d40x is coming out.

[compuwar]

Dang! That looks really, really nice! Hopefully Pentax will come out with a full frame DSLR soon. I'm so jealous of all those 5D (and soon to be D3) users!

They announced a digital version of the Pentax 645, that should be full frame enough for anyone not shooting LF.

 

[Abstract]

Dang! That looks really, really nice! Hopefully Pentax will come out with a full frame DSLR soon. I'm so jealous of all those 5D (and soon to be D3) users!

That image is from China. Sorry, I don't trust Chinese people, including myself.

I'm aware, and certainly not trying to bash Nikon, I like its products a lot. There are only so many pixels you can cram onto a crop sensor. Even with noise-reduction technology - eventually you'll need to go to something bigger unless something really new comes along.

Well other camera manufacturers seem to be doing fine with their 10 MP sensors. So does Nikon with their D80 and D200.

Nikon probably went for a 10 MP sensor in the D40x because they're now buying these sensors in such high quantities that surely they're saving a boatload of cash.

 

[job]

yeah, how about a larger sensor with larger pixels, not just more noisy pixels.

As others have mentioned, the D40X uses the sensor from the D80, so it's unlikely that the "more megapixels on the same size sensor=more noise" argument is valid.

 

[Silentwave]

Not only that, but Thom Hogan has already stated that the word he's heard on the D40x is that it's even cleaner than the D80.


The d3 image is a well known, old fake.

Nikon is known for its ergonomics. They aren't stupid enough to make something looking like that.

 

[tibbon]

Decent Ergonomics start with the D80

I have a D200, which I've had for a few months now, but I can't get over how HORRID many of the lower Nikon cameras feel.

I was at Best Buy or CompUsa recently and was getting a few memory cards and picked up their D40 and D70. Everything feels so cheap and plastic. I've had $200 film cameras feel better. Hell a Pentax K1000 from back in the day feels more sturdy and has a better button feel and layout. Maybe it's fine for people that are just transferring from a P&S (which is their target market) but I couldn't deal with not having a wheel for aperture and one for the shutter speed. No field of depth preview on the D40 kills it for me as well.

In addition, they just feel like crap. I understand using plastic (hell the D200 is a workout to carry with a SB-600 on the top, and a vertical grip on the bottom), but the lower Nikons just feel wrong.

The D80 seems to get it right (plastic, but well layed out, etc...).

It's cool that Nikon is putting out a cheaper VR lens, but it seems like it would be a pain in the ass to me. I personally don't think that 3.5-5.6 is high enough of an aperture for many things for me (even with VR concert/nightclub photography needs me to pull out the 50 f/1.8). Going up to f/4.5 would be really annoying. Plus starting at 55mm for the zoom seems like an awkward place. It would be fine for film, but for a crop camera starting at around 30mm would be a lot more useful. I'd rather see a 30-170mm lens than a 55-200.

I don't like that Nikon is focusing more and more on the cheaper stuff. I do think that at some point it would be nice if they put out a full-frame sensor, or even ventured into medium format. Just as an option. They obviously go for very specific markets Nikon does (D2H anyone?), and if anything I thought that something liek the D2h showed that Nikon cared more about what the users really needed than just Megapixels. I'm hoping that they are just putting the 10mp sensors inthe D40s just because they can get them cheaper.

The downside is that most people (even if they don't need it) will use the 10mp photos, but just tear up memorycards and hard drive space for no real reason, if all they intend to do is print 4x5's or load them online.

 

[compuwar]

I don't like that Nikon is focusing more and more on the cheaper stuff. I do think that at some point it would be nice if they put out a full-frame sensor, or even ventured into medium format. Just as an option. They obviously go for very specific markets Nikon does (D2H anyone?), and if anything I thought that something liek the D2h showed that Nikon cared more about what the users really needed than just Megapixels. I'm hoping that they are just putting the 10mp sensors inthe D40s just because they can get them cheaper.

I still don't get how people don't see it. Nikon *has* to focus on the largest growing segment if they're to capitalize anywhere else in the market. The fact that they've basically ripped a significant part of Canon's market share in the DSLR market *and* that the market is still growing is telling them that they're focusing on the right part of the market.

The D3 series camera has apparently been in pre-production for over a year. That's probably indicative of them deciding at some point early last year to re-do the engineering because of something either very wrong or very promising in R&D. The D3 will be on the market when it's ready- no sooner, no later.

Nikon and Canon have both been really good about providing photographers with great tools, and upping the ante each revision.

Heck, even the BetterLight 4x5 backs aren't "full frame" for that format, that doesn't mean they don't produce better output than most photographers are capable of taking advantage of most of the time.

Medium format doesn't make sense at all for Nikon. They're out of the process lens game- not much else they make has coverage. It's a shrinking market, where the R&D and production ramping costs for a body, lens mount, line of lenses and accessories really aren't worth it for a new player that tries to get into the "digital back for an existing camera" game, let alone a camera manufacturer.

Rumore is that at least one of the D3 series bodies will have either full frame or a 1.1 crop factor. We'll have to wait and see- neither Nikon or Canon telegraph their moves.

It's a given that their camera division revenues, market share and growth are attributable to the low-end consumer DSLR space as much as anything though- that's a good long-term strategy if those customers have a good experience.

 

[Grimace]

Just to defend myself a little I wasn't saying that the D40x would be crap because it was jamming more pixels. I wasn't saying that Nikon is crap or Canon is crap or crop sensors are crap.

Sooner or later (1 year, 3 years?) the sensor sizes will need to grow. Noise-reduction technology is not keeping up at quite the same pace as the MP war. Given that a "ceasefire" is not likely, Canon may have the upper hand because of higher MPS headroom in its larger full frame sensors.

 

[compuwar]

Just to defend myself a little I wasn't saying that the D40x would be crap because it was jamming more pixels. I wasn't saying that Nikon is crap or Canon is crap or crop sensors are crap.

Sooner or later (1 year, 3 years?) the sensor sizes will need to grow. Noise-reduction technology is not keeping up at quite the same pace as the MP war. Given that a "ceasefire" is not likely, Canon may have the upper hand because of higher MPS headroom in its larger full frame sensors.

Your premise assumes that amps won't get cleaner and that NR technology won't be "good enough" for most people. I think that's not true, I doubt "most people" often shoot above ISO400. Given that both Canon and Nikon can now produce acceptable results at 1600-3200, and that eventually wider aperture DX lenses will solve the problem for the subset that needs the problem solved (at a price premium for those willing to pay it) I can't see the manufacturers giving up a higher number of sensors for the raw materials in the long run.

FWIW, your argument was made about film and grain a long time ago, we just got film with a better RMS.

 

[carbonmotion]

im glad the only decision i have to make is a d40 or a d40x.... probably another d40 when the drop the price on that.

 

[Abstract]

I have a D200, which I've had for a few months now, but I can't get over how HORRID many of the lower Nikon cameras feel.

I was at Best Buy or CompUsa recently and was getting a few memory cards and picked up their D40 and D70. Everything feels so cheap and plastic. I've had $200 film cameras feel better. Hell a Pentax K1000 from back in the day feels more sturdy and has a better button feel and layout.

If you think the D40 (and the D70?!!?) feels like crap, wait until you get your hands on a low end Canon.

I think Pentax makes the best low end bodies (not talking about the sensor, although Nikon does a better job at processing even if they're using the same sensor as someone else), but the Nikons are definitely not as cheap-feeling as some other brands.

 

[job]

It's cool that Nikon is putting out a cheaper VR lens, but it seems like it would be a pain in the ass to me. I personally don't think that 3.5-5.6 is high enough of an aperture for many things for me (even with VR concert/nightclub photography needs me to pull out the 50 f/1.8). Going up to f/4.5 would be really annoying. Plus starting at 55mm for the zoom seems like an awkward place. It would be fine for film, but for a crop camera starting at around 30mm would be a lot more useful. I'd rather see a 30-170mm lens than a 55-200.

I don't think the target market for the D40/D40x is going to pull out their D40 and 55-200mm lens in the middle of a concert or nightclub. I'd venture a guess that the majority of the people who would purchase a D40 would be more interested in having a good time at the event than getting a really good picture.

I think the new zoom fits quite nicely with the already decent kit lens that ships with the D40/D40x. For just about a grand you can pick up the D40x kit (18-55mm) and the new 55-200mm VR. It's a pretty good deal for casual photographers. People just getting into dSLRs will have a lightweight and relatively fast camera setup without breaking the bank.

I don't like that Nikon is focusing more and more on the cheaper stuff.

They have to go where the money is, and these days with more and more people getting into dSLR photography, getting a casual photographer hooked into the Nikkor lens system with the D40 is a perfect way to start. Porsche had to stray from their roots by building the Cayenne, but it turned into such a cash cow that it allowed them to continue building high-end 911s like the GT3RS. I get the feeling that Nikon's doing the same thing with the D40. I've got a 35mm Canon SLR and I'm wanting to go digital, but the features on the D80 are definitely overkill for my purposes. I'm the target market for the D40/D40x and with the new VR zoom, it makes a very attractive package.

The downside is that most people (even if they don't need it) will use the 10mp photos, but just tear up memorycards and hard drive space for no real reason, if all they intend to do is print 4x5's or load them online.

How about if I plan on printing 8.5x11's?

 

[compuwar]

How about if I plan on printing 8.5x11's?

6MP was enough

 

[ChrisA]

I am a bit surprised that Nikon decided to update their D40 that fast, I mean the thing hasn't been out for more than 6 months, and they are already replacing it? That seems like something Canon would do.

The D40 is a consumer camera. Not really aimed at serious photographers. That target market knows just one thing about camers "megapixels" and little else. You have to give people what they want.

Talk to your average D40 buyer about electrons per ADU or MTF graphs and you get no where fast, they under "mega pixels" or at least think they do. If they were more informed they'd want an in-body focus motor.

That said, if you want low noise rather then higher pixel count you can always down sample the 10MP file to the size yuo need. Down sampling is a great noise reducer. It is really the same as using fewer large pixels

 

[job]

The D40 is a consumer camera. Not really aimed at serious photographers. That target market knows just one thing about camers "megapixels" and little else. You have to give people what they want.

I'd have to agree with you for the most part, but the D40x seems like a decent body for someone who is looking to augment their primary D80/D200 when out shooting.

 

[tibbon]

I do realize why Nikon is focusing immediately on the low end stuff, but I was just saying I don't like it. Hopefully we will reap the benefits eventually similar to the Porsche example. I'd just have felt better if it was the other way around (that they focused on their high end products, and THEN on their low end products, the way Apple used to)

And yea, the low end Canons feel like hell too. The D80 and up actually feel "like cameras" to me. Anything below that, while they can be great cameras and you can take great photos with them, just feel like a McDonald's toy.

Then again, I thought just about every office chair on the market felt like poop and would fall apart, so I bought a Herman Miller Aeron.

 

[miloblithe]

Not everyone has a limitless budget for everything.

 

[tibbon]

Not everyone has a limitless budget for everything.

I'd say this is true for a consumer, but for a professional who needs something that can hold up, the difference between a $400 body and a $1400 body is pretty minimal over a year of professional gigs. Even only getting paid occasionally that's a small difference in your overall businessplan.

I'm not rich by any means, but to "get started" with a decent setup cost me around 4,000USD. That's nothing to start a business, seeing that you can recoop that in a single wedding if you're lucky/good. I was working recently help some guy get a tiny 50 seat theatre off the ground and he had dropped over 40K i think before he got a single patron through the door. Ditto with a recording studio that I helped start (although that time it was 60K to get it running).

But I totally agree that for the average consumer, or for a student, hobbiest, etc... that it's a significant difference. If i buy myself a video camera it's going to be whatever is $400. I'd be using it just for fun, and so i can see that side of things (and why i'd not be getting a 3CCD HD camera, or a 35mm camera).