The Nikon EM was FF
in [Digital Cameras]
|
Prev: Adams print sells for $722K
Next: Nikon D3 from space - Aurora Australis Observed from the International Space Station
From: David J. Littleboy on 24 Jun 2010 20:59 "Bob G" <mrbobjames(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > I'd love to own a small, light weight, full-frame DSLR, and I don't > know why nobody offers one. There are two reasons. The way the dSLR industry thinks is that "small and light" means "cheap entry level", and second, the industry is still claiming (probably correctly) that 24x36 mm of clean silicon is expensive. So there isn't going to be a "small light FF" camera. For a long long time. So get over it, stop whining, and get either a D700 or 5D2. FF with a good lens is an amazing improvement over APS-C. Anyone who tells you otherwise is an idiot. -- David J. Littleboy Tokyo, Japan
From: Peter on 24 Jun 2010 21:20 "David J. Littleboy" <davidjl(a)gol.com> wrote in message news:wJednVonVtrJYr7RnZ2dnVY3goSdnZ2d(a)giganews.com... > > "Michael Benveniste" <mhb(a)murkyether.com> wrote: >> "RichA" <none(a)nowhere.com> wrote: >> >>> So where is the equivalent-sized digital, huh Nikon? Is it >>> that you figure you HAVE to have a hulking body to justify >>> the PRICE of those things??? >> >> Note: I know I'm feeding the troll, but at least I find >> these calculations interesting. > > ROFL. But yes. > > <SNIP> > >> Of course, it's barely possible that someone _might_ want to >> actually use a camera to produce actual _images. The dSLR >> prices listed above include the cost of the sensor -- the >> film cameras do not. >> >> A D3x, 50mm lens f/1.4 lens, 64 GB of memory cards, and 10 >> terabytes of disk space will cost one about $9000. Based >> on shutter rating, this will allow you to shoot and store >> 300,000 shots as 14-bit raw files using non-lossy compression. >> >> Let's compare that with the least expensive legal way to get >> positive images out of 35mm film. To accomplish this, one >> would buy "short ends" of B&W movie film and respool it into >> used (ie free) 35mm still cartridges, process it yourself, >> and then make a contact print. >> >> Just counting the cost of consumables, I can find no time >> in history when you could accomplish that for 3 cents >> per 35mm frame. > > There are several problems with your above calculation. > > 1. 35mm doesn't produce D3x quality images. 35mm film in real life is no > better than 8MP digital. > 2. The D3x produces image quality equivalent to 4000 ppi scanned 6x7 slide > film such as Provia or Velvia. Which cost US$1.00 per frame to shoot and > develop, and that's before scanning, which is seriously expensive. > 3. Digerati shoot a lot more wasted frames than film shooters. A lot. You > need to divide the life of the digital camera by a fudge factor to make up > for that. For some slobs, that's an order of magnitude. But that doesn't > make a difference, because the mechanical parts of a dSLR can be replaced > cheaply; a few hundred dollars, and then you are back in business for > another 100,000 (midrange users like me) or 300,000 shots. > > And so on. > > But you are, of course, exactly right. If you actually use your camera > regularly, digital quickly becomes world's better than film in economics > as well as image quality. I would calculate the fudge factor differently. According to a knowledgeable source: for both Nikon and Canon at the prosumer and pro level the manufacturers MTBF rating of shutter pressing is understated by 50%. The rational is that they believe they gain a better reputation from cameras that exceed the rating. -- Peter
From: John McWilliams on 24 Jun 2010 21:26 David J. Littleboy wrote: > "Bob G" <mrbobjames(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > >> I'd love to own a small, light weight, full-frame DSLR, and I don't >> know why nobody offers one. > > There are two reasons. The way the dSLR industry thinks is that "small and > light" means "cheap entry level", and second, the industry is still claiming > (probably correctly) that 24x36 mm of clean silicon is expensive. > > So there isn't going to be a "small light FF" camera. For a long long time. > > So get over it, stop whining, and get either a D700 or 5D2. FF with a good > lens is an amazing improvement over APS-C. Anyone who tells you otherwise is > an idiot. Or just argumentative, or defensive, or trollish, or pest like, or..... -- john mcwilliams
From: Michael Benveniste on 24 Jun 2010 21:29 "David Ruether" <d_ruether(a)thotmail.com> wrote: > Interestingly, though, Nikon followed the EM with the not-very- > interesting FG-20, then the full-featured FG (TTL flash, M/A/S/P > exposure choices, and a "real" black or "chrome" finish instead > of unfinished plastic) based on the EM body. I still have one of > the delightful compact FG bodies...;-) Actually, the FG came first (1982) before the FG-20 (1984). It also didn't have shutter priority, just M, A, and P. While I consider the FG the most underrated of the Nikon film bodies, my favorite compact Nikon film SLR was the last one, the N/F75. {Excellent summary of the series E lenses snipped). > I suspect that Nikon simply wanted to expand into the lower- > priced market by offering generally high-quality optics at > good prices with compromises in finishings being made to cut > costs. Yes, but they also wanted to avoid cannibalizing sales to their current customers. It's also interesting to note that two of the Series E designs, the 28mm f/2.8 and the 70-210 f/4, evolved into AF-Nikkors. -- Mike Benveniste -- mhb(a)murkyether.com (Clarification Required) Its name is Public opinion. It is held in reverence. It settles everything. Some think it is the voice of God. -- Mark Twain
From: Doug McDonald on 24 Jun 2010 21:36
David J. Littleboy wrote: > > So get over it, stop whining, and get either a D700 or 5D2. FF with a good > lens is an amazing improvement over APS-C. Anyone who tells you otherwise is > an idiot. > At what print size? I own a Canon 30D and almost bought a 5DMkII for my recent vacation. But I kept looking at the 7x10.5 inch prints I usually make, and I don't see how the 5DMkII would be noticeably better. I'm assuming using my 100mm f/2.8 macro for both, which removes the lens as the limiting factor. Now at 16x24 inches, things would be different. Doug McDonald |