Nikon D4x

Ade

What you're describing is binning for the retail or wholesale market, because different bins can be sold at different prices to different consumers.

In the ASIC/ASSP market where prices are set by contract to specifications, things work a bit differently. (Until recently binning wasn't used at all). And binning alone is probably not sufficient to make chips like EXPEED economical.

What really achieves the economies of scale is the fact that the cost to design and manufacture EXPEED's underlying Fujitsu Milbeaut is shared among many Fujitsu customers, and that the controller portion within Milbeaut is in turn based on ARM IP instead of an original design.

According to Wikipedia, aside from EXPEED the same basic chip is also used for Sony's BIONZ, Leica MAESTRO, Pentax PRIME and Sigma's True. Not to mention, Milbeaut's basic design is used in various smaller cameras and even smart phones.

With this kind of sharing, it's possible to manufacture different chips by starting with a standard product and then adding custom masks. Otherwise, the cost to produce the EXPEED would be very high, binning or not.

Canon's DIGIC is designed & manufactured in a similar way, I believe using one of the Texas Instruments ASSP.

No company will really just "add more chips" to a new board when they choose. There is a partnership between the camera manufacturer (Nikon, Canon) and the chip supplier (Fujitsu, TI) and they plan ranges of desired features & performances well in advance. The delivered solution could involve single or multi-core, single or multi-processor, or a combination of both -- with pros and cons for each.

What Nikon & Fujitsu might have cooked up for the D4x remains a mystery.

Ade

@Ade - very much appreciate you sharing your considerable technical knowledge with us. I find your comments both informational and educational.

Thanks guys, I am still learning new things everyday.

Elvishefer

Sooo... reading Thom Hogan again, one of my favorite Nikon watchers.

Overview of Nikon 2013/2014

He seems convinced there will be a D4x (of some kind) in 2014. The write up is both a good retrospective and has interesting predictions.

Photobug

Thanks for sharing the Tom Hogan link. Good reading.

I hope he is right on the D9000 and D4x.

WestEndBoy

Sooo... reading Thom Hogan again, one of my favorite Nikon watchers.

Overview of Nikon 2013/2014

He seems convinced there will be a D4x (of some kind) in 2014. The write up is both a good retrospective and has interesting predictions.

This was an interesting article. Thanks Elvishefer. The link to missing lenses was particularily distressing. It makes me wonder if Nikon's R&D resources are being diverted to something surprising. If so, I wonder what it could be?

Back on topic, a D4x with a D800 sensor and the ability to shoot 10 frames per second with 100 shots in the buffer and dual XQD cards but otherwise identical to the D4 (besides incremental improvements) would be a nice surprise. It would throw down the gauntlet to Canon.

scoobysmak

Back on topic, a D4x with a D800 sensor and the ability to shoot 10 frames per second with 100 shots in the buffer and dual XQD cards but otherwise identical to the D4 (besides incremental improvements) would be a nice surprise. It would throw down the gauntlet to Canon.

Well at 36 MP I doubt you could get 10 fps unless you were in DX mode and that might be pushing the limits but admit be nice. I would also would love to have at least one stop better ISO than the D800e while I am at it. Not sure if I about the XQD cards, I would want to know more about reliability and such before I trusted both my memory cards to the same style (CF cards have proven themselves over time to be good overall).

WestEndBoy

They could get 10 frames per second in FX if they were motivated enough think parallel processing. Higher ISO would require a new sensor and more ISO may not matter much to potential purchasers? The ecomical and engineering considerations would be interesting. You would need XQD cards to deal with the data flow. I think if there was a reliability issue you would have seen the compaints on this forum.

heartyfisher

@jshickele .. I think you have mentioned parallel processing and dual processor a few times.. I know canon has it.. the issue with nikon is the chip that have been using as the basis for expeed does not support parallel processing. and the new expeed is the same.. ie no parallel support. so that is not going to happen this year or next.

WestEndBoy

I think you are likely right. It did't say it is likely, just that it would be a nice surprise and that Nikon could do it if it was motivated enought - say to design a new processor architecture.

FreezeAction

The D4X would be a dream camera but please Nikon build the glass to go with it. Zeiss quality in auto focus. Who wants to manual focus on action? Who wants less than the best IQ when competing for the dollars to eat with?

scoobysmak

They could get 10 frames per second in FX if they were motivated enough think parallel processing. Higher ISO would require a new sensor and more ISO may not matter much to potential purchasers? The ecomical and engineering considerations would be interesting. You would need XQD cards to deal with the data flow. I think if there was a reliability issue you would have seen the compaints on this forum.

If your going to build a camera that can take 10 fps then your going to attract sports photographers and bird photographers, in this world ISO matters. I do not know the answer to this and should but did the D3s use a different sensor than the D3/D700, I think it got a stop better ISO from some where.

Ironheart

The expeed 3A chip in the Nikon 1 J3 does up to 60fps with a 14Mp sensor, for an effective 840Mp/sec. That's enough juice for over 20fps at 36Mp. Who knows what expeed 4 will be capable of...

Edit: Answering my own question. Expeed4 is capable of 12fps @ 24Mp, or 8 @ 36Mp according to Fujitsu's documentation. So now we know the spec for the D7200 and the D4x (although the D7200 could be hobbled just like the D5300)

The trick will be getting the MultiCAM AF and shutter/mirror movement above 10fps.

henrik1963

People are still trying to handle a D800 at 5 frames a sec. Think of the outcry if Nikon made a 48 mp D4x doing 10 frames a sec. with a butter that could handle 100 frames. Then you would need more computer and more hard drives :-) That would never fly :-)

scoobysmak

OOOOHHHHH, I love a good rumor...well as they say its just a rumor so we will see but I personally would like to see both. I will post this in the D400 thread as well just to keep the rumors going, lol.

http://dubaiphotoclub.com/post/71131102675/nikon-launching-d400-or-d4x-on-17-january-2014-in-dubai

FreezeAction

I'd love to see Nikon throw a good curve ball to get up to speed with a D854X, 54mp, even at 4 frames per second with DR and ISO improvements. And then to add some fuel to the fire the D4* @36mp and 8-10 FPS. For all who have not heard it there is some factual rumor Canon has been testing a 75MP body in the field for some time now. Word on the street is it is eating batteries for snacks. Not being an engineer I cannot know what obstacles there are to what I would like to have as tools in my tool bag. What I do know is that 54mp yields a great 40x60" print and a cropped 24x60 one shot panorama. I know that 8 fps is adequate for equestrian and rodeo events and if the D4 is doing 10/11 fps hopefully an increase in buffer size and mp is doable.

rmp

I just shot some family Christmas snap-shots with a D4 in the dreaded "P" mode -- don't laugh .
I loved it. Spot-focus, spot-metering, face-recognition: I don't think I missed a single smile. Two weeks ago I said I had no need or desire to buy a D4x, I could almost make use of the D4 features. After, the Christmas-shoot, I Love my D4, but I know I cannot wait to see what automation Nikon adds to the P-mode.

Improvements in 1: glass, 2: DR, and 4: reduced weight would be great for real-shoots.

Msmoto

"P" Mode ….is this "professional? Rumor has it that 36 MP will do a nice 65" print….mmmm

I cannot see the need for a 24-36 MP D4. Sixteen seems to work for me. And, the D800 took care of the "more" folks.

donaldejose

I tend to agree about the need for more megapixels. 24 mp is enough for me. However, "progress" is unstoppable and as soon as Nikon can produce a 48 to 50 mp sensor at a reasonable price with good IQ (hopefully not limited to ISO 800 - but if so that would still work for portraits and landscapes) it will produce such a camera and it will be pitched as "medium-format." When that time comes it will also be time for a new set of higher resolution Nikkor lenses.

spraynpray

Funny, but when the FX chest-beaters talk about DX, they say the larger sensor will always be better in low light hi ISO, DoF etc. etc., but when people talk about an even larger mP sensor than the D800's, the words medium format just trickle off their tongue without thought that a real MF sensor should/would have the same 'advantages' over FX as FX does over DX! :P

WestEndBoy

Funny, but when the FX chest-beaters talk about DX, they say the larger sensor will always be better in low light hi ISO, DoF etc. etc., but when people talk about an even larger mP sensor than the D800's, the words medium format just trickle off their tongue without thought that a real MF sensor should/would have the same 'advantages' over FX as FX does over DX! :P

I am one of those FX chest-beaters. And when (I can only hope) Nikon launches medium format is a DSLR style camera with great low light performance (the issue with many current medium format systems), I will be saving my money.

The lack of enthusiasm is probably related to the low light performance of current systems. They certainly have not reached their full potential, especially in that regard.

shawnino

I think the barrier to entry to true Medium Format is too high for Nikon given both the facts in the marketplace and Nikon's own psychology. On the psychology side, they're really pushing mass-market products.

As to the marketplace, Nikon would probably have to launch MF with at least four lenses--say three primes and a zoom. Nobody would be switching from Hassy etc. to buy into a smaller line-up, so they're essentially stuck competing for new business. Is there enough new business, given that:
1) Nikon would be the new-kid-on-the-block
2) There would be a certain chorus of cynics who would ask "will Nikon get bored with MF, the way they seem to have gotten bored with DX/CX? Releasing a new body with mild upgrades every six months doesn't really inspire confidence that Nikon will really support the new MF line... but I guess it's better than just canning the D30s replacement and just never telling anybody you did..."

No way Nikon can make the case internally to go medium format. Suppose they did--hands up, who's buying?

Ade

No way Nikon can make the case internally to go medium format. Suppose they did--hands up, who's buying?

I would seriously consider one, depending on the specs + available lenses at launch, and assuming a price point of under $12,000 (body only).

As a comparison, the Hasselblad H5D-40 starts at $17,995 (sometimes with a normal lens included in promos), and a revamped Pentax 645D II will probably be priced under $10,000 when/if it comes out later in 2014.

donaldejose

spraynpray: Yes, assuming the same 24mp per sensor a true MF sensor will have much larger photosites than a 24 mp FX sensor which in turn will have larger photosites than a 24mp DX sensor. But, you could have a constant size photosite and just more megapixels as you move up from DX to FX to MF. When I make reference to a 48 or 60 mp D4x being advertised as "medium form" I don't mean it would equate to MF in all ways. I just mean one reference for advertising purposes will be to claim so many megapixels give MF image quality such that when you print at 300dpi or at 300 pixels per inch you will have a larger size print. Stated another way for a 16x24 print each pixel will not have to be enlarged so much. We should also remember when we speak of IQ at high ISO it isn't just the size of the photosite that counts. Sensors can be made more efficient, software can reduce noise better, etc. For example, look at the DX sensor. DxOMark rated the DX D3H as good up to 325 ISO while it rates the DX D7100 as good up to 1256 ISO. No change in size but lots of changes in other things. And look at DxOMark total ratings of sensor with the FX D800E at 96 while the MF Phase One IQ 180 is at 91. Yes, all other things being equal, the MF should have an advantage over the FX size which should have an advantage over the DX size but apparently all other things are not always equal.

WestEndBoy

Yes Donaldejose, MF is under exploited. I can only imagine what a motivated company with deep pockets like Nikon could do with MF. In fact, I think that with the ongoing decline in sensor prices and continued improvements, it is inevitable that someone will develop MF.

Ade

The problem is the MF market is very small, say 5,000 units annually (total for all manufacturers combined).

Let's assume (optimistically) that Nikon can capture 50% of the MF market by volume (2500 units/year) and the average selling price of an MF Nikon + lens is $15,000.

That means a yearly revenue of just $37.5 million**. For comparison, Nikon reportedly makes 15,000 units of the Df per month, and assuming (optimistically) they sell out with a selling price of $3000 for camera & lens, that's $45 million revenue per month, or a potential of over $500 million per year.

So it's a tough business case for Nikon to make the necessary investments to fully enter the MF market, and it seems to make more sense for them to make products like the D800, D3X and D4X which allow them to win MF customers without actually entering the MF market.

Having said that, if Nikon ever produces an MF camera I'd be in line. Chances are, however, if there's going to be a disruption in the MF market it would be from a smaller niche player, perhaps a startup, not from Nikon.

**(ignoring the sales chain for easy math)