I wonder how someone running such a site would be so bold to state that the pics are real if they weren't. If they turn out to be fake - which we will know when the D800 is announced - his reputation will be completely ruined.
“To consult the rules of composition before making a picture is a little like consulting the law of gravitation before going for a walk.”
― Edward Weston
I wonder how someone running such a site would be so bold to state that the pics are real if they weren't. If they turn out to be fake - which we will know when the D800 is announced - his reputation will be completely ruined.
well it is a "rumor" site... I'd take the information with a grain of salt
Nikon D800, Pentax K1000
You don't take a photograph, you make it. ~Ansel Adams
I wonder how someone running such a site would be so bold to state that the pics are real if they weren't. If they turn out to be fake - which we will know when the D800 is announced - his reputation will be completely ruined.
haha..it is a rumor site. I think it is assumed caveat emptor until nikon proves it.
The new leaked images have got to be fake, I'm 100% certain. I've posted my reasons in greater detail in their latest thread, but the bottom line is that Nikon simply wouldn't put a "rec" button right there on the top of the camera. Even if they were to add a video record button, it would be on the back. From the Nikon D7000 to the Canon 7D and even the 1DX, ...the "rec" button is on the back.
So, I say bogus. The D800 may certainly be coming, but that isn't it.
I'm still betting that we'll see the D4 next instead, and that it will be 16-18 megapixels. After that I don't know which camera will come next, maybe a 36 megapixel behemoth. However at SOME point, I'm 100% positive that we'll see "an affordable version of the D4"... And that is what I hope for. A camera that still photographers can get TRULY excited about, compared to the already near-perfect D700.
Because honestly, what WOULD get me to upgrade from my D700, as a working professional? Not megapixels, and not video. Simply put, I want AF improvements and I want dual card slots. (Slight ISO improvements would be par for the course, of course.)
As it is, if they were to release this D800 with it's current feature layout, I would hands-down be buying a 2nd D700 and saving for a used D3s. If I need megapixels for my landsdcape hobby, I'll buy a D7000 or it's successor.
=Matt=
Sounds like you want a 1Dx, or maybe a 5D3 if it has the same sensor. Me to!
I wonder how someone running such a site would be so bold to state that the pics are real if they weren't. If they turn out to be fake - which we will know when the D800 is announced - his reputation will be completely ruined.
Peter actually has a hell-of-a track record and does not usually go out on a limb with something like this unless he can back it up. The grip certainly appears to be "shopped" in, but this would be a colossal failure if it turns out to be a fake pic.
haha..it is a rumor site. I think it is assumed caveat emptor until nikon proves it.
No reason to laugh, even on rumor sites they usually say that "we recieved notice ..." and not "this is it".
“To consult the rules of composition before making a picture is a little like consulting the law of gravitation before going for a walk.”
― Edward Weston
Sounds like you want a 1Dx, or maybe a 5D3 if it has the same sensor. Me to!
EXACTLY, the 1DX sensor is WAY more exciting for me as a portrait and wedding photographer, than some ridiculous 36 megapixel behemoth.
If Canon's 5D mk2 replacement has the 1DX sensor, dual card slots, and especially Canon's "old" flagship 45 point AF, then it makes WAY better sense as a professional still camera than this hybrid video monster. That is, unless they go out of their way to add new video buttons and switches.
But as I mentioned, the D4 simply MUST come before next summer, and it will most likely be 16-18 megapixels with a new AF system. An affordable version of THAT camera will be what I look forward to buying. Even if I have to wait until spring 2013 to get it. I'll be just fine with D700's and D3s's in the meantime, as a 100% still photographer.
The D400 will surely be a D7000 sensor with DX00 body and features? Or do you think the D7000 will be the top of the range for Nikon DX cameras?
I'm still in the camp that believes we will see continued support of the semi-pro ergonomics in a DX body, which implies a DX D400. Basically, a D300s with the D7000's sensor, and of course 1080p video etc.
For hardcore adventures, I'd love to have that camera. It'd be for my hobby, not my profession, but I'd still love to see a DX D400.
The D400 will surely be a D7000 sensor with DX00 body and features? Or do you think the D7000 will be the top of the range for Nikon DX cameras?
My stance on this has been that the D400 will be FF, with specs that exceed those of the D700, effectively making the D400 the D700's replacement. The Dxxxx series will continue to evolve as Nikon's DX line. Whatever replaces the D7000 will be the D300's successor, and honestly, the D7000 was pretty close.
My stance on this has been that the D400 will be FF, with specs that exceed those of the D700, effectively making the D400 the D700's replacement. The Dxxxx series will continue to evolve as Nikon's DX line. Whatever replaces the D7000 will be the D300's successor, and honestly, the D7000 was pretty close.
I am struggling to find a historical qualification to justify this; I have never seen a smaller number (of the same digits) be the REPLACEMENT to a higher number camera. Not even in the case of the D70, in my opinion; since the D40-D60 all had serious feature limitations by comparison, even though they had sensor improvements.
I know we've had this disagreement before, so I'll just re-state my "bet"... I bet that a D400, if it ever comes, will be DX. Or, if an FX D600 / D500 ever comes, it will be in a D7000-like body, and will NOT "replace" the D700, (except maybe the sensor) ...it will be an affordable, amateur-grade FX camera.
Sure, the D7000 out-classes the D300 in many ways, but my whole point is that for certain professional demands there is just no way to replace the full feature and control layout of the D300 / D700 series bodies.
If we liken the D700 to the D70, which were both ground-breaking improvements in their class, ...all historical indicators still point to my predicted progression.
My stance on this has been that the D400 will be FF, with specs that exceed those of the D700, effectively making the D400 the D700's replacement. The Dxxxx series will continue to evolve as Nikon's DX line. Whatever replaces the D7000 will be the D300's successor, and honestly, the D7000 was pretty close.
I'd have to disagree. Though a sub $2K FF would certianly be welcome I just don't think its economically feasable at this point, not until yields on FF sensors get a lot better.
"But you and I, we’ve been through that, and this is not our fate. - Dylan 1968"
0
Matthew SavilleRegistered Users, Retired ModPosts: 3,352Major grins
I'd have to disagree. Though a sub $2K FF would certianly be welcome I just don't think its economically feasable at this point, not until yields on FF sensors get a lot better.
I think it is inevitable that we will eventually see a FF version of the D7000, for about $2K or so, however I just don't see it being called the D400. I don't think Nikon will "close" the D100-D300 lineup so hastily... But, time will tell! When the D300 came out, it came out at the same time as the D3. Maybe with a D4 announcement coming up soon, we'll see a D400 to go with it? However I'm not entirely sure, considering the D800 rumors that are circulating. We might have to wait another year or so to see what becomes of the D300 lineup...
I'd have to disagree. Though a sub $2K FF would certianly be welcome I just don't think its economically feasable at this point, not until yields on FF sensors get a lot better.
Never said it would be under $2,000. My prediction was $2,700, same as the D700. See my first post.
Yeah, I'm looking forward to this! Hopefully we'll get at least one or two new lenses to go with the D4. Rumors say an updated 85 1.8, I'm also hoping that eventually in 2012 we see a new 24 f/2 and a 135 f/2. That'd be awesome!
Yeah, I'm looking forward to this! Hopefully we'll get at least one or two new lenses to go with the D4. Rumors say an updated 85 1.8, I'm also hoping that eventually in 2012 we see a new 24 f/2 and a 135 f/2. That'd be awesome!
=Matt=
same here, but I'm hoping they announce the D300s replacement camera
Nikon D800, Pentax K1000
You don't take a photograph, you make it. ~Ansel Adams
same here, but I'm hoping they announce the D300s replacement camera
If they follow the D3 + D300 release pattern, then yes we'll see some sort of "flagship DX" on Jan. 6th as well. But that is a MUCH debated possibility, with many people saying that we've seen the last of a "flagship" from the DX line, and that anything DXXX will be FX from now on. Me, I'd love to see an improved D7000 sensor in a DX D400, but hey, we'll find out soon enough won't we?
If they follow the D3 + D300 release pattern, then yes we'll see some sort of "flagship DX" on Jan. 6th as well. But that is a MUCH debated possibility, with many people saying that we've seen the last of a "flagship" from the DX line, and that anything DXXX will be FX from now on. Me, I'd love to see an improved D7000 sensor in a DX D400, but hey, we'll find out soon enough won't we?
=Matt=
I really hope that Nikon doesn't get rid of their pro-level DX cameras
Nikon D800, Pentax K1000
You don't take a photograph, you make it. ~Ansel Adams
I don't think they'll get rid of the D300-style bodies. There's a huge market for them, and they won't want to leave the 7D Mark II without competition. They could just introduce a feature-filled D7100, but like Matt's said before, it's about the control layout and little "pro" features. The 7D is very similar to the 5DII. Many pros use 5DII/7D or D700/D300s combos, and changing the controls/layouts of those bodies would make it confusing. Plus, there's an advantage for battery compatibility (not sure whether the D7000 uses the same battery as the D300/D700).
There are even many shooters who want a real "professional" DX camera - like a new D2X. You know, D4 body, D4 AF, DX sensor. I don't see that happening, esp. if there's a crop mode on the D4 (pretty much certain). But I think there's a huge market for a DX D400.
0
Matthew SavilleRegistered Users, Retired ModPosts: 3,352Major grins
I don't think they'll get rid of the D300-style bodies. There's a huge market for them, and they won't want to leave the 7D Mark II without competition. They could just introduce a feature-filled D7100, but like Matt's said before, it's about the control layout and little "pro" features. The 7D is very similar to the 5DII. Many pros use 5DII/7D or D700/D300s combos, and changing the controls/layouts of those bodies would make it confusing. Plus, there's an advantage for battery compatibility (not sure whether the D7000 uses the same battery as the D300/D700).
There are even many shooters who want a real "professional" DX camera - like a new D2X. You know, D4 body, D4 AF, DX sensor. I don't see that happening, esp. if there's a crop mode on the D4 (pretty much certain). But I think there's a huge market for a DX D400.
Yeah, the Nikon D7000 is AWESOME, but even the Canon 60D beats it in some respects, let alone the 7D! In my opinion, Nikon can't afford to abandon the "flagship DX" line just yet. And considering that the D300s had dual card slots and even TIF recording, I just feel like Nikon is a stickler for tradition. I mean hey, they made the F6 when film was all but dead! Don't forget either that Nikon is the system that still maintains manual AIS compatibility, just so that the latest digital bodies are 100% compatible with lenses made in the SEVENTIES. Dump the pro DX lineup after just a decade? I don't think so.
I just hope that the D300s successor comes roughly close the current AF and ISO performance that I get from a D700. If that is the case, then I'd gladly buy one so that I can continue using great crop sensor zooms like the Tokina 11-16 2.8, the Nikon 16-85 DX, and the Sigma 50-150 2.8. For these lenses, FX equivalents simply do not exist in the same price and weight class.
But I digress. No wait, I didn't digress, but I'm done postulating. 5 days and counting! Bring on the D4 and D400!
Nikonrumors.com found an image on Nikon Germany's website and claims it is the D800
(this image has been removed from Nikon Germany's website)
compare to:
The D800 image that leaked few hours ago on several of the official Nikon websites is now gone, but several readers noticed the folder named "Jan-Feb launches" that was included in the page source:
Megapixels; Less is more, more is less. That is applicable here. Who of us does print real large prints ?
Is 20 inches at 240 DPI not enough, I think it is. So a 12-16Megapixel CMOS or CCD is more then enough.
Unless you really want to blow-up pictures.
The big drawback is the noise factor, the more pixels (sensor cells) on the same surface the smaller they are. The smaller they are the less photons (light) they can collect, or the less sensitive the camera becomes. So the noise factor increases very rapid, but not only that. The Dynamic ranger is getting reduced drastically (ability to capture highlights and the deepest darks without loss of detail). A D4 has 16M pix and a 10 stop dynamic range. The D800 will be at best 6 stops.
So, if I have the choice "give me large pixel cells on a full frame".
A photographer without a style, is like a pub without beer
Megapixels; Less is more, more is less. That is applicable here. Who of us does print real large prints ?
Is 20 inches at 240 DPI not enough, I think it is. So a 12-16Megapixel CMOS or CCD is more then enough.
Unless you really want to blow-up pictures.
The big drawback is the noise factor, the more pixels (sensor cells) on the same surface the smaller they are. The smaller they are the less photons (light) they can collect, or the less sensitive the camera becomes. So the noise factor increases very rapid, but not only that. The Dynamic ranger is getting reduced drastically (ability to capture highlights and the deepest darks without loss of detail). A D4 has 16M pix and a 10 stop dynamic range. The D800 will be at best 6 stops.
So, if I have the choice "give me large pixel cells on a full frame".
I agree with you, but have you factored in new tricks with software to try to offset the downsides you describe? SW is increasingly becoming the defining factor in digital dslr bodies. I'm like you in believing there are very tight constraints on what tech makes best images, but there are those who see the tech as developing open-endedly forever.
Megapixels; Less is more, more is less. That is applicable here. Who of us does print real large prints ?
Is 20 inches at 240 DPI not enough, I think it is. So a 12-16Megapixel CMOS or CCD is more then enough.
Unless you really want to blow-up pictures.
The big drawback is the noise factor, the more pixels (sensor cells) on the same surface the smaller they are. The smaller they are the less photons (light) they can collect, or the less sensitive the camera becomes. So the noise factor increases very rapid, but not only that. The Dynamic ranger is getting reduced drastically (ability to capture highlights and the deepest darks without loss of detail). A D4 has 16M pix and a 10 stop dynamic range. The D800 will be at best 6 stops.
So, if I have the choice "give me large pixel cells on a full frame".
Something tells me that the D800 won't be so limited to only provide 6 stops of dynamic range.
Yes, pixel density has a slight effect, but for the most part with gapless microlenses these days it's just not that bad. I used to REFUSE to believe this, but now that I do post-production for a local studio I see thousands of images every day from both the Canon 5D mk2 and the Nikon D700, for example. On paper the D700 far out-performs the 5D mk2 when comparing noise at 100%. But I gotta say, when you throw that 5D mk2 into sRAW1, it really sings a new tune. Like I said, I didn't believe it until I saw it with my own eyes. I don't expect anyone else to believe me unless they gain similar experience.
Either way, the bottom line is that 36 megapixels is not the end of the world. Both the dynamic range and the ISO will not be too severely hindered, I'll bet.
The real question is, ...will Nikon offer an sRAW mode for the D800? That's the one thing you just cannot avoid; filesize. And there's no way I'm jumping from 12 to 36 megapixels just so I can get the newer camera body.
Don't get me wrong, I'd LOVE to have 36 megapixels, for the landscape work I do. And yes, some of us DO make huge prints that fully utilize such resolution. Just because 90% of the rich hobbyists who buy the camera will never acctually utilize the resolution, doesn't mean it isn't filling a huge gap in the current Nikon system.
Fear not, some sort of D700s will come out eventually. Or the D800 will have an amazing sRAW format, .
Something tells me that the D800 won't be so limited to only provide 6 stops of dynamic range.
Yes, pixel density has a slight effect, but for the most part with gapless microlenses these days it's just not that bad. I used to REFUSE to believe this, but now that I do post-production for a local studio I see thousands of images every day from both the Canon 5D mk2 and the Nikon D700, for example. On paper the D700 far out-performs the 5D mk2 when comparing noise at 100%. But I gotta say, when you throw that 5D mk2 into sRAW1, it really sings a new tune. Like I said, I didn't believe it until I saw it with my own eyes. I don't expect anyone else to believe me unless they gain similar experience.
Either way, the bottom line is that 36 megapixels is not the end of the world. Both the dynamic range and the ISO will not be too severely hindered, I'll bet.
The real question is, ...will Nikon offer an sRAW mode for the D800? That's the one thing you just cannot avoid; filesize. And there's no way I'm jumping from 12 to 36 megapixels just so I can get the newer camera body.
Don't get me wrong, I'd LOVE to have 36 megapixels, for the landscape work I do. And yes, some of us DO make huge prints that fully utilize such resolution. Just because 90% of the rich hobbyists who buy the camera will never acctually utilize the resolution, doesn't mean it isn't filling a huge gap in the current Nikon system.
Fear not, some sort of D700s will come out eventually. Or the D800 will have an amazing sRAW format, .
=Matt=
Matt I can follow your reasoning, and if one does blow-up pictures (large prints) then indeed you might need more pixels. I have a D700 since they came out, and men what a camera that has been It has over 300.000 pictures and is still working great. 12Mpx, not all that much but what a quality it had (s). Two years ago I did buy the D3S and D3X. The D3S is my outdoor camera, fast, and great to work with under severe light constraints. The D3X is only used in the studio, reason is more pixels and more noise. However since I control the light in the studio the D3X is great. ( Photography is a side job).
Do you think that the D800 will be a substitute for the D3X, or will the D3X be replaced with the D4X ? As for the D700, I doubt very much if the D700-S will be produced.
Now back to SRAW; (Canon proprietary)
SRAW is a great file format if you want to safe memory space or if you are sure that you will not need a print bigger then 6by4.
The smaller sRAW files writes quicker to the memory card, so that is advantage. Typically SRAW is 1/4 of RAW file.
It does pixel binning of 4 neighboring pixels in the Bayern pattern (filter on top of the CCD); by converting G B, R G, into a single pixel with RGB values. The effect is similar to a Foveon sensor (3 layers). There is no need for interpolation for the missing color values, the resultant image is quite sharp.
I can't see why NIKON would apply this considering that there is an ongoing effort to standardize the RAW format. Secondly, why should they provide a 36Mpx camera with SRAW that will limit the seize of the prints, when especially the aim of a 36Mpx is to be able to extend the enlargement of pictures.
If the only reason is to reduce the file seize, then it is not worth it. Memory cards and computers are fast and cheap compared to the price of a camera (4000 $).
Anyhow that is how this old stubern man sees it.
A photographer without a style, is like a pub without beer
Megapixels; Less is more, more is less. That is applicable here. Who of us does print real large prints ?
Is 20 inches at 240 DPI not enough, I think it is. So a 12-16Megapixel CMOS or CCD is more then enough.
Unless you really want to blow-up pictures.
The big drawback is the noise factor, the more pixels (sensor cells) on the same surface the smaller they are. The smaller they are the less photons (light) they can collect, or the less sensitive the camera becomes. So the noise factor increases very rapid, but not only that. The Dynamic ranger is getting reduced drastically (ability to capture highlights and the deepest darks without loss of detail). A D4 has 16M pix and a 10 stop dynamic range. The D800 will be at best 6 stops.
So, if I have the choice "give me large pixel cells on a full frame".
The D7000 has 13.9 stops of dynamic range and a 16 MP DX sensor, so why would a 16 MP FX sensor have considerably less? Your theory in a very basic sense works out but only if you took the same sensor design, used the same processing engine, and just had more MP it would deteriorate like you said.
I mention processing because of Sony VS Nikon DSLR's using the same sensor and Nikon cameras will end up with much better performance. Just look at high ISO images from the D3x and the A900/850.
Comments
― Edward Weston
well it is a "rumor" site... I'd take the information with a grain of salt
You don't take a photograph, you make it. ~Ansel Adams
Blue Moon Originals
haha..it is a rumor site. I think it is assumed caveat emptor until nikon proves it.
14-24 24-70 70-200mm (vr2)
85 and 50 1.4
45 PC and sb910 x2
http://www.danielkimphotography.com
Sounds like you want a 1Dx, or maybe a 5D3 if it has the same sensor. Me to!
Peter actually has a hell-of-a track record and does not usually go out on a limb with something like this unless he can back it up. The grip certainly appears to be "shopped" in, but this would be a colossal failure if it turns out to be a fake pic.
please visit: www.babyelephants.net
He wants a D400
please visit: www.babyelephants.net
No reason to laugh, even on rumor sites they usually say that "we recieved notice ..." and not "this is it".
― Edward Weston
The D400 will surely be a D7000 sensor with DX00 body and features? Or do you think the D7000 will be the top of the range for Nikon DX cameras?
EXACTLY, the 1DX sensor is WAY more exciting for me as a portrait and wedding photographer, than some ridiculous 36 megapixel behemoth.
If Canon's 5D mk2 replacement has the 1DX sensor, dual card slots, and especially Canon's "old" flagship 45 point AF, then it makes WAY better sense as a professional still camera than this hybrid video monster. That is, unless they go out of their way to add new video buttons and switches.
But as I mentioned, the D4 simply MUST come before next summer, and it will most likely be 16-18 megapixels with a new AF system. An affordable version of THAT camera will be what I look forward to buying. Even if I have to wait until spring 2013 to get it. I'll be just fine with D700's and D3s's in the meantime, as a 100% still photographer.
=Matt=
My SmugMug Portfolio • My Astro-Landscape Photo Blog • Dgrin Weddings Forum
I'm still in the camp that believes we will see continued support of the semi-pro ergonomics in a DX body, which implies a DX D400. Basically, a D300s with the D7000's sensor, and of course 1080p video etc.
For hardcore adventures, I'd love to have that camera. It'd be for my hobby, not my profession, but I'd still love to see a DX D400.
=Matt=
My SmugMug Portfolio • My Astro-Landscape Photo Blog • Dgrin Weddings Forum
Be a hell of a sports camera wouldn't it.
Natural selection is responsible for every living thing that exists.
D3s, D500, D5300, and way more glass than the wife knows about.
My stance on this has been that the D400 will be FF, with specs that exceed those of the D700, effectively making the D400 the D700's replacement. The Dxxxx series will continue to evolve as Nikon's DX line. Whatever replaces the D7000 will be the D300's successor, and honestly, the D7000 was pretty close.
please visit: www.babyelephants.net
I am struggling to find a historical qualification to justify this; I have never seen a smaller number (of the same digits) be the REPLACEMENT to a higher number camera. Not even in the case of the D70, in my opinion; since the D40-D60 all had serious feature limitations by comparison, even though they had sensor improvements.
I know we've had this disagreement before, so I'll just re-state my "bet"... I bet that a D400, if it ever comes, will be DX. Or, if an FX D600 / D500 ever comes, it will be in a D7000-like body, and will NOT "replace" the D700, (except maybe the sensor) ...it will be an affordable, amateur-grade FX camera.
Sure, the D7000 out-classes the D300 in many ways, but my whole point is that for certain professional demands there is just no way to replace the full feature and control layout of the D300 / D700 series bodies.
If we liken the D700 to the D70, which were both ground-breaking improvements in their class, ...all historical indicators still point to my predicted progression.
=Matt=
My SmugMug Portfolio • My Astro-Landscape Photo Blog • Dgrin Weddings Forum
You don't take a photograph, you make it. ~Ansel Adams
Blue Moon Originals
I think it is inevitable that we will eventually see a FF version of the D7000, for about $2K or so, however I just don't see it being called the D400. I don't think Nikon will "close" the D100-D300 lineup so hastily... But, time will tell! When the D300 came out, it came out at the same time as the D3. Maybe with a D4 announcement coming up soon, we'll see a D400 to go with it? However I'm not entirely sure, considering the D800 rumors that are circulating. We might have to wait another year or so to see what becomes of the D300 lineup...
=Matt=
My SmugMug Portfolio • My Astro-Landscape Photo Blog • Dgrin Weddings Forum
Never said it would be under $2,000. My prediction was $2,700, same as the D700. See my first post.
please visit: www.babyelephants.net
Nikon might be releasing new cameras soon
You don't take a photograph, you make it. ~Ansel Adams
Blue Moon Originals
Yeah, I'm looking forward to this! Hopefully we'll get at least one or two new lenses to go with the D4. Rumors say an updated 85 1.8, I'm also hoping that eventually in 2012 we see a new 24 f/2 and a 135 f/2. That'd be awesome!
=Matt=
My SmugMug Portfolio • My Astro-Landscape Photo Blog • Dgrin Weddings Forum
same here, but I'm hoping they announce the D300s replacement camera
You don't take a photograph, you make it. ~Ansel Adams
Blue Moon Originals
If they follow the D3 + D300 release pattern, then yes we'll see some sort of "flagship DX" on Jan. 6th as well. But that is a MUCH debated possibility, with many people saying that we've seen the last of a "flagship" from the DX line, and that anything DXXX will be FX from now on. Me, I'd love to see an improved D7000 sensor in a DX D400, but hey, we'll find out soon enough won't we?
=Matt=
My SmugMug Portfolio • My Astro-Landscape Photo Blog • Dgrin Weddings Forum
I really hope that Nikon doesn't get rid of their pro-level DX cameras
You don't take a photograph, you make it. ~Ansel Adams
Blue Moon Originals
There are even many shooters who want a real "professional" DX camera - like a new D2X. You know, D4 body, D4 AF, DX sensor. I don't see that happening, esp. if there's a crop mode on the D4 (pretty much certain). But I think there's a huge market for a DX D400.
Yeah, the Nikon D7000 is AWESOME, but even the Canon 60D beats it in some respects, let alone the 7D! In my opinion, Nikon can't afford to abandon the "flagship DX" line just yet. And considering that the D300s had dual card slots and even TIF recording, I just feel like Nikon is a stickler for tradition. I mean hey, they made the F6 when film was all but dead! Don't forget either that Nikon is the system that still maintains manual AIS compatibility, just so that the latest digital bodies are 100% compatible with lenses made in the SEVENTIES. Dump the pro DX lineup after just a decade? I don't think so.
I just hope that the D300s successor comes roughly close the current AF and ISO performance that I get from a D700. If that is the case, then I'd gladly buy one so that I can continue using great crop sensor zooms like the Tokina 11-16 2.8, the Nikon 16-85 DX, and the Sigma 50-150 2.8. For these lenses, FX equivalents simply do not exist in the same price and weight class.
But I digress. No wait, I didn't digress, but I'm done postulating. 5 days and counting! Bring on the D4 and D400!
My SmugMug Portfolio • My Astro-Landscape Photo Blog • Dgrin Weddings Forum
(this image has been removed from Nikon Germany's website)
compare to:
You don't take a photograph, you make it. ~Ansel Adams
Blue Moon Originals
Is 20 inches at 240 DPI not enough, I think it is. So a 12-16Megapixel CMOS or CCD is more then enough.
Unless you really want to blow-up pictures.
The big drawback is the noise factor, the more pixels (sensor cells) on the same surface the smaller they are. The smaller they are the less photons (light) they can collect, or the less sensitive the camera becomes. So the noise factor increases very rapid, but not only that. The Dynamic ranger is getting reduced drastically (ability to capture highlights and the deepest darks without loss of detail). A D4 has 16M pix and a 10 stop dynamic range. The D800 will be at best 6 stops.
So, if I have the choice "give me large pixel cells on a full frame".
I agree with you, but have you factored in new tricks with software to try to offset the downsides you describe? SW is increasingly becoming the defining factor in digital dslr bodies. I'm like you in believing there are very tight constraints on what tech makes best images, but there are those who see the tech as developing open-endedly forever.
Neil
http://www.behance.net/brosepix
Something tells me that the D800 won't be so limited to only provide 6 stops of dynamic range.
Yes, pixel density has a slight effect, but for the most part with gapless microlenses these days it's just not that bad. I used to REFUSE to believe this, but now that I do post-production for a local studio I see thousands of images every day from both the Canon 5D mk2 and the Nikon D700, for example. On paper the D700 far out-performs the 5D mk2 when comparing noise at 100%. But I gotta say, when you throw that 5D mk2 into sRAW1, it really sings a new tune. Like I said, I didn't believe it until I saw it with my own eyes. I don't expect anyone else to believe me unless they gain similar experience.
Either way, the bottom line is that 36 megapixels is not the end of the world. Both the dynamic range and the ISO will not be too severely hindered, I'll bet.
The real question is, ...will Nikon offer an sRAW mode for the D800? That's the one thing you just cannot avoid; filesize. And there's no way I'm jumping from 12 to 36 megapixels just so I can get the newer camera body.
Don't get me wrong, I'd LOVE to have 36 megapixels, for the landscape work I do. And yes, some of us DO make huge prints that fully utilize such resolution. Just because 90% of the rich hobbyists who buy the camera will never acctually utilize the resolution, doesn't mean it isn't filling a huge gap in the current Nikon system.
Fear not, some sort of D700s will come out eventually. Or the D800 will have an amazing sRAW format,
=Matt=
My SmugMug Portfolio • My Astro-Landscape Photo Blog • Dgrin Weddings Forum
Matt I can follow your reasoning, and if one does blow-up pictures (large prints) then indeed you might need more pixels. I have a D700 since they came out, and men what a camera that has been
Do you think that the D800 will be a substitute for the D3X, or will the D3X be replaced with the D4X ? As for the D700, I doubt very much if the D700-S will be produced.
Now back to SRAW; (Canon proprietary)
SRAW is a great file format if you want to safe memory space or if you are sure that you will not need a print bigger then 6by4.
The smaller sRAW files writes quicker to the memory card, so that is advantage. Typically SRAW is 1/4 of RAW file.
It does pixel binning of 4 neighboring pixels in the Bayern pattern (filter on top of the CCD); by converting G B, R G, into a single pixel with RGB values. The effect is similar to a Foveon sensor (3 layers). There is no need for interpolation for the missing color values, the resultant image is quite sharp.
I can't see why NIKON would apply this considering that there is an ongoing effort to standardize the RAW format. Secondly, why should they provide a 36Mpx camera with SRAW that will limit the seize of the prints, when especially the aim of a 36Mpx is to be able to extend the enlargement of pictures.
If the only reason is to reduce the file seize, then it is not worth it. Memory cards and computers are fast and cheap compared to the price of a camera (4000 $).
Anyhow that is how this old stubern man sees it.
The D7000 has 13.9 stops of dynamic range and a 16 MP DX sensor, so why would a 16 MP FX sensor have considerably less? Your theory in a very basic sense works out but only if you took the same sensor design, used the same processing engine, and just had more MP it would deteriorate like you said.
I mention processing because of Sony VS Nikon DSLR's using the same sensor and Nikon cameras will end up with much better performance. Just look at high ISO images from the D3x and the A900/850.