Petition to Nikon: low-light DX camera

Nigelous

I want to quote the 1st post of the old topic http://nikonrumors.com/forum/topic.php?id=1077
optimaforever wrote:
"The D40 was better than the D40x because it had 6Mp instead of 10Mp and therefore bigger photosites (in terms of density per mm2). Following the same logic, Nikon *could* produce a low Mp camera capable of high ISO performance similar to a D3S... ?!
I guess this makes sense technically and I really think there's a potential market here. I'd be personally very interested in a camera with 6Mp resolution (A4 and even A3 proof) and ISO 102400 potential, with , say 6-8fps and 720p video ON A DX format.
Mmmh... perhaps am I too optimistic? if the noise is low, 6Mp can easily give huge prints. Ken R was a big fan of the D40 and I tend to agree on this one."

I think it is very good idea which must to take place. More detailshttp://www.change.org/petitions/nikon-stop-megapixel-war-start-the-production-of-the-high-iso-dslr-camera-in-a-small-body .

Msmoto

@ Nigelous

You have resurrected and old thread, but this is an interesting discussion. If you are Vadim Bezrukov, I think it needs to be stated here. It would appear you are the one who started the petition and are the only signature.

In any case, welcome.

framer

I agree with the OP. We could use a high proformance DX in the 6 - 8 M range with D4 qualities.

framer

donaldejose

Sure, but market realities suggest Nikon could not sell enough of them. Probably 10 or 12
mp is the lowest that would sell to anyone these days. And I don't think Nikon pays any attention to signed petitions. Probably the best hope, and it is a very slim one, would be if Nikon split the D400 line into a D400s and a D400X: one with high mp and the other with high ISO ability.

sevencrossing

Yes we would all like something like a D4 for the price of a D3200

Most people who want High ISOs will want to use f 1. 4 lenses
Yes a cheap 24mm f 1.4 would be nice too
can we add that to the Petition

Msmoto

OK, let's say they used the DX crop of the D4...7 MP. As stated, probably not a sell for Nikon. But, if the technology has moved froward enough, maybe they can make ti a 12 MP, 12,800 ISO, D800 focus, 8 FPS, and this would be something I would jump on in a heart beat. What I am looking for is a DX D4 or close. Maybe I will just get a D3s, except I really do not like to purchase a used camera body unless I know who is selling it and the history.

In a strange way, the D600 difficulties has made it easier to wait for the D300s replacement. I am hoping Nikon is doing some rigorous testing with the new body so as to avoid the disaster of the D600. I do not think the image of Nikon can withstand many more screw ups.

PB_PM

If Nikon wanted to sell a low resolution camera to give better noise performance, I suspect they would be already (in fact they are... the D4). The marketing department at Nikon would never allow a DX camera to hit the market that matches the performance of the highest end models, it just isn't going to happen. Why? It would lower the value, and prestige of the high end model.

obajoba

I would tend to agree with @donaldejose and @PB_PM, simply because the average consumer isn't printing larger than an 8x10 (which the D7000 can handle at ISO1600), they aren't using "pro" quality FX (or DX) lenses on their DX body, and most won't be educated on photosite size/density. So, with those three reasons, more than the majority of consumers are eliminated. Development of technology for Nikon isn't cheap and to come up with a high-ISO DX camera they would need to know for sure that the result would be a positive revenue stream... No matter how unfortunate, advertising an 8MP camera on anything other than a phone at this point is a death sentence and sure to end in huge development costs with negative revenue.

sevencrossing

Here we go agine, what advantage would a Dx D4 have ?
fitting a samller sensor might lower the cost a bit
but the disavantages of DX would not justify the saving

PB_PM

Found something interesting that should kill this altogether.
http://www.sensorgen.info/

Basically, if you study the quantum efficiency of today’s sensors and compare areas, you’ll realize that never in the future of photography will a DX sensor of the Bayer type do as well as today’s D4 in low light, for mid-tone noise. Only noise in the deepest shadows can still improve hugely (since read-out noise strongly affects this).

Msmoto

@ PB_PM

Thanks...I noticed our OP has not returned to the forum. So, I wonder if this is almost a spam message to support what appears to be his website. We will wait a day or so and if he does not come forward...mmmm.... :-SS

haroldp

When comparing higher resolution sensors for noise we commonly compare at the pixel level effectively raising the level of magnification. If we compare at a fixed print or image size, today's high resolution sensors do very well, they lose out to lower res bigger pixel sensors in dynamic range rather than visible noise since each pixel is smaller. Thom Hogan covers this very well in comparing D800 noise to D3s and D4. My D3x compares evenly with my D700 when display size is equalized, and my D800e appears better still, but I have not done any real tests. When comparing pixels, remember that the d800 image is 3 times the size of the D700 / D3 image.

Another useful technique is to downres which will reduce pixel level noise by averaging them. A D600 downressed to 12 mpx should compare favorably to a D3s. The loss will probably be in DR at high ISO's (above 6400 or so), but I have not tested this. I will probably do so soon since I would like to know more myself, and will update the forum when I do.

regards ..... H

ricochet

A low light DX camera would appeal to many wildlife photographers. To the best of my knowledge no one makes a 400mm f1.4 lens. Different photographic genres require different tools.

safyre

Here we go agine, what advantage would a Dx D4 have ?
fitting a samller sensor might lower the cost a bit
but the disavantages of DX would not justify the saving

And what would be those disadvantages of DX aside from ISO and DoF?

heartyfisher

Found something interesting that should kill this altogether.
http://www.sensorgen.info/

Basically, if you study the quantum efficiency of today’s sensors and compare areas, you’ll realize that never in the future of photography will a DX sensor of the Bayer type do as well as today’s D4 in low light, for mid-tone noise. Only noise in the deepest shadows can still improve hugely (since read-out noise strongly affects this).

Had a look at that table .. good info there thanks !

That D5200 toshiba sensor sure is a winner ! .. what does that last column mean ? ( max saturation capacity )

PB_PM

I think it has something to do with colour reproduction.

TaoTeJared

PB_PM that is a interesting set of data but it is not the quantum efficiency as the author trys to name. He is slapping some numbers into a "good" equation, but it's not the actual "quantum efficiency" but something else.
If you read his description he got the "Idea" from some blog or forum thread. The author is hardly an expert.

The quantum efficiency (QE), or incident photon to converted electron (IPCE) ratio,[1] of a photosensitive device or a charge-coupled device (CCD) is the percentage of photons hitting the device's photoreactive surface that produce charge carriers.

I'm not sure what the numbers are suppose to mean. EOS_5D_MkIII = 49% but Powershot_G15 = 59% ? I'm not expert in Canon's cameras but the 5D_MkIII is a hell of a lot better than the G15. Practical checking of the numbers doesn't line up with what he is trying to say. The number may be good for something or is a measurement of something, but I'm not sure what.

TaoTeJared

As for a low light camera, that is on the D400 thread for 4 years now. If it is a "real" camera, Not a compact, 12mp is a min to sell. If it was a "Holga/Lomo" type of system, you could get away with 8mp. I still think a camera like that would sell like hotcakes.

PB_PM

@TaoTeJared Those numbers having nothing to do with a rating of the cameras sensor, but rather the QE depending on the size of the sensor. Based on QE, and the size 1/1.7" sensor size, the G15 is 59% efficient. The 5D MKIII is 49% at it's size. I think you've totally missed the point of the site altogether.

Think of it this way.
D4 53% Efficiency: Meaning the sensor still has room to improve at lot, based on the Bayer design.
D5200 65% Efficiency: Meaning it has less room to improve because, based on the sensor size it is closer to being 100% efficient.

Does that clear things up a little better? This shows how much room the sensors have left to improve, and how efficient the technology is, at a given photosensitive surface (photosite). The FX sensors are less developed than the DX's, yet they still outperform them.

heartyfisher

I think it has something to do with colour reproduction.

from what i can surmise its either that (colour) or amount of photons a pixel can capture. not sure which yet that's why I was asking.

PS: looked around the website and found this.. "the saturation capacity is simply the number of photoelectrons at 100% grey (aka white), so is 100G."

Nigelous

I agree with the OP. We could use a high proformance DX in the 6 - 8 M range with D4 qualities.

framer

But why don't you sign petition?

Found something interesting that should kill this altogether.
http://www.sensorgen.info/

Basically, if you study the quantum efficiency of today’s sensors and compare areas, you’ll realize that never in the future of photography will a DX sensor of the Bayer type do as well as today’s D4 in low light, for mid-tone noise. Only noise in the deepest shadows can still improve hugely (since read-out noise strongly affects this).

I disagree your argumentation about Q.E. Sony NEX-FS100 with 23x13 mm sensor kills D4 in low light, because its pixel size 9.4 µm vs 7.3 µm of D4. If you don't believe, see here

Nigelous

...

A low light DX camera would appeal to many wildlife photographers. To the best of my knowledge no one makes a 400mm f1.4 lens. Different photographic genres require different tools.

quite right! It's true! I just need this camera for wildlife shooting, where we can not to use the xenon flash or any other synthetic light. The shooting should be in natural lighting, as well as the human eye sees (or more brightly !), in order to avoid unnecessary disturbance of the animals. Sorry for my English:)

ricochet, why don't you sign petition?

Msmoto

I guess I missed the Sony NEX-FS100 demo at 20,000 ISO, where I shoot my D4...or at 50,000 or....
Tests such as these, apparently without any controls, and with a non-constant light source, belong over in the thread with the kid changing lenses with tow fingers...

If one wants to examine the technical issues of sensors, it must have some scientific basis. DxOMark can do these things, and the link above to http://www.sensorgen.info is another credible organization. But, the video simply is not a worthwhile piece of evidence.

SquamishPhoto

Ouch. Someones D4 ego sounds a bit hurt.

msmoto, you do realize the sony is a video unit, right? This is hardly the first time a dedicated sony video unit has outperformed DSLR's in low light video performance and it won't be the last.

Ironheart

The sensor is actually smaller than APS-C at 23.6mm by 13.3mm, it's max resolution is 3.3MP which of course will be down sampled to HD or 2MP. And it costs $6K with a lens.

At that size sensor with only 3MP no wonder it has decent low light performance. It ain't no D4 tho...

haroldp

Comparing a video camera operating at its native resolution doing video against an SLR which is downsampled for video, and then both heavily compressed and with moving images is amusing, but establishes nothing.

A more valid noise comparison of sensor performance ( if comparing a still to a videocam is ever valid) would be to take a still with the videocam (nex can do this) and compare images against D4 magnified to the same image (or print) size.

Regards .... H