Why does Nikon keep making FF lenses?

"Dave" wrote in message
...


If you really want to get into a ****ing contest over terms then 8x10
would be full frame, 4x5 half frame,

Quarter frame, you mean.


medium format would fall under quarter frame and 35mm would be
"miniature".

Which is exactly what 35mm was called, in fact -- many years ago.

Neil

On Sun, 14 Jan 2007 20:20:13 GMT, Charles
wrote:

Maybe because people keep buying them?

Buying what?

KS

On Sun, 14 Jan 2007 21:33:46 GMT, King Sardon
wrote:

On Sun, 14 Jan 2007 20:20:13 GMT, Charles
wrote:

Maybe because people keep buying them?

Buying what?

KS


FF lenses. I thought that is what this thread was about.

On Sun, 14 Jan 2007 15:49:52 -0500, "Neil Harrington"
wrote:


"David Dyer-Bennet" wrote in message
.net...
Neil Harrington wrote:
"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.

Eh. In photography, when you abstract part of an image it's called
"cropping".

You "abstract part of an image" by removing the part(s) you don't want.
That's cropping.

But even if you do take "crop" to refer to only the part that remains, "crop
factor is 1.5" still makes no sense. Can you crop something so as to end up
with 1.5 of it?


People talk about "cropping in the viewfinder", so it's not just a
darkroom term. So, when you put a smaller sensor in what (started out
being) essentially an existing 35mm SLR, "crop factor" is a sensible
enough term.

No, it is not. Whether the camera "started out being" an existing 35mm SLR
would be irrelevant, and is not true now anyway. The only part of my Nikon
dSLRs that started out designed for 35mm is the lens mount. (Well, and maybe
the odd screw, etc.) The other parts were designed to be part of a digital
instrument from the get-go.

The image is whatever fits on the sensor. If that's not cropped, there has
been no cropping. That the image circle may be substantially larger than the
sensor is irrelevant. Is a view camera photo "cropped" just because the
image circle (which has to be oversize to allow for swings and tilts, etc.)
is larger? Similarly, how about a picture taken with a perspective-control
lens on a 35 -- is that "cropped"?



The actual number was defined so as to be mathematically useful.

Absolutely! I'm not disputing that in the least. It's only the horrid term
"crop factor" that I'm objecting to.

Canon calls the number a "lens focal length conversion factor." That's very
good, if a little unwieldy. "Conversion factor" should be good enough in
most cases, or just "lens factor" or "f.l. factor." Almost anything would be
better than "crop factor" -- but newsgroup folk seem to have this incredible
talent for latching on to the least appropriate term and then sticking with
it forever. "Crop factor" is the new "prime," apparently.

Just get used to the focal lengths on your camera (whatever format it
is). For my Rebel XT, 10mm is ultrawide, 30mm is normal, 50mm is
portrait length, 100 is medium telephoto, and 200 is long tele.

When we discuss subjects that involve different formats, like in this
NG, then we need to have a way of doing that... but I agree that "crop
factor" is not a good term.

Nothing is being cropped on my XT sensor any more than any format
crops its images.

KS

"Charles" wrote in message
...
Maybe because people keep buying them?


Last time I checked, Nikon still produces at least one film camera for them.

In article ,
Bill Funk wrote:
On Sat, 13 Jan 2007 22:36:40 +0100, (Philip Homburg)
wrote:

Nikon's (actually Fuji's) first DSLRs was full frame in the sense that the
angle of view was identical to 35mm film.

35mm film has an angle of view?
I thought a lens had to be used for that.
Do you mean "normal" as in the sense that a 45-55mm lens is "normal"
for 35mm film cameras? So the field of view is about what a 50mm lens
on a 35mm SLR gave?

Yes. I should have said that on the Nikon E2 (Fujix DS-505) the field of
view of a lens doesn't change compared to using the same lens with 35mm
film.


--
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 Sat, 13 Jan 2007 13:43:47 -0800, John McWilliams wrote
(in article ):

C J Campbell wrote:
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.

Ah, now I see your previous comment in a different light. Was the first
DSLR that size, or smaller, and what was the very first DSLR?


The Kodak DCS 100 was the first self-contained DSLR. It used a Nikon F3 body
and had a detachable back housing a 1.3Mp 20.5x16.4mm sensor. It was
introduced in 1991. Storage was a 200Mb hard disk. Nikon introduced a series
of E cameras -- Fuji bodies with Nikon electronics (What? Nobody wanted to
use their own body?) -- the E1, E2, and E3. Kodak also introduced some DCS
100 type cameras with Canon bodies -- same sensor, different body. There were
so many varieties of the DCS 100 that you wonder if any two of them were
identical. Canon brought out their first DSLR, the EOS D2000 (aka the Kodak
DCS 520), in 1998. All of those cameras were incredibly expensive.

The first practical DSLR was the Nikon D1 in 1999. It had a 2.7Mp APSC sized
sensor, the largest yet, which had a resolution good enough for print. Better
yet, it cost less than half than most of its predecessors. It was also robust
enough for true professional use in the field. It blew everything else away.
It was the first camera that was designed from the ground up to be a DSLR,
instead of a patchwork of film camera bodies and sensor backs.

My remarks had more to do with understanding focal length, and cropping,
and these were generally compared to full frame 35mm cameras, which at
first, were all film cameras.

It would be far better if people just stopped trying to convert focal length
equivalencies. Yeah, the first DSLR had an F3 body, but it might just as well
have been a Hasselblad or Mamiya or something even bigger. Manufacturers
(well, Kodak) in those days never thought about the DSLR in 35mm terms except
they wanted the camera to be compact and easy to handle. The sensors don't
even have the same height to width ratio as a 35mm frame. What we think of
35mm film is actually a "double frame" format. It was created by taking 35mm
movie film and turning sideways so as to get a bigger negative. Still cameras
that used the old format were sometimes referred to as "half frame" format,
but that is not really accurate. They use the full movie frame. If still
photographers want to use movie film as the standard by which all others are
measured, then "full frame" probably would be 70mm.

On Sat, 13 Jan 2007 13:54:21 -0800, Philip Homburg wrote
(in article coh.net):

In article m,
C J Campbell wrote:
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.

Just because Kodak decided to put an APS-C sized sensor in a digital
back for an F3, we should refer to APS-C as 'full frame'? Get real.


It is no more baseless than calling 35mm "full frame." Get real.

Note that Kodak also use 2x crop sensors, and the Fujix had the same
angle of view as 35mm film.

Kodak also produced 1.3x crop sensors, and the sensor in the 14n was of
course
as big as a 35mm film frame.

Sensor sizes vary, so the only reasonable reference is the 35mm film most of
those cameras were orginally designed for.

35mm was originally a movie film. Why not 70mm if you want to use a movie
film for a standard?

On Sat, 13 Jan 2007 13:36:40 -0800, Philip Homburg wrote
(in article coh.net):

In article m,
C J Campbell wrote:
Wrong. It is a DSLR forum. 35mm is the newcomer.

Which ancient DSLRs are you refering to that are not based on 35mm?

As far as I know, the first DSLR was a Kodak DCS 100, which was a Nikon F3
with a digital back. Obviously, the F3 was designed for full frame 35mm.


But the back was designed for a small sensor. Big deal. The first 35mm camera
bodies were based on designs for larger formats and used lenses designed for
larger formats.

Nikon's (actually Fuji's) first DSLRs was full frame in the sense that the
angle of view was identical to 35mm film.


Actually, it was Nikon's -- they just bought Fuji bodies. And no, it was not
identical.

It is only with relatively recent cameras, such as the D200, that is
not clear whether they are still cropped 35mm designs or just designed
with APS-C in mind.

Give me a break. No DSLR had a 35mm sensor until the 1DS. The Nikon D1 was
the first practical DSLR and it had the same size sensor that every Nikon has
had since.

On Sun, 14 Jan 2007 11:58:18 -0800, Bill Funk wrote
(in article ):

On Sat, 13 Jan 2007 22:21:27 -0500, Not Disclosed
wrote:

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.

Out of curiosity, I've seen several referrences to this camera or that
camera's sales being great or sluggish.
I can't find sales numbers; where do you find them?



Good question. You hear that kind of stuff all the time. Where does it come
from?