Why does Nikon keep making FF lenses?

In article ,
dennis@home wrote:
"Philip Homburg" wrote in message
q.phicoh.net...
If I need 24mm on 35mm film, I know I don't have to try digital, because
I don't have anything wide enough on DX (though I should remember to try
multiple shots and stitching).

But you don't need to know its 24mm do you?

The label says 24mm. I can try to remember the serial number, but that is
not very productive.

You stand there and look at it and think I don't have a lens wide enough to
do that.
You don't usually have to get the lens out the bag to know it isn't wide
enough.
(If its a still image, stiching works really well. You can try QTVR too.)

I know my lenses by what they do on 35mm film. Digital is relatively new,
and still prefer film, so the effects of lenses on DX is not yet intuitive.
(and given the technical advantages of 24x36mm sensor, I'd like to have a
'full frame' digital camera in the future.)

It is far easier for me to think about what lens I would use on 35mm and
then compute which one I need on DX.

I think lots of people know what their lenses do on 35mm film, so they
want to be able to compute which lenses they would need on APS-C sized
sensors. They don't want to randomly try lenses for a couple of year
to re-acquire the knowledge they already have.

I would imagine they are like me and would try all their lenses the same day
they got their new digital.
It would then take only a few shoots to know which lens does what.

Wow, you can just put a lens on a camera and then remember for ever the
field of view?

And that for 10 lenses or more. Wow.

Maybe lenses should quote their angle of coverage (at infinity as it varies
with focus).

How would you do that for lenses that are designed for 35mm film and then
used on APS-C? Relabel the lenses?

(The best thing is to use a 24x36mm sensor. Many lenses have unique
characteristics that are not present and other lenses).

Like lens shifting on large format?
Oops that's not 35mm. ;-)

With large format anything takes at least half an hour. I guess that after
setting up the tripod, people just start with a nice cup of tea before they
go on.


--
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

On Tue, 16 Jan 2007 09:18:18 +0000, dennis@home wrote:

"Philip Homburg" wrote in message
.phicoh.net...
In article ,
dennis@home wrote:
You don't need to.
Do you look at a scene and think I will need 19.6 mm here or do you just
think I will use a medium wide here.
Anyway you know what results a lens will give without even putting it on
the
camera after a bit of practice.

Given a choice between 20, 24, 28, and 35, yes I do think about which lens
to try first or which lens to take.

If I need 24mm on 35mm film, I know I don't have to try digital, because
I don't have anything wide enough on DX (though I should remember to try
multiple shots and stitching).

But you don't need to know its 24mm do you?
You stand there and look at it and think I don't have a lens wide enough to
do that.
You don't usually have to get the lens out the bag to know it isn't wide
enough.
(If its a still image, stiching works really well. You can try QTVR
too.)

If someone has been working with 35mm for 20 years then I can see where
adjusting to a different sensor size could be a bit of a learning curve.

This is what the "equivalent" numbers address to some extent. They
specifically address acceptance angle, not depth of field, but they're
still useful.

I think lots of people know what their lenses do on 35mm film, so they
want to be able to compute which lenses they would need on APS-C sized
sensors. They don't want to randomly try lenses for a couple of year to
re-acquire the knowledge they already have.

I would imagine they are like me and would try all their lenses the same
day they got their new digital.
It would then take only a few shoots to know which lens does what.

Takes a lot longer to be able to look at a scene and pull a lens out of
the bag and be reasonably certain that it's the "right" lens. When you're
doing it for fun it's not an issue, when you're doing it for pay time is
money.

I suppose it may be that I had an APS SLR as a point and shoot camera
and a fully manual 35mm as my main camera. Even then my waterproof
digital was used for most shoots before I bought a 4/3 SLR. Even with
that many different formats I don't find it necessary to work in
equivilents of 35mm.. especially as its meaningless. Maybe lenses should
quote their angle of coverage (at infinity as it varies with focus).

(The best thing is to use a 24x36mm sensor. Many lenses have unique
characteristics that are not present and other lenses).

Like lens shifting on large format?
Oops that's not 35mm. ;-)

It isn't? There are numerous shift lenses for 35mm, many of which
also work quite nicely with digital. Some of the Russian ones are even
reasonably priced.

--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

In article ,
J. Clarke wrote:
This is what the "equivalent" numbers address to some extent. They
specifically address acceptance angle, not depth of field, but they're
still useful.

DoF is easy: just open the aperture one stop compared to 35mm full frame
(for 1.4x, 1.5 and 1.6 should be close enough, two stops for the 4/3 system).


--
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

"Rebecca Ore" wrote in message
...
In article coh.net,
(Philip Homburg) wrote:

In article ,
Rebecca Ore wrote:
In article ,
"Neil Harrington" wrote:

For long-time 35mm users, it's just very convenient
to think of focal lengths in 35mm terms.

People who haven't used other formats than 35 mm are likely to be camera
users rather than photographers.

You mean people like Henri Cartier-Bresson?

Cartier-Bresson used rangefinders, which tend to be more a
photographer's camera than a camera user's camera, at least when he was
using it.

Why is a rangefinder "more a photographer's camera . . ."? I used
rangefinders long before I could afford my first SLR. Dang, if I'd only
known that by changing to the more capable camera I was becoming less a
photographer . . .

And how exactly does a photographer differ from a camera user, anyway? If
you could give examples of the difference(s), that would be helpful.

Neil

"Bryan Olson" wrote in message
. net...
Neil Harrington wrote:
"Bryan Olson" wrote in message
om...
Neil Harrington wrote:
[...]
So in that case it's a focal length divider. As generally used it's a
focal length multiplier, though that term has mostly been abandoned
since it annoys people.
It annoys people because it's wrong.

It's wrong in the sense that the focal length has not actually been
multiplied.

It's wrong in the sense of incorrect.

No. In the way it's used, which I think most people are able to understand
without difficulty, it is perfectly correct.



It's *correct* in the more important sense that it describes the most
important characteristics of the lens, magnification and field of view,
in familiar 35mm terms.

100mm isn't a field of view. It's a length.

Focal length is, for most people familiar with cameras, a practical way of
describing what is needed for a certain magnification and/or field of view.
Those are the things important to the selection of focal length, not how far
the second nodal point is from the film plane.



A 100mm focal-length lens has a
focal length equivalent to 100mm and not equivalent to any other focal
length, no matter what sensor is behind it.

Good luck explaining that to the camera manufacturers, all of whom do
understand the usefulness of giving 35mm equivalencies for their lenses'
focal lengths even if you do not.

We who want to get these things right have actually had pretty good
luck explaining it right here.

Limited comprehension is not generally called "pretty good luck."


Relative to 35mm full-frame, it's a
crop factor (or crop divisor depending which way you look at it).

Canon calls it a "lens focal length conversion factor," which is exactly
what it is. If it were a "crop factor" that's what Canon would call it. It
isn't, and they don't.

The factor is always used as a *multiplier* of the actual focal length to
give an effective focal length in familiar 35mm terms. I think almost
everyone understands this, even those who use the nonsensical term "crop
factor." Nothing is being cropped. If anything *were* being cropped, it
could not be cropped by 1.5 times. If you still think it could be, just
explain how you would crop 1.5 of something. Anything. Take your time.

Neil

On Mon, 15 Jan 2007 23:10:01 -0000, Alan LeHun
wrote:

In article ,
says...
I think the numbers are about 85% of the market. Currently the Pentax
K10D is the fastest seller in Japan.

Where do you get the numbers to say that?
I asked before, but you didn't answer.


From March last year...
http://www.digitalcamerainfo.com/con...-30-Growth-in-
Entry-Level-DSLR-Market-Over-Next-Year.htm

http://tinyurl.com/u9f8m

It's from a bloomberg report and doesn't state wether 80% is US, US +
Europe or global.

There are many web sites that quote Nikon as aiming for a 40% share such
as

http://www.digitalworldtokyo.com/200..._more_dslr_sha.
php
http://tinyurl.com/y28jf7

also from March last year which suggests that the 80% referred to above
is a global figure.

But.............

From August last year

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601101
&sid=a1tNArNUlcUU&refer=japan
http://tinyurl.com/tbf6n

suggests that in Japan the market share is
Sony ~ 20%
Canon ~ 33%
Nikon ~ 27%

What relevance the current Japanese market has on the future global
market, I can't say.

THanks.
But NotDisclosed has also presented statements claiming sales of
certain cameras are, for example, leading or sagging in certain
markets. I was really asking where he gets figures for those.

--
Arnold Schwarzenegger was at
the Golden Globes Monday to
give away the award for Best
Motion Picture Drama. He's no
newcomer to the winner's circle
himself. The Consumer Electronics
Show in Las Vegas once voted him
most lifelike over Al Gore.

"Bill Funk" wrote in message
...

--
Arnold Schwarzenegger was at
the Golden Globes Monday to
give away the award for Best
Motion Picture Drama. He's no
newcomer to the winner's circle
himself. The Consumer Electronics
Show in Las Vegas once voted him
most lifelike over Al Gore.

guffaw!

I don't know where you get these things, but they're good.

Neil

Rebecca Ore wrote:
In article ,
"Neil Harrington" wrote:

For long-time 35mm users, it's just very convenient
to think of focal lengths in 35mm terms.

People who haven't used other formats than 35 mm are likely to be camera
users rather than photographers.

Yahooooo ....... I'm a photographer. God-Almighty ... I'm not a camera
user .... I'm a photographer. :-))

Back in the 40's, after I as discharged from the Army, I bought a Kodak
box camera. I dumped my Kodak box camera and started using a Speed
Graphic with 4x5 sheet film in film holders and had a wet lab. While
still using the Speed Graphic, I bought a One-Shot camera that used 5x7
and 8x10 B&W sheet film and proceeded to make color die-transfer and
Carbro prints. Heck, it was a long time before I gravitated to using one
of those small toy-like things called a 35mm camera. So ... that makes
me a photographer ... right? But its all been just a hobby, so would I
still be categorized as being a photographer? Please say yes 'cause I
don't want to be just a ...... camera user. (Sniff)

Oh, wait a minute ... damn it, after all this time I'm still no
Cartier-Bresson and I damn sure have forgotten much. Yep, I'm not
kid-quick anymore. Alas .... (right hand over my pace-maker) there's no
justice in this world. :-(


P.S.
If I've hurt feelings, I apologize.

In article ,
"Neil Harrington" wrote:

"Rebecca Ore" wrote in message
...

Cartier-Bresson used rangefinders, which tend to be more a
photographer's camera than a camera user's camera, at least when he was
using it.

Why is a rangefinder "more a photographer's camera . . ."? I used
rangefinders long before I could afford my first SLR. Dang, if I'd only
known that by changing to the more capable camera I was becoming less a
photographer . . .

Tend != always are. I qualified all those statements.

How is one camera more capable than another camera? I could argue that
for me, the rangefinder is more capable at taking medium range people
shots (10 to 15 feet) than a SRL, but a large format camera is more
capable at taking 16 by 20 or bigger shots where there's very small
scale interest (lots of textural detail that's apparent at eight inches
from the print) and large scale interest (the shots that read well
across a room).

I can focus a rangefinder better than I can manually focus a SLR without
a split image screen.

If I'm going to shoot macros, then DSLR and the 105mm lens work just
fine, and I let the thing use the autofocus, which is heresy in some
circles.




And how exactly does a photographer differ from a camera user, anyway? If
you could give examples of the difference(s), that would be helpful.


The camera user has more lenses for his camera than Cartier-Bresson ever
owned in his life but never does anything more with the photographs than
reduce them for posting to the web.

If you shoot mostly people and you have more than three lenses, you
could be more a lens collector than a photographer.

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

But if I go out today to buy a Leica M, then I will also
become a real photographer.

When *he* was using a Leica -- if you bought one, possibly not.

H C-B used a camera that worked for him. Other people used other
cameras that worked for them, for what they wanted to get out of
photography.

I qualified all the statements, but if the lens cap pinches, then it's
perfectly okay to be a camera user. I'm probably more a collector than
a photographer when it comes to film.