So Nikon got their new d700, are we next? (nt)

SteveGJ · Jul 1, 2008

It's useful for cropping. Crop a 24MP FF image to APS-C size and it's equivalent to A200 resolution (and field of view). If you have a 12MP FF and crop to the same you are back to sub-5D levels. The ability to crop might be useful to those who want that extra reach from a 500mm lens as the finding a 750mm to fit to a 12MP FF camera is going to be difficult/expensive and using a TC on such a lens is not normally an option.

Of course you might arge, why not use an APS-C in the first place, but the FF could be required for DoF or framing reasons.

If the 24MP can be persuaded to give better noise performance (maybe by some more complex sampling to even out shot noise, or just because of the averaging effect), then it could provide better noise performance than a 10MP APS-C sensor at an equivalent FoV.

aarif · Jul 1, 2008

The specs on this camera is so tempting it will give me sleepless nights, Nikon have made it in such a way that I couldn't have asked for anything more..... I was dreaming for such a camera by Sony with SSS and prime CZ glass.....what a great combo that would have been

I don't think Sony has ever announced a 12-14mp FF sensor so they don't even have one....makes me think there isn't any A800 on the way but I hope I'm wrong
--
You're welcome to visit my latest Gallery
http://www.pbase.com/aarif/bangkok_april_2008
http://www.pbase.com/aarif/chiang_mai_2008__songkran

mike_2008 · Jul 1, 2008

Well that's that then. Any news on the weight and price of the Flagship?

cgarrard said:
no just the flagship

Sony's only got one more camera this year coming.
--
http://www.AlphaMountWorld.com
http://www.CarlGarrardPhotography.com

Get out there and paint some light.

fjbyrne · Jul 1, 2008

lizardmech said:
I hope sony release the 24mp model first, a 12mp one doesn't interest
me much as I rarely shoot over 1600 ISO.

I've been using DRO on my A700 and really like it. It does a lot of what you would likely do in PP. The only issue is that it raise the noise in a photo. I am assuming that if the original image has less noise it can make DRO more effective. If I'm mistaken I'm sure some nice soul on this forum will let me know

--
fjbyrne

Ehrik · Jul 1, 2008

SteveGJ said:
I haven't time to reply to all this now, but shot noise as a
proportion of the arrival rate increases with reduced arrival rates.
Basically the arrival rate becomes more and more erratic.

I'm completely aware of this.

SteveGJ said:
That makes the noise much more noticable in the dark areas.

But it isn't shot noise we are looking at in the deep shadows, because,
as I wrote:
"in the deep shadows, the read noise (which is independent of signal)
is overwhelming the shot noise"

Read noise is the limiting factor in the deep shadows and shot noise
above the deep shadows.

SteveGJ said:
At high arrival
rates it smooths out as a proportion - there's lots of articles
around on this.

I'm fully aware of this and it doesn't contradict what I said.

SteveGJ said:
It's also obvious - look at any properly exposed high-ISO image with
dark shadow areas, and the noise is much more obvious than in the
light areas.

For the dark shadow areas, this is mainly because the read noise is
amplified with the signal. The shot noise is still overwhelmed by this
(and higher up in the tonal range than at lower ISOs).

SteveGJ said:
Take a high ISO image in a universally well illuminated
area and the noise is almost invisible. Human eyes don't react
linearly.

I think, when you have more time, you should read again what I wrote
and think about it. We agree on shot noise, in isolation, but you have to
consider read noise too.

Just my two oere
Erik from Sweden

nemofin · Jul 1, 2008

I can not agree more!
I would so much love to see sony FF with 12-14mpx & big VF.
That would be a ultimate cam to go with my Zeiss primes...

Buttoneer · Jul 1, 2008

I absolutely agree with you but one has to wonder whether the 'could be' in your sentence is enough reason for the manufacturer and eventual purchaser spending the extra cash.

Of course the real reason is probably that people are blinded by the megapixel war so it will be bought for that reason alone...

SteveGJ said:
Of course you might arge, why not use an APS-C in the first place,
but the FF could be required for DoF or framing reasons.

fjbyrne · Jul 1, 2008

aarif said:
The specs on this camera is so tempting it will give me sleepless
nights, Nikon have made it in such a way that I couldn't have asked
for anything more..... I was dreaming for such a camera by Sony with
SSS and prime CZ glass.....what a great combo that would have been

I don't think Sony has ever announced a 12-14mp FF sensor so they
don't even have one....makes me think there isn't any A800 on the way
but I hope I'm wrong
--
You're welcome to visit my latest Gallery
http://www.pbase.com/aarif/bangkok_april_2008
http://www.pbase.com/aarif/chiang_mai_2008__songkran

aarif,

With 20-20 hindsight do you now wish you had gone with Nikon instead of Canon?

--
fjbyrne

SteveGJ · Jul 1, 2008

Agreed there is a degree of read noise (noise introduced by the charge-to-current, amplification and A/D conversion). However, that very amplification stage amplifies shot noise. To a certain extent, other sources of noise can be reduced by various techniques, some of which aren't practical in a DSLR - such as cooling the sensor. Some are improved by fine tuning of designs, improved electronics and so on. However, at the limit, the unavoidable noise is the shot noise. It's at its most important in the dark areas as that's where the Signall to Noise Ratio (SNR) due to shot noise is at it's worse. Amplifying a signal with shot noise in it will amplify the shot noise and add any read noise. DSLR sensors are actually closer to these theoretical shot noise limits than people might appreciate.

Given that observable noise is demonstrably worse in shadow areas than in mid-tone or bright areas, then I don't see why this is a point of controversy.

lizardmech · Jul 1, 2008

Barry Fitzgerald said:
lizardmech said:

I hope sony release the 24mp model first, a 12mp one doesn't interest
me much as I rarely shoot over 1600 ISO.

Click to expand...

So a 12mp full frame..just wouldnt "cut it" for you??

Ok, I would be pretty happy with that myself, even for low ISO..

--

I am not the 'Ghost Hunter', nor am I the Irish actor in the 'Quiet
Man' ;-)

Bayer sensors look so-so any where near 100% crops. I have used the 1DsIII a few times, 20+ MP on FF is very nice.

Also I already have 12mp with my A700, spending 2x as much on another body and only gaining FF DoF and iso3200+ perforance I never use is not very enticing.

MinoltaDrew · Jul 1, 2008

Good question there -- is the A900 going to compare to the D3x or the D700?

Will Sony make a A1000 (A1?) or A800 to fill in the gap?

tme · Jul 1, 2008

I am fully expecting SONY to release or announce 3 models or even more by Photokina...

The 24MP full frame advanced amateur body will likely be released at Photokina - no more waiting. This will cater to high resolution users and make full use of the full frame lenses already released. And then they will likely release a 14MP or 16MP full frame very high speed advanced amateur/professional body two months down the road. And likely SONY will make an announcement of a 24MP full frame professional body with all the bells and whistles for Feb 2009. And very possibly also release the update for the A700 at that stage as well...

That's my take at the moment given how the market moved over the past 9 months... and those are really the market segments that SONY is not having any products in... Thus it will be a 5 product market structure with options within each category except the very top.

So SONY to release and announce at least 4 new bodies.

Just my 2 cents worth of speculation...

Ehrik · Jul 1, 2008

SteveGJ said:
Agreed there is a degree of read noise (noise introduced by the
charge-to-current, amplification and A/D conversion). However, that
very amplification stage amplifies shot noise.

It amplifies all the signal and all the noise that comes before the amplification, shot noise (which is really a part of signal) AND the sensor pre-amplification readout noise.

SteveGJ said:
To a certain extent,
other sources of noise can be reduced by various techniques, some of
which aren't practical in a DSLR - such as cooling the sensor.

That's thermal noise for long exposures, which is outside what we have
been discussing here so far.

SteveGJ said:
Some are improved by fine tuning of designs, improved electronics
and so on.

Correct.

SteveGJ said:
However, at the limit, the unavoidable noise is the shot noise.
It's at its most important in the dark areas as that's where the
Signall to Noise Ratio (SNR) due to shot noise is at it's worse.

But it's NOT the most important in the deep shadows because
read noise takes over. A numerical example, fictive numbers, just
to give you the idea:

Let's say you have 5 electrons of read noise. When the signal is
100 electrons, the shot noise is sqrt(100)=10 electrons and the
most important noise source. But when the signal is 9 electrons,
the shot noise is 3 electrons and read noise is the most important
noise source.

SteveGJ said:
Amplifying a signal with shot noise in it will amplify the shot noise
and add any read noise.

It will amplify the pre-amp read noise too. Particularly for high ISO,
this is the dominating part of the read noise an also a dominating
part of the noise no longer only in the deepest shadows but also
a bit higher on the tonal range. This is the reason for most DSLRs
not having a real ISO 3200. Doubling the ISO 1600 raw data
gives the same SNR.

SteveGJ said:
DSLR sensors are actually closer to these
theoretical shot noise limits than people might appreciate.

If the read noise could be eliminated, there would be very nice
improvement both in DR and in usable (not clean) high ISO capacity.

SteveGJ said:
Given that observable noise is demonstrably worse in shadow areas
than in mid-tone or bright areas, then I don't see why this is a
point of controversy.

This doesn't contradict what I have been saying so I don't see a
need for a controversy.

Just my two oere
Erik from Sweden

AgentWD40 · Jul 1, 2008

fjbyrne said:
Auto-focus tracking by color (using information from 1005-pixel AE

sensor)

fjbyrne said:
Scene Recognition System (uses AE sensor, AF sensor)

Not sure what this is. Sounds neat though.

It uses the 1005 element RGB metering sensor to try and guess the scene from an integrated library. It then uses the info to help the AF.

José B · Jul 1, 2008

No not the D700 nor D3----it's their much heralded Nikon progressive lenses

for my new eyeglasses.

BTW, you really like the D700? Personally I am not excited by it because I have an APS-H sensor camera that has pixel density of 16MP

Also, I would rather shoot with a 1.3 cropper with a 300/2.8 lens as it is cheaper and lighter than a FF and 400/2.8! However, I do understand why Sony shooters are anxious to see a Sony equivalent of the D700.

Cheers,

José

aarif said:
The specs on this camera is so tempting it will give me sleepless
nights, Nikon have made it in such a way that I couldn't have asked
for anything more..... I was dreaming for such a camera by Sony with
SSS and prime CZ glass.....what a great combo that would have been

I don't think Sony has ever announced a 12-14mp FF sensor so they
don't even have one....makes me think there isn't any A800 on the way
but I hope I'm wrong
--
You're welcome to visit my latest Gallery
http://www.pbase.com/aarif/bangkok_april_2008
http://www.pbase.com/aarif/chiang_mai_2008__songkran

--
Feeling it from downtown with the 1D-Trey and hitting the quadrupLe-doubLe
Recent work:
http://www.pbase.com/jmb_56/char_1dmkiii
http://www.pbase.com/jmb_56/alexia_1diii
http://www.pbase.com/jmb_56/carra08
http://www.pbase.com/jmb_56/kirstie_1diii
http://www.pbase.com/jmb_56/treina_1diii

fjbyrne · Jul 1, 2008

AgentWD40 said:
fjbyrne said:

Auto-focus tracking by color (using information from 1005-pixel AE

sensor)

Click to expand...

AgentWD40 said:

Scene Recognition System (uses AE sensor, AF sensor)

Not sure what this is. Sounds neat though.

Click to expand...

It uses the 1005 element RGB metering sensor to try and guess the
scene from an integrated library. It then uses the info to help the
AF.

Sounds pretty neat. Any real world experiences?

--
fjbyrne

aarif · Jul 1, 2008

fjbyrne said:
With 20-20 hindsight do you now wish you had gone with Nikon instead
of Canon?

not at all Canon has served me well but I like the specs on this camera it will be very nice for my trips

--
You're welcome to visit my latest Gallery
http://www.pbase.com/aarif/bangkok_april_2008
http://www.pbase.com/aarif/chiang_mai_2008__songkran

aarif · Jul 1, 2008

José B said:
BTW, you really like the D700? Personally I am not excited by it
because I have an APS-H sensor camera that has pixel density of 16MP
Also, I would rather shoot with a 1.3 cropper with a 300/2.8 lens
as it is cheaper and lighter than a FF and 400/2.8! However, I do
understand why Sony shooters are anxious to see a Sony equivalent of
the D700.

I don't disagree with you Jose I love what I have but this looks tempting too lets see what Canon does shortly

--
You're welcome to visit my latest Gallery
http://www.pbase.com/aarif/bangkok_april_2008
http://www.pbase.com/aarif/chiang_mai_2008__songkran

AgentWD40 · Jul 1, 2008

fjbyrne said:
Sounds pretty neat. Any real world experiences?

Sorry, just the theory.

Nikon have an interview with the designer here http://imaging.nikon.com/products/imaging/technology/scene/19/ if you're interested.

Buttoneer · Jul 1, 2008

Good interview. This part;

"The 51-point AF system employed in the D3 and D300 has significantly improved AF performance, but now with the advent of 3D-Tracking, rather than constantly tracking the subject while keeping it in the center, it’s possible to freely create a composition and shoot while tracking the subject. At a tennis match, for instance, you might like to change the space to the left or right depending on whether the player is using a forehand or a backhand swing. I think a great attraction of 3D-Tracking is the ability to change angles in line with rapid movements."

Wow.

AgentWD40 said:
fjbyrne said:

Sounds pretty neat. Any real world experiences?

Click to expand...

Sorry, just the theory.

Nikon have an interview with the designer here
http://imaging.nikon.com/products/imaging/technology/scene/19/ if
you're interested.

So Nikon got their new d700, are we next? (nt)

Senior Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Leading Member

Forum Enthusiast

Veteran Member

Senior Member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Veteran Member

Senior Member

Forum Pro

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Senior Member

Forum Enthusiast

Keyboard shortcuts