Reading mode: Light Dark

D800 ISO

Go to last post
I don't even get Nikon marketing strategy.

They are putting D4 (heavy big equipment) for photoj's / sports / fast photography, and at the same time they put in a very small body, the D800, and market it as a studio camera ???? WTF??? Why would a studio camera need to be smaller then an outside camera??

I think they will lose a lot of potential customers with this move (for one, myself). I will NOT give for a camera 5000$ (for the D4), but 2500/3000 i might, but for the D800 i will not....it's just too much MP in my opinion (put aside the ISO performance; file size, computer power, camera shake will be affected - not a thing I want in a camera.). I would be nice if one could just choose a lower MP count in the menu setting and mantin the same IQ - I thing that will not happen.

I think I'll just get a used D700, or wait for Canon to make a smarter move (I was using Oly and now choosing an alternative path :))

They should have swapped the sensors of the D4/D800.
 
colin88 said:
NEX 7 APS-C 24 Mp sensor density would lead to 48 Mp on Full size sensor.
Click to expand...
It's actually equivalent to 56Mpix FX.
colin88 said:
In spite of the X4 factor into pixel density between the two images, we can't see any dramatic decrease of high iso quality from D3S to NEX7
Click to expand...
You're not looking very hard. The NEX7 image is over-processed and completely unnatural. It appears to have been reconstructed by AI algorithms, which have cleaned up the bolder lines, but failed to recover fine detail. For example, the lettering is smeared to illegibility in the NEX7 image, but is still recognizable in the D3s image.
colin88 said:
That's why i am very confident in the future (and still hypothetic) 36 Mp-Full size of D800 behaviour at high iso.
Click to expand...
I believe there are good reasons to be confident that Nikon can produce a quality 36Mpix FX sensor, however this NEX7 example certainly isn't one of those reasons.
 
cluna said:
Don't make the mistaken assumption that QE is limited to 100%
Click to expand...
Only photo-multiplication can provide such QE figures - but increasing electron count in that manner does not reduce shot noise, which is the primary contributor to visible noise in mid-tones of high-ISO images. Regardless of the electron/photon ratio (Ne/Np) that you achieve, shot-noise limited SNR cannot be better than SQRT(Np).
 
James Bligh said:
D800 better than D3x; by resolution it may be, however diffraction is something you cannot escape from. In 36 MP FF diffraction will set in at F5.6 or F8, you should definitely avoid F11.
Click to expand...
Diffraction will set in at, or near, the same place it always has for a given lens + print\display size .
--
-KB-
 
byetom said:
i remember that 56kbs was the maximum possible throughput of data down a pair of copper cables. How wrong was that?
Click to expand...
It wasn't wrong. It's still true, if you're using a voice-grade connection and you don't have the convenience of a short signal path.
byetom said:
Things evolve. As do boundaries.
Click to expand...
What are you suggesting that we evolve our imaging systems to use, rather than visible light?
 
a_d_r_y_y said:
I don't even get Nikon marketing strategy.
Click to expand...
It's quite simple: They surprise us.
a_d_r_y_y said:
They are putting D4 (heavy big equipment) for photoj's / sports / fast photography, and at the same time they put in a very small body, the D800, and market it as a studio camera ???? . . . Why would a studio camera need to be smaller than an outside camera??
Click to expand...
Paradigm shifts happen.
 
a_d_r_y_y said:
I don't even get Nikon marketing strategy.

They are putting D4 (heavy big equipment) for photoj's / sports / fast photography, and at the same time they put in a very small body, the D800, and market it as a studio camera ???? WTF??? Why would a studio camera need to be smaller then an outside camera??
Click to expand...
Calling D300/D700/D800 a small body is a funny definition. If you ever handled an Olympus OM-1/4 you should remember what a small camera was (and how it worked). The D4 is bigger and heavier because it has to do jobs a studio camera will mever do: be banged around, stand heavy environments, permit instant connection to an editing center (crucial for photo agencies), furnish a lot of power to the system for the insane fps needed for the Olympics 100 final. Something a landscape/product/portait/groups photographer may never need. I think the wrong step was putting a high resolution sensor in a pj body, like they did with the D3X.
Fabio
 
Marianne Oelund said:
byetom said:
i remember that 56kbs was the maximum possible throughput of data down a pair of copper cables. How wrong was that?
Click to expand...
It wasn't wrong. It's still true, if you're using a voice-grade connection and you don't have the convenience of a short signal path.
Click to expand...
Actually a 56kbps limit over copper cable pairs was never thought to be true. The original design for T1 was 1.544mbps over copper cable, and that was 1960's technology.

The "short signal path" doesn't mean much either, and in fact "a voice-grade connection" implies some form of carrier system and the limitation to an arbitrary 4 KHz bandwidth (that is actually specified as 400-2800 Hz, not 4 KHz).

However, bytetom is correct that a lot of people at various times have claimed some specific data rate was the max for whatever, and they rarely had any clue at all what the actual limits were.
 
golf1982 said:
Utter rubbish. I suggest you learn some physics before you start telling others to 'brush up' on theirs
Click to expand...
Which of the following are you claiming to be rubbish?
A. The speed of light is constant
B. We cannot change Planck's constant
C. We cannot shift the location of visible light within the EM spectrum.
 
Marianne Oelund said:
cluna said:
Don't make the mistaken assumption that QE is limited to 100%
Click to expand...
Only photo-multiplication can provide such QE figures - but increasing electron count in that manner does not reduce shot noise, which is the primary contributor to visible noise in mid-tones of high-ISO images. Regardless of the electron/photon ratio (Ne/Np) that you achieve, shot-noise limited SNR cannot be better than SQRT(Np).
Click to expand...
Many of us just expect a little better then D700 at higher res....
thats the best the world has ever seen yet.....
and I judge that AS HIGH ISO CAPABILITY AT HIGHEST RESOLUTION....

You guys cant remember the days when we were taking pictures with 1600 iso film....
Peter
 
rhlpetrus said:
I agrre that the size of files will be huge at 36MP. If D7000's files at 16MP are any indication, expect NEFs at 40+ MB.

The ideal would be for Nikon to provide some sort of binned RAW at 18MP and another option at 9MP.
Click to expand...
Binning to get 18MP out from 36MP may not be a good idea since it produces uneven lower resolution either horizontal or vertical depending if rows or columns are binned. 9MP can be produced by 2x2 binning, but then you have to handle the aliasing somehow (like also the line binning case).
rhlpetrus said:
Moonwalker said:
"There is absolutely no way Nikon will release a new camera that is worse than its predecessor and there is no reason to assume that just because the D800 is not a flagship product it will be worse than the D3s."

The D800 will be a marvellous camera, I have no doubts. It will match or surpass the D3X in lowlight performance. And downsampled to 12MP some people will find it surpasses the D3S (I will disagree, of course).

Hardly any professional lowlight photographer will pick the D800 for his job. Dealing with those huge files and then downsize images to reduce noise is not a lowlight photographers's workflow. I work with both the D3S and D3X and love each camera for their strengths.

We haven't talked about the price tag of that camera yet. The D800 will sit above any Canon camera in resolution and will have its price tag. I can already visualize the "has Nikon gone mad?"-threads.

Best wishes,
Markus
Click to expand...
--
Renato.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/rhlpedrosa/
OnExposure member
http://www.onexposure.net/

Good shooting and good luck
(after Ed Murrow)
Click to expand...
 
apaflo said:
Actually a 56kbps limit over copper cable pairs was never thought to be true. The original design for T1 was 1.544mbps over copper cable, and that was 1960's technology.

The "short signal path" doesn't mean much either, and in fact "a voice-grade connection" implies some form of carrier system and the limitation to an arbitrary 4 KHz bandwidth (that is actually specified as 400-2800 Hz, not 4 KHz).
Click to expand...
Of course, it's the line equipment rather than the cable pair itself which imposed those lower limits, so the entire example is rather meaningless. The true bound of a copper pair is many orders of magnitude higher (and does depend on length), but it is not infinite. Neither is the amount of data that can be transferred by a finite number of photons.

Sooner or later, attempting to extrapolate historical progress will lead to a false conclusion. One cannot expect the rate of progress achieved in sensors over the last 10 years to continue indefinitely, and we are already close to fundamental physical limits. There are only so many photons.
 
rayman 2 said:
Many of us just expect a little better then D700 at higher res....
Click to expand...
A reasonable expectation.
rayman 2 said:
You guys cant remember the days when we were taking pictures with 1600 iso film....
Click to expand...
When I was young, I was taking pictures with a little Nemo box camera, and there was no such thing as 1600 ASA (not ISO in those days) color film.
 
ohyva said:
Binning to get 18MP out from 36MP may not be a good idea since it produces uneven lower resolution either horizontal or vertical depending if rows or columns are binned. 9MP can be produced by 2x2 binning, but then you have to handle the aliasing somehow (like also the line binning case).
Click to expand...
I once drew out a rough sketch that would be a somewhat sensible way for cutting down file size. Basically, smaller raw files would require that the RGGB array is retained, since raw converters will have to be able to convert them. I found a way to reduce the original image size to a quarter, or, say, 36 megapixels to nine.

Here's the post with a fancy picture for illustrational purposes:
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1021&message=36105291

The algorithm is problematic, and its effects to image quality completely unexplored, but people who know maths would do better job in a minute. :)

--
regards
Janne Mankila, Finland
 
Jim Keye said:
So the point of a hi-MP camera is to downsample the images so that they look as good or fractionally better than a low-res camera?
Click to expand...
The point of a hi-MP camera is that at high-ISO (or high DOF, ie, large f-numbers) it produces the same or slightly better image than a low-MP camera while at the same time producing a vastly superior image at low-ISO (and moderate f-stops). In other words, in terms of IQ, there is no downside with high-MP but a substantial upside at low ISO.
 
Marianne Oelund said:
golf1982 said:
Utter rubbish. I suggest you learn some physics before you start telling others to 'brush up' on theirs
Click to expand...
Which of the following are you claiming to be rubbish?
A. The speed of light is constant
B. We cannot change Planck's constant
C. We cannot shift the location of visible light within the EM spectrum.
Click to expand...
The above was not what I responded to???? Yet you imply it is!!! Please do not mislead like this!!

Also the speed of light is constant, in a perfect vacuum. otherwise it depends on the medium through which it passes!!!

I am unsure what you mean by your third statement???
 
So far, Nikon released FF cameras with 12 and 24MP. In a way, 18 and 36 would seem logic. The pixel densities of the 36MP are already there in form of the d7000 (best DR of any Nikon camera).

So the basic IQ is already known, some quality may be lost by upscaling, but then the d7k sensor is already 2 years old, so with adcances being made, d800 could realize the same quality, just in FF.

bernie
--

'All the technique in the world doesn’t compensate for the inability to notice.' (Elliot Erwitt)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top