D3X(or whatever)- A step forward or not

First of all, there is no D3X or whatever. Spreading rumors about the next camera before the current one is even released is a plague of these forums - people who spend more time talking about equipment than shooting with it. 90% of the rumor info posted on photography forums turns out to be incorrect. Obviously, there will be more cameras from Nikon. But no one posting here really knows the details because the people who do know can't tell you.

Today's cameras are computers and as we all know, computer life cycles and time-to-market cycles are much shorter than traditional SLR cycles in which models remained current for many years. There's ALWAYS going to be something else coming out next that is presumably better (although frequently just has more marketable functions thrown in that no one uses anyway.) Ten years from now, we'll probably be shooting with 100MP cameras, the noise issues with small photosites will be solved and computers will be fast enough to handle the large image sizes so that it doesn't negatively affect workflow. It all sounds great, but want to wait ten years?

If you always wait for the next thing, you'll never buy anything (which actually is fine if you're satisfied with the performance of your current equipment.)

Also, I don't know how others feel about this, but I always find it a bit grating when someone writes, "Convince me not to..." or the like. Maybe I'm nuts, but I always find that to be a passive-aggressive stance. It's not anyone's "job" to convince anyone of anything. It's one thing to say, "help me understand the pros/cons of a 12MP vs 24MP camera" and quite another to imply, "I dare you to stop me from buying this camera." Read the forums, research the facts and see how it all fits in with your needs and shooting style. Then make your own decisions.
 
Everyone is always posting about the importance of high ISO performance but I'm always wondering just what are these dark places that everyone is shooting in all the time? I shoot concerts frequently, and though the D2x high ISO isn't very good, I'm still able to create good images in these situations. Is this forum filled with other concert shooters?

So I'm wondering, what is it that you shoot that you feel that good ISO800 performance (like that of the D2x) isn't enough for you and that you need good ISO performance at 6400 or whatever.
--
http://www.johnricard.com
 
24 MP with about D200 photosite size and current technology will have
less noise than D200 has, but will have much poorer low light
capability than D3 has.
What if Nikon followed (yet again) Canon and introduced SmallRAW... They divide the number of pixels by four (which has to have something to do with some kind of interpolation routine) and thus the 40D can create 2,5MP raw files. If there were a total of 24 megapixels, it would give quite fabulous 6 megapixels - better per pixel acutance and noise performance. And wouldn't hog too much memory cards or disc space.

And when you'd need the resolution and quality, you'd just switch on the full 24 megapixels, 14 bit depth and zero compression. Take that into your RawMagick Lite and you've just kicked some medium-format-a$$.

Clever b@stards, that Canon folk.

--
regards
Janne Mankila, Finland

12.9.07
My thoughts on the new Fiat 500 and the
deeper meaning for travelling without a cause:
http://jannemankila.googlepages.com
 
Everyone is always posting about the importance of high ISO
performance but I'm always wondering just what are these dark places
that everyone is shooting in all the time? I shoot concerts
frequently, and though the D2x high ISO isn't very good, I'm still
able to create good images in these situations. Is this forum filled
with other concert shooters?
I shoot stills for movie/television, and the D2X is not/has never been up to the task IMHO. I do put up with it, but with constant frustration. Only close-ups look good, because of the detail masking the noise instead of the other way around.

Typical exposure is 1/125 at f:2,8 ISO1000, just barely enough. Most performers move fast enough to have you record motion blur often at that shutter, and the chance of having more than one person in focus at any one time is remote at that aperture, let alone the lower optic performance, the challenged AF system, and so on .... Yes, it's that dark in the studios...The thing is, Canon has demonstrated that hi ISO is a valuable feature: hosts of pro's have migrated just for that reason.

Sports, stage, stills, news, events,and a good part of nature photographers have a use for low noise hi-ISO. That's a lot of people. Now that the technology is there, we want it, and want it now.
So I'm wondering, what is it that you shoot that you feel that good
ISO800 performance (like that of the D2x) isn't enough for you and
that you need good ISO performance at 6400 or whatever.
A clean 3200 ISO is what I hope for: it will make quite a difference at least for what I do.
--
Jean Bernier

All photographs are only more or less credible illusions
 
I shoot stills for movie/television, and the D2X is not/has never
been up to the task IMHO.
I agree with you in this regard. And like me, you "need" a better camera for some of your work. The annoying thing however, is how many people on this forum are writing about ISO 6400, but don't have any real need for it. It's like demanding your car go 120mph when the speed limit is 60mph. What's the point?

--
http://www.johnricard.com
 
I shoot stills for movie/television, and the D2X is not/has never
been up to the task IMHO.
I agree with you in this regard. And like me, you "need" a better
camera for some of your work. The annoying thing however, is how
many people on this forum are writing about ISO 6400, but don't have
any real need for it. It's like demanding your car go 120mph when
the speed limit is 60mph. What's the point?
I'll gladly work with a 6,400 ISO capable camera, because the hi-ISO capability will trickle down to the "low" ISO's such as an extremely clean 400 ISO and so on...

Simple as that. Some (including me perhaps) will never use the 6,400 and above, but for those who need it, such as sport in dim arena's, etc, it'll be there.

As to your car analogy, a car that does 120 mph effortlessly, has good acceleration. This can save your life some day. The same for having a five passenger car:l not the best ecological choice, but it comes handy once in a while for me: it's a package.

Those that may suffer are those shooting syncro flash in full sunlight, with base ISO of 200: ND filters are on their way....
--
Jean Bernier

All photographs are only more or less credible illusions
 
I shoot competitive fencing. These are held indoors. National tournaments are held in convention centers with traditional convention center lighting. Smaller competitions are held in even worse lighting.

No flash is allowed. It is an action sport. You need 1600-3200 ISO to be able to properly expose a shot at about f/4 (I don't like shooting wide open) and 1/350s to 1/500s. I'd like to shoot even faster shutter speeds but I can't.

--
Mike Dawson
 
I agree with you in this regard. And like me, you "need" a better
camera for some of your work. The annoying thing however, is how
many people on this forum are writing about ISO 6400, but don't have
any real need for it. It's like demanding your car go 120mph when
the speed limit is 60mph. What's the point?
How do you know what the majority of the posters in this forum need?
--
Mike Dawson
 
I used to write in these threads " just like in sumo, another
japanese sport, size always wins over technical skill, so a FF is
desirable, no matter what the APS proponents say..."
As a fan of sumo, I can say this is absolutely wrong. Smaller guys very often win against much bigger guys. In fact, I'm watching a tournament as I waste timing surfing Dpreview right now, and it just happened before my eyes. Smaller guys win with superior speed, mobility, and smarts. The king of the sport right now, Asashoryu, is smaller than many of his opponents.

--
Kyoto, Japan
http://www.kotodama.net
 
Even if you can only save 24MP raw files with this virtual D3x, if you downsize them to 12MP in PP I doubt noise would be less than that of D3.

--
Philip

 
Even if you can only save 24MP raw files with this virtual D3x, if you downsize them to 12MP in PP I doubt noise would be more than that of D3.

--
Philip

 
I agree with you in this regard. And like me, you "need" a better
camera for some of your work. The annoying thing however, is how
many people on this forum are writing about ISO 6400, but don't have
any real need for it. It's like demanding your car go 120mph when
the speed limit is 60mph. What's the point?
How do you know what the majority of the posters in this forum need?
--
Mike Dawson
I don't know what anyone needs and that is why I asked the question, "What Do You Shoot"? in my original post in this thread. It is about 5 posts above this one right now.

--
http://www.johnricard.com
 
Everyone is always posting about the importance of high ISO
performance but I'm always wondering just what are these dark places
that everyone is shooting in all the time?
I also get the impression sometimes these forums are not about Photography (painting with light) but about Hisography (cranking up the ISO so you can get sharp noiseless handheld photos with whatever light happens to be there at any random moment). Obviously I'm part of a very small minority.

--
Philip

 
I used to write in these threads " just like in sumo, another
japanese sport, size always wins over technical skill, so a FF is
desirable, no matter what the APS proponents say..."
As a fan of sumo, I can say this is absolutely wrong. Smaller guys
very often win against much bigger guys. In fact, I'm watching a
tournament as I waste timing surfing Dpreview right now, and it just
happened before my eyes. Smaller guys win with superior speed,
mobility, and smarts. The king of the sport right now, Asashoryu, is
smaller than many of his opponents.
Thanks for clarifying this: I'll stop using this analogy. My source was National Geographic Magazine, in an article a couple of years ago. I guess I can't trust that source anymore. I'll rely on your expertize instead. LOL
--
Jean Bernier

All photographs are only more or less credible illusions
 
Read the line that starts with "The annoying thing however..." This comes just after the sentence that concludes that you and the other poster "need" a better camera.

Forums are hard places to get meaning across without frequent misinterpretation. I suspect that you did not intend for the post to come across that way. And maybe it didn't for most of the other readers here.
I agree with you in this regard. And like me, you "need" a better
camera for some of your work. The annoying thing however, is how
many people on this forum are writing about ISO 6400, but don't have
any real need for it. It's like demanding your car go 120mph when
the speed limit is 60mph. What's the point?
How do you know what the majority of the posters in this forum need?
--
Mike Dawson
I don't know what anyone needs and that is why I asked the question,
"What Do You Shoot"? in my original post in this thread. It is about
5 posts above this one right now.

--
http://www.johnricard.com
--
Mike Dawson
 
If we assume the same sensor technology, but twice as many pixels, then each pixel has half the well depth and the same read noise. Averaging 4 pixels together will increase the read noise over the single larger pixel by a factor of 2, for the same measured signal. So you lose a full stop of dynamic range; or, equivalently, the shadow noise is doubled. If one claims that the maximum "usable" ISO of the D3 is 3200, then a hypothetical 24 mpixel D2x using the same sensor technology would have a "maximum usable ISO" of 1600.

Still, not bad.

This assumes you are photon-starved at the lower end of the histogram (probably a good assumption).

--
David
http://www.photo.net/photodb/user?user_id=587727
 
Read the line that starts with "The annoying thing however..." This
comes just after the sentence that concludes that you and the other
poster "need" a better camera.
I was referring you to my ORIGINAL post in this thread. The post was titled, 'What do you shoot" and it ended with the following question:
So I'm wondering, what is it that you shoot that you feel that good ISO800 > performance (like that of the D2x) isn't enough for you and that you need good > ISO performance at 6400 or whatever.
While I ended that sentence with a period rather than a quesiton mark, I think it is clear that I am sincerely asking the poster what he shoots.

The post can be found here:
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1021&message=24835867
 

Keyboard shortcuts

Back
Top