Why does Nikon keep making FF lenses?

"Jeroen Wenting" jwenting at hornet dot demon dot nl wrote in message
...

Anyway, anything is full frame for a given definition of "frame".
DX is "full frame", so is 645, so is 35mm, and so is 6x6.
And I doubt Nikon will ever produce a 6x6 DSLR, which (being the largest
of those formats) is the only true "full" frame among them, everything
else is smaller and therefore a subset of 6x6.

Why do you pick 6x6 as the only true "full" frame? Even if you're talking
about SLR type cameras, there's still 6x7 (Pentax) or if you're just talking
about roll film what about 6x9? But why limit yourself to that? Go for the
big stuff, the largest readily available film size is 8x10" so that's my
candidate for full frame, up against that, 4x5 is miniature.
Really, Jeroen, since you inhabit this ng, you know that for the purposes of
discussion here, "full frame" refers to 35mm sized, and the DX sensors are
not the largest frame that the common lens format will cover, thus, not full
frame.
--
Skip Middleton
www.shadowcatcherimagery.com
www.pbase.com/skipm

Bigguy wrote:
The accepted definition of "full frame" is 35mm equivalent.

Only if you work exclusively / mostly with 35mm....

Full frame has other meanings too.
I have a film / TV / photo background and the term 'full frame' has many
meanings depending on context.

/pedantry

Well, yes, but this is a SLR forum.

--
john mcwilliams

King pardon wrote:
On 13 Jan 2007 14:00:14 GMT, "J. Clarke"
wrote:

On Sat, 13 Jan 2007 10:02:48 +0100, Jeroen Wenting wrote:

Anyway, anything is full frame for a given definition of "frame". DX is
"full frame", so is 645, so is 35mm, and so is 6x6. And I doubt Nikon
will ever produce a 6x6 DSLR, which (being the largest of those formats)
is the only true "full" frame among them, everything else is smaller and
therefore a subset of 6x6.
The accepted definition of "full frame" is 35mm equivalent. By pretending
that you don't know this or trying to redefine the term you're exposing
yourself as ignorant, loony, or trolling.

35mm is a cropped format compared to 6x6. It's all relative to what
you are used to.

If medium fomat is your reference, then 35mm is cropped, and the 35mm
crop factor is 1.5. Instead of shooting portraits with your 150mm
lens, you would use 150/1.5 = about 100mm.

This is an SLR forum, where 35mm is the starting point. Using the word
"cropped", or even "magnifying effect" is fine when the context is
understood.


--
john mcwilliams

On Sat, 13 Jan 2007 10:58:01 -0800, John McWilliams
wrote:

King pardon wrote:
On 13 Jan 2007 14:00:14 GMT, "J. Clarke"
wrote:

On Sat, 13 Jan 2007 10:02:48 +0100, Jeroen Wenting wrote:

Anyway, anything is full frame for a given definition of "frame". DX is
"full frame", so is 645, so is 35mm, and so is 6x6. And I doubt Nikon
will ever produce a 6x6 DSLR, which (being the largest of those formats)
is the only true "full" frame among them, everything else is smaller and
therefore a subset of 6x6.
The accepted definition of "full frame" is 35mm equivalent. By pretending
that you don't know this or trying to redefine the term you're exposing
yourself as ignorant, loony, or trolling.

35mm is a cropped format compared to 6x6. It's all relative to what
you are used to.

If medium fomat is your reference, then 35mm is cropped, and the 35mm
crop factor is 1.5. Instead of shooting portraits with your 150mm
lens, you would use 150/1.5 = about 100mm.

This is an SLR forum, where 35mm is the starting point. Using the word
"cropped", or even "magnifying effect" is fine when the context is
understood.

35mm is not the starting point, it is the ending point. It's over for
35mm. Get used to the new formats.

KS

On Sat, 13 Jan 2007 01:02:48 -0800, Jeroen Wenting wrote
(in article ):


They could cut their costs substantially by going with sub-FF support
lenses, even ones designed for
digital, Olympus's overpriced pro lenses notwithstanding.
Looking that this, I'd say it's a fair bet Nikon is going FF at some
point, maybe soon.

Nikon still has a massive userbase of people using real cameras and buying
lenses for those.
Anyway, anything is full frame for a given definition of "frame".
DX is "full frame", so is 645, so is 35mm, and so is 6x6.
And I doubt Nikon will ever produce a 6x6 DSLR, which (being the largest of
those formats) is the only true "full" frame among them, everything else is
smaller and therefore a subset of 6x6.

Old news. Even Thom Hogan says the D3h will be released this year,
possibly
at PMA, summer at the latest. As he says, there are too many prototypes
floating around -- nearly everybody who is anybody has seen one.

Well, * I * haven't seen one, not even a (Photoshopped) image on a web
site.

But Thom is curiously very vague about the specifications, with his
"teaser" comment about a "surprise." What in heck does he mean with
that comment?

it means he doesn't know and is just speculating but wants to sound
important by making you think he's got one already but isn't allowed to talk
(if he really had one he'd not even be allowed to say that you're in for a
surprise).



That would not be like Thom Hogan, who consistently maintains that Nikon does
not give him any equipment, even for testing. Now, as to whether he has seen
or not, who knows?

On Sat, 13 Jan 2007 10:58:01 -0800, John McWilliams wrote
(in article ):

King pardon wrote:
On 13 Jan 2007 14:00:14 GMT, "J. Clarke"
wrote:

On Sat, 13 Jan 2007 10:02:48 +0100, Jeroen Wenting wrote:

Anyway, anything is full frame for a given definition of "frame". DX is
"full frame", so is 645, so is 35mm, and so is 6x6. And I doubt Nikon
will ever produce a 6x6 DSLR, which (being the largest of those formats)
is the only true "full" frame among them, everything else is smaller and
therefore a subset of 6x6.
The accepted definition of "full frame" is 35mm equivalent. By pretending
that you don't know this or trying to redefine the term you're exposing
yourself as ignorant, loony, or trolling.

35mm is a cropped format compared to 6x6. It's all relative to what
you are used to.

If medium fomat is your reference, then 35mm is cropped, and the 35mm
crop factor is 1.5. Instead of shooting portraits with your 150mm
lens, you would use 150/1.5 = about 100mm.

This is an SLR forum, where 35mm is the starting point. Using the word
"cropped", or even "magnifying effect" is fine when the context is
understood.

Actually, this is a DSLR forum, where 35mm is simply the latest format. It
was not the starting point. The starting point for DSLR was APSC.

On Sat, 13 Jan 2007 10:50:53 -0800, John McWilliams wrote
(in article ):

Bigguy wrote:
The accepted definition of "full frame" is 35mm equivalent.

Only if you work exclusively / mostly with 35mm....

Full frame has other meanings too.
I have a film / TV / photo background and the term 'full frame' has many
meanings depending on context.

/pedantry

Well, yes, but this is a SLR forum.



Wrong. It is a DSLR forum. 35mm is the newcomer.

On Sat, 13 Jan 2007 06:00:14 -0800, J. Clarke wrote
(in article ):

On Sat, 13 Jan 2007 10:02:48 +0100, Jeroen Wenting wrote:

They could cut their costs substantially by going with sub-FF support
lenses, even ones designed for
digital, Olympus's overpriced pro lenses notwithstanding.
Looking that this, I'd say it's a fair bet Nikon is going FF at some
point, maybe soon.

Nikon still has a massive userbase of people using real cameras

I see. So digital cameras aren't "real"?

and
buying lenses for those.
Anyway, anything is full frame for a given definition of "frame". DX is
"full frame", so is 645, so is 35mm, and so is 6x6. And I doubt Nikon
will ever produce a 6x6 DSLR, which (being the largest of those formats)
is the only true "full" frame among them, everything else is smaller and
therefore a subset of 6x6.

The accepted definition of "full frame" is 35mm equivalent. By pretending
that you don't know this or trying to redefine the term you're exposing
yourself as ignorant, loony, or trolling.

Or one could say that your insistence on referring to 35mm as "full frame"
indicates ignorance of camera history, laziness, or trolling. No one
appointed you or "Photography Today" to define full frame for us. "Full
frame" already had a meaning until you and others tried to change it.

On Fri, 12 Jan 2007 20:59:37 -0800, RichA wrote
(in article . com):

They could cut their costs substantially by going with sub-FF support
lenses, even ones designed for
digital, Olympus's overpriced pro lenses notwithstanding.
Looking that this, I'd say it's a fair bet Nikon is going FF at some
point, maybe soon.

One thing your post did: it sure brought out the camera snobs.

John McWilliams wrote:
King pardon wrote:
On 13 Jan 2007 14:00:14 GMT, "J. Clarke"
wrote:

On Sat, 13 Jan 2007 10:02:48 +0100, Jeroen Wenting wrote:

Anyway, anything is full frame for a given definition of "frame". DX is
"full frame", so is 645, so is 35mm, and so is 6x6. And I doubt Nikon
will ever produce a 6x6 DSLR, which (being the largest of those formats)
is the only true "full" frame among them, everything else is smaller and
therefore a subset of 6x6.
The accepted definition of "full frame" is 35mm equivalent. By pretending
that you don't know this or trying to redefine the term you're exposing
yourself as ignorant, loony, or trolling.

35mm is a cropped format compared to 6x6. It's all relative to what
you are used to.

If medium fomat is your reference, then 35mm is cropped, and the 35mm
crop factor is 1.5. Instead of shooting portraits with your 150mm
lens, you would use 150/1.5 = about 100mm.

This is an SLR forum, where 35mm is the starting point. Using the word
"cropped", or even "magnifying effect" is fine when the context is
understood.


--
john mcwilliams

Full frame is a useless statement for all the reasons that have been
stated. It is just to belittle the APS sensor which in its current form
is better than most 6x4.5 cameras. The use of 35mm sized sensor is far
more accurate and descriptive no matter what forum you are in. Kind of
reminds me of the dpi vs ppi debate. Dpi is a leftover of the printing
industry, ppi is what we deal with in digital photography. But up those
of us who have been in this for a while may slip, everyone knows what
you mean, but say dpi on this forum, the next 3 or 4 entries will being
correcting you. Should be the same with full frame vs 35mm frame.

Tom