This topic is in the 2011 archive. You can read it and like its posts here. It is read only.
Archive 2011Nikon D800 pictures..almost here??
p.5 #1Nikon D800 pictures..almost here??
wjmeyer wrote:
Nikon had a winner with the D3/D700 combo, the D700 being the baby D3, same sensor, inferior body (but in some eyes superior). Did Nikon introduce the D700 simply to try to lure photographers back to Nikon after so many had jumped ship to Canon? Who knows, only Nikon does, all we can do is guess. The D3s was introduced and many D700 owners have been waiting for the day the D700s will be announced, same D700 but with the D3s sensor... but now everything is pointing at the D800 and the possibility of a 36MP sensor? Seriously a 3x...Show more →
The problem of Nikon is that they have to go with whatever FX sensor Sony will supply them with (despite all the guesses regarding who is making Nikon's FX sensors, it is a fact that Nikon never had a camera with a different size than any of the Sony sensors). Indeed it has been reported over a year ago that Sony was developing a 36MP FX sensor, and the lastest Sony rumors suggests that Sony will announce a 24 and a 36MP Full frame cameras next year, with the 36MP camera having a built-in grip. Sounds like Nikon and Sony agreed to not step on each others toes. This may also suggests the D4 will be a fast 24MP camera with an upgraded version of the D3X sensor.
Nikon had a winner with the D3/D700 combo, the D700 being the baby D3, same sensor, inferior body (but in some eyes superior). Did Nikon introduce the D700 simply to try to lure photographers back to Nikon after so many had jumped ship to Canon? Who knows, only Nikon does, all we can do is guess. The D3s was introduced and many D700 owners have been waiting for the day the D700s will be announced, same D700 but with the D3s sensor... but now everything is pointing at the D800 and the possibility of a 36MP sensor? Seriously a 3x...Show more →
The problem of Nikon is that they have to go with whatever FX sensor Sony will supply them with (despite all the guesses regarding who is making Nikon's FX sensors, it is a fact that Nikon never had a camera with a different size than any of the Sony sensors). Indeed it has been reported over a year ago that Sony was developing a 36MP FX sensor, and the lastest Sony rumors suggests that Sony will announce a 24 and a 36MP Full frame cameras next year, with the 36MP camera having a built-in grip. Sounds like Nikon and Sony agreed to not step on each others toes. This may also suggests the D4 will be a fast 24MP camera with an upgraded version of the D3X sensor.
Nov 21, 2011 at 02:19 AM
p.5 #2Nikon D800 pictures..almost here??
Fred Relaix wrote:
wjmeyer wrote:
Indeed it has been reported over a year ago that Sony was developing a 36MP FX sensor, and the lastest Sony rumors suggests that Sony will announce a 24 and a 36MP Full frame cameras next year, with the 36MP camera having a built-in grip. Sounds like Nikon and Sony agreed to not step on each others toes. This may also suggests the D4 will be a fast 24MP camera with an upgraded version of the D3X sensor.
Hey Fred, given that the 12MP D3 / D700 / D3s sensor had no Sony parallel model at either resolution or sensitivity and most assume it to be a Nikon design to which there is no evidence to the contrary I think it most logical the replacement sensor will be 16-18 MP 100% Nikon and they will go with the 36 MP Sony sensor in the D4x
The assumption that Nikon doesnt design its own sensors does not hunt
tim
wjmeyer wrote:
Indeed it has been reported over a year ago that Sony was developing a 36MP FX sensor, and the lastest Sony rumors suggests that Sony will announce a 24 and a 36MP Full frame cameras next year, with the 36MP camera having a built-in grip. Sounds like Nikon and Sony agreed to not step on each others toes. This may also suggests the D4 will be a fast 24MP camera with an upgraded version of the D3X sensor.
Hey Fred, given that the 12MP D3 / D700 / D3s sensor had no Sony parallel model at either resolution or sensitivity and most assume it to be a Nikon design to which there is no evidence to the contrary I think it most logical the replacement sensor will be 16-18 MP 100% Nikon and they will go with the 36 MP Sony sensor in the D4x
The assumption that Nikon doesnt design its own sensors does not hunt
tim
Nov 21, 2011 at 03:40 AM
p.5 #3Nikon D800 pictures..almost here??
An upsized D7000 sensor already puts you at 36MP with somewhere around D3s image noise - QE's a bit lower, read noise also lower, and increasing sampling frequency reduces image noise. Then there's the year + they have had to refine the design. Unless you're claiming Nikon/Sony suddenly became completely incompetent sensor designers, complaing that noise would be greater makes no sense.
I like the smaller size if it is going to be smaller than the D700. Don't like unnecessary bulk. Hope it comes in at nice enough price for me.
I like the smaller size if it is going to be smaller than the D700. Don't like unnecessary bulk. Hope it comes in at nice enough price for me.
Nov 21, 2011 at 05:27 AM
p.5 #4Nikon D800 pictures..almost here??
wjmeyer wrote:
Nikon had a winner with the D3/D700 combo, the D700 being the baby D3, same sensor, inferior body (but in some eyes superior). Did Nikon introduce the D700 simply to try to lure photographers back to Nikon after so many had jumped ship to Canon? Who knows, only Nikon does, all we can do is guess. The D3s was introduced and many D700 owners have been waiting for the day the D700s will be announced, same D700 but with the D3s sensor... but now everything is pointing at the D800 and the possibility of a 36MP sensor? Seriously a 3x...Show more →
I see 36MP for two reasons -
1. There's a lot of people that complain nikon has been "stuck" at 12MP for too long. I know that's not everyone, but what do you think the response would be if Nikon replaced the D700 with another 12MP camera? Extreme example, but it goes to show they DO need more than 12.
2. So, why not 18 or 24MP instead of 36? My guess would be because these cameras stay in the pipeline for so long. I think Nikon wants a camera that will still be competitive 3 or 4 years from now - 18Mp might be a bit low for that especially if the 5dIII is in the 30+ MP family.
Just my little theory.
Nikon had a winner with the D3/D700 combo, the D700 being the baby D3, same sensor, inferior body (but in some eyes superior). Did Nikon introduce the D700 simply to try to lure photographers back to Nikon after so many had jumped ship to Canon? Who knows, only Nikon does, all we can do is guess. The D3s was introduced and many D700 owners have been waiting for the day the D700s will be announced, same D700 but with the D3s sensor... but now everything is pointing at the D800 and the possibility of a 36MP sensor? Seriously a 3x...Show more →
I see 36MP for two reasons -
1. There's a lot of people that complain nikon has been "stuck" at 12MP for too long. I know that's not everyone, but what do you think the response would be if Nikon replaced the D700 with another 12MP camera? Extreme example, but it goes to show they DO need more than 12.
2. So, why not 18 or 24MP instead of 36? My guess would be because these cameras stay in the pipeline for so long. I think Nikon wants a camera that will still be competitive 3 or 4 years from now - 18Mp might be a bit low for that especially if the 5dIII is in the 30+ MP family.
Just my little theory.
Nov 21, 2011 at 06:51 AM
p.5 #5Nikon D800 pictures..almost here??
theSuede wrote:
What you need to get good low-light behavior is a combination of high efficiency and good DR. And if the D7000 and the D5100 could be taken as indicators, Nikon are already getting there. They are - if you look at say a 10x10mm cutout from the sensor - both a lot closer to D3s performance than to D3/D700 performance at high ISOs - even though their pixels are more than three times smaller in area...
Thanks TheSuede.
We did the fun exercise a couple of weeks ago to compare the 12 MP D700 with a hypothetical D800 and 36 MP. Obviously we didn't have access to a D800, but we had a D7000.
How to compare the 2?
1) 36 MP on FX is exactly the pixel pitch of the 16 MP of the D7000. So we have a similar - not to say identical - pixel pitch. A quick calc: FX and DX has a crop of 1,5 (linear dimension). Size difference is 1,5 x 1,5 = factor of 2,25. 16 MP of the D7000 (DX) equals 36 MP on FX (16 x 2,25 = 36).
2) We used the same lens at identical focal length.
Normally, this would be a nogo for a DX/FX comparison. But we did not want to comapre DX vs. FX. We wanted to compare 2 FX bodies, with one being simulated by the D7000 and its very similar sensor "mechanics".
3) We compared only the center piece of the image which could be covered by both bodies.
4) We looked at the same output size (like all normal photographers do) and deliberatly not on 100% crops.
5) Lens used was a AFS 70-200mm/2.8 VR II at 200mm
Here is a ISO 6400 shot of the D700 and the D7000 of the image
D700:
http://www.pbase.com/andrease/image/138576958/original.jpg
D7000 (as D800 proxy) : resized to same output size
http://www.pbase.com/andrease/image/138576969/original.jpg
Same game with base ISO:
D700: ISO 200
http://www.pbase.com/andrease/image/138695574/original.jpg
D7000: ISO 100 , resized
http://www.pbase.com/andrease/image/138695575/original.jpg
Lessons learned:
1) Good lenses will not limit the higher resolution of the D800
2) Viewed at the same output size a D800 with a sensor technology based on the D7000 will outperform the D700 at ISO 6400 (or at least be at same level).
3) 12 months passed since the D7000 introduction, so there might be some improvements in the underlying sensortechnology of the D7000/D800.
Assumption:
12 MP reached the point where Nikon can conclude its 2 line product strategy - one low res H/s model and one higher res X model. Going beyond 12 MP allows Nikon to cover both scenarios - high ISO performance (giving up some resolution for better NR) or leveraging the higher resolution in slower work. Effectively giving customers both bodies in one. And customers don't need to buy 2 different bodies :-)
Only caveat:
Those shooters interested in fast fps will have to wait for a different model. Thats simply not in this package.
Andy
Edited on Nov 21, 2011 at 08:51 AM · View previous versions
What you need to get good low-light behavior is a combination of high efficiency and good DR. And if the D7000 and the D5100 could be taken as indicators, Nikon are already getting there. They are - if you look at say a 10x10mm cutout from the sensor - both a lot closer to D3s performance than to D3/D700 performance at high ISOs - even though their pixels are more than three times smaller in area...
Thanks TheSuede.
We did the fun exercise a couple of weeks ago to compare the 12 MP D700 with a hypothetical D800 and 36 MP. Obviously we didn't have access to a D800, but we had a D7000.
How to compare the 2?
1) 36 MP on FX is exactly the pixel pitch of the 16 MP of the D7000. So we have a similar - not to say identical - pixel pitch. A quick calc: FX and DX has a crop of 1,5 (linear dimension). Size difference is 1,5 x 1,5 = factor of 2,25. 16 MP of the D7000 (DX) equals 36 MP on FX (16 x 2,25 = 36).
2) We used the same lens at identical focal length.
Normally, this would be a nogo for a DX/FX comparison. But we did not want to comapre DX vs. FX. We wanted to compare 2 FX bodies, with one being simulated by the D7000 and its very similar sensor "mechanics".
3) We compared only the center piece of the image which could be covered by both bodies.
4) We looked at the same output size (like all normal photographers do) and deliberatly not on 100% crops.
5) Lens used was a AFS 70-200mm/2.8 VR II at 200mm
Here is a ISO 6400 shot of the D700 and the D7000 of the image
D700:
http://www.pbase.com/andrease/image/138576958/original.jpg
D7000 (as D800 proxy) : resized to same output size
http://www.pbase.com/andrease/image/138576969/original.jpg
Same game with base ISO:
D700: ISO 200
http://www.pbase.com/andrease/image/138695574/original.jpg
D7000: ISO 100 , resized
http://www.pbase.com/andrease/image/138695575/original.jpg
Lessons learned:
1) Good lenses will not limit the higher resolution of the D800
2) Viewed at the same output size a D800 with a sensor technology based on the D7000 will outperform the D700 at ISO 6400 (or at least be at same level).
3) 12 months passed since the D7000 introduction, so there might be some improvements in the underlying sensortechnology of the D7000/D800.
Assumption:
12 MP reached the point where Nikon can conclude its 2 line product strategy - one low res H/s model and one higher res X model. Going beyond 12 MP allows Nikon to cover both scenarios - high ISO performance (giving up some resolution for better NR) or leveraging the higher resolution in slower work. Effectively giving customers both bodies in one. And customers don't need to buy 2 different bodies :-)
Only caveat:
Those shooters interested in fast fps will have to wait for a different model. Thats simply not in this package.
Andy
Edited on Nov 21, 2011 at 08:51 AM · View previous versions
Nov 21, 2011 at 08:45 AM
p.5 #6Nikon D800 pictures..almost here??
I've been predicting a D7000 sized FX body for some time now, and if this is it, I can sell all my F-mount bodies except the F6 and replace them with the D800. Or maybe it's called the D8000? That wouldn't surprise me either.
I suppose the D4 will be a "full size" body, but for me, a smaller body with a built in grip (like the Fuji S3) is much more comfortable to hold than a D700 or D300 without one, and probably less or similar weight.
I suppose the D4 will be a "full size" body, but for me, a smaller body with a built in grip (like the Fuji S3) is much more comfortable to hold than a D700 or D300 without one, and probably less or similar weight.
Nov 21, 2011 at 08:48 AM
p.5 #7Nikon D800 pictures..almost here??
I still feel my D300 is competitive in the market, and it is 3 or 4 years old. The only crop cameras better than it (strictly image quality) are the Pentax K5 and the Nikon D7000. Those only came out recently, and despite the fact that they are about 1 stop better in the ISO department they still lag in many other departments that make up a complete camera.
If the D800, or whatever it will be called, comes out with a 36MP sensor I think a lot of people will be looking for something else. 4 fps, and a buffer that can take probably 10 images before it is full will be a huge problem for event photographers, sports photographers, press photographers, etc. This camera sounds best suited for landscape and studio photographers.
I don't really care if they make the camera like this or not. I just hope that Nikon has another full frame camera that will be similar to the existing D700, but with somewhere in the 18MP range and similar or better ISO performance. Of course it would have video and all that too, but it would be a much better all around camera, like the D3 to the D3x.
If the D800, or whatever it will be called, comes out with a 36MP sensor I think a lot of people will be looking for something else. 4 fps, and a buffer that can take probably 10 images before it is full will be a huge problem for event photographers, sports photographers, press photographers, etc. This camera sounds best suited for landscape and studio photographers.
I don't really care if they make the camera like this or not. I just hope that Nikon has another full frame camera that will be similar to the existing D700, but with somewhere in the 18MP range and similar or better ISO performance. Of course it would have video and all that too, but it would be a much better all around camera, like the D3 to the D3x.
Nov 21, 2011 at 08:57 AM
p.5 #8Nikon D800 pictures..almost here??
Fred Relaix wrote:
The problem of Nikon is that they have to go with whatever FX sensor Sony will supply them with (despite all the guesses regarding who is making Nikon's FX sensors, it is a fact that Nikon never had a camera with a different size than any of the Sony sensors). Indeed it has been reported over a year ago that Sony was developing a 36MP FX sensor, and the lastest Sony rumors suggests that Sony will announce a 24 and a 36MP Full frame cameras next year, with the 36MP camera having a built-in grip. Sounds like Nikon and...Show more →
Hi Fred, are you suggesting that the 12MP FF sensors of the D3/D700/D3s are made by Sony? If that is the case I think I'm going to have to agree with Tim. Nikon has always been forthright when they have talked about their APS-C sensors being made by Sony; however, as far as I know they have never said who has made their FF sensors. They have never fully disclosed the "who". I agree, it is entirely possible that Sony is making those sensors for them as well, but does anyone know for sure? Either way it doesn't really matter to me, what matters is the quality and that sensor has been the one that most others have been judged by for the past 4 years in regard to high ISO, they even squeezed a little better IQ out of the D3s sensor at higher ISO. The D700, even though it is over 3 years old now, is more than adequate for most photographers. Put in a new processor, the D3s sensor, another card slot and add HD video and Nikon has another winner with very little R&D invested. We'll see. The D800 will appeal to another crowd than those who swarmed upon the D700, so I'm curious to see what Nikon will do here. The D700 appealed to photogs who were seeking, FF sensor, lower MP (than what the trend was heading for), high ISO, best of class AF and a more affordable price than the 1D/D3 series bodies (I was one of them). If the D800 is introduced at 36MP then that effectively kills sales to those seeking the lower MP count, if they introduce a D4 at 18 or more MP that would be fantastic but the price alone will keep many of the D700 shooters away, and if Nikon decides to axe the D700 line completely, well then we can only hope that the D4 will drive down the price on the D3s to be under $3k, but even then some do not like the "bulk" of the D3/s so what to do, what to do...
The problem of Nikon is that they have to go with whatever FX sensor Sony will supply them with (despite all the guesses regarding who is making Nikon's FX sensors, it is a fact that Nikon never had a camera with a different size than any of the Sony sensors). Indeed it has been reported over a year ago that Sony was developing a 36MP FX sensor, and the lastest Sony rumors suggests that Sony will announce a 24 and a 36MP Full frame cameras next year, with the 36MP camera having a built-in grip. Sounds like Nikon and...Show more →
Hi Fred, are you suggesting that the 12MP FF sensors of the D3/D700/D3s are made by Sony? If that is the case I think I'm going to have to agree with Tim. Nikon has always been forthright when they have talked about their APS-C sensors being made by Sony; however, as far as I know they have never said who has made their FF sensors. They have never fully disclosed the "who". I agree, it is entirely possible that Sony is making those sensors for them as well, but does anyone know for sure? Either way it doesn't really matter to me, what matters is the quality and that sensor has been the one that most others have been judged by for the past 4 years in regard to high ISO, they even squeezed a little better IQ out of the D3s sensor at higher ISO. The D700, even though it is over 3 years old now, is more than adequate for most photographers. Put in a new processor, the D3s sensor, another card slot and add HD video and Nikon has another winner with very little R&D invested. We'll see. The D800 will appeal to another crowd than those who swarmed upon the D700, so I'm curious to see what Nikon will do here. The D700 appealed to photogs who were seeking, FF sensor, lower MP (than what the trend was heading for), high ISO, best of class AF and a more affordable price than the 1D/D3 series bodies (I was one of them). If the D800 is introduced at 36MP then that effectively kills sales to those seeking the lower MP count, if they introduce a D4 at 18 or more MP that would be fantastic but the price alone will keep many of the D700 shooters away, and if Nikon decides to axe the D700 line completely, well then we can only hope that the D4 will drive down the price on the D3s to be under $3k, but even then some do not like the "bulk" of the D3/s so what to do, what to do...
Nov 21, 2011 at 09:04 AM
p.5 #9Nikon D800 pictures..almost here??
wjmeyer wrote:
Hi Fred, are you suggesting that the 12MP FF sensors of the D3/D700/D3s are made by Sony? If that is the case I think I'm going to have to agree with Tim. Nikon has always been forthright when they have talked about their APS-C sensors being made by Sony; however, as far as I know they have never said who has made their FF sensors. They have never fully disclosed the "who". I agree, it is entirely possible that Sony is making those sensors for them as well, but does anyone know for sure? Either way it doesn't really matter...Show more →
The 12MP FF sensor is a Nikon design. I think Nikon using Sony's sensors is a positive rather than negative since Sony's technology is about a generation ahead of the competition, or more when you consider the ancillary benefits of the on-chip ADCs (like the lack of pattern banding).
Hi Fred, are you suggesting that the 12MP FF sensors of the D3/D700/D3s are made by Sony? If that is the case I think I'm going to have to agree with Tim. Nikon has always been forthright when they have talked about their APS-C sensors being made by Sony; however, as far as I know they have never said who has made their FF sensors. They have never fully disclosed the "who". I agree, it is entirely possible that Sony is making those sensors for them as well, but does anyone know for sure? Either way it doesn't really matter...Show more →
The 12MP FF sensor is a Nikon design. I think Nikon using Sony's sensors is a positive rather than negative since Sony's technology is about a generation ahead of the competition, or more when you consider the ancillary benefits of the on-chip ADCs (like the lack of pattern banding).
Nov 21, 2011 at 09:30 AM
p.5 #10Nikon D800 pictures..almost here??
AndreasE: good test. To my eye, the D7000-derived image looks better than the D700 at base ISO (as it should: this is where the D7000's sensor really excels, and it also has a lower base ISO than the D700). However, at ISO 6400 it's a wash. They're quite similar in terms of noise. Perhaps the D7000's noise is slightly finer grained, and the D700 has better colour, in part due to lower chroma noise (i.e. stronger filters in the Bayer array).
No doubt the D7000 captures significantly more detail.
I understand Aptina had a hand in designing the Nikon 1 System's sensor. Aptina also talk about a 16-megapixel APS-C sensor on their website. Therefore it's not a foregone conclusion that the D800's sensor would be derived from Sony's sensor in the D7000. Furthermore, even if it were derived from the D7000 sensor, such a design might perform worse per area than the D7000's sensor, because the manufacturing hurdles involved in making an FX sensor are very significant. Consider that the D7000 and rumoured D800 share a top native sensitivity of ISO 6400.
There's a reason every FX camera until the D3S had worse per-area performance than the contemporary DX sensor. In the real world, you can't just take a good pixel design and replicate it over silicon infinitely!
Tommy_D: I agree with much of what you say. That said, a 5D Mark II-like D800 will delight as many people as it disappoints. I think Nikon considers the D700 a mixed success. It certainly sold well, but Canon's 5D Mark II sold better. Worse, I'm sure the D700 costs more to manufacture than the 5D Mark II, yet they sell for (or until recently sold for) about the same price. In addition, the D700 must have seriously hit D3 and even D3S sales, precisely because it is able to shoot quickly and reliably. Canon sold an awful lot of 1D Mark III and 1D Mark IV cameras to pros who were willing to pay for responsiveness.
No doubt the D7000 captures significantly more detail.
I understand Aptina had a hand in designing the Nikon 1 System's sensor. Aptina also talk about a 16-megapixel APS-C sensor on their website. Therefore it's not a foregone conclusion that the D800's sensor would be derived from Sony's sensor in the D7000. Furthermore, even if it were derived from the D7000 sensor, such a design might perform worse per area than the D7000's sensor, because the manufacturing hurdles involved in making an FX sensor are very significant. Consider that the D7000 and rumoured D800 share a top native sensitivity of ISO 6400.
There's a reason every FX camera until the D3S had worse per-area performance than the contemporary DX sensor. In the real world, you can't just take a good pixel design and replicate it over silicon infinitely!
Tommy_D: I agree with much of what you say. That said, a 5D Mark II-like D800 will delight as many people as it disappoints. I think Nikon considers the D700 a mixed success. It certainly sold well, but Canon's 5D Mark II sold better. Worse, I'm sure the D700 costs more to manufacture than the 5D Mark II, yet they sell for (or until recently sold for) about the same price. In addition, the D700 must have seriously hit D3 and even D3S sales, precisely because it is able to shoot quickly and reliably. Canon sold an awful lot of 1D Mark III and 1D Mark IV cameras to pros who were willing to pay for responsiveness.
Nov 21, 2011 at 09:44 AM
p.5 #11Nikon D800 pictures..almost here??
Steve Perry wrote:
I see 36MP for two reasons -
1. There's a lot of people that complain nikon has been "stuck" at 12MP for too long. I know that's not everyone, but what do you think the response would be if Nikon replaced the D700 with another 12MP camera? Extreme example, but it goes to show they DO need more than 12.
2. So, why not 18 or 24MP instead of 36? My guess would be because these cameras stay in the pipeline for so long. I think Nikon wants a camera that will still be competitive 3 or 4 years from...Show more →
Hi Steve, an interesting theory, but I'm not sure if I agree. Will a 36MP FF body appeal to some photogs... absolutely! If I was still shooting Landscape/wildlife/macro, etc. this would be the bomb. Studio conditions that don't need uber high ISO or best in class AF, another big check. But (and it's a big BUT
) I do not think this is the crowd who jumped all over the D700. My hope is that the D800 is a new series specifically aimed at the market seeking more MP, but that Nikon does not abandon the market who could really care less about more MP. The D800 will have required all new R&D for everything involved, the D4 will undoubtedly be a whole new R&D adventure as well; however, the D700s can be introduced under the radar and have not required massive R&D funding and yet still be a huge success for Nikon.
To simplify the intricacies of a large manufacturing organization, think of it as this:
I doubt Nikon is much different so we'll go with it.
The Board Members, they want to make money (they already have a bunch, but they like to make more) and they could really care less about the how or why as long as they are making more money.
The executive staff, they like to make money too, but they are more closely involved with the product and can make decisions about the direction of the product(s); however, they report to the board or to the "C" levels who report to the board and if the board isn't happy, then they are responsible for bringing about change that will make the board happy.
Research and Development, they are the inovators, always thinking about what can be done; however, they serve at the mercy of the executive staff who gives them direction. They may understand some of the needs or wants of their customers, but are more concerned with "can we do it?" over "should we do it?", and sometimes none of that even matters as they are told by the exec's what to do.
Marketing, this is where the "spin" begins. Regardless of whether R&D puts out a stellar product or not, their job is to make sure their customers and propects know about the product and even if it stinks, put it in the best possible light and advertise it as "new", "innovative", "best in class", "you've got to own this" and so forth. They do (or ought to) have great awareness into the needs and wants of their clientelle; however, it doesn't always mean that they are right in their assessment. They can often influence R&D and even the executive staff as they get into the weeds of survey's and charts and all kinds of fun stuff to figure out market requirements. Sadly, the marketing groups often times get a god complex and think they can dictate to the customer what their needs are (even if the need doesn't exist) and then expect Sales to go out and sell it.
Sales, these are not always the guys who are trying to sell you the gum off their shoe, many times these are the folks who engage the most with the customer, and sometimes they come from a similar background and have a love for the product, they do their best to understand the customers needs and wants and they do their best to sell the product that everyone above them has decided to make.
So, why on earth did I go through this whole process to explain (very simply) the corporate hierarchy? Well, because I've been in these worlds at varying levels and stages and I've seen it played out time and time again, so much so that I am beginning to recognize patterns. This also helps me to understand (not necessarily agree with, but at least understand) why some product decisions are made. For instance, Canon 5D - huge success, more than Canon probably intially thought; everyone was buying up 5D's because it was the first affordable FF body. As time moves forward, marketing is investigating the huge success and wanting to capitalize on it with their next release, but they are hearing different cries from the crowd, some are shouting "more megapixels!" and others are chanting "better high ISO" while still another section of the crowd is crying out "better autofocus". So what is Canon to do, they have some decisions to make... there is no competition for the 5D at its price point and Nikon had just released the D3 with only 12MP, Canon thinks they can crush Nikon with more megapixels so they decide the 5D Mark II ought to have higher MP and cleaner ISO, but in so doing they decide in order to keep the cost down, they are not going to change the AF, so the 5D Mark II is born, but with deep criticism from the "better AF" crowd and high praise from the more "MP and better ISO" crowd. But there is a problem, several months earlier, Nikon released their first FF body in the D700 and oh my gosh if their isn't a stampede of interest because this new body has plenty of MP for most, has best in class high ISO and best in class AF. So the war is on, we have two FF bodies at about the same price point, one has lower MP, better high ISO and vastly superior AF, while the other has high MP and decent high ISO but with lackluster AF. Canon thinks people want more MP (and certainly some do) while Nikon thinks better ISO and AF will win the day for their market. So the question in my mind is: were either Canon or Nikon wrong? Not necessarily, they were pursuing two different markets (or maybe what they thought was the same market) based on what they thought would get them an advantage among the consumer. Did Canon sell 5D Mark II's, absolutely, did Nikon sell D700's, absolutely. Did Canon lose some marketshare to Nikon during this time? I don't know, and I doubt anyone truly knows except Canon and Nikon. It would appear that Nikon has done very well the last few years with its D3/D300/D700 bodies, but of course, Canon has also done very well. True, those who were seeking lower MP, better ISO and fast AF probably moved or stayed with Nikon, and those seeking higher MP moved or stayed with Canon.
I know I sound like a resounding gong here, sometimes we just like to hear ourselves and I fall into that as well. At the end of the day, many of us artists want what we want, we are spoiled in many ways and wish that we could dictate to the manufacturer what we "want" and they will oblige by building it for us. As I reflect upon this and some of the comments I've made in the past, I realize I have done this myself and I have my own very strong opinions, and I also wonder if any of us will ever truly be satisfied
And in return this is what frustrates the heck out of Marketing and Sales because they are surprised at the storm of criticism when they thought they provided exactly what the market wanted, but lets be honest, egos aside (from both the consumer and the manufacturer) we have some pretty outstanding tools to use as photographers that we have never had before, and for that, I say kudos to Canon and Nikon and others who have helped move innovation forward.
Oh, and one last thing, Nikon, please bring out a D700s
I see 36MP for two reasons -
1. There's a lot of people that complain nikon has been "stuck" at 12MP for too long. I know that's not everyone, but what do you think the response would be if Nikon replaced the D700 with another 12MP camera? Extreme example, but it goes to show they DO need more than 12.
2. So, why not 18 or 24MP instead of 36? My guess would be because these cameras stay in the pipeline for so long. I think Nikon wants a camera that will still be competitive 3 or 4 years from...Show more →
Hi Steve, an interesting theory, but I'm not sure if I agree. Will a 36MP FF body appeal to some photogs... absolutely! If I was still shooting Landscape/wildlife/macro, etc. this would be the bomb. Studio conditions that don't need uber high ISO or best in class AF, another big check. But (and it's a big BUT
) I do not think this is the crowd who jumped all over the D700. My hope is that the D800 is a new series specifically aimed at the market seeking more MP, but that Nikon does not abandon the market who could really care less about more MP. The D800 will have required all new R&D for everything involved, the D4 will undoubtedly be a whole new R&D adventure as well; however, the D700s can be introduced under the radar and have not required massive R&D funding and yet still be a huge success for Nikon. To simplify the intricacies of a large manufacturing organization, think of it as this:
- The Board Members
- The Executive Staff
- Research and Development
- Marketing
- Sales
I doubt Nikon is much different so we'll go with it.
The Board Members, they want to make money (they already have a bunch, but they like to make more) and they could really care less about the how or why as long as they are making more money.
The executive staff, they like to make money too, but they are more closely involved with the product and can make decisions about the direction of the product(s); however, they report to the board or to the "C" levels who report to the board and if the board isn't happy, then they are responsible for bringing about change that will make the board happy.
Research and Development, they are the inovators, always thinking about what can be done; however, they serve at the mercy of the executive staff who gives them direction. They may understand some of the needs or wants of their customers, but are more concerned with "can we do it?" over "should we do it?", and sometimes none of that even matters as they are told by the exec's what to do.
Marketing, this is where the "spin" begins. Regardless of whether R&D puts out a stellar product or not, their job is to make sure their customers and propects know about the product and even if it stinks, put it in the best possible light and advertise it as "new", "innovative", "best in class", "you've got to own this" and so forth. They do (or ought to) have great awareness into the needs and wants of their clientelle; however, it doesn't always mean that they are right in their assessment. They can often influence R&D and even the executive staff as they get into the weeds of survey's and charts and all kinds of fun stuff to figure out market requirements. Sadly, the marketing groups often times get a god complex and think they can dictate to the customer what their needs are (even if the need doesn't exist) and then expect Sales to go out and sell it.
Sales, these are not always the guys who are trying to sell you the gum off their shoe, many times these are the folks who engage the most with the customer, and sometimes they come from a similar background and have a love for the product, they do their best to understand the customers needs and wants and they do their best to sell the product that everyone above them has decided to make.
So, why on earth did I go through this whole process to explain (very simply) the corporate hierarchy? Well, because I've been in these worlds at varying levels and stages and I've seen it played out time and time again, so much so that I am beginning to recognize patterns. This also helps me to understand (not necessarily agree with, but at least understand) why some product decisions are made. For instance, Canon 5D - huge success, more than Canon probably intially thought; everyone was buying up 5D's because it was the first affordable FF body. As time moves forward, marketing is investigating the huge success and wanting to capitalize on it with their next release, but they are hearing different cries from the crowd, some are shouting "more megapixels!" and others are chanting "better high ISO" while still another section of the crowd is crying out "better autofocus". So what is Canon to do, they have some decisions to make... there is no competition for the 5D at its price point and Nikon had just released the D3 with only 12MP, Canon thinks they can crush Nikon with more megapixels so they decide the 5D Mark II ought to have higher MP and cleaner ISO, but in so doing they decide in order to keep the cost down, they are not going to change the AF, so the 5D Mark II is born, but with deep criticism from the "better AF" crowd and high praise from the more "MP and better ISO" crowd. But there is a problem, several months earlier, Nikon released their first FF body in the D700 and oh my gosh if their isn't a stampede of interest because this new body has plenty of MP for most, has best in class high ISO and best in class AF. So the war is on, we have two FF bodies at about the same price point, one has lower MP, better high ISO and vastly superior AF, while the other has high MP and decent high ISO but with lackluster AF. Canon thinks people want more MP (and certainly some do) while Nikon thinks better ISO and AF will win the day for their market. So the question in my mind is: were either Canon or Nikon wrong? Not necessarily, they were pursuing two different markets (or maybe what they thought was the same market) based on what they thought would get them an advantage among the consumer. Did Canon sell 5D Mark II's, absolutely, did Nikon sell D700's, absolutely. Did Canon lose some marketshare to Nikon during this time? I don't know, and I doubt anyone truly knows except Canon and Nikon. It would appear that Nikon has done very well the last few years with its D3/D300/D700 bodies, but of course, Canon has also done very well. True, those who were seeking lower MP, better ISO and fast AF probably moved or stayed with Nikon, and those seeking higher MP moved or stayed with Canon.
I know I sound like a resounding gong here, sometimes we just like to hear ourselves and I fall into that as well. At the end of the day, many of us artists want what we want, we are spoiled in many ways and wish that we could dictate to the manufacturer what we "want" and they will oblige by building it for us. As I reflect upon this and some of the comments I've made in the past, I realize I have done this myself and I have my own very strong opinions, and I also wonder if any of us will ever truly be satisfied
And in return this is what frustrates the heck out of Marketing and Sales because they are surprised at the storm of criticism when they thought they provided exactly what the market wanted, but lets be honest, egos aside (from both the consumer and the manufacturer) we have some pretty outstanding tools to use as photographers that we have never had before, and for that, I say kudos to Canon and Nikon and others who have helped move innovation forward.Oh, and one last thing, Nikon, please bring out a D700s
Nov 21, 2011 at 10:37 AM
p.5 #12Nikon D800 pictures..almost here??
Seems to me that Nikon has several choices, all great products for some market segment:
1. A D700s with the D3s sensor
2. A D800 with the 18-24MP sensor from the D4
3. A D800 with a new 36MP sensor
4. Both #1 and #2
5. Both #1 and #3
And that's just for the medium-priced (~$3000 to $3500) FX body segment. Then there's a D4 at 18-24MP, there could also be a D4x at 36MP, there is surely a 16-24MP D400 coming... holy camera collections, Batman!
Personally, I'm thrilled at the possibilities and can't wait to see what Nikon delivers. The colors will be great (whoever said the D3s colors are "a tradeoff" for higher ISO ratings is on drugs). The ISO performance will likely be as good or better than the D3s (see the D7000). People are talking about slow frame rates, but have you seen what the EXPEED 3 processor can do? And I don't believe that they'd use the CAM3500 AF module in the new cameras, because the Nikon 1 has some cool new capabilities which are surely in the new cameras, plus Nikon has gotten a ton of mileage from the "Canon can't focus" mantra over the last couple of years and will surely not give that up.
I don't know what Nikon is going to do. But, contrary to most people around here who seem to be thinking with four-year-old technology limitations in their heads, I'm thoroughly excited about the very, very high probability that I'm going to love it and Nikon's new releases are going to beat the socks off all current production DSLR's.
1. A D700s with the D3s sensor
2. A D800 with the 18-24MP sensor from the D4
3. A D800 with a new 36MP sensor
4. Both #1 and #2
5. Both #1 and #3
And that's just for the medium-priced (~$3000 to $3500) FX body segment. Then there's a D4 at 18-24MP, there could also be a D4x at 36MP, there is surely a 16-24MP D400 coming... holy camera collections, Batman!
Personally, I'm thrilled at the possibilities and can't wait to see what Nikon delivers. The colors will be great (whoever said the D3s colors are "a tradeoff" for higher ISO ratings is on drugs). The ISO performance will likely be as good or better than the D3s (see the D7000). People are talking about slow frame rates, but have you seen what the EXPEED 3 processor can do? And I don't believe that they'd use the CAM3500 AF module in the new cameras, because the Nikon 1 has some cool new capabilities which are surely in the new cameras, plus Nikon has gotten a ton of mileage from the "Canon can't focus" mantra over the last couple of years and will surely not give that up.
I don't know what Nikon is going to do. But, contrary to most people around here who seem to be thinking with four-year-old technology limitations in their heads, I'm thoroughly excited about the very, very high probability that I'm going to love it and Nikon's new releases are going to beat the socks off all current production DSLR's.
Nov 21, 2011 at 10:42 AM
p.5 #13Nikon D800 pictures..almost here??
I am in a conundrum, last year I decided to go on sabbatical from my professional photography business (wanting to spend more time with my family instead of in front of the computer screen and the poor economy were the main contributing factors) and this has left me with the ability to do whatever I want photography wise. So for me, not being a loyalist to any "brand", I am very curious what the next 6 months will bring, what will Nikon do with the D800 (and hopefully a D700s) and what will Canon do with a 5D Mark III? Seems like a good time to shake things up and try some new stuff.
So, I think I've decided I want to play around with the smaller bodies like the Nikon 1, the micro four thirds systems and the new Sony NEX series really intrigues me, especially the NEX-7.
So while Nikon and Canon get all this sorted out, I think I'm going to go out and have some fun with these smaller "toys" and see what they can do
So, I think I've decided I want to play around with the smaller bodies like the Nikon 1, the micro four thirds systems and the new Sony NEX series really intrigues me, especially the NEX-7.
So while Nikon and Canon get all this sorted out, I think I'm going to go out and have some fun with these smaller "toys" and see what they can do
Nov 21, 2011 at 11:36 AM
p.5 #14Nikon D800 pictures..almost here??
wjmeyer wrote:
1. There's a lot of people that complain nikon has been "stuck" at 12MP for too long. I know that's not everyone, but what do you think the response would be if Nikon replaced the D700 with another 12MP camera? Extreme example, but it goes to show they DO need more than 12.
2. So, why not 18 or 24MP instead of 36? My guess would be because these cameras stay in the pipeline for so long. I think Nikon wants a camera that will still be competitive 3 or 4 years from now - 18Mp might be a bit low for that especially if the 5dIII is in the 30+ MP family.
Just my little theory.Hi Steve, an interesting theory, but I'm not sure if I agree. Will a 36MP FF body appeal to some photogs... absolutely! If I was still shooting Landscape/wildlife/macro, etc. this would be the bomb. Studio conditions that don't need uber high ISO or best in class AF, another big check. But (and it's a big BUT ) I do not think this is the crowd who jumped all over the D700. My hope is that the D800 is a new series specifically aimed at the market seeking more MP, but that Nikon does not abandon the market who could really...Show more →
Don't forget Nikon answers to Mitsubishi (part of their "keiretsu") and the Japanese Ministry of Industry and Trade. They've sorted out much of this years ago.
Steve Perry wrote
I see 36MP for two reasons -1. There's a lot of people that complain nikon has been "stuck" at 12MP for too long. I know that's not everyone, but what do you think the response would be if Nikon replaced the D700 with another 12MP camera? Extreme example, but it goes to show they DO need more than 12.
2. So, why not 18 or 24MP instead of 36? My guess would be because these cameras stay in the pipeline for so long. I think Nikon wants a camera that will still be competitive 3 or 4 years from now - 18Mp might be a bit low for that especially if the 5dIII is in the 30+ MP family.
Just my little theory.
) I do not think this is the crowd who jumped all over the D700. My hope is that the D800 is a new series specifically aimed at the market seeking more MP, but that Nikon does not abandon the market who could really...Show more →Don't forget Nikon answers to Mitsubishi (part of their "keiretsu") and the Japanese Ministry of Industry and Trade. They've sorted out much of this years ago.
Nov 21, 2011 at 02:40 PM
p.5 #15Nikon D800 pictures..almost here??
Well there you go carlitos, it goes even higher.
Nov 21, 2011 at 02:48 PM
p.5 #16Nikon D800 pictures..almost here??
innovis wrote:
The things this beast will do for my landscape shots...
How about "nothing you cannot do today"? Want high MPx count? Buy a pano kit from RRS for a few hundred bucks and be there. D700 ISO capabilities at 3x the pixel count? Not gonna happen, just like the D3x cannot touch the D3s in the ISO department. It is going to be better than the D700 in measurable ways but people seem to be wishing for mutually exclusive things.
Rather than obsess with pixel count, I am surprised by the claims that the AF system will remain unchanged and none of the Nikon 1 sensor technology will be present. This is the one area where Nikon should be able to hammer Canon on the high end, perhaps they are saving it for the D4?
The things this beast will do for my landscape shots...
How about "nothing you cannot do today"? Want high MPx count? Buy a pano kit from RRS for a few hundred bucks and be there. D700 ISO capabilities at 3x the pixel count? Not gonna happen, just like the D3x cannot touch the D3s in the ISO department. It is going to be better than the D700 in measurable ways but people seem to be wishing for mutually exclusive things.
Rather than obsess with pixel count, I am surprised by the claims that the AF system will remain unchanged and none of the Nikon 1 sensor technology will be present. This is the one area where Nikon should be able to hammer Canon on the high end, perhaps they are saving it for the D4?
Nov 21, 2011 at 11:39 PM
p.5 #17Nikon D800 pictures..almost here??
GroovyGeek wrote:
How about "nothing you cannot do today"? Want high MPx count? Buy a pano kit from RRS for a few hundred bucks and be there. D700 ISO capabilities at 3x the pixel count? Not gonna happen, just like the D3x cannot touch the D3s in the ISO department. It is going to be better than the D700 in measurable ways but people seem to be wishing for mutually exclusive things.
Rather than obsess with pixel count, I am surprised by the claims that the AF system will remain unchanged and none of the Nikon 1 sensor technology will be present....Show more →
Printed at the same size, I bet you the D800 will do better in high iso than the D700 or even the D3s!
innovis wrote
The things this beast will do for my landscape shots...Rather than obsess with pixel count, I am surprised by the claims that the AF system will remain unchanged and none of the Nikon 1 sensor technology will be present....Show more →
Printed at the same size, I bet you the D800 will do better in high iso than the D700 or even the D3s!
Nov 22, 2011 at 12:23 AM
p.5 #18Nikon D800 pictures..almost here??
AndreasE wrote:
D7000 (as D800 proxy) : resized to same output size
http://www.pbase.com/andrease/image/138576969/original.jpg
Take a look at the histogram for this:
http://www.rockgarden.net/download/histo.jpg
As you can see, the red channel is pushed off the right edge. The D7000 easily goes out of control on reds - incandescent illumination and people => ruddy faces. It needs a blue filter, like a KB6 or KB9 to reel in the red channel. But then the metering gets screwed up and it will tend to overexpose. It also won't AWB particularly well with a cooling filter. (Yes, I actually checked this to determine how suitable the camera would be for event work. Result: not very.)
Almost all the noise in the image above is at the bottom end of the red channel. Set the blackpoint properly and it goes away. But of course you end up with a torqued scale that's largely uncorrectable due to so much of the red channel having been pushed off to the right.
The D700 is clearly better in incandescent light.
But by the same token it wouldn't surprise me if the D7000 isn't better in very cool light, like 15-30min after sunset (outdoors, open sky) or 15-30min before sunrise.
It can be safely assumed that a professional camera like a D800 isn't going to have the same wild red response as the D7000. This of course is more a function of the RGB filter response than having anything to do with sample pitch.
D7000 (as D800 proxy) : resized to same output size
http://www.pbase.com/andrease/image/138576969/original.jpg
Take a look at the histogram for this:
http://www.rockgarden.net/download/histo.jpg
As you can see, the red channel is pushed off the right edge. The D7000 easily goes out of control on reds - incandescent illumination and people => ruddy faces. It needs a blue filter, like a KB6 or KB9 to reel in the red channel. But then the metering gets screwed up and it will tend to overexpose. It also won't AWB particularly well with a cooling filter. (Yes, I actually checked this to determine how suitable the camera would be for event work. Result: not very.)
Almost all the noise in the image above is at the bottom end of the red channel. Set the blackpoint properly and it goes away. But of course you end up with a torqued scale that's largely uncorrectable due to so much of the red channel having been pushed off to the right.
The D700 is clearly better in incandescent light.
But by the same token it wouldn't surprise me if the D7000 isn't better in very cool light, like 15-30min after sunset (outdoors, open sky) or 15-30min before sunrise.
It can be safely assumed that a professional camera like a D800 isn't going to have the same wild red response as the D7000. This of course is more a function of the RGB filter response than having anything to do with sample pitch.
Nov 22, 2011 at 12:25 AM
p.5 #19Nikon D800 pictures..almost here??
Not even going to bother with reading all of this, but if nikon can deliver a d700 with a d7000 class sensor with 2x the surface area....
I will be very very happy.
I will be very very happy.
Nov 22, 2011 at 02:41 AM
p.5 #20Nikon D800 pictures..almost here??
Makten wrote:
This is a bit ridiculous, since that would then be the successor of the D3s, not the D700. Higher resolution is of course progress. If it suits your personal taste or not has nothing to do with it.
By that same logic, a 36 MP sensor would be the successor to the D3X.
More MP's alone does not equal progress, unless then camera was designed and intended solely as a high resolution tool. Like the 5D. That's all its got. A true successor to the D700 will not be solely about MP's, and low light/high ISO performance, which defined the D700, will be a big factor in a D800.
Personal taste has nothing to do with it. I would like to see Nikon release a 5D competitor for those that need the highest resolution; unlike you, I hope they don't do that at the expense of a D700 successor. Addition by subtraction is not progress.
patriot wrote
My point is 36 MP's by itself does not equal progress for a successor to the D700: there needs to be a step forward in high ISO noise better than Nikon's the current best sensor (found in the D3s). Equal to, or slightly better than, the D700 is not progress.By that same logic, a 36 MP sensor would be the successor to the D3X.
More MP's alone does not equal progress, unless then camera was designed and intended solely as a high resolution tool. Like the 5D. That's all its got. A true successor to the D700 will not be solely about MP's, and low light/high ISO performance, which defined the D700, will be a big factor in a D800.
Personal taste has nothing to do with it. I would like to see Nikon release a 5D competitor for those that need the highest resolution; unlike you, I hope they don't do that at the expense of a D700 successor. Addition by subtraction is not progress.
Nov 22, 2011 at 06:13 AM