Why does Nikon keep making FF lenses?

On Sun, 14 Jan 2007 14:00:41 -0800, Matt Clara wrote
(in article ):

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


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



The other thing, too, is that there are other cameras that use the Nikon F
mount. Even Canon has an adapter.

In article m,
C J Campbell wrote:
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.

But the D1 is an APS-C sensor in a camera designed for 35mm. Mirror, shutter,
viewfinder, they are all big enough that accommodate 35mm.

But if you want to play silly word games go ahead. 'full frame' is well
defined concept in the context of DSLRs with Nikon or Canon mount.


--
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 m,
C J Campbell wrote:
35mm was originally a movie film. Why not 70mm if you want to use a movie
film for a standard?

Because we talking about DSLRs. And the default for SLRs is 24x36mm film.
Of course there were a few SLRs for other sizes, but most DSLR are derived
from the 24x36mm film SLRs.

24x36mm is called full frame for Nikon and Canon mounts because that is
what those mounts are designed for.

Together, Nikon and Canon have about 100% of the DSLR market. So if you
want to talk about odd ball camera, make sure that you use appropriate
qualifiers.


--
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

Philip Homburg wrote:
In article m,
C J Campbell wrote:
35mm was originally a movie film. Why not 70mm if you want to use a movie
film for a standard?

Because we talking about DSLRs. And the default for SLRs is 24x36mm film.
Of course there were a few SLRs for other sizes, but most DSLR are derived
from the 24x36mm film SLRs.

24x36mm is called full frame for Nikon and Canon mounts because that is
what those mounts are designed for.

Together, Nikon and Canon have about 100% of the DSLR market. So if you
want to talk about odd ball camera, make sure that you use appropriate
qualifiers.


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

C J Campbell wrote:
On Sun, 14 Jan 2007 14:00:41 -0800, Matt Clara wrote
(in article ):

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

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



The F6, which I suspect will be around for a long time, and the FM10, for
those who want to do everything manually. There are still reasons to use
film. Actually, the FM10 is a pretty reasonable beginner's camera.

Nikon doesn't make the FM10, it's a rebadged Cosina.

"Bryan Olson" wrote in message
. net...
tomm42 wrote:
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.

No, because there are two 35mm film formats: full-frame and half-frame.

Otherwise known as double frame and single frame. But there are more than
those two. The old Robot cameras used a 24x24 frame as I recall. The Stereo
Realist frame is 24x23, and the European stereo frame is 24x30 -- all these
being on standard 35mm film. And then there are the 35mm panoramic cameras.
.. . .


"35mm" doesn't specify a known format, and no interesting measure of
the frame is 35mm. The better term is "35mm full-frame".

But in a few years young camera owners may be asking, "Daddy, what was
35mm?"

Neil

"Bryan Olson" wrote in message
om...
Neil Harrington wrote:
[...]
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?

It's interpreted the other way: looking at the cropped image, we figure
how much there could have been by multiplying by the crop factor.

guffaw!

I don't think so.

The 1.5 is a multiplier for converting actual focal length to the equivalent
of a familiar focal length. That's what it is and that's all it is. It has
nothing to do with cropping. Why would anyone care "how much there could
have been" other than what there is?

Neil

"King Sardon" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 14 Jan 2007 15:49:52 -0500, "Neil Harrington"
wrote:


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

[ . . . ]

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.

Indeed, that'd be a great idea if all dSLRs used the same size sensor -- we
could all just get used to that and stop thinking of focal lengths in terms
of 35mm full frame. But that isn't likely to happen any time soon, and may
never happen. While your Rebel XT may be all you need to care about *now*,
Canon makes dSLRs in a couple of other sensor sizes and how sure can you be
that you won't want to buy one of those later? And still other dSLR sensor
sizes have come along in the last few years.

I use Nikon and Minolta dSLRs and so far they all have the same sensor size.
Nevertheless, for me it really is, and will continue to be, convenient to
continue to think of focal lengths in terms of some familiar standard for
magnification and angle of view. And 35mm is that familiar standard, even if
35mm itself is on its death bed.



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.

Absolutely!

Neil

"Rebecca Ore" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"Neil Harrington" wrote:

If we don't "[compare] everything to 35mm," what would we
compare everything to? In digital there isn't any standard.

You don't need to compare any sensor or film size to any other film size
to use it effectively.

I don't *need* to, but it's just a very convenient way of relating
unfamiliar focal lengths to the characteristics of familiar focal lengths. I
agree that there's no other reason (at least no other important to me) to
compare to any particular film size.


Bigger sensor or film, more details, more need
for more light, shallower depth of field over the complete
sensor/negative. Beyond that, it's all a question of what lenses work
with what cameras. In large format, if the image circle is big enough,
you can use the same lens on 4x5, 5x7, and 8x10, regardless of the
camera brands. Does the lens cover this format is the question, not
what the lens would do with another format.

Sure. For view cameras I would agree with you, but that's really quite a
different ball of wax. For long-time 35mm users, it's just very convenient
to think of focal lengths in 35mm terms.

Most digital camera makers recognize this, and some even mark their lenses
with 35mm equivalencies. My Minolta 7Hi and A200 cameras for example have
the zoom ring graduated from 28 to 200mm, even though the actual focal
length range is only 7.2 to 50.8mm.

Neil

On Mon, 15 Jan 2007 07:45:34 -0500, Not Disclosed
wrote:

Philip Homburg wrote:
In article m,
C J Campbell wrote:
35mm was originally a movie film. Why not 70mm if you want to use a movie
film for a standard?

Because we talking about DSLRs. And the default for SLRs is 24x36mm film.
Of course there were a few SLRs for other sizes, but most DSLR are derived
from the 24x36mm film SLRs.

24x36mm is called full frame for Nikon and Canon mounts because that is
what those mounts are designed for.

Together, Nikon and Canon have about 100% of the DSLR market. So if you
want to talk about odd ball camera, make sure that you use appropriate
qualifiers.


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.

--
New Jersey threw out a
one-hundred-fifty-year-old
law Thursday that prevents
idiots from voting. It threw
the presidential race into
chaos. As if Hillary Clinton
wasn't facing enough problems,
William Shatner is now leading
in New Jersey.