Nikon will not go to full frame...

Jeremy Nixon wrote:
Michael Schnell wrote:

Does Nikon offer any "big pro" lenses for Photo journalists (e.g. more
than 300 mm, less than 1.2) for the DX format yet ?

Hmm. Longer than 300mm, less than f/1.2. Does *anyone* offer lenses
fitting that description in SLR format?

No. AFAIK the all-time record at 35mm is the Nikkor 300/2 (no longer
made, $29,000 list in 1983). And most of these were converted to
motion picture mounts for the movie industry...

Andrew.

"Philip Homburg" wrote in message
.phicoh.net...
In article ,
Toby wrote:
I'm a professional video cameraman, and I've been using CCD imaging
sensors
since they first became commerically available (replacing tubes) in the
late
1980s. There has been an unbelieveable evolution of the technology in a
very
short time. Today's video cameras have a full five to seven stops better
sensitivity (compared to their brethren of 10 years ago) at the same
noise
levels. It may be true that full frame will always have an advantage over
a
smaller sensor, but it will become increasingly less important as the
technology continues to progress. I wouldn't count DX out just yet...

Video has more less fixed resolution limits. There is no point in making
a 10 Mpixel video camera when nobody has a display device that can handle
that kind of resolution (of course, you can always print to film :-)

For photography it is different. There are a lot of people who make prints
on printers (and with large enough print sizes) that exceed the resolution
of common digital cameras.

So the question is, do we need more resolution or not. Do we want 30
Mpixels
out of a 35mm format camera or not.

If the answer is that 12 Mpixels is enough, then Nikon can just continue
improving the D2X and can make sure that lenses are really optimized for
that kind of resolution.

If the answer is that we do want that kind of resolution, then it will be
relatively easy for Canon to produce a fullframe camera with that
resolution and it will become very hard for Nikon to produce something
that matches a 30 Mpixel fullframe camera for the same kind of money.
It is just a matter of physics.


It's a matter of physics in relation to the current technology. However,
there's no reason to believe that these obstacles are insurmountable.

--
Regards,
Matt Clara
www.mattclara.com

In article ,
Matt Clara wrote:
"Philip Homburg" wrote in message
q.phicoh.net...
If the answer is that we do want that kind of resolution, then it will be
relatively easy for Canon to produce a fullframe camera with that
resolution and it will become very hard for Nikon to produce something
that matches a 30 Mpixel fullframe camera for the same kind of money.
It is just a matter of physics.

It's a matter of physics in relation to the current technology. However,
there's no reason to believe that these obstacles are insurmountable.

I think lens technology is quite mature. For dynamic range, who knows.
The same applies to quantum efficiency.

The main thing is that Canon can start today. 30 Mpixels at fullframe 35mm
corresponds to 12 Mpixels at 1.6x crop. My guess is that Canon will have the
technology for 12 Mpixels at 1.6x crop already for a future 30D.

But 30 Mpixels at DX does rely on improvements in dynamic range and
noise reduction otherwise it is pointless.


--
That was it. Done. The faulty Monk was turned out into the desert where it
could believe what it liked, including the idea that it had been hard done
by. It was allowed to keep its horse, since horses were so cheap to make.
-- Douglas Adams in Dirk Gently's Holistic Detective Agency

In message ,
"Toby" wrote:

The D2x resolves more lpm than the full frame Canon D5. Using the center of
the lens, which results in greater magnification, certainly tests the
resolving power of the lens itself, but the drop in resolution is balanced
by the exclusion of the lens edges. In practical terms, think of it as a
perfect teleconverter. I don't know pro who is shy about using a 1.4x
teleconverter with a good lens--the drop in quality is not great. Now you
have a teleconverter that doesn't use glass--introduces no distortion nor
transmissive loss. Certainly if you were to compare two 16x20 inch prints
side by side with a magnifying glass you would be able to pick out some
differences, but in the real world....?

That's certainly an advantage, if you have sufficient light. I wish
there was a camera with a 12*8mm 8MP sensor and an EOS mount, instead of
using TCs, so I could look through a brighter viewfinder, at the very
least, but I would not expect to be able to use it at dawn or dusk, or
on cloudy days with a 400mm lens. For that, I need my bigger pixels.
--


John P Sheehy

In message coh.net,
(Philip Homburg) wrote:

In article ,
Toby wrote:
In practical terms, think of it as a
perfect teleconverter. I don't know pro who is shy about using a 1.4x
teleconverter with a good lens--the drop in quality is not great.

I don't know when you last tried a 1.4x TC on a 35mm. Mine doesn't
fit (it is designed for telelenses). Anyhow, I expect a 50mm lens to do
better than a 35mm with a TC.

They crap out at about 60mm or so, in my experience, even thought he
MFRs suggest 90mm or 100mm minimum. I get good corners with my Kenko
Pro 300 DG 1.4x with my Tamron 28-75 at 75mm, but they are noticeably
soft at 50mm, and horrible at 28mm (even though the corners are pretty
good at 28mm without the TC).

--


John P Sheehy