Full Frame or Not
 

Following a comment by Jonathan in the Medium Format Film thread as to when Nikon might release a full frame DSLR, I thought I would start a thread to canvass some opinions on the mertits of going full frame here. I know there are a number of members who either have both or have made the switch.

The sort of thing I am getting at is are the benefits seen in improved image quality, ability to use lenses at the marked value, bigger/brighter viewfinder ........................ Lots is talked about FF but I am unsure how its benefits have shown up in the real world as opposed to forum chat as to desireabilty.

In response to Jonathans comment re Nikon and FF my thoughts are these:
Given the current resolution of the D2X and 1 DS Mk. II then for non studio work how much more is needed ? Once we go into pro studio work then the photograhers requirements change depending on subject. So the market for this becomes more fragmented. From my experience with product photography then the best resolution, biggest viewfinder, and swings & tilts are important. Enter Leaf and Phase one for the old medium format sized bodies and view cameras. 35mm viewfinder size is just a pain in the neck. As I believe film will be a major player in this slot for some time the market is further diluted.
Sports, action and wildlife then Canon will have the lead with the EOS 1D MkIII. 10mp on a cropped sensor, clean images at high ISO and machine gun speed.

Do I see a hole for Nikon. ......... A replacement for the Hs. Similar sensor but full frame at 8MP in either the D2X/Hs or F6 body. In fact if the current sensor was increased to full frame it would not be far short of 10MP. Foxy has shown the quality of the images the sensor is currently capable of at DX size. For general press and sports photographers it would keep Nikon in the ballpark with the added advantage of a larger viewfinder than the 1D MkIII. Depending on shutter technology they could even exceed the MkIII frame rate with high speed crop.

Not sure I see a significant market for a full frame D2X sensor at 20+MP in a 35mm size body now we have moved away from the interchangeable viewfinders that expanded the versatility of the F,F2,F3, and F4.

That should get the ball rolling. :) :)

Don

Hey Don, come on mate....Nikon are never going to launch a full frame model....they deny it flat out if asked. Our Nikon rep laughed last time we asked at work....says it all!
wishful thinking tho....
and I could well eat my words??? lol


On a completely unrelated matter tho....I would be mightly pi@@ed off if I'd just bought a Nikon D40 only to see the D40x come out which is currently retailing not much more for the 10megapixel sensor they SHOULD have put in it in the first place....maybe getting rid of the last D50 6 megapixel sensors in the 'new' D40 when that was lauched?....Hmmm, maybe I just being cynical!

Don: I am not someone who demands FF as a D200 satisfies my needs. But I can see that so-called FF does have advantages. First I will say that FF and APS are simply two different formats. Each has its advantages, and in general one is not better than the other, but each has its advantages.

FF provides larger pixels for a given pixel count, leading to a better signal to noise ratio, and better high ISO performance. It also provides lower depth of field, so it is good for creativity, if you like that sort of thing. So FF really does have some important advantages and will dominate for some uses such as concert photography.

APS uses the sweet spot of a lens, removing the often poor edges, so soft edges and vignetting are less troublesome. It also has a built in teleconverter effect. So a modest cost 400mm lens on APS behaves like a 600mm lens on FF. And lastly, you get greater depth of field, so APS is excellent for macro. But you need really good lenses to get the full benefits. With a really good lens you will get the full benefit of 12 MP, but only up to about F11. At smaller apertures diffraction kicks in, and you lose sharpness. And of course there are no fast wide angles for APS.

Personally I am happy with APS, but IMO Nikon must provide FF if only to give users a complete system, and hence not create a dead end. And IMO Nikon are reliant on third parties to produce the sensor. We will see probably this year the first FF Nikon with a third party sensor, probably a Sony. It won't be as good as the Canon, but it will be pretty good.

I think most people would think like you. But, the 6MP sensor will have much less noise, and hence be better for high ISO work. And most people probably do not benefit from 10 MP since they do not use a tripod, or pro-grade lenses. So in reality 6MP is maybe better. Except when you are chatting to a mate and he tells you that his sensor pixel count is bigger than yours.

Exactly Leif, I totally agree....it is that latter part about impressing the mates down the pub which drives the megapixel 'race', not neccessarily those who look for the highest quality. well said
Test results so far have yielded more impressive results from the 10mp sensor vers the 6mp...it has to be said (not as great a difference as one might have thought tho)

If Nikon launch a full frame model I'll publicly eat my hat....and I don't wear hats!
It ain't gonna happen...but we can all dream what if! ;)


PS if by a mirical of chance nikon suddenly start making their own sensors might they launch one?...not this year...no way!

I'd buy some chocolate hats if I were you, Joe :)

If Sony do introduce a FF sensor (which looks on the cards at some time due to recent lens introductions) then, assuming Nikon get their sensors from Sony, they would be foolish not to introduce one

If I were not so cynical I would have said those 'new' lens introductions were remarkably similar to some of the Carl Zeiss glass as used on the Contax cameras. Amazing lenses, the 85 f/1.4 among them, but are they new lenses? or are they the same glass with new mounts? 'New' lens launches with the convenience of tried and tested glass designs, rather than any thoughts of full frame?. hmmm
Oh, I tried some of the sony mounted optics...I'll be bu@@ered if I can tell the difference from one or two of the last of the Contax N mount designs!

I remain skeptical..but.....
Hey ho.....I like chocolate anyway! lol

Maybe you're right, but if they just want to re-introduce older lens designs why not use some of the Minolta optics that are now 'theirs' rather than 'wasting' Zeiss quality on 1.5x crop sensors

simple..zeiss lenses were always better....and they using the centre of the lens more....
and there's more room on the barrel design to add the magic orange go faster stripe! lol


the same could be asked on their camcorders.....always badged with 'zeiss' lenses....and people always ask for that...
it's as much a selling point i think as any logic behind the reason I'm guessing

having guessed all this, the chocolate hats shall remain on standby!

Anyway, back to the subject ;) I think that only working photographers 'need' FF, where clients specify it, whereas some hobby photographers might 'want' FF to get the very best out of their interest/hobby/all-consuming passion/waste of time and money.

Telephoto lenses seem to be more or less OK with FF or cropped sensors but there are still questions over wide-angle lenses in FF yet Canon don't seem to have done much with their range other than improving a couple of WA zooms. With prime wide angles there are just the old film-based designs and any optical defects need to be corrected with third-party software. I must admit that I've never seen any photos, first hand, taken with wide angles on FF cameras - perhaps the problems are more visible in test situations rather than 3-dimensional real-life photos.

(Incidentally, wouldn't the renowned 'tonal gradation' of Minolta lenses be actually better in digital cameras than the higher contrast Zeiss optics? - Just a thought :confused: )

I didn't mean to knock any minolta optics as such. Thinking about it, you have a very good point. some of the Zeiss glass was contrasty.
BUT (and my guess is this is the big but), the name Zeiss has a big following and is well known, even among those who perhaps don't follow optic design. We certainly get many in the shop who'll say things like "there's a good zeiss (or zeuss as some say) lens on this compact/ camcorder etc"....realisticaly I think it's brand power over and pure technical reason.

Back to the subject in this thread.....

I WOULD want to see Nikon produce a full frame camera, as I'm sure many Nikon fans would. Ironically, the strength to justify such a model would lay with the market share perhaps gained from Canon, particularly the 5D....which would buck a trend, certainly amongst some of the big agency pros. I feel Nikon certainly have to pull a few radical new models out of the bag to bite back market share to hark back to their hayday dominance in the F2,F3,F4 model days.
As a consumer, and interested punter, I would certainly like to see Nikon do something along full frame lines, but in reality I really can't see it happen......in the next couple years atleast.

A bit of net scouring and I found a link to The World of Canon Sensors that has some explanation http://web.canon.jp/Imaging/cmos/index-e.html


I also found this link that explains the expected differences in MP count and sensor pixel pitch. http://www.luminous-landscape.com/es...r-design.shtml

Nothing to change my prediction for Nikon in post one. The question is when. Just wish I had an Hs to simulate it by stitching two portrait orientation shots together to compare with a landscape format X image.

From Adey's post re a possible Sony full frame sensor, and picking up on Leif and Joes comment on the megapixel race, then the question is, will pub bragging rights continue, as the full frame sensor gives them more opportunity to go to 20mp. ( Marketing mans delight :D ) Higher count than the 1DS MkII but not necessarily better image quality. :)

Don