Will there Be a Professional DX Body From Nikon?

heartyfisher

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

Actually the reviewer on photography life used the D7200 with that lense combination :-) and the D7200 performed best of all. :-)

WestEndFoto

My posts seem to have generated lots of questions and perhaps confusion. I will try to clear up what my thoughts are:

Spraynpray said:
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)... - See more at: http://forum.nikonrumors.com/discussion/3426/will-there-be-a-professional-dx-body-from-nikon/p45#sthash.lTn3Bbmd.dpuf

I agree as long as the sensor does not out resolve the lens. A 24 megapixel sensor will likely outresolve any lens in the DX area, except for the best primes. For example, my D800, with about 16 megapixels in the DX area, out resolves my 85 1.4G when it is wide open, but not at f/8. 24 megapixels further limits which lenses will have adequate resolution.

Msmoto said:
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.

Sorry Msmoto, but I think you are assuming that the only legitimate way to view an image is by printing. What about those of us that never print but look at images on digital monitors,pixel peeking. But most everything else you say I agree with.

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

I misread this on my Blackberry. I missed "Canon" and thought you meant "Nikon Full Frames". Please read my response in that context. I apologize for my error and the confusion that it is causing.

Heartyfisher said:
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.

My spanking is well deserved. Regarding what lenses have to do with sensor IQ, both lens and sensor are part of a system and the system resolution will only be as good as the weakest link. With high megapixel sensors, the weakest link is often the lenses. I quote superteles for small birds because superteles have great resolution and would benefit from a higher resolution sensor. I doubt that any or most zoom would benefit from a sharper sensor. Somewhere in the middle is a boundary that is getting closer to the supertele everytime sensor resolution goes up. Regarding my studio example, I used that example because you do control the light which makes the superiority of FX's light gathering ability a moot point. I can imagine a 24 megapixel DX sensor married to a high resolution lens might be nice to have in this situation. However, now I realize that I imagine wrong. A DX frame will only have 24 megapixels. Use a D810 and your frame will have 36.

Hopefully I have clarified.

manhattanboy

So what is more likely

a D400
a D900 with 54mp and 8fps
a D4x with 54 mp and 14fps
a Mirrorless with 54mp and 20fps ?

I think Nikon will respond to Canon and release a D400/9300 with Sony's new 24MP sensor likely with an announcement in summer of this year. Why? Because Nikon execs state that it is their policy to respond to competitors. I also think that a D850/900 will come with a higher FF sensor, but will probably not be until next year as the D5 is more likely to take the spotlight this fall to compete head to head with the 1DX2, which is coming in the fall.

I am hopeful that Sony will migrate to bsi sensors for the next DX round to compete with Samsung. If we can get the additional light sensitivity of the bsi sensors with Sony's DR that would be awesome for DX cameras. The only other thing on my wish list, which is much easier to achieve, is an improvement in the shutter. I want something quieter with QC mode and better stabilization to prevent shutter induced image blurring.

Despite the VR muck up, Nikon did a great job with the 300f4 PF lens, and I would love to see a 400 or 500 5.6vr PF for $2k as well when the D400 gets introduced. It's not going to happen, but the camera companies keep wondering why sales are going down, well then give us something pleasantly surprising please.

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.

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.

Hmmm....Spraynpray, I think you were saying that DX is better for certain situations based on what seems to be the pixel density argument and a DOF argument for Macro. H argued that the pixel density argument does not apply to DX vs FX, but the current top of the line DX camera vs the current top of the line FX camera.

I happen to agree with Seven and Haroldp. I agree that there is an advantage to DX in certain limited situations where pixel density is helpful, but those situations are limited, even more so than some proponents of DX imagine. A good example is the advantages that you listed and we argued against.

And finally, my own perspective is that I am invested in a system. Very heavily, more than $30k. Before I started making this investment I determined that whatever temporary advantage a high pixel density DX camera may have for limited circumstances for birds, the best all round is FX provided I don't mind the weight or expense (and I don't). I also see a future for FX, but believe that DX will die when a 72 megapixel FX camera can be had for $500 and I believe that will happen in about 10 years. DX's purpose is to keep the F-mount relevant. If the purpose was different, it would have been designed more efficiently. Rightly or wrongly, it is what I believe and I have invested according to my believe.

So the point that Haroldp so eloquently made ringed very true and relevant to what I believe in my heart to be true. I could not help but commend him for that and I still do.

WestEndFoto

One final thought. What does all this really matter? If I had a D7200 I wouldn't complain and I would still enjoy myself. I judge a photographer by the images they take and on that basis, Spraynpray is one of the best on this forum.

snakebunk

If we add the last discussion to our repository of knowledge, can we agree on these advantages for small compared to larger sensors in DSLRs?

* Pixel density is generally higher, which can give more reach
* Frames per second can be higher because of the smaller mirror
* It is generally less expensive to make a smaller sensor
* Normal and wide angel lenses can be made smaller and/or have a larger maximum aperture

And advantages for large compared to small sensors:

* Collects more light, which can give better image quality
* Generally larger pixels, which can also give better image quality
* Can fit larger objects, ie you have a larger canvas to work with

heartyfisher

I hope Nikon will be able to source some samsung Organic/silicon hybrid sensor for the next generations of DX cameras.. D7400.

@Westendfoto. I was in no way "spanking" ! just stating that I didnt understand. PS : isnt it cool that Nikon's DX beats the Canon Full frames :-)

sevencrossing

, can we agree on these advantages for small compared to larger sensors in DSLRs?

No

DX vs FX is not the subject of this thread so I am not going any further

There are DX vs FX threads but I think all of them are closed

snakebunk

You don't need to answer if you don't want to. But if you don't like to discuss dx versus fx you can think of the comparison as fx (small) versus medium format (large). That's why I didn't mention dx and fx.

I think the pros and cons of sensor sizes are very relevant to this thread, and it helps us when planning future camera purchases. If there are no advantages to dx more than price, there is no (or less) reason for a pro dx camera.

Closed threads don't help us.

sevencrossing

If there are no advantages to dx more than price, there is no (or less) reason for a pro dx camera.

100 % correct and the reason for no Pro DX in the foreseeable future

Pixel density is generally higher, which can give more reach
There is no reason why the pixel density cannot be increased on a FX sensor

Frames per second can be higher because of the smaller mirror
The Nikon with highest fps is the D4 a Fx camera

Normal and wide angel lenses can be made smaller and/or have a larger maximum aperture
smaller size, is indeed a DX advantage but all Nikon wide aperture lenses ( eg 24 mm f 1.4 ) are FX
I don't think there are any f1.4 dx lens

(I will concede the AF-S DX NIKKOR 35mm f/1.8G is a neat lens)

I think the new FX mirrorless may address any size advantage

snakebunk

So in your mind we should strive for as large sensors as possible as long as we can carry and afford them?

sevencrossing

So in your mind we should strive for as large sensors as possible as long as we can carry and afford them?

Absolutely. As I have said many time many times. I have only one issue with my D800. which I use Professionally and as a holiday camera. It has two disadvantages it is big and heavy.

If the rumored mirrorless has better IQ is smaller, lighter than the D800
I will be getting one


That said when I buy my 800mm f 5.6 i will have a serious look at the D7200
but I will probably get a D5

snakebunk

Ok! Maybe we can hope for a medium format mirrorless from Nikon. I think your ojections to the pros of a small sensor are a little bit on the week side, but I have read and appreciate your input.

Hope someone else cares to comment on my pros and cons. I think it is great to have a good understanding of this.

Msmoto

Most of my images are intended to look like a snapshot anyone can grab. So, pixel peeping, not really an issue for me. I do look carefully at my images and am highly critical in almost all cases to assure they are sharp. But, most are exported in 3000 pixel largest side, most viewed on a monitor, where resolution is highly limited.

There is a viewing distance which is intended to used in most instances, but virtually any image will come apart when examined closely.

Here is an interesting example of just how sharp is sharp, and the ability to crop with any sensor:
The original:


And, the same image cropped in LR5.7, no other changes made:


The cropped image at 3000 px size, where it begins to come apart.
https://www.flickr.com/photos/fantinesfotos/16468910238/sizes/o/

When viewed on a 17" monitor, the 3000px image is the equivalent of the original image on a monitor nearly 14 feet wide.....to be viewed from at least ten feet. And, at ten feet it will be razor sharp, this from a 135mm f/2 Nikkor a f/5.6 The magnification is over 100x.

So, my point is we have so much resolution at present, I see no reason to increase this except for marketing purposes. Others may find an error in my calculations, but I think they are correct.

spraynpray

Adding to that, when was the last time you saw a sport picture published so large that the difference between the mega expensive D4s/800mm f5.6 and a (for example) D7100/D7200/Tamron 150-600 can be seen? If pixel peeping is the only way to justify the size/weight/expense of FX, then my point is proven.

The argument that FX bodies always catch up eventually with DX for pixel density makes my point - they catch up, not lead so DX usually has an offering with greater reach.

Just look at the D7200 images - the difference really is diminishing to the point where you are splitting hairs over the difference.

snakebunk

@Msmoto: Thank you for a great example! This is a situation that I am familiar with, even though I try hard to get closer .

I agree that the difference is small, but when cropping to the point where you get close to 1:1, I think high pixel density may prove an advantage, like we saw in the examples from Photographylife. It would have been interesting to see the difference between cx and fx when cropping to the point where the image starts to fall apart. I think cx would win that battle and fx would be the winner when you move closer.

We can argue that at some point in the future fx sensors will have such high pixel density that there is no need to go higher, but I think it will take a while. I don't know what the pixel density of cx (Nikon 1) would translate to but it would be lot of pixels on an fx camera to achieve the same density.

Ironheart

136MP for the V3 (18.4MP)
155MP for the J5 (20.8MP)

manhattanboy

@Msmoto: Thank you for a great example! This is a situation that I am familiar with, even though I try hard to get closer .

I agree that the difference is small, but when cropping to the point where you get close to 1:1, I think high pixel density may prove an advantage, like we saw in the examples from Photographylife. It would have been interesting to see the difference between cx and fx when cropping to the point where the image starts to fall apart. I think cx would win that battle and fx would be the winner when you move closer.

We can argue that at some point in the future fx sensors will have such high pixel density that there is no need to go higher, but I think it will take a while. I don't know what the pixel density of cx (Nikon 1) would translate to but it would be lot of pixels on an fx camera to achieve the same density.

The main problem with the Nikon 1 is that the sensor is not of the same quality as the DSLR sensors. That is why the new BSI J5 sensor is interesting as I am curious to see if Nikon improved the DR and noise.

Telling someone that shoots their DX camera in 1.3x crop mode the majority of time to switch to FX doesn't make sense so I have to humbly disagree with the FX fans on this despite owning an 810 myself. The problem is always more reach without the weight or size while maintaining DR and sharpness in 100% crops.

WestEndFoto

@Msmoto: Thank you for a great example! This is a situation that I am familiar with, even though I try hard to get closer .

I agree that the difference is small, but when cropping to the point where you get close to 1:1, I think high pixel density may prove an advantage, like we saw in the examples from Photographylife. It would have been interesting to see the difference between cx and fx when cropping to the point where the image starts to fall apart. I think cx would win that battle and fx would be the winner when you move closer.

We can argue that at some point in the future fx sensors will have such high pixel density that there is no need to go higher, but I think it will take a while. I don't know what the pixel density of cx (Nikon 1) would translate to but it would be lot of pixels on an fx camera to achieve the same density.

The main problem with the Nikon 1 is that the sensor is not of the same quality as the DSLR sensors. That is why the new BSI J5 sensor is interesting as I am curious to see if Nikon improved the DR and noise.

Telling someone that shoots their DX camera in 1.3x crop mode the majority of time to switch to FX doesn't make sense so I have to humbly disagree with the FX fans on this despite owning an 810 myself. The problem is always more reach without the weight or size while maintaining DR and sharpness in 100% crops.

If you need reach because you want to put more pixels on your subject, then I agree with this approach and would endorse the purchase of a 24 mp DX sensor provided that it was being used with top end glass that can exploit the resolution. Practically that means a Nikon prime supertele.

But why would you crop in camera, as you are not putting more pixels on the subject? You can crop more precisely in post with the same "reach" result and you don't have to worry about accidently chopping part of your subject?

retread

The only reason to crop in camera that comes to mind is if your can get more frames per second when you need them.

spraynpray

If you need reach because you want to put more pixels on your subject, then I agree with this approach and would endorse the purchase of a 24 mp DX sensor provided that it was being used with top end glass that can exploit the resolution. Practically that means a Nikon prime supertele.

Oh yeah because those Osprey shots of Coastalconn's are such rubbish coming from that cheap 150-600 Tamron aren't they?

Interesting that the new 1J5 has Expeed 5A but the D7200 only Expeed 4. I wonder if that processor would give the necessary speed boost to a D400?

Sports

Interesting that the new 1J5 has Expeed 5A but the D7200 only Expeed 4. I wonder if that processor would give the necessary speed boost to a D400?

The "4" got a real announcement, and they told about speed improvements etc. It has been assumed that it's based on a Fujitsu Millbeaut product, and Fujitsu, too, announced a new generation at the time.
But the "5" turned up more quietly, didn't it? Almost as in "no big deal". Maybe, because Nikon didn't wanted their DSLRs to look old. It's a fair guess that Expeed 5 is built on a new generation of Millbeaut, but so far there's nothing to support this guess.
In the meantime, Millbeaut is handled by a new company, Socionext, that were present at NAB, but they haven't announced a new Millbeaut.
All that being said, two years will always bring more performance from the chipset, regardless of the name that Marketing decides.

Msmoto

Maybe what all this comes down to is how we have developed as individual photographers and our experience influences our opinion quite strongly. And, indeed, this might be the way it is supposed to be. Usually we can perform best in areas we are quite familiar and have real life trials.

This is, I suspect, this is why some folks can take a less expensive piece of equipment and produce stunning results....as an example, CoastalConn.....no Nikon 800/5.6 here. But the images are top drawer.

As to the original OP, a pro DX from Nikon, well, we do all have opinions, mine being pretty much at the same level of confusion as all the rest..LOL

WestEndFoto

If you need reach because you want to put more pixels on your subject, then I agree with this approach and would endorse the purchase of a 24 mp DX sensor provided that it was being used with top end glass that can exploit the resolution. Practically that means a Nikon prime supertele.

Oh yeah because those Osprey shots of Coastalconn's are such rubbish coming from that cheap 150-600 Tamron aren't they?

Interesting that the new 1J5 has Expeed 5A but the D7200 only Expeed 4. I wonder if that processor would give the necessary speed boost to a D400?

If you need reach because you want to put more pixels on your subject, then I agree with this approach and would endorse the purchase of a 24 mp DX sensor provided that it was being used with top end glass that can exploit the resolution. Practically that means a Nikon prime supertele.

Oh yeah because those Osprey shots of Coastalconn's are such rubbish coming from that cheap 150-600 Tamron aren't they?

Interesting that the new 1J5 has Expeed 5A but the D7200 only Expeed 4. I wonder if that processor would give the necessary speed boost to a D400?

Ha ha! OK, I will bite. Let's assume his 7DM2 is not a 20 megapixel piece of Canon rubbish but God's gift to photography, namely a 24 megapixel D7200. With how many stops of high ISO performance gains over the D7100 Spraynpray? 2 perhaps? Do you have one yet?

Give me a moment while I slather flame retardant on myself.

OK, covered head to toe. Nobody takes any issue with what I just said,right?.

OK, now to the point. I am simply saying that Coastalcon's optical system's resolution is likely limited be his lens, not his camera. I suspect that this would also be the case with the 200-400 or 80-400 Nikon zooms. If he was using the Nikon or Canon 2.8 prime, his camera would be the limiting factor.

Or alternatively, upgrading his Canon from 20 megapixels to 24 megapixels would likely not Improve the resolution of his optical system, which would neutralize the pixel density advantage when using this lens. However, if he was using one of Canon's or Nikon's amazing 2.8 400mm primes, then I imagine there would be contined improvements in optical system resolution well past 24 megapixels on a DX sensor. Perhaps past 48 if I can indulge in a moment of extravagant speculation.

And for anybody who wants to quibble over whether a particular lens is the limiting factor in a particular optical system, at a basic level my argument is simply that if your strategy is to obtain better images through better sensor resolution, you better have good glass.

And in Coastalcon's case, with proper acknowledgement of MSMOTO's often said " the limiting factor is usually the photographer, not the gear", while for most of us the limiting factor using Coastalcon's gear would be us, perhaps not in Coastalcon's case. Thus his continued gear upgrades.

spraynpray

No mate, I've gone on the record saying no new body upgrades for me for the next couple of years minimum. The D750 does the night stuff for me, and I don't shoot enough sport/BIF to justify faster.

The point is, there is nothing wrong with his images - even using a dinosaur Canon sensor (but with excellent AF and fps). We can talk about theoretical advantages all day (and we do!), but it shows that sub-optimal gear in the right hands will beat optimal gear in the wrong hands anytime as Msmoto also said. However much disposable income I had to throw at photography, I'm sure I would have a Tammie if I had the need for that length. If I found it to be the limiting factor (highly unlikely) I would then be very happy to consider an upgrade.