I'm hoping that Nikon tries to do something with SONY's 12 mp A7s' sensor. They could make a killer "see in the dark" light writing machine and with the Expeed 4 it would be lighting quick fps. That's a niche market that would make me spend.
Frank_BR: Moore's Law states that the integration of transistors in a monolithic circuit doubles every 18 months or so. Assuming that sensor resolution doubles every two years, and considering that today's state-of-the-art is 50MP, it can be predicted that the sensors will reach 3200MB in 12 years, ie, 2027, only five years after launching the LSST.
We have so few photons striking a 4um x 4um senscels as it is. Quantum efficiencies are already on the order 60%. There just isn't much room for sensor technology to make leaps and bounds as have happened in the IC world. Moore's "law" hasn't been relevant to image sensors. Transistors are 3 or 4 orders of magnitude smaller than a senscel (a pixel) already. It's not that a designer couldn't make a FF sensor with a gazillion pixels....they just wouldn't have much dynamic range.
HowaboutRAW: Mr Physics+Frank C:
According to Wikipedia the flash sync speed of the D70 is 1/300 sec.
With a smaller (APSC) focal plane shutter it is easier to build higher sync speeds.
The top shutter speed of the camera is indeed 1/8000 sec.
Yes CCD, not CMOS as I mistakenly stated. But I stand by the D70 as being able to flash sync at 1/8000s with a non-Nikon flashgun in the hotshoe (set to manual flash).
Frank C.: That dumbed down 1/4000 and 1/200 x-sync is hard to swallow nonetheless
The Minolta SLR sounds like it accomplished a great engineering feat. The D70 and other CMOS based DSLRs are capable of 1/8000s flash sink. With a Nikon flashgun (or onboard flash), they can yield a flash-sync speed of 1/500s. If you put a manual flashgun in the hot shoe, it'll sync all the way up to 1/8000s. They didn't use a focal plane shutter in the CMOS sensors for some reason.
My D70 has a 1/8000s sync speed.
Nice. Very nice.
Segaman: Hahahahahaah, a flip screen
A D750 owner/user could simply hide the fact that they have a hideous "Frankenstein" camera by simply not flipping it out. It is a convenience feature not a "must use" feature. If a user kept it folded flat they wouldn't embarrass themselves in front of hot chicks (or fellas). And then, maybe if no one was around, they could flip it upward to take a well focused macro of some subject close to the ground.
tom1234567: Nothing great here
I have too disagree. There is a lot of good stuff here. Can you demonstrate why you feel this way?
Chuck Lantz: I noticed a couple of interesting bits; ... an ashtray at the engineers station, and a panel where "gauge" is spelled "guage." Kinda makes me wonder what else they got wrong in all those goodies.
If Humphrey Bogart piloted an airplane through a hurricane, he would heave been smoking. AND he would have landed safely in some dramatic fashion (think Sully) and he would have escorted Lauren Becall back to a motel. I'm just pointing that out, from a historical perspective.
beavertown: Airbus is better than Boeing.
I like beavers better than trolls. A lot better.
You wouldn't have trusted a cigarette smoking engineer in 1969?
This light writing machine sounds like it could be a winner. I'm not trying to make money with my photography but I seem to want to update my "main" camera every 2-4 years. So do I spend $3300 USD or $2300 (each probably very fine machines). The D750 has a couple of extra gadgets that I like to play with: WiFi and the flip screen. The total allowable exposure value remains equal or to or better than the D700 (i.e. 1/8000s @ ISO200 ISO=1/4000s @ ISO100 and the flashsync speed to the new machine fairs better). This machine looks like it would be fun to learn to use well.
Great and lucky captures! All of these are wonderful.
Mr Physics: I never really had a use for the "Qual" or WB" buttons. If they just had a 2-button thing for metering and ISO, I might get one of these. O.K., I'm not telling the truth. I'll still get one of these, despite too many buttons. :)
The last sentence should imply that I lust the D810 and I'm trying to rationalize the expenditure despite already having very good light writing machines (D700 and D90).
I'm a D700 and RAW recording guy so it makes sense for me to be in 14 bit compressed NEF always. I've always tweaked the WB in post processing and generally leave the WB in auto.
I've been wondering if the quality and range of actual light data captured would be better if I'd simply select an appropriate WB at capture time but never had the ambition to study this question in detail. I wouldn't know where to start. We have the options of direct sunlight, shade and cloudy but there doesn't seem to be an in camera compensation to accommodate the difference in the Sun's light from bright mid-afternoon to the red-ish orange of dusk. When I find myself with mixed source lighting indoors (often a combination incandescent and florescent lighting) I don't have a clue what option to pick at capture time. I usually choose "Auto" and sort it out in post processing. So I haven't ever used the WB and QUAL buttons.
I never really had a use for the "Qual" or WB" buttons. If they just had a 2-button thing for metering and ISO, I might get one of these. O.K., I'm not telling the truth. I'll still get one of these, despite too many buttons. :)
chbde: Very good article. It is however slightly incorrect on the topic of diffraction:"This is because, like depth-of-field, softening from diffraction depends on the actual size of the aperture, not the F-number."
As "Cambridge in Color" (http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/diffraction-photography.htm) explains it very nicely, the size of the diffraction pattern on the sensor depends only on the f-number. This is also the reason why diffraction softening is independent of focal length. But one can see the effect of diffraction if the size of the diffraction patterns exceeds the dimensions of a pixel, so it is dependent on pixel density.
"This means diffraction will have the same impact on two images shot at equivalent apertures"
That sentence remains correct, however, for sensors with equal number of pixels.
As a consequence of this, by the way, on a 16MP 2.3" compact the resolution is already diffraction limited at f2.8!
The Airy disk analysis is good to use as a first approximation.But we are only talking about space in between the aperture and the sensor at that point. The focus distance or focal length becomes irrelevant.
Diffraction occurs because of a fundamental uncertainty ( a blurring, if you will) when a packet of light waves pass through an opening of a given dimension. Physic can't explain WHY this happens but can calculate the magnitude to great accuracy. When we observe this packet of light, we are always on the sensor side of the aperture. Thus the same small angle between two blade of grass through a 35mm lens experience the same diffraction as a pair of galaxies through a 1000mm lens (at the same absolute aperture). It might be interesting for me to go through the derivations from first principals to arrive at this conclusion (and it would take forever) but it would be boring to try and share the results with most anybody else. That why I admire DPR's empirical exposition. :)
For a given wavelength (color), diffraction effects can be completely determined by the actual aperture i.e. FL/f-number. DPR has exposed and illustrated this fact very well. They have created the ultimate FF vs crop vs smaller exposition article. It's the best, clearest and most concise explanation I have ever seen. Kudos to the team that wrote it. It should an excellent reference for years to come to us all. I'm sure there may be some small mistake(s) in it, but if corrected, this one article WILL stand as an authoritative reference.
mirkoc: I like:new 'highlight-weighted' metering option (to preserve highlight detail in contrasty scenes)
I'm thinking that it adjusts the exposure independent of the recording mode. But I could use a feature that leverages the great DR of these modern cameras to protect highlights of BIFs when I don't have the time to chimp and adjust exposure compensation.
Dang. I've been a 12MP guy for quite a while now. It is my fundamental belief that if you can't say it with 12MP then you have a speech impediment. But this light writing machine has me drooling for a number of reasons: they've expanded the range of available (useable?) ISO by 2 stops over the D800 and 4 stops over the D700. If that translates to something noticeable in DR @ base ISO, then that is very big. They have that highlight preserving metering option which is potentially big (for me). I've blown too many highlights from white water fowl to not want this. And what if I'm wrong about 12MP being sufficient to completely record the light from a capture? This machine has me interested in moving beyond the D700 for the first time. Hmmm. I think Nikon hit it out of the ballpark on this one (maybe).