Will there Be a Professional DX Body From Nikon?

spraynpray

The D810's noise looks a lot more prominent than the D7200's does. The D7200's noise looks more smoothed than the D810's, but the D810's noise obscures more detail than the D7200's noise handling. I am amazed by how little difference there is now between DX and FX.

heartyfisher

LOL the reviewer is still hoping for a D400 like some of us...

snakebunk

When cropping hard, currently dx is clearly better than fx. Now I want a D400 again. It is on the minus side that Nikon doesn't make one.

Ironheart

@manhattanboy

I am impressed by the lens that can show a clear difference in this situation, what was it ??

... H

800mm f/5.6

Sports

@manhattanboy
I am impressed by the lens that can show a clear difference in this situation, what was it ??
... H

800mm f/5.6

... shot at f/11 and f/10.

sevencrossing

When cropping hard, currently dx is clearly better than fx.

not quite uncropped DX seems be better than cropped FX

Being able to crop hard, remains an FX advantage

The results indicate Nikon's Super Teles may outresolve the D810 and there is room for an 54mp FX

spraynpray

When cropping hard, currently dx is clearly better than fx.

not quite uncropped DX seems be better than cropped FX

Being able to crop hard, remains an FX advantage

The results indicate Nikon's Super Teles may outresolve the D810 and there is room for an 54mp FX

That seems a little FX biassed. Surely if you compare pixel density not frame size, and if reach is your need, DX is better as it gets you further for a given pixel density. That will remain so until Nikon bring out the rumoured 54mp FX - but then they will up the density on the next DX to higher than that (like they do)...

sevencrossing

That seems a little FX biassed.

As my signature says I am a self confessed FX fan boy

but then they will up the density on the next DX

Yes indeed. The D400, when comes out, Will have a 36 mp sensor and this page will full of people moaning they are being forced to buy a new computer

snakebunk

Yes indeed. The D400, when comes out, Will have a 36 mp sensor and this page will full of people moaning they are being forced to buy a new computer.

Yes, they will be much happier with 54 mp fx files .

I was a little worried about large files when I bought my D800 but I've had no problems. And computer development is not exactly standing still.

Remember that a 36 mp dx camera gives you higher pixel density than a 54 mp fx camera, and most likely more frames per second. I understand that people like fx best for their applications, but to say that fx is best for everything is for me very strange. Kind of like saying that large is the best t-shirt size.

sevencrossing

but to say that fx is best for everything is for me very strange.

I dont think I have ever said that.

I would say If, like most people, you want do a bit of everything

( portraits, travel, family landscapes , wildlife, sports.)

and are only going to get one camera

Provided are happy with with the size, weight and cost of something like a D750 or D810
and can afford the appropriate glass

You would be better off with FX than DX

If you can't afford a D810 and a bag of first class glass

Then yes. When it comes to bangs for bucks the D7100 and D7200 take a lot of beating

snakebunk

@sevencrossing:
Or, if you need maximum reach, for example small birds 20 meters away, it is hard to beat a dx camera on the 800/5.6. I have seen this combination in the field and was a little bit jealous.
Or, if you need good reach and a lightweight setup, it is hard to beat a dx camera on the new 300/4 with a 1.4 converter (I haven't tried it but I can imagine).

I don't agree that dx is good only because the current Nikon dx cameras are less expensive than the fx ones. And this is what I believe you have said (sorry if I am wrong).

But, I agree, fx is great for a lot of puposes. I use it almost like a zoom, because I can sometimes fill the frame with large close birds and at the same time crop away a lot of the image when there is a smaller bird. With a dx camera I could potentially have a hard time with the close and large bird.

When I shoot other things than birds, fx has always been great for me.

Msmoto

Interesting conversation on this thread.... but, I am a little confused about how many of us own or even rent an 800mm f/5.6? I have seen Denver Shooter's, and it is not only beautiful, but actually 360 gm lighter than the 400mm f2.8 [plus TC-20EIII.

In any case, there is IMO an advantage of shooting BIF with full frame, at least for old folks, as getting the bird in the frame is sometimes difficult and the larger field allows more potentially usable images.

As to resolution...this seems to be almost an academic question as the differences are not really noticable until one has prints at the 1 x 1.5 meter size. And the largest I have every done, with digital media, is 0.8 m x 1.6 m. Absolutely sharp ....D800E.

I suspect the OP of a pro DX body from Nikon is almost written on the wall...... it might appear, but will IMO be mirrorless. Whether they will call it a D400...well maybe something to distinguish it from the DSLR lineup, like D404, or D101....

heartyfisher

Some interesting statements and information from the PhotographyLife review.. below are the ones that got my attention...

1) "Up to 5 fps continuous shooting in 14-bit RAW"
2) "For action the 7DMkii with it’s 10 fps (at 14-bit) absolutely trounces the D7200"
3) "There is not a continuous quiet option like on the D750 or D810"
4) "The D7200 has the most capable AF system I’ve used with any Nikon DSLR. My D4s is jealous."

spraynpray

but to say that fx is best for everything is for me very strange.

I dont think I have ever said that.

I would say If, like most people, you want do a bit of everything

( portraits, travel, family landscapes , wildlife, sports.)

and are only going to get one camera

Provided are happy with with the size, weight and cost of something like a D750 or D810
and can afford the appropriate glass

You would be better off with FX than DX

If you can't afford a D810 and a bag of first class glass

Then yes. When it comes to bangs for bucks the D7100 and D7200 take a lot of beating

I'm not so sure seven:

Let's have a closer look your points above; portraits - FX, travel - you want light and small so DX, family - whatever you've got at that moment is best, landscape - FX, wildlife - DX for reach, sports - DX for reach. Hardly clear that FX is the winner is it? Oh, and macro where you need all the DoF you can get, is DX territory too. All that for under half the price of a D810.

The D7100/D7200 don't just 'take a lot of beating' when it comes to bang for your buck, they are at this time unbeatable - even by your own rules above. Take a look at the image in the link and then disagree? The only thing that DX needs is the D400 with D7200 AF, IQ, a big buffer and 9+fps.

I wouldn't use the word 'better' for FX or DX, just different tools for different job. As you know, I have both and there really isn't that much difference as to be able to dismiss DX as a poor man's camera.

haroldp

@spraynpray


The inherent advantages of a smaller format are are smaller bodies and lenses if they are built that way.

The other 'properties' cited are those of Nikon's current model line-up, not the properties of the formats.
'Reach' is cited as a DX advantage, but it is an advantage of the current D7200 over the current D810, not of DX over FX.

There is no inherent reason for a DX camera to have higher pixel density than FX, that is simply a Nikon marketing decision and can change at any time.

In the current Canon lineup their top FF and crop format cameras have exactly the same pixel density.

Sports (professionally) are rarely 'reach limited; since you can get any size lens you want on top of your tripod on the sidelines of a field of finite dimension and fill whatever frame you have. Handheld from the stands, not so much.

In the specific case of small birds at great distances, where no lens s long enough, pixel pitch is king, but many wildlife situations allow the use of longer glass on the larger format, where the resolution advantage shifts back to the D810.

Regards ... H

WestEndFoto

@spraynpray


The inherent advantages of a smaller format are are smaller bodies and lenses if they are built that way.

The other 'properties' cited are those of Nikon's current model line-up, not the properties of the formats.
'Reach' is cited as a DX advantage, but it is an advantage of the current D7200 over the current D810, not of DX over FX.

There is no inherent reason for a DX camera to have higher pixel density than FX, that is simply a Nikon marketing decision and can change at any time.

In the current Canon lineup their top FF and crop format cameras have exactly the same pixel density.

Sports (professionally) are rarely 'reach limited; since you can get any size lens you want on top of your tripod on the sidelines of a field of finite dimension and fill whatever frame you have. Handheld from the stands, not so much.

In the specific case of small birds at great distances, where no lens s long enough, pixel pitch is king, but many wildlife situations allow the use of longer glass on the larger format, where the resolution advantage shifts back to the D810.

Regards ... H

That pretty well sums it up. You are very eloquent Haroldp. Even with macro, DX is not an advantage over FX because of depth of field. If that were true, an IPhone would be king. The limiting factor is light on the subject which can be resolved with a tripod (even works well for many bugs as they don't move much - but not bugs like bees) or with good off camera flash. With good off camera flash or a tripod, my 200mm f/4 macro almost goes to f/50. No depth of field issues there.

I am working on a good off camera flash setup for my macro. I will let everyone know what it looks like when I put it together.

heartyfisher

Do we dare mention that the D7200 IQ currently beats the canon full frames?

WestEndFoto

PS:
Light and small for travel. Not for me. For my Italy trip currently being shown in my link below, I limited my bag to 25 pounds and had most of it well balanced in my Billingham photo vest. Camera in left hand and tripod in right hand. All day over 10 days was not a big deal. Easier than backpacking where it would be 50 pounds.

So FX is still better for me. Why the heck would I bother traveling if I was not coming back with great pictures?

WestEndFoto

Do we dare mention that the D7200 IQ currently beats the canon full frames?

Sure, if you have a Nikon supertele shooting small birds or the same in a studio where you have control over your light. That would be some studio to accommodate a supertele.

But the camera is rarely the limiting factor. It is the lens. That will be more and more apparent as higher megapixel cameras are released. And for lens, format size is the limiting factor for light gathering power and resolution. Those are engineering truths. Everything else is just current marketing and production choices, which are ephemeral. I am building a system and my cameras are less than 10% of the investment. I am not going to modify my investment strategy by a camera body that I am going to give to my kid in three years.

heartyfisher

1? what has lenses to do with Sensor IQ?
2? What has a supertele lense have anything to do with a studio where we have the ability to control the light.
Sorry I am not understanding the points you seem to be making. I am confused, please clarify.

sevencrossing

I am confused, please

This thread is about a camera that does not exist, so that is not really surprising

I think we have done FX vs Dx to death

We each have our own needs and preferences Nikon has been nice to us, making a range of each, all their lenses fit both

Re reach; the D810 and the 800m f 5.6

If you want a bit more reach with this combination , you don't need to buy a D7200, as it comes complete with a dedicated AF-S TELECONVERTER TC800-1.25E ED

snakebunk

@sevencrossing: You can add a teleconverter to effectively turn your fx camera to a crop camera, but then your maximum aperture decreases. With a crop camera on the 800/5.6 you get reach and still aperture 5.6. Of course you can also do both to get crazy reach.

@WestEndFoto: I also don't understand your point. Please try to explain. By the way, it sounds nice to give your camera to your child, nothing wrong with that.

spraynpray

@spraynpray


The inherent advantages of a smaller format are are smaller bodies and lenses if they are built that way.

The other 'properties' cited are those of Nikon's current model line-up, not the properties of the formats.
'Reach' is cited as a DX advantage, but it is an advantage of the current D7200 over the current D810, not of DX over FX.

There is no inherent reason for a DX camera to have higher pixel density than FX, that is simply a Nikon marketing decision and can change at any time.

In the current Canon lineup their top FF and crop format cameras have exactly the same pixel density.

Sports (professionally) are rarely 'reach limited; since you can get any size lens you want on top of your tripod on the sidelines of a field of finite dimension and fill whatever frame you have. Handheld from the stands, not so much.

In the specific case of small birds at great distances, where no lens s long enough, pixel pitch is king, but many wildlife situations allow the use of longer glass on the larger format, where the resolution advantage shifts back to the D810.

Regards ... H

That pretty well sums it up. You are very eloquent Haroldp. Even with macro, DX is not an advantage over FX because of depth of field. If that were true, an IPhone would be king. The limiting factor is light on the subject which can be resolved with a tripod (even works well for many bugs as they don't move much - but not bugs like bees) or with good off camera flash. With good off camera flash or a tripod, my 200mm f/4 macro almost goes to f/50. No depth of field issues there.

I am working on a good off camera flash setup for my macro. I will let everyone know what it looks like when I put it together.

Actually, most of what H posted was irrelevant to the points that seven said and I refute. He eloquently seems to miss the point most of the time and where he agrees, he tries to make it seem like he doesn't. I mean Canon FF Vs Crop pixel density - they are simply at that point where Nikon would be when they come out with a 54mp FX. It is cyclic like I said.

sevencrossing

@spraynpray

Like heartyfisher I am confused


:-/ :-/ :-/

Lets be honest If we are going argue about Dx vs Fx and Canon vs Nikon we will be here all night

haroldp

@spraynpray

What do you think the point is ?

Regards ... Harold