Right! He's saying that the internal processing of the image happens at 16-bits, but the final output happens at 12 or 14 bits. Apples and oranges. Computer geek speak about the speed at which things happen inside the camera's computer.
mshi wrote:
D700 can only allow you to choose either 12-bit or 14-bit RAW.
You are confusing image processing with output. Do a Google search for D700 16 bit image processing, or D300 16 bit image processing, or D3 16 bit image processing, or D300S 16 bit image processing. THIS IS NOT 16-bit RAW OUTPUT!!!!
Or maybe read about the D300s 16 bit image processing straight from Nikon...
pixelrandy wrote:
Right! He's saying that the internal processing of the image happens at 16-bits, but the final output happens at 12 or 14 bits. Apples and oranges. Computer geek speak about the speed at which things happen inside the camera's computer.
Nope! It's about processing speed. Just like there are 32-bit vs. 64 bit operating systems for Windows, etc. The camera is running a 16 bit processor. It's a speed measurement and has nothing to do with image quality.
Smiert Spionam wrote:
Given the stop lower of base ISO (plus another stop pull to ISO 50), it's a wash with the D700 (1/8000s @ ISO 200 = 1/4000 @ ISO 100). Not a big deal.
Not a HUGE deal, but it is a point of concern for some.
I wish I could shoot at ISO100 @ 1/8000 some times.
pixelrandy wrote:
Nope! It's about processing speed. Just like there are 32-bit vs. 64 bit operating systems for Windows, etc. The camera is running a 16 bit processor. It's a speed measurement and has nothing to do with image quality.
Or does it employ a 16-bit A/D converter whose word length is then re-sampled to 12 or 14 bits for output? In that case, it would affect quality in a positive way.
Frank_Maiello wrote:
Or does it employ a 16-bit A/D converter whose word length is then re-sampled to 12 or 14 bits for output? In that case, it would affect quality in a positive way.
It's will be the same as it has been for years. This is not news.
"Initial image capture data can be quickly and accurately transferred using 14-bit integrated A/D conversion. All successive internal processing is then handled at a full 16 bits."
jsv_20 wrote:
That's what I figure. My guess is 2200. Even at that price it's a great deal!
Nikon does not likely care about canibalisation - it likely cares about generating the most total profit, so if it takes a bit of sales away from the D800, but makes a whole lot more $$ on D600 and D800 sales combined it will do so. It will just have to calculate at what price for the D600 will be the optimum.
Besides, they are selling every D800 they can make at the moment, so if they get even more folks to get a D600 then all the better AND buy more of those expensive FX lenses . . .
The d600 might be an interesting camera, although not for the rumored 16bit, IMO. I wonder how many Nikon plans to make a month. The d800 has a max capacity of 30k a month, but according to Hogan and some other pundits, actual production numbers hover around 25k. I don't recall the numbers for the d800e or d4.
I'd be surprised if they planned for more than about 50k. I'd assume an initial rush where it might be hard to find for the first few months, but that won't last all that long. The d800 is pretty easy to find now, 5 months after launch.
The cannibalization comment is interesting. The d600 features can't compete with the d800 or the d800 sales will soon be dead. The low FPS and small buffer on the d800 might come back to bite them. The d800 would be a lot more appealing had it had higher FPS and buffer, which would also give it a cushion against the d600. The rumored feature list at Nikon Rumors states the d600 will have 5 FPS. So, the big feature differences that I can see is 36mp vs 24mp, pro AF vs 39 pt consumer AF and the pro body vs d7k style body, then the unknown price difference. I don't see a ton of price difference there. I certainly don't see a d600 $1500 price tag, as some have postulated. I'd guess a minimum of $2000 msrp, perhaps up to $2200.
That isn't all that of a big deal. The 5d2 is available for $1995 in several places, so Nikon can't be too far off of that, but they can't undercut it very much without blasting d800 sales. The MP difference probably won't mean much to many people if the prices are really far apart. So, I think the d600 announcement will be very interesting, especially if the rumored specs are on the mark.
Well I've been content with the D700 for over 4 yrs now. If Nikon really rolls this out with 24mp 16bit NEFs and a 100% VF(among the other specs), and below $2k, I'm definitely in.
Interesting camera specs for site. Now I'd just need to figure out whether to sale my D700 or D7000 and which to keep as my backup. Originally was thinking of selling the D7000 but may sale the D700 instead and have a great backup and still get good use of the two DX lenses I still own.
Of course this depends on the testing and what comes out as far as testing goes.
D800 was announced way back and still out of stock in a lot of places, the E you cannot get at all...so they announce a D600 in Sept when will it be readily available?
