6 megapixel low noise DX sensor?

[pete_s.]

Given the fact that the FX sensor in the D3 is about twice the area of a DX

sensor shouldn't it be possible for Nikon to produce a cheap 6 megapixel sensor

with the same very good low noise characteristics as the D3?

[morganlashley]

D40?

[tommyinca]

My 2 cents, Yes, but they really want you to buy a very good but not cheap 12MP sensor. Fujifilm already made a cheaper 6M lowwe noise sensor for the F-mount.

[frankie_frank1]

DX sensor is 23.7mm x 15.6mm or 369.72sq-mm

FX sensor is 36mm x 24mm or 864sq-mm

12MP FX has the same density as 5.1MP DX sensor

 

If Nikon D40 uses the same workmanship as D3, we will have a very low noise 6MP DX camera at the price of $2,500, half the price of D3. Since you don't buy it, Nikon drops the idea and makes a cheap D40.

[ellis_vener_photography]

re" mR. Frank,

 

Nothing personal Mr. Frank but your ignorance is showing. Nikon will love to sell you a better DX format camera with low noise for less than $2500: it's called the D300.

[tonybeach]

No Morgan, that doesn't describe the D40. However, I do expect in a year or two that there will be a Nikon consumer DX DSLR that will have similarly impressive high ISO performance. Of course, in a few more years we'll consider the D3 a "noisy" camera.

[benny_spinoza]

Every number of years, the semiconductor industry moves to a larger size wafer. (The sensors are cut from the each wafer.) As the wafers get larger, we can hope that the cost per die (sensor) may go down. (There are other factors.)I'm not sure what size wafers Nikon's senors are made on. But my guess is that in a number of years, with the steady march of technological improvement, the FX sensor's cost will probably be close to what the DX sensor's cost is now.

[don olson]

6mp, low noise, great images, cheap. Sounds like a D50 to me.

[frankie_frank1]

Ellis, don't be a smart ass.

 

Peter is looking for something as clean as D3. D300 is not the level yet. You know nothing about D3 and D300. Nikon is not going to make D300 perform the same as D3, noise-wise.

[steve_dawson1]

"You know nothing about D3 and D300"

 

That assertion about Ellis does not withstand scrutiny as a quick search of photo.net shows.

[tim_knight]

To change the subject, which camera D50, D40, or D80 has the lowest noise. I have heard reference to all three but just curious which one is better. I have the D50 and if I don't underexpose it does well at ISO 800 and if needed is acceptable at 1600 (shooting indoor sports in high school gyms and church with no flash). Hope when my D50 wears out or I get another big bonus the next D80 version has the D300 technology.

[elliot1]

Actually we all know very little about the D3 and D300. We will know a lot more within weeks or a month or two.

 

I commented to a friend of mine that the higher ISO D3 images, especially the ISO 6400 images look like they have noise reduction applied to them (these were unaltered images). He agreed, and said other photographers he has spoken to have made the same comments. It is not only possible, but likely that there is in fact come kind of noise reduction being applied to the images in the camera without having noise reduction turned on (a guess on my part of course).

 

I recently started using CS2 and find its noise reduction capabilites quite good. I especially like the 'reduce color noise feature'. Applying that feature alone to my ISO 3200 shots from my 5D makes the images look possibly as good as the D3 images of similar ISO. This leads me to believe that at least some of the refinements to the D3 are software related.

 

I have said before that if Nikon took the D40 guts and put it in a D200 body with advanced image processing software/technology (like DXO for example) and advanced features, and called it the D200s or, a bit of a stretch here, a D300, everyone would be thrilled. I am not saying this is the case but who knows?

 

There really have not been any tremendous advances in sensor technology over the past few years. We really don't know what makes the D3 images better, just that they are better. It appears the D300 images are quite improved over the D200 as well.

 

So yes, I actually agree somewhat with Morgan based on my own hands-on experience with the D200s, D80s and D40s. The next series of cameras beyond the D3 and D300 should be quite interesting as they improve performance and still provide low price options. When Nikon comes out with a D40 replacement, it should be quite impressive.

[jc5066]

Ellis, it is your ignorance that shows, not Franks. Anyone who has paid the least amount attention to the two cameras coming out knows the two cameras handle noise completely different. Yes, the D300 handles noise better then the D200, but that doesn't say much.

 

The D3 is in a class of its own when dealing with noise. It handles it so well it has Canon people talking.

 

The D3 and D300 are two completely different sensors.

[ilkka_nissila]

I think we're all too eager to use words such as "ignorant."

 

I think that if you want a 6ish-megapixel DX DSLR with excellent noise and dynamic range characteristics, look at the Fuji S5. It is based on a D200 body but has Fuji's stuff inside and it's especially designed for wide dynamic range.

[ShunCheung]

For those who are unaware of it, Nikon actually invited Ellis Vener, among over 100 people internationally, to Japan for the D3/D300 launch on August 23 this year followed by a factory visit. He got to talk to Nikon upper management and some engineers in Japan.

I wouldn't say he knows nothing about the D3 and D300.

http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=00MKgI

 

However, it is indeed not a good idea to use the word "ignorant" on specific people so frequently in this forum. It merely leads to flame wars.

 

The problem with putting the D3 sensor technology into a DX sensor are is that it'll become a 5MP DSLR. Even though it is "only" $2000 instead of $5000, such an expensive 5 or 6MP DSLR will be a tough sell. There is already the Fuji S5, which Fuji tries to disguise as a 12MP DSLR. Another issue is the lack of fast f1.4, f2 lenses for DX to go along with such camera. (There is also a lack of such lenses for FX, but most likely Nikon will fill that hole in the next year or two.)

[waltflanagan]

I know who Ellis is and respect him but his answer is short and doesn't really answer the question.

 

Let's ignore price and body handling and only compare image quality at ISO 1600 using a DX crop.

 

D300 12 MP

D40 6 MP

D3 DX crop 5MP

 

All have the same field of vision. Which has the least noise at ISO 1600? I think everyone will agree the D3 wins but which is second? The D300 or D40?

[waltflanagan]

Shun, we don't know how much Nikon is paying for D3 sensors or Sony DX sensors. The D40 + lens is now selling for $450. How much of that is the sensor cost? Could Nikon's D3 sensor supplier make a DX version for the same price as the D40 Sony sensor? No one here really knows. We don't even know who makes the D3 sensor, it may even be Sony.

[ShunCheung]

Walt, why are you asking me this question out of the blue? Last year, Thom Hogan's "best guess" was $50 for a DX sensor and $500 for an FX, yes, $50 vs $500, 10 times the cost. We can assume that prices are a bit lower now a year later. Unless someone else can provide concrete info, which should be Nikon's business secret, you might as well use Hogan's best guess.

 

My point is that it'll be very difficult for Nikon to put the D3's sensor technology into a 5MP DX sensor and sell it in a $2000 DSLR. Everybody will say $2000 for a 5MP DSLR? That is precisely why Fuji needs to sell the S3 and S5 as "12MP" DSLRs even though they are 6MP but they have two photosites per pixel.

[stwrtertbsratbs5]

"We really don't know what makes the D3 images better, just that they are better."

 

This simply is not true - or at least it isn't true for people who have read about the D3. The D3 sensor has larger pixels than other Nikon sensors. That alone will result in a large improvement. The rest is pixie dust and other magic.

[elliot1]

Jon, perhaps you can explain to me how each camera handles noise? I am not an engineer like you and have not got a clue how they do it in the D3, D300 or any other camera, period.

 

You also state that "The D3 is in a class of its own when dealing with noise. "

 

Tell that to my 5D! It is as ignorant as me and doesn't seem to agree with you.

 

As I don't have a D3 to test out, I can't be certain, but based on the sample images I have seen, I don't see a significant improvement in image quality from my high ISO 5D images to some of the the high ISO D3 images. Some D3 images are outstanding. Some show noise.

 

I will go out on a limb here and say that I believe 5D ISO 3200 images, when processed though the new version of DXO software (Version 5), will be so close in quality to the D3 at the same ISO that there will be virtually no visible different in prints unless you take out a magnifying glass. Or you pixel peep.

 

I hope I am wrong but I may be right. You never know. Go ahead, dish it out! I can take it!

[ellis_vener_photography]

Yes The D3 has a different image capture chip in it than the D300. It may even be made by some other fabricator than Sony. Sony makes the CMOS in the D300. There are definitely some other hardware and firmware differences betwee nthe two cameras as well.

 

The D300 does have better noise characteristics than the D200 or earlier Nikon DSLRS.

 

Based on my conversations with Nikon execs and engineers I really, really think it is unlikely that Nikon is going to go back to making approxiamtely 6MP cameras by simply cutting the CMOS in the D3 to roughly half its physical size just to get lower noise at high ISOs. Of course if their market sresearch shows that enough real demand exists for it, they may go ahead and do just that.

 

Per Shun's comment about faster lenses. I was told that there are several new Nikkors on the way , some of which may (or may not) be fast, wide angle primes. The 14-24mm f/2.8 is an extremely impressive in cost, size and most importantly image quality. I guess the real question is if someone doesn't want to pay $4500-5000 (USD) for a D3 how likely are they to spend well over a $1000 for say a 20mm or 24mm f/1.4 lens?

[vivek iyer]

Cost of the new Sony sensor in D300 (it was there on Sony's site when they announced it)approximately US $1,100.

 

It would be cheaper for Nikon due to volume purchase but not as cheap as $50!

[ShunCheung]

Vivek, as far as I know, Nikon never specifies exactly which Sony sensor they are using in the D300? Could you provide a reference, in particular to the $1100 price?

 

Sony did announce a DX sensor a few days before the D300 announcement:

http://www.dpreview.com/news/0708/07082012sony12mpcmos.asp

That sensor can go to 10 frames/second (instead of 8 for the D300 w/ the grip) and has a few more pixels. That sensor is $350.

 

I find it hard to believe that the $1800 D300 contains a $1100 sensor. $110 is probably closer to reality.

[vivek iyer]

Shun, There was a goof up on the currency conversion it is the same CMOS sensor from Sony that I alluded to and the price is 40,000 JPY.

 

http://www.sony.net/SonyInfo/News/Press/200708/07-072E/index.html

 

The new A700 Sony DSLR is capable of doing 18 frames/s in the RAW mode and up to 25 frames/s in the compressed RAW mode.

 

http://www.dpreview.com/previews/sonydslra700/page3.asp

 

So, Nikon's D300 8 frames/s and Sony's higher than 10 frame/s does not appear to be limited to the sensor hardware (while it does not say which sensor is exactly used in either cameras as well- not many sensors are out there without any documentation/announcements).

[waltflanagan]

Shun, I am asking because you made this statement:

<p>

<i>My point is that it'll be very difficult for Nikon to put the D3's sensor technology into a 5MP DX sensor and sell it in a $2000 DSLR. Everybody will say $2000 for a 5MP DSLR? That is precisely why Fuji needs to sell the S3 and S5 as "12MP" DSLRs even though they are 6MP but they have two photosites per pixel.</i><p>

You are saying people want more MP for $2000. In the $500 range people are happy with "only 5-6 MP." So could Nikon put a D3 based DX sensor in a D40 body for $500? Would they still make money? The point I am making is the D3 sensor technology process inherently more expensive or about the same as the technology of the current Sony sensors. I don't expect an answer because I know none of us really know.