New 10mp Nikon coming in 20 days

[beavo451]

I am very well aware of the different advantages and disadvantages to either format. What I am trying to clarify is that the 35mm format is not the holy grail as some would tout it. It is just simply another format. The APS size was born out of necessity and like it or not, is a viable, useful, and pratical format. I wish medium format was cheaper and more practical.

Cropping:
This is a useful technique that can be done in camera by the crop factor or in the computer. Sometimes it may be necessary as shown by the flying eagle example. But, with the advent of digital, it seems that it is a tool that is taken for granted. If you have a super high number of pixels, anybody can take a picture with a wide angle lens and crop specific parts for "brilliant" photos. If you get everything as perfect as can be in the camera, you have less work ahead of you in the darkroom (or computer).

Example: (don't read too deeply into this, you may miss the point)
I am a photographer that wants to shoot and print a 8"x10" photo of a bird 50 yards away. I have a large format, medium format, and 35mm camera with 100mm lens for each. For this job I would choose the 35mm camera because it has the longest "reach". Less work in the lab dealing with cropping and such. However, if I was to take a portrait at 10 yards away, then the large or medium format would be brought up to the plate.

The point is that each format is a tool. Ignoring cost, choosing the 35mm sensor over an APS sensor should be because you need what it offers, not because it is simply "better". By this logic, we should be using Hasselblad H2s because its sensor is "better". Notice that many landscape and wedding photographers use MF or 35mm sensor/film cameras. How many MF cameras do you see on the sidelines at a football game? Why is the EOS 1D (APS sensor) so popular for sports and not the 1Ds(35mm sensor)?

 

[Grimace]

How many MF cameras do you see on the sidelines at a football game? Why is the EOS 1D (APS sensor) so popular for sports and not the 1Ds(35mm sensor)?

I don't think they care about FF or crop frame, the 1D MII has a MUCH higher frame rate (8.5fps) than the 1Ds MII (4fps).

 

[beavo451]

I don't think they care about FF or crop frame, the 1D MII has a MUCH higher frame rate (8.5fps) than the 1Ds MII (4fps).

Then that begs the question why it isn't a 35mm 8MP sensor shooting at 8.5fps if 35mm sensors are so superior?

 

[Grimace]

Then that begs the question why it isn't a 35mm 8MP sensor shooting at 8.5fps if 35mm sensors are so superior?

It takes a much more rubust buffer to process a 16MP image than an 8MP image. That's why the 5D (12.8MP) has a max frame rate of 3fps and the 20D/30D (8.2MP) can both shoot at 5fps.

I believe that the 1Ds MII can go have a higher frame rate, but it takes the images around 8MP.

 

[Grimace]

The sensors themselves aren't superior -- they just allow for a greater surface area to spread out the pixels. P&S cameras have more noise and issues with low light because the sensors are smaller and the density is much higher. DSLRs with the same # of pixels as a P&S will not have as many issues with noise because of the improved pixel density (on a larger sensor). Full frame cameras again benefit from having a larger surface area for pixels. You can have more, without having to worry (as much) about extreme noise.

There are always ways to compensate for noise and cram more pixels into onto a tiny wafer, but a different solution is to up the size of the sensor to get around that issue.

 

[beavo451]

You did not answer my question.

I asked why is it not a 35mm sensor at 8MP at 8.5fps? I know 16MP is a ton of information to process, but the amount of information of information that needs to be processed should be the same, regardless of sensor size. So a 8MP 35mm sensor should have the same amount of data that a 8MP crop sensor records.

I think that the main reason is that they want to keep the crop sensor for more effective use of telephoto lenses. Canon themselves even promote the crop factor as a selling point on their website:

8.2 Megapixel CMOS Sensor with a convenient 1.3x lens conversion factor, combined with DIGIC II Image Processor for outstanding image quality.

Framing is natural because the sensor's 3:2 aspect ratio is the same as in 35mm cameras, and the sensor's large size realizes an effective angle of view that's just 1.3 times the focal length indicated on Canon EF lenses.

Yes the increased sensor size lowers pixel density and raises cost for a better image. Again, the implication is that the 35mm sensor is superior. However, I reiterate that it is not the be all sensor. It is simply another format with its uses as is the crop sensor.

 

[Grimace]

I think we're missing each other. I think we all agree that there is nothing about a 35mm sensor that is "better" or makes it more professional. It just so happens that those larger sensors can effectively hold more pixels so they are used in cameras targeted toward the pros.

 

[beavo451]

I think we're missing each other. I think we all agree that there is nothing about a 35mm sensor that is "better" or makes it more professional. It just so happens that those larger sensors can effectively hold more pixels so they are used in cameras targeted toward the pros.

Now that is a statement I can agree with!

It was an earlier post that implied more expensive cameras with 35mm sensors were "pro" cameras, ignoring the entire Nikon D2 and D1 series, that got me going. Different formats for different walks of life. Not because of "superiority".

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.

 

[ipacmm]

Here are some pictures of the new D80...

 

[ksz]

^^^^ Courtesy of Engadget who posted them a day ago.

 

[ipacmm]

I found that pic on another site but they are also in the engadget report.

 

[beavo451]

The SD Card sized cover is very interesting and hopefully not true! It will be very disappointing if this thing does not take CF cards.

 

[Grimace]

If Nikon prices this right, it could provide some real heat for Canon.

 

[Clix Pix]

Sure looks like an SD-sized card slot cover to me..... That would make sense if this camera is aimed at the audience who already has the D50 and who maybe wants to move up to something a bit more but which isn't really ready to plunk out big bucks for the D200, since the D50, which has been having a pretty successful run, uses the SD memory card....

 

[ksz]

But with prices falling and capacity and I/O speed increasing, I don't see any technical downside to the use of SD cards. People who've invested in stacks of CF cards may have a problem, but this cannot really be that big of a problem when all memory cards can just be 'emptied' onto a hard drive and used again. Thus, you only need to buy a couple of mid to large size cards. Pros may not agree, but the D80 is not for them.

 

[law guy]

Earlier, I wrote about the interesting situation set up with Sony becoming a final product supplier as well just an image chip supplier. (above somewhere in this thread) In that post, I wondered about Sony pricing below those it sells the same chips to, releasing products first, etc. and thought aloud that folks may still prefer Nikon given the system Nikon builds around the chip. So, I was surprised to learn that Sony builds the image processing systems for Nikon as well as the chips. What I don't know is what that entails - i.e. does Sony manufacture the color matrix metering technology for Nikon, for example.

At any rate - Popular Photography reviews the Sony Alpha this month - link below - and gushes about it. Reference is made in this article to the years of experience Sony has in manufacturing the image systems for Nikon.

Another write-up this month recommends the Alpha over the D200 for some users, noting the same chip and recommending that you could use the saved money to buy a used Minolta zoom on Ebay since the image stabilization is built right into the camera. It's all very interesting.

I'm looking on at all of this as a Canon shooter (former Nikon film SLR user), and so I watch with academic interest, but I do like the competition and the PopPhoto review is changing my mind that Sony wouldn't be much of an SLR impact. With statements like "it's the best DSLR in the price range" or something along those lines, the PopPhoto review may kick the buzz factor up a notch.

http://www.popphoto.com/cameras/2698/camera-test-sony-alpha-100-dslr.html

The first bit of the review:

"We used to have a lot of questions about Sony's takeover of Konica Minolta's camera division. Now, after running a full set of Certified Lab Tests and field tests of the new 10.2MP Sony Alpha 100 ($900, street, body only), only one question is left: How will Sony make enough of them to satisfy the demand for a camera that outperforms anything in its price range?

If you read our Hands On review (“Eclectic Shock,” August 2006), you already know that the A100 has a well-designed and well-built body, is fully compatible with all older Konica Minolta lenses, has built-in image stabilization, a dust-removal system, great image and metering controls, an eye-activated AF system, and a large 2.5-inch LCD. But here's what we know now:

The A100 provides the highest image quality of any DSLR for under $1,000—thanks, no doubt, to its 10.2MP (effective) CCD and Sony's years of experience making APS-format sensors and advanced image processing systems for Nikon, Pentax, and Konica Minolta DSLRs."

Tougher competition for the D80 than I had originally supposed -- esp. with all the extra tech, sensor cleaning system, eye activated AF, and the built in stabilization.

 

[Grimace]

The camera looks like a great competitor in the mid-range DSLR market. However, Sony will need to offer an impressive array of lenses if it really wants to compete with the likes of Canon and Nikon.

The two biggest features in my opinion: self-cleaning sensor system and on-body image stabilization.

 

[sjl]

The camera looks like a great competitor in the mid-range DSLR market. However, Sony will need to offer an impressive array of lenses if it really wants to compete with the likes of Canon and Nikon.

The two biggest features in my opinion: self-cleaning sensor system and on-body image stabilization.

At least Sony had the sense to support Compact Flash as well as Memory Stick. I swear, from a technical point of view, memory stick makes absolutely no sense to me whatsoever.

The lens lineup looks ok - not great, but ok. Where it falls down to my eye is in the "super telephoto" lens category - their longest lens is a 500mm f/8. Putting that aside, they also have a 300mm f/2.8, and a 70-200mm f/2.8, both of which appear (I'm guessing here, with the "G" at the end of their name) to have a fluorite or equivalent element in them. The 70-200mm is the only fast zoom, though (everything else is f/3.5 or f/4.5 at the wide end). The prime lineup seems pretty reasonable, if a little sparse in speed options at some lengths. All in all, I'd want to wait and see some reviews of the lens quality before passing judgement; it wouldn't surprise me to see them expand their range over time to fill in those gaps.

I'll grant you that most consumers won't need anything longer than 300mm, and starter photographers might not be concerned about the lack of fast zooms, but all the same, I'd be a little wary about recommending them ... for now.

If I were buying, and I had no tie to Canon (I've had a Canon EOS 30 for nigh on four years now, which is why I got the 20D), I might be taking a "wait and see" approach before making a move. (Well, putting aside my general disdain for Sony as a company, that is. )

 

[ScubaDuc]

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.

Well, the fixation is caused by having started to shoot pics before digital was ever around. I have about 15 Nikkor lenses, ranging from a 20 mm to a 500 mm reflex. Bellows, focusing rings, intervallometer and all that stuff that makes my F3 and F2 a superior camera system. I don't see the same choice in APS format yet in term of lenses....especially for fixed focus lenses and to me, zooms are and will always be inferior to a fixed focus telelens

 

[Abstract]

Sony's lenses are still way too expensive considering how they don't have built-in image stabalization/vibration reduction, which beats in-camera image stabalization. Yes, they have a 70-200 mm f/2.8, but at the same price as Nikon and Canon's offerings, and they don't offer IS.

 

[-hh]

But with prices falling and capacity and I/O speed increasing, I don't see any technical downside to the use of SD cards.

You're right: its not a technical downside. The downside is purely financial, from a "sunk investment" standpoint.

People who've invested in stacks of CF cards may have a problem, but this cannot really be that big of a problem when all memory cards can just be 'emptied' onto a hard drive and used again. Thus, you only need to buy a couple of mid to large size cards.

Actually, its the opposite: if they were consumables like batteries, then the change in format isn't that big of a deal. So its a problem for the very reason that they are "infinitely reusable".

For example, I now have roughly 10GB worth of higher speed CF cards. Even with the crashing in prices, at $50 per GB, this is $500 worth of sunk costs in durables that I'm looking at obsoleting because of a change from CF to SD. If I had my druthers, I'd rather put that money into something else, such as glass.

If you think about it, the format of the Flash Media is simply another hardware interface characteristic, not unlike the lens mount. And just like lens mounts, until high speed media becomes really, really cheap (like 1/5th of today's prices), it is going to influence consumer buying decisions.

For example, I've already been looking around at replacing our P&S digital and the move to SD is pretty much fait d'accompli. As such, I'll probably buy a discontinued model from someplace -- because this allows me to retain commonality of Media format between all of our digital cameras, which I consider to be a valued asset, just like lens interchangability.


-hh

 

[JonMaker]

For example, I now have roughly 10GB worth of higher speed CF cards. Even with the crashing in prices, at $50 per GB, this is $500 worth of sunk costs in durables that I'm looking at obsoleting because of a change from CF to SD. If I had my druthers, I'd rather put that money into something else, such as glass.

This is very true if SD and CF are technically equal media. If they are, then yes, it is stupid to make the switch to SD. However, if SD is superior in some way, it is progress.

Thus, the real question here is "How does SD compare to CF?" or "How will they compare to each other in a year?"

 

[Grimace]

This is very true if SD and CF are technically equal media. If they are, then yes, it is stupid to make the switch to SD. However, if SD is superior in some way, it is progress.

Thus, the real question here is "How does SD compare to CF?" or "How will they compare to each other in a year?"

I've always wondered the same, and for some reason assumed CF was superior because it was the recording method in most professional cameras. Anyone got some comparisons in performance and reliability?

 

[law guy]

DP Review posts Sony Alpha review - What to expect from D80

DP Review has posted it's review of the the Alpha 100 MP DSLR by Sony. Given that the sensor chips are supplied by Sony and this body appears to share the same sensor chip that Sony is supplying to Nikon for the upcoming D80, this review may provide some insights.

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/sonydslra100/page30.asp

The Alpha uses CF type I and II, and like all Canon DSLRs and the Nikons from D200 and up, allows for RAW + JPEG Fine shooting (D70s, D50 allow only RAW + JPEG Basic).

 

[-hh]

(RE: Question of 'how does SD compare to CF?')

I've always wondered the same, and for some reason assumed CF was superior because it was the recording method in most professional cameras. Anyone got some comparisons in performance and reliability?

IIRC...

...CF is an older physical format than SD

...CF has fewer proprietary strings attached (I'm pretty sure); this helps imrpove competition, which means lower prices.

...CD has interface pins (on the device) that can get bent; SD doesn't.

...CF is physically larger, so regardless of how small memory chips get, it will always be able to fit "more" than SD.


-hh