Glad this board is here -- at least I can now ask this question and hopefully get some sensible answers -- asking this on a Nikon dedicated board (especially by a Canon shooter like myself) can yield some unwanted responses.
I really am curious since this seems to me a grave error on their part.
A bigger sensor given similar technology should yield more resolution (and probably less noise) hence the resurgent interest in MF digital with 22 MP.
An AP-S sensor (or is it AP-C) but in any case a smaller sensor seems to be a retrograde step IMO.
I want the most resolution I can get --even if I have to crop a little.
By the time Nikon do decide to go FF (and so far they've more or less said they don't intend to) Canon will be so far ahead of the game that they might just as well give up and stick to "prosumer" bodies. (but they do have some good prime Lenses however)
-K
White Balance so easy, even our 5 year old can do it.- Melissa Strickland
I'm intrigued by Nikon's route too. I used Nikon until last year when I switched to Canon. I miss various things from my D1X but am satisfied that I made the right decision overall. However, I did find that both the D1X and the S2Pro (which I used underwater until the switch) both showed up 'poor' lenses - cheaper zooms, etc., which had been fine for use underwater on film for example, were producing soft results on the digital bodies. Before I switched, I queried this with a friend who is a lens designer. Although he only did some rough calculations, his worries were centred on lens production for the smaller sensor cameras. He felt that QC issues would finally limit the MPixel size as lenses would simply become too expensive to produce to acceptable quality levels even if small sensor MPixel sizes increased significantly. So it should be a very interesting time over the next few years as a whole host of problems and issues are dealt with, and I for one am looking forward to watching the progression of digital with interest. I personally will be very surprised if Nikon don't finally produce a full size sensor, but.......
White Balance so easy, even our 5 year old can do it.- Melissa Strickland
I would gather Nikon would dearly love to be able to be head and shoulder above Canon or at least be in par with their DSLR and lens lineup. However, what we are seeing is a historical legacy playing out. Nikon start to lag behind Canon when they first inroduce the AF range and decide not to incorporate internal motor to most lens, and then the issue of IS. Both of which is now resolved, but it take Nikon some effort and quite some time to catch up then. And During which, Canon had eat into Nikon's market share and really became a force to rekon with. And of course we know how Nikon's late coming to the market in DSLR when compared to Nikon ( not the PRO models, but general market )
Nikon's inability to field its own sensor in today's DSLR market is really the reason I see Nikon not going FF. They simply do not have a viable solution to this issue as yet. The Labcast sensor prove very interesting but at the current 4 M-Pixel is clearly not going to satisfy the need. The new sensor on the D2X is looking to be mighty good. Simple math tell us that a FF version of the same sensor ( just size up with the same pixel pitch, microlens etc ... ) should give roughly 2.3 M-Pixel, and that can be encouraging should Nikon / Sony decide to make it ( though it seems very unlikely ).Compounding the issue is Nikon's philsophy of market positioning / price bracketing which leave a lot to be questioned. Their reasoning that a FF body would be costing too much simply do not stand on its own when we see the 1ds family's sales record. IMHO Nikon got a lot of learning going on for them and the whole market positioning of their deployment, and product planning just need some serious rethinking.
White Balance so easy, even our 5 year old can do it.- Melissa Strickland
Nikon Doesn't need "Full Frame". It doesn't matter. It chasing a dead goose. The 1.5 gives Nikon more flexibility with the lens mount (designed in the 50's and still there) that is smaller than the Canon EF. Nikon users love to be able to use an old manual focus or any other Nikkor on the newer bodies and would never want them to change that. (I know, with an adaptor, you can mount Nikkors on a Canon but focusing at f 8 is tough...) The cost is the sensor should stay smaller, yielding more flexibilty in lens design within the f mount, which is Nikons' forte by far, hence the DX lenses.
White Balance so easy, even our 5 year old can do it.- Melissa Strickland
They'ld have to design a DX 60mm f/0.8 or something then, to match the shallow DOF of a 85mm 1.2 on a FF body... To be honest, this would surprise me [img]/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smirk.gif[/img]
White Balance so easy, even our 5 year old can do it.- Melissa Strickland
keep in mind our concept of what a full frame is might change given a few years,... We haven't even really seen much playing with the form factor of these cameras... remember that rumour awhile ago of a medium format style interchangeable back system for the D2X?
White Balance so easy, even our 5 year old can do it.- Melissa Strickland
I'm sure that our ideas about photography will shift over the next few years as digital challenges our analogue preconceptions, but there is the here and now! Although I admit that I work in a specialised field, the Nikon DX lenses do not offer sufficient variety and have potential optical problems in underwater photography. Currently the 12~24 is in my opinion the only real wide-angle usable viably underwater (excepting the 10.5 which is a different story) but the 12~24 is difficult to optimise unless a very large (often impractically so for rough conditions) dome port is used and adjusted for one specific focal length. Many independent manufacturer's wide zooms are not supported by housing manufacturers so they are only viable if custom gears are built. The 60mm micro Nikkor now becomes effectively a 90mm BUT behind a flat port this effectively shifts it to a 135mm which is verry long for many subjects. So I have shifted to Canon for underwater use where I can use most existing lenses, have a wider choice and can optimise them more effectively. As I said in my last post, I miss the D1X which I enjoyed using, and I may even buy a D2X with the above mentioned lenses, but future possibilities don't help me now and I need more than two lenses for current use. I doubt that shorter focal length macro lenses will be built and don't see much interest in fixed focal DX wides so unless Nikon produce a FF camera I see them losing their pro customers in this aspect of photography - certainly many UK pros are making the switch which is not a cheap option.
White Balance so easy, even our 5 year old can do it.- Melissa Strickland
Linear Mode
