Long term FX plan by Nikon

[toda_k20]

So most of us have read (and some experinced) the good niose and DOF performance of the D3. Nikon does this by having a lower density (12m pixel) full frame sensor.

Yes, maybe 12M is in fact more than enough for everyone but for the sake of discussion, Isn't it a waste of real estate ?

It would have been nice if Nikon would pack more pixel into the same space and allow users to do crops of their pictures without any compromises in resolutions.

Any thoughts here?

I believe it is almost a no brainer that the next FX body will have higher pixel density but for now, Nikon is perhaps prioritizing noise control over resolution.

[SolBadGuy]

Canon has by far, before the birth of D300 and D3, better noise control than Nikon. Nikon's strategy in lower pixel density to (probably) combat Canon's noise control results in the birth of D3 and D300. It will probably take some time before Nikon releases another FX camera with higher pixel count that is on par with regards to noise control. After all, looking at the recent launch of D3, it's not even close to the end of its PLC (product life cycle). I think it will take at least another year before Nikon releases another FX product in the high end market targeted at professionals.

[toda_k20]

Originally Posted by SolBadGuy Canon has by far, before the birth of D300 and D3, better noise control than Nikon. Nikon's strategy in lower pixel density to (probably) combat Canon's noise control results in the birth of D3 and D300. It will probably take some time before Nikon releases another FX camera with higher pixel count that is on par with regards to noise control. After all, looking at the recent launch of D3, it's not even close to the end of its PLC (product life cycle). I think it will take at least another year before Nikon releases another FX product in the high end market targeted at professionals.

Yes, I do not forsee a higher density FX from Nikon anytime soon. Looking at it, while Nikon may have closed the gap in terms of noise performance, it does so by compromising resolution.

[gooseberry]

Couldn't help but notice your statements about "compromising resolution". I don't think they are.

Taking the D300 first - along with the D2X/D2Xs, it has the highest pixel density and comparing it to the competition, at 12 MP it compares favourably with the 10 MP of the 40D and the 12 MP of the 5D in terms of resolution and by the reports so far it's noise performance is quite good (on par with the 40D).

If you take a look then at the D3 - it's competitor is the 1D Mark III - 10 MP (1DMII) vs 12 MP (D3) - both high frame rate cameras aimed at the sports/photojournalist market.

I don't see any "compromising resolution".

If you're trying to compare the D3 to the 1Ds Mark III - then you are comparing the wrong camera. Nikon does not have a camera in this segment yet, but there is speculation that it will soon (maybe an announcement/intro before the Olympics ).

With regards to catching up in noise performance - true Canon has been leading there in the "pro" body market the last few years - but Nikon actually caught up to Canon in terms of noise in the consumer body market back with the intro of the D50 (this is what a reviewer said of the D50 - The D50 has the lowest noise levels of any of the affordable digital SLR's we've tested (this was comapring to the 350D etc)) and has been on par with the subsequent releases of the D80, D40/D40x (though not much attention was given to this as usually people seems to tend to concentrate more on the "pro" bodies).

[psychobiologist]

if you need pixels, and when you are thinking of putting in 15-20k sgd into a camera, you might want to consider a medium format/digital back. you get 30+ to 40mp.

be it canon, a full frame with 21mp, or whether nikon will release something similar, if you want that number of pixels, then you have to pay the price tag for that camera.

for us consumers, its always a never-ending and often senseless pursuit of pixels.. the more the merrier. oh well my friend was telling me that eh.. this ranger brand or dunno what brand.. wahh got 8mp+++.. how come some slr only 6mp?!

may i inquire what photojob you are doing that requires a lot of pixels? i.e. banner printing, big posters etc? me only small time hobbyist.. can print S8R enough for me.

a higher resolution camera is also subjected to whether the lenses can resolve that well too.

[giantcanopy]

I cannot remember where i read it but if Nikon packed the D300 sensor into an FX sensor into the D3 it will become a 24MP camera. It is very doable but Nikon created a D3 and the game plan for their first FX is so not the pixel chasing game but the quality

The next FX will definitely be exciting

Ryan

[Jaevus]

Originally Posted by gooseberry Couldn't help but notice your statements about "compromising resolution". I don't think they are. Taking the D300 first - along with the D2X/D2Xs, it has the highest pixel density and comparing it to the competition, at 12 MP it compares favourably with the 10 MP of the 40D and the 12 MP of the 5D in terms of resolution and by the reports so far it's noise performance is quite good (on par with the 40D). If you take a look then at the D3 - it's competitor is the 1D Mark III - 10 MP (1DMII) vs 12 MP (D3) - both high frame rate cameras aimed at the sports/photojournalist market. I don't see any "compromising resolution". If you're trying to compare the D3 to the 1Ds Mark III - then you are comparing the wrong camera. Nikon does not have a camera in this segment yet, but there is speculation that it will soon (maybe an announcement/intro before the Olympics ). With regards to catching up in noise performance - true Canon has been leading there in the "pro" body market the last few years - but Nikon actually caught up to Canon in terms of noise in the consumer body market back with the intro of the D50 (this is what a reviewer said of the D50 - The D50 has the lowest noise levels of any of the affordable digital SLR's we've tested (this was comapring to the 350D etc)) and has been on par with the subsequent releases of the D80, D40/D40x (though not much attention was given to this as usually people seems to tend to concentrate more on the "pro" bodies).

Maybe to add a little thought to gooseberry's comments, I always felt that the D3 was more of a 'D3h' i.e. the sports pro-body from the Nikon stable, given its blazing 9fps and insane ISOs which is ideal for sports photogs, which in this case makes it a case of Nikon not following the original nomenclature of their sports bodies (D1h, D2h, D2hs). So we definitely can't compare it to Canon's current 21mp flagship but rather as gooseberry mentioned, the 1D MKIII.

Whereas IMO, the proper 'D3' or 'D3x(s)' should've been the megapixel behemoth that will be comparable to Canon's 1Ds Mark III (high megapixel count 18-24mp, slower burst mode, etc), basically Pro bodies to scratch at the range of the medium format digital backs, or as handier substitutes to MF digital bodies for studio work.

Just some thoughts, wonder if anyone has the same train of thought?

[S11loop]

High mp ? MF + digital back anytime .... why bother with 35mm

my 2cent .

[S11loop]

Originally Posted by psychobiologist if you need pixels, and when you are thinking of putting in 15-20k sgd into a camera, you might want to consider a medium format/digital back. you get 30+ to 40mp. be it canon, a full frame with 21mp, or whether nikon will release something similar, if you want that number of pixels, then you have to pay the price tag for that camera. for us consumers, its always a never-ending and often senseless pursuit of pixels.. the more the merrier. oh well my friend was telling me that eh.. this ranger brand or dunno what brand.. wahh got 8mp+++.. how come some slr only 6mp?! may i inquire what photojob you are doing that requires a lot of pixels? i.e. banner printing, big posters etc? me only small time hobbyist.. can print S8R enough for me. a higher resolution camera is also subjected to whether the lenses can resolve that well too.

exactly ... maybe ppl need it for bill board printing ... anyway are we expecting 35mm lenses to squeeze out equal details and quality as compare to a MF with the same mp count ?

Think abt it i am too lazy to go into the technical aspect ....

[theRBK]

Originally Posted by giantcanopy I cannot remember where i read it but if Nikon packed the D300 sensor into an FX sensor into the D3 it will become a 24MP camera. It is very doable but Nikon created a D3 and the game plan for their first FX is so not the pixel chasing game but the quality The next FX will definitely be exciting Ryan

very simple... DX sensor is about half the size of FX, therefore if pixel size is the same, then an FX sized sensor with D300 sized pixels packed in would give twice the number of pixels of the D300's DX sensor, giving 12x2=24Mpixel...

[peepeedog]

Originally Posted by psychobiologist if you need pixels, and when you are thinking of putting in 15-20k sgd into a camera, you might want to consider a medium format/digital back. you get 30+ to 40mp. be it canon, a full frame with 21mp, or whether nikon will release something similar, if you want that number of pixels, then you have to pay the price tag for that camera. for us consumers, its always a never-ending and often senseless pursuit of pixels.. the more the merrier. oh well my friend was telling me that eh.. this ranger brand or dunno what brand.. wahh got 8mp+++.. how come some slr only 6mp?! may i inquire what photojob you are doing that requires a lot of pixels? i.e. banner printing, big posters etc? me only small time hobbyist.. can print S8R enough for me. a higher resolution camera is also subjected to whether the lenses can resolve that well too.

i totally agree. If you breach the 20 mega pixel range you might as well go medium format. As far as consumers / professionals in the current range of dslrs, 12 mp FF is more than enough.

How much do you need to crop to get your good shot? Why are you cropping to such an extent, shouldn't your composition be pre-planned? I'm not going to equip myself with a wide angle, and go take photos of birds, then crop until i can see the birds. I'll buy a tele lens.

Don't forget to take into consideration processing of such huge raw files. right now my D200's 15mb raw files are already killing my HDDs and CPU, I can't imagine bigger raw files to process.

Don't forget D3 has overtaken Canon's noise control and even managed a decent 25600 ISO. IMO it would be the camera of choice in the entire DSLR market (if price wasn't such a big consideration )

[longkangman]

Next to consider is the price tag.
Do a reseach in MF digital back on their CCD sensor.

[Jed]

Originally Posted by toda_k20 Yes, maybe 12M is in fact more than enough for everyone but for the sake of discussion, Isn't it a waste of real estate ?

No, depending on how you look at it. It's a waste of real estate if you were looking to cram more pixels into the given sensor size. It's hardly a waste of real estate because by not trying to cram more pixels in you would lose the noise performance that you get out of the D3.

Quote: It would have been nice if Nikon would pack more pixel into the same space and allow users to do crops of their pictures without any compromises in resolutions.

You then end up allowing users to crop their pictures with compromises in image noise.

Quote: I believe it is almost a no brainer that the next FX body will have higher pixel density but for now, Nikon is perhaps prioritizing noise control over resolution.

Quite probably yes, but then I don't see why you see the D3 to be out of sync or a waste of real estate since even you are expecting a higher resolution camera to follow.

Actually I believe Nikon believe the D3 to be a fully versatile camera body, which is why they have dropped the "H" nomenclature from the end. The fact is, 12mp is a pretty good for the majority of purposes (Alamy, for example, accepts 6mp digital files and will take even D2h and D1x images), and we get high quality pixels into the bargain. Plus you get 9fps to boot, which you couldn't if you had to churn through say 24mp of data.

I'm not saying there isn't a high resolution version to follow in the future - there probably will be. It wouldn't necessarily surprise me if it isn't a D3x as widely presumed, but might even be called the D4... if it is, you heard it here first.

[Jed]

Originally Posted by theRBK very simple... DX sensor is about half the size of FX, therefore if pixel size is the same, then an FX sized sensor with D300 sized pixels packed in would give twice the number of pixels of the D300's DX sensor, giving 12x2=24Mpixel...

Well that's a bit of an oversimplification. If the DX sensor was half the size of an FX sensor you would have a 1.41x crop factor on the DX sensor. That's why for example the DX crop on a D3 gives you 5.1mp from a 12mp FX sensor, as opposed to 6mp.

An FX sensor is actually 2.25x the size of a DX sensor, which means you'd end up with a 27mp full frame sensor, without taking into account addressing, etc.

[theRBK]

Originally Posted by Jed Well that's a bit of an oversimplification. If the DX sensor was half the size of an FX sensor you would have a 1.41x crop factor on the DX sensor. That's why for example the DX crop on a D3 gives you 5.1mp from a 12mp FX sensor, as opposed to 6mp. An FX sensor is actually 2.25x the size of a DX sensor, which means you'd end up with a 27mp full frame sensor, without taking into account addressing, etc.

I mentioned "about"... its just a rough estimate ("oversimplification" as you put it, which I agree) used to speculate on the pixel count of a possible high resolution FX sensor, which is all we can do unless we are part of the development team at Nikon or Sony...

[lsisaxon]

Originally Posted by toda_k20 So most of us have read (and some experinced) the good niose and DOF performance of the D3. Nikon does this by having a lower density (12m pixel) full frame sensor. Yes, maybe 12M is in fact more than enough for everyone but for the sake of discussion, Isn't it a waste of real estate ? It would have been nice if Nikon would pack more pixel into the same space and allow users to do crops of their pictures without any compromises in resolutions. Any thoughts here? I believe it is almost a no brainer that the next FX body will have higher pixel density but for now, Nikon is perhaps prioritizing noise control over resolution.

It's never a waste of real estate... You get the noise performance of the D3 by making use of a bigger area for each pixel. If most people are asking for high ISO quality rather than megapixel resolution, then I don't see why Nikon has not made a right decision in making D3. Since it's called D3, and not D3H like D2H, there isn't any aspect which has been crippled. I did think about whether to go for D3 or to wait for D3X, which probably would have D300's pixel density but if you see the noise performance of D300 and the corner performance of many lenses on the D3, I think 12mp is probably good enough for me. Anything higher would not do good much for corner resolution anyway since it's optics limited and not sensor limited.

[lsisaxon]

Originally Posted by SolBadGuy Canon has by far, before the birth of D300 and D3, better noise control than Nikon. Nikon's strategy in lower pixel density to (probably) combat Canon's noise control results in the birth of D3 and D300. It will probably take some time before Nikon releases another FX camera with higher pixel count that is on par with regards to noise control. After all, looking at the recent launch of D3, it's not even close to the end of its PLC (product life cycle). I think it will take at least another year before Nikon releases another FX product in the high end market targeted at professionals.

D300's pixel density is slightly higher than 40D's, and the noise is similar with the 40D having a slight edge in the details at higher ISO, so I guess Nikon isn't too far off.

[lsisaxon]

Originally Posted by S11loop exactly ... maybe ppl need it for bill board printing ... anyway are we expecting 35mm lenses to squeeze out equal details and quality as compare to a MF with the same mp count ? Think abt it i am too lazy to go into the technical aspect ....

No one is going to look at a billboard 30cm away, so is the resolution really that important?

[lsisaxon]

Originally Posted by Jaevus Maybe to add a little thought to gooseberry's comments, I always felt that the D3 was more of a 'D3h' i.e. the sports pro-body from the Nikon stable, given its blazing 9fps and insane ISOs which is ideal for sports photogs, which in this case makes it a case of Nikon not following the original nomenclature of their sports bodies (D1h, D2h, D2hs). So we definitely can't compare it to Canon's current 21mp flagship but rather as gooseberry mentioned, the 1D MKIII. Whereas IMO, the proper 'D3' or 'D3x(s)' should've been the megapixel behemoth that will be comparable to Canon's 1Ds Mark III (high megapixel count 18-24mp, slower burst mode, etc), basically Pro bodies to scratch at the range of the medium format digital backs, or as handier substitutes to MF digital bodies for studio work. Just some thoughts, wonder if anyone has the same train of thought?

If you look at the previous D-series, you will know that in terms of MP count, D? without any suffix is about what a general photographer would look at, D?H would pack in the speed which may be at the expense of resolution (D2H) and an X designation would mean that the resolution has been improved, which may be at the expense of speed.

Now for D3, since it's already blazingly fast, an X version may be a higher resolution version but at the expense of speed.... and noise performance...

[SolBadGuy]

Originally Posted by lsisaxon D300's pixel density is slightly higher than 40D's, and the noise is similar with the 40D having a slight edge in the details at higher ISO, so I guess Nikon isn't too far off.

Yeap, Nikon isn't far off, and Nikon FTW!