Nikon and 35mm Full Frame Sensor? Nope

02/02/2006 12:43:23 AM · #1

Steve's Digicam

"Nikon Denies Possibility of Making 35mm Full-Frame Sensor

"Industry watchers have been discussing if Nikon Corp., Tokyo, Japan, will come out with a 35mm full-size image sensor in pro-oriented digital SLR. A Nikon top official denied the possibility of making new full-size sensors, Photo Trade Express reports.

"35mm is a film format, which I do not think is necessary in the digital era," says Makoto Kimura of Nikon. "We have been exploring the possibility of commercializing a 35mm full-size sensor, but it's not clear at this moment if we go for it. We feel that the 'DX' format or APS-C size will be the best for the DSLR and interchangeable lenses. Based on the assumption Nikon has been bringing up in number the lenses for the DX format, change in the size of the sensor would possibly puzzle some users in finding effective focal length related to angle of view," he says.

"He repeats that Nikon thinks the DX format will be the best for the DSLR, adding CMOS sensor "LBCAST" is also in preparation, reports Photo Trade Express."

02/02/2006 01:05:14 AM · #2

I agree with Nikon...

The 35mm format was for film. Why do we all feel the need to make a sensor the size of film?

You are not taking the sensor out, developing it and placing the negative in equipment for processing.

The image plane of current 35mm lenses softens and distorts toward the edges enough that for professional use you either have to ..A) Spend time correcting or B) Crop the offending area out thus eliminating the advantage of the bigger sensor.

The direction ALL sensors need to go is to increase dynamic range...PERIOD!!!!

How much time do we all have to spend in photoshop or some other program bringing bracketed shots together, correcting for detail in shadows we created because we were terrified to blow the highlights so we underexpose ths shot?

Pixel density will reach the same for all camera makers pretty soon. Canon will increase density as technology advances and so will Nikon.

12 to 16 megapixels is 35mm quality for resolution. Now we need DYNAMIC RANGE! Sometimes I feel like these camera companies are like politicians, throwing red herrings like Full frame sensors and stuff out there just to sell more cameras each year.

A 12 to 16 megapixel digital camera with DX or so sized sensor able to shoot 50 to 3200 ISO with the dynamic range of quality Black and White film for about the cost of a top of the line pro film camera...BOOM!!!! Done... Finished.

I mean...C'MON!!! Ink and paper costs, the eyes ability to see finer than 300 dpi, not to mention the question of where will most people put photos bigger than 16 x 20 (20 x 24 framed) photos all play into how many pixels do you really need.

Then people say..."But I want to be able to crop a wall sized photo out of a 200% crop of a photo" Ummmm...Do you know how hard it is to get a steady enough shot of a photo that you can even get a 200% crop of? Try shooting with a 600 mm lens one day with your current camera and look at a 50% crop and that will give yo an idea..it's hard!.

Anyway.....all this full frame stuff is ridiculous. Stay the course Nikon...More DX lenses and dynamic range!

kyebosh

Canon EOS-20D

Canon EF 80-200mm f/2.8L

02/02/2006 01:08:37 AM · #3

wow... just... wow...

02/02/2006 01:10:25 AM · #4

Originally posted by kyebosh:

wow... just... wow...

Glad you agree :-D

02/02/2006 01:12:12 AM · #5

Originally posted by hokie:

You do realize that having the same MP on a bigger chip results in better files don't you?

02/02/2006 01:14:02 AM · #6

Originally posted by Brent_Ward:

You do realize that having the same MP on a bigger chip results in better files don't you?

That is not universally true.

02/02/2006 01:19:49 AM · #7

Originally posted by hokie:

Originally posted by Brent_Ward:

You do realize that having the same MP on a bigger chip results in better files don't you?

That is not universally true.

Since when? I would take the 16 MP files from a medium format back over the Canon 16MP anyday.

You just can't make shit up you know. ;o)

02/02/2006 01:24:57 AM · #8

Originally posted by Brent_Ward:

Since when? I would take the 16 MP files from a medium format back over the Canon 16MP anyday.

You just can't make shit up you know. ;o)

I have seen you compare medium format to 35mm before. That is apples and oranges. The mechanical structure of the two formats are different and effect the focal plane differently.

I am talking 35mm format to 35mm format

02/02/2006 01:37:29 AM · #9

An important factor in new sensor technologies that will close the performance gap between FF and APS-C and 4/3rds sensors are what percentage of the pixel is being used for light capture, and how much goes towards circuitry.

An increase in a pixels use of light will render higher DR, better color rendition and less noise. This is the idea between the FFT-CCD sensor developed by Kodak, and may in fact also be used in one of the MF cameras (don't remember who makes it). This will allow for greater pixel densities in the smaller than FF sized sensors. In addition, use of the lens' "sweet spot," or telecentric lenses may keep edges from blurring or vignetting.

Samsung Galaxy S24, S24+, S24 Ultra

02/02/2006 01:40:18 AM · #10

Originally posted by Olyuzi:

Yes..my point exactly. Thank you.

BTW..for those interested...Canon does an interesting job of talking about sensor size HERE.

But...they fail to point out that all camera manufacturers are dealing with the same limitations in focal plane distance and as pixel counts increase ALL camera makers will increase pixel density.

That is why the Kodak development means so much to 35mm ...but of course that will spill over into other formats as well.

My only "Hot Button" in all this is the way Canon uses the full frame argument and their marketing prowess to skirt what is really the big developments needed in order to sell more pixels. Consequently I see a lot of commercial photogs out there telling agencies and other creatives incorrect information and then we (full service photo companies) have to deal with the disinformation

Sorry to rant :-/

Message edited by author 2006-02-02 01:50:33.

crayon

02/02/2006 01:47:39 AM · #11

Originally posted by hokie:

The direction ALL sensors need to go is to increase dynamic range...PERIOD!!!!

I agree. Dynamic Range, please!
Sensor size and pixel count seems to be good enough at the moment.

02/02/2006 01:57:19 AM · #12

Originally posted by hokie:

Originally posted by Olyuzi:
An important factor in new sensor technologies that will close the performance gap between FF and APS-C and 4/3rds sensors are what percentage of the pixel is being used for light capture, and how much goes towards circuitry.

An increase in a pixels use of light will render higher DR, better color rendition and less noise. This is the idea between the FFT-CCD sensor developed by Kodak, and may in fact also be used in one of the MF cameras (don't remember who makes it). This will allow for greater pixel densities in the smaller than FF sized sensors. In addition, use of the lens' "sweet spot," or telecentric lenses may keep edges from blurring or vignetting.

Yes..my point exactly. Thank you.

BTW..for those interested...Canon does an interesting job of talking about sensor size HERE.

But...they fail to point out that all camera manufacturers are dealing with the same limitations in focal plane distance and as pixel counts increase ALL camera makers will increase pixel density.

That is why the Kodak development means so much to 35mm ...but of course that will spill over into other formats as well.

My only "Hot Button" in all this is the way Canon uses the full frame argument and their marketing prowess to skirt what is really the big developments needed in order to sell more pixels. Consequently I see a lot of commercial photogs out there telling agencies and other creatives incorrect information and then we (full service photo companies) have to deal with the disinformation

Sorry to rant :-/

So are you trying to tell me that the file from you d2x is just as good as the 5d's file? LMAO!

There is a reason why the 1Ds Mark II is the standard if your not shooting MF digital.

MY comparision to MF was in regards to sensor size . Which is what you were telling me didn't matter. It will always matter.

Message edited by author 2006-02-02 01:58:44.

02/02/2006 02:01:23 AM · #13

Originally posted by hokie:

What disinformation would that be, that nikon is still lagging in sensor performance compared to Canon?

02/02/2006 02:07:47 AM · #14

Originally posted by Brent_Ward:

So are you trying to tell me that the file from you d2x is just as good as the 5d's file? LMAO!

Yes, at iso 800 and below my files from the D2x are just as good. At iso 1600 and 3200 the 5D has a cleaner file ..if you ignore the banding at 3200 that may occur.

Originally posted by Brent_Ward:

There is a reason why the 1Ds Mark II is the standard if your not shooting MF digital.

At nearly $8,000, it should be the standard. But my D2x will shoot at a wider range of fps. I shoot a lot of UVA and Va Tech sports and I need the 8 fps. I could not get that with the Canon 1ds Mark II without going to two bodies.

Originally posted by Brent_Ward:

MY comparision to MF was in regards to sensor size . Which is what you were telling me didn't matter. It will always matter.

No, this whole discussion was started as a Nikon discussion and their sensor directions which, by default, is a 35mm discussion and the meaning of sensor tech to 35mm. If we are going to compare other tech..why not scanning backs too, View cameras, etc...?

And I disagree that sensor size will always matter. It will matter in relation to the way it is used

Message edited by author 2006-02-02 02:10:37.

02/02/2006 02:15:33 AM · #15

Originally posted by hokie:

Originally posted by Brent_Ward:

So are you trying to tell me that the file from you d2x is just as good as the 5d's file? LMAO!

Yes, at iso 800 and below my files from the D2x are just as good. At iso 1600 and 3200 the 5D has a cleaner file ..if you ignore the banding at 3200 that may occur.

Originally posted by Brent_Ward:
There is a reason why the 1Ds Mark II is the standard if your not shooting MF digital.

At nearly $8,000, it should be the standard. But my D2x will shoot at a wider range of fps. I shoot a lot of UVA and Va Tech sports and I need the 8 fps. I could not get that with the Canon 1ds Mark II without going to two bodies.

Originally posted by Brent_Ward:
MY comparision to MF was in regards to sensor size . Which is what you were telling me didn't matter. It will always matter.

No, this whole discussion was started as a Nikon discussion and their sensor directions which, by default, is a 35mm discussion and the meaning of sensor tech to 35mm. If we are going to compare other tech..why not scanning backs too, View cameras, etc...?

And I disagree that sensor size will always matter. It will matter in relation to the way it is used

You made a blanket statement about sensor size, I gave you an exmaple in the form of a much larger MF chip.You never said sensor size doesn't matter in 35mm type cameras now did you?

I imagine the 5d beats the d2x's files at ISO's above 200. Much better chip.

Sensor size matters as much as film size.

I'm still waiting for an example of misinformation that your combating...

02/02/2006 02:18:59 AM · #16

There are tradeoffs to everything and you have to take into consideration not only the sensor, but the sensor/lens combination.
For instance, a 35mm lens coupled with a FF sensor is going to scatter the light over the sensor surface area more and the light will be weakened in intensity. A DX or 4/3rds lens using the sweet spot or telecentricity will concentrate the light more improving it's quality and capture. DR and noise will be improved.

If DSLRs are to be used for greater portability, then what is the advantage to a FF DSLR that uses larger lenses, larger bodies, and is literally a pain to carry around in the field? Especially with telephotos larger than 500mm! They are more expensive to build and those costs have to be absorbed by the consumer. Cheaper and reduced size and weight camera systems will probably be THE choice for the general public and many pros. Those that decide for a FF sensor system may instead opt for a MF system, that gives even greater megapixels and resolution.

In addition, the huge file sizes generated by FF sensors have to have enormous computing power to handle them, both in camera and out. This will reduce battery power sooner and make for storage problems. Increased computing power + increased storage capabilities + large lenses and bodies = bankruptcy!!!

02/02/2006 02:22:45 AM · #17

Originally posted by Olyuzi:

For instance, a 35mm lens coupled with a FF sensor is going to scatter the light over the sensor surface area more and the light will be weakened in intensity.

Are you trying to tell me that light weakens the larger the sensor/ film size?

SO f8 on a 1.6 drop sensor is actually f5.6 on ff? Where did I put that ROFL icon at...

02/02/2006 02:29:25 AM · #18

Originally posted by Brent_Ward:

Originally posted by Olyuzi:

For instance, a 35mm lens coupled with a FF sensor is going to scatter the light over the sensor surface area more and the light will be weakened in intensity.

Are you trying to tell me that light weakens the larger the sensor/ film size?

SO f8 on a 1.6 drop sensor is actually f5.6 on ff? Where did I put that ROFL icon at...

The light may not weaken at it's center where it's hitting the sweet spot, but rather at the edges where it hits at oblique angles that reduce image quality. This is why FF will require only the very best lenses, further increasing cost.

petrakka

02/02/2006 02:36:42 AM · #19

depending on the application, I think there is a point where quality combats usability, and getting a good shot of good quality is better than no shot at great quality.

I am becoming particularly sensitive to this issue since I am taking a view camera class haha.

For digital at the moment, I like the crop factor on the cameras for reach, and I have my fisheye for wide. I would like to have perhaps a 10-14 mp sensor, but, and this is just personal, I prefer smaller prints, so I don't think I would need anything more than that.

I still tend to print 8x8 in or 6x7 inches in the darkroom off Medium Format negatives.

I'd like to see more dynamic range in sensors more than anything else as well though.

Message edited by author 2006-02-02 02:37:34.

02/02/2006 02:43:56 AM · #20

Originally posted by Brent_Ward:

You made a blanket statement about sensor size, I gave you an exmaple in the form of a much larger MF chip.You never said sensor size doesn't matter in 35mm type cameras now did you?

Well, my post is only a few posts up but I will gladly quote my statement again here.

..."The 35mm format was for film. Why do we all feel the need to make a sensor the size of film?"....

I think that statement is very clear that I am discussing 35mm.

Originally posted by Brent_Ward:

I imagine the 5d beats the d2x's files at ISO's above 200. Much better chip.

That is an opinion not bore out through all online tests and personal experience. I have files on my desk in front of me from camera tests we conducted before finally choosing the Nikon D2x OVER the Canon 5d.

Luminance noise was very comparable btween both cameras at iso 800 and below..HOWEVER...chroma noise..the colored noise bits..was higher with the Canon 5D even under iso800. Wyeth Pharmacuticals (the maker of Advil and a major customer) looked at the files and suggested to us that they would prefer their Duratran Backlits be shot with the Nikon D2x at iso100 IF we were not needed to shoot with our Better Light Scan Back. We agreed as well.

Originally posted by Brent_Ward:

Sensor size matters as much as film size.

Originally posted by Brent_Ward:

I'm still waiting for an example of misinformation that your combating...

This statement comes right from Canon and is repeated ad nauseum by so many people that only pay attention to sensor size.

...A large CMOS sensor offers better image quality than a smaller because the larger may contain bigger-sized pixels.

Bigger pixels does not equate to better quality across the board. As stated earlier by me and even at Canon's own website. It is signal to noise ratio and ..at lower iso's that signal to noise ratio difference between the larger "older" tech sensors and the latest smaller sensors is not great enough to matter.

For studio work and most other photography at iso 800 and below there is no significant difference in photo quality in relation to total noise. Remember, chroma (color) noise is lower in the Nikon D2x than in the Canon 5D and for many image experts...color noise is VERY important. Something a lot of photographers do not differentiate when talking noise.

Message edited by author 2006-02-02 02:45:21.

02/02/2006 02:55:14 AM · #21

Originally posted by hokie:

Originally posted by Brent_Ward:

You do realize that having the same MP on a bigger chip results in better files don't you?

That is not universally true.

This is the quote I'm talking about, but I guess universally just means 35mm. :P

Message edited by author 2006-02-02 03:04:12.

02/02/2006 03:03:45 AM · #22

Originally posted by Brent_Ward:

Sensor size matters as much as film size.

No, sensor size only matters in relation to noise ratios and how the light actually hits the sensor. You cannot compare it to film as light sensors collect light differently than film.

Larger Signal to Noise ratios are more noticeable at higher sensitivities (1600 and above especially) but that is changing as the way the curent electronics capture the light and process the information changes. As technology improves ..which is seen today with smaller sensors lowering their noise ratios, sensor size will be even less important.

[/quote]

Larger the bucket, the more light that gets in. It's a simple fact. What your spouting seems to be nikons effort in combating Canons popularity. Or more truth to the matter, your business trying to compete in the ever changing photography market place.

I compared the 5D because it's the closest that canon has with the same MP. You should compare the pro nikon to the pro canon. I wonder why the 1Ds Mark II is the current industry standard in 35mm based cameras for commercial work if Nikon's so much better...hehe. Oh yeah, must be the marketing machine. LOL!

Then there is the whole increased DOF aspect of having smaller sensors...

02/02/2006 03:06:34 AM · #23

Originally posted by hokie:

Why would you , as a photo studio house, compare the nikon to the 5d instead of teh 1ds Mark II? That doesn't seem to make sense at all...

02/02/2006 03:07:21 AM · #24

Originally posted by Brent_Ward:

Originally posted by hokie:

Originally posted by Brent_Ward:

You do realize that having the same MP on a bigger chip results in better files don't you?

That is not universally true.

This is the quote I'm talking about, but I guess universally just meens 35mm. :P

Uhhh...yeah....why else would I use the words "NOT UNIVERSALLY TRUE".

Look...I have owned Canon and Nikon and I would be willing to own either. They are simply tools that I use.

I don't know why camera consumers can't all get together and demand ALL camera makers quit manipulating us because it is convenient.

What is Canon going to say next year or two when they come out with a 20 megapixel 1Ds Mark 3 and ..because they have already reached the full frame size...they increase pixel density..making their pixels smaller.

All of a sudden it will be O.K. to have smaller pixels. Why? Because it will be convenient for Canon.

I am not saying Nikon or Kodak or Sony are any less unscrupulous. I am saying that, based on current technology developments and the real needs of phtographers like me, this constant "Mine is bigger than yours" mentality is becoming pointless. A point of diminishing returns.

That is all I am saying. I am not wearing a Nikon shirt and waving a freaking flag becaseu they are the home team. I am supporting Nikon's idea that pixel size in sensors is not as important as where those pixels are located in the focal plane and improving the technology in ways other than making bigger buckets.

Oye....