Will there Be a Professional DX Body From Nikon?

WestEndFoto

I regret that I won't be able to participate in this conversation for the next 15 hours as I have meetings. It is an interesting conversation.

snakebunk

@WestEndFoto: I think you have a valid point!

I agree that if you are to do something like noice reduction on a 14 bit file it could be four times as time consuming as on a 12 bit file, but if you look at the file size the difference should be only 12/14.

It may be that the image has to be processed in some complex way and therefore you can raise the fps by four times if you are dealing with a 12 bit file instead of a 14 bit one. That would explain most of the puzzle with the high fps in the Nikon 1 V3.

Good luck with your meetings!

WestEndFoto

The file size is the end product after the processing (washroom break). I think you got it.

One_Oh_Four

Lets make some assertions.. but before we do that lets first define a a "Pro DX camera"

And define what exactly a "unicorn" is.... Is that defined only by the horn or are hoofs also compulsory?....

Sports

This has to stop ....

14 bit simply doesn't require four times as much processing as 12 bits. It's just nonsense.
Processing time is more or less the same!
Pitchblack, even your calculation is wrong, Try again.

If there were any significant speed difference between 12 and 14, then why don't we see a speed difference when we change the setting?

All CPUs support 14 bit (well, 16 bits) directly, and a calculation takes the same time regardless of the size of the numbers. When building a dedicated image processor "extension" (like Expeed 4) for a 14 bit camera, you will, of course, optimize it even more (if needed) for those 14 bits that you want.

On some old bodies (like D300) there was probably no proper CPU support for 14 bit calculations, so therefore, it was much slower at 14 bits.

Nikon 1 uses the 12 bit format because its sensor is not good enough for putting anything useful into the least significant bits anyway. It's not here they get their speed advantage (try "no mirror", electronic shutter, and there was something with the sensor read-out, wasn't there?).

And to put the record straight, V3 shoots 20 fps with continuous AF ... with 171 AF points, so it even has much more AF processing to do than the DSLRs.
On the other hand, I'm sure the pro metering system on the DSLRs requires more processing, as Pitchblack says.
And, true, we don't know the complexity of the image processing algorithms. Maybe Nikon uses better, but more complex algorithms for the DSLRs. I have no idea. This could easily slow down processing.

Finally, as Snakebunk says, 12 bits saves you 2/14 of the total size, so you will of course save a small amount of time when you transfer data.

donaldejose

All the arguments and discussion really don't matter folks, so don't get so emotional about it. Either Nikon will produce a "traditional pro body" D400 soon or they won't produce one at all. There is nothing we can do about it. We just have to wait and see what happens.

Nikon soon may be transitioning to a body style like the Sony A7, A7r, A7s, and A7 II. If such a body style is metal can it be considered to be "pro?" Or does "pro" only mean it has to have a full metal body plus the control layout of the Dx and D800 series?

sevencrossing

,...........Or does "pro" only mean it has to have a full metal body plus the control layout of the Dx and D800 series?

That's a bit like saying someone who has such a camera, is a professional photographer
Completely meaningless

Andrewz

So I don't know much about bits and Mpix and frame rates......but I do know that there is a upper limitation to what a mechanical shutter and mirror can do. Some where between 10fps and 60fps, you're really switching to video. The mechanical shutter can only go so fast.

This is actually a good agrument for an "EVIL" camera (Electronic Viewfinder Interchangable Lens) I know MsMoto is interested in these EVIL cameras ;-) Something that I think would be interesting is a hybrid camera, it will function as a traditional DSLR until you need high speed function and then the mirror locks up, the shutter locks open and you have a completely electronic camera with very high frame rates and other benefits.....

Ironheart

20fps x 18.4mp x 2^12 = 1,507,328
5fps x 36.3mp x 2^14 = 2,973,696

Actually the Nikon 1 V3 does a solid 60 fps. I put the only caveats in the V3 thread, so:
60fps x 18.4 x 2^12 = 4,521,984
It also uses the Expeed 4a processor, which is the same found in the D750 with a few tweaks, so pretty much sparrows to sparrows. (It also does 1/16,000 shutter speed, but only electronic shutter at that speed, we'll get back to this)

I've worked in the computer/electronics industry for 30 years. I've worked on teams to design motherboards, processors, cameras, tablets, etc... The speed trade off is largely against power consumption, which is why more batteries can help. It's also why data centers need continuous cooling. I'm not saying there aren't tough challenges to solve when you want to go faster, and Nikon has hitched their wagon to Fujitsu's Milbeaut line, so they are somewhat at the mercy of what the latest chips can do, but raw throughput isn't the issue.

The reason the D4s can do 10/12 fps is because it has a very tough, durable, high-precision, highly tuned, relatively expensive shutter and mirror mechanism. The prosumer D750 doesn't have this, because it would drive the cost up, nor does the D800 because there they were limited to the Expeed 3's top speed limit anyway.

Anyway, the Nikon 1 V3 uses a mechanical shutter too, but it is 2.7 times (edit: 63%) smaller than an FX shutter, so it can easily whiz along at 60fps, also having no mirror helps. DX has an advantage here too, which being 1.5 times (edit: 33%) smaller it can move the shutter and mirror faster for less money. Hope this helps. It's really the laws of physics, nothing else.

Ironheart

No, the autofocus isn't turned off, it merely grabs from the first frame. You have a choice whether you want electronic or mechanical. If you don't believe me, I'll record a YouTube of the 60fps shutter firing. The reason they didn't upgrade the shutter on the D810 from the D800 is because it would have increased the cost of the camera dramatically and would have meant a major retool, rather than a minor one.

Andrewz

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-speed_photography

Interesting, if not completely related

Ironheart

If you look at what it takes to move a shutter and mirror at really high speeds, it is quite incredible, and yes, the difference btwn 5, 6, and 7 is huge, both in design, engineering, and cost (exotic materials on the high end). Also, at 10fps the amount of time the autofocus and metering actually gets to "look" at the scene becomes frighteningly small. I'll dig up the actual numbers. I think they were quite proud of the extra .5 fps they squeezed out of the 810
I actually own a V3 and I can vouch it's using mechanical at 60 fps if I want it too.

Ironheart

Because, it is easier (cheaper, and less design) to get a 33% smaller mirror and shutter to move at that speed. laws of physics and all.
There is a direct correlation between shutter life and speed. The 200k shutter in the d810 would be ripped apart if they drove it at 8fps. The 400k shutter in the D4s is twice as durable for a reason, these properties can't be uncoupled, marketing just makes it seem like a feature.

donaldejose

Maybe a solution could be to fire 2 or 3 shots with an electronic shutter every time the DSLR mirror goes up? You wouldn't have all 9 fps evenly spaced but the mirror would only have to be up 3 times to get 6 to 9 fps. If you applied this to a currently 5 fps capable shutter you could shoot 10 to 15 fps by taking 2 to 3 electronic shutter shots every time the mirror is up. Focus with mirror down, mirror goes up, shoot 2 or three frames, mirror down, focus, mirror goes up, shoot another 2 or 3 frames, etc. Does anyone know if an "electronic shutter" like this can be implemented in software?

Ironheart

Look, at the end of the day, it all matters. The camera has to function as a system. The processor, auto focus, metering, mirror and shutter all have to perform an intricate dance. You can't pull any one part out and say, "That's it, if the would just make the mirror move faster, it would all be better" If you upgrade the shutter to move at 10fps, you will also have to upgrade the AF module, the mirror, the metering, and the processor. All of a sudden you have a D5, and it will cost as much. Knowing what I know of mechanics and electronics, I would say the mechanics is way harder, and way more expensive to design, fabricate, test, and build.

You can't put Maserati tires on a Fiat and expect it handle like one.

Ironheart

@donaldejose, check out this slo mo pic of a shutter. Not sure where you would insert these extra photos in the process also, DSLRs use a "slit" shutter, you can't sample the sensor globally:
http://petapixel.com/2015/01/29/exploring-dslr-shutters-work-10000-frames-per-second/

donaldejose

All very interesting! At least the 20 mp D5, probably out later this year, will likely have some new technology in it. When the 20 mp D5 is running at 11 fps it must be going to have a new, or just faster, processor. Perhaps that new processor can be used in a D400 to push 24 mp images through at 8 fps?

heartyfisher

As @Sports says .. "All CPUs support 14 bit (well, 16 bits) directly, and a calculation takes the same time regardless of the size of the numbers. When building a dedicated image processor "extension" (like Expeed 4) for a 14 bit camera, you will, of course, optimize it even more (if needed) for those 14 bits that you want."

12 bit vs 14 bit for a processor cpu is only minor processing time as it usually deals in chunks of 8 or 16 or 32 or 64, in this case its probably working in chunks of 16bits. So whether its 12 or 14 bits should have no difference to the cpu. However, storage or moving of the raw files would mean that you are storing 14 bits vs 12.

When you convert an analog signal, like from a pixel, you make it represent a number in digital format. Whether its 4 bit (0-16) or 8 bits (0-255) or 12bits or 14 bits, it does not take any more time if the cpus work in chunks of 16 bits. The value of the converted number does not matter. To a computer the the number 2 and the number 4096 or 16384 are basically the same.

So the calculations should be ... for moving around the data between modules.
20fps x 18.4mp x 12 = 4416
5fps x 36.3mp x 14 = 2541

Regarding the idea that 14 bits is 4 time the data of 12 bits. Just bec the "value represented" can be 4 times larger it is not 4 times the size of data. Its only 2 bits more.

The issue with 12 bits and 14 bits being slower or more expensive is probably because most AtoD (analog to digital) converters work in 12bits (4 octets) .. so that may be the reason for 14bit Raw being slow in the past.

HOWEVER. this post is just to clarify a few facts. not to muddy the theories put forth so far.. (I will do that in another post ;-) )

Photobug

All I can say is that I have basically been unavailable for two days except to slip in and post on PAD. This thread had 108 new post in 2 days. I am still reading yesterday's post and its been fund reading...like @donaldejose said yesterday.

Banter like this is good when done politely Well done participants.

Ironheart

@heartyfisher, you are correct in your analysis of the impact of the extra bits, I should have noticed this earlier. Also I was going to point out that Expeed/Milbeaut is really a 16bit image engine through and through, its just that Nikon only feeds it 12 or 14 bit data, the LSB are zero. The ARM processor, a Coretex-A5, is 32 bit. Just facts, not saying they have an impact one way or another.

Sure. But when the D810 got a new processor, magically it was able to up its fps by 25%, even though technically the old one's specs said that it could've handled 5fps. While they were at it they redesigned the shutter, and yet chose not to make it 6 to not compete with the 5D3 because of some unspecified reason, even though the D750 could do 6.5? If it weren't a matter of throughput, why not when they were at redesigning the system just do that while they were at it?

This is interesting. We know the Expeed 4 is capable of more raw throughput, and the V3 came out before the D810 (I think anyway). Also of note is this, the D750 only goes to 1/4000. The same toughness needed to do higher fps is also needed to get that extra 1/4000 out of the mechanics. Everything has to move twice as fast (the slit is already very small). Coupled with the fact that the D750 is only rated at 150K, it could be that it would last longer if driven slower. Would you trade 1/8000 and 50k shutter clicks for an extra 0.5 fps? Apparently Nikon didn't want to.

spraynpray

Yebbut the 7D2 shutter can go fast, and the camera isn't that expensive and Canon aren't worried about it taking sales from their top bods.... :-/

ccchuck

I had planned to buy 2 cameras this year: the up-gunned p7800 replacement, and the D7100 replacement. The first has not appeared and the second is a let down to me. So this year I'm going to buy the p7800 replacement OR a Sony Cyber‑shot DSC‑RX100 III, and I'm going to buy the D400 OR a Canon EOS 7D Mark II .
. :-w

Ironheart

Yebbut the 7D2 shutter can go fast, and the camera isn't that expensive and Canon aren't worried about it taking sales from their top bods.... :-/

Yebbut, the 7DM2 is a DX shutter, so it's easier to make it go fast, no reason Nikon can't do it. I want to point out that the D300s went 8fps, but was only rated for 150k clicks. Clearly the tradeoff was speed vs. durability. I'm proposing that a new DX shutter could go 8-10fps for 200k snaps, and it would be cheaper than doing the same for FX. This point shouldn't be controversial.

Sports

Watch out, @Ironheart. Even an explaination of a few general data processing issues is currently seen as controversial in this thread .... as you may have seen.

heartyfisher

I had planned to buy 2 cameras this year: the up-gunned p7800 replacement, and the D7100 replacement. The first has not appeared and the second is a let down to me. So this year I'm going to buy the p7800 replacement OR a Sony Cyber‑shot DSC‑RX100 III, and I'm going to buy the D400 OR a Canon EOS 7D Mark II .
. :-w

Have a look at the The Olympus Stylus 1 or the 2SH .. but yes the RX100 III is nice :-). Best of luck with the 7DM2, it has a big advantage over the D400 ... it exists ;-)