Nikon D2x - it's official

poco wrote:

TP wrote in newsfitk05ju5e5lr8i4simq3u91nco9fi4vl@
4ax.com:

poco wrote:
(Steven Scharf) wrote:
Nikon desperately needs a larger sensor.

I think what Nikon needs to do is give full commitment to their DX
format.


And that is exactly what Nikon is doing.

What I meant was perhaps Nikon should make a new mount to optimize
the DX CMOS size. F-mount is made for the lens to project on 35mm film
size, and current DX lines are merely a makeshift solution that doesn't
truly take advantage of the smaller projection size.


Good grief. There is perhaps a (very)slight justification for arguing
that the throat of the Nikon F mount is too small. Arguing that it is
too large is almost beyond belief.

(This could only have appeared via rec.photo.digital, the world's
greatest repository of nonsense about photography.)

In rec.photo.equipment.35mm poco wrote:
TP wrote in newsfitk05ju5e5lr8i4simq3u91nco9fi4vl@
4ax.com:

poco wrote:
(Steven Scharf) wrote:
Nikon desperately needs a larger sensor.

I think what Nikon needs to do is give full commitment to their DX
format.


And that is exactly what Nikon is doing.

What I meant was perhaps Nikon should make a new mount to optimize
the DX CMOS size. F-mount is made for the lens to project on 35mm film
size, and current DX lines are merely a makeshift solution that doesn't
truly take advantage of the smaller projection size.

You are crazy, you know that?

By making a mount that is optimized to project DX size image circle,
Nikon should be able to make smaller and faster lenses, not to mention that
35mm(I'm guessing rougly on the focal lenth that would be a 'normal' on
such mount) would give same perspective AND same field of view as 50mm for
the F-mount would. Besides, since the new mount would be closer to the
imager plane, I would think it would be too hard to build a simple spacer
adaptor for the old F-mount lenses to fit on the new mount if the new mount
has sufficient mount opening.
Of course, I'm not exactly versed in optics, the logistics might as
well be impossible. I would love to hear explanations though. It's been
getting harder and harder to be educated in usenet for a while.

If you are not well versed in optics why the heck did you just write
this???? What matters is *NOT* the mount size but the cicrle that the
lens projects.

--
Sander

+++ Out of cheese error +++

In rec.photo.equipment.35mm poco wrote:
TP wrote in newsfitk05ju5e5lr8i4simq3u91nco9fi4vl@
4ax.com:

poco wrote:
(Steven Scharf) wrote:
Nikon desperately needs a larger sensor.

I think what Nikon needs to do is give full commitment to their DX
format.


And that is exactly what Nikon is doing.

What I meant was perhaps Nikon should make a new mount to optimize
the DX CMOS size. F-mount is made for the lens to project on 35mm film
size, and current DX lines are merely a makeshift solution that doesn't
truly take advantage of the smaller projection size.

You are crazy, you know that?

By making a mount that is optimized to project DX size image circle,
Nikon should be able to make smaller and faster lenses, not to mention that
35mm(I'm guessing rougly on the focal lenth that would be a 'normal' on
such mount) would give same perspective AND same field of view as 50mm for
the F-mount would. Besides, since the new mount would be closer to the
imager plane, I would think it would be too hard to build a simple spacer
adaptor for the old F-mount lenses to fit on the new mount if the new mount
has sufficient mount opening.
Of course, I'm not exactly versed in optics, the logistics might as
well be impossible. I would love to hear explanations though. It's been
getting harder and harder to be educated in usenet for a while.

If you are not well versed in optics why the heck did you just write
this???? What matters is *NOT* the mount size but the cicrle that the
lens projects.

--
Sander

+++ Out of cheese error +++

TP wrote in message . ..
poco wrote:

TP wrote in newsfitk05ju5e5lr8i4simq3u91nco9fi4vl@
4ax.com:

poco wrote:
(Steven Scharf) wrote:
Nikon desperately needs a larger sensor.

I think what Nikon needs to do is give full commitment to their DX
format.


And that is exactly what Nikon is doing.

What I meant was perhaps Nikon should make a new mount to optimize
the DX CMOS size. F-mount is made for the lens to project on 35mm film
size, and current DX lines are merely a makeshift solution that doesn't
truly take advantage of the smaller projection size.


Good grief. There is perhaps a (very)slight justification for arguing
that the throat of the Nikon F mount is too small. Arguing that it is
too large is almost beyond belief.

(This could only have appeared via rec.photo.digital, the world's
greatest repository of nonsense about photography.)

Sounded to me like the poster was arguing for a mount that's closer to
the sensor, not smaller in diameter. There is some merit to this.

Brian
www.caldwellphotographic.com

Dallas wrote:


Please bear in mind that the "full frame" sensor of the EOS 1Ds is
actually two 6 megapixel CMOS chips welded together.

http://www.dpreview.com/news/0409/04091605nikond2x.asp

looks suspiciously like a single piece to me (look near bottom of
linked page).



--
-- rec.photo.equipment.35mm user resource:
-- http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- e-meil: there's no such thing as a FreeLunch.--

Dallas wrote:


Please bear in mind that the "full frame" sensor of the EOS 1Ds is
actually two 6 megapixel CMOS chips welded together.

http://www.dpreview.com/news/0409/04091605nikond2x.asp

looks suspiciously like a single piece to me (look near bottom of
linked page).



--
-- rec.photo.equipment.35mm user resource:
-- http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- e-meil: there's no such thing as a FreeLunch.--

Dallas wrote:


Please bear in mind that the "full frame" sensor of the EOS 1Ds is
actually two 6 megapixel CMOS chips welded together.

http://www.dpreview.com/news/0409/04091605nikond2x.asp

looks suspiciously like a single piece to me (look near bottom of
linked page).



--
-- rec.photo.equipment.35mm user resource:
-- http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- e-meil: there's no such thing as a FreeLunch.--

"Howard McCollister" wrote in message
...

"Steven M. Scharf" wrote in message
ink.net...

Nikon also desperately needs to update their lens mount, and move to a
larger diameter mount. Part of Nikon's dissing of full frame may relate
to
their antiquated, small diameter lens mount. The EOS mount has paid big
dividends for Canon.


That just doesn't make any sense. You'll have to explain why you think
that
is true.

It has probably been explained 100 times in the past 10-15 years.

"A small throat leads to mirror cutoff with telephotos, and a simple
inability to have large rear elements with shorter lenses."

The EOS mount, combined with the BWLs, is the reason why Canon took the
sports photography market away from Nikon.

"Howard McCollister" wrote in message
...

"Steven M. Scharf" wrote in message
ink.net...

Nikon also desperately needs to update their lens mount, and move to a
larger diameter mount. Part of Nikon's dissing of full frame may relate
to
their antiquated, small diameter lens mount. The EOS mount has paid big
dividends for Canon.


That just doesn't make any sense. You'll have to explain why you think
that
is true.

It has probably been explained 100 times in the past 10-15 years.

"A small throat leads to mirror cutoff with telephotos, and a simple
inability to have large rear elements with shorter lenses."

The EOS mount, combined with the BWLs, is the reason why Canon took the
sports photography market away from Nikon.

"Sander Vesik" wrote in message
...
In rec.photo.equipment.35mm Jeremy Nixon wrote:
poco wrote:

If Nikon was to give full commitment to DX format, I don't see why
they
couldn't develope true DX lenses that can include something like 20mm
f1.4
or 300mm f1.4. Even if Nikon has to abandon F mount in such system, I
would
think smaller fast lenses would attract enough photographers to make
it a
success.

My dream is a 50mm f/0.9. That would rule. And I don't see why they'd
have
to abandon the F mount to do it; I don't know much of anything about
lens

They wouldn't have to.

design, but they've got an 85/1.4, which works out to a 60.7mm aperture,
and f/0.9 on 50mm is only like 55.5mm, so it'd be a smaller aperture
than
they've already got working just fine with the mount now.

Aperture on the just announced 300mm f/2.8 is even larger. Aperture is not
really controlled or affected that much by the lens mount size.

We must remember that Topcon did have a 300mm f:2.8 on their tiny slightly
modified Exacta mount in the 1970's. So exit pupil size can be overcome.