New 10mp Nikon coming in 20 days

[Abstract]

Well I think the camera body of the D200....with all the settings where they are......is like a dream for me. Its an expensive dream, but it's still a dream. If this new Nikon costs less, and offers a similar body but with a slightly fewer manual controls available on the body, and lacking in some areas like continuous shooting performance, I'd love to have this new camera. I don't need it right now, but I regularly wish I had some more manual controls on the body itself rather than through the menu, which just takes too long.

 

[-hh]

strange timing. sony just released their A100, 10MP, $899. if they had released/announced the nikon 3 weeks earlier they could have taken away many customers from sony...

As Chip said, not necessarily so.


Because of the Osborne Effect, most vendors don't generally like to pre-announce new products. However, they will do so when they believe that it helps them by "freezing" sales of a competitor's newest arrival until they're able to bring theirs to market.

"Coming in 20 days" is short enough that those waffling the Nikon-Sony fence will tend to wait for more details on the Nikon before committing.

And that's in Nikon's favor. Hence, the tease.


-hh

 

[law guy]

So it seems the Alpha, the D200 and the new Nikon will all have the same CCD. http://www.dpreview.com/articles/sonydslra100/ It's interesting to see how Sony will do as Nikon CCD supplier and SLR competitor - will conflicts arise, will Sony intregrate and release products using the same sensors ahead of Nikon going forward, will Sony to Sony pricing be significant over resale to manufacturers like Nikon? If I were in that camp, I'd rather have Nikon's color matrix metering II and all of the excellent features that Nikon has wrapped around the Sony CCDs, and I imagine that the installed Nikon base will likely feel the same way. That said, the position of both chip supplier and direct final product competitor is interesting - perhaps something like Intel making PCs.

I'm most intrigued to see what happens this fall with Canon and whether the 12 mp full frame sensor will drop from the mid-2000s to high $1000s with a price drop on the 30D and something like a 5Dn in the mid-2s with the FF and weather sealing - but that might get it to close to the 1 series... speculations that will come to nothing, but it will be interesting to see what happens.

 

[ScubaDuc]

So it seems the Alpha, the D200 and the new Nikon will all have the same CCD. http://www.dpreview.com/articles/sonydslra100/ It's interesting to see how Sony will do as Nikon CCD supplier and SLR competitor - will conflicts arise,

Sad...not a native 24x36 mm then.... I hope the new body will offer the same (minimal) support for Nikon's legacy equipment like the D200 does. I love my AI lenses and I am not willing to give them up..

 

[Abstract]

http://www.dpreview.com/articles/sonydslra100/ It's interesting to see how Sony will do as Nikon CCD supplier and SLR competitor - will conflicts arise, will Sony intregrate and release products using the same sensors ahead of Nikon going forward, will Sony to Sony pricing be significant over resale to manufacturers like Nikon? If I were in that camp, I'd rather have Nikon's color matrix metering II and all of the excellent features that Nikon has wrapped around the Sony CCDs, and I imagine that the installed Nikon base will likely feel the same way. That said, the position of both chip supplier and direct final product competitor is interesting - perhaps something like Intel making PCs.

Yeah, I was worried about the exact same thing. I don't think it would be crazy for Sony to just cut them off from their newest CCD and/or CMOS sensors and eliminate the 2nd largest seller of DSLRs altogether.

 

[andiwm2003]

Sad...not a native 24x36 mm then.... I hope the new body will offer the same (minimal) support for Nikon's legacy equipment like the D200 does. I love my AI lenses and I am not willing to give them up..

while 24x36mm would be a good sensor it would also be very expensive. the body would be larger and the lenses would be more expensive. not to speak of people who own dslr lenses. their lenses for APS-sized chips can't be used on full frame cameras.

the sony a100 and the new nikon seemed to be targeted to the consumer. in that case the smaller sensor makes perfectly sense. my guess is that in the long run we will have two sensor sizes: aps for consumers, full frame for pro's. it will be interesting to see however what people do with their lenses when they move from APS sized chips to pro type cameras with full frame bodies.

 

[beavo451]

aps for consumers, full frame for pro's. it will be interesting to see however what people do with their lenses when they move from APS sized chips to pro type cameras with full frame bodies.

I don't like the 35mm size. Too expensive. Plus, I like shooting at telephoto lengths, so the crop factor gives me extra reach.

Judging from the 18-200 lens release, Nikon has more or less dedicated themselves to the APS size for the next few years. It is doubtful that they will release a camera with a 35mm size sensor anytime in the near future.

 

[ksz]

...it will be interesting to see however what people do with their lenses when they move from APS sized chips to pro type cameras with full frame bodies.

While I'm not sure that FF is the answer particularly when reductions in size and weight are typical indications of progress, I'm nevertheless keeping my DX lens collection to a bare minimum. I have only the Tokina 12-24 f/4 and the Nikkor 18-200 f/3.5-5.6. All others are full frame lenses. Given a choice I will buy full frame lenses not only because they'll work with my F100, but also because existing sensor technologies may not be good enough to cram more resolution into the DX size without continuing to compromise on noise and dynamic range. Perhaps Nikon will consider a FF dSLR, perhaps they won't, but until they make some definitive statement I will keep my DX collection extremely small.

 

[andiwm2003]

I don't like the 35mm size. Too expensive. Plus, I like shooting at telephoto lengths, so the crop factor gives me extra reach.

Judging from the 18-200 lens release, Nikon has more or less dedicated themselves to the APS size for the next few years. It is doubtful that they will release a camera with a 35mm size sensor anytime in the near future.

i see myself as a consumer type and therefore i plan for aps size cameras and lenses for the next years. it's certainly good enough for my skills and needs.

however i think there is considerable pressure for nikon to release a full frame camers for their pro's. many of them certainly have the lenses. and for marketing reasons it's always good to have a "flagship". has nikon any full frame cameras as of now?

anyway, how is the dslr market structured? do the companies make most of the money with the pro's (counting also the lenses and accessoires they buy) or is it more from the high numbers of consumers?

 

[REDSRT4]

that is just insane i wonder how long till canon follows

 

[beavo451]

i see myself as a consumer type and therefore i plan for aps size cameras and lenses for the next years. it's certainly good enough for my skills and needs.

however i think there is considerable pressure for nikon to release a full frame camers for their pro's. many of them certainly have the lenses. and for marketing reasons it's always good to have a "flagship". has nikon any full frame cameras as of now?

anyway, how is the dslr market structured? do the companies make most of the money with the pro's (counting also the lenses and accessoires they buy) or is it more from the high numbers of consumers?

Nikon's flagship is the D2X(s) followed by the D2Hs. Both are APS size sensors. Both are used by pros and non-pros. What is this fixation that a 35mm size sensor = pro? If I were to judge on sensor format, I would argue anything below medium format is consumer. APS size, 35mm size, medium format, large format, etc. are all just formats. Each has their own strengths and weaknesses. If you were shooting a sporting event (gold, racing, football, etc.) The crop factor would give you extra reach. If you shoot landscapes, 35mm size will give you the wideangle capabilities and extra resolution. Portraits and weddings? Those can be done by any of the above.

 

[andiwm2003]

............................................... What is this fixation that a 35mm size sensor = pro? .....................................

umm....a few thousand dollar price difference? an average consumer can only afford APS i would think.

that of course doesn't mean that APS is consumer only.

but the APS cameras interesting to pro's have additional features that the cheaper APS DSLR's don't have (e.g. flash sync speed, faster speed).

 

[Grimace]

Nikon's flagship is the D2X(s) followed by the D2Hs. Both are APS size sensors. Both are used by pros and non-pros. What is this fixation that a 35mm size sensor = pro?

Eventually, you can only cram so many pixels onto a chip. A larger chip allows more pixels without making them ridiculously dense (ie. the high noise in low light for P&S cameras.)

Looking far forward, I don't see a way to get 20MP onto a APS size sensor without significantly increasing noise.

 

[beavo451]

umm....a few thousand dollar price difference? an average consumer can only afford APS i would think.

that of course doesn't mean that APS is consumer only.

but the APS cameras interesting to pro's have additional features that the cheaper APS DSLR's don't have (e.g. flash sync speed, faster speed).

Expensive equipment does not dictate whether or not somebody is a professional. I have seen pros use a D70. Some National Geographic photos are taken by the D70. Interestingly enough, the flash sync speed is natively higher on the D50 and D70 than on the D2 series. The D50 has the second best high ISO performance out of the Nikon line. Features and specs are not as directly related to "pro-ness" or price as you would think.

There are plenty of consumers that use the Canon 5D and are not professionals.

Eventually, you can only cram so many pixels onto a chip. A larger chip allows more pixels without making them ridiculously dense (ie. the high noise in low light for P&S cameras.)

Looking far forward, I don't see a way to get 20MP onto a APS size sensor without significantly increasing noise.

The old Kodak digital SLRs have a significant amount more noise than the D2X and those were only around 1 MP. Technology is always evoloving. If you need so many megapixels, then yes you would logically need a larger sensor. Hasselblad makes a nice 39MP camera for around $30,000. Why would you want 20 MP?

 

[law guy]

while 24x36mm would be a good sensor it would also be very expensive. the body would be larger and the lenses would be more expensive.

The 5D is FF and not that large - a tiny bit bigger than a 20D / 30D - with the $300 rebate that was offered from Canon this summer, it was around $2600 off the $2900 price. Now, $2600 isn't cheap, but it's not bad. http://www.usa.canon.com/consumer/controller?act=ModelDetailAct&fcategoryid=139&modelid=11933

Look at the progression - before last year, in the Canon line you'd have had to spend almost $7000 for a Full Frame 1 series. http://www.usa.canon.com/consumer/controller?act=ModelDetailAct&fcategoryid=139&modelid=10598 That price dropped by more than half with the 12.8 MP FF 5D. http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/con...s&Q=&sku=435694&is=REG&addedTroughType=search Canon controls their chip R&D and production. Now that they've developed the 12MP FF chip for the 5D (the 1Ds Mk II is a different 16.7 MP FF chip) and are selling it for $2600, I wonder if it's a year or so until we see Canon FF chips in bodies for $1500.

I'm thrilled with my 30D so I'm in a good position to see how the prices fall over the next few years.

 

[andiwm2003]

......................................
Look at the progression - before last year, in the Canon line you'd have had to spend almost $7000 for a Full Frame 1 series. ........................................... Now that they've developed the 12MP FF chip for the 5D (the 1Ds Mk II is a different 16.7 MP FF chip) and are selling it for $2600, I wonder if it's a year or so until we see Canon FF chips in bodies for $1500.

I'm thrilled with my 30D so I'm in a good position to see how the prices fall over the next few years.

wow, that means we get entry level DSLR's with good APS sensors for 300-400 bucks soon then. only lenses won't get cheaper.

it's good times. the dual core chips get faster and cheaper, the cameras get cheaper and photoshop elements comes free with a wacom tablet

 

[sjl]

I don't like the 35mm size. Too expensive. Plus, I like shooting at telephoto lengths, so the crop factor gives me extra reach.

I have to disagree somewhat with this statement. Yes, 35mm sensors are expensive. I would have loved to have bought a 5D, but I couldn't justify the extra cost over the 20D that I did buy. But to say that the crop factor gives you extra reach is a bit disingenuous - you can just as easily take the shot on a full frame sensor and crop later on. You don't lose anything by doing that (I think that the resolution of the 5D is about 1.6 times that of the 20D, so the "cropped" resolution would be the same), and you gain the extra resolution when you don't need that extra reach.

For me, the APS sensor is a price compromise, nothing more. I'm comfortable with it, but had a full frame sensor been the same price, I almost certainly would have gone the full frame route.

 

[law guy]

I have to disagree somewhat with this statement. Yes, 35mm sensors are expensive. I would have loved to have bought a 5D, but I couldn't justify the extra cost over the 20D that I did buy. But to say that the crop factor gives you extra reach is a bit disingenuous - you can just as easily take the shot on a full frame sensor and crop later on. You don't lose anything by doing that (I think that the resolution of the 5D is about 1.6 times that of the 20D, so the "cropped" resolution would be the same), and you gain the extra resolution when you don't need that extra reach.

For me, the APS sensor is a price compromise, nothing more. I'm comfortable with it, but had a full frame sensor been the same price, I almost certainly would have gone the full frame route.

Yes, the crop is often referred to as if folks think they're getting extra "zoom" out of it when in reality all it is, is a crop - i.e. a smaller field of view. That is a bird in a frame taken with a 1.3, 1.5 or 1.6 (etc.) crop is going to be the same size at 100mm as that same bird taken with a 1x sensor at that same focal length. Due to the crop, the bird will fill more of the frame and so seem bigger. But you can layer a FF over the crop and the bird is the same size - what you'll get with the FF in that shot is more of the surrounding captured.

Luminous has a good primer on the subject from a few years back - http://www.luminous-landscape.com/tutorials/understanding-series/dslr-mag.shtml

 

[beavo451]

Yes, the crop is often referred to as if folks think they're getting extra "zoom" out of it when in reality all it is, is a crop - i.e. a smaller field of view. That is a bird in a frame taken with a 1.3, 1.5 or 1.6 (etc.) crop is going to be the same size at 100mm as that same bird taken with a 1x sensor at that same focal length. Due to the crop, the bird will fill more of the frame and so seem bigger. But you can layer a FF over the crop and the bird is the same size - what you'll get with the FF in that shot is more of the surrounding captured.

Luminous has a good primer on the subject from a few years back - http://www.luminous-landscape.com/tutorials/understanding-series/dslr-mag.shtml

What does it matter that it is just a crop? Say you have a 12MP 5D and a 12MP D2X. Both have a 200mm lens on it and I am taking a picture of the bird. Afterwards, I crop on the 5D image so that the bird is the same size as the D2X image. So now I have two images that are the same, except the D2X image is higher resolution. Which would you prefer? This is provided that the lens' resolving power is sufficient for the above test.

 

[sjl]

What does it matter that it is just a crop? Say you have a 12MP 5D and a 12MP D2X. Both have a 200mm lens on it and I am taking a picture of the bird. Afterwards, I crop on the 5D image so that the bird is the same size as the D2X image. So now I have two images that are the same, except the D2X image is higher resolution. Which would you prefer? This is provided that the lens' resolving power is sufficient for the above test.

All else being equal? Hard to judge. It depends on how noisy the two sensors are. The D2X sensor has to have smaller 'pixels' compared to the 5D -- that's obvious, because it's the same resolution in a smaller area. As the pixel size shrinks, so does the noise problem rise.

In other words, it's not an apples to apples comparison. Yes, the D2X image is higher resolution. Doesn't matter (at least, not as much as the untrained individual might think). The quality of the pixels can be just as important, and that's a much harder question to judge; the lens isn't the only variable in this equation.

A better comparison might be to shoot the same image on the D2X and the 5D, adjusting the zoom so that the bird fills the same proportion of the sensor on both cameras. In that situation, I'd expect the 5D to be a better image (assuming top quality glass on both bodies).

 

[beavo451]

All else being equal? Hard to judge. It depends on how noisy the two sensors are. The D2X sensor has to have smaller 'pixels' compared to the 5D -- that's obvious, because it's the same resolution in a smaller area. As the pixel size shrinks, so does the noise problem rise.

In other words, it's not an apples to apples comparison. Yes, the D2X image is higher resolution. Doesn't matter (at least, not as much as the untrained individual might think). The quality of the pixels can be just as important, and that's a much harder question to judge; the lens isn't the only variable in this equation.

A better comparison might be to shoot the same image on the D2X and the 5D, adjusting the zoom so that the bird fills the same proportion of the sensor on both cameras. In that situation, I'd expect the 5D to be a better image (assuming top quality glass on both bodies).

Yes all other things being equal. I think the mentality that 35mm sensor size is far superior to the APS sensor is way too overblown. The point of the example was to illustrate that I would much rather frame the image in the camera itself than crop away at it on the computer.

The APS size may originally have been a price/cost result, however it has evolved into a viable format. If you look at the history of the 35mm size, it was reagarded as a poor photographic format. The reason why it is 35mm is because motion picture cameras used 35mm film and it was readily available. This was when LF and MF ruled the world. As you can see 35mm won in popularity over the years.

 

[Abstract]

What does it matter that it is just a crop? Say you have a 12MP 5D and a 12MP D2X. Both have a 200mm lens on it and I am taking a picture of the bird.

But with FF, he's saying that you'll be able to cram extra pixels on that thing, so if you put a 200 mm lens on a 16 MP Canon full frame, and on a 10 MP Nikon camera, you only get more distance because of the crop. If you took the same photo with the Canon, you'd get the bird and surroundings that you wouldn't get on a crop camera.

To be more precise, if you took an APS sized sensor, and a full frame 35 mm sensor, and the pixel density on both sensors was the same, you're getting the same image using both sensors, but just that one is cropped. You could make the full frame photo look absolutely identical to the image taken with the smaller APS sized sensor simply by cropping the photo. They'd even have the same number of pixels.

 

[beavo451]

But with FF, he's saying that you'll be able to cram extra pixels on that thing, so if you put a 200 mm lens on a 16 MP Canon full frame, and on a 10 MP Nikon camera, you only get more distance because of the crop. If you took the same photo with the Canon, you'd get the bird and surroundings that you wouldn't get on a crop camera.

To be more precise, if you took an APS sized sensor, and a full frame 35 mm sensor, and the pixel density on both sensors was the same, you're getting the same image using both sensors, but just that one is cropped. You could make the full frame photo look absolutely identical to the image taken with the smaller APS sized sensor simply by cropping the photo. They'd even have the same number of pixels.

So if I wanted the extra stuff surrounding the birds, why don't I step back or use a shorter focal length? Typically, you would frame your photo as to how you want it in camera. I very rarely shoot a picture with the mentality that I will crop it in the computer.

Speaking of smaller formats, going from MF to 35mm would be considered a crop as well.

 

[sjl]

Yes all other things being equal. I think the mentality that 35mm sensor size is far superior to the APS sensor is way too overblown.

Far superior? No, I'd agree that it's not. Superior, though? Definitely. Putting aside cost of manufacture for the moment, as Abstract says, you'll cram more pixels into a 35mm sensor than you can with an APS sensor for a given pixel density (and pixel quality). That then gives you the power to decide what to do with those pixels.

The point of the example was to illustrate that I would much rather frame the image in the camera itself than crop away at it on the computer.

Nothing wrong with that. But the point is straightforward: with a full frame sensor, you have the choice of cropping or not. With an APS sensor, the cropping has already been done; you can't regain the cropped portions of the image. There are also subtle differences in depth of field and so on. (These become more obvious when you move to medium and large format.)

It comes down to what you want to photograph, and what compromises you are (and aren't) prepared to make along the way. All else being equal, I would prefer to have the full frame sensor over the APS sensor. That doesn't mean I'm unhappy with my 20D - far from it! - just that I'd rather have the extra field of view out of my lenses, and the option of cropping down.

Just don't call it "extra reach", because realistically, it isn't. It is a crop factor which gives the end result the impression of being shot with a longer lens; sometimes that's a useful thing (wildlife photography springs to mind); other times it's not (wide angle photography being the most obvious).

 

[sjl]

So if I wanted the extra stuff surrounding the birds, why don't I step back or use a shorter focal length? Typically, you would frame your photo as to how you want it in camera. I very rarely shoot a picture with the mentality that I will crop it in the computer.

You must have posted this while I was composing my reply. There are two reasons why APS sensors are cheaper than full frame sensors: yield (they're smaller, so there's a lower likelihood of defects in production); and the perception (right or wrong) that a full frame body is professional grade.

Over time, the yield issue becomes less of a concern. This is where the advantage of a 35mm sensor kicks in: it's easier to produce a sensor with a given number of pixels, because they'll be less dense on the sensor, with a corresponding reduction in noise and so on. A friend of mine who shoots with a 5D reckons that, for a given framing, it would whomp all over the D2X, for just that reason (I cannot judge, given that I don't have access to a D2X, nor to good quality glass for it ... I also don't have the experience necessary to do such tests properly).

People see the crop factor as an advantage for long-distance shooting, and it can be. But it's not a deal breaker because, even if you can't quite frame the shot as you want with the lens out as long as it will go, you can always crop the shot that little bit in post production. Professionals do that all the time. Try tracking a bird in flight with the framing set to fill the shot with the bird. You're not going to get the shot; you're better off to pull back a bit and crop the shot later on, because that makes it easier to get the entire body of the bird in the shot - which is the most important thing. At that point, the resolution of the sensor becomes important, which then gets back to the size and pixel density of the sensor.

The only time you'll get the framing spot on when you take the shot is when you have the time to compose everything properly. Even then, you'll be using a zoom lens, which immediately introduces a drop in image quality (remember that primes are always going to be better quality, and cheaper, than equivalent zooms), unless you're really lucky.

As I said: it's all about what you want to shoot, and what tradeoffs you want to make whilst doing it.