D600 AF module and coverage area

[mg428]

1) Even though D600 uses 39 AF points (same as D7k), due to the bigger sensor size, these 39 AF points are highly centralised within the FX frame area as seen in the attached photo.





I was wondering how and in what respects this would affect user experience when compared to D7k?

2) Even though D7k and D600 uses the same AF module, i.e. Multi-CAM 4800, the former uses "Multi-CAM 4800 DX" and "Multi-CAM 4800 FX". Is there any difference between these two? Or are they just named as "... DX" and ".....FX" just due to the sensor they are used with? If they is any difference, how likely D600's AF would perform better? If there is not, how likely D600 AF may perform better than that of D7000 due to using Expeed 3 processor instead of Expeed 2?

 

[AllOtherNamesTaken]

Nikon is claiming it's new, and has given it the F8 "certification" as the D4/D800 modules share as well.

My guess is an updated version of the D7000 module, slightly better performance.

Mark

 

[Kerry Pierce]

It's the same layout with all FX cameras. They didn't change the physical size of the AF module, the FOV is changed.

In most respects, I like the DX configuration over the FX, but it's not all that big of a deal, once you get used to it. It mainly affects folks that use the outer points a lot, while composing. You simply can't move the subject farther out into the frame with FX, like you can with DX.

The bottom line is that it won't change. You have to learn how to use the FX configuration. It's not really difficult to do so. I use both formats all the time. You get used to it and don't think much about it. At least that has been my experience.

Kerry

--
my gallery of so-so photos
http://www.pbase.com/kerrypierce/root

 

[mg428]

It's the same layout with all FX cameras. They didn't change the physical size of the AF module, the FOV is changed.

In most respects, I like the DX configuration over the FX, but it's not all that big of a deal, once you get used to it. It mainly affects folks that use the outer points a lot, while composing. You simply can't move the subject farther out into the frame with FX, like you can with DX.

The bottom line is that it won't change. You have to learn how to use the FX configuration. It's not really difficult to do so. I use both formats all the time. You get used to it and don't think much about it. At least that has been my experience.

Kerry

--
my gallery of so-so photos
http://www.pbase.com/kerrypierce/root

Kerry,

As far as I know all Nikon FX DSLRs so far have had 51 AF points. This is the first FX DSLR with less than 51 points. Even though 39 compared to 51 does not seem to be that much different, the 39 layout on the bigger FX sensor is extremely centralized in my opinion.

Therefore, even though you are used to both FX and DX, perhaps even you may find this much centralized layout a bit weird. What do you think?

 

[eNo]

It's the same layout with all FX cameras. They didn't change the physical size of the AF module, the FOV is changed.

In most respects, I like the DX configuration over the FX, but it's not all that big of a deal, once you get used to it. It mainly affects folks that use the outer points a lot, while composing. You simply can't move the subject farther out into the frame with FX, like you can with DX.

The bottom line is that it won't change. You have to learn how to use the FX configuration. It's not really difficult to do so. I use both formats all the time. You get used to it and don't think much about it. At least that has been my experience.

Kerry

--
my gallery of so-so photos
http://www.pbase.com/kerrypierce/root

Kerry,

As far as I know all Nikon FX DSLRs so far have had 51 AF points. This is the first FX DSLR with less than 51 points. Even though 39 compared to 51 does not seem to be that much different, the 39 layout on the bigger FX sensor is extremely centralized in my opinion.

Therefore, even though you are used to both FX and DX, perhaps even you may find this much centralized layout a bit weird. What do you think?

I'm mostly a center focus kind of guy anyway. It avoids a lot of sins and keeps life simple. I do move the focus points only when I absolutely have to, and I don't find the FX layout that big of a deal. It's fine.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~



Home page: http://imagesbyeduardo.com
Portfolio page: http://downeyweddingphotography.com/wedfolio

 

[Kerry Pierce]

Kerry,

As far as I know all Nikon FX DSLRs so far have had 51 AF points. This is the first FX DSLR with less than 51 points. Even though 39 compared to 51 does not seem to be that much different, the 39 layout on the bigger FX sensor is extremely centralized in my opinion.

Yes, that's correct. All of the other FX cameras have 51 pt AF and it's still in the center of the frame. None of the 51 pts are likely to go farther out into the frame than the 39 pt module. I'm not sure, but I think that you can see the AF point layout in the camera's reviews. I do know that some of them have it, so you can see the difference and directly compare the AF layout for both DX and FX cameras, and probably the same for the Canon APS-C and full frame cameras.

Therefore, even though you are used to both FX and DX, perhaps even you may find this much centralized layout a bit weird. What do you think?

Yes, when you're used to and like the larger DX AF point frame coverage, it's annoying not to have it. But, unfortunately, there's nothing to be done about it, if you want to use FX. It's not just Nikon that does this, Canon AF placement is the same, AFAIK. It has something to do with the physical limitations of the AF module.

If it is something that you value very highly, I'd suggest waiting for a few months, to see what Nikon does with the next DX cameras that they announce. It's likely that they are done with FX cameras for a while, so DX cameras, like the d300 and d7000 replacements, should be forthcoming.

Kerry
--
my gallery of so-so photos
http://www.pbase.com/kerrypierce/root

 

[Sooch2011]

It's the same layout with all FX cameras. They didn't change the physical size of the AF module, the FOV is changed.

In most respects, I like the DX configuration over the FX, but it's not all that big of a deal, once you get used to it. It mainly affects folks that use the outer points a lot, while composing. You simply can't move the subject farther out into the frame with FX, like you can with DX.

The bottom line is that it won't change. You have to learn how to use the FX configuration. It's not really difficult to do so. I use both formats all the time. You get used to it and don't think much about it. At least that has been my experience.

Kerry

I see what you are saying, I currently use the D7000 and it does have the same AF 39 points and config and like you said on the DX they fill the frame more and here in the D600 the frame looks larger.

I use a single AF point that I move around the frame with the D pad, I have gotten pretty fast and accurate with this method, are you saying that people who generally use FX AF systems use the focus recompose method?

From this layout I don't see how you could get focus on anything outside the center area (I'm exaggerating a bit) without focus recompose?

Thanks for your time

 

[sandy b]

I think the actual coverage is about the same, here is the D700, remember that it was not a 100% view

 

[Kerry Pierce]

It's the same layout with all FX cameras. They didn't change the physical size of the AF module, the FOV is changed.

In most respects, I like the DX configuration over the FX, but it's not all that big of a deal, once you get used to it. It mainly affects folks that use the outer points a lot, while composing. You simply can't move the subject farther out into the frame with FX, like you can with DX.

The bottom line is that it won't change. You have to learn how to use the FX configuration. It's not really difficult to do so. I use both formats all the time. You get used to it and don't think much about it. At least that has been my experience.

Kerry

I see what you are saying, I currently use the D7000 and it does have the same AF 39 points and config and like you said on the DX they fill the frame more and here in the D600 the frame looks larger.

I use a single AF point that I move around the frame with the D pad, I have gotten pretty fast and accurate with this method, are you saying that people who generally use FX AF systems use the focus recompose method?

From this layout I don't see how you could get focus on anything outside the center area (I'm exaggerating a bit) without focus recompose?

Yes, there are certain situations where you'd want to F&R on an FX camera, where you wouldn't on a DX camera, but that hasn't been been a significant problem to me. It's not something that is a regular complaint on the FX forum either.

It's not something that really bothers me, even when I'm switching back and forth between the d300 and the d700. If I really want a certain composition that I can't get with the d700, I'll usually use the d300 for that shot. But, it also depends on other conditions of the shoot. Most of the time, if I'm using the d700, it's due to wanting lower noise and/or less DOF and I'll just use the farthest point that I can and frame a little loose, so I can crop it later.

But, if it's something that is important to you, I'd suggest waiting a while to see what DX cameras are coming in the near future. Personally, I like using both formats and intend to do that for as long as I can.

Kerry

--
my gallery of so-so photos
http://www.pbase.com/kerrypierce/root

 

[Nikita66]

1) Even though D600 uses 39 AF points (same as D7k), due to the bigger sensor size, these 39 AF points are highly centralised within the FX frame area as seen in the attached photo.

I was wondering how and in what respects this would affect user experience when compared to D7k?

Good question. I was just noticing this on the Nikon site. It does seem like it would make 3-D tracking less effective.

Also, how does F/stop effect the number AF points available? Does this imply any lens stopped down or just lenses with smaller max apertures?

(btw, l like Sandy's Mockingbird avatar.)

 

[jfriend00]

There are significant differences due to the geometry differences:

1. Smaller focus sensor elements can lock onto smaller items in the viewfinder (assuming same subject size in viewfinder). This is an advantage to the FX layout.

2. Sensor elements spread out over a larger area can more easily track difficult subjects (such as an erratically flying bird in flight) that might be much more difficult to keep within the bounds of the FX layout. This is an advantage to the DX layout.

3. If you want to manually move the focus point to an off center point (like when focusing on non-centered people in a tripod-based shot, you have much more range to do so in the DX layout. Advantage to DX layout.

4. This is a theoretical deduction that I have not tried to prove in practice, but if you compare a DX camera with a 200mm lens and an FX camera with a 300mm lens to give you the same field of view in both and the focus sensors effectively cover the same physical area, then the FX camera will have magnified the image 1.5x more (because of the 300mm lens vs. the 200mm lens) and that extra magnification could make focus changes more sensitive and thus more accurate to measure. If true, advantage to FX.
--
John
Gallery: http://jfriend.smugmug.com

 

[mg428]

According to the attached slide taken from a Nikon presentation, available in the blog post below, the layout of the 39 AF points is not centralised as suggested in my original post:





http://www.photographyblog.com/news/nikon_d600_hands-on_preview/

As seen the layout seems to be same or very similar to that of D7000. In fact the blog post also states the following: " The Multi-CAM4800 AF module isn’t the same as the Multi-CAM4800DX module used in the D7000 – that would have been too small for an FX camera – but the arrangement of the focus points is similar"

The Nikon Imaging website, however, seems to be contradictory-- I don't know you but to my eyes, the layout of the AF points seems to be quite centralised, at least far much more centralised when compared to D7000.

http://imaging.nikon.com/lineup/dslr/d600/features02.htm#a4

I know it is a bit early but I will appreciate if someone (who may have an hand-on experience with D600 in Photokina or something) can confirm which layout represents the actual arrangement of the AF points on the D600.

 

[Nikita66]

Yes, I am interested in the answer to this question also.

Is D600 39 pt AF system taken directly from D7000 and thus covering a smaller area on FF, or is it an updated 39 pt system that fills the frame more?

As mentioned above, the Nikon US site makes it appear much smaller on the D600.

 

[Mako2011]

D700







Only diff really is the extra outside and top/bottom row of boxes in the D700/D800

 

[Nikita66]

Thanks for posting Mr M.

Looks like D600's 39 pts cover a lot less on an FX sensor than on the D7000.
hmm, seems like less effective 3D tracking for D600.

 

[freddyNZ]

That diagram is wrong and not to scale.

It looks like this D600/800: