D300s Successor-D400, what and when

soap

FX used to have more than one stop noise advantage so given that you agree it is now only one, why do you not think it will continue to improve?

Obviously noise levels will continue to improve until we reach 100% photo->electron conversion and ADC noise reaches Johnson–Nyquist limits, but FX will always collect more than a stop of light more per photo than DX. A FX sensor with the same technology as a DX sensor can not "win" by more than than that physical advantage.

Not that I'm sure when FX ever beat DX by more than its physical advantage...

EDIT: I forgot a word!

kyoshinikon

Thanks for the correction on the comment regarding the battery.

"Love the two settings on the left control knob that is lockable"

The lock would have been nice on the D600 if it had actually worked...

Okay:  what doesn't work?  I have read several reviews and no one said there was an issue with the lock.

"Ability to use ISO 12,000 and pass Pop Photography low noise setting"

Ain't going to be usable... That is Just a cripple one gets with a Dx body.

With the improvements Canon has done with DX bodies Nikon is gong to half to step up and match or beat Canon.  If Canon can get the better ratings so can Nikon.

The knob can still turn when locked. I've done it on 3 different D600's...

In testing the canon is superior but in person not so much. All the canons I used in the field that do good on the noise (like the 7D) obviously do a noise reduction process akin to adding too much luminance in lightroom  even when nr is turned off, and it looks bad. I prefer grain over a "over-processed" look. 12,800 is very possible but it probably will look like ISO 6400 on a D7000 which usually doesn't cut it for me. ISO 3200 is the highest I can go with practically no noise and I doubt the new sensor if it is 20-24mpx will be 2 stops better than the D7000. 1 stop seems more realistic.

DaveyJ

Well I might have got my photo changed. Wow, these have to be very low res. Thanks to you all especially msmoto. Sure hope a DX Nikon gets released!

spraynpray

@ DaveyJ:  Please learn to respect the structure of this forum and post in the correct thread i.e. "How to change your profile picture (Avitar)" or "Post all forum problems here" which you will see on the forums home page.  Thx.

Godless

The D7000 is and will continue to be an amazing body...

+1

The only reason I sold mine is the too small body size. My fingers always cramped after a session with the D7000, a thing that never happened with the D300S and D700.. a bigger grip would have solved the issue.

Sauron

FX used to have more than one stop noise advantage so given that you agree it is now only one, why do you not think it will continue to improve?

Obviously noise levels will continue to improve until we reach 100% photo->electron conversion and ADC noise reaches Johnson–Nyquist limits, but FX will always collect more than a stop of light more per photo than DX. A FX sensor with the same technology as a DX sensor can not "win" by more than than that physical advantage.

Not that I'm sure when FX ever beat DX by more than its physical advantage...

EDIT: I forgot a word!

I agree to some level of what you are stating, but it is not always correct to compare sensor quality just in one way. It also depends on the way you are taking the pictures, and that can differ depending on if you have a DX or an FX-sensor.

You are probably familiar with this site, but I will refer to it anyway if by any chance someone else have missed it. I recommend to read the whole article, but if not, at least read paragraph 8 and 10 under the section "Myths and common misunderstandings":

http://www.josephjamesphotography.com/equivalence/

Wishes for a Happy New Year to you all...

/Roger

P.S. @Soap, this post is not directed to you because I disagree. I just wanted to fill in some details to complete the general DX vs FX-discussion.
 

donaldejose

I see Impress Magazine is now calling the D300s replacement a D9000.  We have been calling it a D400.  I think the D9000 name is a strong possibility.  Using D9000 would make all Dx and all Dxx bodies FX bodies and all Dxxxx bodies DX bodies.  It would make sense to differentiate the FX/DX lines that way.  

heartyfisher

the way i see it is that the FX will always have the 1 stop advantage.. however the actual advantage will get increasingly smaller.. What i mean is that (depending on how much of and IQ junkie you are) previously people wont go above 600 ISO on dx cameras ( I am looking at you D80!) now 3200 is mostly acceptable.
so the range of acceptable ISO has increased and will continue to do so.. so the 1+ stop difference at the high gets relatively smaller.. and gee who really uses the High ISO if you want good sensor IQ anyway !

PB_PM

@heartyfisher That is a good point, how much more high ISO do we really need? Do we need clean noise free ISO3200, 6400, 125600? At what point is good enough, good enough? Not saying that camera makers should suddenly stop trying to get cleaner files, but the ISO range on modern cameras is simply becoming insane. Next thing you know we'll be shooting night scenes like it is the middle of the day.

kyoshinikon

For some of us high Iso's are very important. My life would be much easier if I could get a clean ISO 6400 but I cannot, not without the current gear I own and the cost of a D4 is out of my budget. Good enough for me is when you can use a SS of 1000th or a second in excessivly low indoor light (freeze someone running in large room lit by a single small candle with no noise)...  Most people don't need that much but it is the cutoff line

heartyfisher

LOL "freeze someone running in large room lit by a single small candle with no noise" I doubt that will ever happen not even with a D6

PB_PM

@kyoshinikon I don't disagree, I would love clean files at ISO6400 or higher. As I said, I wouldn't want sensor manufactures to stop pushing the limit. My point was more along the lines that the average photographer is able get the results they want, in many situations, with what is available today.

The balance between high pixel counts and better noise performance is rubbing heads. Look at the newer 24MP DX sensors, in some ways they are a step back from the high quality 16MP sensors in terms of noise performance. Leading me to the point that, bigger isn't always better. Of course numbers like MP sell with consumers, so they will dive in.

sevencrossing

Leading me to the point that, bigger isn't always better.

My Teacher ( who used a 5 x4) often told me ( I used a Nikon F) " a good big one, is always better than a good small one 

which was and is still is true

but he did not shoot action or work in a challenging environment, so I often got pictures he not even attempt  

but if we look at  two comparable 5 year old cameras  the D300 and the D700.   the D700 will win nearly every time

What of the future ?

May be we will get Dx equivalents of  the D4  and D800

but until we do, FX is king

 Dx has only one big advantage, it is cheaper
 

donaldejose

Last year I shot high school basketball games with a D7000 and f2.8 lenses.  This year I am shooting the same games in the same gyms with a D600 and a D800 and the same f2.8 lenses.  Comparing a photo from last year with a photo from this year I would say I have a two stop plus advantage this year.  I think I get one stop at the same final print size simply because FX doesn't need to be enlarged as much as DX to get to the same print size.  I think I get one stop plus from sensor/software advances.  Interestingly I am preferring the D800 files to the D600 files since I think they give me a bit less noise at the same high ISO (or it could just be that the higher megapixels makes the noise "spots" smaller in size at the same print size).  I expect the DX D7200 and D400/D9000 sensors to bridge the one stop plus sensor gap with new technology.  But they will never bridge the size gap so I expect FX to essentially remain about one stop ahead of DX simply because you don't need to enlarge the image as much to obtain the same print size.  For DX to equal FX in a 24x36 inch print that DX senor would have to be about one stop superior to a FX sensor.  While that could happen, for example, when the D4 FX sensor is 3-4 years old and the DX D7300 sensor is new, if DX quality goes up due to technology advances that same new technology will be put into the next iteration of the FX sensor.  Thus, FX should always have about a one stop IQ advantage over DX due to size.  

Sauron

When it comes to Image Quality, there can not be a problem to have many small pixels compared to a few large pixels. OK - might someone say, the signal-to-noise (SNR) is higher (better) on larger pixels compared to smaller pixels (generally speaking) - and that is true. However, with a higher pixel density you can choose between high resolution OR high SNR but with a low density sensor you have only one choice - high SNR. You cannot up-sample an image to get more details, but you can down-sample a picture to get high SNR. Especially when using smart downsampling algorithms that reduces noise more on "flat" parts and less noise reduction in detailed parts of the image, will enhance the IQ.

But - the drawback with high density sensors are that the pictures consume more memory and slows down the FPS - at least prior to downsampling. That is one reason why I prefer DX-sensors...

Cheers...

/Roger

sevencrossing

I think in the current Nikon range the camera with the fastest fps is the D4 which I believe is FX

Msmoto

I guess I am not following why DX is better in view of your discussion, Sauron.  No matter what the issues, the superiority of a larger image capture area will always be true.

soap

I guess I am not following why DX is better in view of your discussion, Sauron.  No matter what the issues, the superiority of a larger image capture area will always be true.

There are two advantages DX will always have: Increased DoF given the same framing and f/stop and less expense. (A plot of silicon wafer prices shows just about zero change in cost per square unit over the last 20 years.) Perhaps I'm missing another - but all other issues (photosite density AKA "reach" and FPS amongst them) are side effects of how technology evolved in the past, not inherit advantages of a crop format.

heartyfisher

I guess I am not following why DX is better in view of your discussion, Sauron.  No matter what the issues, the superiority of a larger image capture area will always be true.

There are two advantages DX will always have: Increased DoF given the same framing and f/stop and less expense. (A plot of silicon wafer prices shows just about zero change in cost per square unit over the last 20 years.) Perhaps I'm missing another - but all other issues (photosite density AKA "reach" and FPS amongst them) are side effects of how technology evolved in the past, not inherit advantages of a crop format.

There several others that i can think of..
1) Size and weight of the camera body. and price
2) Size and weight of the DX lense. and price.
3) Potentially  larger aperture lenses.. Though few lense manufacturers has taken advantage of this.  The exception being the Tamron 60mm F2.0 dx and the 17-70 F2.8-F4 from sigma
4) Increased reach at the tele end ..a 300 F2.8 mm lens is significantly less expensive than a 450 mm F2.8 if it existed.

sevencrossing

I think we are all agreed that DX cameras and lens are cheaper

but there is a very limited range of Dx lens

all of  Nikon "larger aperture lenses" ( f 1.4 ) are FX

 "Reach" (the degree to which a part of the  image, produced by the  lens, can  be enlarged) is dependent on the resolution of sensor and the resolution of the lens, the latest sensors seem to have the greatest  resolution, regardless if they are DX or FX

Yes a 300mm lens is cheaper than a 450mm lens

that fact that  DX is cheaper is not in dispute

Regarding weight and size , yes the D700 is 80g heavier and 3mm thicker than the its Dx equivalent, the D300. 

There is no Dx 300mm  f2.8 lens for us to compare, but I agree a 300mm lens will be lighter than a 400mm that said; having bought a 300mm f 2.8 ( a FX lens) I think  I would prefer the extra FOV of a  FX camera

Yes when it comes to bangs for your bucks, Dx wins hands down

but if it's IQ you are after, FX is a clear winner

 

 

 

 

 

soap

.
1) Size and weight of the camera body. and price

The only inherent size and weight advantage DX holds if it is using the F-mount and the long flange:focal that implies is in the prism. There is no technical reason a D3x00-sized body can not be made FX (excepting the rather minor volume difference in prism box). Price I already mentioned. Obviously once the flapping mirror goes away and F-mount is abandoned the game changes significantly.

2) Size and weight of the DX lense. and price.

This is true but has not been capitalized on much by Nikon or Canon. The long registration distance of the F-mount also unfortunately limits this (And Nikon's failure to use a key hole to differentiate between DX and FX mount plates.) With keyed lenses one could mount DX lenses recessed behind the mount to furthur leverage the crop

3) Potentially  larger aperture lenses.. Though few lense manufacturers has taken advantage of this.  The exception being the Tamron 60mm F2.0 dx and the 17-70 F2.8-F4 from sigma

How does a crop sensor allow for larger apertures?

4) Increased reach at the tele end ..a 300 F2.8 mm lens is significantly less expensive than a 450 mm F2.8 if it existed.

"Reach" is nothing more than sensor density. Historically DX has had denser sensors than FX, but this is not a technical trait of crop sensors, this has been a marketing decision. The D800 can "reach" just as far with a 300mm lens as the D7000 can.

PB_PM

@soap +1

sevencrossing

Obviously once the flapping mirror goes away and F-mount is abandoned the game changes significantly.

Enter the Nikon 1

Sauron

I guess I am not following why DX is better in view of your discussion, Sauron.  No matter what the issues, the superiority of a larger image capture area will always be true.

Yes, Msmoto, I didn’t elaborate very much on how I came to the conclusion that I prefer DX-sensors, that’s true. Given the facts (that I mentioned above) that smaller pixels is not a problem compared to larger pixels, on the contrary, it is a possibility to have at least the same SNR and better DR as long as it is handled in the right way – there is only one possible benefit of having a larger sensor area compared to a smaller, given the same pixel size. That is if you need to print out very large pictures with high resolution (many details), because you can fit more pixels into a bigger sensor. However, if you do not need to do this on all your pictures, or any, the benefits of a smaller sensor are several. (Some has already been mentioned by “soap” and “heartyfisher”).

Regarding the myth of FX superiority:
If you want to compare the image quality between different sensor types (technology or size), this can be done in many ways, but what is considered correct is to compare equivalent images taken by the sensors. In such a case you should have the same aperture size (DOF), the same shutter speed (i.e. motion blur) and the same AOV. These are the three parameters that you should have equal when comparing images because it simply gives equivalent images (but not in terms of noise, DR or other quality aspects). What you will find are that you will get the same or better SNR and better DR with a DX-sensor (using the same technology of course).

There are (probably) several sources that can explain this very well and I can refer to two of them here:
http://www.josephjamesphotography.com/equivalence/
If you don’t want to read all of it, at least read the paragraphs 8 and 10 in the section “Myths and common misunderstandings”.
And a well written article on Wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sensor_sizes
See the part under “Sensor size, noise and dynamic range”. Take especially note of the table under “Dynamic range”.

(I deleted a text here that was a bit long that explaned some other DX-benefits.)

Best Regards
Roger

P.S. I congratulate the US Junior Hockey Team that beat our swedish team in the Junior Hockey Championship Final today...

TaoTeJared

Anything? Nope not a damn thing.

Just a note on that Joseph james photo site - his information is technically correct but his correlations and lining up information for conclusions is... well not that great and ignores manufacturing processes etc. It's not bad for hard technical information, but it is written in a way that can lead you to believe many of his conclusions are "facts" when they are just opinions.