Nikon retires most of its film camera lineup

Paul Rubin wrote:
Bill Funk writes:
Future DSLR's will get around this limitation and support cheap
fast normal lenses by having a lens mount matched to the sensor size.

Wouldn't that mean all new lenses?

Yes. The stuff being made now is transitional, which is why it's
heading towards obsolescence. It looked for a while like the 4/3"
system was going to be the new small format, but (so far) 4/3 products
haven't lived up the format's potential.

I think the future will be interesting...

The technology driving sensors has nothing directly to do with
lens technology. I think it inevitable that companies will be
able to produce "better" sensors as time goes on. That means
lower noise sensors and sensors with more pixels and sensors
with greater size. Some of these *may* be mutually incompatible.

So I think that "normal" 35mm sensors will become cheaper and
hence more common. The reason is that they will fit lenses
and lens designs already out there. Other sizes require new
lenses and manufacturers likely won't want to do that.

Thus I think that we will continue to see the current sensor
sizes, but with lower noise. And I think that 35mm sensor
sizes will become more popular. And further down the line
I think that 2 1/2 x 2 1/2 sized sensors may well appear.

But there will be another trend. I think that we will see
more plastic in lenses and cameras and more "plastic" as
lens elements. The reason for this is that they can easily
be cast into aspheric elements thus allowing for much better
optics more cheaply.

And "plastic" lenses will get to be more sturdy. Metal has
no particular advantages. Plastic can be as tough and as
strong and as impact resistant as metal -- and better in many
cases as well.

If manufacturers are able to produce a combination equivalent
to a full-frame metal camera with a fully metal 70-200 or so
zoom that weighs half as much and is as strong and sturdy, they
will find that their sales zoom out of sight.

We are in for a very interesting next 20 years. Buckle your
seat belts and come along for the ride.

----- Paul J. Gans

Bill Funk wrote:

It seems to me that someone thinks APS-C sensors will be around for a
while. Canon makes the EF-S lenses, and several other lens makers are
making lenses specifically to fit the smaller sensors, using
traditional mounts.
Thgis doesn't sound like the industry thinks APS sensors will go away
any time soon.

We had multiple formats back in the film age too. Nothing wrong
with that. And no reason why it should not persist into the future.
I think that an APS sized sensor will *always* be cheaper than the
equivalent full-frame sensor.

So sure, APS will not go away. But full-frame may come back.

----- Paul J. Gans

Paul Rubin wrote:

Bill Funk writes:
It looked for a while like the 4/3" system was going to be the new
small format, but (so far) 4/3 products haven't lived up the
format's potential.

If the DSLR market moves to full-frame (35mm) sensors, that's not
needed at all.

I dunno about that. In principle there could be a 4/3" DSLR that fits
in a shirt pocket like the old Pentax 110 SLR used to. There's no way
to make a 35mm FF SLR that small.

Considering that a 2/3" sensor is about the same size as a 110 film
frame, I think that it would be the more apropriate sized sensor.
It would be nifty if Pentax resurected it's 110 SLR as a digital.

And, personally, I am of the opinion that it will; Canon is forcing
the matter.
APS-C will remain (again, Canon sets the tone, making the EF-S lenses,
indicating it's here for the long term; other lens makers are
following suit, making small-image-circle lenses in standard mounts),
so both sensor sizes will probably co-exist in the marketplace, each
within their own tier of products.

Ehh, I dunno, Nikon and Canon both made APS (film) SLR systems and
lenses and that stuff didn't stay around for the long term.

Well, Nikon doesn't any more (see the subject line) ;-)

I'd also be kind of surprised if Canon will bring out any new APS or
35mm film cameras anytime soon.
Why would they bother?
The market segement that would use APS cameras now have mainly moved to
compact digitals like the Canon G6 or a DSLR like the Rebel XT.

Paul J Gans wrote:

We had multiple formats back in the film age too. Nothing wrong
with that. And no reason why it should not persist into the future.
I think that an APS sized sensor will *always* be cheaper than the
equivalent full-frame sensor.

So sure, APS will not go away. But full-frame may come back.

Exactly. Nikon's rumored full-frame camera supposedly becomes an
APS-C-format camera whenever a DX lens is mounted instead of a
full-frame lens.


--
Mark Roberts
Photography and writing
www.robertstech.com

On Sat, 14 Jan 2006 19:44:09 -0500, Mark Roberts
wrote:

Paul J Gans wrote:

We had multiple formats back in the film age too. Nothing wrong
with that. And no reason why it should not persist into the future.
I think that an APS sized sensor will *always* be cheaper than the
equivalent full-frame sensor.

So sure, APS will not go away. But full-frame may come back.

Exactly. Nikon's rumored full-frame camera supposedly becomes an
APS-C-format camera whenever a DX lens is mounted instead of a
full-frame lens.


I would imagine so.
So do Canon's full-frame cameras when coupled with lenses designed
with an image circle to fit the APS-C sensors.

--
Bill Funk
Replace "g" with "a"
funktionality.blogspot.com

wrote:
Paul Rubin wrote:
Bill Funk writes:
It looked for a while like the 4/3" system was going to be the new
small format, but (so far) 4/3 products haven't lived up the
format's potential.

If the DSLR market moves to full-frame (35mm) sensors, that's not
needed at all.

I dunno about that. In principle there could be a 4/3" DSLR that fits
in a shirt pocket like the old Pentax 110 SLR used to. There's no way
to make a 35mm FF SLR that small.

Considering that a 2/3" sensor is about the same size as a 110 film
frame, I think that it would be the more apropriate sized sensor.

Oops: 110 is 13 x 17 mm (221 sq mm, about the same size as the 13.5 x 18 mm
of the 4/3 frame) whereas 2/3" is 6.6 x 8.8 mm (58 sq mm).

That's a factor of 3.8. Nowhere near "about the same size".

It would be nifty if Pentax resurected it's 110 SLR as a digital.

I suspect that that's what the 4/3 fans are hoping.

Ehh, I dunno, Nikon and Canon both made APS (film) SLR systems and
lenses and that stuff didn't stay around for the long term.

Well, Nikon doesn't any more (see the subject line) ;-)

They died quickly because film is a disaster in anything smaller than 24x36.
(And anyone who has seen an 11x14 from MF considers 24x36 to be a
subminiature format.)

Consumer negative films are really grossly grainy, and while Reala or Provia
100F or a host of other ISO 160 and slower films can make very nice A4 (8.25
x 11.5) prints from 35mm, APS with consumer negative films is already pretty
ugly at 5x7.

David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan