D800?

[argieramos]

Derrel's very detailed post simply put says don't judge a camera (system) by it's sensor lone, that it's only a part of the equation. 2 brands utilizing the same sensor will potentially have 2 totally different capabilities. Was it that hard to understand?

Ofcourse is not all about the sensor. That's why Canon still popular. It's all about the whole package. I was questioning him the need of that long explanation. Nobody is saying something bad about Nikon.

 

[cgipson1]

Derrel's very detailed post simply put says don't judge a camera (system) by it's sensor lone, that it's only a part of the equation. 2 brands utilizing the same sensor will potentially have 2 totally different capabilities. Was it that hard to understand?

Ofcourse is not all about the sensor. That's why Canon still popular. It's all about the whole package. I was questioning him the need of that long explanation. Nobody is saying something bad about Nikon.

Explaining a rather complex issue, sometimes takes a paragraph or three. Hence, the long explanation.. explained as simply as possible.

 

[argieramos]

Sony already HAS MADE a 24.6 MP full-frame sensor: it was used in the Sony in the A850 and A900 bodies, and is currently still in the Nikon D3x. Interestingly, the noise and overall color response,dynamic range, saturation,and resolution of the SAME "sensel" (the light-sensitive part that SOny made and sold to Nikon for the D3x) was quite a bit different between the Sony cameras and the Nikon D3x. Nikon spent a ton of engineering, design, and manufacturing effort to improve the electronics and probably the entire filter array of the D3x--and the camera's $7995 price tag allowed them to do that. Sony, OTOH, sold the A900 at a really LOW price point, and the A850 even lower, at $1899 on the A850, and around $2200 or so (depending on region,time of lifespan,etc). The Sony A900's high-ISO performance and color responses were not the same as those of the D3x; the D3x did a lot better at higher ISO's, but the final cost of the D3x has made it a pretty rare beast.

We've gotta remember: Sony has already gained the lead over Canon on mid-level sensors and noise performance: the Canon 7D's sensor is well,well beneath the Sony sensor the Pentax K5 and Nikon D7000 are using. Canon cut down the MP count in its G10 from 14.7 to a 10 MP sensor in the G11; for Canon, the 18.2 MP sensor, 17.8 or so effective in the 7D has issues with color depth and dynamic range, and it seems that they need to TOTALLY RE-WORK the electronics...which is what Nikon learned going on five years ago now; the sensel, the light-sensitive part that they buy from Sony isn't a complete sensor until Nikon pairs it up with read electronic, Noise Reduction capability,Nikon's proprietary color matrix demosaic routines, and the AA filter array...the sensor is part of the equation---but one of the real KEYS people keep overlooking is how LOW READ NOISE electronics can take a fine, basic sensor, and then with the right camera-maker skills, the performance can be elevated to superb CAMERA performance.

We need to step back just a bit and look at the final "camera" performance, not the sensor specifications!!!! The A900 and D3x comparisons showed this conclusively. Same with the Canon 7D versus the Pentax K5 and Nikon D7000. I have a feeling that, just maybe, the "36 megapixel" specification is indeed true. But----and this is the biggie---what Nikon does with that data is going to be the result of NIKON engineering, not Sony engineering. Nikon might do what they did with the older D1-series cameras--those were called "2.7 megapixel" cameras, but Nikon revealed years later they were using a 10-million photosite sensor, and were in effect "binning" the data...using basically three data points to create one data point. This is a good way to reduce noise. It's probably more cost-effective to do that that other approaches. I think with a 36 MP pixel count, Nikon's engineering could figure out a way to apply Noise Reduction, as needed, to produce very good, usable files, EVEN AT HIGH ISO values...

This ain't 1999, or even 2006, any longer...the old idea that too many MP automatically lead to "objectionable noise"...well, that idea has been made one heck of a lot less valid with the advances in noise reduction through better electronics. A camera is not just a sensor--the camera part of the equation is critical. Nikon, and Pentax, are now using Sony sensors that can capture an image with the exposure set wayyyyyyy too brief (as in say, proper for ISO 50,000), and then the sensor exposed with an exposure properly set for ISO 200, and then the resulting BLACK raw file can be opened up, and a quite decent image made out of the data. I have seen the demonstrations of this from the Pentax K-5...ISO 50,000 at gain setting of 200 in-camera, then the file rescued....the results were what I would describe as "miraculous".

I have not seen anything even comparable with any other sensors...so...whatever the new Sony sensors bring, and whatever the electronics, demosaic routines, and image processing Nikon adds to the equation, I really do think the new "D800" will make good images. If it has a higher number than the 700, the core capabilities will be higher and better; that is the way Nikon iterates products. An updated product gets a letter added....an entirely new level of core capabilities gets an entirely new model number. Sorry for the length of the post, but just had to lay out my thoughts.

The 24mp in Sony's upcoming SLT will not be the using the same sensor as the a900. True that D3x uses the same sensor found in a900 but the results are much better than Sony. Why? Because that sensor has been tweaked, modified, improved by the Nikon engineers and pass that cost to consumers. It's barely a Sony sensor after the process. You're not trying to compare a low budget FF to an expensive professional FF, right?

Ofcourse the sensor that Nikon is getting from Sony is not finished. Final touch up is needed to fit the other companies desired flavor, but the core engineering and structure of the sensor is already built.
Camera maker skills has nothing to do with this. Remember, Canon make their own sensors. Nikon always rely on third parties. If I make a homemade boost controller to gain a bit more PSI from the turbo and put it in Toyota Supra to make it faster, that will not make me better than Toyota. Nikon is just being smart about their camera strategy. Nikon is aware that Sony,the company of where most of their sensor is coming from is also in the camera market and they always make their camera few steps ahead of Sony's camera counterpart even though it will make it more expensive. Compare the Sony a580 to D7000. Both mid-level, same sensors and both scored 80 in DXoMark lab test. But the d7000 takes the cake with its prism, built quality, etc. People see the D7000 as better camera ignoring the fact that it is almost 2x more expensive compare to the camera that can give you same IQ.

I don't believe in better camera. Just better photographer.

 

[jake337]

Considering how many D3, D3s and D3x are popping up on KEH, I can't wait till it fills with D700's!

 

[IgsEMT]

I got D700 about 6months, so as far as IQ goes, I don't have a need to upgrade. Since I'm a photographer and not a videographer, (but do use video for personal use - my D300s and D90 does the job ).
In the near future, I'll look into D800 but not any time soon.

 

[Derrel]

Uhmmm, what's up with this Derrel? What are you trying to prove?

I was not trying to "prove" anything. Just to bring up some topics, like pixel binning (which Nikon basically admitted eight years after the end of production of the old "2.7MP" D1h), the importance of low-noise read electronics; the value of proprietary engineering knowledge; the fact that two identical sensels can be fitted with the right AA filters, and electronics, and only then put into cameras, and the results will be dramatically different, based upon what the CAMERA MAKER DOES. I pointed to the A900 nd D3x with the same sensel, and how much money Nikon poured into the D3x to decrease the noise level and boost the color response.

I also wanted to point out that there has been an almost unobserved paradigm shift between the pixel count of sensors and what can no be done with VASTLY IMPROVED electronics and image processing, and finally to make the point that all this talk about the "sensor's MP count" is not what we need to focus on. I pointed to Canon's G10 14.7 MP retreat to only 10MP in their follow-up G11, and I mentioned that Canon's newer sensors in 1.6x segment are already behind the newer Sony 16.2 MP models; I was contrasting Canon's simple approach of just lowering the MP count, and contrasting it with Nikon's EXHAUSTIVE R&D efforts to wring the UTMOST out of a sensor--at great cost to the user...and for those following along, how the newer D7000 and Pentax K-5 have achieved even BETTER imaging capabilities through better electronics paired with Sony-made sensors.

And finally, I was trying to get people to focus on the Nikon naming strategy: a NEW LEVEL of core capabilities earns an entirely new name and model number from Nikon--which is not the way Canon does things; the D700's follow-up people are waiting for COULD be a D700s--with the better High-ISO sensor and electronics of the D3s migrated downward--we do not know for sure, just yet! I wanted to assure people that if it says D800, it will be a camera that has a new level of core capabilities, and it will be a good CAMERA. No matter if it has a "36 Megapixel" sensor. Why? pixel binning perhaps. The engineering and R&S knowledge from the D3s and D3x applied to a lower-tiered camera. Better read-electronics than Nikon had in 2007 or 2008. Better demosaic routines. Nikon's camera-making abilities. The advance of time, and the shifting of emphasis to the electronics as a way to wring better images out of sensors.

 

[argieramos]

I was not trying to "prove" anything. Just to bring up some topics, like pixel binning (which Nikon basically admitted eight years after the end of production of the old "2.7MP" D1h), the importance of low-noise read electronics; the value of proprietary engineering knowledge; the fact that two identical sensels can be fitted with the right AA filters, and electronics, and only then put into cameras, and the results will be dramatically different, based upon what the CAMERA MAKER DOES. I pointed to the A900 nd D3x with the same sensel, and how much money Nikon poured into the D3x to decrease the noise level and boost the color response.

I also wanted to point out that there has been an almost unobserved paradigm shift between the pixel count of sensors and what can no be done with VASTLY IMPROVED electronics and image processing, and finally to make the point that all this talk about the "sensor's MP count" is not what we need to focus on. I pointed to Canon's G10 14.7 MP retreat to only 10MP in their follow-up G11, and I mentioned that Canon's newer sensors in 1.6x segment are already behind the newer Sony 16.2 MP models; I was contrasting Canon's simple approach of just lowering the MP count, and contrasting it with Nikon's EXHAUSTIVE R&D efforts to wring the UTMOST out of a sensor--at great cost to the user...and for those following along, how the newer D7000 and Pentax K-5 have achieved even BETTER imaging capabilities through better electronics paired with Sony-made sensors.

And finally, I was trying to get people to focus on the Nikon naming strategy: a NEW LEVEL of core capabilities earns an entirely new name and model number from Nikon--which is not the way Canon does things; the D700's follow-up people are waiting for COULD be a D700s--with the better High-ISO sensor and electronics of the D3s migrated downward--we do not know for sure, just yet! I wanted to assure people that if it says D800, it will be a camera that has a new level of core capabilities, and it will be a good CAMERA. No matter if it has a "36 Megapixel" sensor. Why? pixel binning perhaps. The engineering and R&S knowledge from the D3s and D3x applied to a lower-tiered camera. Better read-electronics than Nikon had in 2007 or 2008. Better demosaic routines. Nikon's camera-making abilities. The advance of time, and the shifting of emphasis to the electronics as a way to wring better images out of sensors.

With all these better electronics reading thingy, means more cost to the consumers. It does not mean that particular company has better technology. Pentax K-5 being better than the Nikon D7000 in terms of IQ does not mean Pentax technology is better. According to Pentax, they almost have no profit in every K-5 they sold even though it's a bit more expensive than the D7000. That's not the case with the D7000 I believe. You said Canon new sensor is already behind Sony 16mp, but I am pretty sure Canon can make a better sensor if they don't mind more production cost. I think Canon not trying that hard because they still making a lot of money out of those new cameras using old sensor. It maximized the profit. Most consumers don't really look at the numbers of test result. When they go to stores, their eyes see that the IQ of Nikon and Canon cameras are about the same. Even the IQ difference of 60D and D7000 is huge according to DXoMark and imagingresource, that is something people wouldnt be able to see when testing these cameras at store. Some actually think Canon is superior because of better video when they do the testing. That is something Nikon is working on, to improve the video so that people wouldn't think that way.

 

[Balmiesgirl]

Yes that is what I am trying to say.

I have compared the d7000 (16mp DX) and d3 ( 12 mp FX) and the larger pixels on my d3 are amazing! I think it affects image quality to put more pixels on a sensor.... Makes me concerned about upgrading to the d4....
Even with my commercial work I haven't needed bigger files so far....

 

[EchoingWhisper]

Yes that is what I am trying to say.

I have compared the d7000 (16mp DX) and d3 ( 12 mp FX) and the larger pixels on my d3 are amazing! I think it affects image quality to put more pixels on a sensor.... Makes me concerned about upgrading to the d4....
Even with my commercial work I haven't needed bigger files so far....

That won't happen, in fact, the image quality will become better.

 

[slackercruster]

$3300 is what I read the D800 may go for. Too much $ for me. I hope to get a D700 bargain if they come down in $. Can hardly afford that.

 

[slackercruster]

Derrel's very detailed post simply put says don't judge a camera (system) by it's sensor lone, that it's only a part of the equation. 2 brands utilizing the same sensor will potentially have 2 totally different capabilities. Was it that hard to understand?

Ofcourse is not all about the sensor. That's why Canon still popular. It's all about the whole package. I was questioning him the need of that long explanation. Nobody is saying something bad about Nikon.

How can Canon have a 21mp FF dslr for $2400 and Nikon D700 is priced higher and has much less MP for the $?

Canon Direct Store- EOS 5D Mark II Body

 

[BlairWright]

Why are you all knocking 36MP?

Because with all due respect Blair...:thumbup:

It may well have average low light performance due to an over crammed sensor, it may suffer from diffraction issues, it will take up huge amounts of space on peoples memory cards and hard drives when shooting RAW, 36MP could potentially out resolve many lenses, camera shake will be more visible in photos potentially.

Why they can't go to something like 24MP?? I really don't know. 24MP will offer great high resolution images while remaining a reasonable amount of pixels. Yes I know, 36MP on FX is the same density as 16MP on DX. But who needs 36MP apart from studio and pro landscape photographers? I think 36MP makes the D800 a studio camera that is also being marketed to consumers? This is where this whole episode becomes confusing to me. I guess, Nikon are trying to steal Canons 5D Mark II market back a bit.

Nonetheless, It will be interesting to see the detail levels produced by the D800. At the same time, I am hoping this love session with Sony will not begin to hinder Nikon. 36MP seems to be overkill, I don't think Nikon needs to go the heavy marketing based route that Sony always take things with higher and higher megapixel figures.

And before Skieur comes on here, thinking I am flaming Sony. For once, I am not flaming Sony at all! I may dislike the company that is Sony, but Sony are doing amazing things with sensor production. Nikon then take the sensor and develop it more to get optimum performance, Pentax did the same with the K5 sensor.

I assumed immediately that this was a studio camera like the D3X. I'm not quite sure why you think this will be marketed "to consumers", it will be around 3 grand (in USD) which is well past what most consumers will pay for a camera body. Lastly, you should use the best glass with FX format anyways.

I totally understand that everyone wanted a D3S in a D700 body, I would like to see that too but this is obviously a 5D MkII compedator and not in direct competition with the new Nikon flagship. Of course who knows what will happen with the second version of the D800 when that arrives, it may have lower resolution and higher ISO capabilities.

I personally think the reality is that Nikon needs to compete with Canon's 5D MKII and grab some mid range market share to stay alive in this economy. The D800 sounds like a winner to me, if the rumors are true it will be a studio version of the D700 and I wouldn't complain about that at all.

Time will tell, this thing is supposed to announce soon.

 

[PDP]

88 posts!
Some really interesting points being discussed, thanks.

According to a well known rumor site Nikon has press announcements on 1st & 7th Feb. It is anticipated that the 7th Feb will relate to the successor for the D700.

 

[Nikon_Josh]

Derrel's very detailed post simply put says don't judge a camera (system) by it's sensor lone, that it's only a part of the equation. 2 brands utilizing the same sensor will potentially have 2 totally different capabilities. Was it that hard to understand?

Ofcourse is not all about the sensor. That's why Canon still popular. It's all about the whole package. I was questioning him the need of that long explanation. Nobody is saying something bad about Nikon.

How can Canon have a 21mp FF dslr for $2400 and Nikon D700 is priced higher and has much less MP for the $?

Canon Direct Store- EOS 5D Mark II Body

Wow, your looking at buying a D700? And your asking questions like this?? this is the sort of statement a person with a compact camera makes. Do some reading my friend and learn about photography before buying a D700. You are clearly believing that just because a camera has a higher megapixel count it is BETTER! Which is just plain wrong...

 

[Nikon_Josh]

Why are you all knocking 36MP?

Because with all due respect Blair...:thumbup:

It may well have average low light performance due to an over crammed sensor, it may suffer from diffraction issues, it will take up huge amounts of space on peoples memory cards and hard drives when shooting RAW, 36MP could potentially out resolve many lenses, camera shake will be more visible in photos potentially.

Why they can't go to something like 24MP?? I really don't know. 24MP will offer great high resolution images while remaining a reasonable amount of pixels. Yes I know, 36MP on FX is the same density as 16MP on DX. But who needs 36MP apart from studio and pro landscape photographers? I think 36MP makes the D800 a studio camera that is also being marketed to consumers? This is where this whole episode becomes confusing to me. I guess, Nikon are trying to steal Canons 5D Mark II market back a bit.

Nonetheless, It will be interesting to see the detail levels produced by the D800. At the same time, I am hoping this love session with Sony will not begin to hinder Nikon. 36MP seems to be overkill, I don't think Nikon needs to go the heavy marketing based route that Sony always take things with higher and higher megapixel figures.

And before Skieur comes on here, thinking I am flaming Sony. For once, I am not flaming Sony at all! I may dislike the company that is Sony, but Sony are doing amazing things with sensor production. Nikon then take the sensor and develop it more to get optimum performance, Pentax did the same with the K5 sensor.

I assumed immediately that this was a studio camera like the D3X. I'm not quite sure why you think this will be marketed "to consumers", it will be around 3 grand (in USD) which is well past what most consumers will pay for a camera body. Lastly, you should use the best glass with FX format anyways.

I totally understand that everyone wanted a D3S in a D700 body, I would like to see that too but this is obviously a 5D MkII compedator and not in direct competition with the new Nikon flagship. Of course who knows what will happen with the second version of the D800 when that arrives, it may have lower resolution and higher ISO capabilities.

I personally think the reality is that Nikon needs to compete with Canon's 5D MKII and grab some mid range market share to stay alive in this economy. The D800 sounds like a winner to me, if the rumors are true it will be a studio version of the D700 and I wouldn't complain about that at all.

Time will tell, this thing is supposed to announce soon.

Well, the 5D Mark 2 is a camera designed to appeal to consumers and semi pros alike who want to go FX. It's the lower build quality cheaper version of the PRO spec cameras Canon produces. And the D700 was produced to compete with the 5D, so I am assuming that the D800 will be aimed at consumers and semi pros aswell. The D3X was the camera designed for studio professionals after all. Yes, it is clear Nikon are doing some rearranging.

But if they do stick with just the one D800 it will be a poor decision in my opinion. I hope you are right about introducing a separate version with lower MP etc..