Read-only discussion
The Nikonians are reporting that a new Nikon D3 (1.1X sensor) is to be announced during PMA, March 8-10. It will be in the 18MP to 20MP range and have a DX format high FPS, High Speed Crop Mode.
I usually don't start these kinds of threads, but they even changed their forum from the "D1/D2 users forum" to the "D1/D2/D3 users forum", and that takes a lot of confidence. What do you guys think?
Let the games begin... 
1.1x yields around 20mp with the same pixel density.
Would Nikon release a new set of lenses for a 1.1x crop? Why not just go all the way to FF (unless maybe to avoid vignetting, etc, but still)?
Would Nikon release a new set of lenses for a 1.1x crop? Why not just go all the way to FF (unless maybe to avoid vignetting, etc, but still)?
1) No, they wouldn't release new lenses.
2) 1.1x has something to do with maximum size of steppers. I didn't really follow the discussion.
3) DX zoom lenses will vignette at wider setting on a 1.1x sensor.
I'll think I'll wait for the real specs before saying anything else.
Sounds about right. 1.1 is probably a good compromise. Save money by being a bit smaller, yet close enough to 1.0x that it's hard to notice the difference.
The big question is how much will they cost. If the D3 costs the same as the D2x, then this would be very exciting. If the larger sensor bumps the price to near 1Ds levels, then not so much.
It also explains why Canon did not announce the new 1Ds when the anounced the new 1D. Wait untill after nikon anounces D3, then steal the spotlight by releasing new 1Ds which will outspecs it and be available sooner. (exactly what happend when nikon released the D2x)
I don't understand anything about steppers but from a photographic POV it seems silly to do anything other than 1.5x cropped or FF. If you are anywhere else 1.1x-1.3x you are left in lens no-man's land. This only matters for really wide angles. For fisheye lenses where 180 degrees FOV is a significant milestone, sacrificing to 170 degrees (or whatever it comes out to) will never be close enough. I don't see the feasibility of developing yet another set of lens standards--esp with all of the heritage of existing FF lenses.
This rumor may be true, but I think its a bad move. I don't see this as a permanent solution. Eventually it will have to be FF. Forget the blurry-dark corners issue, if photographers don't like the edges they can still crop in PS. What are you going to do with those 20MP anyway? PS won't let you expand FOV that's not there.
So there you have it. If Nikon is bent on larger sensor formats, that is my criteria for upgrading. I will upgrade when Nikon releases a true FF (not 1.1x) version of the D200. That would be a significant step.
I don't know what's magical about 24X36. If 21x33 or whatever 1.1x works out to allows for better performance, I'm all for it.
Up until now I've avoided buying DX lenses so presumably all of my lenses, with the exception of the 10.5, will work with this crop factor.
I don't know what's magical about 24X36. If 21x33 or whatever 1.1x works out to allows for better performance, I'm all for it.
Up until now I've avoided buying DX lenses so presumably all of my lenses, with the exception of the 10.5, will work with this crop factor.
The biggest impact will be wide angle lenses. You'll lose 10% coverage on the fisheye. 14mm will look like ~16mm and 16mm will look like ~18mm.
I think that the main reason for Nikon not to go with the FF sensor are limitations with the small diameter lens mount they use...
Until they discover a whole new way of bending light or invent a sensor that is more forgiving, they are stuck with less than FF sensors...
Unless ofcourse they make the switch that Canon did some 20 years ago...
think that the main reason for Nikon not to go with the FF sensor are limitations with the small diameter lens mount they use...
Until they discover a whole new way of bending light or invent a sensor that is more forgiving, they are stuck with less than FF sensors...
Unless ofcourse they make the switch that Canon did some 20 years ago...
What?? In the film days Nikon cameras managed to put light on a 24 x 35mm focal plane. I do not see what is fundamentally different here? Now technical efficiencies in producing chips of certain sizes does make sense, but these will be overcome once volume catches up in the same way that DSLR prices have dropped.
I don't know what's magical about 24X36. If 21x33 or whatever 1.1x works out to allows for better performance, I'm all for it.
Up until now I've avoided buying DX lenses so presumably all of my lenses, with the exception of the 10.5, will work with this crop factor.
Oh there is nothing magical about 35mm size except that it provides continuity with 30 years worth of lenses. This doesn't mean much except at the very widest end. 180 degrees (diagonal) is a magic number however, and any system should be capable of providing a true fisheye. It would be a shame to need a new (14.5mm FE or whatever) fisheye to cover this yet again. 1.1x is so close. And I see them going to a true FF as inevitable anyway if only for competitive marketing. 1.5x had some advantages. It was significant on the long end and different enough to warrant all new lenses. Plus it had close parity with other systems (APS size) so 3rd party lenses could use common designs. To me 1.1x is too close not to push it to FF and be done with it.
I'm not saying that I don't think it could happen, just that they shouldn't do it.
What?? In the film days Nikon cameras managed to put light on a 24 x 35mm focal plane. I do not see what is fundamentally different here?
The fundamental difference lies in the way the information is recorded, a digital chip instead of a analog film...
When using a digitalchip it is absoultely nessecery that all the rays that hits the surface of the chip are absolutely paralell, with film this was not as critical...
Latest news: D3 Full frame
Interesting news, a similar post was made at the Nikonians a couple of days ago predicting the same lens (24-120 f2.8). But the MSRP of $7,999 would be too much for most of us, I think I will wait for the fullframe D300... 
While I don't think any of it "magical", I do believe there are advantages to a Canon FF vs Nikon less than FF. The obvious one is the noise-resolution relationship, but the development of lenses that will contibute to better AF is also dependent upon a larger recording surface because of the way the light will need to exit the lens. Right now I think almost everything with digital is a compromise to some extent. Nikon's noise vs. Canon's edge performance for instance with sensor size partially responsible for both shortcomings. Many things can be modified in post, but I hope for is a dslr that will minimize our need to head to the computer to create fixes for what our cameras fail at. In a broad sense a full-frame sensor will be more helpful in that effort than a smaller one, even if it is only 10% difference. I really think Nikon will move in that direction at some point if for no other reason than to ensure their ability to advance the digital format isn't marginalized.Oh there is nothing magical about 35mm size except that it provides continuity with 30 years worth of lenses.
On the other hand I would not argue with any suggestion that most of these cameras are so good at what they do that is it is mostly talking points which are generated by specific differences
Iggy
Following various threads on the 1.1x factor sensor it seems to be a cost advantage to produce vs. full frame. I read that for this reason the Canon D5 is actually a 1.1x sensor yet know one has commented on this or complained about it. So I don't see where it is a big deal. I'd prefer a 1.3x sensor myself as I read somewheres that the DX lenses should work on a sensor of this size without any significant vignetting.
Come on now, Dave, disinformation isn't a good thing...I read that for this reason the Canon D5 is actually a 1.1x sensor yet know one has commented on this or complained about it.
. If the D5 (?) you refer to is the 5D, then it's a 1.01x crop (the sensor is 23.9 x 35.8mm). For all intents and purposes, that's indistinguishable from true, absolute full-frame.These bloody rumours go on and on! The only thing that they have achieved so far is stopping me buying a 10-17mm Tokina!
Alex
These bloody rumours go on and on! The only thing that they have achieved so far is stopping me buying a 10-17mm Tokina!
Alex
Does this mean you are a potential upgrade person ?
I dunno, Peter. Too many unknowns at present. I'm certainly very satisfied with my current camera. Yes, I only have one camera, which may surprise some. I guess if this hypothetical camera fitted in my housing then it might be nice alongside the D2X?
FF doesn't hold any particular interest for me. I rarely shoot ISO abouve 100. And I like more depth of field, not less. The main motivation would be for continued advertising sales. When I get paid big money for shots, it is good to reassure the client that they are taken with the top camera from my chosen brand. I miss the level playing field of film.
I would really miss the 10.5mm, which is a much better lens than the 16mm (which also does not focus close enough for my tele-fisheye technique). And I would also really miss the 15/16mm "cropped-fisheye" look on a APS-C camera. This is a very nice focal length for underwater photography - and one that is not easily available on FF. Also FF would prohibit my tele-fisheye technique, unless I bought a Sigma 15mm.
I would really like to use the 17-35mm as intended again, especially instead of the 12-24mm (which I have never owned, only borrowed). I have also never bought a 17-55mm DX, only borrowed.
Anyway, it is all vapour-ware so just idle speculation.
Alex
Monday came and monday went and another rumour evaporated
Terms of Use Privacy Policy Guidelines We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.
A worldwide community for underwater imaging.
