Your Move Nikon..50 MP?

donaldejose

One knowledgeable person made the comment that Nikon is not yet happy with the sensor they would have to put into a D400 - "happy with" indicates some sensor characteristic does not yet meet Nikon's criteria. Could be a goal of high ISO or dynamic range or ? Perhaps when we see a D400 we will know what it can do which a current D7100 sensor cannot do. It seems so simple to many of us: just use the current best DX sensor you have with larger buffer in a D8100 body to produce a D400. Also, just use the current 24mp DX sensor pitch in FX to get a 54mp D810x. But, it must be a lot more complex and difficult than we realize.

4thebirds

On topic, I often like the way Thom Hogan frames the discussion. See his blog items here:
http://www.dslrbodies.com/newsviews/the-downside-to-more-pixels.html
http://www.dslrbodies.com/newsviews/need-versus-want-2015-editi.html

Quote: "Virtually any camera 21mp or higher is going to produce what picky old me considers an excellent print at the largest size you can make with a desktop inkjet printer. Do you really need more? Unlikely. Do you want more? Of course you do; bigger is better, except in beer guts."

spraynpray

There is a very narrow market for this sort of camera (D300). This camera is best described as a specialist camera. Does the market exist? Sure!

Then a judgement has to be made whether the market is large enough to pay the fixed costs to service the market - consider that the smaller the market, the more fixed costs (design, development, production run set up costs etc.) have to be allocated across a smaller market increasing per unit cost.

Is the market large enough or willing to pay enough for Nikon to profitably produce the camera? Not so sure.

So we are all left with the tools that we can afford and their inherent strengths. Is there a better tool? If so, can we afford it? If not, can we afford to have it custom made for us? Alternatively, can we find a way to get the job done with the tools available?

Most people find a way to get the job done. The great thing about the camera business is that quality is increasing and prices are falling. Many needs will be filled with patience.

What about the astro D810? Kinda blows that entire argument right outta the water doesn't it?

Ironheart

What about the astro D810? Kinda blows that entire argument right outta the water doesn't it?

Yep. If they can do an astro model with a speciality IR filter in front of the sensor with a firmware tweak for long exposures, why wouldn't they go after larger niches? The IR/Astro market is already well-served by third parties that will modify your camera for you, so there really isn't a huge market there anyway. It seems like a one-upmanship on Canon in the Astro space, so why wouldn't they one-up on the Pro-DX, arguably a larger market. Either that, or I am underestimating the number of folks that want to do deep imaging of distant galaxies.

I just had this crazy thought. What if the next 50 mp sensor is actually a DX sensor? (back on topic!) Its certainly technically feasible. The pixel density of the 18.4 MP CX format, would yield a 136 MP FX sensor, but also a more realistic 58 MP DX. Crazy huh?

Since we're off to Crazy-ville, some more food for thought. The CoolPix L330 has a 1/2.3" 20MP sensor. If you scale that up, we are looking at a 258MP DX or a 606MP FX. All I'm saying is that it is technically possible. That would be fun :-)

scoobysmak

The new lenses I would need for 600 MP on FX, waaaaahhhh, lol.

I am surprised by the astro model, sounds like it can take normal pictures as well but cost a few hundred more for that option. If that is the case cool, but I just don't see it in reality since IR filters are usually a hardware change you might say.

For the record I would still love to see a D400 but due to finding a D810 I will hold off for a while until the dust settles.

WestEndFoto

There is a very narrow market for this sort of camera (D300). This camera is best described as a specialist camera. Does the market exist? Sure!

Then a judgement has to be made whether the market is large enough to pay the fixed costs to service the market - consider that the smaller the market, the more fixed costs (design, development, production run set up costs etc.) have to be allocated across a smaller market increasing per unit cost.

Is the market large enough or willing to pay enough for Nikon to profitably produce the camera? Not so sure.

So we are all left with the tools that we can afford and their inherent strengths. Is there a better tool? If so, can we afford it? If not, can we afford to have it custom made for us? Alternatively, can we find a way to get the job done with the tools available?

Most people find a way to get the job done. The great thing about the camera business is that quality is increasing and prices are falling. Many needs will be filled with patience.

What about the astro D810? Kinda blows that entire argument right outta the water doesn't it?

I don't think so. Perhaps it cost Nikon a million dollars in development costs to come up with a D810a and even that seems high. Most of the excess costs probably have more to do with having an extra SKU than anything else. They don't have to sell very many cameras to recover that (say 5-10,000), so the niche can be quite small. And if they are wrong, they are not out of pocket in a big way. And not a bad marketing expenditure if you want to justify it that way.

Now designing a new camera? You will spend tens of millions in development for that (I spent $5 million last year on corporate restructuring, so I have a sense of how these costs add up). You need a much bigger niche to recover those costs. You likely have to sell more than a hundred thousand units. Or if you think you are going to sell only 5,000 units per month (D4 initial production target prior to launch) then you have to price it accordingly.

Maybe they can put a DX sensor in a D810 to keep development costs on the cheap. You might save a thousand bucks on the sensor, but you will need to upgrade the rest of the data stream if you want 10 fps as the one in the D810 can only handle 7 or 8 24 megapixel images per second. Add back, say, $250. Then upgrade the shutter to a D4 shutter as the current D810 shutter design did not need to contemplate more than 6 fps. Add back, say $500 - the D4 shutter is expensive. You end up with a D400 that is $250.00 cheaper than a D810. Let's assume that I am wrong by a factor of 3, so a $750 cost reduction, but that is not conservative and the Japanese are conservative. But so what, what is the market for a $2,550.00 D400? Half, but only half, of the camera has been redesigned. Can they sell 50,000 D400s at $2,550.00 a pop?

More extensive redevelopment might get the incremental production cost down, but they will be cutting corners on the D810, or else what will be the point. Redevelopment will cost more, however, so now we are talking easily over a hundred thousand units. Is there a market for 100,000 to 200,000 units - birders with nothing to chose from except Canon's 7DII and action photographers that can't afford a D4s?

I am sure that some of my numbers are off, I am not privy to Nikon's books. But I am not that far off in terms of the decision making process, as a CFO I participate in and crunch the numbers on a similar thought process every day at work.

WestEndFoto

What about the astro D810? Kinda blows that entire argument right outta the water doesn't it?

Yep. If they can do an astro model with a speciality IR filter in front of the sensor with a firmware tweak for long exposures, why wouldn't they go after larger niches? The IR/Astro market is already well-served by third parties that will modify your camera for you, so there really isn't a huge market there anyway. It seems like a one-upmanship on Canon in the Astro space, so why wouldn't they one-up on the Pro-DX, arguably a larger market. Either that, or I am underestimating the number of folks that want to do deep imaging of distant galaxies.

I just had this crazy thought. What if the next 50 mp sensor is actually a DX sensor? (back on topic!) Its certainly technically feasible. The pixel density of the 18.4 MP CX format, would yield a 136 MP FX sensor, but also a more realistic 58 MP DX. Crazy huh?

Since we're off to Crazy-ville, some more food for thought. The CoolPix L330 has a 1/2.3" 20MP sensor. If you scale that up, we are looking at a 258MP DX or a 606MP FX. All I'm saying is that it is technically possible. That would be fun :-)

I think it is a crazy thought. I imagine that the 24 megapixels of current DX sensors in the centre of the lens frame exceeds the resolution of every Nikon lens in the centre except for the superteles. Double the pixel density and you must be close to the limit of even the new 400 2.8 in the best of circumstances and if you forced me to bet, I would bet on a lower amount of megapixels for the threshold. Go even higher, and you are further resolving the mush transmitted by even the best lens, be it Zeiss, Sigma or top end Nikon.

I am inclined to think that more than 10 megapixels on a CX sensor is a waste no matter what you bolt it to.

Keep being crazy though. Jobs was crazy and we need people like that.

WestEndFoto

I can certainly understand the persistence of those pining for a D400. Being able to put 24 megapixels in the centre of a supertele can only be accomplished currently with a DX camera. And the current crop of DX cameras seems like putting cheap tires on a Ferrari. If my subject of choice was wildlife in decently lit situations, I would be asking for that too.

Just not sure how big the market is. However, more importantly, I am not sure what Nikon thinks.

Ironheart

I understand the conventional wisdom that a 24MP DX sensor is "out resolving" lenses, but that means that the 18MP CX is "out resolving" lenses by almost a factor of four (the V3 pixel is almost half the size of the D7100 pixel). In practice I don't see this. I have mounted all of my lenses on the V3 and if anything they are sharper there than on my DX bodies.

Ironheart

I can certainly understand the persistence of those pining for a D400. Being able to put 24 megapixels in the centre of a supertele can only be accomplished currently with a DX camera. And the current crop of DX cameras seems like putting cheap tires on a Ferrari. If my subject of choice was wildlife in decently lit situations, I would be asking for that too.

Just not sure how big the market is. However, more importantly, I am not sure what Nikon thinks.

But the market for wildlife shooters has to be bigger than deep space nebulae ones? Or am I still crazy :-)

WestEndFoto

Which lenses are you seeing this on Ironheart?

You might be surprised at the market for space nebulae shooters. Google Meade and Celestron (I had both those brands when I was a kid, but I now live in the city with lots of light pollution unfortunately).

However, let's assume that you are correct. My point is that the market for deep space nebulae shooters is cheap to service (say a million), while the market for wildlife shooters is much more expensive to service (tens of millions).

Ironheart

All of my FX lenses: 70-300, 50 f/1.8, 35 f/1.8

WestEndFoto

In the f/5.6 to f/8.0 range?

haroldp

I understand the conventional wisdom that a 24MP DX sensor is "out resolving" lenses, but that means that the 18MP CX is "out resolving" lenses by almost a factor of four (the V3 pixel is almost half the size of the D7100 pixel). In practice I don't see this. I have mounted all of my lenses on the V3 and if anything they are sharper there than on my DX bodies.

It is easier to correct a lens for a smaller image circle, so small sensor lenses can have higher resolution (lp/m at the sensor), but the total system resolution of lenses with slightly less resolution and larger sensors is usually higher.

... H

manhattanboy

But the market for wildlife shooters has to be bigger than deep space nebulae ones? Or am I still crazy :-)

It is bigger. Canon would not pop out the 7dm2 if it was a tiny market.

But Nikon's management probably had the following conversation:
"Our Coolpix cameras are not selling."
"I know, but that means we must not be producing good enough models"
"Instead of DSLRs, let's release tons of Coolpix cameras to counter the falling sales"

4thebirds

But Nikon's management probably had the following conversation:
"Our Coolpix cameras are not selling."
"I know, but that means we must not be producing good enough models"
"Instead of DSLRs, let's release tons of Coolpix cameras to counter the falling sales"

) )
No kidding what's up with all these stupid Coolpix models? I mean I know the consumer products are necessary to make it possible to produce more serious stuff, but an endless list of yet more Coolpix options just seems like a desperate move with everybody switching to smartphones... :-??

PB_PM

It is bigger. Canon would not pop out the 7dm2 if it was a tiny market.

Either that or Canon is desperate in the face of the massive drop in sales over the past two years.

Ironheart

In the f/5.6 to f/8.0 range?

No, wide open to like f/4 or 5.6. CX sized sensors are diffraction limited above f/5.6

manhattanboy

Either that or Canon is desperate in the face of the massive drop in sales over the past two years.

Probably Canon and Nikon are BOTH desperate. They have been reading old school HBR too much...
https://hbr.org/2001/10/torment-your-customers-theyll-love-it/ar/1
Tormenting your customers only works for so long given the limited attention span of the Snap Chat generation.

I think someone at the Nikon Corporate headquarters misinterpreted it when Nikon's base wanted them to shoot for the stars...

spraynpray

I think someone at the Nikon Corporate headquarters misinterpreted it when Nikon's base wanted them to shoot for the stars...

That's funny!

For someone who crunches numbers like these most days, you seem to forget that the not insignificant production and design costs associated with the D800/810 are long since paid for so the relatively small costs left to bear would come off your guesstimates too.

Perhaps the excellent image quality available with DX at 24mp now has them worried that a competent machine-gun DX would dent D4/D4s/D5 sales because a lot of those buyers don't need FX IMHO.

FrenchRiviera

Perhaps the excellent image quality available with DX at 24mp now has them worried that a competent machine-gun DX would dent D4/D4s/D5 sales because a lot of those buyers don't need FX IMHO.

... and a D400 ( or D7200 with good fps ) doesn't need lenses as long as a FF do ...

Shorter lenses are often more opened , balancing the 1 IL gap en high sensibilities of APS-C .

Without failing to take account DX 24 MP offers more resolution without AA filter .

If you want burst , you don't have choice : buy a very expensive FF .

Competitors ( Canon , Samsung , Olympus , Fuji ... ) take care of their customers who want high fps and can't afford the longest lenses

retread

Just how far can the MP count go before the advances are not worth it? The D7100 proves a 24mp DX is fine so 54mp should be fine for FX. Where will we cross the line and degrade IQ more than it is improved?

PB_PM

Either that or Canon is desperate in the face of the massive drop in sales over the past two years.

Probably Canon and Nikon are BOTH desperate. They have been reading old school HBR too much...
https://hbr.org/2001/10/torment-your-customers-theyll-love-it/ar/1
Tormenting your customers only works for so long given the limited attention span of the Snap Chat generation.

I think someone at the Nikon Corporate headquarters misinterpreted it when Nikon's base wanted them to shoot for the stars...

No argument there. Recent surveys have showed that the largest segment of stand alone camera purchases come from people who are 50+. People under 30 are mostly using smartphone/cellphone cameras. So yes, Nikon, Canon, Fuji, Pentax should be desperate to sell to younger buyers and get them hooked.

spraynpray

Either that or Canon is desperate in the face of the massive drop in sales over the past two years.

Probably Canon and Nikon are BOTH desperate. They have been reading old school HBR too much...
https://hbr.org/2001/10/torment-your-customers-theyll-love-it/ar/1
Tormenting your customers only works for so long given the limited attention span of the Snap Chat generation.

I think someone at the Nikon Corporate headquarters misinterpreted it when Nikon's base wanted them to shoot for the stars...

No argument there. Recent surveys have showed that the largest segment of stand alone camera purchases come from people who are 50+. People under 30 are mostly using smartphone/cellphone cameras. So yes, Nikon, Canon, Fuji, Pentax should be desperate to sell to younger buyers and get them hooked.

Maybe it will happen naturally. Maybe 'iphonography' is a right of passage these days. Maybe there will still be the same amount of enthusiast photographers buying proper cameras when they get fed up the limitations of a phone camera. Hopefully.

haroldp

Just how far can the MP count go before the advances are not worth it? The D7100 proves a 24mp DX is fine so 54mp should be fine for FX. Where will we cross the line and degrade IQ more than it is improved?

More sensor resolution will never degrade IQ, it may just become pointless for many of us (of course not for me).

... H