Is Nikon about to announce a swag of new stuff? :)

[arthurking83]

They've just announced the update to the SB900 .. the SB910

New flash .. and no new cameras .... yet!

[kiwi]

New lens rumoured too, 85 1.8 af-s

[arthurking83]

New lens rumoured too, 85 1.8 af-s

I'm wondering if this rumour has specified as to whether it's to be a Dx lens? :p

[kiwi]

Is the 50 1.8g dx only ? Would be based on that design I suspect

[James02]

Can they actually supply anything with the factories down?

James

[kiwi]

That's delayed the D4 and D800 without doubt

"apparently" they have shot the Chase Jarvis commercial for the D800 and the D4 is supposed to be released in Feb.

I dunno :confused013

[knumbnutz]

I would love to see something new but ..... fff I got a D700 and it works so well I am not sure how they could improve the camera side - just maybe add video.
I really can't say a bad word about it. Maybe shrink it to K5 size but thats desperate to find any reason.

They have other factories that develop the product and all the pro gear is done out of Japan. I dont think any of the camera/electronics companies faired well.
So glad for nikon that Nikon1 (made in china near Shanghai) is doing well, at least they'll have some turnover.
I think they will add capacity to the China factory as well because of the disasters in Thailand.

I dont think it will take long for the factories to get running again, the longest part is human training which hopefully is manned by the same people, machines wont take long to replace.

[Xebadir]

Interesting post on NR:
http://nikonrumors.com/2011/12/11/nikon-d4-specs-16-2mp-11-fps-102400-native-iso-xqd-memory-card.aspx/

The Key Numbers being mentioned on the D4:
16.2 MP
11 fps
100-102,400 native ISO range, expandable to 50 and 204,800
CF + XQD memory card slots
Improved video thought to be on par with whatever will be for the D800.

Thom Hogan also has some interesting thoughts on this, perhaps a sign that Nikon realises most pros don't care about (and don't need more MP), while for the average enthusiast it seems to be a pressing interest. He points out that alot of this may be the failure in composition from the more amateur camera user, resulting in a need for cropping (not a bad assumption really). This might explain the D4/D800 difference...perhaps the D800 is based on something closer to the D3x to not canabilize the D4 sales (A cheaper D3s style sensor would probably succeed at that). For my mind, a little extra MP and improved ISO, and as others have dreamt video would be enough :P.

[kiwi]

Yip, I see them making the D800 a studio and landscape style camera - (slow fps, high MP, high DR, lower ISO capability) and the D4 a sport/action/pj style pro all purpose body (high fps, medium mp, high iso, fast AF, rugged etc)

[arthurking83]

That'll push the price of the D800 too high, and well above the Canon 5D series.
Nikon need to have a competitor to the 5D in terms of price, and even if it doesn't compete on a pixel based race, if it delivers cleaner high ISO performance with better colour rendition then it'll succeed.

It seems that at this end of town, cleaner high ISO and comparable price is the key.
I'm sure Nikon know this, and will set the specs accordingly.

If they need a high megapixel camera for studio work, they'll probably have a 4Dx in the works too.

This formula seems to have worked over he past 3 years so far and there's no reason to believe it's not going to work in the future too.

[Lance B]

Interesting post on NR:
http://nikonrumors.com/2011/12/11/nikon-d4-specs-16-2mp-11-fps-102400-native-iso-xqd-memory-card.aspx/

The Key Numbers being mentioned on the D4:
16.2 MP
11 fps
100-102,400 native ISO range, expandable to 50 and 204,800
CF + XQD memory card slots
Improved video thought to be on par with whatever will be for the D800.

Thom Hogan also has some interesting thoughts on this, perhaps a sign that Nikon realises most pros don't care about (and don't need more MP), while for the average enthusiast it seems to be a pressing interest. He points out that alot of this may be the failure in composition from the more amateur camera user, resulting in a need for cropping (not a bad assumption really). This might explain the D4/D800 difference...perhaps the D800 is based on something closer to the D3x to not canabilize the D4 sales (A cheaper D3s style sensor would probably succeed at that). For my mind, a little extra MP and improved ISO, and as others have dreamt video would be enough :P.

I'd have to say that Thom Hogan's broad brush statement about pro's not requiring more MP's but amateurs do is a little ill informed. If the D800 does indeed come out with 36Mp, it means that people like me, who do alot of birding will, will not require an APS C (DX) camera as a crop sensor camera in order to get "reach". The D800 with 36Mp has the same pixel density as the D7000 and therefore there is no benefit in using it over cropping or using a TC on the D800. Take landscape photogs, they would love to have more resolution with a 36Mp camera. Even pro's need to crop at times to get the best composition, just look at sports photogs. I mean, to say that pro's get it right in the camera every time and therefore don't need cropping is just plain ludicrous.

The fact is, if the D4 is "only" 16.2Mp and the D800 is 36Mp, means more that one, the D4, will be a low light camera and the other, the D800, a high resolution camera and nothing more should be read into it, not one for amatuers and one for pros, as that is just a ludicrous statement for him to make. I'll bet more pro's buy the D800 than amatuers!!

[bgolds99]

I'm not sold on the 36mp spec of the D800. Seems so weird for Nikon to do this, as it doesnt follow in the footsteps of the D700 at all. As mentioned above, the D700 is a direct compet. with 5DMKII, so you'd expect the follow up to be in that same category. The 36mp sensor and the subsequent (probable) poor low light ability just doesnt seem to make sense. They sound more like the specs for the D4x.

[Lance B]

I'm not sold on the 36mp spec of the D800. Seems so weird for Nikon to do this, as it doesnt follow in the footsteps of the D700 at all. As mentioned above, the D700 is a direct compet. with 5DMKII, so you'd expect the follow up to be in that same category. The 36mp sensor and the subsequent (probable) poor low light ability just doesnt seem to make sense. They sound more like the specs for the D4x.

Whilst I do agree that it is a big jump and not the logical step for the D700 to be 36Mp, I am not quite in agreeance with your belief that there will be probable poor low light performance as the pixel density is the same as that of the D7000 and it has excellent low light ability. Therefore the low light performance of the D800 with 36Mp will be at least as good as that from the D7000 and I venture that it will be a stop better anyway due to better algorithms etc.

As you say, 36Mp does sound more like a D4x type camera due to the fact that the current D3x has more than the D700 and to extrapolate that to the next model line up would mean that if the D800 has 36Mp, then the D4x would hvae to have 48Mp! :eek:

However, I guess it depends on what Nikon is trying to accomplish with these models. A D800 type camera without built in battery grip a la D3x is certainly going to make pro/semi pro/advanced amateurs very happy as an all round smaller camera, whereas they may want to market a D4x with lower pixel count for even higher low light ability and more for the pro due to this.

I would dispute the idea that the D700 is a direct competitor to the 5D MkII as it is only a competitor as far as price is concerned, not overall usege. The D700 has better AF and better high ISO performance, whereas the 5D MkII has higher pixel count for supposedly better resolution and cropping ability.

[bgolds99]

Yeah Lance, i agree with you. I should have been a little clearer. I didn't really mean "poor" low light ability... more so just a step backwards in low light ability compared to the D700, which the D7000 is, a very small step backwards in clean sensitivity (as far as ive read anyway). Either way i look forward to seeing what comes in the next month or two.

[swifty]

From my understanding, for a given sensor size with respect to noise, there's no disadvantage to having a high MP count compared to low MP given the same tech (quantum efficiency of sensor) when you normalize the final picture to the same size print. On a pixel level, yes you would have less noise on the low MP version but with regards to the image as a whole, it's the sensor size and underlying tech that matters. Of course on a high MP sensor there may be more supporting electronics reducing the light collect
ing area.
But anyhow with that in mind I believe the main reasons for the 16-18MP rumored for the D4 is workflow, not noise. So FPS, write/read speed, post capture workflow etc. I've said b4 that I think the D4 and 1DX will be very similarly specced because of the target audience and the battle lines will be how each camera performs within those specs.

I mean if they both get new AF systems, do we really care how many AF points it ends up having? Whatever the number, it's enough (on these pro cameras) but how well it performs (lock speed, track speed, accuracy, low light/low contrast situations) etc. and their spread across the frame are more important. That's why the on-sensor PDAF shown in the Nikon 1 series is so exciting. It's suppose to track equally fast but less accurate than a D3s. But whether that'll make it's way into a D4's a different story. But maybe a D4'll have a hybrid VF, who knows.
But I think the D4's rumored specs are believable.
Less believable is the D800 rumored specs but I'm gonna back it too.

[arthurking83]

From my understanding, for a given sensor size with respect to noise, there's no disadvantage to having a high MP count compared to low MP given the same tech (quantum efficiency of sensor) when you normalize the final picture to the same size print. On a pixel level, yes you would have less noise on the low MP version but with regards to the image as a whole, it's the sensor size and underlying tech that matters. Of course on a high MP sensor there may be more supporting electronics reducing the light collect
ing area.......

From what I've seen and read of the comparisons of printed or displayed images set to the same size, captured at high ISO values from both the D3/D3s compared to the D3x, the colour of the D3/s images are far superior.
That is, images at full res 100% pixel view from the D3/s still look superior in terms of faithful colour reproduction compared to the downscaled images from the D3x.
The lower ability to capture the true colour available in the scene lets down the higher Mp sensor.
It's not just about the noise level. It's true that in comparison to each other on a pure SNR ratio, they're probably not much different.

The other side of the argument is that where a lower res sensor allows you (say) 204k ISO, the higher res sensor may top out at say 25K ISO.
Those extra 3 stops of light gathering power are .. well .. lets say, handy to have ;)

Another side issue of the problem of higher Mp numbers is of course diffraction.
if they don't stop this insane onward march of outdoing each other, at some point in the next few model generations, just about all cameras will be diffraction limited to f/2.8 .. and even more seriously f/1.4. This will be great news for the lens makers as there will be a stampede of the hoards to purchase expensive f/1.4 lenses, but what happens beyond this point??
The next stop in diffraction limitation will be something like f/1.2(of which there are very few Nikon lenses available, and past this point, we get into seriously silly levels of limitation of f/0.95, and larger.

it's already a well known fact that most of those super high res small sensor compacts have breached diffraction limitation points, and are simply not resolving any real detail onto their sensors.
The pixel densities of the sensors are currently diffraction limited past f/2.8, and most of the lens designs are f/3.5 and slower.
It's a tribute to the camera's firmware engineers that they can program the image processing ability of the cameras to render any useful detail when viewed at 100%.
So it begs the question ... if the detail isn't real, and is a process of guesswork on the part of a software engineer.. what's the point of having all those pixels in the first place?

I'd prefer to see Nikon cease this pointless exercise before it gets to the level it has in P&S circles and concentrate on better, more accurate data collecting power from lower density sensors and under more demanding conditions.(oh! and video too :D)

[swifty]

From what I've seen and read of the comparisons of printed or displayed images set to the same size, captured at high ISO values from both the D3/D3s compared to the D3x, the colour of the D3/s images are far superior.
That is, images at full res 100% pixel view from the D3/s still look superior in terms of faithful colour reproduction compared to the downscaled images from the D3x.
The lower ability to capture the true colour available in the scene lets down the higher Mp sensor.
It's not just about the noise level. It's true that in comparison to each other on a pure SNR ratio, they're probably not much different.


No arguments from me there. But I did say same sensor tech and the Sony 24MP in the D3x is clearly optimised for different things to the Nikon 12MP in the D3/D3s.
A fairer example would be Sony's 16MP DX sensor eg. NEX-5n vs their 24MP DX sensor NEX-7. Those appear to be same generation Sony DX sensors and the 5n has better per pixel noise characteristics but when normalised for the same size print, there's no meaningful difference.
What I'm unsure about is whether having the larger pixel pitch makes the pixels hold up better to manipulation. Ie. how quick the image breaks down when heavily processed. I still need to research this further.



The other side of the argument is that where a lower res sensor allows you (say) 204k ISO, the higher res sensor may top out at say 25K ISO.
Those extra 3 stops of light gathering power are .. well .. lets say, handy to have ;)

Yes. Agreed with current sensors. Although read noise is always improving and in he future, there may not be much discrepancy compared to analogue amplification. The Sony 16mp eg. in the D7000, NEX-5n etc. already has very low read noise.




Another side issue of the problem of higher Mp numbers is of course diffraction.
if they don't stop this insane onward march of outdoing each other, at some point in the next few model generations, just about all cameras will be diffraction limited to f/2.8 .. and even more seriously f/1.4. This will be great news for the lens makers as there will be a stampede of the hoards to purchase expensive f/1.4 lenses, but what happens beyond this point??
The next stop in diffraction limitation will be something like f/1.2(of which there are very few Nikon lenses available, and past this point, we get into seriously silly levels of limitation of f/0.95, and larger.

it's already a well known fact that most of those super high res small sensor compacts have breached diffraction limitation points, and are simply not resolving any real detail onto their sensors.
The pixel densities of the sensors are currently diffraction limited past f/2.8, and most of the lens designs are f/3.5 and slower.
It's a tribute to the camera's firmware engineers that they can program the image processing ability of the cameras to render any useful detail when viewed at 100%.
So it begs the question ... if the detail isn't real, and is a process of guesswork on the part of a software engineer.. what's the point of having all those pixels in the first place?

I'd prefer to see Nikon cease this pointless exercise before it gets to the level it has in P&S circles and concentrate on better, more accurate data collecting power from lower density sensors and under more demanding conditions.(oh! and video too :D)

Again, no arguments here. But even with diffraction, you always get better resolution with more of it. Its just that there's diminishing returns. There's also deconvolution software for diffraction too which can only improve.

I believe the bigger challenge to achieving greater resolution as MP increase is shot discipline.

[swifty]

Yeah Lance, i agree with you. I should have been a little clearer. I didn't really mean "poor" low light ability... more so just a step backwards in low light ability compared to the D700, which the D7000 is, a very small step backwards in clean sensitivity (as far as ive read anyway). Either way i look forward to seeing what comes in the next month or two.

I don't know for sure but from what I've read, a D7000 DX sensors if its able to be upscaled to FX will provide better noise characteristics than the D700, again when normalised for the same sized print, not per pixel.
Just as an experiment, lets take a DX sensor which is a little smaller than half FX.
So if someone has both a D7000 and D700, they can try this.
Take, say a 50mm FX lens. Mount it on a D700, take a shot in landscape orientation with high ISO setting.
Now take the same lens and mount it on a D7000 and from the same postion take the same 2 shots in portrait orientation, side by side with same exposure settings. If you stitched the D7000 shots together you should get a image slightly smaller (but comparable) to the D700 shot.
Now print both at the same print size, at least from the theory I've read the two D7000 shots stitched together should yield better noise characteristics.