Nikon's official statement on the D3X sensor

[oskar_ojala]

<p>Surely there is some common technology in both sensors, but as many people said, who cares? Are you going buy you own sensor and pimp you D700's to have 24 mpix? I think not, so what matters is the final package. Now it can be discussed whether the D3X is overpriced or not, but it's only relevant for someone who actually plans to buy the thing right now. Are you going to wait 12-24 months anyway? Then what the price is now is not very important.</p>

[sven keil]

<p>Dave is right - a camera must be viewed in its totality. Much work in fact comes post-sensory and is software (having a better noise reduction method than others, having a better tone mapping algorithm than others, having a better de-mosaicking method than others). So, they may have the same sensor, but results may be entirely different because of different image processing methods. PS: of course, also different hardware components after the sensor, e.g. with lower noise, are important, too (depending on the implementation of the aforementioned image processing methods).</p>

[dean]

<p>As for being "overpriced:" In relation to what? Another camera of the same MP? Well, if it's just about megapixels - I guess all DSLR's are overpriced. I can just go buy a 12mp P&S, and it will do the same thing as my D300, right? It's the same resolution - what else matters?? How many of us spent the extra on Velvia rather than just buying the cheap film? How many are out here proclaiming the injustice of companies like Mamiya and Hasselblad. And, who makes their sensors?</p>

 

[mkelton]

<p>WHO CARES.... Nikon users have two choices for a 25mp camera. Buy the D3x, or buy a Sony a900 (or whatever) and a bunch of new lenses, flash, accessories, etc. Either way, you're going to spend $8,000. Sorry to get snappy, but you're going to have to get over it.</p>

[ShunCheung]

<p>For decades, the most expesnive 35mm film cameras incluidng the Leica R series, Nikon F series, Canon's EOS 1 whatever ... use exactly the same sensor (film) and the point and shoots or even some disposible cameras. In fact, you can shoot half a roll in a point and shoot and then move the film to a Leica R9.<br>

How strange that all of sudden "using the same sensor" is the biggest injustice in the world.</p>

[ilkka_nissila]

<p>No 35mm film camera intended for normal use cost $8000. The difference between the F6 and the D3X is mostly in the recording technology (ok, F6 is a previous generation camera, but that's beside the point); a substantial part of the cost of the D3X is clearly in the digital part. Therefore, if there had been a chance that the A900 gave image quality similar to the D3X with the best lenses available for the cameras, respectively, then the $5000 premium could be put into question.T he samples that have been put online so far would suggest to me that the D3X is correctly priced; not aggressively like the D300 and D700, but nevertheless in line with the image quality, features, and the competition. Production models may be better still. Fortunately the bleeding edge in quality doesn't stay still for long and these technologies propagate to lower price categories. Which is the most important thing that people complaining about the pricing should remember. Whatever the D3X can do, will soon enough be commonplace.</p>

[w_t1]

<p>I agree with David Ahn.</p>

<p>Dave Lee, if you go north a bit to Interbay neighborhood in Seattle, you can get right on top of those fuselages. I see them quite often in the Interbay rail yard. Really interesting the fuselages mixed in with other rail cars. Tom</p>

[ryus_o]

<p><strong><em>"the D3X’s unique sensor design was carefully blueprinted to perform in perfect concert with proprietary Nikon technologies including EXPEED Image Processing and the Scene Recognition System."</em></strong><br>

LOL, I'm glad this new sensor works in perfect concert with their own EXPEED systems, as I was getting a little worried! phew....</p>

 

[arthuryeo]

<p>This is the official stmt ... :)<br>

http://www.photo.net/nikon-camera-forum/00Rj0k</p>

[14mm 2.8l]

<p>Who Pays list for equiptment thesedays?</p>

<p>Canon 1Ds III is buyable tonight at B&H for $6499 w/ free delivery to your USA Door.</p>

<p>I've ALWAYS thought these $8,000 dslrs have been the high profit items for Canon for years. Kinda like $50,000 pickup trucks. Sony may be making the A900 their loss leader but nikon's pixie dust premium and mount is what 6 ounces of gold or platinum will run you today.</p>

<p>If having a Sony Made sensor in your unissued $8,000 dslr is a turn off then buy a $4,099 D3 or a $2379 D700 instead. Or buy one of each and a couple ounces of gold for the future. I've read these 12mp in D3 and D700 are Nikon designed & produced sensors and at almost double frame rate & 1/2 storage space: What A Bargain! I'll guess you'll need something like CS4 for D3x too, just like the 5D2 buyers are realizing now. Anybody priced CS4 upgrade? </p>

<p> </p>

[photo5]

<p>Anyone who thinks the D3X is overpriced is simply a whiner. That's the basis of this entire thread. The people who bring these things up are whiners. Face it, you'd love a D3X but you can't afford it. Get over it. Go buy a Sony A900 and be happy.</p>

[jcoffin]

<p>The comparisons to film, and claims that all film cameras used the same "sensors" are specious nonsense. The people making these claims either weren't competent at shooting film, or have darned lousy memories.</p>

<p>With a film camera, you could change films to suit your purpose. You wouldn't have used Tech Pan or Velvia to shoot an average wedding any more than you'd expect landscapes with highly saturated colors from Vericolor S. At least with color print film, you also had a fair amount of control via the exposure you used -- it doesn't take a great memory to realize that if you wanted saturated colors and all you handy was VPS, a +1 (or 1.5) exposure would help quite a bit. It still wasn't like Velvia, but at least it wasn't as washed out as VPS was at rated speed.<br>

<br /> With a digital camera (at least ones like this) the sensor is an integral part of the camera -- getting one sensor for landscapes, another for portraits and a third for night shooting would mean buying three (expensive) cameras. You can't play many games with exposure either -- a +1 exposure won't give more saturation, just blown highlights.</p>

<p>As for the rest of the camera: when shooting in raw mode (would anybody be insane enough to buy a D3x to shoot JPEGs?) the processors, etc., just format and shuffle the data. If they affect the image quality at all, there's a problem (cf. the Sony Alpha 700 prior to V4 firmware). Likewise, for a serious photographer the focus point and exposure the camera chooses are really just hints, not final decisions -- if the photographer is at all competent, they won't affect image quality to a significant degree.</p>

 

[georgeseymour]

<p>Everyone seems to be missing the point. It's not the sensor that counts, it's the lense you fit in front of it.</p>

<p>I've bought a Canon EOS 400D (Rebel to those of you in the USA) along with a Sigma 18-200 and find that on wide angle shots with a horizon, ie. the sea, I get a smiley horizon, now I'm sure this isn't the sensor, or the camera, but the lense.</p>

<p>I'm a Nikon fan due to having a complete range (15mm to 1000mm) lenses which I bought for my still operational F2's and they still take exceedingly good pictures. I've just ordered a D700 with 24PC-E lense (not yet arrived, as Nikon assures me that I can still continue to fit my old lenses to it).</p>

<p>Build quality is also a factor to take into consideration.</p>

<p>Once I bought a Tamron 75-250 (back in easrly '70's) and took it to Africa, by the end of which it wasn't really worth using. My Nikons have been all over the world and bounced around all over the place without problems, dropped my 15mm in a salt water pool once and had to have it serviced.</p>

<p>Read somewhere on here that someone had to throw their Canon EOS 1Ds Mark III out of a window to save it from confication, and retrieved it later, still in working order, but I suspect that like all delicate instruments, it had a lot to do with what it landed on rather than the throwing part.</p>

<p>Both Nikon and Canon are tough instruments and are built for long and hard work.</p>

<p>How many of us need 24Mpixels? Great for extracting small parts of the image, but you'd probably be better off getting closer to the subject in the first place, unless there is something preventing you, in which case use a longer lense, if you have one.</p>

<p>More important is getting out there and taking the photos you want, if it needs 21Mp or 24Mp to obtain them, then go buy the apropriate camera and a large hard drive to accommodate the images.</p>

<p>Has anyone done a shoot with all the different lenses/cameras (both SLR & compact) of the same subject, processed in Photoshop or a.n. other processing package, and reduced them to photo.net viewing size and compared the results to see what the differences are to the average viewer? It would be interesting.</p>

[ilkka_nissila]

<p><em> the processors, etc., just format and shuffle the data. If they affect the image quality at all, there's a problem</em></p>

<p>This isn't true. The difference in output from different image processing and raw conversion algorithms can differ dramatically. The image processing and raw conversion is where the "look" of the image is determined; different processing is equivalent to having different films except that the spectral sensitivity cannot be changed without altering the filter array. With digital you can you can specify things mathematically instead of having to implement it in chemistry, the latter being far more difficult. There are things that you can't change without going to hardware, such as the spectral responses of the photosites, so in that sense different cameras may be needed e.g. for IR work etc. But one doesn't need different cameras for night, portrait, and landscape work.</p>

<p> </p>

[jcoffin]

<p><em> the processors, etc., just format and shuffle the data. If they affect the image quality at all, there's a problem</em></p>

<p><strong><em>This isn't true. The difference in output from different image processing and raw conversion algorithms can differ dramatically.</em> </strong></p>

<p>You snipped the important part of what I said. Yes, the raw conversion affects image quality -- but when you're shooting raw, the raw conversion is not done by the camera. The whole point of raw format is that you're getting the data in its raw format -- no processing has been done to it yet. The raw conversion is then done (on your computer) by Capture NX, ACR, Bibble, DxO, or whatever raw converter you happen to prefer -- but the Expeed processor in the camera has nothing to do with it.</p>

[photo5]

<p>I look at 4x5" view camera photos taken back in 1914, and how clear they are. Digital can't do that yet. I want 50+mp's in my camera so I can grab that much detail. I remember when 4mb of RAM in a computer was enough to run any application. Now 4gb is the standard. Same with digital cameras. 12mp is really the minimum, 24 is better, 48 is even better.</p>

[ellis_vener_photography]

<p>" The whole point of raw format is that you're getting the data in its raw format -- no processing has been done to it yet."</p>

<p>Actually you are wrong about this. All 'raw" images out of all cameras (that I know of: Canon, Nikon, etc.) do some degree of processing in camera on the path from the receiving CMOS or CCD to the media card (CF /SD). All of them.<br>

Two examples; Canon (possibly Nikon and the others as well) applies a default amout of sharpening to the data. Canon does this a bit more aggressively than Nikon however. And althoug hit is done by processors on the imaging CMOS "chip" itself Nikon's Active D-Lighting functions, is applied in camera as well.</p>

<p>The only cameras that I know of that does not do any "pre-cooking" of the raw data are some of the medium format backs and the 4x5 BetterLight Scanning backs.</p>

[ellis_vener_photography]

<p>"I look at 4x5" view camera photos taken back in 1914, and how clear they are. Digital can't do that yet. I want 50+mp's in my camera so I can grab that much detail."<br>

Digital can do it, you just need to think larger. You want somethign like the Leiica S2, or the other high megapixel medium format backs or one of the 4x5 BetterLight scanning back.</p>

<p>Thsi starts to come down to format size issues. From the 1990s I've got 4"x5", medium format film and 25mm film , all low ISO transparencies, of the same subject shot nearly simultaneously and it is an easy guess as to which format has better detail rendition from deep shadow to highlight.</p>

[photo5]

<p>Ellis,<br>

You may be right, but I'm still certain that more resolution will be demanded by photographers. It's no different than film being engineered to have finer grain and more detail. I have no plans to buy into a large and expensive medium format camera system. I can still shoot ISO 25 black and white through my Rolleiflex, but then I have to scan it and I have to rent the scanner as all I have is a Nikon Coolscan V for 35mm film, which does do a nice job.</p><div></div>

[hawkman]

<p>deleted</p>

[hawkman]

<p>Ellis,<br>

You need to update your information, a RAW file is a 2D array of 14-bit or 12-Bit intensity values, sharpening, color etc. are post demosaic concepts , you can't apply regular "sharpening" to an intensity level it makes no sense. <br>

<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raw_image_format">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raw_image_format</a><br>

Also CMOS is a common name for an APS (Ative Pixel Sensor) fabricated in a traditional CMOS process and does not refer to a digital signal processing chip. <br>

<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Active_pixel_sensor">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Active_pixel_sensor</a><br>

DSP is only possible post quantization of analog signal and is performed by a DSP ASIC which is on a seperate PCB mounted behind or next to the sensor PCB. <br>

 

 

</p><div></div>

[ellis_vener_photography]

<p><em>"Ellis,<br /> You need to update your information, a RAW file is a 2D array of 14-bit or 12-Bit intensity values, sharpening, color etc. are post demosaic concepts , you can't apply regular "sharpening" to an intensity level it makes no sense.</em><br>

This is the difference between theory and what happens in the real world. Note that Canon raw files are not .raw, they are .crw or .cr2 files. Canon has done somethign to them on their way from individual photo site to the recording media. Same thing with Nikon NEF, etc. Generically for they are known as "raw" files but in the real world , for the most part, they are not. Canon's application of some fairly aggressive initial "capture sharpening" to .cr2 files is pretty well known.</p>

[allan_nadel]

<p>Here's something that might interest you. I have no idea whether or not this is a valid comparison.<br>

<br /> http://masterchong.com/v3/sony-alpha/nikon-d3x-vs-sony-alpha-900-iso50-iso6400-100-cropped-comparison.html</p>

[hawkman]

<p>"This is the difference between theory and what happens in the real world. Note that Canon raw files are not .raw, they are .crw or .cr2 files."<br>

Ellis,<br>

Maybe you are not very familiar with computers but the extension of a file is just an arbitrary designation, it can be set independent of the content, you can just rename the *.CR2 or *.NEF to *.RAW if you like, the extension is just a tag so the appropriate application can identify the file. There is no such thing as theoretical RAW or real world RAW. If you are making such strange claims you need to provide a valid reference.</p>

[ShunCheung]

<p>This thread has gotten quite off topic. I am closing it for now.</p>