RD2, when ???

copake_ham said:
Problem is, of course, do you "spring" the $1700 for a D200 and then face the possibility of a full frame Dxxx in a year or two wiping out your investment? :confused:
Click to expand...

Nikon seems pretty committed to their "DX-format" sensor size -- ALL their DSLRs so far have used it, and they've brought out special lenses specifically for it.

I think that as far as they are concerned, DX-size IS "full frame" for a digital SLR.

Not that we care on a rangefinder-camera forum, unless they eventually were to introduce an "SPxD"... (sigh)
 
I totally agree with Han on the "digital lens" ... on the other hand, Nikon has never said that they're commited to the infamous DX format, buying into that then you're screwed. ;)
 
Some of us actually prefer the infamous DX format.

My most-used focal length is medium tele. I really like having that lens be a fast, small, light 50mm, rather than a bigger, bulkier, heavier 75 or 85...
 
I tend to agree with you ... jlw, but, with FF:

1) you don't have to spend extra cash for DX or
2) you don't have to buy a 15 distagon just to cover a 20 FOV
3) you have better control over DoF ...
 
Come to think of it, if a hypothetical full frame rangefinder can not use regular 35 mm lenses on account of noticeable vignetting, theoretically all the full frame SLRs would suffer from the same problem. Let us check photos made with full frame CANON gear...
 
nrb - there has already been much discussion about not only vignetting with the Canon 1ds line but also edge sharpness issues with their wide angle lenses. That is where the resolution of the sensor is really beating up on the lenses.

I'm not saying that all lenses vignette on the 1ds, but it does happen quite a bit. I can dig up a few examples if you want, but I'm pretty sure they show up a lot on dpreview comparison shots, and I think there were in Bjorn Roslett's (sp?) d2x review, as well. This is not a slap against the canon in any way. I'm a nikon guy myself, and nikon _has_ committed to the DX format in a number of statements from company folks.

Personally, I have no problem with the crop factor. then again, I'd be starting from scratch, almost, with RF lenses anyway, regardless of system...

allan
 
Thank you for your explanation, Allan.
We are all in the hands of marketing values, it seems...
The rangefinder world somehow appeared to be immune to it, somehow.
nuno
 
As both a Leica M and Canon 5D owner I find the biggest issues of digital sensors and wide angle lenses to be chromatic aberration. I have had Canon D10, 10D, 20D (all APS sensors over the past 3-4 years) and now the 5D all have shown significant CA within high contrast regions of the photo i.e. light coming through leaves on a tree. I use Canon L glass both prime and L zoom often always have the issue.

I think that digital is just more sensitive than film (to this) and either lenses need to be specially designed (though the ones that are are not addressing this issue) or the sensors need to be redesigned to address the problem.

I think it's a pain to have a APS sensor because you have to think of your lenses so differently.

Having said this I am currently considering purchasing an RD-1 and looking forward to getting a Digital M whenever it is available regardless of crop factors.
 
sdai said:
I tend to agree with you ... jlw, but, with FF:

1) you don't have to spend extra cash for DX or
2) you don't have to buy a 15 distagon just to cover a 20 FOV
3) you have better control over DoF ...
Click to expand...

Preferences aside, the Nikon D100 and D70 seem to have sold extremely well, the professional D-series cameras seem to have sold well, and there seems to be a lot of interest in the D200. (You may have noticed in the recent round of financial news releases that Nikon is one of the few digital camera makers that's been making money.)

I think Nikon would have to interpret this as the marketplace telling them that sensor size is not a deal-killer for most buyers, and that what they care about the most is the capability of the total package.

At least by keeping the sensor size constant, they make life easier for people who use more than one Nikon DSLR, or who are moving from one model to another.

The people who do care about an FF sensor already have one strong choice, Canon, and it makes a lot of sense for Nikon NOT to get into an expensive "bidding war" for this comparatively small segment of the marketplace.

I suspect that the digital RF marketplace -- IF it ever turns into a marketplace, with more than one available camera model -- would behave similarly. If you were to research this, as I'd guess the camera companies have, I think you'd find that potential buyers are a lot more price-sensitive than they are sensor-size-sensitive; in other words, there might be a fair number of people who'd prefer a camera with a 35mm-size sensor, but ONLY if it weren't significantly more expensive than one with a DX-size sensor. As long as 35mm-size sensors continue to cost more, a less-expensive camera with a DX-size sensor is a safer marketing bet.
 
Any rangefinder photographer equiped in Leica M will translate his lenses in the digital system from 35mm into 52 mm, from 50 into 75 mm, from 90 into 135 mm, and from 135 into 202.5 mm.
Will consequently need a beautiful 24 mm to translate into a 36 mm, but in fact will be spending serious money, Leica 24 mm costs and the equivalent CV 25 mm is a mere f/4, but his final balance will be a difficult to focus 202.54 mm...
And surely full frame sensors can be produced as cheaply as any other format. If only one remembers the ever descending evolution of sensor prices to this day...
The real issue here, if one looks far, is not so much the price of yet another lens but the survival of the rangefinder system itself...
 
Last edited:
Actually, if you look at it, pieces of perfect silicon in the size of a 35mm "full-frame" have always been expensive. I honestly wonder whether they will ever really get much cheaper to produce.

Folks have been making silicon chips for a long time. And getting a piece that big without any imperfections is still quite pricey. The 5D is still awfully expensive, after all.

allan
 
Some thoughts:

1. The vignetting seen in some FF camera captures depends on the lens. I've been working with Canon FF for three years and almost never see noticeable vignetting with any of the lenses I use.

2. It's true that digital sensors can make any CA at all quite noticeable. Again, this really depends on the lens. I'm testing a Leica 15/2.8 (R) right now and it shows no CA at all when it's used on the DMR.

3. Full frame sensors are certainly workable for SLRs (as Canon has shown) but they are very expensive to produce. FF for Leica RF mount is a huge challenge.

Cheers,

Sean
 
It will be a real pity if it can't be done.
If a full frame RF sensor falls beyond the scope of the feasible.
 
Canon is likely the company closest to having the ability to make a FF RF. Whether or not they have any market interest in doing this or not, I have no idea, but if they did, at a tolerable price, then I, for one, would have a massive GAS attack.
 
The "FF" (i.e. 24x36mm) sensor has an advantage over smaller sensors that has not been mentioned so far in this thread, so far as I could tell from a quick reading. At any given pixel count (say 12 mega, just for example) the pixel sites on a FF sensor will be bigger than those on a crop sensor. It is the pixel count that determines the enlarging limit for prints. Having bigger pixels has two advantages: (1) better high ISO performance (lower noise) and (2) reduced demand on lens resolution. On the other hand, crop sensors have the advantage that they use only the central "sweet spot" of lenses designed for full frame, and provide an effective increase of focal length which can be a plus factor for wildlife and other subjects that require extremely long lenses (over, say, 300mm on FF). The DOF issue cuts both ways: if you want less DOF, you'd prefer the bigger format. If you want more DOF, you'd go with the crop sensor. Horses for courses.
Oh, and BTW, those "obsolete" two-year-old DSLRs still take great pictures, and thus afford a relatively low-cost entry into the world of serious digital photography.
 
Last edited:
Just imagine the value of "lightly used" cropped frame sensor cameras in say one year or two...
 
The price of FF

The price of FF

I assume that Canon 5D is the first FF D-SLR targeting the so-called the "pro-sumer" market. If that is the case, the price should drop due to the volume of sale.

P.S. I held the 5D for the first time yesterday at the Bel Air camera in Westwood. That thing is so bulky!
 
Bulky depends on what you're comparing to. If you've spent several years with a 1Ds, the 5D feels quite svelte.

Cheers,

Sean
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom