D2X = double D2H sensor = best for nikon

Philly Wood · Aug 12, 2003

squash said:
Like sharpness, dynamic range, noise, buffer and frame rate?

I agree. Soooo many other things besides megapix. (I have now seen the light because of the DEMONSTRATED examples of the D1h and its hi quality with 'only' 2.7mp)

Anyway I really doubt Nikon will match Canon's 11mp. I would think 9mp at the most. I just want (hope) to see the price at a point below whatever the current price is for the Kodak 14n.

$4500 would be a welcome figure. (though I am more interested in the sport shooter specs of the D2h)

squash said:
Michael Brochstein said:

A D2x with only 8 megapixels would have to walk on water in some
manner

Click to expand...

--
Philly http://phillywood.com An Amalgam of images.

TyKo · Aug 12, 2003

Klaus and Derrick,

Klaus Bergstedt said:
Bob Howland said:

Why would you have to buy or carry 2 "sets" of lenses? Your film
lenses work on the digital cameras. You'd just have to buy
something like a 12-24 to give you the wide end on digital camera.

Click to expand...

The DX lenses won't function on a real FF camera - like a film
camera, and what if you already have bought the 17-35/2.8 and the
28-70/2.8?

Why would someone carry both film and digital (at least in the 35mm size) at the same time? I can see using the two different methods of capture for different things at different times, but why would you carry both at the same time?

Further, if you're a pro, you can probably afford the couple extra DX lenses. You wouldn't necessarily want to, but you probably could. And I wouldn't want to carry both at the same time, but that goes back to my first question. Why would you anyway??

If you're not pro, I think it's a little unrealisitic to expect to be able to have it all. Don't forget that canon's FF is $8000, so to say that the FF is cheaper because you don't have to buy/own/carry two sets of lenses isn't really a great argument.

Klaus Bergstedt said:
Besides, you might also have to consider the 17-55/2.8 as a real
equivalent to the 28-70/2.8. If money is not the issue ...

But it only matters if you need a 28-70. Some of us don't. Some of us are actually happier with a 42-105mm lens. Or if we do need the 28-41mm range, we don't need it instantly. In other words, not everybody's a journalist or sports shooter who has to be able to instantly zoom to that particular range. We can switch lenses. If you're one of those who does need it instantly, Nikon has offered the the new DX zoom.

Klaus Bergstedt said:
Klaus Bergstedt said:

Note that Canon doesn't make something comparable to the 12-24 for
its D30, D60 and 10D.

Click to expand...

True - that's a dilemma, but they have a 16-35/2.8 and perhaps
their only future agenda is FF.

But this is a pro lens with a staggering price tag. I really doubt someone who saves up for a $1500 DSLR (D10) is going to be OK with dropping another $1500 for a "wide angle." Granted, the Nikon isn't going to be a steal/bargain, but I'm pretty sure it's cheaper than that canon, and it offers truly "wide" angle -- 18mm equiv, where as the 16mm Canon x 1.6 is only 25.6 mm equivalent. Canon has, up till this point, ignored the needs of the amateur market in terms of wide angle. (They've done a lot in terms of bodies, and actually helped us Nikonians by forcing Nikon to drop the prie of the d100, and hopefully update it soon.)

Klaus Bergstedt said:
Klaus Bergstedt said:

Derrick Siu said:

How about my F5? Am I going to carry 2 set of
lens when I need to shoot film and digital at the same time?

Derrick

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

All of this comes down to the fact that is a growing, new technology. It isn't 35mm all over again. Its new, and its different....time to get over it. And leave you F5 at home. ;-)

TyKo

win39 · Aug 12, 2003

Karl Grambow said:
There are no mixed signals coming from Nikon regarding DX lenses.
The way I see it, Nikon have been very very clear about this.
There will be NO FF camera from them. End of story.

Obviously, from Nikon's point of view they think that they can
produce a non-FF camera that will compete against Canon's FF
offerings. That remains to be seen of course but one thing is
certain, Nikon have made it clear which path they're going to
follow.

Of course they want you to buy their current offerings rather than waiting. (Specifications subject to change without notice.)

Let me see, Nikon has ceded leadership in to Canon in professional photography and will be satisfied with the consumer market. Not.

win39 · Aug 12, 2003

Pete Perry said:
Now suppose they have an APS sized sensor that is the same
resolution of a Canon Full Frame and the images are as good as or
better then the Canon, will anybody seriously complain?

You forget the reason that medium format works. The lenses are not better. The film is bigger. A bigger sensor will always be superior to a smaller one, everything else being equal.

Group Idiot · Aug 12, 2003

If they didn't, the Sigma SD-9 would've been a runaway success (sure, there are other reasons).

The D2x will need to compete -- megapixel-wise -- with Canon's flagship 1Ds to realize any hopes of achieving critical mass in today's market.

Brendan
==========
Equipment list in profile -- where it BELONGS!

Derrick Siu · Aug 12, 2003

I am not a Pro, photography is only my prat time job. The fact is 17-35, 28-70 is really a ideal range in FF, I need to buy the 17-55 and 12-24 to cover the DX sensor weakness, I might not shoot a lot of film in the furture, but it doesn't sound make sense to keep these 2 expensive pro lens at home with my F5 doing nothing, I still got a big customer I MUST shot film. And I don't want to sell my F5, I want to keep it forever even I can confince them to accept digital. If Nikon release a 24-70 f2.8 AFS G VR (Non DX) I will not complain that much, 42-105 is really limited, I take a lot of indoor flash photos, using 17-35 in DSLR need to be alot closer then my 28-70 in my film body, I believe you all knows shootinbg with flash too close to the people will not get good result. As some time my customer not feeling happy of wainiting for changing lens. the 17-35 can not get sharp portrait photos even the shoot is only 2 people up to the chest level, and I am not interesting of using low quality len sigma lens, I need F2.8, I always shoot at dark. As it enough to hate DX?

Anyway, where is the OFFICAL anouncement from Nikon saying they won't release FF FOREVER? I believe they just use DX sensor to cover the WA problem for people can't affort a FF, but price will goes down, even 1Ds, and D2's body cost less then 1Ds's body even using the same sensor, so FF D2x will cost less then $8000 anyways

Derrick

TyKo said:
Klaus Bergstedt said:

Bob Howland said:

Why would you have to buy or carry 2 "sets" of lenses? Your film
lenses work on the digital cameras. You'd just have to buy
something like a 12-24 to give you the wide end on digital camera.

Click to expand...

The DX lenses won't function on a real FF camera - like a film
camera, and what if you already have bought the 17-35/2.8 and the
28-70/2.8?

Click to expand...

Why would someone carry both film and digital (at least in the 35mm
size) at the same time? I can see using the two different methods
of capture for different things at different times, but why would
you carry both at the same time?

Further, if you're a pro, you can probably afford the couple extra
DX lenses. You wouldn't necessarily want to, but you probably
could. And I wouldn't want to carry both at the same time, but
that goes back to my first question. Why would you anyway??

If you're not pro, I think it's a little unrealisitic to expect to
be able to have it all. Don't forget that canon's FF is $8000, so
to say that the FF is cheaper because you don't have to
buy/own/carry two sets of lenses isn't really a great argument.

TyKo said:

Besides, you might also have to consider the 17-55/2.8 as a real
equivalent to the 28-70/2.8. If money is not the issue ...

Click to expand...

But it only matters if you need a 28-70. Some of us don't. Some of
us are actually happier with a 42-105mm lens. Or if we do need the
28-41mm range, we don't need it instantly. In other words, not
everybody's a journalist or sports shooter who has to be able to
instantly zoom to that particular range. We can switch lenses. If
you're one of those who does need it instantly, Nikon has offered
the the new DX zoom.

TyKo said:

TyKo said:

Note that Canon doesn't make something comparable to the 12-24 for
its D30, D60 and 10D.

Click to expand...

True - that's a dilemma, but they have a 16-35/2.8 and perhaps
their only future agenda is FF.

Click to expand...

But this is a pro lens with a staggering price tag. I really doubt
someone who saves up for a $1500 DSLR (D10) is going to be OK with
dropping another $1500 for a "wide angle." Granted, the Nikon
isn't going to be a steal/bargain, but I'm pretty sure it's cheaper
than that canon, and it offers truly "wide" angle -- 18mm equiv,
where as the 16mm Canon x 1.6 is only 25.6 mm equivalent. Canon
has, up till this point, ignored the needs of the amateur market in
terms of wide angle. (They've done a lot in terms of bodies, and
actually helped us Nikonians by forcing Nikon to drop the prie of
the d100, and hopefully update it soon.)

TyKo said:

TyKo said:

Derrick Siu said:

How about my F5? Am I going to carry 2 set of
lens when I need to shoot film and digital at the same time?

Derrick

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

All of this comes down to the fact that is a growing, new
technology. It isn't 35mm all over again. Its new, and its
different....time to get over it. And leave you F5 at home. ;-)

TyKo

squash · Aug 12, 2003

I see, that's why Kodak is dominating the high end, right?

Several additional stops of dynamic range and low noise would trump a higher pixel camera.

Group Idiot said:
If they didn't, the Sigma SD-9 would've been a runaway success
(sure, there are other reasons).

The D2x will need to compete -- megapixel-wise -- with Canon's
flagship 1Ds to realize any hopes of achieving critical mass in
today's market.

Brendan
==========
Equipment list in profile -- where it BELONGS!

Bill Dewey · Aug 12, 2003

Squash, I absolutely agree with you, much to my surprise

.

I keep seeing these statements of "Canon running away", "Nikon achieving critical mass", yet no one has been able to point me to the stats that support all of these D1X users who are fleeing to Canon due to the 1DS and Full-Frame, or to the 14n for that matter. Are there some? Of course there are, and for, in my opinion, 2 reasons. 1 is the real need for the added resolution, and these are folks who have reasoned there way to the change. The second, I love it when people mix numbers and words in a list, reason is that some folks just have to have the "biggest", and good for them. I think this is much more true in the consumer level cameras than in the pro-level. My D1h, as I have stated before, churns out great 16x20 prints, and I am looking forward to the added pixels in the D2h giving me greater latitude in croping and composition. I am even more interested in the overall image quality, and frankly I could care less if it comes from 1 pixel, versus 174million.

squash said:
Several additional stops of dynamic range and low noise would trump
a higher pixel camera.

Group Idiot said:

If they didn't, the Sigma SD-9 would've been a runaway success
(sure, there are other reasons).

The D2x will need to compete -- megapixel-wise -- with Canon's
flagship 1Ds to realize any hopes of achieving critical mass in
today's market.

Brendan
==========
Equipment list in profile -- where it BELONGS!

Click to expand...

--
Bill Dewey
http://www.deweydrive.com

ResIpsaLoquitur · Aug 12, 2003

It takes about 22 MP to

snowwrestler said:
equal the resolution of the best slide film, and I bet that Nikon
is looking years down the road at the time when they will release a
full-frame sensor with 22 or more MP.

Nope. The best slide film is alread beaten. The Canon 1Ds and Kodak 14n are both comparable with 645 - this has been demonstrated too often now for it to be an issue.

See, e.g. http://www.jjsviewbox.com/Articles/6451ds.htm

or see http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/shootout.shtml

RIL

Andrew Snow · Aug 12, 2003

The current sensor is half the size of a 35mm frame. It is currently 24mm wide. I meant to put two of these side by side vertically to create a full 36x24mm frame.

Andrew

Ron Frank · Aug 12, 2003

If that was the only factor, we'd all be running around with Kodaks new 14N -or- we would all sell our current Nikon's and purchase Canon's.

So has Kodak outsold Canon, it DOES have more MPIX?

If Nikon goes big, and wants over 5K for a body (still outragous), I will have to continue to LOVE my D1x for a while longer.

At $3500 MSRP the D2H is very promising. The promise I'm hoping for is a D2X around $4K. Now that Nikon is making sensors, that may be more possible.

As for the whole mpixel thing, I would have NEVER spent the bucks on the D1x if I thought it could not deliver the goods at 5+mpix.

More MPIX has some downside. Look at the Kodak 14N! Controlling Noise and moire proves more difficult as sensor pixels increse.

But forget MPIX. If Nikon creates and 8mpix sensor that competes in image quality with Canon's 11mpix sensor who cares about the numbers! And LBCAST may do just that!

BTW, Sigma's SD-9 is NOT a run away success more because of brand loyality (nikon/canon), glass ownership, and build features. If the SD-9 had the build quality of the Nikon D1x, I'm guessing more people would be jumping on board...

Ron

Group Idiot said:
If they didn't, the Sigma SD-9 would've been a runaway success
(sure, there are other reasons).

The D2x will need to compete -- megapixel-wise -- with Canon's
flagship 1Ds to realize any hopes of achieving critical mass in
today's market.

Brendan
==========
Equipment list in profile -- where it BELONGS!

beaver beacon · Aug 12, 2003

The only problem with Nikon is that the DX size has inherent wide-angle limitations and compromises necessary to get a decent wide view. I am really skeptical whether the 10.5mm fisheye from nikon and their correction software will be able to produce an image that rivals a 15mm lens on a Canon Full Frame. Do you think the circular-rectangular perspective-corrected image from the 10.5mm fisheye will look as good as an 8 x 10 print as the same image shot with a 15mm on a Canon FF? I'm asking not argueing... if it is, that's great. I'm just very skeptical whether it will be as sharp and accurate.

Karl Grambow said:
Obviously, from Nikon's point of view they think that they can
produce a non-FF camera that will compete against Canon's FF
offerings. That remains to be seen of course but one thing is
certain, Nikon have made it clear which path they're going to
follow.

Karl

Klaus Bergstedt said:

Andrew Snow said:

The D2H looks like it'll be a great camera but isn't enough to make
me upgrade from D1H at the moment.

From my point of view the best thing Nikon could do is announce a
D2X using two of the D2H sensors side by side somehow, to make an 8
megapixel full frame camera. The shooting speed would be halved to
say 4 fps, and the buffer halved as well to account for the extra
resolution.

Click to expand...

Karl Grambow said:

As an amateur, I've made a conscious decision to avoid "DX" lenses
and I mainly stick to Nikon primes and superior zooms. Such a D2X
body would be a perfect upgrade for me.

Click to expand...

Karl Grambow said:

While I know Nikon's D2H offering is perfect for photojournalistic
and many other uses, I really think the Nikon line would benefit
from a camera like the Canon 1DS. Perhaps it is only a small number
of users who will buy it, but it is important for the sake of
system completeness.

Andrew

Click to expand...

Andrew, I fully agree on your requirements. The DX lenses (and the
DX sensors) must be a temporary arrangement with only a short term
future prospect.

In spite of the fact that Nikon has announced these DX lenses and
if the D2X will be based on DX size sensor, however, I think a lot
of people would expect - and therefore wait - for the development
of a FF camera from Nikon.

What if Canon in two or four years from now on is able to produce
an affordable FF camera, and Nikon remains at their current DX
size? No wonder if Nikon customers would find the double set of
lenses from Nikon an incomplete system.

Somehow Nikon is sending mixed signals regarding the release of
their DX lenses since they (perhaps) only represent a temporary
arrangement? A lot of peple would indeed continue to speculate ...

Best regards,

-- Klaus Bergstedt

'Nothing is either good or bad, but thinking makes it so'
(Shakespeare, W.).

Click to expand...

--
http://www.pbase.com/grambowk/

DavidMillier · Aug 12, 2003

Ron

Moire is more easily controlled with more MP (because the lens start to act as the blur filter)! The 14n lacks an AA filter and relies on the extra resolution to raise the spatial frequency at which moire effects start to show - not wholly successfully.

The noise problems on the 14n also seem to be the result of a noisy implementation of cmos and the lack of micro lenses rather than down to the pixel count

Ron Frank said:
So has Kodak outsold Canon, it DOES have more MPIX?

If Nikon goes big, and wants over 5K for a body (still outragous),
I will have to continue to LOVE my D1x for a while longer.

At $3500 MSRP the D2H is very promising. The promise I'm hoping for
is a D2X around $4K. Now that Nikon is making sensors, that may be
more possible.

As for the whole mpixel thing, I would have NEVER spent the bucks
on the D1x if I thought it could not deliver the goods at 5+mpix.

More MPIX has some downside. Look at the Kodak 14N! Controlling
Noise and moire proves more difficult as sensor pixels increse.

But forget MPIX. If Nikon creates and 8mpix sensor that competes in
image quality with Canon's 11mpix sensor who cares about the
numbers! And LBCAST may do just that!

BTW, Sigma's SD-9 is NOT a run away success more because of brand
loyality (nikon/canon), glass ownership, and build features. If the
SD-9 had the build quality of the Nikon D1x, I'm guessing more
people would be jumping on board...

Ron

Group Idiot said:

If they didn't, the Sigma SD-9 would've been a runaway success
(sure, there are other reasons).

The D2x will need to compete -- megapixel-wise -- with Canon's
flagship 1Ds to realize any hopes of achieving critical mass in
today's market.

Brendan
==========
Equipment list in profile -- where it BELONGS!

Click to expand...

DavidMillier · Aug 12, 2003

Where did you get this idea! If provia 100 F is regarded as a top class slide film, 6MP comes very close to the details of 35mm 4000dpi scans and already beats it hands down for grain. I reckon about 8MP would beat it for detail too.

The 1Ds at 11MP has been shown comprehensively to be within a whisker of the detail of 645 film (at least for prints up to the 19*13 inch max of consumer inkjets) and again superior in grain.

It seems that there are a number of factors that reduce the effective resolution of film to far below what theory might like one to expect - digital pixels are just better pixel for pixel than colour film pixels. MF film only seems to win ultimately on maximum enlargability.

snowwrestler said:
It takes about 22 MP to
equal the resolution of the best slide film, and I bet that Nikon
is looking years down the road at the time when they will release a
full-frame sensor with 22 or more MP.

Thomas Sapiano · Aug 12, 2003

The D2H sensor is only 23.1x15.5mm - putting two of them side-by-side would only yield a 30.1x23.1mm sensor (1.5x1.5=2.25). If you used the same pixel layout/size you'd get about 9MP for a FF sensor

Andrew Snow said:
The current sensor is half the size of a 35mm frame. It is
currently 24mm wide. I meant to put two of these side by side
vertically to create a full 36x24mm frame.

Andrew

Andreas Berglund · Aug 12, 2003

I'm not sure why this would be the case.This is not film after all, a good sensor with 6 million pixels has 6 million whether it has a full frame sized sensor or not. One can of course argue that if the sensor is infitely small then it wont be the case but I think that nikon has thought this through carefulle. Thats why they are coming out with the DX lens line. I have the 12-24 and I'm very impressed with it.

win39 said:
Pete Perry said:

Now suppose they have an APS sized sensor that is the same
resolution of a Canon Full Frame and the images are as good as or
better then the Canon, will anybody seriously complain?

Click to expand...

You forget the reason that medium format works. The lenses are not
better. The film is bigger. A bigger sensor will always be superior
to a smaller one, everything else being equal.

--
Andréas Berglund

Kevin Morris · Aug 12, 2003

Member said:
Oh and one more thing, for about $3k anyone can buy a D100 and a 12

24 DX and take full frame FOV images but with the Canon it'll

cost you $7k just for the body.

Yeah. And for $10 you can get a disposable camera. I hope you're not seriously comparing the D100 with the 1Ds.

--
Tuktu Sijuktei
'Please tell me if the lens cap is on.'

David SL · Aug 12, 2003

Philly Wood said:
squash said:

Like sharpness, dynamic range, noise, buffer and frame rate?

Click to expand...

I agree. Soooo many other things besides megapix. (I have now seen
the light because of the DEMONSTRATED examples of the D1h and its
hi quality with 'only' 2.7mp)
Anyway I really doubt Nikon will match Canon's 11mp. I would think
9mp at the most.

It can go much highier in theory but at cost of reduced sensitivity, to see this simply look at what has occured thus far...2/3" CCD's used in 5mp cameras like the SonyF117 contain photosites with 3.4um^2 area, the 6mp D100 sensor also a CCD contains photosites with 7.4um^2 area, by reducing the area of the D100 sensor by only ~~30% the~~ 5.25um^2 area is achieved, this will tile an APS frame to 13.5mp. Knowing that sensitivity is proportional to sensing area we can safely surmise that a ISO 100/200 - 1600 range is possible with a 5.25um^2 pixel sensor. Interestingly Sony can tile an APS frame with 30million 3.4um^2 sensors, this is the photosite area used in the "old" generation 2/3" sensor used in the CP5000, Sony F117 and Minolta MD7..but sensitivity would be restricted from 100 - 400 as it is in those cameras with a very noisy 800...but this can probably cleaned up somewhat using more aggressive processing algorithms and beefier ASIC/DSP when used in a DSLR. It's almost certain that the D2H sensor has photosites that are larger than the 7.4um ones in the D100 but the sensitivity range is not as large as on the predecessor D1h, this indicates to me that the associated electronics (this is a FET technology just like CMOS) in the current generation LBCAST is taking up a significant portion of the photosite area. As the process is refined we can expect these electronics to shrink, effectively increasing the sensitive area in the photosite but who knows by how much...I think Nikon would probably be able to get a highier mp and sensitivity sensor from Sony's next generation high mp interline transfer CCD chip rather than using their own new LBCAST technology to scale to high mp. I am making this statement based on the admittadly incomplete evidence at hand, but I'll say if Nikon uses their current* LBCAST technology in the D2x I'd be suprised if it were 8mp, if on the other hand they use a Sony CCD I predict as I have for some time now that 13.5mp @ ISO 100/200 - 1600 will be available very very soon.

The question I have is, when will we see or hear something concrete about this new D2x? I hope for Nikon's sake it's sooner rather than later.

Regards,

Philly Wood said:
I just want (hope) to see the price at a point
below whatever the current price is for the Kodak 14n.

$4500 would be a welcome figure. (though I am more interested in
the sport shooter specs of the D2h)

Philly Wood said:

Michael Brochstein said:

A D2x with only 8 megapixels would have to walk on water in some
manner

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

--
Philly http://phillywood.com An Amalgam of images.

--

Kevin Morris · Aug 12, 2003

DMillier said:
Ron

Moire is more easily controlled with more MP (because the lens
start to act as the blur filter)! The 14n lacks an AA filter and
relies on the extra resolution to raise the spatial frequency at
which moire effects start to show - not wholly successfully.

The noise problems on the 14n also seem to be the result of a noisy
implementation of cmos and the lack of micro lenses rather than
down to the pixel count

Yes. Absolutley. The 14n's problems are related to the sensor, not to the number of pixels. And I've never heard any complaints with Kodak's 16MP sensor used for their MF backs.

If increasing the number of pixels means increasing the problems, then photography has a pretty bleak future.

--
Tuktu Sijuktei
'Please tell me if the lens cap is on.'

Kevin Morris · Aug 12, 2003

Iku Kawachi said:
I doubt this is physically possible, but first, let's look at it
this way. What would you do with an 8 megapixel, 4928 x 1632 CCD?!?
Most are comfortable with the current 1.5:1 ratio, a few even want
4:3, and you are suggesting 2:1. This odd ratio wouldn't fit in
with most photographer's purposes.

I think your calculator is broken.

--
Tuktu Sijuktei
'Please tell me if the lens cap is on.'

D2X = double D2H sensor = best for nikon

Senior Member

Leading Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Leading Member

Veteran Member

Senior Member

Leading Member

Senior Member

Forum Enthusiast

Forum Pro

Forum Pro

Senior Member

Leading Member

Leading Member

Senior Member

Leading Member

Leading Member

Keyboard shortcuts