6 x4.5. To do a 48x48 square has to be even harder.
Don't get me wrong - I would love love love to grab a MF camera for $10K (it would be nice be using MF again). A camera like that at that price point would change everything.
At any rate, it looks like Nikon is planning something exciting. It should be a very interesting year for everyone.
Steve
EDIT - Oops - I see you were talking about the back, not the ZD camera. Yes, I think the backs are around $7-$8K, still would be hard to go 49MP vs 21 for $2K more.
It would be great to see MF digital cams go more more mainstream, in other words affordable price, plus the sensor technology benefits that are being applied in 35mm DSLR's. Nikon or Canon are the best placed companies to make this happen.
A few short years ago full frame 35mm DSLRs were unobtainable to most hobby photographers, but now most of us shoot with them. I hope the trend continues and we will be shooting with affordable MF digital cams before too long.
panos.v wrote:
So you will spend God knows how much more than a D3 to buy this MX camera and then use an adapter on it. Right. And a DX lens. I'm pretty sure a 18-55 will be a perfect match with your hypothetical DX-to-MX adapter for your $10k camera.
I guess people buy Holgas so they might as well buy this. Although a Holga does have a purpose. It's crap by design.
I'm sure there would be a dedicated line of MX lenses but why do you think people use/like adapters?!?
So it makes it more polyvalent whether it's a DX or FX lens they already own...
panos.v wrote:
The 1Ds is not ripoff. You get the highest resolution (well, until yesterday) on a body that will actually do a lof of other things you get from an SLR, unlike a digital back which will give you more resolution and something like 0.5fps and ISO 400 tops. Different things for different people.
Well, I guess we'll just disagree. You can have a Nikon D3 with an FX sensor that does 9 to 11 frames per second for less than $5000. What would be the cost of putting in the new Sony 24 MP sensor. The whole A900 costs $3000.
I'm very happy Sony has released this camera, I hope it does very well.
I think it would be awesome, I would think Nikon would have it designed so you could shoot anywhere between DX and MX, a panorama mode would be amazing and I would also think that this would mean that when in 35mm mode the focus points would be able to stretch to the outer perimeter instead of being confined to the center as it is now.
Cheers,
Jasin.
nikt wrote:
Well, I guess we'll just disagree. You can have a Nikon D3 with an FX sensor that does 9 to 11 frames per second for less than $5000. What would be the cost of putting in the new Sony 24 MP sensor. The whole A900 costs $3000.
I'm very happy Sony has released this camera, I hope it does very well.
You don't "just" get a FX sensor in a D3... You get high speed photography (9fps), blazing fast AF and an AMAZING 3D color metering system based on 1,005 pixels among many other things.
In the Sony, you basically get a FF sensor shooting at 5fps...
I think his point may have more closely resembled the assertion that Canon is not earning its $3,000 premium over the D3. The only truly significant advantage the 1Ds3 has over the D3 is in MP... certain in metering, AF, fps, and other metrics the D3 holds its own quite nicely thank you. So, is a 21MP sensor worth $3,000 more than the 12MP sensor in the D3? Put another way, Nikon could put even more pressure on Canon by releasing nothing more than a D3x with 24MP and every other feature constant, for $6000.
Canon's gotta be feeling some price pressure already. And I have the feeling it's only going to get worse.
Rodolfo Paiz wrote:
Nikon could put even more pressure on Canon by releasing nothing more than a D3x with 24MP and every other feature constant, for $6000.
Canon's gotta be feeling some price pressure already. And I have the feeling it's only going to get worse.
And I think that's what's gonna happen! I wouldn't be surprised to see a D3X racking 24+MP at under $6,000
jasin wrote:
I think it would be awesome, I would think Nikon would have it designed so you could shoot anywhere between DX and MX, a panorama mode would be amazing and I would also think that this would mean that when in 35mm mode the focus points would be able to stretch to the outer perimeter instead of being confined to the center as it is now.
Cheers,
Jasin.
Exactly. A square sensor would be ideal for me. Since I crop plenty to a square size anyway. Something like a large 48 sq.mm would be even better.
I'm all for it - the "big" deal as far as I'm concerned would be medium-format + Nikon's CLS. Medium-format IQ with the setup speed that CLS allows you would be a real godsend.
Steve Perry wrote:
That's the thing though - they are talking about a 49MP back here. The Mamiya ZD was only 21, and it was / is $10K - and honestly, I remember reading about all manner of QC issues with it (purple worms comes to mind). Look at 39MP backs and you're $25-30K - still smaller! Plus, it's only been very recent that they can actaully do an actual full frame (pardon the term) 6 x4.5. To do a 48x48 square has to be even harder.
Don't get me wrong - I would love love love to grab a MF camera for $10K (it would be nice be using MF again). A camera like that at that price point would change everything.
At any rate, it looks like Nikon is planning something exciting. It should be a very interesting year for everyone.
Steve
EDIT - Oops - I see you were talking about the back, not the ZD camera. Yes, I think the backs are around $7-$8K, still would be hard to go 49MP vs 21 for $2K more. ...Show more →
Ah, I had been thinking under the assumption that the MF back would use the same pixel density as the D3, giving us around 32mp. Whatever the case, you're right Nikon would have to pull a major hat trick for any of these to come in under $20k
The thought of a 32mp Mamiya 6 makes me all shaky with excitement. I love square.
nikt wrote:
Well, I guess we'll just disagree. You can have a Nikon D3 with an FX sensor that does 9 to 11 frames per second for less than $5000. What would be the cost of putting in the new Sony 24 MP sensor. The whole A900 costs $3000.
I'm very happy Sony has released this camera, I hope it does very well.
The reason the A900 costs $3k is because they forgot to put the $1k worth of image processing electronics Nikon puts in a D3, which is why I am more than 90% sure the end image quality of the A900 will be inferior to a D3 for most situations except where only resolution is improtant. And they also didn't put another $1k worth of sealing, build quality, ergonomics and to be honest, a A900 looks like a pig, the D3 is much better so that's worth at least $500.
xof711 wrote:
I'm sure there would be a dedicated line of MX lenses but why do you think people use/like adapters?!?
So it makes it more polyvalent whether it's a DX or FX lens they already own...
People use adapters so that they can adapt lenses from larger formats to smaller ones, for example use Mamiya 645 lenses on 35mm film, or to use lenses from other systems of equal size, for example Nikon lenses on a Canon camera. But they never go from a smaller format to a larger one as that's a bit like using a teleconverter but with more complications.
?
