Why doesn't Nikon use 2 processors to achieve higher fps?

Started Jan 30, 2013 | Questions thread
Jim Keye Senior Member • Posts: 1,916
Re: Why doesn't Nikon use 2 processors to achieve higher fps?

kb2zuz wrote:

(and they may well be pushing that to the limit already with the oil/dust problem with oil coming off the mirror mechanism).

It wouldn't matter how many times a second it happened, the mirror up/down and the shutter speed is the same each time, whether it's once a second or X times a second.

This is purely my speculation but it could be that they might just be pushing the mirror box too far and forcing it to slam the mirror back down (and AF mirror back up) quicker than it could reasonably do. That speed, not how often it does it, could be what's throwing oil... again purely my speculation.

Nikon's been making mirror boxes for longer than I've been alive, so I'm pretty sure they now how to do it. Meaning my speculation is that this is a QC/manufacturing issue.

More reasonable approach would be to make a D750 based of the 16MP chip in the D4 and just limit it to 8fps.

Nikon's strategy is curious. I'm not sure we're going to see a D750, but it certainly wouldn't be hard to do.

It wouldn't be hard to do, but the question is it enough to sell as many $3000 cameras as the D800? The D700 was a very good camera but it was not a huge money maker for Nikon.

Really? They sold like a bajillion of them. How was that not a money maker? Not to mention the glass?

A D750 as I described (either 24MP with 6.5fps or 16MP with 8fps) would have an additional challenge as many of the people who would be interested in that camera may have bought a D700 2 or 3 years ago and they will have to ask themselves if they want to drop another $3,000 to either get an extra 4MP (or double the MP at a cost of 1.5fps), slightly better dynamic range and high ISO performance. I'm certain there are those that would, but I'm also certain there are some that wuold say "I'd like it but if I can save $3000 the D700 is good enough." I don't know what the percentages would be but it tells me that it might not be as popular as the D700 was.

Right, but a part of that is the fact that there are three other non-D4 FX options out there, and a D750 would be the fourth. Whereas the D700 was the only FX alternative to the big boys. Potential upgrade reasons for any purchaser, but specifically D700 owners:

1) You get new features (even a D600 offers video)

2) The D700 used the D3 not D3s sensor. That makes any upgrade more attractive, even if it's just 4 MPs, because you noticable low-light performance boost.

3) You do get more pixels. Even if it's just four. Though 24 strikes me as more tempting number to a 12 MP user.

4) D700 bodies do wear out. Yes a shutter repair is cheaper than a new body, but conversely you get new goodies with a new body.

Keep in mind for it to be worth while to Nikon it has to make quite a bit of money, because even though we think it's just "slap a D4 sensor in a D800 body" there is a lot of design,

Actually, there isn't any design. This is all existing parts.

testing, manufacturing set up, firmware programing, FCC/UL/etc certifications and licensing for every country they want to sell the camera in... all this costs quite a bit of money, so if it isn't going to make a few million dollars profit it just might not be worth it to Nikon.

That's all true, but out of curiosity, do you know what the cost of new tech is (i.e., designing a new AF system or a new sensor) vs the cost of putting the parts together and getting ready for production? (Obviously this doesn't negate the "are we going to sell enough to be worth it" aspect, though there is something to be said for filling out your product line, and for picking up lens sales in the process.)

I'd say if they were going to do a D750, it would more likely be the 16MP sensor of the D4, partly to maintain the higher FPS the D700 users want

The D700 is 5 fps, or 8 with a grip. No reason to think they couldn't do this with what is already out there. (Maybe it stops at 7 fps, but BFD.)

and partly to attempt to recover more money from the design and manufacture of the D4's sensor which is not used in anything else at the moment (it costs billions to start producing a new chip).

Although it's the same with any chip. Doubling up on the D600 chips makes them money.

If they were going to go that route I'd expect to see it come into play a year to a year an a half after the D4 launched which means some time between now and the middle of the year... I haven't heard any rumors so it doesn't look promising.

I really don't think it's going to happen because they've already undercut any potential camera with the D600.

They may well be saying "look we can make some money now, but it won't be a lot and it will also make whatever we come out with in 3 years less dramatic or if we wait until 2015ish we can make a ton of money when we come out with something that blows away what came out 6 years before, and everyone wants it."

Frankly, the D600/800 already do this. So yeah, we're not going to see it. The D600 sensor is a darn fine sensor. Fine enough that it is a perfectly reasonable choice for the budget SLR, and probably even a better choice (pixels vs performance) than the D4 sensor.

My main thought in all this is: for people who don't want an integrated-grip body, Nikon is forcing them to buy pixels along with the features, i.e. a D800. They could had they gone the 24/24/36 route (instead of the 24/36/36), they would have offered more to more people. Want the cheapest FX with a good amount of pixels? Buy a D600. Want the features but are are happy with a more moderate amount of pixels? Buy a D800. Want the best of both? Buy a D800e.

If you shoot 40K or 60K frames/year and don't need 36 MPs, that 50% increase in file size is not trivial. And giving up top-end features (a.k.a. the D600) isn't trivial either.

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