Thom on Nikon's unanswered questions...

Started Feb 4, 2014 | Discussions
Tony Beach Forum Pro • Posts: 11,892
Re: Thom on Nikon's unanswered questions...

yray wrote:

Tony Beach wrote:

yray wrote:

Tony Beach wrote:

yray wrote:

JimPearce wrote:

Will there be a D700 successor? No.

Well, in my book D700 may remain its own successor for the foreseeable future. Unless you need lots of pixels and extreme DR for low ISO landscape shooting, D700 still does it all. Still the most versatile of cameras, that you have to pay multiples of the current used prices to get ever so slight improvement over.

It's a discussion for another forum really, but Thom actually called the D800 the D700 successor and told Nikon users to "get over it," so I see a bit of a contradiction from Thom about this in his latest article.

Yes, he's been all over the place with this issue. This D800 confused a lot of people because it didn't fit into the established pattern.

There is no "established pattern." When something happens once, that's not a pattern.

It really is the closest thing to a D3x update,

I do think there's a pattern here, and it has to do with being competitive. The D700 came out to compete with the 5D/5DII because the D3 was too expensive for many who would then choose the Canon option. The same reasoning is behind the D800 which competes against the 5DIII and A99; there is no more need for a D700 successor in Nikon's lineup because it is bracketed by the D610 and D800.

not so much D700, but I'm okay with whoever may disagree on this issue. The reason I don't see D800 as the D700 update is that it encourages a different approach to photography to get the most out of it technically, plus a host of more practical file processing and management issues.

Here's the thing though, except for fps (again, when using the MB-D10 and appropriate batteries) you can get more out of the D800 than the D700 using the D800 in exactly the same way as the D700 (more DR, more resolution, better high ISO performance, more viewfinder coverage, dual memory card slots, etc.). As for the larger file sizes, well that's just a fact of life now, even the D600, D7000, and D7100 have larger file sizes than the D700 -- nobody is going back to 12 MP.

Well, you may also ask yourself why Nikon flagship is fine with 16MP. What 16MP looks like relative to 12MP I know very well (have a D7000 lying around), and as hard as I look I don't see much of a practical difference.

I have had this discussion many times, and just now again with John. It's horses for courses. If you're shooting handheld then 16 MP is often more than enough.

I know that a good sharp 12MP picture could be painlessly enlarged to a bigger print size than the vast majority ever cares to print.

My point still stands though, nobody is going back to 12 MP, so everyone is going to have to suck it up and deal with larger files.

My benchmark size is 12x18,

12x18 and 11x14 are my smallest prints.

I don't print larger except in very rare cases, so what use are those additional pixels?

I don't deny that I'm in a minority here, but I have several 20x30 inch prints so that's my benchmark.

If you say that gazillion MP is nice to have to crop or for that rare case when you do want to print wall size, I won't disagree with that.

Getting back to the reach factor (i.e., DX crops or even smaller area crops) there can be a noticeable difference between 10 MP and 16 MP, and that's the difference between a 5DIII and a D800

But nice to have comes at a price,

The D800 costs $600 less than the 5DIII.

longer upload times, longer store times, longer edit times, longer backup times, and more and more storage for all those backups.

$600 will buy you a lot of extra storage. As for the time, all the cameras are heading in this direction, we're debating ~24 MP files versus 36 MP files right now, in a few short years 36 MP will be at the lower end of FX/135 format DSLRs. This comes down to a question of when to upgrade your computer, even at 24 MP you should already have done that.

So, there is clearly a trade-off here between the nice to have pixels and all this overhead which (for me) is mostly pure aggravation. I might be the last holdout on this forum, but I generally don't suffer from "only" 12MP. In addition, for anything that doesn't fall into the domain of sports shooting in the dark, I'm mostly interested in how different cameras render colors and tones rather than pure resolution, and on this count I have seen no progress at all in years and years, and that being charitable.

I'll quote Thom here, it's been "...almost two years after the D800 announcement and there really isn't a camera that can outperform it. Some can equal it in some fashion, but none manage the full package as well as the D800 does. As I've written several times: the D800 is still the best all-around DSLR solution available." That's from the article linked to in the OP.

As for D700, when I don't feel the need for DX "reach", it gives me everything I need 99 times out of 100. It has an excellent AF, great acuity, plenty of DR at base ISO, and very good high ISO, and it renders beautifully.

I remember when the D3 came out and pixel peeping its files, they are awesome pixels. That said, I bought the D300 because it fit my budget.

For me, it is just about perfect ergonomically, and when I need the grip I use it, and when I don't -- I have a camera of reasonable size and weight.

Hey, that's what we want here, a D400 as it were.

Maybe D800 is just too much of a good thing for me, while D700 is just right.

It's an interesting way of putting it. For me there came a time when I had the money to buy a D700; but I was getting very good results with my D300 and wanted more resolution more than more lowlight so the D700 wasn't the camera I wanted, so I ended up with an A850. If I had the money I would have gotten the D3x instead, but now there's the D800 and it's the answer to what I've been wanting for years (unfortunately for me my finances changed with The Great Recession and I'm still waiting for them to improve before I run out and get a D800 -- so sad about that, but oh well).

Anyway, I know that I won't convince you and you won't convince me, so we may just agree to disagree.

The only thing I'm taking exception to is that the D800 is somehow woefully deficient. For those in this forum it's overpriced with too few fps, but a DX version of the D800 with more fps would be exactly the camera many here are clamoring for.

jfriend00 Forum Pro • Posts: 12,392
Re: Thom on Nikon's unanswered questions...

Tony Beach wrote:

jfriend00 wrote:

Tony Beach wrote:

What is the difference between 12 MP and 16 MP? How often do you get everything a 12 MP sensor has to offer?

If you end up cropping a significant amount (which I sometimes do in action photos either because I was reach starved or because I just decide after the fact that I want to isolate the subject in the shot more than when I captured it), having more than 12MP can be pretty useful either to support printing a cropped image larger or retaining detail after cropping.

That comes down to per pixel sharpness though. If the pixels are sharp, it doesn't take very many of them; if the pixels aren't sharp then no matter how many you have it won't help.

It's not hard to end up with 7-8MP with a little cropping of a 12MP image (it happens to me all the time in sports as it becomes clearer in post exactly how you want the image framed). Are you arguing that one can't capture more detail if you make a good capture and you start with more pixels? That's all I'm saying. It isn't god's gift to instant great images, but a few more pixels can help in some circumstances.

I'd actually like 24MP as it seems a good spot to be that isn't so large that it bothers the workflow a lot, but is enough of a bump that it helps sometimes. I offered a range of 16-24 to be more flexible. You picked on the low of the range.

I picked the D4 number. Why is 16 MP adequate to a lot of pros? One reason is that it's actually not easy to get more than 12 MP of resolution, you have to get very accurate focus, and you need to use very fast shutter speeds or use a tripod and MLU. In Thom Hogan's D3x review he went into this quite a bit showing how hard it was to meaningfully resolve more than he was getting from the D3.

Actually, I don't know how many pixels Nikon would have wanted the D4 to have if they had no constraints, but I'm pretty sure that 16MP was the most pixels they could do 11fps with using EXPEED 3 and the type of read-out circuitry and input into the EXPEED chip that they needed to use for other reasons. At the time, they may well have thought that 24MP was more than some photo-journalist pros wanted at the time too. I think that sentiment has probably changed now and I would expect the D5 to be 24MP in a few years.

If I buy a new lens in the next year, it would either be a Sigma with a changeable mount

I only see one such telephoto lens, the 120-300/2.8, and it's a little bit underwhelming.

I already own the telephotos I need. I'd be buying something shorter if I bought anything. For DX, Sigma's 18-35 f/1.8 is getting stellar reviews and I think they're onto something with high quality lenses with changeable mounts.

That lens is on the list of interchangeable mounts.

Yes, that was my point.

If they keep going with this, I think they're going to capture a meaningful share of the enthusiast lens market (not pro, but more discriminating buyer) both because of offering very good quality at lower prices and because of the mount flexibility so you aren't as locked in as previously.

I still would like to know the price though. Keep in mind that Nikon and Canon are large markets, so it's relatively easy to buy and sell lenses within those mounts, Pentax on the other hand is probably quite a bit harder.

or a used lens that I don't think would depreciate much if I had to sell it.

Not sure how much it would cost to have the mount changed, but I would just go for a good used Nikkor right now.

Used lens shopping is hard and not for the faint of heart. Unless you can shoot with it locally before buying or pay a little more to buy from an outfit like KEH that rates them and lets you return anything, it's really hard to know what you're getting and feel like you're making a "safe" purchase. I'm not saying you can't find good deals, but it's not a simple process and you can get burned.

Selling is easy, buying should be done with caution. Yes, KEH is a good choice here, as is Adorama.

Yeah, buying used lenses isn't easy.

One challenge with buying through KEH is it can take a long time to wait for what you're looking for. I've never ever seen a used D3s or used D4 or 200-400 at KEH. I'm sure some have been sold on KEH, but these items seem to be mostly moving through other venues (where an intermediary isn't taking some of the sales price).

-- hide signature --
yray
yray Senior Member • Posts: 1,747
Re: Thom on Nikon's unanswered questions...

Bajerunner wrote:

yray wrote:

Well, you may also ask yourself why Nikon flagship is fine with 16MP. What 16MP looks like relative to 12MP I know very well (have a D7000 lying around), and as hard as I look I don't see much of a practical difference. I know that a good sharp 12MP picture could be painlessly enlarged to a bigger print size than the vast majority ever cares to print. My benchmark size is 12x18, I don't print larger except in very rare cases, so what use are those additional pixels? If you say that gazillion MP is nice to have to crop or for that rare case when you do want to print wall size, I won't disagree with that. But nice to have comes at a price, longer upload times, longer store times, longer edit times, longer backup times, and more and more storage for all those backups. So, there is clearly a trade-off here between the nice to have pixels and all this overhead which (for me) is mostly pure aggravation. I might be the last holdout on this forum, but I generally don't suffer from "only" 12MP. In addition, for anything that doesn't fall into the domain of sports shooting in the dark, I'm mostly interested in how different cameras render colors and tones rather than pure resolution, and on this count I have seen no progress at all in years and years, and that being charitable....

If I may humbly interject and *suggest* something. I fulyl agree that I see some lovely work with the D700. Was looking at a beauty of a lake image, in low light, on flickr earlier.

That said, have another look at some K-3 or D7100 images, maybe it is JUST ME, but I am seeing strong colors and tonal depth unlike any other APS-C thus far. Great rendition from this sensor.

So, I think there has been change. And I 'believe' that this improvement in rendition is directly related to the number of pixels i.e. the greater number of pixels are enabling the capture of a greater range of tonal variations, thus impacting the image rendition.

I am sold on this sensor, not at first, took me a while.

But, as you mentioned to Tony, we may agree to disagree, but have a look.

It may just be me.

There are many good D7100 images on flickr, it is a good camera. If you like it -- go for it.

Tony Beach Forum Pro • Posts: 11,892
Re: Thom on Nikon's unanswered questions...
1

jfriend00 wrote:

Tony Beach wrote:

jfriend00 wrote:

Tony Beach wrote:

What is the difference between 12 MP and 16 MP? How often do you get everything a 12 MP sensor has to offer?

If you end up cropping a significant amount (which I sometimes do in action photos either because I was reach starved or because I just decide after the fact that I want to isolate the subject in the shot more than when I captured it), having more than 12MP can be pretty useful either to support printing a cropped image larger or retaining detail after cropping.

That comes down to per pixel sharpness though. If the pixels are sharp, it doesn't take very many of them; if the pixels aren't sharp then no matter how many you have it won't help.

It's not hard to end up with 7-8MP with a little cropping of a 12MP image (it happens to me all the time in sports as it becomes clearer in post exactly how you want the image framed). Are you arguing that one can't capture more detail if you make a good capture and you start with more pixels? That's all I'm saying. It isn't god's gift to instant great images, but a few more pixels can help in some circumstances.

Well here's my thinking about that. Yes, it can help. I would have been perfectly happy to see a D400 using the upgraded CAM3500 and a well-tuned 16 MP sensor. There, Nikon could have done that two years ago, easy. Why this hasn't happened is an ongoing discussion here, only now we've moved the bar to 24 MP -- next up will be some other higher end requirement, and we'll just always be waiting for a camera that never comes.

I already own the telephotos I need. I'd be buying something shorter if I bought anything. For DX, Sigma's 18-35 f/1.8 is getting stellar reviews and I think they're onto something with high quality lenses with changeable mounts.

That lens is on the list of interchangeable mounts.

Yes, that was my point.

It won't do you much good if you are going to FX/135 format.

If they keep going with this, I think they're going to capture a meaningful share of the enthusiast lens market (not pro, but more discriminating buyer) both because of offering very good quality at lower prices and because of the mount flexibility so you aren't as locked in as previously.

I still would like to know the price though. Keep in mind that Nikon and Canon are large markets, so it's relatively easy to buy and sell lenses within those mounts, Pentax on the other hand is probably quite a bit harder.

Used lens shopping is hard and not for the faint of heart. Unless you can shoot with it locally before buying or pay a little more to buy from an outfit like KEH that rates them and lets you return anything, it's really hard to know what you're getting and feel like you're making a "safe" purchase. I'm not saying you can't find good deals, but it's not a simple process and you can get burned.

Selling is easy, buying should be done with caution. Yes, KEH is a good choice here, as is Adorama.

Yeah, buying used lenses isn't easy.

One challenge with buying through KEH is it can take a long time to wait for what you're looking for. I've never ever seen a used D3s

There's two D3s cameras there right now, I just looked earlier when researching my previous reply to you.

or used D4 or 200-400 at KEH. I'm sure some have been sold on KEH, but these items seem to be mostly moving through other venues (where an intermediary isn't taking some of the sales price).

Good seller reviews at eBay with adequate precautions are probably the route here, or just bite the bullet and buy it new.  High end lenses sell for about 90% of what they cost new, so the amortized cost of owning them is not that bad if you keep them for a few years and take good care of them and save the original package.

tissunique Veteran Member • Posts: 3,307
Re: Thom on Nikon's unanswered questions...

By now Nikon must have become aware of the very positive responses to a D4/16mp sensor (DF) and its rightful place in a REAL D700 update (maybe up to 20 mpx) - Nikon cannot be that blind! So ultimately I believe that REAL updates to both the D300s and D700 will be forthcoming. It should be remembered that other makers must have taken some market share (i.e. Canon, Sony) from Nikon with cameras that offer much lower mpx (than 36 mpx) but higher build quality and very good image quality.

I do not think the DF will be updated except via firmware and the current model will remain and eventually disappear once the D700 replacement arrives. However, I also believe that Nikon will respond to Fuji's small mirrorless DX bodies after the rather poor 1 series failed to catch on. Finally I think Nikon has forgotten how important 'Made In Japan' is to many photographers but may move medium to high level bodies back to Japan especially with current lower yen value levels.

JimPearce
OP JimPearce Veteran Member • Posts: 9,188
Well Tony...

Of course I'm using fast shutter speeds for BIF with the D7100, but the difference in quality from the D300/s is apparent even at web viewing sizes. How much is resolution, DR, different processing etc. is hard to disentangle.

-- hide signature --

Jim

 JimPearce's gear list:JimPearce's gear list
Nikon D7100 Nikon D500
jfriend00 Forum Pro • Posts: 12,392
Re: Thom on Nikon's unanswered questions...

Tony Beach wrote:

There's two D3s cameras there right now, I just looked earlier when researching my previous reply to you.

Well, I'll be.  Looked for 4 months and never saw one so I gave up.  But, now I see them.

or used D4 or 200-400 at KEH. I'm sure some have been sold on KEH, but these items seem to be mostly moving through other venues (where an intermediary isn't taking some of the sales price).

Good seller reviews at eBay with adequate precautions are probably the route here, or just bite the bullet and buy it new. High end lenses sell for about 90% of what they cost new, so the amortized cost of owning them is not that bad if you keep them for a few years and take good care of them and save the original package.

Remember, this all started because I'm not buying new lenses from Nikon right now because I can't tell if they are going to support my shooting needs going forward.

-- hide signature --
yray
yray Senior Member • Posts: 1,747
Re: Thom on Nikon's unanswered questions...

Tony Beach wrote:

That comes down to per pixel sharpness though. If the pixels are sharp, it doesn't take very many of them; if the pixels aren't sharp then no matter how many you have it won't help.

Exactly!

I picked the D4 number. Why is 16 MP adequate to a lot of pros? One reason is that it's actually not easy to get more than 12 MP of resolution, you have to get very accurate focus, and you need to use very fast shutter speeds or use a tripod and MLU. In Thom Hogan's D3x review he went into this quite a bit showing how hard it was to meaningfully resolve more than he was getting from the D3.

Absolutely!

These are some of the very good reasons why D800 is too much of a good thing for me. I suspect it is also too much of a good thing for a whole lot of others, whether they admit it or not.

It really comes down to what you shoot and how you shoot it. I suspect that a lot of "big croppers" for instance fall into the category of shooters who don't habitually get very sharp pixels. So, they may not benefit from the extra pixels all that much after all.

Devendra
Devendra Veteran Member • Posts: 3,584
not sure

JimPearce wrote:

A decent buffer and 7-8 frames per second are crucial. since Nikon found room for an AF-On button on the Df I'm sure they could find room on a D7200. Add the carbon fiber reinforcement and smoothed out sensor from the D5300, and what more could you want? After six years of shooting the D300 and D300s if anything I find the ergonomics of the D7100 superior. Most of the caterwauling about the body here is coming from people who at most have shot a D7100 in the store.

It is encouraging to hear your feedback on D7100 AF and the fact that you find D7100 ergo's better. Its good to know that Nikon is adding better AF as the years go by in lower end bodies. Lets hope that the next upgrade will be in par n zippy with their previous higher end pro DX (D2h, D2x) bodies

In terms of what else to expect, back in 2005, when we thought D200 was great, Nikon offered us D300. It was a leap in feature set. Nikon certainly has some things up there sleeve, but they are silent. I am expecting the unexpected at the moment, and imaginary speculation only leads to disappointments when it comes to cameras, so I keep my options open.

I also did a small questionnaire in FF forum asking migrants to Nikon which feature(s) they enjoyed in their non-nikon cameras:

http://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/51901907

(folks did come up with interesting suggestions, and I owe them a summary!)

Just based on that, I want other camera makers to survive. These pentaxs/sony/samsungs/olympus etc are the creative ones and they want to attract non-canikon users, while retaining their own following. Its a hard sell, but very much required.

 Devendra's gear list:Devendra's gear list
Nikon D200 Nikon 1 J1 Nikon D800E Sony Alpha NEX-3N
Tony Beach Forum Pro • Posts: 11,892
Re: Thom on Nikon's unanswered questions...
1

jfriend00 wrote:

or used D4 or 200-400 at KEH. I'm sure some have been sold on KEH, but these items seem to be mostly moving through other venues (where an intermediary isn't taking some of the sales price).

Good seller reviews at eBay with adequate precautions are probably the route here, or just bite the bullet and buy it new. High end lenses sell for about 90% of what they cost new, so the amortized cost of owning them is not that bad if you keep them for a few years and take good care of them and save the original package.

Remember, this all started because I'm not buying new lenses from Nikon right now because I can't tell if they are going to support my shooting needs going forward.

There will continue to be a market for high end glass.

Devendra
Devendra Veteran Member • Posts: 3,584
wait wait wait..

n057 wrote:

Devendra wrote:

Well Nikon can provide sraw along with higher fps with D800/E to meet your needs. I am not sure if they will. As far as its af is concerned it is top notch.
So instead of asking Nikon for another body, people can start demanding a 'paid' firmware upgrade to give higher fps n smaller images, even tho free will be better!
Which would you rather chose?

Haha!

Nothing against you Devendra, it is more against the drift of the conversation ...

I would choose none of the above, none of those options are DX

JC
Some cameras, some lenses, some computers

this is not restricted to FF only!

Using older v2 sensors, we can have 32-36mp DX's with 24mp SRAW/Binning or whatever you want to call it. Or just have 24mp. But, basically a slower 5-6fps at full DX, and faster at crop factor (32 down to 24), and/or faster with binned sraw. Just based on a few variables, there are quite a few options that can possible with the sensor and expeed XYZ but different software. Its a win win regardless of the format. I hope that we see this as a potential trend of cameras with software featured upgrades. It will make our cameras last longer while Nikon still being able to make money while focusing on pluggable/upgradable bodies until its time for us to overhaul our bodies again.

PS: and I was responding to jfriend, who has some valid needs which can be FF or DX or both.

 Devendra's gear list:Devendra's gear list
Nikon D200 Nikon 1 J1 Nikon D800E Sony Alpha NEX-3N
Tony Beach Forum Pro • Posts: 11,892
Re: Well Tony...

JimPearce wrote:

Of course I'm using fast shutter speeds for BIF with the D7100, but the difference in quality from the D300/s is apparent even at web viewing sizes. How much is resolution, DR, different processing etc. is hard to disentangle.

At web viewing sizes it's a safe bet that none of the difference is coming from increased resolution.  You are throwing away most of the resolution for web sized images.  I did a comparison between the D70 and D300, and you can't see a difference in resolution in files that are downsized to 650 pixels on the short end (I'm sure I could have gone larger and still not seen a difference).  That said, I'm sure you are seeing differences in web sized displays between the D300 and D7100, the D7100 is probably about a stop cleaner which can even show up at base ISO without looking too hard.

Devendra
Devendra Veteran Member • Posts: 3,584
Re: now if nikon can provide sraw

jfriend00 wrote:

Devendra wrote:

Well Nikon can provide sraw along with higher fps with D800/E to meet your needs. I am not sure if they will. As far as its af is concerned it is top notch.
So instead of asking Nikon for another body, people can start demanding a 'paid' firmware upgrade to give higher fps n smaller images, even tho free will be better!
Which would you rather chose?

One answer to the D800 vs. D700 speed upgrade issue would be to come out with a D800s or D810 that could do 6fps at 36MP and 8fps in an 18-24MP sRAW-like format (still using the full sensor capture though, not a crop mode). Then you could kind of have your cake and eat it too. I don't think this can be done with a firmware upgrade to the D800 though because I doubt the D800 mirror can go 8fps and I don't think the EXPEED 3 knows how to do an sRAW-like format (which probably requires hardware support to achieve 8fps).

I have long believed that we're reached the point with the D800 where it's simply more resolution than is desired for some uses and the best way for Nikon to deal with that is to continue to advance the resolution, but to offer RAW-like reduced resolution captures from the full sensor (sRAW-like done right). Then, you could truly have your cake and eat it too with a camera that does ultra high resolution for landscape, but can also go fast at a lower resolution for the action photographer who's workflow and fps is negatively impacted by very high resolution captures. Offering this capability could allow a single camera to serve a wider variety of needs.

I'd probably buy a D810 that could produce 16-24MP at 8fps (full sensor capture, RAW-like capture, not crop mode, not JPEG) and could also do 36MP (or higher) at 4-6 fps. That would be a killer camera.

I am sure D800/E body is not the limiting factor to flap the mirror (it can already flap at 1/8000 of a second). Expeed 3 may be able to crunch it in 12bit default mode (non-ADL, non-NR etc). I will be happy to pay extra dollars (400-500?) to get this upgrade and maybe a fine tune for another 100. After all photoshop can charge us 120+yr for barely upgrading their software on the average (in cloud). Hope it kicks off. I will be happy, Nikon still makes the bucks to focus on bodies with upgradeable software and impressive feature set. It is a win win across the spectrum of users.

anyway, im just throwing enough ideas and hopefully something will stick its as good of a speculation but variable and dynamic to adjustments rather than sticking with a "born with" set of features. add in replacement sensor, you have a mindboggling set of options and combinations.

 Devendra's gear list:Devendra's gear list
Nikon D200 Nikon 1 J1 Nikon D800E Sony Alpha NEX-3N
JimPearce
OP JimPearce Veteran Member • Posts: 9,188
Re: Well Tony...

The greater acuity shows, especially at f5 and wider.

-- hide signature --

Jim

 JimPearce's gear list:JimPearce's gear list
Nikon D7100 Nikon D500
Tony Beach Forum Pro • Posts: 11,892
Re: now if nikon can provide sraw

Devendra wrote:

jfriend00 wrote:

Devendra wrote:

Well Nikon can provide sraw along with higher fps with D800/E to meet your needs. I am not sure if they will. As far as its af is concerned it is top notch.
So instead of asking Nikon for another body, people can start demanding a 'paid' firmware upgrade to give higher fps n smaller images, even tho free will be better!
Which would you rather chose?

I don't think this can be done with a firmware upgrade to the D800 though because I doubt the D800 mirror can go 8fps

I am sure D800/E body is not the limiting factor to flap the mirror (it can already flap at 1/8000 of a second).

The mirror creates some lag before the shutter engages, that's why we have shutter lag, but 1/8000s is a function of the shutter, not the mirror.  Getting a mirror to raise up 8 times a second is often a hardware limitation and that's why it takes a larger battery to get the D700 and D300 to reach those higher fps.

Tony Beach Forum Pro • Posts: 11,892
Re: Well Tony...

JimPearce wrote:

The greater acuity shows, especially at f5 and wider.

You're going to force me to show my grizzled face from 2011 when I took the comparison shots between my D300 and D70:

I didn't shave that day, but if anything it helps make my point.

Now if you have different results then I would certainly appreciate seeing them.

jfriend00 Forum Pro • Posts: 12,392
Re: now if nikon can provide sraw
1

Devendra wrote:

I am sure D800/E body is not the limiting factor to flap the mirror (it can already flap at 1/8000 of a second). Expeed 3 may be able to crunch it in 12bit default mode (non-ADL, non-NR etc). I will be happy to pay extra dollars (400-500?) to get this upgrade and maybe a fine tune for another 100. After all photoshop can charge us 120+yr for barely upgrading their software on the average (in cloud). Hope it kicks off. I will be happy, Nikon still makes the bucks to focus on bodies with upgradeable software and impressive feature set. It is a win win across the spectrum of users.

anyway, im just throwing enough ideas and hopefully something will stick its as good of a speculation but variable and dynamic to adjustments rather than sticking with a "born with" set of features. add in replacement sensor, you have a mindboggling set of options and combinations.

The mirror doesn't flap at 1/8000th of a second.  The shutter does the 1/8000th and the shutter doesn't even actually open/close that fast.    At those speeds, it uses a moving slit across the frame that gives each pixel in the sensor only 1/8000th of a second of exposure, but not all at exactly the same time.  The shutter is actually doing exposure for longer than 1/8000th.  But, the shutter speed is basically irrelevant here to the fps as long as it isn't really, really slow.  The shutter is already way, way, way faster than the fps.

The mirror in the D800 has not been shown to go more than 6fps (in a crop mode).  If you remember your high school physics, F=ma which means a = F/m so to accelerate the mirror faster to get it up and down faster to go you need more force or less mass.  The mass is probably already as light as it can economically be so generally you need more force.  More force means more power from the solenoid that flips the mirror up and then down and more power in the solenoid means more current from the battery. Flipping mirrors faster costs more in parts.

Then, on top of that auto-focus starts to get more complicated when doing lots of fps because the more frames per second you do, the more time the mirror spends up and the less time the AF system gets to see data to do its auto-focus job.  It only gets data when the mirror is actually down, settled and not moving.  This is often called the "mirror blackout time".  A shorter mirror blackout time gets you better auto-focus on a moving subject at max fps.  Shortening the mirror blackout time is even harder than just making the mirror go up and down fast enough.  It basically means that the mirror has to up and then down even faster so it can be settled and down for a longer period of time between frames.

Now, we know that Nikon can make 8fps mirrors at an economical price because they did it before in the D300 (DX) and the D700 (FX).  We don't actually know the max speed that the D800 mirror could go, but I'd say it's unlikely that it's been designed and tested to 8fps when no specification of the current camera requires that.

I'm not holding my breath thinking that it's feasible to make the D800 go 8fps with a firmware upgrade.  I think they would need a faster mirror, an EXPEED 4 processing chip and probably some other internal circuitry that could go faster.

-- hide signature --
Gazeomon
Gazeomon Contributing Member • Posts: 552
Re: Thom on Nikon's unanswered questions...
3

Maji wrote:

ragspix wrote:

... 4 years to develop the Df??? a parts bin camera...

Bean counters have to account for this stuff

Nikon has deeper problems that can't be seen from the outside.

Rags

I read somewhere that Nikon mentioned that Df took so long because of the natural disasters. As for the other stuff, I think as Thom mentioned, it is more about turf wars within Nikon between their various divisions.

- - - - The Df became a (man made) disaster - - - -

 Gazeomon's gear list:Gazeomon's gear list
Pentax K-5 IIs Pentax K-3 Samsung NX500 Pentax smc D-FA 100mm F2.8 macro HD Pentax DA 21mm F3.2 AL Limited +10 more
Devendra
Devendra Veteran Member • Posts: 3,584
valid points

jfriend00 wrote:

Devendra wrote:

I am sure D800/E body is not the limiting factor to flap the mirror (it can already flap at 1/8000 of a second). Expeed 3 may be able to crunch it in 12bit default mode (non-ADL, non-NR etc). I will be happy to pay extra dollars (400-500?) to get this upgrade and maybe a fine tune for another 100. After all photoshop can charge us 120+yr for barely upgrading their software on the average (in cloud). Hope it kicks off. I will be happy, Nikon still makes the bucks to focus on bodies with upgradeable software and impressive feature set. It is a win win across the spectrum of users.

anyway, im just throwing enough ideas and hopefully something will stick its as good of a speculation but variable and dynamic to adjustments rather than sticking with a "born with" set of features. add in replacement sensor, you have a mindboggling set of options and combinations.

The mirror doesn't flap at 1/8000th of a second. The shutter does the 1/8000th and the shutter doesn't even actually open/close that fast. At those speeds, it uses a moving slit across the frame that gives each pixel in the sensor only 1/8000th of a second of exposure, but not all at exactly the same time. The shutter is actually doing exposure for longer than 1/8000th. But, the shutter speed is basically irrelevant here to the fps as long as it isn't really, really slow. The shutter is already way, way, way faster than the fps.

The mirror in the D800 has not been shown to go more than 6fps (in a crop mode). If you remember your high school physics, F=ma which means a = F/m so to accelerate the mirror faster to get it up and down faster to go you need more force or less mass. The mass is probably already as light as it can economically be so generally you need more force. More force means more power from the solenoid that flips the mirror up and then down and more power in the solenoid means more current from the battery. Flipping mirrors faster costs more in parts.

Then, on top of that auto-focus starts to get more complicated when doing lots of fps because the more frames per second you do, the more time the mirror spends up and the less time the AF system gets to see data to do its auto-focus job. It only gets data when the mirror is actually down, settled and not moving. This is often called the "mirror blackout time". A shorter mirror blackout time gets you better auto-focus on a moving subject at max fps. Shortening the mirror blackout time is even harder than just making the mirror go up and down fast enough. It basically means that the mirror has to up and then down even faster so it can be settled and down for a longer period of time between frames.

Now, we know that Nikon can make 8fps mirrors at an economical price because they did it before in the D300 (DX) and the D700 (FX). We don't actually know the max speed that the D800 mirror could go, but I'd say it's unlikely that it's been designed and tested to 8fps when no specification of the current camera requires that.

I'm not holding my breath thinking that it's feasible to make the D800 go 8fps with a firmware upgrade. I think they would need a faster mirror, an EXPEED 4 processing chip and probably some other internal circuitry that could go faster.

Valid point about shutter vs mirror, but I dont think mirror flipping could be a battery issue. Both D7100 and D800 use the same battery. So 6-7fps is already possible. adding 2more may be a matter of firmware.

I am not crossing my fingers at all. I would rather leave it up to Nikon to come up with options rather than limitations based on my expectations. Hopefully its both ways.

 Devendra's gear list:Devendra's gear list
Nikon D200 Nikon 1 J1 Nikon D800E Sony Alpha NEX-3N
Maji Contributing Member • Posts: 734
Re: Thom on Nikon's unanswered questions...

Gazeomon wrote:

Maji wrote:

ragspix wrote:

... 4 years to develop the Df??? a parts bin camera...

Bean counters have to account for this stuff

Nikon has deeper problems that can't be seen from the outside.

Rags

I read somewhere that Nikon mentioned that Df took so long because of the natural disasters. As for the other stuff, I think as Thom mentioned, it is more about turf wars within Nikon between their various divisions.

- - - - The Df became a (man made) disaster - - - -

I see that you have Pentax stuff... good for you and Pentax. Why do you think Df is a disaster? Nikon has apologized that they underestimated the demand for Df, so it is a business success to them.  Anyway, this is ProDX forum, so please post your findings on Df on the Nikon FX forum. There are plenty of threads there. Otherwise, I would think you are just trolling.

 Maji's gear list:Maji's gear list
Nikon Coolpix P500 Nikon D800 Nikon 1 V2 Nikon D7100 Nikon AF-S Nikkor 70-200mm f/2.8G ED VR +6 more
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum MMy threads