Avi B wrote:
I However, if it is 18MP, expect it to contend against MF digital backs.
You expect a 24x36mm 18 MP sensor to "contend against" a 48x36mm 39 MP camera? Twice the resolving area and more than twice the pixel resolution? (and also twice the price if not more) They are really in different orbits -- I wouldn't be so quick to talk about them in the same sentence. The Nikon and Canon pro bodies compete with them only because they're more versatile and less expensive, but let's not forget exactly how big these MF sensors are (and they're all smaller than true film medium format still).
If I were Nikon or Canon, I really wouldn't be worried about the digital MF market share anyway, because the market for these digital MF devices is pretty small. In fact, if they want to have a presence in the MF world, they should be making their own digital MF backs compatible with RZ67s, Hassy 500s, Bronicas, etc, in order to undersell the likes of Imacon, Phase One, etc. That is how they can answer the MF challenge, which will only increase if the MF backs begin to stabilize in price.
DrPablo wrote:
You expect a 24x36mm 18 MP sensor to "contend against" a 48x36mm 39 MP camera? Twice the resolving area and more than twice the pixel resolution? (and also twice the price if not more)
That is exactly what a lot of people think and is exactly why a few people want the d3x to be a 22MP+ camera. Right or wrong, they believe that it will help them compete in that market for landscapes, stock photos, studio, etc. The few real proponents of this uber MP cam stand to save a ton of money, if nikon would produce such an animal, even at $8k. Not only would they not have to spend $30k on a real MF body, they could use their existing glass. That's what they seem to believe, anyway.
"Normal" people would be much better served with a FF camera that was in the 12 to 16mp range, that had very superior high ISO performance. Even so, it will be out of the reach of many working pros. A 10mp d3h DX, coupled with a 12mp high ISO d3f, would comprise a serious set of tools for sports, events, weddings, etc. Still, the FF version would likely be $1000 to $1500 higher than the DX version of a d3h.
That price would still be out of reach for the vast majority of the market. There's a significant reason that serious amateurs and lots of pros buy the d200, rather than the d2x or d2h.
The vast majority of FF advocates, don't want to pay more than what the d200 costs, which is wishful thinking, emotional based, rather than logical, pragmatic market analysis.
My prediction is that the d3, if FF at 22mp +, replacing the d2x instead of augmenting it, will be another d2h fiasco, especially if they don't market a viable d3h very soon. Prestige and bragging rights don't often put money in the bank anywhere near as quickly or efficiently as products that are well designed for their primary market.
I took issue with Avi's point not so much because the numbers are what they are, but because it sort of misses a number of different factors.
First, resolution really isn't everything. Sad that we still have to tell ourselves this, but it's true. I shoot 6x6 MF, and both 4x5 and 8x10 LF. And honestly, resolution is one of the least important advantages of these larger formats. Larger formats have advantages that are entirely independent of resolution (tiny enlargement factor, incredibly smooth gradations of tone and color, almost complete absence of grain, and with LF free camera movements for perspective and focus control).
So these uber-resolution D3X and 1Ds Mark II type cameras are meant to approach the resolution and enlargeability of MF, but the idea is not to match it -- it's to approach it in a more versatile, lightweight, and affordable package.
You're absolutely right that 12-16 megapixel full frame cameras will produce more than enough resolution even for wide angle landscapes (which really scream for resolution). If you need to routinely make extreme enlargements, then the answer does not lie in the difference between 22 and 12 megapixels. You either need a larger format, or you need to learn how to make these daunting 100-image stitches.
Mert wrote:
- Full Frame (no 1.1 crap) - DX mode at 1.5x - High Speed Crop - VERY fast
What did I tell you guys sooo many times ~ I'm glad I was that right, which means, it's time for me to allocate a certain budget for this camera ~ if it has positive reviews about it ...but I hope this D3 report is true ~ if it is, then, thanks Nikon for reading a few of my email requests to the R&D engineering department
Mert, thanks for posting, below is not anything about you, but my take on the guy who posted on photo.net.
Nikon, Canon, Olympus don't do "Pre-announcements" like this. If they are going to have a seminar 1 week before the release, then first you have to register the people going from your store. You can't "get" accreditation from someone. Its organised weeks in advance. If something like this was on, you would have heard about it much earlier.
Second, if they do this, then its so that the dealers know what the camera is about. They show the camera, let you hold it, talk about it. They don't wrap it in gaffer tape.
You know what.... I've got to ask because I'm a cynical bitch.... a 45 minute seminar, and he couldn't remember the FPS.... what kind of attention span does this guy have?
To not know the FPS is the dumbest thing I've ever heard. Hands up anyone who can tell me the FPS for the D40. Oh what about the D200. Hang on, the D2X... in crop mode. What about the Canon 1D MK III.
Ok, if it happens , great. We'll see.... AND I'll be having words with MY Nikon rep.
DrPablo wrote:
You expect a 24x36mm 18 MP sensor to "contend against" a 48x36mm 39 MP camera? Twice the resolving area and more than twice the pixel resolution?
Twice the resolution of an 18 MP sensor would be 72 MP not 36.
I guess all we can do is wait for that announcement. Funny about all this. Just a few days ago an army of Nikon users were thinking of jumping because of a new Canon camera.....then this.....time to eat words..... Lets get real, if you are a newsgatherer you need a reliable camera that can always deliver the goods, not just the latest and greatest. Case in point:
r_o_b_s_o_n wrote:
on that note.... do you think Nikon would ever delve into HD video?? Imagine being able to shoot HD Vid with a 105 f2!!!
All nice to think about. But out of all the HD equipment and even most half inch chip SD camcorders, my littel PD170 is the one that gets used in the critical situations. I had to tape one of my gang turning himself into the police at twelve thirty in the morning and follow him to the entrance and keep the tape rolling incase anything happened. I could not do this with a big light on him as HD would need as it would bring a bunch of officers asking me questions. The rig worked and you can see for yourself (9MB)
Just what does this mean for the Nikon, simply that the latest is never the best for proven equipment you can rely on. My camera has been dropped and cracked part of the casing and did not have to be serviced and the picutre is as perfect as it always is. I tape dark club events and really at least two thirds would need extra lighting with HD, so that is still not an option yet and that is my reality..... This aging model camcorder is still used in Iraq as it has since day one and is the prefered camcorder there.
I can't see the emotional response to a new Nikon from folk who make their living in imaging, don't you want something that has at least a little track record before you buy. Or are you dudes (and dudettes) simply gear freaks that like to fool around with new technology.....
36 is twice as many pixels ... but one needs four times as many to print twice as big.
-- I'd love to see a real breakthrough. A D3h which is FF and 6-8 megapixels. Iso 6400 like iso 1000 on the D2h now, and 12 fps. I don't shoot long bursts but I sure need two or three tighter together than 8 pfs gives you. Oh and give up true 16 bit raw files.
That rumor is really starting to seem suspect. That guy is a liar for sure, I fear. Nikon giving a demo three days before a surprise release? Are we desperate to believe in the tooth fairy?
- these thread are fun - tons of fun because it's more productive than shooting pictures, which are full of disappointment due to our inadequate gear - but if it happens to be that Nikon has a coolpix up it's sleeve it will feel like we got cheated - despite the fact that we fabricated all of this out of air and lies. It will feel like a brick wall at forty mph. Splat! Ouch! Grrr!
Stupid Nikon! They deceived us! They are no good!
Fatguy, we are gear freaks. More filling less taste. I mean shooting photographs is overrated and sometimes they don't come out the way the brochures showed that they would.
And besides what else would the chicks dig us for if not those large zooms?
I'm a little suspect about both stories coming from this LA guy and Nikonians man in Japan. One says it'll be called a D3 the other says most likely D3H. One says 35mm format the other says 1.1 and both claim their sources are Nikon.
Heck we haven't even seen them launch their Brittney Spears marketing campaign yet. You know, the 'Oops-I-did-it-again-and-published-the-web-site-too-soon' type of thing they usually do. But then again maybe we just witnessed a new marketing approach. Get some joe of the street that can't keep a secret to pump the hype on a blog. Maybe the guy has some truth to his words. I guess we'll find out soon enough. Only one more sleep.
Pavel wrote:
-- I'd love to see a real breakthrough. A D3h which is FF and 6-8 megapixels. Iso 6400 like iso 1000 on the D2h now, and 12 fps. I don't shoot long bursts but I sure need two or three tighter together than 8 pfs gives you. Oh and give up true 16 bit raw files.
Well, while we're dreaming, I'd love to see a REAL breakthrough, not just a puny, incremental change like you suggest.
I want a d3h FF 1mp that has ISO 51200 that looks like ISO 50 shot in daylight, 64bit files, 18 stops of dynamic range and 100fps. That would save a ton of money on CF cards, cuz I could get 1000 shots on those old 1gig CF cards I've got. Don't need any more than 1mp, cuz FF is MAGIC!!!
I mean, really, the Kodaks proved that, didn't they?
On one hand, you have people talking about $8k cameras like they've got a money tree in their yard. OTOH, other people are expecting nikon to produce a 16mp ISO 6400 FF camera for $800 and they want it NOW!!!!
I can't wait to see all the whining and complaining that will go on, if nikon ever does produce a FF camera.....
This FF madness has gone so far over the top that I'm beginning to wonder if there is anyone left on the web that still has a fully charged battery....
Osai wrote:
Twice the resolution of an 18 MP sensor would be 72 MP not 36.
Fine.
You expect a 24x36mm 18 MP sensor to "contend against" a 48x36 39 MP camera? Twice the resolving area and more than twice the pixel count?
On a 48x36mm sensor, your enlargement factor would be 50% for any given output size compared with "full frame". So to make an 11x14 inch print would require an 8-fold enlargement from the 48x36 sensor, but it would require a 12-fold enlargement from the "full frame" sensor. To keep this print sharp to the human eye (i.e. resolution of about 8 lpm from a 1 foot viewing distance) would require a 64 lpm system resolution from the MF body and a 96 lpm system resolution from the full frame body. That would be easily achievable for the MF camera, and it would be a lifelong goal for the FF camera.
This is exactly why a moderate resolution film on my Hasselblad simply destroys even fine resolution films on my 35mm -- and why a digital MF camera doesn't have to match the pixel count per unit area of a small format camera.
DrPablo wrote:
I agree with everything you've written, Kerry.
I took issue with Avi's point not so much because the numbers are what they are, but because it sort of misses a number of different factors.
...
So these uber-resolution D3X and 1Ds Mark II type cameras are meant to approach the resolution and enlargeability of MF, but the idea is not to match it -- it's to approach it in a more versatile, lightweight, and affordable package.
Well doc, my point was actually this, it's just I perhaps didn't elucidate it that well... You put it much more succintly. This is what I meant by contend with. No one said one has to match them.
In some people's mind, the resolution of these types of camera (D3/1Ds) does approach MF resolution sufficiently in a much more versatile package. Thus this camera would "contend" with MF for a segment of the market that thinks that MF is too expensive, but figure that 18-22MP is now outresolving 35mm film, and that's plenty good enough. They are what I think of as the "fence-sitters" on MF. Granted, this market is vanishingly small, but it is there.
You must recognize that a lot of people's purchases are not driven by the kinds of facts you point out, but by perception and emotion, as Kerry pointed out. Example: Why do kids buy Civics and then mod them to go almost as fast as a Porsche or BMW Z3? It's because for less money, they get what they perceive as similar performance. We can sit here and talk about how those top-end cars still have better performance (which includes speed, but is not limited to it) to the modded Civics, but that doesn't change the perception of that particular market does it?
grmedhat1 wrote:
I'm a little suspect about both stories coming from this LA guy and Nikonians man in Japan. One says it'll be called a D3 the other says most likely D3H. One says 35mm format the other says 1.1 and both claim their sources are Nikon.
Heck we haven't even seen them launch their Brittney Spears marketing campaign yet. You know, the 'Oops-I-did-it-again-and-published-the-web-site-too-soon' type of thing they usually do. But then again maybe we just witnessed a new marketing approach. Get some joe of the street that can't keep a secret to pump the hype on a blog. Maybe the guy has some truth to his words. I guess we'll find out soon enough. Only one more sleep. ...Show more →
I think I will start a thread about this on Monday morning. I want to see how many people are truly disappointed with either 1. the announcement or 2. the lack thereof.
Years from now, people will be wanting old D70s camera bodies because they finally realize that, now because they cannot find any, they were a lot of fun to walk around with and to take photographs.
...but I hope this D3 report is true 
~ if it is, then, thanks Nikon for reading a few of my email requests to the R&D engineering department 
Lets get real, if you are a newsgatherer you need a reliable camera that can always deliver the goods, not just the latest and greatest. Case in point: