Nikon DSLR speculation - April 2008

[UWphotoNewbie 1]

One thing which seems like it would be of interest to many members which has not yet been discussed on this thread is the weather the D3x is likley to fit in D3 housings. I am just ignorant on this. Between the D2h and the D2x do they fit in the same housing?

 

 

Yes, the D2h and the D2x fit the same housings. Very fortunate. The D3x is still science fiction so who knows? But odds are that it will fit. Fortunately for us, pros like to have all their buttons in the same place so learning a new camera is transparent and mature cameras have the ergonomics and feature set down. My "guess" is that it will fit.

[loftus 42]

The other rumour that is gathering strength is of a smaller bodied FX camera (a Nikon rival to the Canon 5D) speculated to be 18MP and called the D10. This camera would be of particular interest to underwater photographers. It has recently occurred to me that this camera could have the same body as the D300 - and therefore fit in existing housings.

 

Alex

The more I think about this, this would really be a sweet situation - being able to have this camera and a D300 fitting in the same housing, a whole lot better than thinking of a D3 and D3x combo to travel with.

[TimG 62]

In your dreams, Loftus. I bet you $5 now that whatever body is made, DX, FX, D10, D400, D4XSMini - whatever - it won't fit into a D300 housing. But, gotta tell you mate, that is one bet I would be delighted to lose! But I guess we have to keep that nice Herr Subal in strudel, eh?

[loftus 42]

Either way I will keep Herr Subal and Ryan at Reef in Strudel, because within the next year I think one of these cameras is in my future. Just have to see what model(s) materialize before I decide.

[davephdv 0]

You guys are not listening. As I posted earlier, I already ordered the Subal D300 housing. That is a guarantee that a theoretical D3X will NOT fit in the D300 housing.

[Alex_Mustard 0]

I'd expect that the D3X will fit in the D3 housing. The one potential fly in the ointment is if Nikon actually follow the D3 with a D3X and D3H - as they did with the D1 (followed by D1H and D1X). These could have a slightly revised body, but unlikely. The D3X and D3H remain a possibility - certain according to Thom Hogan's speculation. And they could mean a revised body and hence a minor revised housing.

Alex

[Warren_L 0]

I would tend to agree that whatever FX successor to the D300 will not be the same body as the D300. It will take some engineering to fit the larger sensor, mirror, and pentaprism in the same body. As for the D3X, it would be nice to be able to use the D3 housing for it too. But not that I can afford to get a D3X also, so I guess for me, the point is moot anyway.

[UWphotoNewbie 1]

Let me be clear, I think the D3x will probably fit a D3 housing but the the D10 (should it exist) will probably not fit into any other housing. I even doubt that a D400 will fit a D300 housing. If a new catagory is created in the D10, then it will require an all new feature set. And the cameras at the mid-bottom level keep changing their features and ergonomics because the market dynamics there are different. Its only the true pros that eschew wiz-bang features in favor of conservative productivity.

[timrock 1]

I must admit all of this full frame nonsense does nothing for me. I totally enjoy the benefits of the 1.5 sensor and have no desire to change. I am even happy with my little 10MP and the D200 and will probably hold on to it for another year until the dust settles and we see what Nikon really wants to do with its line.

 

The D3 files are pretty nice, though, I will admit.

 

I'd like to see Nikon settle on a battery that works throughout the line and continue the crop line as well.

 

The rest is too much too soon. Does anyone have major use for 18MP files? I mean really?

 

(the caldron of controversy continues to boil).

 

Tim of the Deep

[dhaas 34]

Ditto what Tim says

 

I said it back on page 4 of this discussion......Yes, the D3 (and likely D3X?) are great advances as are the Canon 1DS MKIII and soon to be Canon 5D replacement. But full frame sensors likely are not as critical especially for 99% of UW shooters as they MIGHT be for surface shooter of varied persuasions.

 

I'm sure if Tim (and many others I know who are shooting APS-C sensor dSLR cameras) can attest any of these models coupled with RAW and even minor computer skills is producing material that satisfies their customer's requirements.

 

YMMV

 

dhaas

Edited May 13, 2008 by dhaas

[loftus 42]

I am even happy with my little 10MP and the D200 and will probably hold on to it for another year until the dust settles and we see what Nikon really wants to do with its line.

 

The D3 files are pretty nice, though, I will admit.

 

Tim of the Deep

Even though my upgrade gene tempts me to do so on a daily basis, I am forcing myself to hold back. It's worse than being on a diet.

I think we are really reaching a plateau on this technology, where the incremental improvements with upgrades are getting less, or at least the improvements are undetectable to our eyes. There is an interesting (though not very scientific) comparison of the Canon 1DSMKIII and Nikon D3 here that actually gives the slight edge to the D3.

http://photobusinessforum.blogspot.com/200...nouncement.html

And whether you agree with it or not, there clearly is very little difference between the cameras.

I waited for the D200 before turning in my N90s, and I think when I do upgrade in the next year or so, It's going to be harder and harder to justify further upgrades in the future. I've reached that point with computers now with my MacPro and MacBookPro - The computer waits for me, rather than me having to wait for it, like before.

I'll still keep my D200, use it in the surf housing and the second body for infrared.

Maybe a walkaround rangefinder camera when they get to full frame....and then I think I'll be done.

[Warren_L 0]

I must admit all of this full frame nonsense does nothing for me. I totally enjoy the benefits of the 1.5 sensor and have no desire to change. I am even happy with my little 10MP and the D200 and will probably hold on to it for another year until the dust settles and we see what Nikon really wants to do with its line.

 

The D3 files are pretty nice, though, I will admit.

 

I'd like to see Nikon settle on a battery that works throughout the line and continue the crop line as well.

 

The rest is too much too soon. Does anyone have major use for 18MP files? I mean really?

 

(the caldron of controversy continues to boil).

 

Tim of the Deep

 

One of the big assumptions here is that it is about the MP. For me, it is not really about the MP, but rather the high ISO performance. I shoot primarily with reasonably fast glass (mostly f/2.8 lenses), and with the ability to go upwards to 3200 or more gives me the range that, quite frankly, leaves my D200 in the dust, cropped sensor or not. If a D3x comes out with 18MP+, it's not going to likely be better with high ISO.

 

I shot a fencing tournament this past weekend, which I could not have done with similar results with my D200 as it was indoor and flashes were not allowed (I guess for apparent reasons). I've yet to get my housing for the D3, but I'm looking forward to it's capabilities underwater, especially in many of the low-light wreck sites I dive.

[herbko 0]

If the D3x is 24M pixels FF as most are forecasting, there's very little downside to using it versus the D300. Think of the 24M pixel FF sensor as having a 10.7M 1.5x sensor built in. Nikon will probably have a crop mode that will give you just that, but even if they don't you can always do it in PP.

 

The obvious advantages are:

 

You may at some point want 24M pixel.

 

If you are happy with 10M pixel resolution you can digital zoom, your 105mm lens effectively becomes a 105 - 157mm zoom. It's actually probably easier to do this with a larger sensor than building a good 105 -157 macro zoom.

 

The less obvious are:

 

As Craig mention earlier in this thread, the larger sensor will give an advantage in the trade off between DOF and resolution versus the smaller sensor.

 

Better signal-to-noise and dynamic range. At least more room to trade resolution for dynamic range.

 

Shallow DOF if you shoot wide open. This is probably not often done underwater.

[Paul Kay 62]

You may at some point want 24M pixel.

 

If that is, we get lens and port combinations capable of supplying the image quality required by such a sensor.

 

IMHO the biggest problem we face is that of lens choice. At the moment the 2 major manufacturers have substantial overlap in their lens range but neither Nikon nor Canon (for their smaller sensor cameras) offer anything to replace the Canon 24/1.4 on Canon FF. So Nikon's D3 (or D3X) needs to be accompanied by more, pro level glass. Canon offers nothing like Nikon's new 60 macro for full frame (whilst I use the 60EFS with 12mm of extension, this is really only a solution for temperate waters or in otherwise restricted visibility). It would be nice to think that Canon are aware of this but I'm not holding my breath.

 

So I'd say that camera developments now need to be accompanied by newer, more daring lens designs. I'm even using Leica R glass on my Canons (above water) to fill in gaps where I'm not satisfied with the existing lenses - and this is on a 1DS which can already show up many lens flaws even at its lowly (well by today's standards) MPixel rating!

[herbko 0]

If that is, we get lens and port combinations capable of supplying the image quality required by such a sensor.

 

If you believe the 105mm macro can achieve 12M pixel in a 1.5x crop, 24M on a FF shouldn't be a problem except perhaps at the corners. The 12M pixel 1.5x crop sensor has smaller photosite spacing which places greater requirements on the lens as your lens designer friend has pointed out.

 

Here a good test report of the Canon 100mm on a FF

http://www.slrgear.com/reviews/showproduct...duct/157/cat/10

 

You can probably also get that resolution with a fisheye lens.

[Paul Kay 62]

Even using the central portion of the image will result in some edge CA - much, but not all of which can be dealt with in PS. But what is the ponit in increasing MPixels if you still can't solve a fundamental optical problem such as CA? Of course it could be argued that the CA is negligible but so then is increasing the MPixels. And at some point diffraction effects will (should?) end the MPixel race.

[PRC 2]

And at some point diffraction effects will (should?) end the MPixel race.

 

But at what point? - I had previously read that the 'race' would stop at 12-15MP due to some of these effects - and here we are at 18-24.

 

So where does the practical end lie ?

 

Given the lens issues coming into play I assume that growing the sensor size >FF is not on?

 

Paul C

[Phil Rudin 461]

Regarding PGK's comments on a need for better lens design-Olympus for one has done exactly that.

 

Herbko has repeatedly pointed out that Olympus lenses on such a small sensor are diffraction limited at higher F-stops and that such sensors have " smaller photosite spacing which places greater requirements on the lens".

 

Using Herbko's example lens test, http://www.slrgear.com/reviews/showproduct...duct/157/cat/10 for a 100m macro lens with a 24 degree angle of view please compare it to the test by the same people of the Olympus 50 mm macro which has the same 24 degree angle of view on the much smaller sensor and appears better in every way including high f-stops. http://www.slrgear.com/reviews/showproduct...oduct/35/cat/14

 

I am still not clear on why the most recent crop of new lenses under preform on the 35 mm sensor size when I theory I keep hearing they should be better.

 

Phil Rudin

[herbko 0]

The reviewers at slrgear explicitly states that the scales on their charts do not give absolute resolution and should not be used to compare different formats.

 

Dpreview does give measured resolution. This is new and they don't have very many tested, but there are enough to see the effects of diffraction.

 

For a graphic demo have a look at the Nikon 70-200 FF review resolution chart

 

http://www.dpreview.com/lensreviews/nikon_...r_n15/page5.asp

 

and use their "compare" feature and bring up the only high end Olympus lens tested, the 12-60 and watch the resolution fall as you scroll the aperture from F11 to F16 to F22. Adjusting for the 4/3 vs 3/2 form factor, the Olympus lens clearly only has about 1/2 the resolution of the 35mm lens at F22. This Olympus lens cost $900, not cheap glass.

 

Diffraction is actually fairly simple to explain. No equations needed. Small apertures cause a slight blurring of the image on the sensor that is proportional to the F-stop: the blurring at F22 is twice that at F11 ... etc. If you are trying to get the same resolution from a 35mm sensor and a 4/3 sensor, the spacing of photosites on the 4/3 sensor is 1/2 the distance of the 35 mm photosites. The same blurring width covers twice as many photosites on the 4/3 sensor, and limits the resolution to 1/2 the value.

 

Phil, I don't think your 50mm will do better than the 12-60 at F22. If you have both lenses do your own resolution test and compare it to what you get at F11 and F8.

[herbko 0]

But at what point? - I had previously read that the 'race' would stop at 12-15MP due to some of these effects - and here we are at 18-24.

 

So where does the practical end lie ?

 

Given the lens issues coming into play I assume that growing the sensor size >FF is not on?

 

Paul C

 

There's no disadvantage in having a larger sensor of a given pixel density that uses the same lenses except for the more difficult shutter design. Canon has been selling FF for 5 years so I would consider it "on".

 

Do something similar to what I suggested for Phil, go to

 

http://www.dpreview.com/lensreviews/nikon_...r_n15/page5.asp

 

and bring up the comparison for the same lens shot with the D300 and look at the results at F16 and F22. At larger aperture the 12M pixel D3 is the limiting factor. I wouldn't trust the accuracy of the part of the chart that is at or above Nyquist except that being above it indicates that the sensor is limiting the measurement and the lens is better than that.

[craig 0]

I've edited this post after reading the link davichin has provided. It appears in that article that diffraction is a function of f-stop rather than physical aperture. I'm looking for a detailed explanation of that. Meanwhile I've deleted what appears to be contradicted by davichin's article. The rest is consistent with it, though frankly his article is far more informative that what I have to say. It's a worthwhile read.

 

For a given aperture, diffraction will limit the maximum lines/mm that a lens can achieve and the total resolution of that lens will be no better than that limit over the surface of the frame. For an ideal lens at small apertures, a 35mm full frame system has roughly 4 times the total resolution of 4/3 because of it's larger coverage. Lenses are not ideal but they aren't so bad that smaller formats can overcome such a huge handicap.

 

In order for a 4/3 macro lens to break even considering its sensor size, it would have to offer double the lines/mm over its surface and I'd love to see a test that showed that (along with an explanation for why everyone else sucks so bad). Even if it were that capable, the smaller still offers inferior sensor performance due to its pixel pitch and inferior DOF/resolution compromises compared to the larger sensor. The Oly 50mm macro lens may be the sharpest lens ever tested in terms of lines/mm but that has to be taken in context of its vastly smaller image circle.

 

As sensors improve and lens performance increasingly limits total resolution, the only way to increase the total resolution of the system is to use a larger sensor. We can argue forever where we are on that progression and the fact is that no one really knows for sure. The logic, though, is inescapable.

[davichin 18]

For those with time:

 

http://www.uned.es/personal/rosuna/resourc...0outresolve.pdf

 

from the table on page 15 we can see that FF holds the diffraction 1 step better aprox than DX which is not too much advantage for me.

[craig 0]

I found the answer here: http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials...photography.htm

 

Since the physical size of the lens aperture is larger for telephoto lenses (f/22 is a larger aperture at 200 mm than at 50 mm), why doesn't the size of the airy disk vary with focal length? This is because the distance to the focal plane also increases with focal length, and so the airy disk diverges more over this greater distance. As a result, the two effects of physical aperture size and focal length cancel out. Therefore the size of the airy disk only depends on the f-stop, which describes both focal length and aperture size.

 

So what Herb said was exactly correct: the reason 4/3 is more sensitive to diffraction is entirely due to the smaller photosites required for equivalent resolution.

[PRC 2]

http://www.uned.es/personal/rosuna/resourc...0outresolve.pdf

 

Ah - bedtime reading, my head hurts .

 

Thanks for the links David & Herbko.

 

And today's thrill here at work is my second of two days with our tame professor of math ( who does the really ugly bits in our software ) - I hate math - can I go diving now?

 

Edit

 

Just found out our tame prof. is a bit of a camera buff - I may be on to a bit of sport today after all.....

 

End Edit

 

Paul C

Edited May 15, 2008 by PRC

[diverdon 1]

Purported Nikon D3H samples revealed?

http://www.electronista.com/articles/08/05...amples.revealed

 

Follow the link to the story if you want to use the links embedded in the story.

 

A video from an alleged insider shows sample images from the as-of-yet unannounced Nikon D3H, which illustrate the overall scale of precision the camera could provide. With an advertised boosted ISO rating of 51,200 (25 to 12,800 native), it would indicate that Nikon is making great strides in reducing sensor noise. The video claims that the photographs were shot with a second generation prototype under various lighting conditions.

 

The video is not the first to surface from the individual, identified on YouTube as Lilkiwiguy87, who has also posted videos with specifications of both the unofficial D3H and D3X, as well as a sneak preview of the cameras’ chassis designs. The sneak preview alludes that he is one of several worldwide to test the cameras, which may not see release this year.

 

The alleged leaks follow Nikon’s unveiling of the standard D3 in August of 2007, which offered users a large upgrade from the company’s flagship D2/H/X platform. An upgraded firmware was also unveiled, citing a maximum pixel size of 24.4 megapixels, which was not authenticated by Nikon.

Edited May 22, 2008 by diverdon