Go Back   Steve's Digicams Forums > Digital SLR and Interchangeable Lens Cameras > Nikon dSLR

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Nov 28, 2006, 11:28 PM   #1
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 15
Default

Hi Everyone,
Does anyone think that Nikon is going to make a full frame DSLR? If you think so, when do you think it will happen? Anytime soon? I was just wondering.

Thanks!
peafro is offline   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Old Nov 29, 2006, 1:21 AM   #2
rey
Senior Member
 
rey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 949
Default

I've read Thom Hogan say that Nikon is currently field-testing at least two or three possible full frame candidates, but wether any of those will actually be released as an official product is anyone's guess.

rey is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Nov 29, 2006, 1:25 AM   #3
Administrator
 
steve's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 2,535
Default

I really doubt it as Nikon has created a separate line of DX lenses for their digital SLRs with APS-C sized sensors and has stated a commitment to them in the future. The market for full-frame sensor cameras is quite small compared to the rest of the dSLR market. Full-frame sensors are more expensive, Nikon doesn't make their own sensors (Canon does) so it means the cameras will have to be a lot more expensive to R&D and to sell. Nikon is happy to fill the need for less expensive cameras like the new D40 which they will sell moreof and hence make more money.

The majority of working pros have come to realize that the full-frame sensor dSLR is no longer the "holy grail" that we once thought it was. The APS-C sized sensors have improved dramatically in the area ofnoise and image quality over the last couple of years and the bottom line is always a company's profit margin, so no, I don't think Nikon will produce a full-frame dSLR any time soon.

These are just my opinions so feel free to argue amongst yourselves
steve is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Nov 29, 2006, 3:44 AM   #4
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 143
Default

I thought Sony made Nikon's sensors...

Canon has their 5D though so that could push Nikon's hand in jumping into the market.
Lexiticus is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Nov 30, 2006, 7:47 PM   #5
Senior Member
 
Ronnie948's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Posts: 721
Default

Why would they need to????

The D2x, D200, D80, D40, D70s,D70, & D50 are all very good at producing a very good image.

I have a friend that just spent $10,000 on a digital back for His Hasselblad and the 8 X 10 portraitsHe seems to sell the most of are no better then what His D2X puts out. He has the $$$ to play around with so it is no big deal to Him. He also has a D200 that He likes the most of all of His cameras.( only because the D200 is lighter and has wireless TTL using the built in flash as a master.)

Ronnie
Ronnie948 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Nov 30, 2006, 9:03 PM   #6
Senior Member
 
rjseeney's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Taylor Mill, Kentucky
Posts: 2,398
Default

Lexiticus wrote:
Quote:
I thought Sony made Nikon's sensors...

Canon has their 5D though so that could push Nikon's hand in jumping into the market.
Sony does make Nikon's sensors. Steve's statement refers to Canon producing their own sensors, not Nikon's.
rjseeney is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Dec 1, 2006, 2:23 AM   #7
Senior Member
 
cameranserai's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 548
Default

I wonder sometimesif people think things through and do enough research before posting. Thom Hogan posted a year or more back that with the advent of the D2X that we had already passed the quality of 35mm and were on the way towards the quality of 2.25 square. I see above that someone has mentioned Hasselblad who were the studio choice years ago with Mamiya way behind, but now all that is going.

Just how many pixels do you want anyway? It is becoming a ceaseless and senseless chase to be able to say "Mine's bigger than yours" without giving any thought as to whether such advances are necessary. I print a lot at A3+ and quite frankly I don't really see the necessity for anything better than my D2X; or is it that I am easily pleased? Should I be examining each print with a magnifying glass to find the imperfection and moan that my camera isn't good enough? One of my all time favourite prints here is 36" wide taken off a 35mm negative twenty years back and I really like the slight dust mark in the print. We are human and fallible, not perfect machines. Some of my everyday shots are taken with my permanent companion, a Panasonic FX07 which, OK, is a point and press but is a lot easier to have with you all the time than a D2X with 17/55 and SB800 flash and with which I get good photos in everyday situations.

I totally agree with Steve that the money invested in DX lenses would be and would have been an adsurdity if Nikon were going the full frame route, not taking into account all us pro, semi pro, and serious amateur users they would completely enrage when our expensive lenses became instantly redundant.

So, let's here from you. How many pixels do you want? Has developement (white balance and noise excepted) about gone far enough? Will we see 20 million pixel cameras soon and more to the point do we need them? What use would you put such a camera to? Post away - I'll be interested in the response!
cameranserai is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Dec 1, 2006, 2:24 AM   #8
Senior Member
 
cameranserai's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 548
Default

I wonder sometimesif people think things through and do enough research before posting. Thom Hogan posted a year or more back that with the advent of the D2X that we had already passed the quality of 35mm and were on the way towards the quality of 2.25 square. I see above that someone has mentioned Hasselblad who were the studio choice years ago with Mamiya way behind, but now all that is going.

Just how many pixels do you want anyway? It is becoming a ceaseless and senseless chase to be able to say "Mine's bigger than yours" without giving any thought as to whether such advances are necessary. I print a lot at A3+ and quite frankly I don't really see the necessity for anything better than my D2X; or is it that I am easily pleased? Should I be examining each print with a magnifying glass to find the imperfection and moan that my camera isn't good enough? One of my all time favourite prints here is 36" wide taken off a 35mm negative twenty years back and I really like the slight dust mark in the print. We are human and fallible, not perfect machines. Some of my everyday shots are taken with my permanent companion, a Panasonic FX07 which, OK, is a point and press but is a lot easier to have with you all the time than a D2X with 17/55 and SB800 flash and with which I get good photos in everyday situations.

I totally agree with Steve that the money invested in DX lenses would be and would have been an adsurdity if Nikon were going the full frame route, not taking into account all us pro, semi pro, and serious amateur users they would completely enrage when our expensive lenses became instantly redundant.

So, let's here from you. How many pixels do you want? Has developement (white balance and noise excepted) about gone far enough? Will we see 20 million pixel cameras soon and more to the point do we need them? What use would you put such a camera to? Post away - I'll be interested in the response!
cameranserai is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Dec 1, 2006, 6:38 AM   #9
Senior Member
 
rjseeney's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Taylor Mill, Kentucky
Posts: 2,398
Default

I agree. I don't think full frame is necessary for the average user. Sure there may be some landscape pro's who would like to be able to user their super wide lenses digitally without the crop factor, and wedding/portrait pro's who need a bit more dynamic range. The costs to me outweigh the benefits. I'm sure they will continue to make better cameras, and hopefully they will continue to get cheaper and cheaper, but I'm not a big fan of the need to upgrade bodies every 18 months. I'm getting off that trip now that I've gotten the D80. The one problem with more and more MP, is that with the current crop of 10mp cameras, the bodies are beginning to outresolve some of the less expensive lenses, and issues that weren't present on the 6mp bodies are becoming visible. Imagine what will happen with full frame sensors (and has happened with the 5D) or even when the next generation goes up to say 12mp.
rjseeney is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Dec 1, 2006, 11:21 AM   #10
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 15
Default

Hi Everyone,
Sorry if I offended anyone...sheesh...

No I don't want a 20mega pixel camera. I just simply posted to see what people thought (is that wrong?). I'm just coming into photography and just barely know what a full frame camera is and someone had told me that ugrading to full frame in the future might be wise if I am into landscape photography. So I have been looking at pictures taken with the Canon 5D and really liked them, hadn't really looked at Nikon's because I was more interested in Canon's at the time. I am looking into getting a Nikon D80 now so I am just asking a few questions because you guys know more than I do.

Do you know of anywhere that I can see photos taken with a Nikon D2X?

Thanks for the help.

peafro is offline   Reply With Quote
 
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 8:13 PM.