DX format for pros stays

[n057]

arizonadesertrat wrote:

• A DX camera is lower cost (smaller semiconductors always cost less)

Wrong. A DX sensor would require more precision and would offset the price advantage.

Is that a new urban legend? So you mean there is no price difference between the D7000 sensor and the D800 sensor? They have the same pixel density.

And between the D300 sensor and the D700, D3 or D3s sensor? They have teh same number of pixels.

JC
Some cameras, some lenses, some computers

 

[PepsiCan]

What makes you think that fps is dependent on the sensor size?!? It actually depends mostly on how fast you can flip the mirror up and down. Current processors are fast enough to deal with a 24mp size file. Case in point is the Sony A77 that does well over 10fps. It can do that because it has no mirror.

There are several things that gate how many fps can be achieved.

1. How fast you can flip the mirror with enough mirror down-time for AF and for visually seeing what's going on to track the action. Note: it takes power to flip the mirror fast and some cameras (like the D300) go faster with better batteries (8fps with the right battery in the grip).

2. How well you can AF in the small amount of mirror down-time. Note the D4 can go faster without AF so this must be one of the issues with going fast at around 10fps in the D4. The D300 goes 8fps just fine (with grip) so Nikon has certainly proved they can solve this issue at 8fps in a $1800 body.

3. How fast you can process the bits off the sensor and through the EXPEED chip and into buffer memory while still getting low read noise (and ideally do that at 14-bits of precision). Some cameras like the D300 do this much slower at 14-bits than 12-bits. Obviously, the D4 can do at least 11fps while processing 16MP so it should be able to do at least 7.3fps at 24MP from a pure processing point of view if the same hardware could be used in a much less expensive D400 camera. This seems like one of the bigger unknowns for a D400. Can Nikon go 8fps at 24MP with the current generation EXPEED chip? Or, they could go with 16MP and be able to go plenty fast. One possible issue is that marketing wants to go with a 24MP chip, but they also don't want to give up the ability to go 8fps so Nikon is trying to engineer how to do that with their current technology.

And my point is that point 3 is not an issue. There is nothing that Sony has that Nikon does not have an equivalent of. The D300 successor will make 8fps and be 24mp. Otherwise here the complaints how it is surpassed by others and Nikon lost their way.

Point 1 is much more of an issue for Nikon (and Canon) for that matter. They actually have a mirror to content with. Sony did not have that problem when they designed the A77.

Personally, I think the D300 successor got delayed because of the Thai floods. And that caused the launch date to get too close to its refresh moment. So, Nikon may have decided to skip the cycle as it were.

 

[Holmes375]

• A DX camera is lower cost (smaller semiconductors always cost less)

Wrong. A DX sensor would require more precision and would offset the price advantage.

Congratulations, Michael, you have now removed all doubt
--
Holmes
http://holmes.zenfolio.com/

 

[lock]

If you want to use the D800 as a Dx camera, it provides only a small section of its FX viewfinder dedicated to the Dx view. You can mask the outer part not used by the middle Dx section, but then you lose the illumination of your AF point. You can use a thin line showing the borders of the middle Dx area, or you don't use it at all and leave the camera in Fx mode (crop later).

For focussing purposes your Dx view is always about 44% of the size of an FX viewfinder. In a Dx camera this area is blown up to 100% (so you actually see the crop factor working).

The question about cropping afterwards depends largely on the lens you put on the D800, I think. With an Fx lens I would crop afterwards too. With Dx lenses it depends on the the part that blacks out. If it's a big part of the outer half of the viewfinder, I probably would use the auto Dx mode. But I didn't test this.

 

[MichaelEchos]

I get it! 120-300 f2.8 on DX is a 200-400 f4 on FX

No Marabou, f2.8 on DX is f2.8 on FX too, as far as illumination is concerned. DOF is another matter.

JC
Some cameras, some lenses, some computers

But to get an equivalent image, then shouldn't the DOF be equal too?

 

[MichaelEchos]

Heh, size is not an issue.
135/2 on DX is 200/2.8 on FX
70-200/2.8 on DX is 100-300/4 on FX
17-55/2.8 on DX is 26-85/4 on FX
Don't you get it?

No I don't. I hear that argument often, that you gain one stop on FX for whatever imaginary reason. That is as if the "Sunny 16" rule varies if you are shooting on a different size medium. As far as I am concerned, if you shoot at F16 on a sunny day, shutter speed will be 1/ISO. It does not matter if you shoot a minox or a view camera.
So there is no reason to magically gain one stop because you are on FX.

JC
Some cameras, some lenses, some computers

Given the same noise, ISO 100 on DX would be similar to ISO 235 on FX.

 

[bobn2]

But I don't understand why D800 owners insist that DX users can't possibly have their own reasons for wanting a real DX camera.

That's an interesting point, but a bit paranoid, do you not think? I don't think anyone says you might not want whatever you want, but the problem for Nikon is are there enough people who want what you want to make a camera a good business proposition. The point about the DX mode of the D800 is that it reduces the marketplace for a top end DX to be a second body for a D800, because the D800 is already a decent if not ideal DX camera. So that chips away part of the D300 marketplace. then, if there is a D600, that chips away another part. My guess is, and always has been, that the top end of the DX range will be a derivative of the D7000,

When my needs are predominantly DX, I personally have no interest in spending an extra $1400 to buy a camera that delivers me 1/2 a viewfinder for my DX shooting. I'd much rather have a camera optimized for DX performance and I'm waiting for Nikon to deliver the next generation of that. In the meantime, my D300 continues to work quite well.

That's an interesting point, but surely the likelihood is that Nikon won't offer you exactly what you demand, but something close, probably at a lower price point.

Since I typically only buy a new camera every 3-4 years, I'll wait for the one that's actually optimized for what I shoot rather than buy the first thing that comes along that is better in some ways than what I have, not better in other ways, costs a bunch more and isn't optimized for what I do. That would have me buying a lot of new cameras, most of which aren't best at what I do.

That's an interesting point, but for Nikon the issue would be, what than they offer which maximises sales for not just people who want exactly the same as you but something approximating it, and if the fail to produce to your specification, will you go and buy a similar camera from another manufacturer just out of spite, or will you take whatever Nikon does come up with.

--
Bob

 

[n057]

Heh, size is not an issue.
135/2 on DX is 200/2.8 on FX
70-200/2.8 on DX is 100-300/4 on FX
17-55/2.8 on DX is 26-85/4 on FX
Don't you get it?

No I don't. I hear that argument often, that you gain one stop on FX for whatever imaginary reason. That is as if the "Sunny 16" rule varies if you are shooting on a different size medium. As far as I am concerned, if you shoot at F16 on a sunny day, shutter speed will be 1/ISO. It does not matter if you shoot a minox or a view camera.
So there is no reason to magically gain one stop because you are on FX.

Given the same noise, ISO 100 on DX would be similar to ISO 235 on FX.

Not again ...

My specific case is that I shoot mostly in very low light, in cramped quarters, and prefer to shoot DX and do little cropping. In that context, going to FX would force me to get longer, heavier lenses.

You are looking at "equivalent" noise levels. I am not trying to get equivalent noise levels, I am not trying to increase DOF. I want to get the subject in the frame. What would be the advantage of going FX if I need a longer lens to get the same framing, and shoot for noise equivalence? If I could change anything, I would increase the ISO, keep the same aperture and raise the shutter speed.

JC
Some cameras, some lenses, some computers

 

[bobn2]

Heh, size is not an issue.
135/2 on DX is 200/2.8 on FX
70-200/2.8 on DX is 100-300/4 on FX
17-55/2.8 on DX is 26-85/4 on FX
Don't you get it?

No I don't. I hear that argument often, that you gain one stop on FX for whatever imaginary reason. That is as if the "Sunny 16" rule varies if you are shooting on a different size medium. As far as I am concerned, if you shoot at F16 on a sunny day, shutter speed will be 1/ISO. It does not matter if you shoot a minox or a view camera.
So there is no reason to magically gain one stop because you are on FX.

Given the same noise, ISO 100 on DX would be similar to ISO 235 on FX.

Not again ...

My specific case is that I shoot mostly in very low light, in cramped quarters, and prefer to shoot DX and do little cropping. In that context, going to FX would force me to get longer, heavier lenses.

You are looking at "equivalent" noise levels. I am not trying to get equivalent noise levels, I am not trying to increase DOF. I want to get the subject in the frame. What would be the advantage of going FX if I need a longer lens to get the same framing, and shoot for noise equivalence? If I could change anything, I would increase the ISO, keep the same aperture and raise the shutter speed.

Increasing the ISO does not gain anything in noise. Only more real light on the sensor does that. ISO is really about how the capture will be processed, and needs to be changed for 'equivalent' images only to get the output image brightness right.

So, yes your setup gives you more compact lenses, perhaps. But for instance, my Sigma 100-300/4 on a D800 will get me the same shots as a 70-200/2.8 on a D300, and it isn't really much bigger.





--
Bob

 

[seahawk]

But the ISO advantage is only true if both sensors use the same resolution. The advantage of a 36MP FX sensor to a 20MP DX sensor might be much smaller, yet the 20MP DX would still have a better resolution for a DX crop.

But in the end one must admit that the D800 is the best DX camera available from Nikon today and has made a special DX pro-camera redundant.
--
hobby aviation photographer

 

[arizonadesertrat]

Duck!
--
Fiat Lux

 

[bobn2]

But the ISO advantage is only true if both sensors use the same resolution. The advantage of a 36MP FX sensor to a 20MP DX sensor might be much smaller, yet the 20MP DX would still have a better resolution for a DX crop.

Sorry, I'm not sure what you are getting at. There isn't an 'ISO advantage'.

But in the end one must admit that the D800 is the best DX camera available from Nikon today and has made a special DX pro-camera redundant.

Depends what you mean by 'best'. I suspect best image quality in Nikon DX might go to D3200.
--
Bob

 

[seahawk]

I thought less light one the smaller sensor must be compensated to achieve the same brightness. The usually means the sensitivity is increased in the processing of the photo in camera, which usually is called "an ISO advantage" of the bigger sensor.
--
hobby aviation photographer

 

[bobn2]

I thought less light one the smaller sensor must be compensated to achieve the same brightness. The usually means the sensitivity is increased in the processing of the photo in camera, which usually is called "an ISO advantage" of the bigger sensor.

There isn't an increase in sensitivity, only a change in the way the sensor output is mapped to tones in the final image (sometimes some of that change occurs in an analog fashion). The low light advantage of a FX sensor is due to being generally able to use a larger aperture. So, for instance we use a lens with 40degree AOV and f/2.8 on FX we get an aperture of 17.9mm. If we do the same thing on DX the aperture is only 11.9mm. The side effect of the larger aperture is less DOF. So, in the end, the low light advantage is in trading DOF for extra light on the sensor. Nothing to do with ISO.
--
Bob

 

[n057]

n057 wrote:

So, yes your setup gives you more compact lenses, perhaps. But for instance, my Sigma 100-300/4 on a D800 will get me the same shots as a 70-200/2.8 on a D300, and it isn't really much bigger.

OK, your Sigma is 60 grams lighter. But it is a few centimeters longer and a few centimeters wider. In a crowded room, I often graze heads around me, so I prefer to be as compact as possible. And again, since I am not overly concerned with noise, I'd rather have as much aperture as possible, raise the ISO and increase the shutter speed.

JC
Some cameras, some lenses, some computers

 

[bobn2]

n057 wrote:

So, yes your setup gives you more compact lenses, perhaps. But for instance, my Sigma 100-300/4 on a D800 will get me the same shots as a 70-200/2.8 on a D300, and it isn't really much bigger.

OK, your Sigma is 60 grams lighter. But it is a few centimeters longer and a few centimeters wider. In a crowded room, I often graze heads around me, so I prefer to be as compact as possible. And again, since I am not overly concerned with noise, I'd rather have as much aperture as possible, raise the ISO and increase the shutter speed.

So, why not go for a 55-200/4-5.6G DX. Even smaller, lighter and a pretty good lens. That us if you are not concerned with noise. But if you are not concerned with noise, why do you want 'as much aperture as possible'?

--
Bob

 

[Phil_L]

Is that a new urban legend?

Could become!

New and incessant story teller.
--
Phil_L

 

[Phil_L]

Personally, I think the D300 successor got delayed because of the Thai floods. And that caused the launch date to get too close to its refresh moment. So, Nikon may have decided to skip the cycle as it were.

Yes, they skipped a generation. I hope!

Which would hold promise for the update, when it comes.
--
Phil_L

 

[jfriend00]

3. How fast you can process the bits off the sensor and through the EXPEED chip and into buffer memory while still getting low read noise (and ideally do that at 14-bits of precision). Some cameras like the D300 do this much slower at 14-bits than 12-bits. Obviously, the D4 can do at least 11fps while processing 16MP so it should be able to do at least 7.3fps at 24MP from a pure processing point of view if the same hardware could be used in a much less expensive D400 camera. This seems like one of the bigger unknowns for a D400. Can Nikon go 8fps at 24MP with the current generation EXPEED chip? Or, they could go with 16MP and be able to go plenty fast. One possible issue is that marketing wants to go with a 24MP chip, but they also don't want to give up the ability to go 8fps so Nikon is trying to engineer how to do that with their current technology.

And my point is that point 3 is not an issue. There is nothing that Sony has that Nikon does not have an equivalent of. The D300 successor will make 8fps and be 24mp. Otherwise here the complaints how it is surpassed by others and Nikon lost their way.

This would be good news if it's the case for the technology Nikon has ready for the D400 and it would work for 14-bit images. It would mean that Nikon already has the technology to make an 8fps D400 at 24MP by just using the latest EXPEED chip, some iteration of the D3200 sensor and the D300s mechanics. So, Nikon wouldn't have any design conflict between going fast and increasing the MP to 24MP. I guess we'll see in good time.
--
John
Gallery: http://jfriend.smugmug.com
Popular: http://jfriend.smugmug.com/popular
Portfolio: http://jfriend.smugmug.com/portfolio

 

[n057]

OK, your Sigma is 60 grams lighter. But it is a few centimeters longer and a few centimeters wider. In a crowded room, I often graze heads around me, so I prefer to be as compact as possible. And again, since I am not overly concerned with noise, I'd rather have as much aperture as possible, raise the ISO and increase the shutter speed.

So, why not go for a 55-200/4-5.6G DX. Even smaller, lighter and a pretty good lens. That us if you are not concerned with noise. But if you are not concerned with noise, why do you want 'as much aperture as possible'?

Uh? Is this a trick question& (looking around to spot the candid camera )

You have not been paying attention. Or maybe you have never been in a low light situation.

Look at this image taken with a D200, ISO1600, at 1/10s and f4.0. 70-200 at 200 mm.



Look at the guitarists hands. I want to be able to freeze them. If I shot this at f5.6, I would be using 1/5s, so a smaller aperture is out of the question. ISO1600 is the maximum "native" ISO on the D200 . With my dream DX cam, I could crank the ISO to, say 3600, and shoot at 1/40s and keep the same aperture, not because I want to shoot that wide, but because otherwise there would not be enough light to freeze the action.

What is so hard to understand? Why that obsession about noise? Ever used souped up Tri-X?

For a comparison, here is another one which I thought was with the 70/200, but turns out it was with the 70-300. I had to change ISO to H1, 3200 ISO on the D200. With post-processing, the noise is still acceptable.

D200, ISO3200, at 1/10s and f4.8. 70-300 at 112mm.



I waited until the D300 came out, and it offered less of a relief than a 2.8 lens, so I invested in fast lenses instead of a body which I would have to replace eventually.

JC
Some cameras, some lenses, some computers