Pages: [1] 2   Go Down

Author Topic: new nikon digital  (Read 10479 times)

drew

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 477
    • http://www.andrewrichards.net
new nikon digital
« on: July 22, 2003, 09:34:05 am »

Dale,
I think you are essentially correct in what you have written. The only things I would add are in relation to Kodak and Fuji. I think Kodak is going to be very busy continuing to get the DCS Pro 14n 'right', though they may yet have something up their sleeve. I think Nikon is going to limit availability of pro-spec bodies to other manufacturers and Kodak and Fuji may see it as undesirable in the longterm to continue collaboration with Nikon. For these reasons, I wonder if in fact Fuji will have another joint collaboration with Hasselblad to bring a completely new D-SLR system to market to compete with the 1DS. This may be regarded as 'silly' speculation, but I really do not think it is that far fetched.
I was amused to see that Michael thinks Canon's European website should be the source of information on the new D2H!!

>> Thanks to everyone for pointing out my brief-lived typo. — Michael
Logged
Andrew Richards [url=http://www.andrewri

dlashier

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 518
    • http://www.lashier.com/
new nikon digital
« Reply #1 on: July 22, 2003, 07:57:22 pm »

> for the larger format to dominate most or all of the SLR market, it would have to come down to only a few hundred dollars

Very true, but Canon is showing no signs of abandoning a smaller sensor for their price (10D) or speed (1D) lines and the 1Ds FF essentially *expands* their market into MF rather than directly competing with Nikon. I guess what I'm saying is that I don't see it as an either/or matter, but Nikon will not be competitive in the hires market until the D2x, if then.

- DL
Logged

BJL

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 6600
new nikon digital
« Reply #2 on: July 22, 2003, 09:58:42 pm »

D Lashier,

   I completely agree; it seems likely that the bigger Canon will compete strongly in all sectors of digital photography (except MF backs), while Nikon might skip the very high end. But given my expectation that the DX format can reach somewhere beyond 10MP and roughly match 645 MF quality, they might not be losing too big a share of the total photographic market, if the loss of prestige is not too bad.

P. S. My read of the technology for a given pixel pitch is that there are good prospects for substantially increasing the "blowout point" (maximum photon count), but the noise level is perhaps within a stop or two of the minimum set by fundamental physics (quantization noise and quantum efficiency). If so, for a given pixel pitch, dynamic range, S/N ratio and exposure latitude might yet improve considerably, while sensitivity ("effective ISO") might not increase much more; in turn pixel counts can be increased for a given sensor size, paying mostly with reductions in maximum usable sensitivity. At the same pixel count, the pixel size difference between difference formats would lead to about 1/4 to 1/2 stop advantage for 35mm format over DX, and the same drop again for 4/3 format.

The potentially good news for smaller formats and smaller pixels is that increasing dynamic range and such seems a far more pressing need than higher sensitivity.
Logged

Quentin

  • Guest
new nikon digital
« Reply #3 on: July 23, 2003, 07:57:31 am »

I don't see how Nikon could abandon "high resolution" DSLRs at this stage, as to do so would mean that the D1x is an end of the line product - and Nikon introduced us to the concept of the affordable DSLR with the D1.  Moreover, given the development of the D2H, there is now a body available for a D2x without requiring much further development.   I'm pretty sure we'll see a D2x announced within ther next 6 months.

I can't unfortunately see Fuji getting closer together with Nikon, which in many ways would be an ideal solution, as Fuji have enough on their plate already.  Fuji are now very closely associated with Hasselblad, making not just the new H1 and its lenses, but also the x-pan 35mm panoramic camera, plus they make their own range of pro quality medium format rangefinders, and large format lenses.  They are also producing their new 22mp medium format back.  I hope I am wrong about this, as Fuji have a lot more financial clout than Nikon do, plus their own sensor technology.

Quentin
Logged

Ray

  • Guest
new nikon digital
« Reply #4 on: July 25, 2003, 11:05:42 pm »

Seems we're talking about two different issues here.

(1) Is it possible to make a gorgeous 13x19 print from 6MP that looks impressively sharp? Yes it is?

(2) Is it possible to make a gorgeous 13x19 print from 6 MP that is as sharp as can be[/i]? No it isn't.

To get a print looking as sharp as can be you need at least 4 lp/mm on the enlargement (so I'm told. There are many references to such numbers on this site.)

I've recently made some very impressively sharp 13x19 prints with my D60 and 50mm F1.8 prime lens; prints that 'look' sharper than anything I produced with 35mm film. But on close examination I could find little that was finer than about 2 lp/mm. To be precise, 40 lp/mm on the D60 sensor becomes slightly less than 2 lp/mm on a 13x19 print which has been enlarged 21.7 times. Single strands of hair I found to be about 0.25mm in width, although I did find small sections of strands of hair that were close to 0.2mm which would represent about 50 lp/mm on the sensor - close to the limit of the D60's resolving power.

However sharp these prints may 'appear' to be, I can only assume that the same shots taken with a 1Ds and different but equal quality lens, would appear even sharper.
Logged

Ray

  • Guest
new nikon digital
« Reply #5 on: July 26, 2003, 04:15:34 am »

Well, Joe has just confirmed it's true - but only in relation to 13x19 prints (and larger, it's understood).

I doubt whether the 1Ds would show much advantage with 8x10 prints, and I bet absolutely none at all with 5x7 and 6x4 prints.

It's quite clear that large format cameras produce sharper large format prints, and the 1Ds is a larger format camera than the D60/10D.
Logged

Ray

  • Guest
new nikon digital
« Reply #6 on: July 26, 2003, 11:47:12 pm »

Quote
Both images were captured with the same lens, the 10D image was shot at 22mm and the 1Ds image at 35mm.
Joe,
Well that's what one would expect, to compensate for the 1.6x factor. But I don't consider a 22mm lens to be the same as a 35mm lens. Even though they're both incorporated in the same zoom housing, they're effectively different lenses with different performances.

To provide the information that I and others on this forum are keen to know, you need to shoot a target with both cameras from the same distance using the same lens. It's understood in such a test the 1Ds will have the benefit of an effective wider angle.
Logged

Daniel Bliss

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2
new nikon digital
« Reply #7 on: July 28, 2003, 10:05:47 pm »

In regards to Jeff Donald's post of about five days ago on Nikon "losing money for years", that's not right as far as I can tell from a cursory look into their financials.  This past year, Nikon has indeed lost money, heavily, due to the bath they've taken during the tech industry slump on the portion of their business that produces manufacturing equipment (specifically, some hugely expensive device called a "stepper") for semiconductor manufacturers.  

But the camera division is showing steadily increasing profitability, heading towards 15 percent of sales -- a phenomenal margin in manufacturing -- and of particular note is that not only are their sales of digicams exploding but their sales of SLR cameras and lenses are going up at a brisk rate too -- the only part of their camera division in decline is 35mm film point and shoots.  And that last part is true of everyone.  Nikon users need not worry about the future viability of their system -- at least not unless some know-it-all with an MBA and a fad decides that they're a semiconductor company and not a camera company.  But that would be very un-Nikonish, don't you think?  

Admittedly, Nikon users who want more than 10 megapixels at more than ISO 400 in a full-featured body and in full frame have a bit of a problem right now.  But that's another story . . .

In any case, things have progressed a long way from the dark days of responding to the AF challenge by designing the F4 as the "best manual focus camera in the world."

For this information I am citing a good article on Nikon Financials on the Thom Hogan website (www.bythom.com).
Logged

glen gaffney

  • Guest
new nikon digital
« Reply #8 on: July 22, 2003, 05:32:22 am »

I was just looking at the nikon Japan web site  about the new nikon digital. Overall I am disapointed although I dont have extensive knowledge of digital cameras. There have been technical advances but beleive they will have disapointed many nikon users. By going with 200asa to me is a step backwards. Thought they might lower it to 100asa. I thought they might increase the memory to 10 or 11 mgb. Price wise I presume it will jump. What do others think?
Logged

Dale_Cotton

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 588
    • http://daystarvisions.com
new nikon digital
« Reply #9 on: July 22, 2003, 01:14:58 pm »

Quote
>> Thanks to everyone for pointing out my brief-lived typo. - Michael
Or as Emerson used to say: a foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds.

Drew: I'm interested in your reasoning behind Nikon limiting access to pro bodies. I anticipated that after the Fuji S1 but I was wrong. Having multiple body manufacturers for their lens line is one of the few edges Nikon has over Canon, and I was beginning to believe they were actually smart enough to realize that...

Regarding the Kodak 14n, if their pro dSLR division survives, my guess is that they would have to start with a whole new sensor to solve the 14n's problems, and by the time you do that you pretty much have to re-engineer the rest of the camera as well.

I'm also curious as to what lens line a Fuji-Hasselblad 35mm dSLR would use. Both are superb lens crafters but I'm not aware of either having an existing 35mm lens line-up.

Back to Nikon, I see it as a corporation run my a very old-school senior management team. One that took a very personal pride in creating a product that was so well crafted that it took on the aura of perfection we associate with Rolls Royce autos, Swiss watches, and Leica rangefinders. I think they wanted to offer the same level of craftsmanship but at a price point that kept the common man in the equation. (What a coup the Nikon F and F2 must have been in a decade that associated the words made in Japan with trinkets!) But the rules of the game kept changing under their feet. The concept of a camera kept morphing from all-manual to all-computer then to digital output. Hard to see the aura of craftsmanship in a D1x. I don't get the feeling that the corporate heart of Nikon is in the game any longer.

Frankly, I wish they'd set up a new division to re-issue their classics, such as their rangefinder and the F2. I don't think they'd lose money in doing so, and I think it would help put the spirit back into a fine organization.
Logged

BJL

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 6600
new nikon digital
« Reply #10 on: July 22, 2003, 06:26:59 pm »

I expect that Nikon is indeed concentrating on the "smaller format" DSLR market, probably for the reasons suggested above, and that they will succeed or fail mostly depending on the future cost differential for doubling the size of both the sensor and low-pass filter.

Currently that difference is about US$3,000 or more at retail; for the larger format to dominate most or all of the SLR market, it would have to come down to only a few hundred dollars, so I would like any predictions one way or the other about likely future costs to take account of the AA filters as well as sensors, and to be backed by quantitative evidence or arguments, not just vague extrapolation from past price trends.

Ideas on how to eliminate the AA filter are also welcome! Two that have been tried, but have not fully proven themselves yet, are Foveon's X3 and "small enough pixels" as in the Kodak 14n.
Logged

H Sexsmith

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 7
new nikon digital
« Reply #11 on: July 22, 2003, 08:19:20 pm »

To Dale Cotton in regard to the 6 mp sensor being large enough to make a 8x10 print.  Have you ever used a 6 mp camera and have you followed any of the information that is available on this site in the last 3 years?
Logged

jwarthman

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 99
new nikon digital
« Reply #12 on: July 22, 2003, 08:40:50 pm »

H Sexsmith,
I suspect Dale will jump in here, but I'd like to comment as well.

Over the past three years, I've done much shooting with a D30, a D60, and now a 1Ds. I have made and sold gorgeous 13 x 19" prints using only the 3.3 MP of the D30! From my point of view, 6 MP is perfectly adequate for printing 8 x 10 images - even after cropping to fit the 8x10 aspect ratio.

Actually, if I print a 1Ds image at 8 x 12 and 300 ppi, I end up throwing pixels away! Similarly, an 8 x 12 from the D60's 6 MPs could be printed at 256 ppi. Depending upon the image, either Photoshop's bicubic interpolation or Genuine Fractals brings the resolution nicely up to 300 or 360 ppi for printing.

The bottom line for me is that, while prints of a given size benefit (up to a point) from higher resolution sensors, I agree with Dale when he says 6 mega pixels is sufficient for prints up to 8 x 10.

Enjoy!

-- Jim
Logged

jwarthman

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 99
new nikon digital
« Reply #13 on: July 22, 2003, 09:41:01 pm »

Yes, I believe I just did say that:

"From my point of view, 6 MP is perfectly adequate for printing 8 x 10 images"

and

"I agree with Dale when he says 6 mega pixels is sufficient for prints up to 8 x 10."

Perhaps I'm misunderstanding your question to me, or your earlier post to Dale. Do you agree with Dale (and now me) in regard to making an 8 x 10 print with a 6 MP image?

Apologies if I was mistaken in thinking you were doubting Dale's assertion.

Enjoy!

-- Jim
Logged

Dale_Cotton

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 588
    • http://daystarvisions.com
new nikon digital
« Reply #14 on: July 22, 2003, 10:01:05 pm »

Quoting myself:

Quote
6 megapixels is also more than enough for on-line presentation and printing up to 8x10, which is all the vast majority of photographers ever do.

I think a misunderstanding has arisen. When I wrote "printing up to 8x10" I wasn't implying that one can't go beyond 8x10 with 6 megapixels (obviously one can and I have), but rather that the average digital photographer only has a letter-sized printer, so 6 mp is a luxurious amount for his needs ("more than enough").

Looks like I need a refresher course in defensive writing even more than I do in defensive driving...
Logged

Marshal

  • Guest
new nikon digital
« Reply #15 on: July 23, 2003, 03:01:19 am »

Now, having said that, I still wish and hope for a D1X replacement. It would be great to have something the equal of the 1Ds without requiring me to sell my Nikon gear and buy the 1Ds. The 70-200 VR-ED that so many have been raving about is very appealing to me and it would be great to use it with the D1X, but even better, a future D2X.

And that brings us to this thought: If there was only going to be one D2 model, Nikon could easily have named this new PJ & Sports camera just that, the D2. But they gave it the name D2H. It stands to reason that if there is a D2H, then there should be another D2# model in the pipeline called something else. D2X? Makes sense doesn't it? Hopefully, there will be another announcement in the following months. Certainly by PMA next February.

As for Kodak, they will really need to greatly improve the 14n with continual upgrades, particularly to fix the noise and color fringing problems. Otherwise, it'll end up in the lemon graveyard with the Contax N Digital. Nikon was expecting the 14n to take a lot of the pressure and expectation for a high megapixel count D-SLR off their shoulders. But with the 14n disappointing just about everyone, that has not turned out in their favor.
Logged

Dale_Cotton

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 588
    • http://daystarvisions.com
new nikon digital
« Reply #16 on: July 23, 2003, 10:41:01 am »

Quote
I'm pretty sure we'll see a D2x announced within the next 6 months.
The D2H's LBCAST sensor technology seems a likely candidate for all future Nikon pro dSLRs. The may well be planning to kick the wheels of this technology with the D2H then ramp it up to larger sizes. I don't think six months is a likely time frame for this, but in six months they may feel comfortable enough to announce the new camera.

That said, another thing to keep in mind is that Nikon may well decide that they don't need to go as high as 10 mp for the target audience for this hypothetical new camera. Even with LBCAST, mp and fps will always be in opposition. Keeping the same pixel pitch as the D2H's sensor which puts 4 mp's in an APS frame size would mean 6 mp's in full frame, no?
Logged

Marshal

  • Guest
new nikon digital
« Reply #17 on: July 25, 2003, 11:19:42 pm »

A logical assumption.
Logged

H Sexsmith

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 7
new nikon digital
« Reply #18 on: July 26, 2003, 02:03:32 am »

Ray:  I hope your statement is true as for the money you should get somewhat of an improvement from the 10D to the 1Ds.
Logged

Joe Hardesty

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 228
new nikon digital
« Reply #19 on: July 26, 2003, 11:12:31 pm »

Quote
Quote
but that would seem to be impossible since the 1Ds has a full frame CMOS.
Joe,
Not impossible at all. The size of the sensor has no bearing on the lens fitting, as you well know  .

The purpose of the exercise I'm suggesting is to determine which camera resolves the greater number of  lines per mm[/i]. It's already known that the 1Ds resolves more lines per frame. That's in the specs - about 4000 pixels for the 1Ds as opposed to 3000 for the 10D.
Ray,

As expected, I went back and looked at the RAW files. Both images were captured with the same lens, the 10D image was shot at 22mm and the 1Ds image at 35mm.

This was done on an actual photograph. I was not testing anything at the time. Later, when I realized that I had two very similar images, I decided to compare. The reason for the difference in focal length is simply that I was standing in the same location capturing the same image in the viewfinder.
Logged
Thanks for the memories!
Pages: [1] 2   Go Up