Nikon medium format ?
- This topic has 13 replies, 5 voices, and was last updated Nov 17, 2008 at 5:52 pm by
.
-
Posts
-
I hear a rumor that Nikon are about to announce a near medium format DSLR – they call the format MX.
I will be interesting because I suspect they will need new lenses to cover the larger image circle.
Depending on the price it could be a good alternative to the very overpriced medium format digital backs on very old fashioned cameras that are so common at the moment.
Might also explain the delay in the D3x.
www.dsaphoto.com
A picture is thousand words that takes less than a second while a thousand words is a picture that takes a month.
An interesting proposition. It’s difficult to see the purpose though. A full frame DSLR (Nikon) offers near?actual? medium format resolution. Canon’s lineup basically knocks off a lot of medium format digital backs with their high end DSLR’s. It wouldn’t be too surprising for Nikon (now cash flush) to head down a few new streets. Some of them, like this one, could be dead-ends though. As per lenses, I’m no engineer,
From what I have heard, it will be around 48MP and simply blow the other low ISO MF backs out of the water. I have also heard that it may be an FX-MX format camera, allowing the user to switch and use a lens adapter for the different lens formats. Also, Nikon use to manufacture medium format lenses for another camera manufacturer, this will not be virgin territory for them. I just wish that they would build the body that they have planned 10 years from now, so that I can start saving some bucks on all of these upgrades
There’s plenty to wish for and rant about when it comes to big name camera manufacturers. For instance, why don’t they make cameras “theft proof” by integrating a lock code into the firmware? That’s a no brainer. And why are they still making high end DSLRs that look like last century’s 35mm cameras? Imagine a camera where all buttons are at your fingertips and grips are a gel that can fit any hand. It goes on and on.
My question is – how much resolution is enough? It’s obvious that Nikon now finds it less difficult to go to a full-frame sensor than to try to pack more pixels into its 1.5 sensor. Things have leveled off somewhat, but (respectfully) – who needs 40+ megs. and why? texasflycasterFashion and Fashion Advertising are one of the strong markets of use for the larger sensors and 48 MP is put to good use in that sector. The main thing is being able to shoot digital with ISO’s above 400-600…
Will, bail out package, that is hilarious lmao
Will & Ben, I want in on the island.
www.dsaphoto.com
A picture is thousand words that takes less than a second while a thousand words is a picture that takes a month.
I may be a little behind the curve, since I have been pretty content to keep cameras for two to three generations, but I can’t really work it out in my mind how lenses have anything to do with resolution increases. I am fuzzy on where I read this, but I am pretty sure the number of digital sensors (aka. pixels) that will fit on a fixed size surface are finite. I think Nikon, for one, has been shifting between CMOS and CCD to keep apace with ability to increase resolutions. AHHHH! – Perhaps you are referring to the angle at which image strikes microlenses – then sensor? I think
Shannon, a 12 or 13 MP camera at full frame is just starting to go beyond the resolving power of some of the lesser lenses.
(a DX at 15mp would push them more, though it’s using the center of the lens and that’s always the best part)The new high rez Canons like the DsII and now, DsIII can out resolve the softer lenses leaving you with slightly fuzzy images, though with the sharp lenses (35 1.4L, 50 1.2L, 85 1.2L and 135 2 L) you get very high quality shots.
At work I only use prime lenses and save my zoom (I sold them all save the 16-35 II) at functions and stuff that’s not as critical.My comment was that anyone going above these resolutions we have now is going to have to have VERY sharp lenses to get sharp images.
That’s why you see everyone putting out new models and updating older ones at the moment – they don’t have a choice.
www.dsaphoto.com
A picture is thousand words that takes less than a second while a thousand words is a picture that takes a month.
Dave, interesting to see you use prime lenses! I shoot some with Nikon D2Xs and two zoom lenses and I think all the screwing around with the zoom is distracting. I’ve been thinking about putting a new outfit together and I was thinking of making it all prime lenses. I am waiting to get a test drive on the 5D MKII before I buy anything yet. I’ve been a Nikon guy for a long time and was thinking of going a 24mm,50mm and a 85mm all in f 1.4 or 1.2 if available and maybe add a 200mm f2 later. I think this would be a great selection of lenses for a full frame D3 or DX sensor camera like the D300. If I switch the same would hold true.
Great information! My brain is swelling, but I am forming a whole new set of useless thoughts. If the lenses resolving power is surpassed by a sensor’s resolution power, that means we have moved dramatically beyond film’s resolving power? IF folks are moving “back” to prime lenses that would explain manufacturers like ZEISS making prime lenses with Canon and Nikon mounts wouldn’t it. And, if someone wanted primes, why not go for the best in the world?
When it comes to the zooms I use, they are all 2.8, but not the latest in coatings (Nikon promotes the new SIC coatings for increased light transmission) —- except for my favorite lens which is the newest 60 macro (no new coatings though) and the absolute sharpest lens in my arsenal – seemingly confirming your thoughts. It seems that we have always given a little (quality) to get a little (less back pain) from the beginning of when zoom lenses really became viable on the professional scene. As I age, I don’t look back so fondly to carrying: 20-2.8,35-2.0,85-1.4,105-2.5 and 180-2.8 all standard in my bag for every shoot way back when. Oh, and don’t forget the 300-2.8 on many shoots. My back aches just thinking about it. I have really given those ZEISS lenses a lot of thought though. Just the name gives me that warm tingly feeling.
My mind still wanders back to issues on the sensor with microlens angles, but I’m getting that sinking feeling that I am in over my head.
My only real opinion is that manufacturers are wasting time increasing resolution (at this point in history), and should focus on function and reliability. They need to feel free to move away from something that looks like a 20th. century 35mm camera, and rethink the whole thing. They also need to get in agreement, and get on board with some sort of universal RAW. Once the proprietary infighting ceases, quantum increases and quality (and as a byproduct – resolution) are possible. In my opinion, the only reason for proprietary RAW is to sell proprietary software – plain and simple waste of time.
shannonOne great thing about the DX magnification offered by so many Nikons is the scientific fact the sweet spot of glass lies in the middle of the elements and falls off to the edges. That went a long way in my rationalization of DX, but if I could afford full frame sensor cameras – I would be there in a heartbeat. Where can we find those resolution numbers for lenses? Shannon
35mm DSLR’s both DX and full frame, took off past film in the 10-13 MP range and cameras like the DsIII (21 mp’s) are so far ahead of film for resolving power that they can even match or beat medium format film.
Where you can see this the most is at high ISO’s – film was really only good up to 100 if you needed detail, but digital now does good detail at almost any ISO.
www.dsaphoto.com
A picture is thousand words that takes less than a second while a thousand words is a picture that takes a month.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.