Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Telephoto Lens for D70

Last response: in Digital Camera
Share
Anonymous
September 12, 2005 8:14:14 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

I am using the Nikon 55-200 mm DX lens and would also like a little
longer lens, say around 300 or 400 mm. I would be okay with a fixed
f.l. and manual operation. The zoom AF lenses in this range all seem to
be quite expensive (several thousand dollars). Any suggestions?

Also, any indications from Nikon on what additional DX lenses they may
be coming out with?

Thanks.

More about : telephoto lens d70

September 13, 2005 12:14:07 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On 12 Sep 2005 16:14:14 -0700, "john_doe_ph_d" <john_doe_ph_d@yahoo.com> wrote:

>I am using the Nikon 55-200 mm DX lens and would also like a little
>longer lens, say around 300 or 400 mm. I would be okay with a fixed
>f.l. and manual operation. The zoom AF lenses in this range all seem to
>be quite expensive (several thousand dollars). Any suggestions?
>
>Also, any indications from Nikon on what additional DX lenses they may
>be coming out with?
>
>Thanks.

The Nikkor 70-300 AF G lens is under $200... I have one, works perfectly on the
D70. In fact, I want to sell it I never use it!

There is a Sigma 170-500, that's around $800 or $900 I think... also a 50-500
that's about $1300...

I mostly use a Sigma 28-300, cost me almost $400.

BTW you may not want to invest in DX type lenses... they won't be of use on
future full frame Nikons, and have no advantage, they are strictly D70 vintage!
Anonymous
September 13, 2005 2:43:11 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On 2005-09-12 16:14:14 -0700, "john_doe_ph_d" <john_doe_ph_d@yahoo.com> said:

> I am using the Nikon 55-200 mm DX lens and would also like a little
> longer lens, say around 300 or 400 mm. I would be okay with a fixed
> f.l. and manual operation. The zoom AF lenses in this range all seem to
> be quite expensive (several thousand dollars). Any suggestions?
>
> Also, any indications from Nikon on what additional DX lenses they may
> be coming out with?
>
> Thanks.

Check the new Tamrons......

I bought a 28-200 Dii digital series lens which is small, light, tack
sharp, renders colors beautifully and can be had for less that $500. It
is, of course, the equivalent of a 34-300 35mm lens in view. It's
great....!

PC
Related resources
September 13, 2005 3:42:14 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"john_doe_ph_d" <john_doe_ph_d@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1126566854.546878.312280@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
>I am using the Nikon 55-200 mm DX lens and would also like a little
> longer lens, say around 300 or 400 mm. I would be okay with a fixed
> f.l. and manual operation. The zoom AF lenses in this range all seem to
> be quite expensive (several thousand dollars). Any suggestions?
The 300mm f4 is quite nice. A new one costs about $1000. A used one would
be quite a bit less than that. I do own one of the first versions, but it
is not for sale.
Another very very good lens is the 180 f2.8. It has been around in versions
for MF cameras in addition to AF and AF-D cameras. All versions of this lens
are excellent.
Jim
>
> Also, any indications from Nikon on what additional DX lenses they may
> be coming out with?
I, howver, am more interested in whether Nikon plans a full frame digital
camera anytime soon.
Jim
>
> Thanks.
>
Anonymous
September 13, 2005 9:25:26 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Bob wrote:
> On 12 Sep 2005 16:14:14 -0700, "john_doe_ph_d" <john_doe_ph_d@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>>I am using the Nikon 55-200 mm DX lens and would also like a little
>>longer lens, say around 300 or 400 mm. I would be okay with a fixed
>>f.l. and manual operation. The zoom AF lenses in this range all seem to
>>be quite expensive (several thousand dollars). Any suggestions?
>>
>>Also, any indications from Nikon on what additional DX lenses they may
>>be coming out with?
>>
>>Thanks.
>
>
> The Nikkor 70-300 AF G lens is under $200... I have one, works perfectly on the
> D70. In fact, I want to sell it I never use it!
>
> There is a Sigma 170-500, that's around $800 or $900 I think... also a 50-500
> that's about $1300...
>
> I mostly use a Sigma 28-300, cost me almost $400.
>
> BTW you may not want to invest in DX type lenses... they won't be of use on
> future full frame Nikons, and have no advantage, they are strictly D70 vintage!
>
I dunno .... I'm willing to bet the smaller sensor will be around for a
very long time to come. The plethora of lenses presently available for
these sensors is testament to that. An analogy is like you saying a long
time ago that everybody should rather invest in medium format lenses
because 35mm is dead in the water. I have a D70 with a Sigma 18-125 and
a Tamron 75-300
and I ain't spending anything further on cameras or lenses for a long
time. I'm very happy with what I have ... including whatever size sensor
is in the D70. The D70 and those lenses do everything I require of a camera.
If you're printing for billboards go for it .... but by far the majority
of people using DSLRs couldn't be bothered with the size of the sensors
in those cameras .... they're doing a good job as it is.
I was never interested in a camera with the latest and greatest specs. I
just waited until something reasonable came my way for the money I could
afford and I haven't looked back and am enjoying photography now more
than ever before. I'm from the Nikon EM and Durst M605 vintage and my
first digital camera was the horrible Kodak DC40 ( 700x500 pixels
+/-)which cost me almost the same as my D70 last year.
Long live my sensor.
September 14, 2005 12:57:30 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Tue, 13 Sep 2005 17:25:26 +0200, Bernard Rother
<bprotherREMOVEME@intekom.co.za> wrote:

>Bob wrote:
>> On 12 Sep 2005 16:14:14 -0700, "john_doe_ph_d" <john_doe_ph_d@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>I am using the Nikon 55-200 mm DX lens and would also like a little
>>>longer lens, say around 300 or 400 mm. I would be okay with a fixed
>>>f.l. and manual operation. The zoom AF lenses in this range all seem to
>>>be quite expensive (several thousand dollars). Any suggestions?
>>>
>>>Also, any indications from Nikon on what additional DX lenses they may
>>>be coming out with?
>>>
>>>Thanks.
>>
>>
>> The Nikkor 70-300 AF G lens is under $200... I have one, works perfectly on the
>> D70. In fact, I want to sell it I never use it!
>>
>> There is a Sigma 170-500, that's around $800 or $900 I think... also a 50-500
>> that's about $1300...
>>
>> I mostly use a Sigma 28-300, cost me almost $400.
>>
>> BTW you may not want to invest in DX type lenses... they won't be of use on
>> future full frame Nikons, and have no advantage, they are strictly D70 vintage!
>>
>I dunno .... I'm willing to bet the smaller sensor will be around for a
>very long time to come. The plethora of lenses presently available for
>these sensors is testament to that. An analogy is like you saying a long
>time ago that everybody should rather invest in medium format lenses
>because 35mm is dead in the water. I have a D70 with a Sigma 18-125 and
>a Tamron 75-300
>and I ain't spending anything further on cameras or lenses for a long
>time. I'm very happy with what I have ... including whatever size sensor
>is in the D70. The D70 and those lenses do everything I require of a camera.
>If you're printing for billboards go for it .... but by far the majority
>of people using DSLRs couldn't be bothered with the size of the sensors
>in those cameras .... they're doing a good job as it is.
>I was never interested in a camera with the latest and greatest specs. I
>just waited until something reasonable came my way for the money I could
>afford and I haven't looked back and am enjoying photography now more
>than ever before. I'm from the Nikon EM and Durst M605 vintage and my
>first digital camera was the horrible Kodak DC40 ( 700x500 pixels
>+/-)which cost me almost the same as my D70 last year.
>Long live my sensor.

You don't think the small sensor is doomed?

Go check out the new Sony point&shoot - it has a large DSLR type sensor...
bigger than your D70... the end is near!

I don't like buying cameras all the time myself... I have a Mamiya Sekor I
bought in 73... a Minolta X9 I got in 88 or so, and a bunch of digitals... now
I'm stuck on the D70... but IF I buy another camera in the future, my Nikon DX
lens will be worthless, just like my big box of cameras... only my standard
lenses will be still good.

After that? I'll be dead or blind!
Anonymous
September 14, 2005 1:45:23 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Tue, 13 Sep 2005 20:57:30 -0400, Bob <BobFlintsTone@spam.com>
wrote:

>You don't think the small sensor is doomed?
>
>Go check out the new Sony point&shoot - it has a large DSLR type sensor...
>bigger than your D70... the end is near!

So all those P&S cameras will disappear from dealers' shelves?
And Canon's APS C cameras are doomed?
Well, I'll wait for the eventualities before I agree with that.
After all, bigger sensors are already here, and thay haven't displaced
the smaller sensors yet.

--
Bill Funk
Replace "g" with "a"
funktionality.blogspot.com
Anonymous
September 14, 2005 7:02:58 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Bob" <BobFlintsTone@spam.com> wrote in message
news:8usei193d59dvi2cguu1pgh1jqu991hi49@4ax.com...
>
> You don't think the small sensor is doomed?
>
> Go check out the new Sony point&shoot - it has a large DSLR type sensor...
> bigger than your D70... the end is near!

Not so, going by the respective dp reviews, the D70's is 23.7 x 15.6 mm, the
Sony R1's is 21.5 x 14.4 mm. Canon's 350D uses a 22.2 x 14.8 mm sensor. Sony
are thus endorsing, but not exceeding (or quite matching) the DX sized
sensor.

Financial reality is that a FF sensor will cost more than 10 times the cost
of a DX sensor. They won't be mainstream until the cost of the sensor is a
trivial part of the cost of the camera (they will still cost 10 times as
much, but if a DX sensor costs $1, then the fact that a FF sensor costs $10
won't be a deterrent).

Even when they do, bear in mind that the present D2X can be switched to use
only the central part of the sensor, for faster frame rates. Why would you
suppose that a future FF Nikon won't have the same ability (and thus be able
to use DX lenses)?


--
Apteryx
September 14, 2005 7:02:59 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Wed, 14 Sep 2005 15:02:58 +1200, "Apteryx" <apteryx@extra.co.nz> wrote:

>"Bob" <BobFlintsTone@spam.com> wrote in message
>news:8usei193d59dvi2cguu1pgh1jqu991hi49@4ax.com...
>>
>> You don't think the small sensor is doomed?
>>
>> Go check out the new Sony point&shoot - it has a large DSLR type sensor...
>> bigger than your D70... the end is near!
>
>Not so, going by the respective dp reviews, the D70's is 23.7 x 15.6 mm, the
>Sony R1's is 21.5 x 14.4 mm. Canon's 350D uses a 22.2 x 14.8 mm sensor. Sony
>are thus endorsing, but not exceeding (or quite matching) the DX sized
>sensor.

OK I was going by the fact it was over 10m pixels... but the point is that
everything is changing fast!

>Financial reality is that a FF sensor will cost more than 10 times the cost
>of a DX sensor.

The Canon FF camera is $5k... that's not 10 times for the sensor I don't
think... maybe 5x.

> They won't be mainstream until the cost of the sensor is a
>trivial part of the cost of the camera (they will still cost 10 times as
>much, but if a DX sensor costs $1, then the fact that a FF sensor costs $10
>won't be a deterrent).

I don't see cost of the camera or sensor being such a big deal... I have only
half of the lenses I would like to own and what I have exceeds the price of the
camera... I could easily have 10 times the price in lenses! Right now I'm
looking for a 1000mm tele, and a macro... and maybe an f/2 - 35mm... and...

>Even when they do, bear in mind that the present D2X can be switched to use
>only the central part of the sensor, for faster frame rates. Why would you
>suppose that a future FF Nikon won't have the same ability (and thus be able
>to use DX lenses)?

No reason, I could be wrong... But I was thinking that it would be nice to see
my 18mm lens at a real 18mm, and not the 27 it seems to be... I was going to
get a Nikon film camera until I realized it wouldn't fit...

Now jump into your time machine and go forward to 2105.... look back at digital
cameras and DSLR's... what were the DX years?
Anonymous
September 14, 2005 8:11:55 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Apteryx wrote:
> Even when they do, bear in mind that the present D2X can be switched to use
> only the central part of the sensor, for faster frame rates. Why would you
> suppose that a future FF Nikon won't have the same ability (and thus be able
> to use DX lenses)?

Actually thats what I think Nikon is going to do.
A new camera with the ability to use DX lenses.
I bet on it.
Anonymous
September 14, 2005 8:17:55 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Mike Tsakiris wrote:
> Apteryx wrote:
>
>> Even when they do, bear in mind that the present D2X can be switched
>> to use only the central part of the sensor, for faster frame rates.
>> Why would you suppose that a future FF Nikon won't have the same
>> ability (and thus be able to use DX lenses)?
>
>
> Actually thats what I think Nikon is going to do.
> A new camera with the ability to use DX lenses.
> I bet on it.

Sorry, I mean a new FF camera.
Anonymous
September 14, 2005 9:18:47 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Tue, 13 Sep 2005 23:48:02 -0400, Bob wrote:

> On Wed, 14 Sep 2005 15:02:58 +1200, "Apteryx" <apteryx@extra.co.nz> wrote:

>>Financial reality is that a FF sensor will cost more than 10 times the
>>cost of a DX sensor.
>
> The Canon FF camera is $5k... that's not 10 times for the sensor I don't
> think... maybe 5x.

The two of you are talking about different things. Apteryx is speaking
about the cost of the CMOS or CCD sensor (to the manufacturer of the
camera), as opposed to the final retail cost of the camera.

>> They won't be mainstream until the cost of the sensor is a
>>trivial part of the cost of the camera (they will still cost 10 times as
>>much, but if a DX sensor costs $1, then the fact that a FF sensor costs
>>$10 won't be a deterrent).

Even then tho, the major reason for the range in pricing on digital slr
bodies is probably more marketing driven than component cost driven.
So the pricing is determined by how the company wants to position the
camera, and what they think the market will bear.

> I don't see cost of the camera or sensor being such a big deal... I have
> only half of the lenses I would like to own and what I have exceeds the
> price of the camera... I could easily have 10 times the price in lenses!
> Right now I'm looking for a 1000mm tele, and a macro... and maybe an f/2
> - 35mm... and...

For the "mainstream" digital camera user (as opposed to the working pro or
the serious amateur/enthusiast), the cost of the camera is a big deal. The
price difference between the 20D and 5D (or the 5d and 1Ds mark II) is
very big. US$2000 (or $4000+ for the 5D/IDs-mkII) would represent a nice
selection of lenses or other equipment.
Anonymous
September 14, 2005 11:07:43 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Bob wrote:
>
> On Wed, 14 Sep 2005 15:02:58 +1200, "Apteryx" <apteryx@extra.co.nz> wrote:
>
> >Financial reality is that a FF sensor will cost more than 10 times the cost
> >of a DX sensor.
>
> The Canon FF camera is $5k... that's not 10 times for the sensor I don't
> think... maybe 5x.

Just a slight correction - the cost for USA is more like 3.5k USD.

N.Fotis
September 15, 2005 12:14:01 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Wed, 14 Sep 2005 09:45:23 -0700, Bill Funk <BigBill@pipping.com.com> wrote:

>On Tue, 13 Sep 2005 20:57:30 -0400, Bob <BobFlintsTone@spam.com>
>wrote:
>
>>You don't think the small sensor is doomed?
>>
>>Go check out the new Sony point&shoot - it has a large DSLR type sensor...
>>bigger than your D70... the end is near!
>
>So all those P&S cameras will disappear from dealers' shelves?

I'm talking about DSLR 'large pixel site' sensors of 24mm instead of 35mm.
You're on a different subject...

>And Canon's APS C cameras are doomed?
>Well, I'll wait for the eventualities before I agree with that.
>After all, bigger sensors are already here, and thay haven't displaced
>the smaller sensors yet.

The very small pixel site sensors that you are discussing won't disapear for a
few reasons, such as cheaper costs, including glass, smaller lenses and cameras,
and HUGE DOF conjagate focus.
Anonymous
September 15, 2005 1:36:58 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Wed, 14 Sep 2005 00:05:07 GMT, Ben Thomas <nosp@m.thanks.mate>
wrote:

>Bob wrote:
>
[..]
>> The Nikkor 70-300 AF G lens is under $200... I have one, works perfectly on the
>> D70. In fact, I want to sell it I never use it!
>
>That lens is very soft. I've never seen any sharp looking images from that lens.

I have the 70-300 AF G and that is my opinion too. However, it is also
very lightweight, so I keep it in the smaller bag. For serious work, I
use a Tamron SP 300 2.8 AF LD, which is very sharp even with a 2x
teleconverter. Of course, this lens is in a whole different class for
price and weight (although still less than half the price of a similar
Nikkor). (Tip: using a rolled up velvet paper instead of the Tamron
metal lens shade will save you over half a kg, which makes a real
difference for handheld shots).
Anonymous
September 15, 2005 11:40:01 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Wed, 14 Sep 2005 20:14:01 -0400, Bob <BobFlintsTone@spam.com>
wrote:

>On Wed, 14 Sep 2005 09:45:23 -0700, Bill Funk <BigBill@pipping.com.com> wrote:
>
>>On Tue, 13 Sep 2005 20:57:30 -0400, Bob <BobFlintsTone@spam.com>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>You don't think the small sensor is doomed?
>>>
>>>Go check out the new Sony point&shoot - it has a large DSLR type sensor...
>>>bigger than your D70... the end is near!
>>
>>So all those P&S cameras will disappear from dealers' shelves?
>
>I'm talking about DSLR 'large pixel site' sensors of 24mm instead of 35mm.
>You're on a different subject...
>
>>And Canon's APS C cameras are doomed?
>>Well, I'll wait for the eventualities before I agree with that.
>>After all, bigger sensors are already here, and thay haven't displaced
>>the smaller sensors yet.
>
>The very small pixel site sensors that you are discussing won't disapear for a
>few reasons, such as cheaper costs, including glass, smaller lenses and cameras,
>and HUGE DOF conjagate focus.

APS C sensors are "very small pixel site sensors"?

It seems like you're trying to have it both ways...
Either the smaller sensors are doomed, as you claimed, or they aren't,
which you also claim.

--
Bill Funk
Replace "g" with "a"
funktionality.blogspot.com
Anonymous
September 15, 2005 1:41:41 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Bob" <BobFlintsTone@spam.com> wrote in message
news:8k6fi15vv9v4680k84l9qfudmlk8e60g19@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 14 Sep 2005 15:02:58 +1200, "Apteryx" <apteryx@extra.co.nz> wrote:
>
>>"Bob" <BobFlintsTone@spam.com> wrote in message
>>news:8usei193d59dvi2cguu1pgh1jqu991hi49@4ax.com...
>>>
>>> You don't think the small sensor is doomed?
>>>
>>> Go check out the new Sony point&shoot - it has a large DSLR type
>>> sensor...
>>> bigger than your D70... the end is near!
>>
>>Not so, going by the respective dp reviews, the D70's is 23.7 x 15.6 mm,
>>the
>>Sony R1's is 21.5 x 14.4 mm. Canon's 350D uses a 22.2 x 14.8 mm sensor.
>>Sony
>>are thus endorsing, but not exceeding (or quite matching) the DX sized
>>sensor.
>
> OK I was going by the fact it was over 10m pixels... but the point is that
> everything is changing fast!
>
>>Financial reality is that a FF sensor will cost more than 10 times the
>>cost
>>of a DX sensor.
>
> The Canon FF camera is $5k... that's not 10 times for the sensor I don't
> think... maybe 5x.

A FF camera is not necessarily 10x the price of a DX camera - a FF sensor is
necessarily 10x (+) the cost of a DX sensor. Hence the prices of the
respective cameras will be (virtually) the same when (and only when) the
cost of the sensor is a negligible part of the cost of the camera.

>
>>Even when they do, bear in mind that the present D2X can be switched to
>>use
>>only the central part of the sensor, for faster frame rates. Why would you
>>suppose that a future FF Nikon won't have the same ability (and thus be
>>able
>>to use DX lenses)?
>
> No reason, I could be wrong... But I was thinking that it would be nice
> to see
> my 18mm lens at a real 18mm, and not the 27 it seems to be... I was going
> to
> get a Nikon film camera until I realized it wouldn't fit...

It'll fit. I have had my 18-70DX lens on my F2. Vignetting is hell of course
:)  And of course the 18-70 is also a G lens, so you can only use it wide
open on an F2.

> Now jump into your time machine and go forward to 2105.... look back at
> digital
> cameras and DSLR's... what were the DX years?

My time machines in the shop at the moment.

--
Apteryx
September 15, 2005 1:41:42 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Thu, 15 Sep 2005 09:41:41 +1200, "Apteryx" <apteryx@extra.co.nz> wrote:

>"Bob" <BobFlintsTone@spam.com> wrote in message
>news:8k6fi15vv9v4680k84l9qfudmlk8e60g19@4ax.com...
>> On Wed, 14 Sep 2005 15:02:58 +1200, "Apteryx" <apteryx@extra.co.nz> wrote:
>>
>>>"Bob" <BobFlintsTone@spam.com> wrote in message
>>>news:8usei193d59dvi2cguu1pgh1jqu991hi49@4ax.com...
>>>>
>>>> You don't think the small sensor is doomed?
>>>>
>>>> Go check out the new Sony point&shoot - it has a large DSLR type
>>>> sensor...
>>>> bigger than your D70... the end is near!
>>>
>>>Not so, going by the respective dp reviews, the D70's is 23.7 x 15.6 mm,
>>>the
>>>Sony R1's is 21.5 x 14.4 mm. Canon's 350D uses a 22.2 x 14.8 mm sensor.
>>>Sony
>>>are thus endorsing, but not exceeding (or quite matching) the DX sized
>>>sensor.
>>
>> OK I was going by the fact it was over 10m pixels... but the point is that
>> everything is changing fast!
>>
>>>Financial reality is that a FF sensor will cost more than 10 times the
>>>cost
>>>of a DX sensor.
>>
>> The Canon FF camera is $5k... that's not 10 times for the sensor I don't
>> think... maybe 5x.
>
>A FF camera is not necessarily 10x the price of a DX camera - a FF sensor is
>necessarily 10x (+) the cost of a DX sensor. Hence the prices of the
>respective cameras will be (virtually) the same when (and only when) the
>cost of the sensor is a negligible part of the cost of the camera.

I heard that the D70 sensor costs $600 or so, is that about right? I don't know
the FF Canon but the camera is $4k so the sensor must be 3.5K?

>>
>>>Even when they do, bear in mind that the present D2X can be switched to
>>>use
>>>only the central part of the sensor, for faster frame rates. Why would you
>>>suppose that a future FF Nikon won't have the same ability (and thus be
>>>able
>>>to use DX lenses)?
>>
>> No reason, I could be wrong... But I was thinking that it would be nice
>> to see
>> my 18mm lens at a real 18mm, and not the 27 it seems to be... I was going
>> to
>> get a Nikon film camera until I realized it wouldn't fit...
>
>It'll fit. I have had my 18-70DX lens on my F2. Vignetting is hell of course
>:)  And of course the 18-70 is also a G lens, so you can only use it wide
>open on an F2.

>> Now jump into your time machine and go forward to 2105.... look back at
>> digital
>> cameras and DSLR's... what were the DX years?
>
>My time machines in the shop at the moment.
September 16, 2005 12:50:46 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Thu, 15 Sep 2005 07:40:01 -0700, Bill Funk <BigBill@pipping.com.com> wrote:

>On Wed, 14 Sep 2005 20:14:01 -0400, Bob <BobFlintsTone@spam.com>
>wrote:
>
>>On Wed, 14 Sep 2005 09:45:23 -0700, Bill Funk <BigBill@pipping.com.com> wrote:
>>
>>>On Tue, 13 Sep 2005 20:57:30 -0400, Bob <BobFlintsTone@spam.com>
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>>You don't think the small sensor is doomed?
>>>>
>>>>Go check out the new Sony point&shoot - it has a large DSLR type sensor...
>>>>bigger than your D70... the end is near!
>>>
>>>So all those P&S cameras will disappear from dealers' shelves?
>>
>>I'm talking about DSLR 'large pixel site' sensors of 24mm instead of 35mm.
>>You're on a different subject...
>>
>>>And Canon's APS C cameras are doomed?
>>>Well, I'll wait for the eventualities before I agree with that.
>>>After all, bigger sensors are already here, and thay haven't displaced
>>>the smaller sensors yet.




>>The very small pixel site sensors that you are discussing


>> won't disapear


>>for a few reasons, such as cheaper costs, including glass, smaller lenses and cameras,
>>and HUGE DOF conjagate focus.





>APS C sensors are "very small pixel site sensors"?
>
>It seems like you're trying to have it both ways...
>Either the smaller sensors are doomed, as you claimed, or they aren't,
>which you also claim.


No...I did not...

I said that the small resolution, large pixel sensors, in DSLR's, that are
smaller then full frame full resolution, DSLR sensors, are doomed.

I never mentioned, or typed the characters, " APS C".

I never said anything about P&S sensors.

That's it, that's all.
Anonymous
September 24, 2005 5:59:26 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Wed, 14 Sep 2005 15:02:58 +1200, Apteryx wrote:

> Not so, going by the respective dp reviews, the D70's is 23.7 x 15.6 mm,

> Even when they do, bear in mind that the present D2X can be switched
> to use only the central part of the sensor, for faster frame rates. Why
> would you suppose that a future FF Nikon won't have the same ability
> (and thus be able to use DX lenses)?

But even if it could, would you really want to use just the center
portion? The D70's sensor has 43% of the FF sensor's area. So
you'd lose 57% of the FF sensor's pixels. If the FF sensor was
12mp, the "cropped" center area would only provide 5.1mp images.
That's better than nothing I suppose, but not a strong selling
point.
!