Nikon's new FX cameras are going up in price, not down.

Started Dec 1, 2011 | Discussions thread
bobn2 Forum Pro • Posts: 54,156
Re: Yes, a $4k, 36 MP D800 was a made-up rumor IMO.

Jim Keye wrote:

You and some others show a remarkable knowledge of technical things and and impressive ignorance of serious--let alone vocational--camera use.

That is always the last refuge of the technically ignorant - 'why don't you take photos'. It is irrelevant, and also a nonsense. Have you seen Iliah's extensive DPR portfolio? Do you think that it's absence means that he isn't a serious professional photographer, or, for that matter the many other real photographers who post here but don't choose a gear froum to be the outlet for their work.

You can hardly wait to tell us all how doomed nikon is if the D4 isn't 24 MPs.

Have I ever said that? My view is that the D4 could be pretty close to the 1D X and Nikon or Canon would share the spoils more or less evenly, or Nikon could put all the tech they have available in the D4 and it will kill the 1D X. What do you think they are going to do?

Yet not even your brand agrees with you. Huh.

Do you know the background to the design of the 1D X? Do you know the constraints Canon is working to with its fab lines and the limitations of its stepper technology? Have you thought of the corporate shame there would be in admitting they can only make a competitive sensor using ASML or Nikon photolithography? What do you think that a good marketing department would do faced with that? In the old adage, make a virtue of a necessity.

Personally, I'm amazed how cheap and convenient storage is,

Storage is one aspect of the equation.

Personally I'm amazed how cheap and available processing power is. Many mobile phones have as much processing power as did a top of the line PC when the D3 was announced.

Sometimes less is more. Not really in your line of thinking, I realize.

No my line of thinking at all. It leads to the conclusion that the ideal camera is the one pixel sort, since that has the smallest files possible (except, I suppose a zero pixel camera, which would have infinite image storage capacity).

Yes, I too am glad we don't cross the atlantic by way of cruise ships anymore, but that has no bearing on the fact that when you compare airline tickets, cheaper is still cheaper.

When you cross the Atlantic which would you prefer to go, economy, business or first? Why do you think the airlines offer the latter two options?

speaking of what I didn't write: I never said it was a problem, I said it was an expense.

and expense is no problem?

And it's time.

depends on what you compare with what. By Moore's law our computers are over four times as powerful as they were when the D3 was released, so we should really be looking at 48MP before we start complaining. Or perhaps we should be designing our cameras around the 640k IBM PC, so no-one has too small a computer.

Newspapers and web are the last two places on earth that resolution is sought.

Exactly the thought process that bought the world the D2H

Even wedding photographers the world over are doing fine with 12 MPs.

That doesn't mean they wouldn't be doing more fine with 36MP.

The question every real photographer is asking themselves is this:

I'd like to see your survey or 'real photographers' where they produced this unanimous result. What sampling method did you use?

what percentage of the time do I need more.

You must be talking to a different set of 'real photographers' to me. I see entirely different thought processes going on.

I understand that thinking things through rather than drooling on spec sheets might be tough, but give it a go.

No chance, I've filled a few 1TB drives with photos, and at nearly $100 a shot, they're way too expensive for me to get any more. And about the same size as a packet of cigarettes, I simply don't have the space to keep them.

There are times when I will shoot 50 or 60 frames. There are times when I will shoot 500 or 600 frames. But at no point do I want a file size well above what I need.

The difference is in the definition of 'need', and the implicit assumption in your thinking that if you don't 'need' it then no-one else should have it. But of course, you have the advantage of knowing what all real photographers think. They seem to think just like you. There's a surprise.

hi-density-senor shooters "don't form a good demographic for deciding whether" a lower-density sensor is desirable.

The issue is not 'what is desirable' but 'what will sell'. Very few don't buy a camera because the pixel count is too high for them. The reverse is not true.

WTF does this have to do with the D2h?

The design ethos for the D2H was that newsprint photographers didn't need high resolution, so they didn't get it. Unfortunately for Nikon, they and their employers all (and 'all' is quite accurate here) bought the 1DII with twice the pixel count.

Look if I shot with telephotos, I would prefer aps-h and/or higher pixel density.

The APS-H bit is irrelevant, since you crop to the image. What matters is how many pixels you put under the subject, and that demands a decent pixel density. About the same as the best APS-C would be good, because thy produce some very nice images, 'despite' these tiny pixels.

Hell yes I would. But there is more to the D4/1D marketplace than telephoto shooters(!!)--there's more than one of us that would prefer Nikon not build the D4 slanted towards the 400mm+ club. It's as simple as that. Many of us see an 18 MP sensor with continued IQ improvements to be a more desirable specification. Get over it.

Each part of the market Nikon excludes results in fewer cameras sold. look at the lenses on display round sporting events, and the cameras they are attached to and you would realise that 'telephoto shooters' are a rather important (not to say crucial) part of the camera's target audience. If Nikon loses them, the D4 is dead.

Post (hide subjects) Posted by
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow