Coolpix A

24

Comments

  • starralaznstarralazn Posts: 201Member
    edited March 2013
    i kinda like it too.. seems comparable to an x2 minus the lens pedigree(how much better is leica glass over nikon glass ...)
    no money to throw around right now tho :s
    Post edited by starralazn on
  • TaoTeJaredTaoTeJared Posts: 1,306Member
    KnockKnock got it correct why I would want more mp - it is just because of the 28mm focal length and the ability to crop not because I think more resolution is needed overall. Say at 16mp @ 3200 it can still pull about 2200 lines (using D7000 as baseline). 50% crop 1100 lines, still not too bad, but 75% crop you are @650 and too low for much use. That has been my experience with my X100 - I can get by with a 25% crop to about a 40mm equiv but much more at higher ISOs and the image in many instances becomes usable for friends and facebook.
    With a 28mm & 16mp sensor, you will probably be able to crop it to about 45mm equiv at high isos for facebook but not many other uses. Not that is a bad thing just something I keep in mind when looking at these types of systems. The Sony RX1 has a 50mm crop built in and with 24mp, very usable image. Almost like having two primes.
    D800, D300, D50(ir converted), FujiX100, Canon G11, Olympus TG2. Nikon lenses - 24mm 2.8, 35mm 1.8, (5 in all)50mm, 60mm, 85mm 1.8, 105vr, 105 f2.5, 180mm 2.8, 70-200vr1, 24-120vr f4. Tokina 12-24mm, 16-28mm, 28-70mm (angenieux design), 300mm f2.8. Sigma 15mm fisheye. Voigtlander R2 (olive) & R2a, Voigt 35mm 2.5, Zeiss 50mm f/2, Leica 90mm f/4. I know I missed something...
  • donaldejosedonaldejose Posts: 3,415Member
    edited March 2013
    TTJ: I am not as dense as you think. My sentences with the question marks above were rhetorical in this instance as my opinion of the Coolpix A. Perhaps I should have not used question marks or stated it otherwise such as: we have had 16mp DX sensors in the past with AA filters (such as D7000 and D5100); here we now have a 16mp DX sensor without an AA fiter in this Coolpix A. Why did the 16 mp sensors in the D7000 and D5100 need it and the 16 mp sensor in the Coolpix A not need it? It is the same recycled number of megapixels on a sensor. All three sensors would have the same pixel density. So what is the difference? Cannot be pixel density in this instance (while it could be for the 24mp D7100). I find it hard to think Nikon has added some sort of automatic moire correction in camera before the data is written to the SD card. And doesn't this recent no AA filter trend portend no AA filter will be in the D400 whether the mp used is 16 or 24?

    Now as far as I have seen no one has been able to produce any Nikon statement explaining why the AA filter has been removed from the D7100 and the Coolpix A. In the D800/D800e Nikon offered us a choice. In the D7100 and Coolpix A we have no choice. The D7100 does have increased pixel density but the Coolpix A does not have any more pixel density than the D7000 or the D5100. Maybe in retrospect Nikon decided it really had not been needed on those cameras either. As far as I have been able to determine, we still don't know why two older 16 mp sensors had AA filters and one new one doesn't.

    If I am raising an issue upon which some people have commented before in another thread it is not because I don't remember those comments. Rather, it is because I did not find those comments to be a sufficient answer to the issue. Hence, the issue is not closed and remains unresolved in my mind. Perhaps someone reading this thread will know the answer.
    Post edited by donaldejose on
  • AdeAde Posts: 1,071Member
    edited March 2013
    I find it hard to think Nikon has added some sort of automatic moire correction in camera before the data is written to the SD card.
    In fact, that is how most modern DSLRs work.

    AA filters are not "precise"; they tend to filter too much. A theoretically perfect AA filter would only block frequencies above the sensor limit while letting everything below that frequency to pass. But our real-life filters block lower frequencies as well, severely reducing the sensor's effective resolution.

    So the AA filters on our digital cameras are always weaker than required. This is a compromise: more aliasing risk vs. better resolution.

    Having a weaker than required AA filter means there is a "gap" between where the frequency cutoff should be and where it really is. To mitigate this gap, the camera's image processor has algorithms to reduce aliasing artifacts (including false-color moire) when they do occur.

    Newer cameras have much stronger image processing capabilities than older cameras, and hence they can better cope with aliasing artifacts. That means we can "get away" with even weaker AA filters, or in some cases, get rid of them altogether for most ordinary situations.

    The process described above is for JPEGs. For RAW images, the process is similar but the moire correction is part of the RAW converter. Faster CPUs and more sophisticated RAW conversion algorithms also mean we can now "fix" more aliasing artifacts on RAW images than before.
    Post edited by Ade on
  • donaldejosedonaldejose Posts: 3,415Member
    edited March 2013
    Ade: If you are correct than Nikon has added better anti-aliasing algorithms to the D7100 for in camera JPEG processing. I can understand that. But RAW is not converted in camera so those improved anti-aliasing algorythms have to be added to external software on your desktop or laptop. If this is what Nikon is relying upon then raw conversion from a D7100 should be done with a new converter because older versions of Photoshop, Lightroom, or Elements will produce more morie. Correct? If that is how it is going to work now anyone shooting RAW with a D7100 should open those files with a very recent RAW converter. Correct? Seems to make sense to me.

    But I see one problem with your analysis: You said: "Newer cameras have much stronger image processing capabilities than older cameras, and hence they can better cope with aliasing artifacts. That means we can "get away" with even weaker AA filters, or in some cases, get rid of them altogether for most ordinary situations." My understanding is that the Coolpix A has the same number of megapixes to process (16mp) as did the D7100 and the D5100 and the Coolpix A uses the same Expeed 2 processor they used so it should not have any more processing power than they had. Therefor, they should be functionally equal in processing power to produce JPEGS. In order for the Coolpix A to produce less moire than a D7000 Nikon without an AA filter Nikon would have to have added improved JPEG software to the camera. Am I correct in this?

    To my knowledge Nikon has not commented on why that AA filter is not needed in the D7100 or in the Coolpix A. I have been asking in many threads if anyone can point to a Nikon explanation and so far no one has been able to do so.

    TTJ: as to Nikon not "reusing" or "recycling" sensors note this statement by Nikon: "the DX-format CMOS sensor inside the COOLPIX A is also the same one used in Nikon D-SLR cameras" http://imaging.nikon.com/lineup/coolpix/a/a/features02.htm
    It would appear they are saying they have used the same sensor although they took the AA filter off and are using different micro lenses "Designed exclusively for this camera's optical configuration, the COOLPIX A has micro-lenses above the sensor arranged to maximize the performance of the lens." same reference as above. When I say "reuse" or "recycle" quite obviously I am not saying or implying that Nikon salvages these sensors from old bodies and puts them into new bodies. There would never be enough old bodies to supply an assembly line. I just mean Nikon keeps making more of the "old" sensor and puts them into the "new" body. They "reuse" or "recycle" a part originally designed for a different body. I suspect of lot of parts originally designed for other bodies can be "reused" in many newer bodies that way.
    Post edited by donaldejose on
  • PB_PMPB_PM Posts: 4,493Member
    edited March 2013
    @donaldejose All images, RAW or JPEG are processed to some degree in camera, when the data goes through the AD converter. Of course RAW images receive less tweaking, and with the correct settings give you more to work with.
    Post edited by PB_PM on
    If I take a good photo it's not my camera's fault.
  • donaldejosedonaldejose Posts: 3,415Member
    edited March 2013
    Then the answer to the question I have been asking is most likely a combination of increased pixel density of high mp sensor, new in camera software and increased processing power? Do you agree?
    Post edited by donaldejose on
  • PB_PMPB_PM Posts: 4,493Member
    edited March 2013
    @donaldejose I highly doubt that the in camera processing is good enough to make up for the removal of the AA filter. The CPU's used to process RAW files on your computer are way faster at computing data, and desktop computer software still cannot fully deal with moire.
    Post edited by PB_PM on
    If I take a good photo it's not my camera's fault.
  • donaldejosedonaldejose Posts: 3,415Member
    edited March 2013
    Then what is the answer to the D7000, D5100 16mp needing an AA filter and the 16mp Coolpix not needing it? An expectation that the Coolpix images will be run through different post processing software on your computer?

    What is the answer to the D7100 not needing an AA filter? Just pixel density and an expectation of using different post processing software alone?

    Or maybe moire will be a problem with the D7100 as dust/oil spots have been a problem with the D600? I imagine when detailed reviews of the D7100 are out some of the reviewers may discuss this issue.
    Post edited by donaldejose on
  • PB_PMPB_PM Posts: 4,493Member
    edited March 2013
    As I've said over and over again, removing the AA filter is a marketing ploy to sell more cameras to people who already have perfectly good equipment. If it was solved in camera Nikon would not have updated Capture NX2 to have stronger moire reduction algorithms when the D800E came out.
    Post edited by PB_PM on
    If I take a good photo it's not my camera's fault.
  • donaldejosedonaldejose Posts: 3,415Member
    edited March 2013
    Just a marketing ploy like increased megapixels? Well, we will see if the reviews can detect any increased sharpness from the removal of the AA filter. When the D800 and the D800e were compared increased sharpness could be detected and I expect the same to be true when comparing a 24mp DX sensor with AA to a 24mp DX sensor without it. But I don't disagree that for most of what we do the gear we presently have is perfectly adequate; especially if we keep our ISO low. However, even if it just a little bit better demonstrably a little voice inside me says: "I want that."
    Post edited by donaldejose on
  • PB_PMPB_PM Posts: 4,493Member
    edited March 2013
    However, even if it just a little bit better demonstrably a little voice inside me says: "I want that."
    That's the point of marketing, to make you want a the newest thing, to make you believe that what you have is no longer good enough. In other words, to make a sale.
    Post edited by PB_PM on
    If I take a good photo it's not my camera's fault.
  • rmprmp Posts: 585Member
    I will wait for the next version: the one with the changable lens mount. :-)
    Robert M. Poston: D4, D810, V3, 14-24 F2.8, 24-70 f2.8, 70-200 f2.8, 80-400, 105 macro.
  • AdeAde Posts: 1,071Member
    @donaldejose:
    But RAW is not converted in camera so those improved anti-aliasing algorythms have to be added to external software on your desktop or laptop. If this is what Nikon is relying upon then raw conversion from a D7100 should be done with a new converter because older versions of Photoshop, Lightroom, or Elements will produce more morie. Correct?
    Newer versions of ACR, Lightroom, CaptureNX, Capture One, etc., do have improved moire handling than their predecessors.

    However, practically speaking, even older version of these RAW converters were already much better than in-camera real-time image processors.

    Again, people have been converting RAW files from 40+MP backs with no AA filters for many, many years now.

    @donaldejose:
    My understanding is that the Coolpix A has the same number of megapixes to process (16mp) as did the D7100 and the D5100 and the Coolpix A uses the same Expeed 2 processor they used so it should not have any more processing power than they had.
    Not necessarily (I assume you meant D7000 above).

    - The Coolpix A only has to process images at 4 fps compared to 6 fps for the D7000. That means -- assuming the same processing specs -- the Coolpix A has 33% more compute cycles per frame at its disposal (which is a huge difference).

    - There are many variants of the Expeed 2. The one used in the Coolpix A is in the same family as the D7000 (EI-154) but appears to be a newer version (different part number). The EI-154 version of Expeed 2 is already very close in architecture to Expeed 3 variants such as those used in the D600.

    - We don't know details like the clock speed, amount and type of image processing RAM, etc., all of which could be boosted.

    - We don't know any algorithmic changes (tunings) Nikon may have made to better handle moire.
  • AdeAde Posts: 1,071Member
    As I've said over and over again, removing the AA filter is a marketing ploy to sell more cameras to people who already have perfectly good equipment. If it was solved in camera Nikon would not have updated Capture NX2 to have stronger moire reduction algorithms when the D800E came out.
    I prefer to look at it a different way:

    The reason we have AA filters in high-MP still cameras is the marketing ploy. Manufacturers have been so scared of any bad publicity about the possibility of moire in a very small percentage of images, that they've decided to blur ALL of our images with AA filters.

    For stills photography, an AA filter is a medicine worse than the disease.

    Finally we are now "allowed" to capture images without this forced-blurring. Finally the marketers are willing to admit that the possibility of moire is small and is acceptable for most day to day situations.

    Can you imagine the damage to Nikon if their cameras developed a reputation for having excessive moire? Do you think for a second that the marketers would allow that risk? Nikon is still a VERY conservative company. The fact that we now have three new Nikons without AA filters speaks volumes about their confidence about the rare occurrence of moire.
  • donaldejosedonaldejose Posts: 3,415Member
    Ade: I like seeing it from that point of view. It is good to remove any unnecessary blurring.
  • PB_PMPB_PM Posts: 4,493Member
    @Ade We'll simply have to agree to disagree on this issue.
    If I take a good photo it's not my camera's fault.
  • donaldejosedonaldejose Posts: 3,415Member
    You two are just seeing the same coin from different sides (from different points of view). If moire proves to be a significant issue with the Coolpix A than that AA filter was needed on the D7000 and D5100. If moire is not a significant issue in the Coolpix A then the AA was not needed on the D7000 and D5100, at least from the point of those three sensors having the same pixel density. We will see what experience shows.
  • TaoTeJaredTaoTeJared Posts: 1,306Member
    I'm with PB_PM - and I disagree donaldejose, it is not the same coin at all. A common term for removal of the AA filter was called "Hot Rodding" a camera. That has been a service for many, many years, but moire was a huge issue depending on the use. Studio, macro, Stock, nature, it didn't make much difference. If you shot a back ally, a window air conditioner looked like one massive artifact in the frame. Power lines we very distracting as well. As MikeG mentioned on the other thread, the AA filter becomes very, very important for video.

    Raw files are processed in the camera - to a point. Could they do something? That I do not know.

    I'm guessing these will have a Single Pass filter just like the D800e. Why are they saying they have removed it - marketing.
    Nikon would have to have added improved JPEG software to the camera. Am I correct in this?
    There is always new software - always.

    TTJ: as to Nikon not "reusing" or "recycling" sensors note this statement by Nikon: "the DX-format CMOS sensor inside the COOLPIX A is also the same one used in Nikon D-SLR cameras" http://imaging.nikon.com/lineup/coolpix/a/a/features02.htm
    It would appear they are saying they have used the same sensor although they took the AA filter off and are using different micro lenses
    Reading way, way, way into this too much. The reference of the word "one" is of the DX-format, not the sensor of the D7000 - you added that part to it.

    "Designed exclusively for this camera's optical configuration, the COOLPIX A has micro-lenses above the sensor arranged to maximize the performance of the lens." same reference as above.
    That is a recycled (note the use of that term) marketing line. They are always updating sensors with micro lenses. They always optimize a sensor for a body. Not false marketing, but what I like to call "Well Duh" marketing.

    When I say "reuse" or "recycle" quite obviously I am not saying or implying that Nikon salvages these sensors from old bodies and puts them into new bodies. There would never be enough old bodies to supply an assembly line. I just mean Nikon keeps making more of the "old" sensor and puts them into the "new" body. They "reuse" or "recycle" a part originally designed for a different body. I suspect of lot of parts originally designed for other bodies can be "reused" in many newer bodies that way.
    But that is the meaning of the words, and you are trying to alter their definitions. (Note: Recycle: V. 1.Convert (waste) into reusable material. 2.Return (material) to a previous stage in a cyclic process.) If your name was DonaldeMerriamWebster I might consider you were creating a new entry for your book, but alas, you are just DonaldeJose. ;)




    D800, D300, D50(ir converted), FujiX100, Canon G11, Olympus TG2. Nikon lenses - 24mm 2.8, 35mm 1.8, (5 in all)50mm, 60mm, 85mm 1.8, 105vr, 105 f2.5, 180mm 2.8, 70-200vr1, 24-120vr f4. Tokina 12-24mm, 16-28mm, 28-70mm (angenieux design), 300mm f2.8. Sigma 15mm fisheye. Voigtlander R2 (olive) & R2a, Voigt 35mm 2.5, Zeiss 50mm f/2, Leica 90mm f/4. I know I missed something...
  • ChromiumPrimeChromiumPrime Posts: 84Member

    TTJ: as to Nikon not "reusing" or "recycling" sensors note this statement by Nikon: "the DX-format CMOS sensor inside the COOLPIX A is also the same one used in Nikon D-SLR cameras" http://imaging.nikon.com/lineup/coolpix/a/a/features02.htm
    It would appear they are saying they have used the same sensor although they took the AA filter off and are using different micro lenses
    Reading way, way, way into this too much. The reference of the word "one" is of the DX-format, not the sensor of the D7000 - you added that part to it.
    TTJ, are there any other 16.2MP DSLRs other than D7000/D5100?
    Way too much gear & way too few photos :-O
  • donaldejosedonaldejose Posts: 3,415Member
    edited March 2013
    Sure it is possible Nikon just meant a DX size sensor when it used the phrase "same one" but it could have used "same sensor size" or "same sensor type" if it meant only DX size and not a specific 16.2 mp DX sensor previously used in DSLRs. The use of the word "one" in the phrase "same one" suggests they are referring to one certain 16.2 mp sensor used previously. Perhaps the Coolpix A sensor is an entirely new 16.2 mp sensor. That would be great. Maybe the reviews or tear downs will show it to be an entirely new design which just happens to have the same megapixel number. Maybe it will achieve a significantly different DxOMark sensor score. But from the info we have so far it looks suspiciously like the same old sensor used in the D7000 and D5100 put into a Coolpix form factor.

    As to the words "reuse" or "recycle" look at this statement by Thom Hogan from page 33 of his D600 Guide: "That's one reason why I can write with authority that the D600 is a D7000 with an FX sensor. It's even made in the same plant in Thailand." and from page 43: "the bodies mostly share the same parts and controls. The D600 is a little bit bigger than the D7000, but that's because the FX sensor inside requires a bigger mirror, shutter and viewfinder." It would appear Thom is essentially saying many (or most or almost all) of the parts inside both cameras come from the same parts bin whether one calls that reusing parts originally designed for the D7000 or recycling parts originally designed for the D7000 or multi-use of parts originally used for the D7000 or sharing parts originally designed for an earlier body. Parts designed for a D7000 would become "waste" parts after D7000 production is ended. If those same waste parts were put into D600 bodies they would be converted from waste into reusable materials; hence parts "recycled" by Nikon designers by using them in a new body. See defination number 1 you quoted above "Convert (waste) into reusable material." Using the same parts as much as possible rather than designing new ones could be one way to lower cost. I remember some people saying Nikon could not produce an FX body for under about $3,000 and yet now we have one for $2,000. Perhaps one of the reasons is the "use" or "reuse" or "re-purposing" or "recycling" of parts originally designed for a different body. Another reason could be that FX sensor cost has become lower than previously stated. Perhaps the D400 will follow the D600 in that it will essentially be all the D800 parts but with a DX sensor, mirror, shutter, and viewfinder. Whether this is called sharing parts, or re-purposing parts, or reusing parts or recycling parts, it will amount to the same thing and should serve to lower the cost of production by extending the life of parts and by achieving economies of scale.
    Post edited by donaldejose on
  • moreorlessmoreorless Posts: 120Member
    edited March 2013
    I think tao's response is spot-on as the Brits say. @adamz, the context was cropping. Yeah 28mm is wide, but if it were a 24mp sensor you could (I'll guestimate instead of doing the math) shoot in m4/3 mode giving you 35mm equiv view angle, that'd be 16mp. Crop mode for 50mm, say 12mp. And Crop mode for 85mm, ~8mp. Reasonable resolutions.

    At its current 16mp, then 12/8/5mp doesn't look as attractive. Little lines on the LCD could show you where the crop would be so you can frame accurately.
    Indeed, I suspect that the future of larger sensored compacts is likely to go featured alot of prime lenses with digital cropping modes. The size issues around zoom lenses are simpley not something that technology is likely to be able to bypass in the foreseble future if ever, even moreso if your talking fast zoom lenses to actually exploit the extra low light ability of the sensor.

    Without that it seems your looking at a more speicalist market who are happy with a 28mm lens, I could for example see myself picking one up as a compact alternative/backup to my D800 but not at anything close to the current price.
    Post edited by moreorless on
  • shawninoshawnino Posts: 453Member
    $200 price drop out of the gate. Nikon must be REALLY keen to move product by the end of March?
  • AdeAde Posts: 1,071Member
    The D7100 is getting discounted from Day 1 also. And really Nikon has been discounting just about every lens & body since December. They are trying to meet their revenue projections at the expense of margins and the risk of currency fluctuations.

    In the meantime I've put in my Coolpix A pre-order. Can't wait! :)
  • MsmotoMsmoto Posts: 5,398Moderator
    Gosh, about $1600 with lens hood and optical viewfinder......How very interesting.....
    Msmoto, mod
Sign In or Register to comment.