Nikon user take at new announcements

[BernardLanguillier]

Dear all,

Since I am one of the few Nikon users on this forum, I though I would just share some reactions about the new Nikon announcements.

- It seems clear that the D3 is a reaction to the 1d3, and that another flagship model will follow in the coming 6 months that will also be FX with around 20MP or more.

-> I am personnally not happy about this since I keep thinking that a 20MP class DX sensor could have been made with good enough DR at low ISO. This would have been a superior tool for landscape applications (more DoF, lighter body and lenses). I guess that the techniques I am now using with my ZD to overcome the lack of DoF will come handy when the d3x becomes available.

- I am in total denial of the assumption that Nikon users were defending DX because of the lack of FX options in the Nikon line-up,

- Since high ISO has never been a priority for me, I don't care too much about the claimed best in class high ISO performance, but I am concerned by the low ISO performance of these bodies. We will see if Nikon manages to do what Canon never really could which is to deliver both high quality high ISO and noise free low ISO. I personnally doubt it,

- Considering that FX is now an avoidable fact if life, in the announcement, the part that seems most significant to me is the combined release of the D3 and the 14-24f2.8. This lens in itself is a revolution in the Nikon world and in photography as a whole. Nikon had never released such a daring design in the past. The closest thing is a Sigma, but I believe considering Nikon's wide angle history that this new Nikkor has the potential to redefine the meaning of wide angle shooting on DSLRs. Nikon always said that they would not venture into FX without the matching lenses, and it seems that they have executed the plan. We'll have to check the closest possible focussing distance and actual image quality, but Nikon makes very explicit claims in this regard.

- I'll probably get a D3 and the matching new lenses as an additional tool in my line up to cover these few low light cases where my current Nikon bodies were not performing satisfactory.

- It appears pretty clear to me that Nikon has invested a lot more than Canon these past 3 for years and that innovation is now clearly delivered by Nikon. I hope that Canon will react and that they next pro bodies will be more groundbreaking than the somewhat boring 1ds3.

Cheers,
Bernard

[Rob C]

Yes, good news, FF D was the natural way for 35mm film to go when its time had passed, but let´s see whether the price makes it buyable to enough people to encourage the new investment Nikon must have made.

Let´s be honest here: I hope it means that I can  buy one of the damn things! The D200 is excellent and, like Bernard, I´m not much interested in anything other than slow ISOs, but to get real w/a potential once more would be lovely!

Rob C

[blansky]

I've been patiently waiting for a 22MP (roughly) DSLR to be announced. I print large prints and have been hoping that someone will come out with something that will not force me to go medium format and shell out 15-20 thousand dollars.

I own a Nikon D200 and a few lenses so I was hoping Nikon would announce a 22MP. Now I have to decide if I should switch to Canon, or buy a back for my V Hasselblad like a Leaf or Phase One.

It looks like it's going to be an expensive few months.


Michael

[paulbk]

RE > “I am personally not happy about this since I keep thinking that a 20MP class DX sensor could have been made with good enough DR at low ISO. This would have been a superior tool for landscape applications (more DoF, lighter body and lenses).”

I often see references to sensor size, mega pixels, and DoF. I don’t understand how sensor size or number of pixels are related to DoF. My thinking: Take a lens, any lens, use it to cast an image on a white board (assumed film plane).

Def. Image DoF = the amount of foreground and background that appears to be in focus about the center of focus and along the lens axis.

Case 1 FF: Use a marker to draw a FF rectangle about the center of the projected image. Neither the number of pixels nor the size of the FF rectangle will change the DoF of the image. It merely cropped the image.

Case 2 less than FF: Use a marker to draw a smaller rectangle inside the previous FF rectangle. Again, neither the number of pixels nor the size of the smaller rectangle will change the DoF of the image. You merely cropped the image again.

Conclusion: Sensor size nor the number of pixels used to represent an image have anything to do with DoF........... True? In other words, it is the lens that makes the image, including DoF(assume apature is lens function). The camera determines the fidelity of what is captured.

I agree that sensor size and pixels affect resolution (the ability to see fine image detail, lp/mm whatever).

p

[John Camp]

I think that Nikon, as the smaller of the two major pro-level camera makers, had to be more concerned with camera profit than did Canon, which has extensive lines of other business/consumer products. So I think Nikon deliberately bracketed Canon's offerings with equivalent cameras at lower price points, producing a pretty attractive product line (from a business point of view) and for now, let the top-end uber-camera go. I don't doubt that it will show up next year, but at $8,000 a crack in the US, and notably more than that in Europe and the UK, the 1DsIII is not going to sell a lot of copies. It's more of a brand-making, prestige item for the company. Nikon does need to meet that competition if it wants to recover its ground as THE pro camera, but in terms of company viability, it wasn't urgent that they do so immediately.

I would expect the Nikon uber-camera to be on the streets no later than about next fall...

JC

[BernardLanguillier]

I often see references to sensor size, mega pixels, and DoF. I don’t understand how sensor size or number of pixels are related to DoF. My thinking: Take a lens, any lens, use it to cast an image on a white board (assumed film plane).

Def. Image DoF = the amount of foreground and background that appears to be in focus about the center of focus and along the lens axis.

Case 1 FF: Use a marker to draw a FF rectangle about the center of the projected image. Neither the number of pixels nor the size of the FF rectangle will change the DoF of the image. It merely cropped the image.

Case 2 less than FF: Use a marker to draw a smaller rectangle inside the previous FF rectangle. Again, neither the number of pixels nor the size of the smaller rectangle will change the DoF of the image. You merely cropped the image again.

Conclusion: Sensor size nor the number of pixels used to represent an image have anything to do with DoF........... True? In other words, it is the lens that makes the image, including DoF(assume apature is lens function). The camera determines the fidelity of what is captured.

I agree that sensor size and pixels affect resolution (the ability to see fine image detail, lp/mm whatever).

p
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=135109\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

DoF depends on distance to subject and focal lenght.

An APS sensor will typically use a shorter focal lenght to frame a given subject a given way considering a given distance to subject. The DoF will therefore be larger all other things being equal.

This is an indisputable fact confirmed dayly by millions of people using small digital cameras at f4.0 with virtually un-lmited DoF.

Regards,
Bernard

[Mark D Segal]

........at $8,000 a crack in the US, and notably more than that in Europe and the UK, the 1DsIII is not going to sell a lot of copies. It's more of a brand-making, prestige item for the company.

JC
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=135111\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

OK - that's your crystal ball. My crystal ball says that given the whole package of features and technological upgrades in that camera, there will be a large professional and upscale pro-sumer market for it, and demand will exceed supply for many months.

Time will tell whose crystal ball knows better!  

[Ray]

Conclusion: Sensor size nor the number of pixels used to represent an image have anything to do with DoF........... True? In other words, it is the lens that makes the image, including DoF(assume apature is lens function). The camera determines the fidelity of what is captured.

I agree that sensor size and pixels affect resolution (the ability to see fine image detail, lp/mm whatever).
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=135109\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Paul,
You'd find if you did a search that this subject has been debated ad nauseum on this forum many times.

There are other considerations that indirectly have an effect on the DoF of the final image, not just the mathematical furmulae relating to the lens aperture, focal length and distance to subject.

The most important of these is composition. You can make the statement that a 50mm lens on a cropped format camera produces the same DoF as a 50mm lens on a full frame camera, provided the aperture and distance to subject are the same, but he questions I would ask here are;

'Is an image without reference to its composition meaningful?'

'Is the statement that two different compositions have the same DoF meaningful? The parts that are common to both images should have the same DoF, if the lens, aperture and distance to target is the same, but what about the parts that are not common to both compositions?

Fine, you might say. With the cropped format camera, same lens and aperture,  I'll just step back till the field of view is the same as that through the FF camera.

However, if you do so, the DoF will then be greater.

Now some people will argue that the reason the DoF is greater is because you've increased the distance to the subject. And that's true. But there are often reasons behind reasons and I would argue that the reason why the distance is greater and therefore the DoF, in this example, is because I used a camera with a smaller sensor.

[paulbk]

I agree with you all: if you change the configuration of the lens system (focal length, aperture) you can change the depth of field of the image. I agree with me in that the characteristics of the capture device (film, sensor, pixels) has no affect on the DoF of the lens image.

Once you start to compare quasi-equivalent images (same field of view more or less) using different lens systems and capture device, the waters get murky without a lot of head nodding and qualifying remarks.

Thanks to those that replied. I simply wanted to ensure that I was not missing some kind of magic that happened behind the lens. Turns out that QED still works the way it has since the bang.

[Rob C]

All lenses, of ALL focal lengths, have the same depth of field at the SAME APERTURE and when producing the same magnification; as Ray says, things change when composition comes into consideration, but it is composition that is the maverick, not depth of field.

Rob C

[BJL]

Bernard,

   console yourself that this camera is quite simply not aimed at you (or me), but the next model might be: the D3's 12 million jumbo-sized pixels means that the camera will give its best only with the big, heavy lenses of the high end sports/wildlife/PJ/action photographer; lenses like the ones releases along with the D3.

Actually, isn't the D300 more to your tastes?

- ... the part that seems most significant to me is the combined release of the D3 and the 14-24f2.8. This lens in itself is a revolution in the Nikon world and in photography as a whole. ... The closest thing is a Sigma, but I believe considering Nikon's wide angle history that this new Nikkor has the potential to redefine the meaning of wide angle shooting on DSLRs.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=135048\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I would say that the closest thing is the Olympus 7-14/4, offering the same wide angle coverage and far better quality that the Sigma 12-24. But of course the 7-14/4 has a far smaller maximum aperture diameter, so is effectively far slower, but with far more DOF wide open or even at f/4 on each lens. If getting great DOF at f/4 is your thing, that lens is for you!

[Kirk Gittings]

All lenses, of ALL focal lengths, have the same depth of field at the SAME APERTURE and when producing the same magnification; as Ray says, things change when composition comes into consideration, but it is composition that is the maverick, not depth of field.

Rob C
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=135257\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

This is not entirely true, unless I am missing something in your statement. Why, comparing 4x5 and 35MM with lenses of equivalent angle of view on the film (ie 90mm/28mm) with both at f16 is there considerably more depth of field in 35mm. Having done this for almost 30 years, shooting 4x5 and 35mm side by side, I know absolutely that this is true.

[BJL]

comparing 4x5 and 35MM with lenses of equivalent angle of view on the film (ie 90mm/28mm) with both at f16 ...
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=135314\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

f/16 is not a measure of aperture, it is a measure of aperture RATIO: the ratio of focal length to (effective) aperture.

For the same FOV (and same displayed image size and viewing distance) DOF is the same for equal aperture, meaning effective aperture diameter or entrance pupil size.

For your examples,
28mm, f/16 is 28mm/16=1.75mm aperture,
90mm, f/16 is 90mm/16=5.6mm aperture.

[BernardLanguillier]

Bernard,

   console yourself that this camera is quite simply not aimed at you (or me), but the next model might be: the D3's 12 million jumbo-sized pixels means that the camera will give its best only with the big, heavy lenses of the high end sports/wildlife/PJ/action photographer; lenses like the ones releases along with the D3.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=135311\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I know. My main "concern" is that the D3x will be FX as well... :-(

Actually, isn't the D300 more to your tastes?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=135311\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Probably so, yes. The thing is that it is very close to the D2x I have been owning for 2.5 years. The main potential value would be 14 bits which could solve the main current weakness of the D2x, being a slight lack of DR.

I'll probably not maintain 2 sets of wide lenses though.

Regards,
Bernard

[Rob C]

This is not entirely true, unless I am missing something in your statement. Why, comparing 4x5 and 35MM with lenses of equivalent angle of view on the film (ie 90mm/28mm) with both at f16 is there considerably more depth of field in 35mm. Having done this for almost 30 years, shooting 4x5 and 35mm side by side, I know absolutely that this is true.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=135314\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Kirk, if you want to throw the past around, let me join you; I spent my photographic apprenticeship years working in industrial photography (Rolls-Royce Aero Engine Division) and I think I know a little bit about different formats too.

Where your statement is both right and wrong is that you are not comparing the right thing. The statement I made is NOT a matter of equivalent views being covered; it IS a matter of lenses of ALL focal lengths when making an image of  the same physical size having the same depth of field.

If you take an image circle from, say, a 135mm lens for 4x5 format and then cut into that circle and show the area covered by 135mm lenses for 120 film and then 135 film, you will realise that all you have done is reduce the area within that circle being covered by the format function; the depth of field has not changed, just the area covered. The object, say a football, when shown at one inch in height with the original 135mm lens on 4x5 is still an image one inch high when the area is reduced by outlining the 120 and 35mm film formats; neither size nor DOF have been chaged, just area covered.

That´s why I said that Ray was right when he said that composition comes strongly into play for this attempt at both understanding and definition of terms. He also explained the point which you have made, and why I say you are right and also wrong.

I have no wish to develop this into a personal battle with you or anyone else - I´m both too old and too tired to handle protracted fights about things that don´t really affect my life much anymore. I simply want to try to clear up possible confusion, of which there seems to be one hell of a lot. I just hope I haven´t added to that instead!

Ciao - Rob C

[dturina]

The main potential value would be 14 bits which could solve the main current weakness of the D2x, being a slight lack of DR.

I would venture a guess that the slight lack of DR comes from pixels being too small, not because ADC conversion is insufficiently detailed. After all, Canon 5D has 12-bit ADC and its DR is just fine.
12-bit stepping can be a potential problem when you try to postprocess the hell out of images with very narrow tonality (blue sky, fog, etc.), but would it limit DR - no, I don't think so. I wouldn't even expect to see any difference in real world images.

What we do need is not 14-bit ADC but new kind of CMOS technology that would reset the pixels once they saturate, and set MSB after readout and conversion. For instance, if ADC produces 12-bit, this technology should generate a 13-bit result where the MSB is set by the "spill/reset detector" and lower 12 bits would be set by the ADC. This alone would increase DR by one stop. Doing it more intelligently (meaning, with multiple prefix bits) could increase DR indefinitely. However, I'm not into sensor design so I don't know if it's feasible.

[DiaAzul]

Dear all,

Since I am one of the few Nikon users on this forum, I though I would just share some reactions about the new Nikon announcements.

[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=135048\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

The one point that doesn't seem to have been made is that Nikon has launched a full frame camera with equivalent specifications as a reduced frame camera (1DIII) for marginally more cost. Either the cost of producing full frame sensors is dropping so fast that the cost differential with cropped sensors is becoming insignificant or Nikon is taking a chunk out of the margins to launch the camera at its current price.

If the barriers to swapping brands weren't so high I could see some price cutting - however, with the difficulty of churning customers between brands it will be some time before economics forces prices down.

In reality, I see Nikon's currently launches as positive for the market. There is now some real competition between the two main brands which either will lead to rapid product improvement and/or price reductions - both sadly missing in the market for the last couple of years.

[John Camp]

OK - that's your crystal ball. My crystal ball says that given the whole package of features and technological upgrades in that camera, there will be a large professional and upscale pro-sumer market for it, and demand will exceed supply for many months.

Time will tell whose crystal ball knows better! 
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=135147\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

My crystal ball doesn't disagree with your crystal ball -- a lot of a certain kind of pro will want the camera, and there may even be shortages for a while (a short while), but I'm saying that the total number of people who want the 1DsIII, and will be willing to pay the price, isn't large enough to have a significant effect on the financials of the companies involved.

Nikon desperately needed to match the Canon system, and has effectively done that; that may effectively end the leakage to Canon. For Canon to add ~3mp to its top-end camera won't make much difference to buying patterns.

So the question in a lot of markets is going to be, is the 1DsIII price worth it, when you can get a 1DmkIII (or a used 18mp 1DsII) for a lot less , and still get great photos? There's already a "why do us Europeans get screwed?" thread somewhere on Askey's site, where somebody is complaining that the UK price for the 1DsIII will be 6000 pounds -- almost $12,000...

JC

[Mark D Segal]

My crystal ball doesn't disagree with your crystal ball -- a lot of a certain kind of pro will want the camera, and there may even be shortages for a while (a short while), but I'm saying that the total number of people who want the 1DsIII, and will be willing to pay the price, isn't large enough to have a significant effect on the financials of the companies involved.

Nikon desperately needed to match the Canon system, and has effectively done that; that may effectively end the leakage to Canon. For Canon to add ~3mp to its top-end camera won't make much difference to buying patterns.

So the question in a lot of markets is going to be, is the 1DsIII price worth it, when you can get a 1DmkIII (or a used 18mp 1DsII) for a lot less , and still get great photos? There's already a "why do us Europeans get screwed?" thread somewhere on Askey's site, where somebody is complaining that the UK price for the 1DsIII will be 6000 pounds -- almost $12,000...

JC
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=135476\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

John, given the size of these companies, the fate of one model of one product line won't bring the house down in either one of them. But that isn't how large corporations generally think. At this scale of global operations in multi product lines, everything they do is divided into profit centers and the people who run each profit center are responsible for making a profit in their respective center, otherwise they answer for it. So the front-line people need to think hard about the relationships between investment in technology, features, timing, price, volume and profit - with an eye to the future both in terms of reputation and market development.

The change for this model is more than 3 MP - the 1DsII is 16MP, not 18. So there will be roughly a 25% increase in resolution of the III over the II, which latter was about a 25% increase of resolution over the original 1Ds. The market will be not only up-graders from II to III, but those who skipped the last heart-beat and would be up-grading from I to III. The increase of bit depth, the DIGIC III processor, automatic dust removal, convenience features such as larger screen, live histogram, etc. etc. all combine to make this package more than just an up-grade of resolution. You're asking a good question about whether the up-grade is worth the price. It is the same question people had to ask between the 1Ds and the Mark II, and a very substantial number of people up-graded. Of all the FF Canon users I've met over the past two years, several use the D5 and the rest use the Mark II. I'm in the minority using the original 1Ds, which I think is still an excellent camera. This time I intend to buy a Mk III and keep the 1Ds as a spare body. Big expenditure, but it will just give me a whole lot of additional convenience, quality and head-room for editing photographs.

European pricing of course makes these decisions more difficult, but the resale market is probably also of higher value than it is in North America. Also, don't forget than in Europe up to 17~20% of the price is VAT which is foldded into the quoted retail price. In North America sales taxes are tacked-on to the quoted price. All that said, I agree there are still annoying differentials between various markets that cannot be explained away by tax differentials. It is then Canon's pricing policies which come in to play. We see that play-out here in Canada where it now seems the 1DsIII will be about 1000 costlier than in New York City, exchange rate adjusted at today's rates. This probably has to do with smaller operational scale in this country, higher unit costs for maintaining a local distribution and servcice facility and the hedging of foreign exchange risk. Of course even though it can be "explained", it still irritates!

[Ray]

The change for this model is more than 3 MP - the 1DsII is 16MP, not 18. So there will be roughly a 25% increase in resolution of the III over the II,

Not quite correct, Mark. There's roughly a 25% increase in pixel count which represents at best a 12% increase in resolution with a perfect lens (square root of 1.25). Considering that we don't have perfect lenses and that final resolution is always a compromise between sensor resolution and lens resolution, in practice the increase in resolution will be less than 12% with a good lens and probably only in the central part of the image.

You're asking a good question about whether the up-grade is worth the price. It is the same question people had to ask between the 1Ds and the Mark II, and a very substantial number of people up-graded.

Perhaps I shouldn't be answering for John Camp. He can speak for himself. But the upgrade from the 1Ds to 1Ds2 was more substantial. Whilst still only a modest increase in resolution (about 20%) there was a very significant increase in high ISO performance. I'd expect the the 14 bit DIGIC III processor in the 1Ds3 will provide some improvement in shadow noise which might translate to marginally cleaner high ISO images, but I doubt there'll be any significant leap in performance here.

Seems to me the 1Ds3 is an ideal upgrade for owners of the 1D2 who resisted upgrading to the 1D3. They'll gain the most. Nevertheless, those who want the best that 35mm has to offer and who can afford it will find enough reason to buy the 1Ds3.