Nikon FF D700 (possible leak - looks real)

rwbaron said:

MaxFX said:

How would it hurt you to get more MP in a camera that still offers
better DR and NR along with weather sealing, micro lens adjustment,
dust cleaning system, faster fps, etc. than existing 5D?
--
MaxFX

Click to expand...

Because there is always a trade off. More MP's means smaller pixels
which, all things being equal, requires more amplification for the
same signal level because the pixels can't collect as much light. If
you apply the same technology and design to a 16 MP FF and a 12 MP FF
the 12 should have lower noise and better DR because of the larger
pixel size. Many seem to be perfectly happy with 12 or 13 MP in a FF
camera as evidenced by the success and incredible images coming from
5D's and D3's.

Click to expand...

In the end, what matters is the number of photons represented per unit area in the final print. This really depends on sensor size not the pixel pitch. The effects of different size pixels cancel out when you sample to whatever is the required resolution for the final image. On the other hand, if you've a certain maximum print size in mind, enough pixels is enough. at 200dpi final print, 12 MPix will give something like 50cm prints, and a good FF sensor gives decent noise performance for that size print.

rwbaron said:

More MP's also means larger memory cards and more storage needs and
again, all things being equal, smaller buffers and slower shooting
rates. New technology does not always solve the problem of
diminishing returns.

Click to expand...

Yes, that is the main disadvantage of high pixel count sensors.

rwbaron said:

Virtually every test I've read shows that the
10MP 40D has slightly more noise than the 8 MP 30D.

Click to expand...

About the same at equal magnification, a bit worse per pixel. Interestingly, Canon sensor technology doesn't appear to have progressed since the 20D if you look at the efficiency measurements here http://theory.uchicago.edu/~ejm/pix/20d/tests/noise/noise-p3.html

rwbaron said:

IMO sensor
design has hit a wall that will not come down until some new
revolutionary technology pushes high MP's with lower noise and better
DR to another level.

Click to expand...

I think you're right, the D3 sensor is the best you can get for efficiency, but it's only about 15% better than the Canons, which is a fraction of a stop. This seems to be about the limit with a silicon Bayer sensor.

rwbaron said:

I know that I'm spitting in the wind here as Canon will undoutably
increase the MP's on the 5D replacement. I just hope they don't
sacrifice too much on the IQ side in doing so.

Click to expand...

Just like the Ds's, so long as you keep the print size to the same as you would for the 5D, the IQ will be the same, or hopefully (with a newer generation sensor) a bit better. However, you'll get the option of big prints if you can stand the noise (you will spend more on memory, though).

--
Bob

canon takes advantage from nikon by 5d for many years

but if this gone, check canon again, you will find canon falls back by

1 metering, 2 flash, 3 focusing(back/front), 4 zoom lens(70-200/24-70), 5 wide angle lens(14-24), 6 iso(d3), 7 marco lens(105 vr, 60 vr)........many many fields behind nikon already.

and i don't think it is easy for canon to catch up nikon on all these fields in only few years.

last year canon only released 2 new L lenses, but how many new lenses from nikon?

--
2007 Lynx Award

Best Lens:za 135 1.8 (lens for dimlight portrait, shutter speed can be very low to brighten background with sony A700)

hoping: Canon 135 f1.8/1.4 IS USM + Guide Number 80， New Handle Mount Flash

Harris, I see your point in general. But please be real. Who here is really worried? Are you worried? Because I know I'm not. C'mon be honest. Do you think just because people discuss non-Canon gear that somehow automatically = worry? Could this possibly be self projection?

I for one look forward to all advancements in digital SLRs regardless of the manufacturer. So I hope Nikon produces an extemely agressive release which goes head to head with the 5D II. And Canon will force them be driven by market forces to produce an even better product. This is a Good thing! So who is worrying really? This is called technological advancement in the digital revolution - bottom line.

Please don't assume what people are thinking when simply discussing various technologies unless it is really you who is worried I see these silly assumptions way to often here - a phobia of the unknown.

Backdoctor said:

does it affect you and your gear working now, or even then?

I never get it when folks with one brand worry about what another
brand will do years down the road....

Use and enjoy what you have. Whatever it is, has to be better than
what YOU were using years back. Thats all that counts now, isnt it?

--
Harris

PBase/DPReview/NTF supporter
Egret Stalker #4, WSSA #29

http://www.pbase.com/backdoctor

Click to expand...

--
Derek

We all love to talk about the latest / greatest / not yet announced camera, from Canon or Nikon and how the new camera body will allow one or the other manufacturer to obliviate the competition.

At the end of the day though, it is the lens's that make the image happen for us. Nikon users are looking forward to more "nano-crystal" coated lens's. Perhaps an 85mm f1.4 with IFS and the new coatings; perhaps some new fast wide primes to replace the old MF AIS lens's that we have to scrounge around ebay and KEH for; perhaps a new 100-400 or 70-300 pro class lens ?

Canon users are ready for some mkII revisions of some of it's wide and ultrawide lens's. I for one am hoping for a mkII version of the 24-70, but I'm probably going to give up hope for a mkIII 16-35. Canon makes a great ultra-high MP sensor in the 1DsIII, they just can't make an ultrawide zoom that supports it.

Canon makes some great long lens's, and Nikon makes some great mid range, wide and UWA zooms. It's almost as if you need to own both systems just to get all of the lens's that you need.

The mid-cost 5D, when it was introduced, became a "cult camera", not just because of the image quality that it offered at it's price point, but because it's IQ was arguably better, in some aspects, then cameras costing twice as much. By contrast, the Nikon rumored D700 would likely offer IQ identical to or similar to the D3, at much less cost. I expect that we will see a lot of D3 users going with the D700 (or whatever they call it) as a second body.

Still, I don't really need a D700 or a 5DmkII. I need new glass however. I'm hoping that some of these new announcements will address that.

John,

I agree with what you are saying regarding lenses, especially at the wide end which is where I shoot. And quite frankly no manufacturer has it all together yet for my purposes - landscapes.

The Nikon 14-24 is definately the class leader at the wide end. But I really do prefer the 16-35 range. And its bulbous front element doesn't take filters which is also a problem. I know several landscape photographers who ended up getting the 1DSIII and the 16-35LII lens are a 'good enough' piece of glass at the wide end. And I have accepted this WA limitation if I stay with Canon.

But I really like the new Sony Zeiss line. Their 24-70 and 70-200 are top of the line. The 24-70 Zeiss even rated better than the new Nikon which is also a great new lens for resolving detail. So I am waiting to see what Sony does at the wide. A new 16-35 Zeiss is coming next. If that lens follows in the same optical quality as its two other longer brethren then that line is going to offer a great full range for those looking for top quality glass.

--
Derek

For the record, the Cub Cadet looked real to me.

genotypewriter said:

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1021&message=28323310

GTW
--
http://www.flickr.com/genotypewriter

Click to expand...

--
People who claim to be open minded never see it my way.

I hope the sensors are not made from oil.
--
Lerch