What will the Nikon D300 be like?

[Alexander Arnakis]

Full-frame CCD, compatible with all AF and manual lenses, lower
current draw, smaller form factor, price point under $2,000?

When will we see it? This time next year?

[Mark²]

Alexander Arnakis wrote:
> Full-frame CCD, compatible with all AF and manual lenses, lower
> current draw, smaller form factor, price point under $2,000?
>
> When will we see it? This time next year?

My crystal ball says to come back tomorrow...

[Mark Roberts]

Alexander Arnakis > wrote:

>Full-frame CCD, compatible with all AF and manual lenses, lower
>current draw, smaller form factor, price point under $2,000?

I expect Nikon's long-awaited "auto-compose" feature to finally be
included. It'll automatically frame all your shots so accurately that
use of the viewfinder will rarely even be necessary. :)

>When will we see it? This time next year?

It took 3 years to go from the D100 to the D200...


--
Mark Roberts
Photography and writing
www.robertstech.com

[William Graham]

"Mark Roberts" > wrote in message
...
> Alexander Arnakis > wrote:
>
>>Full-frame CCD, compatible with all AF and manual lenses, lower
>>current draw, smaller form factor, price point under $2,000?
>
> I expect Nikon's long-awaited "auto-compose" feature to finally be
> included. It'll automatically frame all your shots so accurately that
> use of the viewfinder will rarely even be necessary. :)

Yes, but by that time, Canon will have their photo-robot on the market. You
won't need to even get up in the morning....You will just tell it to go over
to the coast and cover the kite festival, and then you can roll over and go
back to sleep........

[Jim]

"William Graham" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Mark Roberts" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Alexander Arnakis > wrote:
>>
>>>Full-frame CCD, compatible with all AF and manual lenses, lower
>>>current draw, smaller form factor, price point under $2,000?
>>
>> I expect Nikon's long-awaited "auto-compose" feature to finally be
>> included. It'll automatically frame all your shots so accurately that
>> use of the viewfinder will rarely even be necessary. :)
>
> Yes, but by that time, Canon will have their photo-robot on the market.
> You won't need to even get up in the morning....You will just tell it to
> go over to the coast and cover the kite festival, and then you can roll
> over and go back to sleep........
>
Not only that, the new Canon will accept your instruction to make the scene
look like you think it should look.
Jim

[Martin Francis]

"Alexander Arnakis" > wrote in message
...
> Full-frame CCD, compatible with all AF and manual lenses, lower
> current draw, smaller form factor, price point under $2,000?
>
> When will we see it? This time next year?

No, it will be Autumn 2009- Voxels will replace pixels, which in conjunction
with AF-D lenses and 12.7 million hidden focusing points, voxel
interpolation and radar will create 3D rendered scenes from a photograph.
RAW conversion will require similar processing power to a 3DS MAX
workstation and will produce genuine photo renders. Composition will be
something to do later on- simply move your viewpoint to wherever in the
scene you wish. By this point, Canon will have already released three
similar models, sharing seventeen firmware updates and three "bad sample"
recalls of models that did strange things to the backs of peoples' heads.

Oh, but seriously... uh, no full frame. In fact, I suspect a D70s
replacement soon as they have been a real bitch to get hold of in the UK. A
D80- a D200 chip in a D70s-style body with updated battery and larger
screen- wouldn't surprise me. I would like (no, LOVE) to see some more DX
lenses from Nikon. My wishlist would be a bunch of wide-aperture FFL lenses
covering 28/50/85 (35mm equiv), and a compact DX f2.8 mid-tele zoom (say a
new 50-135mm) but i'm not holding my breath.

Martin

[Duncan J Murray]

"Alexander Arnakis" > wrote in message
...
> Full-frame CCD, compatible with all AF and manual lenses, lower
> current draw, smaller form factor, price point under $2,000?
>
> When will we see it? This time next year?

Why does everyone think that Nikon will bring out a 'full frame' camera with
the current lens mount?

Duncan.

[Mark²]

Duncan J Murray wrote:
> "Alexander Arnakis" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Full-frame CCD, compatible with all AF and manual lenses, lower
>> current draw, smaller form factor, price point under $2,000?
>>
>> When will we see it? This time next year?
>
> Why does everyone think that Nikon will bring out a 'full frame'
> camera with the current lens mount?
>
> Duncan.

Because Canon is, right now, the only company serving those who want FF.
Kodak had one for a while...as did Contax, but both were either limited in
their application usefulness...or a complete failure (Contax).
Can has sold a huge pile of 1Ds Mark IIs, 1Ds bodies to professional
photographers, yet there is no equivalent from Nikon.

Canon is now selling the lower priced 5D FF as well, which means Canon has
established itself as not only the exclusive source of FF 35mm DSLRs, but
now into their third generation.

Interestingly, Canon was into its third generation of IS lenses by the time
Nikon finally got around to offering their own version of IS ("VR").

[Jerry L]

About six months before the 'pre-production' D400 is going to be
reviewed in a photography magazine.

(...by then, the Nikon photo world will be waiting for the D500.)

Where will it end?
= = =
Alexander Arnakis wrote:
> Full-frame CCD, compatible with all AF and manual lenses, lower
> current draw, smaller form factor, price point under $2,000?
>
> When will we see it? This time next year?

[ras]

i certainly hope not. as far as i can see ff is a marketing gimmick for
all but dedicated ultra-wide angle enthusiasts. going to ff is a
double-edge sword as what you gain in the wide end you lose in the tele
and as far as joe consumer is concerned that's more often than not a
bum deal.

- price point under 2k? done
- smaller form factor? why?? i think most everyone associates the size
as is with a 'pro' feel that is hardier than toy-like point and shoots.
- lower current draw? not sure on the d200 but on a d100 with a battery
rated at a 100 less mah lasts me about 500 actuations. i wouldn't
exactly call that shabby!

i would bet the d300 will have a higher mp count (ho hum), higher
continuous fps shooting w/ bigger buffer and perhaps integrate wi-fi
and better low light performance. nothing earth shattering.

ras

[David Dyer-Bennet]

Alexander Arnakis > writes:

> Full-frame CCD, compatible with all AF and manual lenses, lower
> current draw, smaller form factor, price point under $2,000?

1.5x, not full frame. Full frame is an expensive game with less and
less justification as the technology advances. Eventually new
high-end "full-frame" cameras will take over the current position of
medium format cameras.

> When will we see it? This time next year?

Longer than that most likely.
--
David Dyer-Bennet, >, <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/>
RKBA: <http://noguns-nomoney.com/> <http://www.dd-b.net/carry/>
Pics: <http://dd-b.lighthunters.net/> <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/>
Dragaera/Steven Brust: <http://dragaera.info/>

[Scott Chapin]

"David Dyer-Bennet" > wrote in message
...

<SNIP>

> Eventually new
> high-end "full-frame" cameras will take over the current position of
> medium format cameras.

And MF cameras with 36mm square CCDs will replace Large Format cameras?


Scott Chapin

[Alexander Arnakis]

On 26 Nov 2005 16:52:58 -0800, "ras" > wrote:

>i certainly hope not. as far as i can see ff is a marketing gimmick for
>all but dedicated ultra-wide angle enthusiasts. going to ff is a
>double-edge sword as what you gain in the wide end you lose in the tele
>and as far as joe consumer is concerned that's more often than not a
>bum deal.
>
But couldn't that dilemma be solved by an on-camera cropping function?

>- price point under 2k? done
>- smaller form factor? why?? i think most everyone associates the size
>as is with a 'pro' feel that is hardier than toy-like point and shoots.

How about a DSLR with the size and weight of a Nikon FM?

[Chris Loffredo]

David Dyer-Bennet wrote:
> Alexander Arnakis > writes:
>
>
>>Full-frame CCD, compatible with all AF and manual lenses, lower
>>current draw, smaller form factor, price point under $2,000?
>
>
> 1.5x, not full frame. Full frame is an expensive game with less and
> less justification as the technology advances. Eventually new
> high-end "full-frame" cameras will take over the current position of
> medium format cameras.
>
Yes, they will have magic lenses which will supply all that resolution...

[MXP]

I don't think they will go for a 24x36 sensor. If they can get the pixel
desnsity they want
and get the noise level acceptable then I am sure Nikon thinks they have an
advantage
over Canon. E.g. no vignetting problems and for sports action were they are
a lot of
prof. users it can be an advantage to have smaller image angle using teles.

Try to read this "S4 Pro" rumor. The DX question is discussed also.

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/readflat.asp?forum=1020&thread=15386821&page=1

Max

"Duncan J Murray"
s.bit.uk> skrev i en
meddelelse ...
> "Alexander Arnakis" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Full-frame CCD, compatible with all AF and manual lenses, lower
>> current draw, smaller form factor, price point under $2,000?
>>
>> When will we see it? This time next year?
>
> Why does everyone think that Nikon will bring out a 'full frame' camera
> with the current lens mount?
>
> Duncan.
>

[Philip Homburg]

In article >,
Duncan J Murray s.bit.uk> wrote:
>Why does everyone think that Nikon will bring out a 'full frame' camera with
>the current lens mount?

Well, it is unlikely tat Nikon is going to introduce a new lens mount, and
there is no reason for Nikon to introduce a new lens mount if they want
to do full frame 35mm.

So the question then becomes "Why does everyone think that Nikon will bring
out a 'full frame' camera".

And the answer is that for some applications, bigger is better. If it wasn't,
there would be no reason to spend huge amounts of money on digital
medium format backs.


--
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

[Jim]

"Jim" > wrote in message
et...
>
> "William Graham" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> "Mark Roberts" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> Alexander Arnakis > wrote:
>>>
>>>>Full-frame CCD, compatible with all AF and manual lenses, lower
>>>>current draw, smaller form factor, price point under $2,000?
>>>
>>> I expect Nikon's long-awaited "auto-compose" feature to finally be
>>> included. It'll automatically frame all your shots so accurately that
>>> use of the viewfinder will rarely even be necessary. :)
>>
>> Yes, but by that time, Canon will have their photo-robot on the market.
>> You won't need to even get up in the morning....You will just tell it to
>> go over to the coast and cover the kite festival, and then you can roll
>> over and go back to sleep........
>>
> Not only that, the new Canon will accept your instruction to make the
> scene look like you think it should look.
> Jim
>
And, people like the OP will be wondering what the new D400 with feature.
Jim

[David Dyer-Bennet]

"Scott Chapin" > writes:

> "David Dyer-Bennet" > wrote in message
> ...
>
> <SNIP>
>
> > Eventually new
> > high-end "full-frame" cameras will take over the current position of
> > medium format cameras.
>
> And MF cameras with 36mm square CCDs will replace Large Format cameras?

Not so likely, since a lot of the purpose for LF cameras is the
shifts, swings, and tilts.
--
David Dyer-Bennet, >, <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/>
RKBA: <http://noguns-nomoney.com/> <http://www.dd-b.net/carry/>
Pics: <http://dd-b.lighthunters.net/> <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/>
Dragaera/Steven Brust: <http://dragaera.info/>

[Scott Chapin]

"David Dyer-Bennet" > wrote in message
...
> "Scott Chapin" > writes:
>
> > "David Dyer-Bennet" > wrote in message
> > ...
> >
> > <SNIP>
> >
> > > Eventually new
> > > high-end "full-frame" cameras will take over the current position of
> > > medium format cameras.
> >
> > And MF cameras with 36mm square CCDs will replace Large Format cameras?
>
> Not so likely, since a lot of the purpose for LF cameras is the
> shifts, swings, and tilts.
> --

To an extent, but I find the thought interesting that these new FF 35mms
will replace MFs. I don't think so, because the optics on MFs are so
superior, and there digital solutions will still make them the choice for
serious work.

Scott Chapin

[Mark Roberts]

(Philip Homburg) wrote:

>In article >,
>Duncan J Murray s.bit.uk> wrote:
>>Why does everyone think that Nikon will bring out a 'full frame' camera with
>>the current lens mount?
>
>Well, it is unlikely tat Nikon is going to introduce a new lens mount, and
>there is no reason for Nikon to introduce a new lens mount if they want
>to do full frame 35mm.
>
>So the question then becomes "Why does everyone think that Nikon will bring
>out a 'full frame' camera".
>
>And the answer is that for some applications, bigger is better. If it wasn't,
>there would be no reason to spend huge amounts of money on digital
>medium format backs.

I predicted a couple of years ago that Nikon would produce a camera that
is *both* full-frame *and* 1.5x crop: 16-or-so megapixels full frame
with the option of switching to 8-or-so megapixels at 1.5x crop (it
would automatically choose the latter when a small-image-circle lens was
fitted).

Just thought I'd bring it up again... :)

[Sander Vesik]

Mark Roberts > wrote:
>
> I predicted a couple of years ago that Nikon would produce a camera that
> is *both* full-frame *and* 1.5x crop: 16-or-so megapixels full frame
> with the option of switching to 8-or-so megapixels at 1.5x crop (it
> would automatically choose the latter when a small-image-circle lens was
> fitted).
>
> Just thought I'd bring it up again... :)
>

The basic problem is that AFAIK DX lens don't identify themselves as such -
but if they did, the sensible thing would be not to force them into a
smaller rectangle on a "FF" sensor body but allow use of the full image
circle - which not only varies between different DX lens but also allows
you to get unconventional sizes and angles of rotation easily. Not to
mention the ability to rotate the image 90 degrees while keeping the
camera stationary.

--
Sander

+++ Out of cheese error +++

[David Dyer-Bennet]

"Scott Chapin" > writes:

> "David Dyer-Bennet" > wrote in message
> ...
> > "Scott Chapin" > writes:
> >
> > > "David Dyer-Bennet" > wrote in message
> > > ...
> > >
> > > <SNIP>
> > >
> > > > Eventually new
> > > > high-end "full-frame" cameras will take over the current position of
> > > > medium format cameras.
> > >
> > > And MF cameras with 36mm square CCDs will replace Large Format cameras?
> >
> > Not so likely, since a lot of the purpose for LF cameras is the
> > shifts, swings, and tilts.

> To an extent, but I find the thought interesting that these new FF 35mms
> will replace MFs. I don't think so, because the optics on MFs are so
> superior, and there digital solutions will still make them the choice for
> serious work.

Go read some scientific reviews of the MF lenses, and then come back
and say that. They resolve considerably fewer lines than good 35mm
lenses. They have to -- it's a design compromise needed to get the
coverage required for the MF negative.
--
David Dyer-Bennet, >, <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/>
RKBA: <http://noguns-nomoney.com/> <http://www.dd-b.net/carry/>
Pics: <http://dd-b.lighthunters.net/> <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/>
Dragaera/Steven Brust: <http://dragaera.info/>

[Matt Clara]

"Scott Chapin" > wrote in message
...
>
> "David Dyer-Bennet" > wrote in message
> ...
>> "Scott Chapin" > writes:
>>
>> > "David Dyer-Bennet" > wrote in message
>> > ...
>> >
>> > <SNIP>
>> >
>> > > Eventually new
>> > > high-end "full-frame" cameras will take over the current position of
>> > > medium format cameras.
>> >
>> > And MF cameras with 36mm square CCDs will replace Large Format cameras?
>>
>> Not so likely, since a lot of the purpose for LF cameras is the
>> shifts, swings, and tilts.
>> --
>
> To an extent, but I find the thought interesting that these new FF 35mms
> will replace MFs. I don't think so, because the optics on MFs are so
> superior, and there digital solutions will still make them the choice for
> serious work.
>
> Scott Chapin

How are medium-format optics superior to 35mm?

--
Regards,
Matt Clara
www.mattclara.com

[Matt Clara]

"Scott Chapin" > wrote in message
...
>
> "David Dyer-Bennet" > wrote in message
> ...
>> "Scott Chapin" > writes:
>>
>> > "David Dyer-Bennet" > wrote in message
>> > ...
>> >
>> > <SNIP>
>> >
>> > > Eventually new
>> > > high-end "full-frame" cameras will take over the current position of
>> > > medium format cameras.
>> >
>> > And MF cameras with 36mm square CCDs will replace Large Format cameras?
>>
>> Not so likely, since a lot of the purpose for LF cameras is the
>> shifts, swings, and tilts.
>> --
>
> To an extent, but I find the thought interesting that these new FF 35mms
> will replace MFs. I don't think so, because the optics on MFs are so
> superior, and there digital solutions will still make them the choice for
> serious work.
>
> Scott Chapin

MTF makes 35mm look better

http://www.photodo.com/prod/lens/mediumlensesmtf.shtml

http://www.photodo.com/prod/lens/35lensesmtf.shtml

--
Regards,
Matt Clara
www.mattclara.com

[Scott Chapin]

"David Dyer-Bennet" > wrote in message
...
> "Scott Chapin" > writes:
>
<SNIP>

>> Go read some scientific reviews of the MF lenses, and then come back
> and say that. They resolve considerably fewer lines than good 35mm
> lenses. They have to -- it's a design compromise needed to get the
> coverage required for the MF negative.
>

Who mentioned resolving power? My Hassy Zeiss lenses just simply render
better images than any of my Nikon or Olympus lenses. The contrast seems to
be so superior in them.

Scott Chapin

[Scott Chapin]

"Matt Clara" > wrote in message
.. .
>

<SNIP>

> How are medium-format optics superior to 35mm?
>
>
My Hassy Zeiss lenses have always seemed to produce a much better contrast.

Scott Chapin

[Scott Chapin]

"Matt Clara" > wrote in message
.. .


> MTF makes 35mm look better
>
I don't know. Definitely not against the Nikkors and Zuikos that I own. The
70-200 AF VR is not listed, and it does take some really descent images.
Also the links you provide do not state what the numbers represent. If its
resolution, then that's not the end all. I would also expect that MF lenses
could suffer a lower resolution yet provide a better image due to the larger
negative. Saying that if the MF negative were reduced to 35mm size there
would actually be better resolution than the 35mm produces.

All I know is that seeing is believing, and my Hassy images are far superior
to my 35 mm images. If the MF cameras have larger CCDs and more megapixels,
which they do, they should still hold a niche in the market.

Scott Chapin

[uw wayne]

They have to come out with a full frame. They continue to upgrade their
pro lens line up: 300f2.8 VR, 200-400 f4 VR, 200 f2 VR. They can't sell
these to pros and serious amatures if they will only record on an
ittybitty teensey weensey polka dot sensor. That won't fly. If they
were to market it for the baby chip why not do it as "equivalent 450
f2.8, 300-400 f4, and 300 f2"? Ain't too many serious photography folks
gonna spend $5200, $5000, and $4000 respectively. For every body they
sell they sell four lenses. They make their big bucks selling lenses.

[no_name]

Duncan J Murray wrote:

> "Alexander Arnakis" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>Full-frame CCD, compatible with all AF and manual lenses, lower
>>current draw, smaller form factor, price point under $2,000?
>>
>>When will we see it? This time next year?
>
>
> Why does everyone think that Nikon will bring out a 'full frame' camera with
> the current lens mount?
>
> Duncan.
>
>

If they don't they're going to lose market share to Canon.

[Matt Clara]

"Scott Chapin" > wrote in message
. ..
>
> "Matt Clara" > wrote in message
> .. .
>
>
>> MTF makes 35mm look better
>>
> I don't know. Definitely not against the Nikkors and Zuikos that I own.
> The
> 70-200 AF VR is not listed, and it does take some really descent images.
> Also the links you provide do not state what the numbers represent. If its
> resolution, then that's not the end all. I would also expect that MF
> lenses
> could suffer a lower resolution yet provide a better image due to the
> larger
> negative. Saying that if the MF negative were reduced to 35mm size there
> would actually be better resolution than the 35mm produces.
>
> All I know is that seeing is believing, and my Hassy images are far
> superior
> to my 35 mm images. If the MF cameras have larger CCDs and more
> megapixels,
> which they do, they should still hold a niche in the market.
>
> Scott Chapin
>
>

I believe the lion's share of the difference is in the negative size, but I
also agree that some lens maunfacturers have a better sense of asthetics
when they design their lenses than others, and hassy's definitely one of
those. Still, I think saying medium format lenses are optically superior to
35mm is a blanket statement.

--
Regards,
Matt Clara
www.mattclara.com

[Mark²]

no_name wrote:
> Duncan J Murray wrote:
>
>> "Alexander Arnakis" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>
>>> Full-frame CCD, compatible with all AF and manual lenses, lower
>>> current draw, smaller form factor, price point under $2,000?
>>>
>>> When will we see it? This time next year?
>>
>>
>> Why does everyone think that Nikon will bring out a 'full frame'
>> camera with the current lens mount?
>>
>> Duncan.
>>
>>
>
> If they don't they're going to lose market share to Canon.

Make that...they'll lose MORE market share to Canon than they already
have...
:(

[Matt Clara]

"uw wayne" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> They have to come out with a full frame. They continue to upgrade their
> pro lens line up: 300f2.8 VR, 200-400 f4 VR, 200 f2 VR. They can't sell
> these to pros and serious amatures if they will only record on an
> ittybitty teensey weensey polka dot sensor. That won't fly.

I don't believe that's true, particularly with the long lenses you site.
The performance of the sensor is what counts.

--
Regards,
Matt Clara
www.mattclara.com

[Father Kodak]

On Sun, 27 Nov 2005 12:18:59 +0100, (Philip
Homburg) wrote:

>In article >,
>Duncan J Murray s.bit.uk> wrote:
>>Why does everyone think that Nikon will bring out a 'full frame' camera with
>>the current lens mount?
>
>Well, it is unlikely tat Nikon is going to introduce a new lens mount, and
>there is no reason for Nikon to introduce a new lens mount if they want
>to do full frame 35mm.

Considering that a lot of the impetus for full-frame comes from guys
like me with a bag full of Nikon lenses who want them "to work the
same" on film and digital, why would Nikon do something so irrational
as to bring out a full-frame digital body with an incompatible lens
mount? Duuuh?

Father Kodak
>
>So the question then becomes "Why does everyone think that Nikon will bring
>out a 'full frame' camera".
>
>And the answer is that for some applications, bigger is better. If it wasn't,
>there would be no reason to spend huge amounts of money on digital
>medium format backs.

And for the reason cited above, regardless of suitability to
application.

[Father Kodak]

On Sun, 27 Nov 2005 16:50:16 -0500, "Scott Chapin"
> wrote:

>
>"Matt Clara" > wrote in message
.. .
>
>

>
>All I know is that seeing is believing, and my Hassy images are far superior
>to my 35 mm images. If the MF cameras have larger CCDs and more megapixels,
>which they do, they should still hold a niche in the market.
>
>Scott Chapin
>
Are your comparisons based on the same film, same processing, and same
enlargement ratio? (ideally with the same enlarging lens), onto the
same paper?

[Father Kodak]

On 27 Nov 2005 17:05:04 -0800, "uw wayne" >
wrote:


>f2.8, 300-400 f4, and 300 f2"? Ain't too many serious photography folks
>gonna spend $5200, $5000, and $4000 respectively. For every body they
>sell they sell four lenses. They make their big bucks selling lenses.

"They" = Nikon? all DSLR manufacturers?

four lenses = what backup do you have?

I have _eight_ Nikon lenses. Oh, I have two Nikon F2 and one Nikon
N90s body. So I guess that Nikon hasn't done so well with me. :)

Kodak

[Philip Homburg]

In article >,
Father Kodak > wrote:
>Considering that a lot of the impetus for full-frame comes from guys
>like me with a bag full of Nikon lenses who want them "to work the
>same" on film and digital, why would Nikon do something so irrational
>as to bring out a full-frame digital body with an incompatible lens
>mount? Duuuh?
>
>And for the reason cited above, regardless of suitability to
>application.

That sort of depends on whether Nikon thinks that that market is big enough
or not.
--
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

[rschapin@comcast.net]

Father Kodak wrote:

<SNIP>

> Are your comparisons based on the same film, same processing, and same
> enlargement ratio? (ideally with the same enlarging lens), onto the
> same paper?

Short answer is yes.

When I shoot weddings I will mix 35mm with 2.25" square. I use the same
film type, smae lab, same paper, processed together. My 8x10 MFs look
better than my 4x6 35mms. Mybe not exactly the same enlargement, but
close enough.

There's just a quality difference that I cannot fully explain. The
colors are even different. I think that is due to contrast.

Scott Chapin

[no_name]

wrote:

> Father Kodak wrote:
>
> <SNIP>
>
>>Are your comparisons based on the same film, same processing, and same
>>enlargement ratio? (ideally with the same enlarging lens), onto the
>>same paper?
>
>
> Short answer is yes.
>
> When I shoot weddings I will mix 35mm with 2.25" square. I use the same
> film type, smae lab, same paper, processed together. My 8x10 MFs look
> better than my 4x6 35mms. Mybe not exactly the same enlargement, but
> close enough.
>
> There's just a quality difference that I cannot fully explain. The
> colors are even different. I think that is due to contrast.
>
> Scott Chapin
>

It's the larger negative. Use an adapter to mount the MF lens onto the
35mm body (Pentax can do that), and you'll see the image is softer on
the film.

I love MF, but the 35mm lenses are sharper, mainly because they have to
be to get quality from the smaller film area.

[Matt Clara]

"Chris Loffredo" > wrote in message
...
> David Dyer-Bennet wrote:
> > Alexander Arnakis > writes:
> >
> >
> >>Full-frame CCD, compatible with all AF and manual lenses, lower
> >>current draw, smaller form factor, price point under $2,000?
> >
> >
> > 1.5x, not full frame. Full frame is an expensive game with less and
> > less justification as the technology advances. Eventually new
> > high-end "full-frame" cameras will take over the current position of
> > medium format cameras.
> >
> Yes, they will have magic lenses which will supply all that resolution...

The resolution of the lenses will be a limiting factor eventually, but mtf
scores at photodo indicate that the best 35mm lenses resolve more detail
than the best medium-format lenses, so medium format will need the "magic"
first.

--
Regards,
Matt Clara
www.mattclara.com

[Father Kodak]

On Mon, 28 Nov 2005 14:24:27 GMT, no_name >
wrote:

wrote:
>
>> Father Kodak wrote:
>>
>> <SNIP>
>>
>>>Are your comparisons based on the same film, same processing, and same
>>>enlargement ratio? (ideally with the same enlarging lens), onto the
>>>same paper?
>>
>>
>> Short answer is yes.
>>
>> When I shoot weddings I will mix 35mm with 2.25" square. I use the same
>> film type, smae lab, same paper, processed together. My 8x10 MFs look
>> better than my 4x6 35mms. Mybe not exactly the same enlargement, but
>> close enough.
>>
>> There's just a quality difference that I cannot fully explain. The
>> colors are even different. I think that is due to contrast.
>>
>> Scott Chapin
>>
>
>It's the larger negative. Use an adapter to mount the MF lens onto the
>35mm body (Pentax can do that), and you'll see the image is softer on
>the film.

No_name:

Scott already addressed that issue very clearly in his reply. He
compared prints done at approximately the same magnifications. Given
his statement, I have to accept his assertion.

And I have also seen some truly stunning very large prints made from
Pan-X shot in a Hasselblad.

Father Kodak

[Chris Loffredo]

Matt Clara wrote:
> "Chris Loffredo" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>David Dyer-Bennet wrote:
>>
>>>Alexander Arnakis > writes:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>Full-frame CCD, compatible with all AF and manual lenses, lower
>>>>current draw, smaller form factor, price point under $2,000?
>>>
>>>
>>>1.5x, not full frame. Full frame is an expensive game with less and
>>>less justification as the technology advances. Eventually new
>>>high-end "full-frame" cameras will take over the current position of
>>>medium format cameras.
>>>
>>
>>Yes, they will have magic lenses which will supply all that resolution...
>
>
> The resolution of the lenses will be a limiting factor eventually, but mtf
> scores at photodo indicate that the best 35mm lenses resolve more detail
> than the best medium-format lenses, so medium format will need the "magic"
> first.
>


Lets say that the best 35mm lenses have twice the resolution of the best
MF lenses (not necessarily so). But MF has 4-8 times more surface area
than an APS format captor: You do the math...

Arguing with convinced digital fans is increasingly like dealing with
religious fanatics.

-----------

"Eppur si muove!"

[Tony Polson]

Chris Loffredo > wrote:

>Lets say that the best 35mm lenses have twice the resolution of the best
> MF lenses (not necessarily so). But MF has 4-8 times more surface area
>than an APS format captor: You do the math...

You are confusing *linear* resolution with the relative *areas* of
different sensors - in this case APS digital vs 120 film.

>Arguing with convinced digital fans is increasingly like dealing with
>religious fanatics.

If any of them have previous experience with film, you can be sure it
was probably Kodak Gold (or worse) developed and printed at WalMart
(or worse). Even a 2 MP point and shoot digital is better than that.

;-)

[uw wayne]

My point Father K is that the average consumer will buy a second or
third lens for the sole body before she/he/it will buy a single lens
and then add a second or third body for the single lens.

[Scott Chapin]

"Matt Clara" > wrote in message
.. .
>>
> I believe the lion's share of the difference is in the negative size, but
I
> also agree that some lens maunfacturers have a better sense of asthetics
> when they design their lenses than others, and hassy's definitely one of
> those. Still, I think saying medium format lenses are optically superior
to
> 35mm is a blanket statement.
>

Well true, maybe, but what's interesting is that everyone is jumping on my
case based on resolving power, and I never mentioned resolving power. Sure
the negative size is a major factor, but I still think the lenses in their
"habitat" produce superior results.

I am not looking for 35mm digital to displace MF cameras. It's marvelous
that some expect them to produce MF quality images, but I expect that
digital MF will stay ahead. MF already has 16 bit and greater than 500MB
files. Good Lord!

Scott Chapin

[Scott Chapin]

"no_name" > wrote in message
om...

<SNIP>

>> It's the larger negative. Use an adapter to mount the MF lens onto the
> 35mm body (Pentax can do that), and you'll see the image is softer on
> the film.
>

No totally. Sharpness isn't the only thing that makes an image attractive.
Tonality does too. I think thats' what make my MF images jump out at me.
Yes, the larger negative is the heart of the increased sharpness, but not
the tonality.

Scott Chapin

[Scott Chapin]

"uw wayne" > wrote in message
oups.com...
>
> ittybitty teensey weensey polka dot sensor. That won't fly.


Why? I absolutely love mine. A 28mm has been my widest lense for years, so I
bought a 20mm for my D100. Big deal, but oh boy what I picked up on the
telephoto side! My 70-200mm VR is a 300mm f2.8....wow!

I'm stoked about the D200, and Canon doesn't even get a second thought.

Scott C.

[uw wayne]

No argument, every tool has it's place. I also agree with your earlier
statments about your square 6X6 Hasselbald CF lenses. I like the
results I get with my 6X7 Pentax. But in the smaller digital format,
what is the largest print you have made with the small sensor on your
D100 that you would consider razor sharp?

[Matt Clara]

"Chris Loffredo" > wrote in message
...
> Matt Clara wrote:
>> "Chris Loffredo" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>
>>>David Dyer-Bennet wrote:
>>>
>>>>Alexander Arnakis > writes:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Full-frame CCD, compatible with all AF and manual lenses, lower
>>>>>current draw, smaller form factor, price point under $2,000?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>1.5x, not full frame. Full frame is an expensive game with less and
>>>>less justification as the technology advances. Eventually new
>>>>high-end "full-frame" cameras will take over the current position of
>>>>medium format cameras.
>>>>
>>>
>>>Yes, they will have magic lenses which will supply all that resolution...
>>
>>
>> The resolution of the lenses will be a limiting factor eventually, but
>> mtf
>> scores at photodo indicate that the best 35mm lenses resolve more detail
>> than the best medium-format lenses, so medium format will need the
>> "magic"
>> first.
>>
>
>
> Lets say that the best 35mm lenses have twice the resolution of the best
> MF lenses (not necessarily so). But MF has 4-8 times more surface area
> than an APS format captor: You do the math...
>
> Arguing with convinced digital fans is increasingly like dealing with
> religious fanatics.

My point is, as sensors are able to resolve ever more detail, the best
medium format will reach the resolution limit before the best 35mm, and as
people are increasingly less tied to archaic film formats, a small camera
with a small but powerful/high-quality sensor will be much more appealing
than a camera the size of a 67II or RB67, or Rollei 6008i, etc.

It's interesting you assume I'm a "convinced digital fan" without knowing a
thing about me. Take a look at my site if you'd like, you won't find a
single shot taken with a digital camera unless it's in the "events" section.
Further, we weren't even discussing digital per se; rather, we were
discussing the ability of different lenses to resolve detail. Feel free to
explain how you extrapolate from that, that I'm a "convinced digital
fan"--whatever that is.

--
Regards,
Matt Clara
www.mattclara.com

[Matt Clara]

"Scott Chapin" > wrote in message
. ..
>
> "Matt Clara" > wrote in message
> .. .
>>>
>> I believe the lion's share of the difference is in the negative size, but
> I
>> also agree that some lens maunfacturers have a better sense of asthetics
>> when they design their lenses than others, and hassy's definitely one of
>> those. Still, I think saying medium format lenses are optically superior
> to
>> 35mm is a blanket statement.
>>
>
> Well true, maybe, but what's interesting is that everyone is jumping on my
> case based on resolving power, and I never mentioned resolving power. Sure
> the negative size is a major factor, but I still think the lenses in their
> "habitat" produce superior results.
>
> I am not looking for 35mm digital to displace MF cameras. It's marvelous
> that some expect them to produce MF quality images, but I expect that
> digital MF will stay ahead. MF already has 16 bit and greater than 500MB
> files. Good Lord!
>
> Scott Chapin
>
>

I doubt full frame medium format (or anything even approaching that) will
ever be cost effective for all but a small segment of photographers, let
alone desireable. Because 35mm lenses do have higher resolving power (and
can be designed to have characteristics such as those you describe with your
hassy, and already are being designed that way by Carl Zeiss and the like),
and because big bulky cameras are not what most photographers desire, and
because electronics tend towards smaller and smaller components with
increasing capacity, it stands to reason that big sensors will neither be
the most cost effective route to _meet photographer's needs_, nor will they
be desirable to the majority of photographers who want relatively small,
lightweight cameras (relative to the size of modern medium-format). Only
time will tell, but I think most everyone has their heads stuck around
archaic film formats. There's very little reason to continue to tie sensor
size to film size once the majority of users have stopped using film.

--
Regards,
Matt Clara
www.mattclara.com

[Tony Polson]

"Matt Clara" > wrote:

>I doubt full frame medium format (or anything even approaching that) will
>ever be cost effective for all but a small segment of photographers, let
>alone desireable. Because 35mm lenses do have higher resolving power (and
>can be designed to have characteristics such as those you describe with your
>hassy, and already are being designed that way by Carl Zeiss and the like),
>and because big bulky cameras are not what most photographers desire, and
>because electronics tend towards smaller and smaller components with
>increasing capacity, it stands to reason that big sensors will neither be
>the most cost effective route to _meet photographer's needs_, nor will they
>be desirable to the majority of photographers who want relatively small,
>lightweight cameras (relative to the size of modern medium-format). Only
>time will tell, but I think most everyone has their heads stuck around
>archaic film formats. There's very little reason to continue to tie sensor
>size to film size once the majority of users have stopped using film.


I disagree, wholeheartedly. ;-)

I am quite surprised at your comments, especially since they come from
an avid medium format user. I really would have thought that you, of
all people, would appreciate that digital medium format has so much
more to offer than digital SLRs based on the 35mm film format.

Sensors for "medium format" cameras are widely available in 16 MP and
22 MP, and a 39 MP sensor has just become available. These sensors
are characterised by extremely low noise and excellent dynamic range,
a combination which is currently impossible to achieve at anywhere
near those pixel counts in a 35mm-based DSLR. The Canon EOS 1Ds Mk II
doesn't even come close.

There will always be a demand for high end equipment. There always
was with film. 35mm was good enough for 99% of images made but there
was always a healthy market for medium format film cameras and a small
but still growing market for large format equipment.

Medium format film thrived because it offered so much more than 35mm
film. The same applies to digital. There's a rapidly growing market
in digital backs for medium format film cameras, and several medium
format digital cameras are on the way or already here - Hasselblad
have just introduced their second!

The large format market has hardly been touched by digital - yet. But
it will surely come.

[Matt Clara]

"Tony Polson" > wrote in message
...
> "Matt Clara" > wrote:
>
> >I doubt full frame medium format (or anything even approaching that) will
> >ever be cost effective for all but a small segment of photographers, let
> >alone desireable. Because 35mm lenses do have higher resolving power
(and
> >can be designed to have characteristics such as those you describe with
your
> >hassy, and already are being designed that way by Carl Zeiss and the
like),
> >and because big bulky cameras are not what most photographers desire, and
> >because electronics tend towards smaller and smaller components with
> >increasing capacity, it stands to reason that big sensors will neither be
> >the most cost effective route to _meet photographer's needs_, nor will
they
> >be desirable to the majority of photographers who want relatively small,
> >lightweight cameras (relative to the size of modern medium-format). Only
> >time will tell, but I think most everyone has their heads stuck around
> >archaic film formats. There's very little reason to continue to tie
sensor
> >size to film size once the majority of users have stopped using film.
>
>
> I disagree, wholeheartedly. ;-)
>
> I am quite surprised at your comments, especially since they come from
> an avid medium format user. I really would have thought that you, of
> all people, would appreciate that digital medium format has so much
> more to offer than digital SLRs based on the 35mm film format.
>
> Sensors for "medium format" cameras are widely available in 16 MP and
> 22 MP, and a 39 MP sensor has just become available. These sensors
> are characterised by extremely low noise and excellent dynamic range,
> a combination which is currently impossible to achieve at anywhere
> near those pixel counts in a 35mm-based DSLR. The Canon EOS 1Ds Mk II
> doesn't even come close.
>
> There will always be a demand for high end equipment. There always
> was with film. 35mm was good enough for 99% of images made but there
> was always a healthy market for medium format film cameras and a small
> but still growing market for large format equipment.
>
> Medium format film thrived because it offered so much more than 35mm
> film. The same applies to digital. There's a rapidly growing market
> in digital backs for medium format film cameras, and several medium
> format digital cameras are on the way or already here - Hasselblad
> have just introduced their second!
>
> The large format market has hardly been touched by digital - yet. But
> it will surely come.
>
>

Contrary to Scott's point in this thread, there's nothing inherently better
in medium format lenses or bodies over 35mm. As I've said before, the
difference is largely in the film (and then there's the individual
differences from lens to lens, body to body). As far as sensors go, it
would seem that you both are talking more about existent technology than I
am. As sensors become better and better and smaller and smaller (which is a
prediction on my part that may not prove true, but that follows the overall
trend of electronics since its inception), then there's little advantage to
a medium format sized camera over a 35mm sized camera. Please also note my
emphasis on meeting photographer's needs. Once a small sensor produces
quality and resolution equivalent or better to that of modern medium format
at a price competetive with medium format equipment, those who shoot medium
format will have little reason to continue to do so. This is already
proving true as the top of the line Canon DSLR is replacing 645 for many
medium format photographers. And that's just the beginning.

Think of it in terms of 100 years from now: are we really still going to tie
our sensor sizes to our film formats? It would make little sense to do so.
If you are arguing that bigger sensors will always be better than little
sensors, I say that remains to be seen. There's a lot more R&D being pored
into small sensors than into large, which will likely even the playing field
in terms of quality eventually.

Sure, I'm an avid medium format user, but when I can get the same quality
from a smaller camera, I'll take the smaller camera--up to a point of
course, there's always the ergonomics to consider.

--
Regards,
Matt Clara
www.mattclara.com

[uw wayne]

This is the last word!

[Matt Clara]

"Scott Chapin" > wrote in message
. ..
>
> "no_name" > wrote in message
> om...
>
> <SNIP>
>
>>> It's the larger negative. Use an adapter to mount the MF lens onto the
>> 35mm body (Pentax can do that), and you'll see the image is softer on
>> the film.
>>
>
> No totally. Sharpness isn't the only thing that makes an image attractive.
> Tonality does too. I think thats' what make my MF images jump out at me.
> Yes, the larger negative is the heart of the increased sharpness, but not
> the tonality.
>
> Scott Chapin
>
>

Tonality has most everything to do with larger film, too. Just recording
those tonal changes over a larger piece of film means they are smoother,
with more "steps" in between the highs and lows.

--
Regards,
Matt Clara
www.mattclara.com

[Annika1980]

>Full-frame CCD, compatible with all AF and manual lenses, lower
>current draw, smaller form factor, price point under $2,000?

>When will we see it? This time next year?

About 18 months after Canon sells something better.
But the announcement will come from Nikon a week or two after the
Canons start shipping.

[rschapin@comcast.net]

Matt Clara wrote:

<SNIP>> >
>
> Tonality has most everything to do with larger film, too. Just recording
> those tonal changes over a larger piece of film means they are smoother,
> with more "steps" in between the highs and lows.
>

Thanks Matt,

I guess that would make sense when I think about it. But I was thinking
that the quality of the glass, the coatings, and corrections for
abberations would have a very large impact too. Maybe erroneous here,
but I was thinking that these qualities were superior in MF lenses,
maybe not.

I just know what I see.

Scott C.

[rschapin@comcast.net]

uw wayne wrote:
> No argument, every tool has it's place. I also agree with your earlier
> statments about your square 6X6 Hasselbald CF lenses. I like the
> results I get with my 6X7 Pentax. But in the smaller digital format,
> what is the largest print you have made with the small sensor on your
> D100 that you would consider razor sharp?


I haven't made anything over 8x10. I've never though of trying anything
larger, as I would lean towards MF at that point.

[Matt Clara]

> wrote in message
oups.com...
>
> Matt Clara wrote:
>
> <SNIP>> >
>>
>> Tonality has most everything to do with larger film, too. Just recording
>> those tonal changes over a larger piece of film means they are smoother,
>> with more "steps" in between the highs and lows.
>>
>
> Thanks Matt,
>
> I guess that would make sense when I think about it. But I was thinking
> that the quality of the glass, the coatings, and corrections for
> abberations would have a very large impact too. Maybe erroneous here,
> but I was thinking that these qualities were superior in MF lenses,
> maybe not.
>
> I just know what I see.
>
> Scott C.

They do, just not in the ways you keep enumerating. Hassleblad's Carl Zeiss
lenses are among the best in the world, providing an excellent and
asthetically pleasing combination of characteristics from contrast to
apparent sharpness, resolution, bokeh, and more. I have two zeiss lenses
myself, an 80mm planar and a 50mm distagon, both for my Rolleiflex 6008i.
The 50mm distagon receives a relatively poor rating on photodo.com, yet in
the first wedding I shot with the rig, I took my best shot with it. Blew it
up to 10 x 10, and it looks great.

--
Regards,
Matt Clara
www.mattclara.com

[Matt Clara]

> wrote in message
oups.com...
>
> uw wayne wrote:
>> No argument, every tool has it's place. I also agree with your earlier
>> statments about your square 6X6 Hasselbald CF lenses. I like the
>> results I get with my 6X7 Pentax. But in the smaller digital format,
>> what is the largest print you have made with the small sensor on your
>> D100 that you would consider razor sharp?
>
>
> I haven't made anything over 8x10. I've never though of trying anything
> larger, as I would lean towards MF at that point.
>

Yeah, I take crops from my D70 wedding reception shots that won't go to 8x10
without starting to breakdown, where I can easily crop two thirds of a sharp
35mm negative and get a great 8 x 10...

--
Regards,
Matt Clara
www.mattclara.com

[george]

"Alexander Arnakis" > wrote in message
...
> Full-frame CCD, compatible with all AF and manual lenses, lower
> current draw, smaller form factor, price point under $2,000?
>
> When will we see it? This time next year?

Well, it won't make it to the D300 but the D400 will probably have the new,
Stanford-inspired, non-focusing lenses as a cost saving measure. You'll
pick your focus point during PP. It'll be nice to be free of the drudgery
of choosing AF-S or AF-C or missing a shot while waiting for a lens to
focus. Bet you're all sorry you wasted your money on AFS lenses now, huh?

George

[rschapin@comcast.net]

Matt Clara wrote:

<SNIP>

> They do, just not in the ways you keep enumerating. Hassleblad's Carl Zeiss
> lenses are among the best in the world, providing an excellent and
> asthetically pleasing combination of characteristics from contrast to
> apparent sharpness, resolution, bokeh, and more. I have two zeiss lenses
> myself, an 80mm planar and a 50mm distagon, both for my Rolleiflex 6008i.
> The 50mm distagon receives a relatively poor rating on photodo.com, yet in
> the first wedding I shot with the rig, I took my best shot with it. Blew it
> up to 10 x 10, and it looks great.
>


Yes, but I'm not sure why you say as I "keep enumerating". I never
mentioned resolution initially. It was assumed to be my point, but it
wasn't.

Scott Chapin

[rschapin@comcast.net]

Matt Clara wrote:
<SNIP>

> Contrary to Scott's point in this thread, there's nothing inherently better
> in medium format lenses or bodies over 35mm.

Wow, Matt, with all due respect, when did I ever say they were
inherently better? They just are in practice, because the most serious
photographers are willing to pay the price, and in reiteration, their
superiority isn't all based on resolution. Of course negative size
plays a roll, but it isn't the end all.

I agree with Tony, as the imaging chips get smaller and less expensive,
larger chips will become less expensive too! Critical photographers
will probably be willing to pay the price that larger chips might
command because of their bit depth and "ability to make lenses
sharper".

Scott Chapin

[Gordon Moat]

Alexander Arnakis wrote:
> Full-frame CCD, compatible with all AF and manual lenses, lower
> current draw, smaller form factor, price point under $2,000?
>
> When will we see it? This time next year?

I would expect a D3 long before seeing anything called a D300. Guessing
full frame, or something really close, is probably a fair prediction.

I would expect better battery life in the future. I would also expect
fairly good wireless file transfers.

Things to hope for, but might not happen, would be a selectable RGB
working space other than sRGB or AdobeRGB (hopefully ProPhotoRGB), or
ideally some form way to stay within LaB space. Other nice thing would
be CMYK in camera, much like some medium format digital backs, though I
suspect the majority of Nikon engineers and end users are too clueless
to use that to any advantage. A LaB Histogram would be nicer than the
current sRGB waste of time.

Oh well, will prices ever really come down much . . . seems like top
line Nikon choices are over $4000, and mid range likely to stay near
$2000. Of course, whenever a D300 would arrive, it might be possible to
get a good used D200 for as little as $500. I would guess that around
that time, the F6 would be the only Nikon film SLR.

Ciao!

Gordon Moat
A G Studio
<http://www.allgstudio.com>

[Father Kodak]

On Sat, 03 Dec 2005 17:21:24 -0800, Gordon Moat >
wrote:

>Alexander Arnakis wrote:
>> Full-frame CCD, compatible with all AF and manual lenses, lower
>> current draw, smaller form factor, price point under $2,000?
>>
>> When will we see it? This time next year?

The most reasonable rumors I have picked up (here and there on the
'net) say that Nikon will have a full-frame DSLR announcement at
PhotoKina next September, that is September 2006. PhotoKina is THE
big tradeshow for the photo trade, so that is a logical place for such
an announcement.

Now, the event dates are fixed,, but the actual ship date is probably
a bit more "flexible," so my personal planning is a purchase sometime
in the first quarter of 2007. (saving up for it already, won't be
inexpensive.)

The only "spec" that I have heard is that there will be an automatic
cropped mode for DX lenses. That is, DX lenses will be recognized by
the body. Important details like price, other new or improved
features, no information. Sensor type, nothing on that either.

I know lots of people are saying, "Think of all the great pictures you
could be taking if you went out now and got a D70 (or D200), instead
of waiting for this full-frame sensor DSLR. True enough for digital
photography, but I will simply continue to use my film cameras for
now.

If you look at Thom Hogan's web site here
http://www.bythom.com/2005dreamdslrs.htm you will see his 2005 Nikon
predictions, which he made in November 2004. Some of the predictions
are out of date, but the D3 spec is still interesting reading.


Father Kodak
>
>I would expect a D3 long before seeing anything called a D300. Guessing
>full frame, or something really close, is probably a fair prediction.
>
>I would expect better battery life in the future. I would also expect
>fairly good wireless file transfers.
>
>Things to hope for, but might not happen, would be a selectable RGB
>working space other than sRGB or AdobeRGB (hopefully ProPhotoRGB), or
>ideally some form way to stay within LaB space. Other nice thing would
>be CMYK in camera, much like some medium format digital backs, though I
>suspect the majority of Nikon engineers and end users are too clueless
>to use that to any advantage. A LaB Histogram would be nicer than the
>current sRGB waste of time.
>
>Oh well, will prices ever really come down much . . . seems like top
>line Nikon choices are over $4000, and mid range likely to stay near
>$2000. Of course, whenever a D300 would arrive, it might be possible to
>get a good used D200 for as little as $500. I would guess that around
>that time, the F6 would be the only Nikon film SLR.
>
>Ciao!
>
>Gordon Moat
>A G Studio
><http://www.allgstudio.com>

[Gordon Moat]

Father Kodak wrote:
> On Sat, 03 Dec 2005 17:21:24 -0800, Gordon Moat >
> wrote:
>
>
>>Alexander Arnakis wrote:
>>
>>>Full-frame CCD, compatible with all AF and manual lenses, lower
>>>current draw, smaller form factor, price point under $2,000?
>>>
>>>When will we see it? This time next year?
>>
>
> The most reasonable rumors I have picked up (here and there on the
> 'net) say that Nikon will have a full-frame DSLR announcement at
> PhotoKina next September, that is September 2006. PhotoKina is THE
> big tradeshow for the photo trade, so that is a logical place for such
> an announcement.
>
> Now, the event dates are fixed,, but the actual ship date is probably
> a bit more "flexible," so my personal planning is a purchase sometime
> in the first quarter of 2007. (saving up for it already, won't be
> inexpensive.)
>
> The only "spec" that I have heard is that there will be an automatic
> cropped mode for DX lenses. That is, DX lenses will be recognized by
> the body. Important details like price, other new or improved
> features, no information. Sensor type, nothing on that either.
>
> I know lots of people are saying, "Think of all the great pictures you
> could be taking if you went out now and got a D70 (or D200), instead
> of waiting for this full-frame sensor DSLR. True enough for digital
> photography, but I will simply continue to use my film cameras for
> now.
>
> If you look at Thom Hogan's web site here
> http://www.bythom.com/2005dreamdslrs.htm you will see his 2005 Nikon
> predictions, which he made in November 2004. Some of the predictions
> are out of date, but the D3 spec is still interesting reading.
>
>

Funny, the more I read into his "predictions", the more sense medium
format digital backs make. This is all okay for speculating, or the
enthusiasts market, but not so good for professionals. As it stands now,
one needs to replace everything about every 18 months . . . it would be
nicer to break that cycle, but I don't think it will happen.

The part that needs the biggest help is the software colour modelling.
This was something I worked on as a subcontractor this spring. The
engineers just don't get it . . . yet. They seem to be understanding
that as professionals, we need to have images printed; which means
commercially output CMYK images, not internet, not HDTV, and not
interpolated inkjet. Things might be getting better, but until the sRGB
and AdobeRGB bias ends, there are serious problems (workflow and
capture) that affect anyone doing commercial work intended for
commercial offset printing. These are the things you should watch out
for, and less so the availability of full frame sensors.

In fact, it would not surprise me if Nikon went towards a 24 mm by 32 mm
(or 34 mm) sensor to get more towards common printing sizes. The other
direction might be a 16:9 aspect ratio, though I would expect it as a
crop mode rather than a sensor size. Until that happens, it looks like
medium format digital is the best professional choice.

Ciao!

Gordon Moat
A G Studio
<http://www.allgstudio.com>

[Alexander Arnakis]

On Sat, 03 Dec 2005 23:02:10 -0800, Father Kodak
> wrote:
>
>I know lots of people are saying, "Think of all the great pictures you
>could be taking if you went out now and got a D70 (or D200), instead
>of waiting for this full-frame sensor DSLR. True enough for digital
>photography, but I will simply continue to use my film cameras for
>now.
>
My standard of comparison is my 1985-vintage FM2n, which makes a nice
package for use while traveling, and is absolutely reliable. I can
carry the camera, normal lens, 24mm wide angle, 200mm with Nikon
doubler, flash, etc., in a Domke satchel bag, and it's very portable
and unobtrusive.

I bought a D70 last year when they first came out, and although it has
its good points, it's way too bulky to carry when traveling. Plus, it
doesn't make good use of my MF lenses.

What I would really like is a "digital FM2." The new D200 is a small
step in this direction, in that at least it meters with the manual
lenses. Full frame would be better, since a given lens would have the
same perspective whether used in a film or digital camera (this is
important for those who consider all their camera bodies and lenses to
be part of a consistent "system"). After that, miniaturization and
more efficient batteries would be logical improvements. (And where is
it written that a digital camera has to be autofocus?)

Until this happens, I'm going to stick with my FM2 and scan my film
into the digital format.

[Andrew Koenig]

Isn't it obvious? The Nikon D300 will be like the D200, only 1.5 times more
so.

[Uncle Ron]

Does anyone on this group know about GIMP? I bet not...

Uncle Ron

Gordon Moat wrote:
> Alexander Arnakis wrote:
> > Full-frame CCD, compatible with all AF and manual lenses, lower
> > current draw, smaller form factor, price point under $2,000?
> >
> > When will we see it? This time next year?
>
> I would expect a D3 long before seeing anything called a D300. Guessing
> full frame, or something really close, is probably a fair prediction.
>
> I would expect better battery life in the future. I would also expect
> fairly good wireless file transfers.
>
> Things to hope for, but might not happen, would be a selectable RGB
> working space other than sRGB or AdobeRGB (hopefully ProPhotoRGB), or
> ideally some form way to stay within LaB space. Other nice thing would
> be CMYK in camera, much like some medium format digital backs, though I
> suspect the majority of Nikon engineers and end users are too clueless
> to use that to any advantage. A LaB Histogram would be nicer than the
> current sRGB waste of time.
>
> Oh well, will prices ever really come down much . . . seems like top
> line Nikon choices are over $4000, and mid range likely to stay near
> $2000. Of course, whenever a D300 would arrive, it might be possible to
> get a good used D200 for as little as $500. I would guess that around
> that time, the F6 would be the only Nikon film SLR.
>
> Ciao!
>
> Gordon Moat
> A G Studio
> <http://www.allgstudio.com>

[William Graham]

"Uncle Ron" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> Does anyone on this group know about GIMP? I bet not...
>
> Uncle Ron

Yes....I am thinking about installing it....I was here last night:
http://gimp-win.sourceforge.net/faq.html

[Nick Fotis]

Uncle Ron wrote:

> Does anyone on this group know about GIMP? I bet not...

A bit (I'm a Linux user), if you need to ask something better make a
separate subject.

Oh, by the way, the book "Grokking the GIMP" is very nicely done and well
written without being too big/heavy, and the concepts hold in other image
processing applications too.

Regards,
N.Fotis

[no_name]

Uncle Ron wrote:

> Does anyone on this group know about GIMP? I bet not...
>

I've used it. Thought it was pretty good, although I wasn't particularly
impressed with the port to Windoze.