D2Xs 16.9 mpx

juan monino · December 10, 2005

Just talked to a friend of mind that works for Nikon in Thailang

He mentioned me a new full frame chip 16.9 megapixels for a D2X that

will hit the market by mid 2006. Price will be around $6,000. It will

also support ISO 50 and almost no noise at ISO 1600. Specially

designed to work with commander and integrated wifi feature. New white

balance menu etc.

Regular D2X will not be discontinued but price will drop to $3000

This is just his comment and opinion, nothing yet oficial from Nikon.

erickpro · December 10, 2005

I think this could be true but a full frame sensor? Possibly.

frank_skomial · December 10, 2005

Juan, Since your other post about D2X price drop at Adorama is true, you must have this one good as well.

This will significantly beat Canon's best full frame EOS 1DS Mark II by just 0.2 megapixel.

I want to hear about 4 sensors from D70 stitched together into one 35 mm full frame, and provide 24 megapixels, as 16.9 may not be enough in mid 2006.

cjfraser · December 10, 2005

Juan, I suspect Shun will delete this thread quickly, since it is almost pure speculation, and not very reasonable speculation at that.

ilkka_nissila · December 10, 2005

Yeah, Shun doesn't like to hear about FF Nikon DSLR bodies and even less ones that would make the D2X price drop to $3k. We'll see a very short life for this thread. :-)

Me, I would have a really hard time deciding between a $3k D2X and a $6k FF D2X. However, my bank account would probably decide for me and say "D2X for $3k". :-)

zhi_da_zhong · December 10, 2005

<blockquote>I want to hear about 4 sensors from D70 stitched together into one

35 mm full frame, and provide 24 megapixels, as 16.9 may not be enough in mid 2006.

</blockquote>

A 35mm frame is about 2.25 (1.5x1.5) times the D70 sensor in size. That's ~13.5 MP.

wen_lin · December 10, 2005

I think the question should not be "When Nikon will make a FF DSLR?" but rather "Who will make a FF sensor at an afordable cost?" Nikon doesn't make sensors. When someone does we will start seeing FF DSLRs.

gstarene · December 10, 2005

Very interesting, but is Nikon just playing catch-up? I can across this article and it makes

since to me. Smaller or lighter is better,, cell phones, back packs, fast cars.

http://kenrockwell.com/tech/dx.htm

cd thacker · December 10, 2005

"Market forces" (i.e., Canon's still growing market share) will force Nikon to offer a so-called full-frame sensor if they possibly can, whether or not it's otherwise necessary.

Three grand for the D2X sounds about right. Meanwhile, I imagine this new camera won't be called "D2Xs" - it'll be the much talked about D3. Whether the D3 will be 16.9 MP and cost 6k remains to be seen. I could see it offering 18 to 20 MP and costing slightly less. In any event, it'll be a good move on Nikon's part.

In addition to new cameras, I hope we'll see some new lenses from Nikon.

cd thacker · December 10, 2005

Building its own sensor manufacturing facility would represent a substantial investment for Nikon. But having this capability would give Nikon maximum control of the end product and increase gross margin. Since digital obviously isn't going anywhere, it seems only a matter of time before they do this.

frank_skomial · December 10, 2005

"A 35mm frame is about 2.25 (1.5x1.5) times the D70 sensor in size. That's ~13.5 MP."

Just give me 24 megapixels Nikon, please!

If you want to be precise, so it should be:

(23.7 x 15.6 = 368.72) while (24 x 36 = 864)

864 / 368 = 2.348

6.24 x 2.348 = 14.6 megapixels.

ShunCheung · December 10, 2005

Ilkka, I would really appreciate that you stop posting this nonsense about me in this forum.

If Nikon could produce a full frame DSLR and make money off it, I think that will be wonderful. Whether I'll buy one myself highly depends on price/performance/feature issues, which is completely hypothetical at this time. What I would really hate to see is that Nikon spends a lot of money on a FF design and produces another niche product that loses money big time as Contax and Kodak did. Overall, Contax lost so much money that they are getting out of the photo business completely and my Contax 645 is now an orphan camera with no future.

And if the D2X drops to anywhere close to $3000 within the first half of 2006, I'd buy a second one immediately (unless there is something better available), thus solving my backup camera problem.

My problem with this thread is that it is another one of those I heard from a friend thread. Back in 1990, some guy on netnews told me that he had an insider friend very high up in Nikon Japan saying that Nikon would soon change its lens mount so that they could put AF motors inside their lenses. 2 years later, Nikon indeed introduced AF-I lenses, but now 15 years later, that lens mount change has yet to happen.

ellis_vener_photography · December 10, 2005

trust me on this:

Given the state of technology today and in the near (2-3 years) future you wouldn't like

the image quality from a 24x36mm 24 mega-pixel sensor: the individual pixel sites are

just to physically small.

Nice dream. Maybe someday we'll get there.

Right now I'd settle for a 22mp back for a medium format camera that costs around $5-8K

US.

ellis_vener_photography · December 10, 2005

Just talked to a friend of mind that works for Nikon in Thailang...If you

believe this is real info you are very gullible. Use some common sense. Anyone

working for Nikon or a similar high tech company is always covered by a non disclosure

agreement as part of their employment contract and would immediately lose their job and

quite likely get the pants sued off of them for disclosing corporate secrets.

juan monino · December 10, 2005

Sorry but I did not want to spread rumors. I am just ilustrating here a casual conversation with a person that worked for Nikon in Thailand for a short period of time and then went back to the US (he still work for them).

In the conversation (and he was not talking as Nikon speaker) he expressed his own opinions about the future of Digital SLRs. One interesting point is that when you hit a certain amount of pixels, whats really matter is the quality of the lens. I think this could be a very interesting point of discussion here.

It is not a secret that sooner more than later Nikon will go for a full frame since Canon is eating a big chunk of the market. Another point of discussion was the possibility of a Dual Nikon Camera (film and Digital). But again, it was no intention of spread rummors, just a conversation between persons that love photography and like Nikon technology.

By the way, I just purchased my D2X, I think is a superb camera. I could wait for a D200, but I still dont know the pros and cons that we will find in the very near future in this camera.

Next step...and this is just a thought...medium format (up to 40-50 mpx thanks to lens quality and size). Because digital technology, medium format will be more user friendly. I think pros will end up there, having the 18-24 mpx DSLRs as back ups.

Again, just a thought.

berg_na · December 10, 2005

Actually, a 24-Mpixel 35mm format sensor is well within the current standard technology. The pixel size for such sensor would be 6 x 6 um, which is relatively large compared to the state-of-the-art where pixels dimensions are reduced to much less than 2 um. But as long as Nikon continues to develop new DX lenses, I see little need for them to introduce a 35mm format digital camera.

juan monino · December 10, 2005

With high quality film, the issue in getting a sharp good quality picture depends mostly on the quality of the lens. Well, how many megapixels should we need on today�s Nikon CMOS to hit the point where more magapixels do not mean more detail and sharpness but the performance and quality of the lens?

ShunCheung · December 10, 2005

As far as I know, the pixels on the D2X are so small that diffraction is becoming a problem. Therefore, if Nikon wants to go much higher than 12MP, a larger sensor will be necessary.

But the real question is why do you need more than 12MP. As I pointed out the other day, I have a 20x30" print from my D2X on my wall right now, and it is excellent. Meanwhile, I put 2G of RAM on my new laptop to process my D2X RAW files. After I add a few layers, each PSD or TIFF file can easily be 200M, and now I have a bunch of hard drives to store and backup my images.

If you want 20MP, 30MP ... some day, I sure hope that you have the computing and storage infrastructure to match it. Those are indeed getting cheaper, though.

juan monino · December 10, 2005

Shun, I agree, more than 12 mpx in the actual frame size nikon provide is more than enough. Is more than what I actually need.

However, medium format provides much higher quality pictures since the lenses and Cmos are much bigger in size. The problem with film based medium format cameras is that outside the studio they became extremely difficult to handle, specially in sport photography. My question is if with the advantages that digital technology brings, medium format became a more outdoors user friendly format, substituting actual DSLRs for professional use.

briany · December 10, 2005

Ellis, the reason behind your post isn't readily apparent to me. As someone has already done the math two posts above yours for the D70 sensor, if you substitute in the D2x pixel density you'd get almost 30 megapixels in a 24x36mm sensor. Granted, you may have problems in the corners due to angles, etc., but I'm not sure what you were driving at...

berg_na · December 10, 2005

The sensor in the D2x has 5.5 um pixels so in theory, its resolution can be as high as 90 lpm, which is close to the limit of the best lenses. There is no diffraction loss in pixels as in lenses, although MTF can be degraded by carrier diffusion between closely spaced pixels. I agree that there is little advantage in packing more pixels into the DX format sensor, and for normal use 12.4 Mp is already more than enough, but certain professional applications does require more (see <a href="http://www.peimag.com/pdf/pei02/pei0708_02/kotsinadelispei0708_02.pdf" target=new>http://www.peimag.com/pdf/pei02/pei0708_02/kotsinadelispei0708_02.pdf</a>). As with film, a much larger sensor format will be necessary for these needs.

ilkka_nissila · December 10, 2005

Shun, notice the smiley in my post. In my opinion you are one of the loudest advocates against a FF DSLR from Nikon in this group, with comments along the lines "I could care less whether Nikon ever makes a FF DSLR" in just about every other post in which someone asks about a possible Nikon FF DSLR. It's like the editor of a newspaper saying in the editorial that people should not eat meat, and they should be vegetarians because the editor feels better about being a vegetarian. A moderator should be free-minded and not ridicule ideas or preferences based on personal opinion.

Your opinion is based on your applications, lenses and preferences, like anyone else's. This forum has many members who prefer to use manual focus, and often with prime lenses. These lenses don't give their best on a 12 MP DX camera because 1) the manual focus throw of the AF primes is too short for the shallow DOF available with DX sensors, 2) the focusing screen and viewfinder of many DX cameras are poor, 3) the image quality at wide apertures clearly limits quality at these pixel densities and would benefit greatly from a larger sensor. A 50/1.4 or 35/2 wide open give kinda crummy image quality on my D70 while on an F100 the quality is acceptable. That's just because the lens, not the sensor limits the image quality in this case (f/2 or f/1.4).

Now I'm aware that you use mostly AF-S zooms. Some of us want to shoot at wide apertures for various reasons and in general this means using primes, which Nikon doesn't make in AF-S shorter than the impressively costly and large 200/2. Now this motivates many of us prime users to prefer manual focus. Another reason to prefer it is the mediocre quality of the consumer AF systems from Nikon, where focus is often placed on whatever has best contrast under the imprecisely marked and oversized focusing areas in the viewfinder. The result can be quite a bit off and subtle focusing errors are difficult to detect on many DX format DSLRS (but can be easily seen on any FF SLR from Nikon). I today used for the first time a split image focusing screen for the D70 (made by Katz Eye Optics) and I was shocked to see how much off the AF sometimes is from what I thought I was telling it to focus on. The split image is ruthless in pointing this out. During the last 1.5 years I've used the D70 I've gotten used to poor/erratic focusing accuracy, sometimes thinking it's the lens quality while it often was focus, and compensated for it by taking sometimes 5 times as many pix as normal for me, at various focus settings to get a sharp shot in the case of shallow DOF. Now with the new screen I can confidently shoot manual focus with the camera in just about any kind of light but I still don't see adequate detail on the viewfinder image to satisfy my needs to know what is happening with my subject.

Whether you see an advantage in being able to see the subject well depends on what kind of subjects you shoot. Also, while one can soon obtain a clearer view for $1700 or a bit earlier for $4500, some of us actually think a 1200 euro DSLR (like the D70 was when new) should be manually focusable by most users who desire to do so in any situation where they'd care to do so. This fuss with focusing which many of us of those millions who bought these cameras have been subjected to has been largely unnecessary and is due to neglect/greed/lack of listening to their customers from Nikon's part.

While I now, with my new Katz-Eye screen rate the D70 a "9-/10" for usefulness and quality (instead of a 7/10 with the stock screen), a larger sensor would allow me to get considerably better results in available light photography using fast lenses. Would I be willing to pay $6k for it? No. But $3200, absolutely, if it were available. I am not a FF advocate in the pure sense as I feel the need for smaller sensors also, for telephoto photography. Again you have advocated loudly against a policy of several sensor sizes within one brand, complaining about Canon for producing cameras with three different sensor sizes (offering the customer choice). This I object to because a multi-sensor policy would not take anything away from those who desire to use a particular format, e.g. DX sensors as they'll still be available. It's like me complaining that zooms should not be made because that takes Nikon's resources away from those lenses that I use. I make no such complaint as it would be very selfish from me. It's like promoting a one religion or one party policy. I know you mean well and don't intend it that way but many people take especial attention to the editor's comments and they're taken seriously because of it.

I understand that advocacy of one's position is perfectly fine on an internet forum but a moderator is like an editor in a forum and should not exercise strong personal opinions and bring these out. A moderator should be IMO largely silent or at least broad-minded in his publicly expressed views. You often complain about people making repetitive complaints about things while you personally take care to bring out your own opinions in abundace about this topic. Of course, an editor of a paper is free to excercise whatever policy they see fit but a quality paper (as well as a quality discussion group) IMO should have a moderator who excercises restraint in bringing out their personal opinions. For example, in science journals the editor primarily relies on the discussion between authors and reviewers in deciding what is publishable. They avoid making decisions based on personal bias and often give the reviewers a "thank you" for rejecting a paper as they don't feel that they're justified to reject a bad paper unless the reviewer gives the go ahead for that.

Now, whether you actually moderate stuff out which you don't agree with, that's one question. But you do make content decisions and often put a short time on discussions where you personally don't have an interest even though they can be popular. People post FF DSLR threads because they think Nikon may be following these discussion groups and they feel strongly about it. This is a justified assumption, as the D200 seems to answer every complaint people have had about the D70 here. It could be also that they don't monitor these groups and got similar input from photographers in Japan whom they do consult with.

Whether or not a moderator chooses to actually delete threads based on personal bias is not really the main issue. The point is that a moderator's word may stop a discussion in fear of moderator deletion. Even a whisper from the editor can kill a discussion if placed in a critical point.

I'm very happy with the image quality of my D70 when I use the optimum aperture of my lens. 6 MP is a lot, as you once said. However, a FF 6 MP camera would give 6 _good_ MP at apertures which a 6 MP DX camera doesn't. This is also obviously true for 12 MP. Yes, the corners of FF lenses can be mushy but again this is true primarily of zooms, the best primes are often carefully made to give good corner performance even wide open. So anyone with an investment in these equipment has also an interest in a larger sensor. And as customers I believe we're very important to Nikon as we have invested into our lenses many more times the amount of a typical zoom user.

In any case, Nikon's lack of complete commitment to DX format shows in the curious absence of prime lenses for the format. Maybe they see, as I think, that fast lenses don't lend themselves well for the DX frame, and if the lenses are slow, like the 12-24, things are much easier for the lens designer. You can also claim that high ISO performance and people's preferences have lead them to focus on the more popular zooms. But I believe this is a loop; they select a smaller sensor to get good corners out of zoom lenses designed for 35 mm, and neglect to keep primes technologically up to date, and due to the inadequate viewfinders they make primes less and less interesting. So Nikon has become from a pro camera maker into a "select the majority of photographers and cater to them" manufacturer. While Canon has become a "cater to everyone using digital" manufacturer.

I actually feel that those who feel FF is the way to go should vote with their feet, however, I've bad experiences with the eye point of Canon viewfinders in the past and have loyalty thanks to Nikon's brilliant viewfinders of old. However, the affordable Nikons didn't belong to this group any more - until the tide turned with the D200.

Maybe I'm overly critical about you, Shun. It must take a lot of time to moderate a forum like this, with posters like me who sometimes express their views with unnecessarily sparky language. Perhaps you ought to ban me for posting non-politically correct views (but based on actual use) or criticising the moderator. Or maybe not. Maybe I should just stop posting to photo.net. As informative and educative it has been, I feel that in any art form there are so many different opinions and so few hard facts that the discussion often annoys at least someone. People don't like to hear other disagree with their experience and assume that they're just ignorant, while in any art form there are as many viewpoints as there are practicioners. I'll post one review of the Katz-Eye screen shortly as get to evaluate my images as I feel it is important to a large number of users of this forum and then be silent for now.

But seriously, my original comment was intended as humorous, and I just posted it in response to someone's wish that the thread should be deleted as being based on just a rumor. I feel it is sad that people believe they have a right to suggest deletion of threads which promote things that they do not wish to be offered by the manufacturer. Perhaps it is just that it's popular to suggest "did you do a search" or "this thread should be deleted" and I assume this is because of the moderation atmosphere in this forum while it may have nothing to do with the actual moderator's opinion.

ilkka_nissila · December 10, 2005