confused about sensor size: Could a "FF" DSLR be mechanically re-designed to contain a sensor larger than 36x24 and the software be developed to produce 36x24 output? The idea would be...

travelwp Loc: New Jersey

Could a "FF" DSLR be mechanically re-designed to contain a sensor larger than 36x24 and the software be developed to produce 36x24 output? The idea would be to develop a lower noise high ISO FF camera.

MT Shooter Loc: Montana

Not with existing lens mounts. Current DSLRs almost all are evolutional renditions of film bodies which were created around the 35mm film size of 36mmx24mm. Not to say someone couldn't squeeze a SLIGHTLY larger sensor in there, but the lens mount will always restrict the useable area. Thats why Pentax (40MP) and Hasselblad (40MP and 60MP) have marketed digital medium format cameras, to get a larger sensor in play.

travelwp Loc: New Jersey

So it's the lens mount restriction. I thought perhaps the sensor could be positioned further back into the body (fatter body) and get the same results.

Thanks for the reply.

MT Shooter Loc: Montana

travelwp wrote:

So it's the lens mount restriction. I thought perhaps the sensor could be positioned further back into the body (fatter body) and get the same results.

Thanks for the reply.

Hense medium format. Increasing the lens to film plane distance and focal plane modifications to match. New body design, new lens designs, etc. Much simpler to modify existing medium format designs as the hard part is already done. The Pentax 645D has taken the mod one step further. For years the naysayers were saying the 645 could never accept a digital back as its design precluded that possibility. Now they are the second medium format designer to actually release a working medium format design, and it is totally backwards compatible with EVERY Pentax 645 and 6x7 (via the cheap 6x7 to 645 adapter)manual focus AND AF lense they ever produced. I consider this an amazing feat in todays photographic world, and to release this body for about the same price as Nikons D3X.

I have been shooting the Pentax 645 medium format film cameras for 20 years and have to consider their 645D as my next digital body, probably ahead of any Nikon FF camera. Landscapes in medium format are AMAZING when compared to DX or FF results.

Frank T Loc: New York, NY

Mt Shooter, I think you're right. I also think you're going to see medium format come down in price (not cheap) but lets say less than 10K for camera, lens, body and the whole works. Once they do that you may see Pros going from a 6K nikon to a 10K medium format.

travelwp Loc: New Jersey

I was hoping the D700 upgrade would be just a little better in low noise ISO and just a little higher in megapixels. Instead we get a multi-media box.

I'm going to start looking at medium format CAMERAS and perhaps make a purchase when the price gets a little lower.

Thanks for the information on medium format.

MT Shooter Loc: Montana

travelwp wrote:

I was hoping the D700 upgrade would be just a little better in low noise ISO and just a little higher in megapixels. Instead we get a multi-media box.

I'm going to start looking at medium format CAMERAS and perhaps make a purchase when the price gets a little lower.

Thanks for the information on medium format.

Not sure what you mean, there is no upgrade for the D700 yet. The D800 is the upgrade of speculation, but its just rumors so far.

travelwp Loc: New Jersey

True, but the rumors from many sources indicate that the D800 will be a multi-media box with no advancement in low noise higher ISO. By next month we should know the real story.

MT Shooter Loc: Montana

travelwp wrote:

True, but the rumors from many sources indicate that the D800 will be a multi-media box with no advancement in low noise higher ISO. By next month we should know the real story.

I guess by "multi media" you are referring to video capability. Its probably going tp get harder to buy a "stills only" body in the future as its basically only a software upgrade to get video from any camera sensor these days, and the video is in demand due to the simple changeover from still to video in camera, as well as the ability to take stills at the same time as taking video without video interruption. The is no need to actually USE the video feature if you don't want it. Personally I like the HD video feature of my D7000, never figured into my purchase, but its amazing in what it is capable of. My Canon ES65 hasn't left the house since I bought the D7000, and likely never will unless my daughter wants to play with it sometime.

Funny, I remember when photographers used to say "Digital? What a bunch of crap that is!"
Life marches on whether we get on the wagon or not.

travelwp Loc: New Jersey

"its basically only a software upgrade to get video from any camera sensor these days"

I don't believe that. There has to be serious dedicated hardware to make it do video. I also believe that the R&D and engineering going into the camera makes it more expensive, so for someone like myself who doesn't want the video, I would be paying for something I won't use. So you like video, fine, and I agree with you, in the future there will be very few to maybe no digital cameras without the video feature.

MT Shooter Loc: Montana

Actually video is little more than shooting 24 frames per second, and with the DSLRs superior sensor it was only a matter of time. There is even one Olympus model that will shoot 60fps video. If it were to take "serious hardware" to achieve this feature above and beyond the stills capability then I think it would be reflected in the cameras price in an equally serious way, not in bodies like the D3100 and T2i. I wonder if Nikon had any idea what they were starting when they decided the D90 was going to shoot video?? Many commercials and even entire TV episodes are now being shot on DSLR, the depth of field control in DSLRs is as good as commercial video equipment costing 10's of thousands of dollars, and it has nowhere to go but up from here. It has yet to invade the Digital medium format arena, but I have a feeling as soon as solid state memory cards in the 5 to 10 TB range become economical, we will see a 120MP Hasselblad shooting video!

steve_stoneblossom Loc: Rhode Island, USA

travelwp wrote:

I was hoping the D700 upgrade would be just a little better in low noise ISO and just a little higher in megapixels. Instead we get a multi-media box.

I'm going to start looking at medium format CAMERAS and perhaps make a purchase when the price gets a little lower.

Thanks for the information on medium format.

Just curious, what is it you're shooting that you find D700 noise a problem?

I'm curious because I upgraded from D70 to D700 for just that reason, and find the 700 light years ahead of the 70.

I'm almost always shooting low light, no flash. In fact, just yesterday I was running comparison tests (for another issue) and convinced myself that if I pay more attention to composition, I really could get useful shots at 6400 ISO if needed. Then again, my end work is mostly not for print.

Of course, MP is another issue altogether.

Cloudwalker Loc: New Bedford, MA

MT Shooter wrote:

quote=travelwp So it's the lens mount restriction... (show quote)

This is the 20th year I've had Hasselblads in my backpack. The combination of meticulous technique and the superb Fuji Velvia has enabled me to produce landscape images with breathtaking detail and consistent quality. The real icing on the cake, however, is the sumptuous dimensions of that square format - it shoots an image that includes 50% more information (6 x 6 versus 4 x 6) than it's digital counterpart. You don't have to back up a mile to include critical foreground detail - just stay put and fire away. Portrait images that demand square composition are handled with equal ease and don't require radical adjustments to force the subject matter to conform to a rectangular capture. Each has it's advantages but I hope film and medium format continue for a long time to come.

rayford2 Loc: New Bethlehem, PA

MT Shooter wrote:

quote=travelwp True, but the rumors from many sou... (show quote)

If it's only basically a software issue that permits videography from a still camera, that must be quite an upgrade. Look at the price difference between the Nikon D3 (still only) and the D3s (video + still) bodies.

MT Shooter Loc: Montana

rayford2 wrote:

quote=MT Shooter quote=travelwp True, but the ru... (show quote)

You think there was a huge price increase? Lets look at what else you bought on that D3S besides the addition of video.

ISO boost from 25,600 to 102,400
Added the ability to record in camera TIFF images
Added facial recognition to AF
Increased AF to 51 focal points
Added a STEREO microphone
All this and Nikon still managed to shave 80 grams (6%) from the weight of the body.

Sounds like some pretty major improvements to me. And the D3 sold for $7999.99 at introduction, but it was discounted just prior to the D3S release 2 years later. The selling price for the D3S at release? Oh, that was $6749.99, currently $5999.99 at NikonUSA. So just how much did that video software cost do you think????