Why does Nikon keep making FF lenses?

On Sat, 13 Jan 2007 22:43:53 +0100, (Philip Homburg)
wrote:

In article 1168708870.725376@athprx04, gpaleo wrote:
The "full frame" crap is just for
the huge 35mm lens base out there, and it will take some time for the notion
to simply wither and go away.

Except that the wide angle lens selections of Nikon and Canon are not
all that great compared to what is available on 35mm. It is only when
they match angle of view and DoF on APS-C that you can say that APS-C is a
real alternative to 35mm full frame.

The Canon EF-S 10-22mm is a wonderful superwide zoom... fulfills all
my expectations.

It should be obvious that Canon opted for 35mm full frame. Nikon will
probably do the same when they can get a full frame sensor. The only
real advantage of APS-C is that it is cheaper. And with huge discounts
on the 5D, even that is not such a great argument anymore.

Both 22mm and 36mm (widths) sensors have their pros and cons. The only
advantages that I can think of for the bigger sensors is 1) slightly
lower noise and 2) ability to use legacy lenses as originally
intended. You can add narrower depth of field if that is valuable for
you.

The advantages for the smaller sensors include 1) higher pixel
density, which is beneficial especially if you need a long tele reach,
2) less weight to haul around for body and lenses, 3) greater depth of
field, especially beneficial for landscapes and macro work, 4)
built-in flash, and 5) less expensive bodies (but not lenses, which
are about the same cost for similar field of view).

On balance, putting cost aside, which is a small differentiator anyway
since lenses will be the major cost and their cost is about the same,
I prefer the smaller format.

Time will tell what Nikon does and what the Canon 24x36mm format
models do.

KS

Philip Homburg wrote:
In article ,
Skip wrote:
"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.

Wow, a 8x10" (D)SLR.


Well Phil, I was referring to frame sizes and their origins, but by
eliminating the (D), I have shot with a 4x5 SLR (Graflex) and know
someone who has and uses an 8x10 TLR. If we are going to stick to (D)SLR
I think that 6x6 (cm) and 6x7 have to be considered as well. Both are
single lens, have a reflex mirror and are (or can be) digital.

"The plot thickens."

Greg "_" wrote:
In article . com,
"RichA" 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.

I say March

Not likely. Regardless of what Thom says. Nikon would have to redesign
the lensmount and mirror box to get enough room for a FF sensor.

The D200 is selling well, while the FF 5D is sluggish in sales, even
with the recent $300 price drop.

Philip Homburg wrote:
In article 1168708870.725376@athprx04, gpaleo wrote:
The "full frame" crap is just for
the huge 35mm lens base out there, and it will take some time for the notion
to simply wither and go away.

Except that the wide angle lens selections of Nikon and Canon are not
all that great compared to what is available on 35mm. It is only when
they match angle of view and DoF on APS-C that you can say that APS-C is a
real alternative to 35mm full frame.

It should be obvious that Canon opted for 35mm full frame. Nikon will
probably do the same when they can get a full frame sensor. The only
real advantage of APS-C is that it is cheaper. And with huge discounts
on the 5D, even that is not such a great argument anymore.


Huge discounts, and price drops indicate lackluster sales. The fact the
highest sales are on 6 megapixel dSLR like the Nikon D50, the Pentax
K110D and K100D. Canon's next dSLR will be a 6 megapixel sub $500 usd
camera.

ulysses wrote:

"J. Clarke" wrote in ...
The accepted definition of "full frame" is 35mm equivalent.

Originally, what we now consider "full frame" 35mm was called
double-frame, because it was twice the size of a 35mm cine frame. What
we now call "half-frame" of which there are probably few examples left
were called "single frame". That said, we all knew what the OP meant.
I'd like to see Nikon's next DSLR have a sensor that's 24x30, so it
prints to an 8x10 uncropped and still gives me reasonable use of my
many AI WA lenses.

Ulysses

On the nose, Barnack conceived of the double frame Leica to test movie
film. So APS-C is bigger than "full frame" movie.

In article ,
King Sardon wrote:
The Canon EF-S 10-22mm is a wonderful superwide zoom... fulfills all
my expectations.

Well, my guess is that my Nikkor 17-35 on a Canon 5D is going to provide
a better image quality than a Nikkor 12-24 on a D2X,

And that is where some people get annoyed: you can get better quality
images for less money by buying the competitors product.

Nikon once said (or suggested) that DX was much better than full frame.
Well, let them prove it.

It is probably the same with your 10-22. Compare it to a good prime on
a 5D, and the 5D will provide a much better image.

Both 22mm and 36mm (widths) sensors have their pros and cons. The only
advantages that I can think of for the bigger sensors is 1) slightly
lower noise and 2) ability to use legacy lenses as originally
intended. You can add narrower depth of field if that is valuable for
you.

It is not just legacy lenses. The new lenses do not match the old
lenses in performance. Many of the old (fast) primes are simply not there
for smaller formats.

The advantages for the smaller sensors include 1) higher pixel
density, which is beneficial especially if you need a long tele reach,

They invented teleconvertors for that.

2) less weight to haul around for body and lenses,

That is sometimes true.

3) greater depth of
field, especially beneficial for landscapes and macro work,

Not true. Just about all lenses can be stopped down beyond the limit
of diffraction.

4)
built-in flash,

Get real. Close to the lens is just about the worst position for a
flash. Anyhow, there were plenty of 35mm film cameras with a
built-in flash. If there is demand, companies will make it.

and 5) less expensive bodies (but not lenses, which
are about the same cost for similar field of view).

Yes, that is the main attraction of small sensors.


--
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 article ,
Not Disclosed wrote:
The fact the
highest sales are on 6 megapixel dSLR like the Nikon D50, the Pentax
K110D and K100D. Canon's next dSLR will be a 6 megapixel sub $500 usd
camera.

I don't care about all the cameras I don't want to buy anyhow.


--
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

They could cut their costs substantially by going with sub-FF support
lenses, even ones designed for

As discussed here lately (as I posted a similar question) at some length
only short lenses get smaller/lighter/cheaper when restricted to a
smaller sensor format. It does not help with the long ones.

-Michael

"Jeroen Wenting" jwenting at hornet dot demon dot nl wrote in message
...
[ . . . ]
Anyway, anything is full frame for a given definition of "frame".

That's one of the reasons "crop factor" is such a nonsensical term.


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.

How about 6x7 and 6x9?

For that matter, why stop at the 120 film formats? Why isn't an 8x10 view
camera "the only true full frame"?

Neil

"King Sardon" wrote in message
...


If medium fomat is your reference, then 35mm is cropped, and the 35mm
crop factor is 1.5.

Except it's not a "crop factor," which is a nonsensical term. Nothing is
cropped by 1.5. You can't crop 1.5 of anything. When you crop 1.0 of it,
it's all gone.


Instead of shooting portraits with your 150mm
lens, you would use 150/1.5 = about 100mm.

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.



Focal lengths relative to the 35mm format are useful for many of us
because the format is so common, and we probably have some of the
lenses designed for that format around. But this format is now fading
and will be much less common in a few years.

So we should gradually stop comparing everything to 35mm.

The problem there is, focal length equivalents are *useful* for conveying
concepts of magnification and angle of view. And 35mm, which does indeed
appear to be rapidly dying if it's not dead already, is the commonly
accepted standard. If we don't "[compare] everything to 35mm," what would we
compare everything to? In digital there isn't any standard.



The term "cropped format" is a bit depreciating, and suggests you are
losing something. You are not. The current Nikon and Canon small frame
formats are respectable and here to stay.

A normal focal length for the new formats is 30mm. Remember that
number: 30mm. No need to multiply anything.

Even if that were true, which it really is not since "the new formats" are
all over the lot in dimensions, how would it eliminate the "need to multiply
anything"? We're still using lenses for 35mm full frame on "the new formats"
and we will be for the foreseeable future. We still need a multiplier to
convert actual focal lengths into familiar expectations for magnification
and field of view.

Neil