Will there Be a Professional DX Body From Nikon?

snakebunk

@haroldp: As we are both bird photographers I think it is easy for us to agree on most things. As I have written before I think a pro dx camera has a unique advantage in its combination of build quality, fps and pixel density. You could have the same fps as a D4s and the same pixel density as a D810 in the same camera. But as Nikon continues to develop the D8XX series (as I hope they will for a long time) I think the market for a pro dx camera shrinks. They have to make something very special for me to buy it instead of the D810 or D820 as my next camera.

Edit: And when I said "angry with you", I meant angry together with you. Just in case you thought otherwise...

DaveyJ

Actually one of the biggest engineering and marketing blunders of Nikon is NO SUPER DX Tele lens. I have no personal doubt that this is a strategic miscalculation. They seem to think that such a lens would cut into higher cost and return lens. They are wrong. Just because a lens sells for really big bucks doesn't insure that it will sell well. In fact, it is certain that such a lens will be a absolute poor seller. Maybe the design teams sees little actual advantage in DX super teles. But they would sell well. They would generate profit for Nikon.

donaldejose

Great Photo!

sevencrossing

Actually one of the biggest engineering and marketing blunders of Nikon is NO SUPER DX Tele lens. .

While there are advantages in reducing the angle of view from FX to Dx with super zooms
DX 18–300mm vs Fx 28-300mm
I don't think the same applies to super telephoto primes
The cost comes from the size of the elements
A 600mm Dx f 4 lens will require the same size elements as a 600mm Fx f 4 lens
reduce the size of the elements and it becomes a f 5.6 or f 8 lens

sevencrossing

You could have the same fps as a D4s and the same pixel density as a D810 in the same camera. .

I think there is much bigger chance of this than a D400
and yes I have started saving

scoobysmak

Since this is all speculation anyway, at this point I don't think Nikon will produce a DX "pro" camera if you do not consider what is already out there a pro DX camera. I am not willing to eat a hat over that comment either though.

To me a Nikon has not produced a pro DX body since the D300s. My personal view of a pro camera is the larger format controls like a D700/D8X0 and of course the D300. Most of these also have the weather proof stuff and can take a bigger hit before failure but nothing is perfect. All I really wanted was the 24MP sensor in a D300 body type (larger controls). At this point if Nikon produces a D820 (just using the next number in line) that has 54 MP and 24 MP in crop mode that can fire at 7fps in DX mode I would be content for a while. At that point I do not see a reason for the pro DX model any time soon. Just my thoughts for the moment.

manhattanboy

If an FX and DX sensor have the same pixel pitch, there is no additional 'reach'
If the lens cannot out resolve the FX pixel pitch (D800/810 are 16mp in DX mode) there is no additional 'reach'
All current long teles ( 200mm) with any hope of such resolution are FX lenses.
[...]
A 400 / 2.8 with tc-20eII is 800 / 5.6, (with 1.4 tce at 560mm it is too short). For best performance I am usually stopped down at least to F6.3, more likely F8. Speeds below 1/2000 are chancy and below 1/1000 highly unlikely, these birds are fast.

The current DX cameras do have a pixel pitch advantage; otherwise there would be no advantage to shooting DX. IMHO this thread is getting funny: are we now comparing the mythical D400 to a mythical 54MP FX camera? Let's at least agree that with the MP bump it will be the D900 and not the D820. Might as well throw in a mirrorless F-mount too. Any naming ideas for that one?

Also, THANK you for finally agreeing to reasonable shutter speeds. I agree with you 1000% on the 1/2000. It drives me bonkers when folks are talking about shooting 1/500.

Hello from Scotland. Good news! First verified sighting of a D400 in the wild!

At least it appears to be waterproof, so that is reassuring

spraynpray

@PitchBlack - LOL!

Ironheart

Hmmm... I always pegged Nessie for a canon shooter. I can personally verify that Bigfoot uses a Df, he's definitely old-school. In this picture he's still using his old kodak:

heartyfisher

D810 in DX mode is 15.4 MP why do people keep calling it 16 MP! Rounding it is 15 MP. Sorry the Math Nazi took over for a second.

Ironheart

In business school, there is a special course titled "Marketing Math". It falls right after "lies, damn lies, and statistics".

heartyfisher

From D810 specs - Dx mode = 4800 x 3200 = 1536000

heartyfisher

To be a bit more accurate the crop factor has always been 1.525 .. Just take the diagonal of the DX sensor (23.6 x 15.8 mm) and divide the diagonal of FX (36x24 mm).

Msmoto

I see this thread drifted into the humor section, huh?

heartyfisher

I just did the maths it seems the DX sensor has shrunk in the D7200
sqrt(36 x 24) / sqrt(23.5 x 15.6) = 1.535

Ironheart

The "official" size of DX is 24 x 16.
The sensors are always slightly less, for instance the D810 is 35.9 x 24.0 mm
And 7,360 x 4,912 isn't a 3/2 ratio.
That's it, I'm switching to canon.

Three truths and a lie. Yes @msmoto we have descended into laughing at ourselves, I guess that's humor :-)

heartyfisher

"Three truths and a lie." could be a movie title ....

about .. hmm ...

a down and out FF photographer buying his D400 camera ..

rbrylawski

"Three truths and a lie." could be a movie title ....

It's a book, so it certainly could become a movie anyday:

http://www.amazon.com/Three-Truths-Lie-Graham-Fuller/dp/1479274313

heartyfisher

The "official" size of DX is 24 x 16.

I think its marketing rounding there .. I thought it was always 23.6 x 15.8

Ironheart

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nikon_DX_format

Edit the page if you think it's wrong :-)

PB_PM

What change? It's exactly the same as the previous models according to Nikon's own spec sheets. The 12MP and older generation was slightly larger...

D80 = 23.6 x 15.8
D90 = 23.6 x 15.8
D300 = 23.6-15.8
D7000 = 23.6 x 15.6
D7100 = 23.5 x 15.6
D3300 = 23.5 x 15.6

Ironheart

The 24 x 16 size is used in relation to DX the same way that the 36 x 24 is used to talk about FX sensors. The
D4 is 36 x 23.9, the D810 is 35.9 x 24, neither of them defines the FX standard or nominal size of 36 x 24mm. If a D400 came out tomorrow with a 24 x 15.9mm sensor would it be DX?

haroldp

It would be D.99X

heartyfisher

It would be D.99X

but that 1% can make the difference between 15 MP and 16MP !! ;-)

Msmoto

While everyone is splitting hairs, I just might go out and take some photos....finally...

Maybe I like the term "crop sensor" vs. "full frame" as these vary among manufacturers and are poorly defined except "full frame" refers to essentially two of the original "35mm" film frames in cine, or about 22mm x 32mm...huh? this makes no sense... :-?

Well, when in a still camera someone must have decided that to waste so much on the sides was not good, (Leica in 1920's) so an approximate size was 36mm x 24mm for "double frame" 35mm film....which actually is about 35mm wide.

Confused? 8-}