Replacement for D1x?

[maxz]

If you care about resolution, Nikon has already made the only
announcement you need to hear. They are sticking with the DX sensor
and have no plans for anything larger.

Nikon did NOT announce that... Some time in late 2003 they said
that had no plans to release a FF sensor in the near future. Then
again, if you would have asked Japan what their war plans were the
day before the attach on Perl harbor, they would have said they had
no intention to go to war!!!

There's no way Nikon would have released the D2h at 4mp if they
hadn't planned to balance their product line with a D2x at 8mp.

Where exactly do you get this information? Obviously they have
plans for the D2x, but sensor size and mpix size remain unanounced,
and the D2x is on the streets in prototype form.

Unfortunately their Lbcast sensor is already a little
noisy at 4mp and simply can't compete at a half-pixel-size 8mp.

With the thin AA filter, and very passive in camera sharpening, the
D2H may appear to be a little noisy. I'd point out that D2H noise
is easily eliminated post processing. It comes down to does one
want extreme in camera sharpening via AA and large amounts of
processing, or not. There are pros and cons either way, I
personally like a more native image out of camera, and the
ability to get a cleaner out of camera image via the thin AA filter.

They're already losing them. For every photographer who considers
switching to Nikon, there are dozens, even hundreds, switching away
from Nikon.

Based on your numbers, Nikon would end up with a 1% market share in
less than a year.

The D70 is selling well, and the D2H is JUST now becoming easily
available via local shops. The 200-400VR lens is sold out and hard
to find as is the DX 18-70f2.8.

Nikon is selling product as fast as they can make it... And the
consumer D70/Rebel market is MUCH MUCH larger than the Pro market.

Again, where do you get this information?

Again, all you need to know is that Nikon says they are sticking
with the DX sensor. As long as that holds true, they cannot compete
above the 6mp level with other manufacturers who use larger
sensors. It's a simple fact of physics and optics.

So you R a sensor engineer? The Nikon 8700 has 8mpix in a chip
about 1/4 the size of the current APS-C. While the 8700 2/3 chip
is hardly a role model for DSLR design, it certainly proves that
yes it's VERY possibe to stuff a large amount of pixels into a tiny
chip. If Nikon expanded the 8700 chip to cover the APS-C size, it
would result in approx a 32mg chip....

When 1mb chips were introduced, people predicted the failure of
digital (or maybe I should say fools). When the 2.3 mpix chip came
out, fools said digital would never work, it's too expensive. Now
many are still standing on the sidelines saying this is impossible,
or that will not work....

Unless one is an expert in the field of digital sensor design, I'd
keep the mount shut.

You're right to be skeptical, and you shouldn't wait. If you care
about anything more than 6mp, sell now while prices are still good.
There are still plenty of eager buyers who have bought into the
"megapixels don't matter" siren song.

The Nikon AI lenses today sell for about as much as they did 10
years ago (can not say that for Canon F). Nikon glass is holding
value. In fact I wish it would not as I'd love to get my hands on
some newer lenses, but alas, they are selling for as much or more
than Canon glass.....

As for the knee-jerk Nikon apologists who throw the "troll" word
around in lieu of reasonable discussion, don't bother. Try posting
something logical or sensible instead, if you can.

Well, it would be nice if people like yourself would post work that
is not based mostly on rumors, and fiction.

Please provide some FACTS to back up all your Hype, or just admit
you have no idea. Nothing wrong with having no idea, unless you
act like someone who knows.

Ron

 

[Ron Frank]

This entire post assumes that Nikon and Canon are in a tennis match.

The irony is that Nikon was developing the LBCAST sensor 10 YEARS ago. I don't follow Canon as closely, but Canon has similar design timelines. This means what, five years before digital was an option, Nikon was working on digital.

You guys act like Nikon and other makers sit around and react to the competiton. While this is somewhat true in the consumer digital market where camera's constantly get upgraded with minor improvements, Nikon and Canon DSLR design timelines are NOT based on reacting to the latest products from other camps. They are based on their own strategy, engineering, and manufacturiing capabilities all of which has a bit more behind it than most here seem to understand.

If you are unhappy with Nikon for whatever reason, buy a different TOOL!!!

But I SERIOUSLY wish all this "WE NEED, WE NEED" would go away especially from a group of people who shoot for hobby.

IMO there R two ways of thinking on this. I'll use myself as an example.

I was shooting Nikon (film) doing wedding and portraits professionally. I was loosing business to MF shooters EVEN if 90% of the clients NEVER enlarged past 11x14. So, what did I DO???? I went out and purchased Hassy equipment. This was a VERY expensive choice, but my business increased as a result.

So, if you NEED more mpix, go get a 1Ds. If you need more than that, go purchase MF and a back.

If not, I suggest keeping the mouth closed. Either way we could end these pointless discussions brought on by the impatient mpix johnson counters.

Ron

 

[gwprovost]

...Nikon now makes 90k units of D70
per month, and you need to be lucky to find one in store.

Not only funny but more than a little pathetic that your main claim to fame for Nikon is the D70. You make it sound like entry-level the only place you want them to compete, or the only place they're able.

sorry peter that sounds too much canon-troll like...

Your intuition about names isn't any better than your instincts about cameras. But thanks for exemplifying the inverse relationship between actual knowledge and usage of the "troll" word.

 

[cameraman12]

Do you just copy and paste your comments from previous threads? How many times do we have to listen to the DX dead end story? I'm a amazed how much effort you put into telling people they should switch? Do you work for Canon?

If you don't get it, I'll spell it out for you... each system has its pluses and minuses. Its that simple.

I use a D2H (among other cameras) and I shoot some very large campaigns. With the way you talk about Nikon, that shouldn't be possible? Give it a rest already. You and Paul Pope should start a Nikon- bashing fan club or something.

wondering how long we will have to wait before we know for sure
that Nikon no longer wants to comptete on the high res pro DSLR
camera line.

They want to compete, but they're not able to with the DX sensor.

On Ebay D1x cameras are for sale for just over a
thousand or so dollars with few bids even at that price.

Lots of D1x cameras are selling for $2,000 to $2,500. Check the
"completed" items.

I am a little concerned that Nikon has given up on the pro level
DSLR line and simpley wants to sell to the masses at the news
photographers and pro-sumer level and below. Needless to say they
will never make that announcement but at some point, might we be
able to assume that what we have been waiting so long for just is
not coming. My questioin is how long must we wait before we find
out that there really is no D2x or D3 coming.

If you care about resolution, Nikon has already made the only
announcement you need to hear. They are sticking with the DX sensor
and have no plans for anything larger.

When the D1 split, Nikon announced the H and the X versions very
close together and then released them within a short time of one
another. Why would this offering be different if there was a D2x
in the wings?

There's no way Nikon would have released the D2h at 4mp if they
hadn't planned to balance their product line with a D2x at 8mp.
They obviously planned to split the pixels just as they did with
the D1h. Unfortunately their Lbcast sensor is already a little
noisy at 4mp and simply can't compete at a half-pixel-size 8mp.

Where is Nikon?

They're coasting, trading on their name, enjoying their profit
margin on the Lbcast sensor, selling gear to newbies (the D70) and
to long-time users who are already invested in their system.

Nikon would not want to jeprodize losing...customers...

They're already losing them. For every photographer who considers
switching to Nikon, there are dozens, even hundreds, switching away
from Nikon.

If they are to be competative for the future they must release
something soon...

Again, all you need to know is that Nikon says they are sticking
with the DX sensor. As long as that holds true, they cannot compete
above the 6mp level with other manufacturers who use larger
sensors. It's a simple fact of physics and optics.

...I am becoming ever more skeptical.
I have a ton of Nikon glass that I don't want to dump at discount
prices yet and I don't want to buy a D70 or D2h.
How much longer are you going to wait?

You're right to be skeptical, and you shouldn't wait. If you care
about anything more than 6mp, sell now while prices are still good.
There are still plenty of eager buyers who have bought into the
"megapixels don't matter" siren song.

As for the knee-jerk Nikon apologists who throw the "troll" word
around in lieu of reasonable discussion, don't bother. Try posting
something logical or sensible instead, if you can.

 

[gwprovost]

Hi Ron,

I don't have time to dissect your entire post so I'll confine myself to the most obvious targets;

If you care about resolution, Nikon has already made the only
announcement you need to hear. They are sticking with the DX sensor
and have no plans for anything larger.

Nikon did NOT announce that... Some time in late 2003 they said
that had no plans to release a FF sensor in the near future. Then
again, if you would have asked Japan what their war plans were the
day before the attach on Perl harbor, they would have said they had
no intention to go to war!!!

See this quote in Popular Photography from Makoto Komura, president of Nikon Imaging Company, Japan;

"In a meeting in Tokyo, Mr. Komura told Mr. Keppler that Nikon will use the smaller sensor in future digital SLR cameras at all levels. "Nikon will continue to study full-size sensors," he said, "but it is for study only." Nikon will not use a 35mm-sized sensor, Mr. Komura said, contrary to published reports."

So, either you're wrong and Mr. Komura is telling the truth, or you're right and Mr. Komura is a liar who thinks the sneak attack on Pearl Harbor is a good business model.

Unfortunately their Lbcast sensor is already a little
noisy at 4mp and simply can't compete at a half-pixel-size 8mp.

With the thin AA filter, and very passive in camera sharpening, the
D2H may appear to be a little noisy. I'd point out that D2H noise
is easily eliminated post processing. It comes down to does one
want extreme in camera sharpening via AA and large amounts of
processing, or not. There are pros and cons either way, I
personally like a more native image out of camera, and the
ability to get a cleaner out of camera image via the thin AA filter.

Like I said, it's a little noisy

The D70 is selling well, and the D2H is JUST now becoming easily
available via local shops. The 200-400VR lens is sold out and hard
to find as is the DX 18-70f2.8.

Nikon, who used to be the industry leader, now has at the head of its' product line the - D70!? Wow, there's something to brag about.

Nikon is selling product as fast as they can make it... And the
consumer D70/Rebel market is MUCH MUCH larger than the Pro market.

Again, the "consumer D70/Rebel market"!? Wow.

So you R a sensor engineer? The Nikon 8700 has 8mpix in a chip
about 1/4 the size of the current APS-C. While the 8700 2/3 chip
is hardly a role model for DSLR design, it certainly proves that
yes it's VERY possibe to stuff a large amount of pixels into a tiny
chip. If Nikon expanded the 8700 chip to cover the APS-C size, it
would result in approx a 32mg chip....

Yes, it's possible, if you don't mind paying the penalties in noise, diffraction, etc. Most pros and prosumers DO mind (noise), which is why the D2x has been held back

If Nikon expanded the 8700 chip to cover the APS-C size, it
would result in approx a 32mg chip...

And if frogs had wings they wouldn't bump their behinds.

Unless one is an expert in the field of digital sensor design, I'd
keep the mount shut.

I hope you're more expert in "the field of digital sensor design" than you are with your spell-checker. If so, it doesn't show.

As for the knee-jerk Nikon apologists who throw the "troll" word
around in lieu of reasonable discussion, don't bother. Try posting
something logical or sensible instead, if you can.

Well, it would be nice if people like yourself would post work that
is not based mostly on rumors, and fiction.

Please provide some FACTS to back up all your Hype, or just admit
you have no idea. Nothing wrong with having no idea, unless you
act like someone who knows.

You have not pointed out a single factual error in anything I wrote. Instead you ramble on at length with knee-jerk over-reacting defensiveness that is, sadly, becoming more and more common here. Grow up and face facts, by sticking with the DX sensor Nikon has chosen a path that leads away from industry DSLR leadership.

 

[John Ricard]

If not, I suggest keeping the mouth closed. Either way we could end
these pointless discussions brought on by the impatient mpix
johnson counters.

So we are supposed to keep our mouths closed while you get to write a really long post? Not gonna happen, dude.

Your suggestion makes little sense to me. You see we can't just buy a camera body and call it a day. Some of us have a lot of lenses that we would have to replace as well if changed systems. We would even have to buy new flashes. Those things would cost lot of money.

A more viable solution is for Nikon to give us a competitive camera. If 4MP works for you, then fine, go buy a D2h. Some of us need more megapixels than that.

Others of us don't want to explain to our clients that our camera is only 4MP even though the client just bought his daughter a 6MP Nikon D70. We don't want to get into a big discussion about the magic megapixels of the D2h and how they are actually better than the 6MP of his daughter's D70. Instead, we just want to say, "Oh, the D70 is a nice camera but its only 6MP. I use a Nikon also, but my camera has 10MP and that's one of the reasons my pictures from our project are going to look so good."

 

[Peter Herth]

I understand and accept your point (though I don't know how
accurate the one f-stop figure is) but of course there are other
important benefits to the larger sensors, chiefly the full usage of
wide-angle lenses and the ability to crop further into the photo
while retaining required resolution.

If we assume the same pixel number for a FF and DX sized sensor, then, as FF has 2.25 times the area, every pixel has 2.25 times the area as a DX pixel and 2 times the area would mean exaxtly one stop. So the assumption that FF vs DX makes one single stop difference seems to be a good one. But if you decided to use the bigger sensor for increased sensitivity, you loose the ability to crop further. DX lenses give you full wide angle so there is no fundamental difference to FF. (Of course if you already own a lot of lenses this may be different, but that I count as personal reason, not as a fundamental difference)

To get 12mp on a DX sensor would require pixel-pitch of less than
5.6 microns. That would be far, far smaller than any pro or
prosumer DSLR that has ever existed. The resulting negative effect
on the signal/noise ratio makes the chance of that (12mp DX sensor)
happening essentially zero.

12 mp on DX would mean to halve pixel area compared to the D100 for example. So instead iso 200 - 1600 you will get iso 100 - 800 sensitivity. Nothing for ultra low light, but definitely good for most situations that typically require resolution.

Certainly, as you say, "we can hope" - but the laws of physics and
optics are not subject to either our desires or Nikon's intentions.

Well I tried to argue using plain physics. If you have counterarguments please bring them forth.

Peter

 

[Derrel87035]

Ron,

Normally I enjoy your posts,but you seem to be ignorant of one thing,and that is that CANON demonstrated and used a digital still video camera at the 1984 Los Angeles Olympics,and wired many,many daily nespaper photos back to Japan with it. Then, in 1986 Canon had a newerr,revised prototype of a "digital still video" (the then-current term) which received an extensive (cover story) write-up in Popular Photography magazine. Canon has been busy testing,building,deploying,and getting feedback on digital still cameras since Nikon was busy coming up with,well, a half-decent AF system. Canon of course beat Nikon to the punch on a decent,real-world AF system by a few years. If you were around, you know the earlier EOS film cameras were miles ahead of the Nikons on AF performance,as well as on AF lenses.

I have shot Nikon for over two decades, but I have seen what Canonh is doing,and what they HAVE BEEN doing since the 84 Olympics, and that is working very,very hard on digital, both still and motion digital cameras. Canon has also begun to respond to the market and the desires of the market....Nikon is still,foolishly,very,very foolishly, trying to form market opinion." The original poster's point is valid--Nikon lost a HUGe chunk of working professionals when it decided that there "was no need for" a sensor any larger than DX. With those worlds of wisdom uttered by Nikon corporate,fashion/nature/corporate/editorial/industrial photographers by the thousands switched to Canon and the 1Ds. Simple as that. Nikon has effectively thrown away the lead it had when the D1 was king. nikon has, by its own commitment to the holy grail (lower-case) of the DX sensor size, effectively announced that it will not compete in the areas where the HIGHEST image quality is needed. Heck, even Thom Hogan's main camera is now a Kodak....you know, the guy who has made a career out of writing technical manuals and guides for Nikon camera equipment....has found a better camera made by somebody other than Nikon.

Nikon is starting to annoy a lot of the market, and it is not merely wanna-be's and hobbyists....Nikon has forced a lot of pro's with 30K + kits to switch away from Nikon to something that......can actually do the job to current,professional,industry standards. So all the chest-pounding in the world will not make Nikon a player in the highest-quality imaging segment. Nikon has left that to Canon,Kodak,and Phase One,Imacon,etc. i'm sorry Ron,but I think yourt defense of Nikon and your failure to do much more than offend and to run-down and badmouth the origianl poster, Scott Sherman, with your allegations of "pixel-peeping" are way off base and mypoic. You're failing to see what Nikon has actually,already,irrevocably done, and that is to say" DX format is gfood enough for you. If it is not,tough. DX is is. Nikon means the DX sensor size." Nikon cut itself off of a big market segment. Of its own doing.

Nikon also seems to mean slightly slower frame rates and half the megapixels of comaprable Canon offerings. And that Mr. Frank, is undeniable. The D1x has been handily bested, the D2h has been handily bested. And that's not pixel-peeping, it's a fact.
--
Happy Shooting!
Derrel

 

[Ron Frank]

John,

You have explained you position to me in the past, even via email....

IMO you have two choices at this point....

Canon 1ds NOT the mark II.

Shoot MF film...

I'm not saying I would not like a Nikon high res option. But beating my cheast on DPReview and screaming to the sky is not going to make it happen.

If you NEED more resolution, make a choice. That is EXACTLY what my posts suggests, and in fact exactly what I did....

You're not THAT deep in the Nikon gear. If you were running a news agency, and had a dozen lenses ranging from 300mmf2.8 to 600mm f4, and felt you needed more resolutions, I could understand.

The problem you have is simple, you can afford the Canon....so if Nikon puts a 9K FF 32mpix camera on the market tomorrow, would you be any happier??

Ron

 

[Derrel87035]

Hi Ron,
I don't have time to dissect your entire post so I'll confine
myself to the most obvious targets;>

BIG NSIIPED PORTION:

You have not pointed out a single factual error in anything I
wrote. Instead you ramble on at length with knee-jerk over-reacting
defensiveness that is, sadly, becoming more and more common here.
Grow up and face facts, by sticking with the DX sensor Nikon has
chosen a path that leads away from industry DSLR leadership.

I have to agree with gwprovost's essential conclusion, which I made in a post above this one: That Nikon's publicly-stated commitment to the DX sensor size has,effectively functioned as a statement that Nikon is not willing to participate in the highest-quality imaging segment of the market. Nikon has lost tens of thousands of fashion/corporate/beauty/editiorial/nature/commerical photographers to Canon, Kodak,and Phase One, Imacon,etc.

Nikon "leaked" a rumor of future full-frame Nikons through the American magazine Popular Photography & Imaging: that remark was made to visiting editors of the magazine,and was almost immediately retracted,oficially ,with a quoted statement from a high-level,senior,named, Japan-based Nikon employee. At all levels, that is a retraction--the spokesman is Japan-based,senior,high-level,and of course named. Not merely a vague 'press release' type statement, but the real deal. Nikon is not going to play in the Full-frame arena. Nikon has said that the DX sensor size it "it" for the forseeable future. Officially.

--
Happy Shooting!
Derrel

 

[TyKo]

Ron, I often enjoy your posts, but I've gotta say that you're making very little sense here.

This entire post assumes that Nikon and Canon are in a tennis match.

Ummmm....could you please show me another 35mm player that is anywhere near the level of these two? Bodies, lenses, flash, etc--they've been competing for years, constantly trying to out-do each other, with no one else even close? Maybe you'd prefer a different metaphore/analogy, but the priniciple is still the same: They're the only two in the game, and they're fiercely competing.

The irony is that Nikon was developing the LBCAST sensor 10 YEARS
ago. I don't follow Canon as closely, but Canon has similar design
timelines. This means what, five years before digital was an
option, Nikon was working on digital.

Why does it matter when they started? They're unable to currently compete with the competition's top offerings, and have been unable to for close to a couple years now. It's not about the capabilities of the current stuff, of which we're all familiar. It's about the future. And so far, they're getting their butts kicked.

You guys act like Nikon and other makers sit around and react to
the competiton. While this is somewhat true in the consumer digital
market where camera's constantly get upgraded with minor
improvements, Nikon and Canon DSLR design timelines are NOT based
on reacting to the latest products from other camps. They are based
on their own strategy, engineering, and manufacturiing capabilities
all of which has a bit more behind it than most here seem to
understand.

Well call it what you will, the strategy of emmulating molases isn't very cool.

If you are unhappy with Nikon for whatever reason, buy a different
TOOL!!!

Much cheaper said than done. Is it so much to ask that Nikon stay competative? It's not that what they have doesn't work. It's that more is possible, and I think it's fair for it to be expected. INO, Canon users are getting more more return on their glass. Why is it so wrong to ask/expect Nikon to do the same?

But I SERIOUSLY wish all this "WE NEED, WE NEED" would go away
especially from a group of people who shoot for hobby.

I really wish all this "IT'S ENOUGH, IT'S ENOUGH" would go away. My preference, of course.

IMO there R two ways of thinking on this. I'll use myself as an
example.

I was shooting Nikon (film) doing wedding and portraits
professionally. I was loosing business to MF shooters EVEN if 90%
of the clients NEVER enlarged past 11x14. So, what did I DO???? I
went out and purchased Hassy equipment. This was a VERY expensive
choice, but my business increased as a result.

So, if you NEED more mpix, go get a 1Ds. If you need more than
that, go purchase MF and a back.

If not, I suggest keeping the mouth closed. Either way we could end
these pointless discussions brought on by the impatient mpix
johnson counters.

It's about retrun on investment. I've invested in Nikon, and they've let me down. If I could do it over again, I wouldn't be here, and you wouldn't have to hear me. But I expected Nikon to remain competative, to give me at least a somewhat comparable return on my investment. They haven't. They aren't even in the same league right now.

I could run out and by some other brand of camera. But why the hell should I have to? It it's clear that it can be done (and Canon has show us it can be ), I expect the company that "takes the world's greatest pictures" to step up to the freakin' plate. It's pictures aren't the greatest anymore, pure and simple. I'm disappointed in them for that.

Further, if you don't understand when/where/why more megapixels could be used, this whole disucssion truly is pointless. And if you do understand, how can you be ticked at people who legitimately want them?

regards,
TyKo

 

[maxz]

Not only funny but more than a little pathetic that your main claim
to fame for Nikon is the D70. You make it sound like entry-level
the only place you want them to compete, or the only place they're
able.

what's truly pathetic is a bunch of people holding a 1.6x camera and a crappy lens which can't mount on anything else brag about something called 'ff' they could never afford. what's more pathetic is a $1000 entry level camera beats a $4500 flagship in start-up time, CF write speed, flashsync speed, dynamic buffer, low-light autofocus, and the $4500 camera was marketed for 'speed'...

 

[gwprovost]

I appreciate your thoughtful reply. If I understand correctly, the point you're driving at is that the DX sensor may always be a little more noisy than a larger sensor at equivalent megapixel designs (all other things being equal), but that the difference isn't particularly meaningful or is easily worked around. That would be a matter of individual judgment (as to whether it was "meaningful"), a subjective decision that we all have to make for ourselves, and not something I could argue.

My point remains this: If Nikon could make a competitive DSLR with 8mp on a DX Lbcast sensor, we'd have a D2x in our hands right now. Based on my own education and training and common sense, I concluded several months ago that it couldn't (and wouldn't) be done. When Nikon releases an 8mp (or more) DX sensor DSLR that can stand toe-to-toe with Canon's 1DII performance, then I will be proven wrong. So far it hasn't happened and there's no sign that it will happen any time soon.

Thanks again.

I understand and accept your point (though I don't know how
accurate the one f-stop figure is) but of course there are other
important benefits to the larger sensors, chiefly the full usage of
wide-angle lenses and the ability to crop further into the photo
while retaining required resolution.

If we assume the same pixel number for a FF and DX sized sensor,
then, as FF has 2.25 times the area, every pixel has 2.25 times the
area as a DX pixel and 2 times the area would mean exaxtly one
stop. So the assumption that FF vs DX makes one single stop
difference seems to be a good one. But if you decided to use the
bigger sensor for increased sensitivity, you loose the ability to
crop further. DX lenses give you full wide angle so there is no
fundamental difference to FF. (Of course if you already own a lot
of lenses this may be different, but that I count as personal
reason, not as a fundamental difference)

To get 12mp on a DX sensor would require pixel-pitch of less than
5.6 microns. That would be far, far smaller than any pro or
prosumer DSLR that has ever existed. The resulting negative effect
on the signal/noise ratio makes the chance of that (12mp DX sensor)
happening essentially zero.

12 mp on DX would mean to halve pixel area compared to the D100 for
example. So instead iso 200 - 1600 you will get iso 100 - 800
sensitivity. Nothing for ultra low light, but definitely good for
most situations that typically require resolution.

Certainly, as you say, "we can hope" - but the laws of physics and
optics are not subject to either our desires or Nikon's intentions.

Well I tried to argue using plain physics. If you have
counterarguments please bring them forth.

Peter

 

[gwprovost]

...you and all the Nikon using professionals are all set - you'll never need anything more than the be-all and end-all D70. I don't know what the rest of us with D1x's and D2h's and 1DII's and 1Ds's could have been thinking. Congratulations

what's truly pathetic is a bunch of people holding a 1.6x camera
and a crappy lens which can't mount on anything else brag about
something called 'ff' they could never afford. what's more pathetic
is a $1000 entry level camera beats a $4500 flagship in start-up
time, CF write speed, flashsync speed, dynamic buffer, low-light
autofocus, and the $4500 camera was marketed for 'speed'...

 

[gwprovost]

Nikon "leaked" a rumor of future full-frame Nikons through the
American magazine Popular Photography & Imaging: that remark was
made to visiting editors of the magazine,and was almost immediately
retracted,oficially ,with a quoted statement from a
high-level,senior,named, Japan-based Nikon employee. At all levels,
that is a retraction--the spokesman is
Japan-based,senior,high-level,and of course named. Not merely a
vague 'press release' type statement, but the real deal. Nikon is
not going to play in the Full-frame arena. Nikon has said that the
DX sensor size it "it" for the forseeable future. Officially.

Thanks Derrel. Either Nikon is honest, and there won't be any larger sensors, or they're liars and will antagonize all those who have bought into the DX lens routine. Either way, it doesn't look good for Nikon.

 

[Ron Frank]

You do NOT even OWN a FF Canon Camera, yet you are bashing Nikon for Not providing one....too funny.

Everyone talks about how far Nikon is behind because they don't have FF, but let's face it, most Canon owners do NOT own the 1Ds!!

Your kit includes ONE brand...laugh... I currently ONLY own camera's from three manufactures...but I've sold of a few in the past couple years funding digital tools.. So I'm really not much of a Nikon bigot as I realize that....

Camera are just TOOLS!!!

Why do Canon idiots feel the need to post on the Nikon forum. You do NOT own Nikon gear, yet you have nothing better to do then to go onto Nikon forums, and attempt to convince people that Nikon is going in the wrong direction?

Get a life..

Ron

 

[Peter Herth]

I appreciate your thoughtful reply. If I understand correctly, the
point you're driving at is that the DX sensor may always be a
little more noisy than a larger sensor at equivalent megapixel
designs (all other things being equal), but that the difference
isn't particularly meaningful or is easily worked around. That
would be a matter of individual judgment (as to whether it was
"meaningful"), a subjective decision that we all have to make for
ourselves, and not something I could argue.

Yes, at worst case you lose one stop of sensitivity though using the 200F2 instead of the 300F2.8 you can gain that back. So there is nothing magical about FF. Of course, if one has concrete needs mandating a FF camera I respect this. But for the most of us, some noise is a good tradeoff for the $$ difference the sensor sizes bring

My point remains this: If Nikon could make a competitive DSLR with
8mp on a DX Lbcast sensor, we'd have a D2x in our hands right now.
Based on my own education and training and common sense, I
concluded several months ago that it couldn't (and wouldn't) be
done. When Nikon releases an 8mp (or more) DX sensor DSLR that can
stand toe-to-toe with Canon's 1DII performance, then I will be
proven wrong. So far it hasn't happened and there's no sign that it
will happen any time soon.

Well if they could make one right now we would have it . However one should not mistake not being able to market right now with not being able at all. At the beginning of this year Nikon seemed just to be able to match the demand for the D2H. So its quite natural to assume that they target the D2X for a photokina release for an efficient usage of the companies resources.

Peter

 

[gwprovost]

...and they think it's hell. (Credit to Harry Truman)

The grown-ups are trying to have a discussion here, cameraman, and judging from your past contributions not much can be expected from you.

Do you just copy and paste your comments from previous threads? How
many times do we have to listen to the DX dead end story? I'm a

There are only so many ways to say the truth. That doesn't make it any less true.

amazed how much effort you put into telling people they should
switch? Do you work for Canon?

Canon couldn't afford me. As for what I'm "telling people", if they ask, I answer. And it's not work, it's actually getting to be a little fun as the reasonable people are beginning to see the light and there's only the die-hard living-in-the-past Nikon apologists to deal with.

If you don't get it, I'll spell it out for you... each system has
its pluses and minuses. Its that simple.

Duh. Oops, sorry, I know a statement of the obvious is as good as it gets from you.

I use a D2H (among other cameras) and I shoot some very large
campaigns. With the way you talk about Nikon, that shouldn't be
possible? Give it a rest already.

Matthew Brady shot a large campaign with a box camera and glass plates. That doesn't mean that's as good as it gets, or ever should get. And thanks, but I don't need a rest.

You and Paul Pope should start a
Nikon- bashing fan club or something.

Once more you expose your ignorance, or at least your inability to read. No one is bashing Nikon. They've made a decision (to stick with the DX sensor) and that decision will have (is already having) consequences. Pointing that out is not bashing, it's facing up to the facts and the truth. But thanks for lumping me with Paul Pope, I consider that good company.

 

[gwprovost]

You do NOT even OWN a FF Canon Camera, yet you are bashing Nikon
for Not providing one....too funny.

Not yet, but soon. I'm waiting for Photokina, and not bashing Nikon at all.

Everyone talks about how far Nikon is behind because they don't
have FF, but let's face it, most Canon owners do NOT own the 1Ds!!

If "everyone" says it, don't you think that means something?

Your kit includes ONE brand...laugh... I currently ONLY own
camera's from three manufactures...but I've sold of a few in the
past couple years funding digital tools.. So I'm really not much of
a Nikon bigot as I realize that....

I've owned Fuji (ouch), Nikon, Kodak and Canon, film and digital.

Camera are just TOOLS!!!

Same tired song, too nonsensical to merit a response.

Why do Canon idiots feel the need to post on the Nikon forum. You
do NOT own Nikon gear, yet you have nothing better to do then to go
onto Nikon forums, and attempt to convince people that Nikon is
going in the wrong direction?

People ask questions, I have some education, knowledge and experience and if I think I can help, then I answer. Any questions I can answer for you?

Get a life..

Mine is just fine, thanks. Even without all the exclamation points.

 

[cameraman12]

What I find really funny about all you measurebators is stuff like this makes you look silly...

http://www.studio5tv.com/pub/sisley/sisley.htm

If you don't know why, then you have no business shooting with the equipment you do or complaing about Nikon or whatever?

what's truly pathetic is a bunch of people holding a 1.6x camera
and a crappy lens which can't mount on anything else brag about
something called 'ff' they could never afford. what's more pathetic
is a $1000 entry level camera beats a $4500 flagship in start-up
time, CF write speed, flashsync speed, dynamic buffer, low-light
autofocus, and the $4500 camera was marketed for 'speed'...