Will there Be a Professional DX Body From Nikon?

1222325272849

Comments

  • WestEndFotoWestEndFoto Posts: 3,745Member
    The good thing is, the longer the wait the better it will be :-).

    What do we say about the possibility that the D820 will have 10 fps in dx mode? Or is pro dx in fx off topic for this thread?
    That is a very real possibility. It would require an upgrade to the processor, shutter and probably a couple of other things. Perhaps more likely in a D760?
  • IronheartIronheart Posts: 3,017Moderator
    edited March 2015
    The dancing DX angels are nicer than the FX ones. They have to be because there is less room to dance. The answer to how many angels can dance in in a megapixel, is the same as for any other "how many angles" question. All of them. Whew! Now that's settled, we can discuss something real, like the D400
    Post edited by Ironheart on
  • donaldejosedonaldejose Posts: 3,724Member
    Actually, the number of angels dancing on DX or FX megapixels invokes an interesting question to me. Substitute photons for angels and ask if more megapixels really do reduce high ISO IQ if approximately the same amount of light is gathered by each sensor. I know conventional wisdom is that fewer megapixels equate to larger pixels which can then gather more light creating less noise at high ISO. But if Nikon uses a micro-lens filter over the sensor which bends light away from the edges and into the existing pixels (of whatever size) more megapixels should not have to equate to less photons gathered.
  • sevencrossingsevencrossing Posts: 2,800Member
    edited March 2015


    This sounds good are we happy to run with this definition for "Pro DX"?


    Pro is Profession and No compromise

    Prosumer cameras are always a compromise, in order to keep the cost down

    The D7200 and D300 were both a compromise and both Prosumer

    The D300 compromised on sensor size
    The D7200 compromised on controls and body construction

    IMHO Dx is a compromise

    Post edited by sevencrossing on
  • manhattanboymanhattanboy Posts: 1,003Member
    There exists less evidence for its existence than there does for UFOs or the lost continent of Atlantis. Could they exist? Sure. Why not.
    Good news, using data analysis Atlantis appears to have been found:
    http://nypost.com/2015/03/15/did-atlantis-really-exist-on-the-moroccan-coast/

    Now all we need is the math geniuses to figure out where the D400 is :D
  • manhattanboymanhattanboy Posts: 1,003Member
    Actually, the number of angels dancing on DX or FX megapixels invokes an interesting question to me. Substitute photons for angels and ask if more megapixels really do reduce high ISO IQ if approximately the same amount of light is gathered by each sensor. I know conventional wisdom is that fewer megapixels equate to larger pixels which can then gather more light creating less noise at high ISO. But if Nikon uses a micro-lens filter over the sensor which bends light away from the edges and into the existing pixels (of whatever size) more megapixels should not have to equate to less photons gathered.
    There is a nice video on Youtube about a similar topic here:
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0OtIiwbAZi8
  • snakebunksnakebunk Posts: 993Member

    The D300 compromised on sensor size
    And the D810 compromises on speed and the D4 compromises on resolution. If pro means no compromise, Nikon makes no pro cameras.

  • IronheartIronheart Posts: 3,017Moderator
    @donaldejose, see my post in the high-megapixel thread. Nikon has been using gapless microlens technology for a while, so the whole small/large pixel thing is a wash. None of the angels, err... photons are lost, they are merely bumped to the next pixel.
    http://forum.nikonrumors.com/discussion/3924/so-why-no-d4x-a-pro-level-high-megapixel-camera-for-studiofashionadvertising-photographers#Item_70
  • Capt_SpauldingCapt_Spaulding Posts: 740Member
    edited March 2015
    Oh, it's a fantastic thread. I am concurrently engaged in a heated debate on another forum as well. We are discussing the number of angels that can dance in the space of a megapixel, and whether or not an FX megapixel allows for more angels.

    Both threads are equally productive.
    That sounds much easier than this. From what I read, the D4 MPs are just over 8 7 microns and a D800s are just under 5. All you need now is are several easy assumptions and you're home; 1) the average angel occupies .00000000000x milimeters, 2 )all angels are the same size and 3) angels are not compressible. QED, and Robert is your mother's brother.

    A D400? Now THAT presents a conundrum.

    Edit: another upside - I'm finally getting a very low resolution image of what a Pro camera is.
    Post edited by Capt_Spaulding on
  • manhattanboymanhattanboy Posts: 1,003Member
    However, none of us actually know what Nikon is thinking
    Have not found anything on Nikon's strategy, but did find a video interviewing Canon about their thinking and insight into new products.
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l6FnKgVjPpM
    :P
  • sevencrossingsevencrossing Posts: 2,800Member
    edited March 2015

    If pro means no compromise, Nikon makes no pro cameras.
    You do not get threads a 26 pages long, preceded by one of 100 pages asking. Will Nikon ever make a Pro Fx Camera

    The D4 x thread is only 3 pages





    Post edited by sevencrossing on
  • snakebunksnakebunk Posts: 993Member

    If pro means no compromise, Nikon makes no pro cameras.
    You do not get threads a 26 pages long, preceded by one of 100 pages asking. Will Nikon ever make a Pro Fx Camera
    That is because we already have the pro fx cameras. If Nikon discontinues the D4 or D810 I think we might have long threads.
  • sevencrossingsevencrossing Posts: 2,800Member
    < If Nikon discontinues the D4 or D810 I think we might have long threads.
    Although the D300s is officially discontinued they are still advertised, new ,on Amazon
    The D810 and D4s would still available for some time
  • dissentdissent Posts: 1,351Member
    The issue with this D400 thread isn't time dilation. It's perpetual motion. I'm hooking up a drive chain to the sprockets right now. At this rate, there's no telling how many kilowatt-hours we can get out of the thing.

    That and I'm gonna need some more popcorn.
    - Ian . . . [D7000, D7100; Nikon glass: 35 f1.8, 85 f1.8, 70-300 VR, 105 f2.8 VR, 12-24 f4; 16-85 VR, 300 f4D, 14E-II TC, SB-400, SB-700 . . . and still plenty of ignorance]
  • snakebunksnakebunk Posts: 993Member
    < If Nikon discontinues the D4 or D810 I think we might have long threads.
    Although the D300s is officially discontinued they are still advertised, new ,on Amazon
    The D810 and D4s would still available for some time
    Ok, but I think I lost your point about pro dx not being pro. I might add that I think compromise is a good thing and I don't know why it would be non pro. If for example the D810 didn't compromise on speed it wouldn't have as high resolution (or be very expensive).

  • snakebunksnakebunk Posts: 993Member
    @PitchBlack: I think you misunderstood me. I mean that Nikon can't make a fx camera at a reasonable price that both has top fps and top resolution. So Nikon compromise and we can choose if we want high resolution (D810) or speed (D4S).
  • sevencrossingsevencrossing Posts: 2,800Member
    edited March 2015

    Anyone who buys a D300s right now needs to seriously get his or her priorities in order.
    I agree but it meets MsMoto's definition of a Pro Camera the controls resemble those on a D4s, or D810. And the body is built with more metal than composite.

    My definition of Pro Camera is "The best you can get"
    That is what I want from a professional tool
    The D4s and D810 meet my definition
    A Dx camera does not. If it did, people would upgrade from Fx to Dx
    D700 owners never upgraded to a D300
    and I dont many, if any upgraded to a D7xxx
    Post edited by sevencrossing on
  • heartyfisherheartyfisher Posts: 3,186Member
    edited March 2015
    @PitchBlack: .... Three! Throughput ain't easy.
    And yet we have 60fps on a N1V3.. I know we keep ignoring it but its there ..

    60 FPS 60 FPS 60 FPS
    60 FPS 60 FPS 60 FPS
    60 FPS 60 FPS 60 FPS
    60 FPS 60 FPS 60 FPS
    60 FPS 60 FPS 60 FPS
    60 FPS 60 FPS 60 FPS
    60 FPS 60 FPS 60 FPS

    Post edited by heartyfisher on
    Moments of Light - D610 D7K S5pro 70-200f4 18-200 150f2.8 12-24 18-70 35-70f2.8 : C&C very welcome!
    Being a photographer is a lot like being a Christian: Some people look at you funny but do not see the amazing beauty all around them - heartyfisher.

  • snakebunksnakebunk Posts: 993Member
    @heartyfisher: I am not ignoring it. Maybe it is too ridiculous for some ;).
  • WestEndFotoWestEndFoto Posts: 3,745Member
    @heartyfisher: I am not ignoring it. Maybe it is too ridiculous for some ;).
    There are some catches here guys. Those files are much smaller. First, there are much fewer megapixels than a D810 or even a D7200 - only 20. Then we are talking about a 12 bit file, which is a quarter the size of an equivalent 14 bit raw file.

    Yow will also notice the Nikon rating of 30/60 frames per second. There is yet another catch to get from 30 to 60, not sure what it is though.

    I am willing to bet that after this, the data throughput is similar to a regular DSLR shooting at its maximum, and much slower frame rate.

    Frankly, I think that video is quite misleading and would count as false advertising is it was actually an ad. I am sure a few newbies have been conned though.
  • heartyfisherheartyfisher Posts: 3,186Member
    edited March 2015
    We have a few N1V3 users here dont we ? may be they can comment.
    Post edited by heartyfisher on
    Moments of Light - D610 D7K S5pro 70-200f4 18-200 150f2.8 12-24 18-70 35-70f2.8 : C&C very welcome!
    Being a photographer is a lot like being a Christian: Some people look at you funny but do not see the amazing beauty all around them - heartyfisher.

  • snakebunksnakebunk Posts: 993Member
    @WestEndFoto: Is a 12 bit file really a quarter in size of a 14 bit file? I am thinking it would be 12/14 in size.
  • heartyfisherheartyfisher Posts: 3,186Member
    edited March 2015
    @WestEndFoto: Is a 12 bit file really a quarter in size of a 14 bit file? I am thinking it would be 12/14 in size.
    Doesnt look like it is 4 times ...
    http://www.diyphotography.net/12bit-vs-14bit-raw-and-compressed-vs-uncompressed-does-it-matter/

    Post edited by heartyfisher on
    Moments of Light - D610 D7K S5pro 70-200f4 18-200 150f2.8 12-24 18-70 35-70f2.8 : C&C very welcome!
    Being a photographer is a lot like being a Christian: Some people look at you funny but do not see the amazing beauty all around them - heartyfisher.

  • MsmotoMsmoto Posts: 5,398Moderator
    I would love to see an image of 3000 px width shot at 60 FPS. Can someone give me a link to this?
    Msmoto, mod
  • WestEndFotoWestEndFoto Posts: 3,745Member
    @WestEndFoto: Is a 12 bit file really a quarter in size of a 14 bit file? I am thinking it would be 12/14 in size.
    It is four times the data that must be processed. Pardon my sloppiness. The file size will not be four times smaller as there are other things that effect file size. But for a processor, it is the amount of data that is being processed and what processes are being performed that matters.

    Remember that 12 bits is 2 to the power of 12, while 14 bits is 2 to the power of 14.

    My main point is that Pitchblack's assertion, in my view, is still sound despite the performance of the N1V1 which seems to be accomplished by reducing the amount of data that must be processed. I also think that this sort of analysis can only be rough at best. There will be factors that effect throughput, such as the specific processes being performed, that only Nikon engineers know.

    Consider the frame rate of the medium format cameras that Pitchblack's alluded to. Some, or all, of those are 16 bit. Those will have four times more data than Nikon's 14 bit NEF files.
Sign In or Register to comment.