Will there Be a Professional DX Body From Nikon?

WestEndFoto

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?

Ironheart

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

donaldejose

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.

sevencrossing

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

manhattanboy

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

manhattanboy

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

snakebunk

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.

Ironheart

@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_Spaulding

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.

manhattanboy

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

sevencrossing

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

snakebunk

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.

sevencrossing

< 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

dissent

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.

snakebunk

< 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).

snakebunk

@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).

sevencrossing

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

heartyfisher

@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

snakebunk

@heartyfisher: I am not ignoring it. Maybe it is too ridiculous for some .

WestEndFoto

@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.

heartyfisher

We have a few N1V3 users here dont we ? may be they can comment.

snakebunk

@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.

heartyfisher

@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/

Msmoto

I would love to see an image of 3000 px width shot at 60 FPS. Can someone give me a link to this?

WestEndFoto

@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.