This is all just speculation... but I think that it makes sense...
If Nikon ever want to bring back a 'full frame' sensor then they would have to do something to appease the masses who have bought DX lenses over the last few years, therefore I predict that the next generation Nikon Pro DSLR will be a 21 Megapixel, full frame DSLR with a 14 Megapixel DX crop mode which will automatically engage when users fit a DX lens.
OK, OK ... I was bored and my brain drifted a bit.....
it would be nice for FF, but my 12-24 and 10.5 are just fine for me. Wide enough... But the more I think about it. It would be nice to throw my 24 2.8 or 35 2 on and get a true 35 or 24 when doing weddings. I would probably not use the D3 for sports much since my 70-200 would feel short compared to when it is on my 1.5x crop.
Kerry Pierce wrote:
Can you predict the lotto and the stock market too? I'd be really interested in that.
As to the "masses" being appeased, my prediction is that no FF sensor will do, especially a high MP sensor, simply because of cost/benefit.
Actually, the benefit would be significant. The area of a frame of 35mm film is 2.25 x the area of the APS-C size DX sensor. This means that at the same pixel density of a D2X you would have 27 MP (!!!), and at the same density of a D200 it would be 22.5 MP. So if the sensor had less pixel density than that you would end up with greater dynamic range, greater sensitivity at high ISO, and of course, full wide angle coverage for all of your non-DX lenses.
There is no question that it would be a significant advantage. Whether it's in a D3 model, or some other future camera remains to be seen. People would (and do) choose the 35 mm sensor size for the same reason as people used to choose medium format. The advantage to the larger digital sensor would be that your lenses would still work - given that the DX format already meets or exceeds the expectation of 35 mm photographers, the 35 mm sensor will (and does) go beyond that level.
Kerry Pierce wrote:
Can you predict the lotto and the stock market too? I'd be really interested in that.
I have been trying for years....
Hey - I have a number of DX lenses and love them on my D2x, I just think that something like this ' prediction' is one way for Nikon to go back to a 35mm size sensor. As far as I am concerned, I dont really care what the sensor size s as long as I can take photographs at a quality that my clients go WOW for
Alan Louie wrote:
Whew.. 21 mp.. my computer (dual core Athelon 2200, 3gb ram, w/ Raptor 10,000 rpm hd) gets bogged down with 12 mp files.
Buying that camera would necessitate me investing in a beowulf cluster to batch anything
It would be back down to the film days when shooting a couple dozen shots is a lot!
Not sure that this would be a bad thing...
I sometimes wonder what's happening to the quality of our photographic vision if we shoot hundreds (or thousands) of shots and then just pick the best ones.
I have no problems processing my D200 files on my Centrino Dual Core 2GHz laptop. Even my AMD 64 3700+ laptop is fine. I'm sure that I could get by even if the file size were doubled. Ideally, though, I think it would be nice to see a compromise between added pixel density and pixel size. I'm not sure we really need much more than 12 - 16 MP. I really think that the pixel size on the D200 and D2x is AT the limit (or just a bit beyond, even). I sincerely believe that going any smaller would compromise image quality in terms of high sensitivity detail and dynamic range.
I suspect that the market will drive us to greater pixel density, however. We'll see.
Gerald
Feb 06, 2007 at 11:33 AM
Andre Labonte Offline • • • • • • Upload & Sell: Off
My prediction (i.e. speculation which is worth the paper it is written on, as most speculation are )
A D3H first with a DX sensor that will be somewhere between 8-12MP and provides 8fps.
A D3X second with a 35mm format sensor and a DX HSC. It will be between 16-24MP which means the DX HSC will be 8-12MP. FPS = 3-5 for 35mm format and 6-8 for DX format.
Disclaimer: There is a 33% chance that Nikon will not develope a 35mm sensor and a 33% chance that Nikon will develop a 3rd model of pro body that is full time 35mm format leaving both the D3H and D3X as DX format cams.
chemprof wrote:
Actually, the benefit would be significant.
As is the cost. That's the part of the equation that doesn't get to the "masses"
I understand and agree with most of what you said. I don't agree that the masses will care about that, especially when considering the price. Very few people need or will pay the premium for a high MP sensor. Excepting for landscapes, I see little need for anything beyond what the d200 or d2x deliver. The prices of both of these sized sensors will continue to fall. With that comes the cost/benefit that I mentioned.
We are at the point now, where the vast majority of people's needs are being served with current offerings. Witness the volume sales of the d80/d50, etc. FF cameras will only be a small niche market, just as demonstrated by the canon models of today.
Would I like to have a 5d? Sure, it's a very nice camera. It is certainly useful for low light application, but it's not so useful that I'm willing to pay the price for it. The same would apply to any similar nikon. Would I like to have a 20+ MP camera for landscapes? Sure, but FF may not be necessary for that, as is demonstrated by the d2x/1dsmkII comparisons, especially when you look at the cost differences. Regardless, neither model is likely to be a camera for the masses. You only need to view the comparative sales figures for the d200/d80 vs the 5d or the d2x vs 1dsmkII, to figure that out.
At some point, unless you have unlimited funds, good enough really is good enough.
Kerry Pierce wrote:
As is the cost. That's the part of the equation that doesn't get to the "masses"
I understand and agree with most of what you said. I don't agree that the masses will care about that, especially when considering the price. Very few people need or will pay the premium for a high MP sensor. Excepting for landscapes, I see little need for anything beyond what the d200 or d2x deliver. The prices of both of these sized sensors will continue to fall. With that comes the cost/benefit that I mentioned.
We are at the point now, where the vast majority of people's needs are being served with current offerings. Witness the volume sales of the d80/d50, etc. FF cameras will only be a small niche market, just as demonstrated by the canon models of today.
Would I like to have a 5d? Sure, it's a very nice camera. It is certainly useful for low light application, but it's not so useful that I'm willing to pay the price for it. The same would apply to any similar nikon. Would I like to have a 20+ MP camera for landscapes? Sure, but FF may not be necessary for that, as is demonstrated by the d2x/1dsmkII comparisons, especially when you look at the cost differences. Regardless, neither model is likely to be a camera for the masses. You only need to view the comparative sales figures for the d200/d80 vs the 5d or the d2x vs 1dsmkII, to figure that out.
At some point, unless you have unlimited funds, good enough really is good enough.
I think we are in full agreement, here. As I said in my earlier post, the APS-C is really as good as or better in most respects than 35 mm film is at its very best (and it's MUCH better at higher ISO).
So, I consider the difference to be like between 35 and medium format. Many people (including myself) never upgraded to MF due to the added cost and the complete change in systems necessary. There is a point of diminishing returns as well, depending on the use of the images.
chemprof wrote:
I think we are in full agreement, here.
Yes, I think so.
As I said in my earlier post, the APS-C is really as good as or better in most respects than 35 mm film is at its very best (and it's MUCH better at higher ISO).
So, I consider the difference to be like between 35 and medium format. Many people (including myself) never upgraded to MF due to the added cost and the complete change in systems necessary. There is a point of diminishing returns as well, depending on the use of the images.
Gerald
My concern with the higher MP bodies, whether FF or not, is that it seems very likely to me, that we've already passed into the area of diminishing returns.
Some people think that they want a 20+ MP sensor. I don't think that will work well at all, if DX sized. Unless the pixel density doesn't increase over what we currently have, it won't work as well as FF either, as what we have now, because of diffraction issues and noise. Seems like a lot of expense, for little gain, to this fellow.
Here's what I want to see: A significant price drop in sensor technology will lead to the ability to cost-effectively produce a square CCD that reaches all the way to the corners of the full frame lenses. This size will push 20+MP. Instead of worrying about vertical grips and flipping the camera for a portrait shot, you just push a "portrait" button or turn a jog dial and the camera automatically energizes the proper regions of the sensor for the chosen orientation while blacking out parts of the viewfinder, ala D2X. BTW this would effectively terminate the need for bulky flash brackets! With this system, you could select a Hasselblad style square frame for maximum resolution, a 4x5 style frame for the wedding and portrait guys, classic 2:3 ratio for whoever wants it, even panoramic. As mentioned earlier, by using a full frame you get the best the DX and FF worlds, as the camera could automatically detect a DX lens, thus downsizing the resolution and cropping in for a 1.5x focal magnifier. Although I don't own one, I believe the D2X is already utilizing some of this technology in its high-speed crop mode, am I right?
The possibilities are endless: down res for faster shooting (no more X vs. H), throw in the Fuji style dynamic range boosting pixels, super-tele 3x mode, etc.
Also, those of you who are happy with your 12-24mm f/4 lenses should consider the benefit of the extra stop and superior CA characteristics of the 17-35mm f/2.8.
Azul wrote:
my prediction is that i don't need a D3 but i probably want one
Now THAT I can relate to.
Regardless of what next Nikon will bring out I know that I will want it and not necessarily need it. I DO need a second pro body (just in case) and I am a bit of a techno geek ... maybe the d2x price will drop when a new camera is announced.
Looking back to when i was using the D1x I really looked forward to an upgrade which at the time was something that I thought I needed... In all honesty I dont think that I have done any shoots with the d2x where the d1x wouldnt have been able to cope (apart from one billboard shoot). An upgrade to the d2x would be a want to have rather than a need to have at this moment in time...
Regardless of what next Nikon will bring out I know that I will want it and not necessarily need it. I DO need a second pro body (just in case) and I am a bit of a techno geek ... maybe the d2x price will drop when a new camera is announced.
Looking back to when i was using the D1x I really looked forward to an upgrade which at the time was something that I thought I needed... In all honesty I dont think that I have done any shoots with the d2x where the d1x wouldnt have been able to cope (apart from one billboard shoot). An upgrade to the d2x would be a want to have rather than a need to have at this moment in time......Show more →
I agree with you and Azul, but Nikon will sureely entice us with some other gottahavits on the new one. Price? Ouch!
Sean Hoffman wrote:
The possibilities are endless: down res for faster shooting (no more X vs. H), throw in the Fuji style dynamic range boosting pixels, super-tele 3x mode, etc.
I would suggest that sport shooters, event shooters, wildlife shooters and any shooters that don't really want/need higher MP's, might not be so thrilled with the idea of no more X vs H.
Consider the cost savings right now, of buying the d2hs vs d2xs. Not only would your uber d3 cost significantly more than the current d2x, you would remove a very significant camera from nikon's line. The d3h, if it is a DX sensor, is my next planned acquisition for a body.
If that doesn't happen, this is one current nikon user that will begin moving to canon shortly thereafter, starting with the purchase of a 1dmkIIn and appropriate lenses.
That should cover the bases! 
