So Why No D4X??? A Pro-Level, High Megapixel Camera for Studio/Fashion/Advertising Photographers

Photobug · March 2015

"mamamoto" - has a nice ring to it. Nice name @heartyfisher.

heartyfisher · March 2015

"mamamoto" - has a nice ring to it. Nice name @heartyfisher.

We all love her here .. :x :x :x

spraynpray · March 2015

People have made it very clear how much they are prepared to pay for a D400. Yes there are a few Pros who would pay good money for a D4x but I imagine Nikon reckon there are simply not enough of them to warrant bringing a new camera to market they clearly believe there are enough buyers for a D810a. Prior to the launch of D810a Nikon were probably losing sales to the EOS 60Da
with no D4x People are buying either a D810 or a D4s or BOTH so Nikon are not currently not losing many sales.

Where to start with this reply?

Photography has grown since the D3X so there would probably be a bigger market for a D4X.

Nikon were so slow bringing the D810a to that tiny market that they probably have lost some of the small number of sales to Canon's xxxxxxDa.

If there is no market for a D4X, how come the latest 50mp bodies from Canon?

It seems Nikon are trying to steer the customers into buying what they want to make, rather than giving them what they want (I think that is a big mistake).

I don't understand it - we don't need a lot - just re-use old bodies with new sensors and chips if it is about 'cost to market' then let sales increase profits to fund carbon fibre bodies and all the rest of the non-essential whiz-bang ideas that I don't care about. Or even just concentrate on quality and spend the money there!

sevencrossing · March 2015

It seems Nikon are trying to steer the customers into buying what they want to make, rather than giving them what they want (I think that is a big mistake).

I think It is very good business practice to try sell what have, rather than what you dont

Photography has grown since the D3X so there would probably be a bigger market for a D4X.

I think a lot of that market has been satisfied by the D800 the D810 and the D4 neither existed at the launch of the D4x

how come the latest 50mp bodies from Canon

They are Canon's belated answer to the D800 and the D810 not the D3x

If Nikon brought out 10 new DSLRs tomorrow we would immediately have at least 10 new threads " when are Nikon going to xxxxxxxxx "

carbon fibre bodies and all the rest of the non-essential whiz-bang ideas that I don't care about

As the saying goes "one man's meat ..." If Nikon brought out 10 new DSLRs tomorrow we would immediately have at least 10 new threads " when are Nikon going to xxxxxxxxx "

Msmoto · March 2015

Ya'll are so nice.... :x

Oh, back to the discussion.... my experience with my used D800E has been such a demonstration of huge quality in the sensor I cannot imagine a D4x. An example:

Full frame:

Cropped image:

Nikon_D800E_135mm_f-2 TEST II_02.26.15-2

FYI: D800E, 135mm f/2.0 DC Nikkor at f/2.8, 1/500 sec, ISO 100

WestEndFoto · March 2015

Nice lens, shot at its best aperture. The camera is decent too.

donaldejose · March 2015

20.8 mp sensor in the next Nikon 1? Scale that up to FX and what does it mean? A 56 mp FX sensor for a Nikon? If it can be done at the Nikon 1 level why cannot it be done at the FX level?

sevencrossing · March 2015

If it can be done at the Nikon 1 level why cannot it be done at the FX level?

The biggest down side i read about the Nikon 1 is poor ISO performance

another reason, when the D800 came out, lots of people on nrf cried "too many mp"
Many be Nikon do listen to us

Ironheart · March 2015

20.8 mp sensor in the next Nikon 1? Scale that up to FX and what does it mean? A 56 mp FX sensor for a Nikon? If it can be done at the Nikon 1 level why cannot it be done at the FX level?

The current V3 has an 18MP sensor, which if scaled up to FX at the same pitch would be a 136MP sensor. If you scale a 20.8MP CX sensor up to FX it would be a 154MP sensor. Remember sensors are rectangular, so you have to look at the ratio of the square millimeters.

The biggest down side i read about the Nikon 1 is poor ISO performance

First of all, it ain't that poor, perhaps a stop. Secondly, the D800 proved that smaller pixels don't really hurt ISO performance, especially if you resize to compare "apples to apples". The real reason CX and DX have the ISO disadvantage is the *overall* size of the sensor is smaller and therefore gathers less light. If you cram 150MP into an FX sensor you will get the same ISO performance of any other FX sized sensor, all else being equal (which it never is...)

spraynpray · March 2015

For once I don't agree at all with you Ironheart. Who said pixel size doesn't really hurt hi ISO? If you lose a micron all around a pixel and that pixel is only three microns across, how much light do you get in when compared to a pixel of 5 microns across - 9:1 improvement? Big pixels are better than small ones and the difference is plain to see if you zoom 1:1. At the sizes we see here, the difference is masked by the tiny size of the images.

Having said that, for the good light landscape or studio shooter a 154mp sensor will cause a stampede. I wouldn't want to post process the files though.

WestEndFoto · March 2015

20.8 mp sensor in the next Nikon 1? Scale that up to FX and what does it mean? A 56 mp FX sensor for a Nikon? If it can be done at the Nikon 1 level why cannot it be done at the FX level?
The current V3 has an 18MP sensor, which if scaled up to FX at the same pitch would be a 136MP sensor. If you scale a 20.8MP CX sensor up to FX it would be a 154MP sensor. Remember sensors are rectangular, so you have to look at the ratio of the square millimeters.

The biggest down side i read about the Nikon 1 is poor ISO performance
First of all, it ain't that poor, perhaps a stop. Secondly, the D800 proved that smaller pixels don't really hurt ISO performance, especially if you resize to compare "apples to apples". The real reason CX and DX have the ISO disadvantage is the *overall* size of the sensor is smaller and therefore gathers less light. If you cram 150MP into an FX sensor you will get the same ISO performance of any other FX sized sensor, all else being equal (which it never is...)

Actually, if you really want to get technical, it is the diameter if the front lens element that will determine low light performance. That is what determines, and nothing else, how much light the sensor has to play with. For this purpose, f/1.4 is better than f/2.8 and medium format is better than FX which is better than DX which is better than CX.

Well there is something else, transmission. You can find the measurement for that, measured in stops, on the DXO website. Primes tend to be better than zooms of the same f-stop because they have fewer lens elements.

Finally we get to the sensor. Is the sensor big enough to capture all the light. DX sensors are at a disadvantage to FX sensors with FX lenses as they capture slightly less than half (one divided by 1.5 squared). Then the pixels themselves. Which portion of the pixel actually detects light and is not an edge? Bigger pixels tend to have an advantage in this regard.

Which all explains why CX will never catch up to DX, which will never catch up to FX. It is all in how thick your lens is.

sevencrossing · March 2015

...... CX will never catch up to DX, which will never catch up to FX. It is all in how thick your lens is.

In the 60s my teacher taught me "a good big un will always be better than a good little um"
by this he meant. Large format will be better than Medium format; MF format. will be better than 35mm.
I do not think much has changed

donaldejose · March 2015

ironheart: wow! over 100mp in FX. That would be something, even if it was clean only to ISO 800. I bet landscape shooters would snap it up.

Ironheart · March 2015

Ha, you guys are killing me :-) There is no argument that the overall size of the sensor matters in terms of light gathering ability, Right? I said "all else being equal" so f/2 is f/2 the world around, and we're assuming the same lens in any sensor comparison, so t-stops are equal. The topic is about high megapixels vs lower ones, and @donaldejose was pointing out, high megapixel sensors exist (or actually small pitch/pixel sensors do). Without going near the CX/DX/FX third-rail and only focusing on the pixel size discussion, here are some facts:

The D810 with 36MP has 50% more pixels than the D750 with 24MP
The D810 has 4.9 micron pixels, the D750's are 6 or 20% bigger
The D810 scores 2853 on the DXO low ISO test, the D750 hits 2956 or 4% more (1/12th of a stop)

WestEndFoto · March 2015

Ironheart, I said bigger pixels have an edge, not a dramatic edge. It still boils down to how thick your #(@), I mean lens, is.

WestEndFoto · March 2015

ironheart: wow! over 100mp in FX. That would be something, even if it was clean only to ISO 800. I bet landscape shooters would snap it up.

Maybe, and I might be first in line, but there is something I have been thinking about that this brings to mind.

I think about my 28mm Ais lens in this regard. It is 30 years old (but bought brand new from B&H last year), but still as sharp as hell stopped down. It is sharpest at f/5.6, which is another way of saying it is diffraction limited at 5.6. At 8.0 it seems less sharp than at 5.6 and at 11 it certainly is. I can see this on a 36 megapixel sensor.

With landscapes, you want to shoot at 5.6 or above to have everything in focus and this is tricky with a 28mm lens, unlike a 14 mm lens where everything is in focus even at 2.8. However, most landscapes are best shot at 20 mm or longer where you will need to be mindful of hyperfocal distance (admittedly, my opinion).

Diffraction is a hard physics based barrier. It is technically impossible to beat diffraction. When you reach a diffraction limit, you are up against a brick wall. End of game.

So if my lens is diffraction limited at 5.6 or 8.0 and I can see this on a 36 megapixel sensor, what good is a 100 megapixel sensor? It is somewhat depressing that my sharpness might be limited by physics and not engineering.

I suppose when one comes out, I will buy one and test it. Let me know when they release the D840.

spraynpray · March 2015

The D810 scores 2853 on the DXO low ISO test, the D750 hits 2956 or 4% more (1/12th of a stop)

I trust dimensional measurements, I don't trust DxO's ISO measurements.

donaldejose · March 2015

As to lenses for high megapixel sensors: they will come once the sensors are here. We have some relatively inexpensive ones today in the Sigma 35 and 50mm f1.4 Art lenses. When a 100mm FX body exists all the old lenses can be tested with that body to see which are sharp enough to make a difference. Many won't be, but some will and new ones will arrive. I would suggest the Nikon 50mm f1.8, 85mm f1.8, 105mm f2.8 macro and 70-200 f4 might be sharp enough. Of course, there are more expensive ones such as the Nikon 85mm f1.4. We will have to have a 100mp FX sensor on hand to see which lenses can take advantage of it best. We may coin a new phrase "lens limited" for those lenses whose optical qualities are not up to a 100 mp FX sensor. I suspect we will have such a sensor within about 5 years. Obviously, they must be able to produce one today using the same pixel pitch as used in the new Nikon 1 20.8 mp sensor.

As to future predictions: the D800's 36mp is going to become a "medium megapixel" sensor. Lower end DX sensors used in the D3xxx and D5xxx series won't need to increase since the current 24mp is enough for poster size enlargements and can now shoot clean from 100 to 6,400 or 12,800 ISO. No need to upgrade the megapixels in those bodies. The DX sensor in the D7xxx series bodies will increase from 24mp to 36 mp. The Dx will go to 24mp with Expeed 5 as will the D4xx body. The D6xx may stay at 24mp but the D7xx series will go to 36mp. D8xx will be at 100 mp. This is where we will be in about 5 years.

There is one "pro" vs "amateur" implication from increased future sensor megapixels and the ability to shoot clean from ISO 100 to ISO 6,400 or 12,800. People who shoot photos to share on computers or 4k HD TVs or to print with home inkjet printers will not need more than a D3xxx or D3xxx or D6xx body 24 mp sensor. Those are the true amateurs because of their ultimate use. People who print larger or have clients demanding the best available and largest file sizes will want images produced by 36 to 100+ mp sensors. Those are the "pros." Thus, the "pro" vs "amateur" breaking point can be divided by sensor size rather than by control layout and full metal body build. Looking at it this way the pro bodies will be the D7xxx series, the D7xx series, the D8xx series and the Dx and D4xx series (even though both the Dx and D4xx will remain a "low" mp 24 mp body) because of Dx and D4xx more rugged build and very high fps for sports. Time will tell, we will see.

Of great and most immediate interest to me now will be that sensor in the D7200. I am most impressed by the sensor in the D5500 looking at the high ISO images published by Imaging Resources and Ken Rockwell. I can't help but think the D7200 sensor will be better or at least as good at that. Seems awesome to me. I hope it will include the auto focus on the closest eye feature. That seems to be a real convenience to me. Clean high ISO and auto focus on the closest eye should make shooting in available light at f1.4 much easier. I can see a time when flash becomes less important and flat panel LED constant light sources became more usable.

Ironheart · March 2015

The D810 scores 2853 on the DXO low ISO test, the D750 hits 2956 or 4% more (1/12th of a stop)
I trust dimensional measurements, I don't trust DxO's ISO measurements.

I don't trust DxO's overall score, but the individual measures can at least be compared in a relative way. Are you saying there is a wider gap? SenScore (which looks pretty scientific to me) only shows a 2.5% difference btwn these cameras (1/20th of a stop)

Ironheart, I said bigger pixels have an edge, not a dramatic edge. It still boils down to how thick your #(@), I mean lens, is.

Unless I'm really missing something here, if we use the same lens to compare different sensors, have we not taken lens size out of the equation?

Which brings me to the point I'm trying to make. The overall size of the sensor, has a much bigger impact on ISO performance than the size of the individual pixel. Does anyone dispute there is at least a one stop advantage between DX and FX all else being equal? Decreasing resolution 50% and pixel size by 20% gives a 1/12th of a stop advantage? The amount of light lost by decreasing the pixel size is negligible, because the sensor right next to it will catch it instead. Nikon has incorporated a gapless microlens technology into their sensors since at least 2008. I think they have a patent on it.

This means a 50MP camera might take a 1/6th of a stop penalty worst case, so I hope we've put the myth of small pixels hurting ISO performance back to bed.

WestEndFoto · March 2015

Yes, I agree with you Ironheart. My point was a different point and complementary to yours. ISO performance is ultimately about light gathering power, but not quite in the way that I mean. If you go from f/2.8 to f/1.4, you increase the light gathering power by four times assuming transmission and other minor factors remain the same.

It should be remembered that high ISO performance is only required when light or light gathering power is poor. If you are shooting at ISO 4,000 with a 2.8 lens, you will only need ISO 1,000 with a 1.4 lens (assuming everything else is equivalent.

In the real world, it is likely even a bigger difference, because if you are comparing f/1.4 to f/2.8, you are likely comparing a prime to a zoom. A prime will likely have better transmission (fewer lens elements), further increasing the advantage.

So if you fretting about ISO, the best way to resolve the issue may be to use a faster lens, assuming you are not using the fastest already.

Ironheart · March 2015

I'm not fretting about anything :-) I just want to dispel the myth that smaller sensor sites will somehow hurt high ISO ability, or overall light gathering ability. In reality it is low single-digit percentage impact at worse. And if you are already using the fastest lenses and pushing ISO and want high-resolution, this is good news.

WestEndFoto · March 2015

I know you are not fretting and I know you know all of this. My comments are more for the the general reader. All is good.

Ironheart · March 2015

Yes, I understood your context, I was just making fun, hence the :-)
Group hug!

Back to the topic, not sure how diffraction and higher megapixel/resolution is going to help or hurt diffraction. If you want less diffraction guess what you need? More bigger glass, and a bigger sensor! This is why the f/64 club could exist

Howdy, Stranger!

Categories

In this Discussion

Who's Online (0)

So Why No D4X??? A Pro-Level, High Megapixel Camera for Studio/Fashion/Advertising Photographers

Comments