New 10mp Nikon coming in 20 days [Archive]

Chip NoVaMac

Jul 21, 2006, 11:07 PM

strange timing. sony just released their A100, 10MP, $899. if they had released/announced the nikon 3 weeks earlier they could have taken away many customers from sony. i will be one of them. i have some minolta lenses and i like the sony. so i will buy it soon.

Really not too late. IMO Nikon did it steal thunder from deliveries that Sony is just starting to make.

The tag lines of: more power, more control, more versatile, more excitement - are interesting.

Here are my guesses. In 19 days, it will be interesting to see how close I come. :)

More power, could mean the 10.2mp sensor, and the improved battery handling of the EL3E battery.

More control, could mean the same ISO handling as the D200 to ISO 3200. Along with settings for different FPS rates. In order to keep this new camera from affecting the D200, I expect 3.5 FPS. Along with at least of 75% of the D200's "fine tuning" capabilities.

More versatile, could mean the three group CLS capability for flash work. Maybe a grip option, finally. Greater compatibility with the 10 pin connector for things like the D200 cable release (meaning an easier upgrade path).

More excitement, could mean built-in VR (the new Sony and and the new Pentax K100D will have it). A dream for those with VR and VRII lenses will be an additional 1 to 2 stops of VR over what we already have with these lenses. It could also mean built-in sensor cleaning like the Olympus DSLR's. I expect this new Nikon to meet or beat the cost of the new Sony. In particular beat it, if it does not have built-in VR or sensor cleaning. I also thing that it may feature the use of both SD and CF cards.

Back in the film days, Canon and Nikon had completive models at very close price points. The DSLR being young, changes that expectation IMO. The XT and D50 are close, but are deserving their price differences in todays market. The same can be said for the 20D/30D vs the D70s. And the D200 is in a league of its own for now.

I will predict end of 2006/early 2007 pricing for at least Nikon. The new unnamed camera body will be between $750-1000. The D200 will fall to between $1300-1500 for the body. And a replacement to the D50 (which might have an 8mp sensor, 2.5FPS, and smaller improvements) to go for $400 to $500.

These are only predictions. Our Nikon rep generally finds out about new bodies at the same time we all do, when it is posted on the web. :eek: Will have to see just how close I come in the next 19 days, and beyond.

HckySo

Jul 21, 2006, 11:11 PM

So it's going to be a D200 without the goodies?

FrankieTDouglas

Jul 21, 2006, 11:32 PM

Excellent, I just bought a D70s two months ago.

Chip NoVaMac

Jul 21, 2006, 11:34 PM

So it's going to be a D200 without the goodies?

Sort of IMO, depending on what goodies you are thinking of. In the DSLR arena Nikon IMO has done a poor job of making clear why as one model over another. That is why we saw the death of the D100 IMO when the D70 came out. And the same reason that the D50 took sales away from the D70s. I just hope that there is enough differences to keep the D200 viable. The body construction of the D200 may be enough, but not if Nikon goes with lets say the same firmware as the D200, but doing 4FPS.

Unless Nikon has a surprise up their sleeves with a D300 at Photokina. I hope not, since it would totally tick off the Nikon base IMO. Again IMO (keep in mind I work for a dealer, so I have to be careful - since some may look at my comments as being inside info. With forums, blogs, and the such - manufactures I think have given up on the idea of the NDA), Nikon is a loose canon in respect to consumer expectations in the infancy of the DSLR.

Chip NoVaMac

Jul 21, 2006, 11:41 PM

Excellent, I just bought a D70s two months ago.

Don't worry, the D70s will give you many happy snaps for years to come.

But how do you think I feel in that I bought a D50 back at the first of the year? That I added a second Nikon to my Nikon kit, a D70s just before Memorial Day? Then deciding that the different interfaces was a bit much and added a second D70s for my color "speed" shooting. And then converting the D50 to digital IR?

Disappointed? Yes. But I will make do for a while. I will try not to be caught up in the glamor of the new specs. That is how I decided that the D70s was the better way to go for my needs.

FrankieTDouglas

Jul 22, 2006, 12:12 AM

Abstract

Jul 22, 2006, 12:27 AM

Yeah, they're worse than Apple ever was in this regard, and it's not like Apple was very good in the past.

Silentwave

Jul 22, 2006, 04:12 AM

True. While I think it's cool that Nikon's putting out a new body, I also wonder...

What will the availability be? They have the d200 right now, their 18-200 VR, the 105 VR... and I NEVER see any of them available anywhere. So sure bring out a new body, but why not up the production of their CURRENT products?

I bought the D70s instead of the D200 because I didn't feel like waiting until midsummer to get something. If they release this new product, I wonder when it'll actually be in stores on a consistent basis.

Probably it will be out pretty quickly and they'll be doing their best to get it out as fast as possible. Supply of their DSLRs has been unable to meet runaway demand...and lately the D50 and D70S are starting to go otu of stock everywhere, while the D200 is getting in stock and meeting demand for the first time. This tells me the D70S production line has probably been diverted, and more resources are being devoted elsewhere.

Nikon also discontinued a large number of lenses and cameras in the 35mm arena recently, probably to allow themselves to allocate those resources to the lenses and cameras they need to get moving

giganten

Jul 22, 2006, 04:28 AM

I bought my D70s 3 months ago :o .
Very nice camera but should i try to sell it and buy me one of the this.

Abstract

Jul 22, 2006, 10:05 AM

^^Maybe. Better than holding off and then selling 2 months from now when everyone knows about the new camera, IMO.

Clix Pix

Jul 22, 2006, 10:37 AM

That is why we saw the death of the D100 IMO when the D70 came out. And the same reason that the D50 took sales away from the D70s. I just hope that there is enough differences to keep the D200 viable. The body construction of the D200 may be enough, but not if Nikon goes with lets say the same firmware as the D200, but doing 4FPS.

I think that the D70 was such a success because it was more affordable and probably seemed less complicated to people who had been using Coolpixes for a while and who were ready to move on up.....by the time the D70s hit the streets, there were already many happy D70 users and rumors were flying about the D200. The D50 came along in time to hit the next wave of those P&S shooters who had seen more and more of their friends and relatives using a D70 or other DSLR and were intrigued....and the D50, with its smaller size and configuration geared to the "moving-up-from-the-P&S-crowd" was immediately appealing, more so than the D70s. Again the D50 probably seems less complicated to the novice, and certainly it was more affordable. That lighter weight can't be underestimated as a selling factor for many people. Those who had used SLRs in the past would probably be more attracted to the D70/D70s than to the D50.... and then of course along came the D200. Many D70 users immediately jumped to it and of course Nikon couldn't keep up with demand....

I think that this new model will probably sound the death knell of the D70s, and that it will no longer be available within a short period of time because potential buyers of it will have already either bought the D200 or will be eagerly reaching for this new model. Just my guess, of course. Many people will be attracted to the 10+ megapixels, regardless of what other features the new camera does or does not have. If it's smaller and lighter weight, not to mention less expensive than the D200, again that will be an important feature for some buyers, whereas others will be more concerned about actual specfic camera functions.

I am guessing that this model is being released to knock some Canon model or other (XT? 30D?) out of the running in the hearts of prospective buyers, rather than to put dents in the popularity of current Nikon models, but we'll all just have to see.

ETA: I'm thinking that the "more versatile" means that the camera is capable of using either SD or CF cards, which would be a very good thing. I know that for me and probably others, the minute I heard the D50 used SD cards that was a deal-killer. If this new camera offers a choice, that will please everybody.

Me, I'm happy with my D200...

ejb190

Jul 22, 2006, 11:11 AM

I have no regrets buying my D70, even though I missed a price drop by a couple of weeks.

Technology keeps on moving. Sure the latest-greatest would be nice, but I doubt there will be any new features I can's live without. It will be at least another generation before I replace my camera.

All that said, I am still very interested in seeing what Nikon pulls out of their bag this time around!!

zim

Jul 22, 2006, 12:52 PM

I love my D70s (originally had the D70 but it suffered from a malfunction and thanks to best buy I got a D70s upgrade!). If Nikon does come out with a replacement and it is within the same price range then I might consider an upgrade in a year+ or so.. but honestly, the D70s is more then enough of a camera for me in terms of quality. Nikon would need to do something more then upgrade the megpaixels for me to upgrade my camera right now.

jessica.

Jul 22, 2006, 01:14 PM

I've had my d70 for two years. It was indeed my first digital purchase, dragging me away from my large and medium format shooting as well as my cherished Nikon F4. There is nothing better than the F4 except maybe the F5. With that in mind, I've always had my eye on the D1x, then the D2x, but I simply fill my days with too much to even shoot much at all. This needs to change.
I wanted the D200 and considered buying it, but now I think I am going to hang onto my D70, which is quite capable, and move towards a D2x or the Canon line if things don't start changing with Nikon.

I believe Nikon has sat back seat for a while in the digital age with the most random product releases and updates. I am a true blue Nikon fan, having owned only Nikons for 15 years, Minolta for years before that. However, I'm in agreement that there is no clear reason to go from one to another in terms of accessories and such. To me the D70 is fantastic, but in theory, there should be a D50 to call attention to the point and shoot folks who need minimal functions but desire to learn more. A D200 for the D70 folks. A person who is an advanced amateur photog and perhaps a semi-pro looking for a 2nd body to toss around a war zone and then the D2h and D2x lines for sports and pro whatever. The d70 seems like a bridge or a reason to spend more money. If you're not ready for the plunge from the d50 to the d200 then stay awhile with the d70. It just seems that is how it has turned out. I for one am not sure I like this, but then again it is genius if you think about it in the business sense.

Anyway, my logic is probably fuzzy at best, but one thing is for sure when I saw Nikon's page the other day I was simply excited to see the unveiling!

Chip NoVaMac

Jul 22, 2006, 07:03 PM

I have no regrets buying my D70, even though I missed a price drop by a couple of weeks.

A good shop will do their best to price protect for a price drop after a couple weeks (though for some customers it seems, a couple of weeks may mean a month or better. :eek: ).

Chip NoVaMac

Jul 22, 2006, 07:07 PM

Spoke to our Nikon rep today. This new camera is not a replacement to the D70s, and said that the D50 will continue as current models. So this new model may be pegged to fit in a $900 to $1100 price point IMO. This makes the specs even harder to judge, other than the 10mp. :eek:

Pistol Pete

Jul 22, 2006, 10:42 PM

Chip NoVaMac

Jul 22, 2006, 11:06 PM

Thanks for the info Chip.

You are welcome. I will have to double check on what I can say here. The only thing that I can say is that the D50 and D70s are still current products. And the new camera is NOT a replacement to the D70s according to our Nikon rep.

Only 18 more days to see if this all true or not.

Abstract

Jul 23, 2006, 12:14 AM

Well I think the camera body of the D200....with all the settings where they are......is like a dream for me. Its an expensive dream, but it's still a dream. If this new Nikon costs less, and offers a similar body but with a slightly fewer manual controls available on the body, and lacking in some areas like continuous shooting performance, I'd love to have this new camera. I don't need it right now, but I regularly wish I had some more manual controls on the body itself rather than through the menu, which just takes too long.

-hh

Jul 23, 2006, 08:20 AM

strange timing. sony just released their A100, 10MP, $899. if they had released/announced the nikon 3 weeks earlier they could have taken away many customers from sony...

As Chip said, not necessarily so.

Because of the Osborne Effect, most vendors don't generally like to pre-announce new products. However, they will do so when they believe that it helps them by "freezing" sales of a competitor's newest arrival until they're able to bring theirs to market.

"Coming in 20 days" is short enough that those waffling the Nikon-Sony fence will tend to wait for more details on the Nikon before committing.

And that's in Nikon's favor. Hence, the tease.

-hh

law guy

Jul 24, 2006, 11:51 PM

So it seems the Alpha, the D200 and the new Nikon will all have the same CCD. http://www.dpreview.com/articles/sonydslra100/ It's interesting to see how Sony will do as Nikon CCD supplier and SLR competitor - will conflicts arise, will Sony intregrate and release products using the same sensors ahead of Nikon going forward, will Sony to Sony pricing be significant over resale to manufacturers like Nikon? If I were in that camp, I'd rather have Nikon's color matrix metering II and all of the excellent features that Nikon has wrapped around the Sony CCDs, and I imagine that the installed Nikon base will likely feel the same way. That said, the position of both chip supplier and direct final product competitor is interesting - perhaps something like Intel making PCs.

I'm most intrigued to see what happens this fall with Canon and whether the 12 mp full frame sensor will drop from the mid-2000s to high $1000s with a price drop on the 30D and something like a 5Dn in the mid-2s with the FF and weather sealing - but that might get it to close to the 1 series... speculations that will come to nothing, but it will be interesting to see what happens.

ScubaDuc

Jul 25, 2006, 05:38 AM

So it seems the Alpha, the D200 and the new Nikon will all have the same CCD. http://www.dpreview.com/articles/sonydslra100/ It's interesting to see how Sony will do as Nikon CCD supplier and SLR competitor - will conflicts arise,

Sad...not a native 24x36 mm then.... I hope the new body will offer the same (minimal) support for Nikon's legacy equipment like the D200 does. I love my AI lenses and I am not willing to give them up..

Abstract

Jul 25, 2006, 07:45 AM

http://www.dpreview.com/articles/sonydslra100/ It's interesting to see how Sony will do as Nikon CCD supplier and SLR competitor - will conflicts arise, will Sony intregrate and release products using the same sensors ahead of Nikon going forward, will Sony to Sony pricing be significant over resale to manufacturers like Nikon? If I were in that camp, I'd rather have Nikon's color matrix metering II and all of the excellent features that Nikon has wrapped around the Sony CCDs, and I imagine that the installed Nikon base will likely feel the same way. That said, the position of both chip supplier and direct final product competitor is interesting - perhaps something like Intel making PCs.

Yeah, I was worried about the exact same thing. I don't think it would be crazy for Sony to just cut them off from their newest CCD and/or CMOS sensors and eliminate the 2nd largest seller of DSLRs altogether.

andiwm2003

Jul 25, 2006, 08:15 AM

Sad...not a native 24x36 mm then.... I hope the new body will offer the same (minimal) support for Nikon's legacy equipment like the D200 does. I love my AI lenses and I am not willing to give them up..

while 24x36mm would be a good sensor it would also be very expensive. the body would be larger and the lenses would be more expensive. not to speak of people who own dslr lenses. their lenses for APS-sized chips can't be used on full frame cameras.

the sony a100 and the new nikon seemed to be targeted to the consumer. in that case the smaller sensor makes perfectly sense. my guess is that in the long run we will have two sensor sizes: aps for consumers, full frame for pro's. it will be interesting to see however what people do with their lenses when they move from APS sized chips to pro type cameras with full frame bodies.

beavo451

Jul 25, 2006, 11:16 AM

aps for consumers, full frame for pro's. it will be interesting to see however what people do with their lenses when they move from APS sized chips to pro type cameras with full frame bodies.

I don't like the 35mm size. Too expensive. Plus, I like shooting at telephoto lengths, so the crop factor gives me extra reach.

Judging from the 18-200 lens release, Nikon has more or less dedicated themselves to the APS size for the next few years. It is doubtful that they will release a camera with a 35mm size sensor anytime in the near future.

ksz

Jul 25, 2006, 11:45 AM

...it will be interesting to see however what people do with their lenses when they move from APS sized chips to pro type cameras with full frame bodies.
While I'm not sure that FF is the answer particularly when reductions in size and weight are typical indications of progress, I'm nevertheless keeping my DX lens collection to a bare minimum. I have only the Tokina 12-24 f/4 and the Nikkor 18-200 f/3.5-5.6. All others are full frame lenses. Given a choice I will buy full frame lenses not only because they'll work with my F100, but also because existing sensor technologies may not be good enough to cram more resolution into the DX size without continuing to compromise on noise and dynamic range. Perhaps Nikon will consider a FF dSLR, perhaps they won't, but until they make some definitive statement I will keep my DX collection extremely small.

andiwm2003

Jul 25, 2006, 11:48 AM

I don't like the 35mm size. Too expensive. Plus, I like shooting at telephoto lengths, so the crop factor gives me extra reach.

Judging from the 18-200 lens release, Nikon has more or less dedicated themselves to the APS size for the next few years. It is doubtful that they will release a camera with a 35mm size sensor anytime in the near future.

i see myself as a consumer type and therefore i plan for aps size cameras and lenses for the next years. it's certainly good enough for my skills and needs.

however i think there is considerable pressure for nikon to release a full frame camers for their pro's. many of them certainly have the lenses. and for marketing reasons it's always good to have a "flagship". has nikon any full frame cameras as of now?

anyway, how is the dslr market structured? do the companies make most of the money with the pro's (counting also the lenses and accessoires they buy) or is it more from the high numbers of consumers?

REDSRT4

Jul 25, 2006, 11:52 AM

that is just insane i wonder how long till canon follows

beavo451

Jul 25, 2006, 01:08 PM

i see myself as a consumer type and therefore i plan for aps size cameras and lenses for the next years. it's certainly good enough for my skills and needs.

however i think there is considerable pressure for nikon to release a full frame camers for their pro's. many of them certainly have the lenses. and for marketing reasons it's always good to have a "flagship". has nikon any full frame cameras as of now?

anyway, how is the dslr market structured? do the companies make most of the money with the pro's (counting also the lenses and accessoires they buy) or is it more from the high numbers of consumers?

Nikon's flagship is the D2X(s) followed by the D2Hs. Both are APS size sensors. Both are used by pros and non-pros. What is this fixation that a 35mm size sensor = pro? If I were to judge on sensor format, I would argue anything below medium format is consumer. APS size, 35mm size, medium format, large format, etc. are all just formats. Each has their own strengths and weaknesses. If you were shooting a sporting event (gold, racing, football, etc.) The crop factor would give you extra reach. If you shoot landscapes, 35mm size will give you the wideangle capabilities and extra resolution. Portraits and weddings? Those can be done by any of the above.

andiwm2003

Jul 25, 2006, 01:44 PM

............................................... What is this fixation that a 35mm size sensor = pro? .....................................

umm....a few thousand dollar price difference? an average consumer can only afford APS i would think.

that of course doesn't mean that APS is consumer only.

but the APS cameras interesting to pro's have additional features that the cheaper APS DSLR's don't have (e.g. flash sync speed, faster speed).

Grimace

Jul 25, 2006, 03:05 PM

Nikon's flagship is the D2X(s) followed by the D2Hs. Both are APS size sensors. Both are used by pros and non-pros. What is this fixation that a 35mm size sensor = pro?

Eventually, you can only cram so many pixels onto a chip. A larger chip allows more pixels without making them ridiculously dense (ie. the high noise in low light for P&S cameras.)

Looking far forward, I don't see a way to get 20MP onto a APS size sensor without significantly increasing noise.

beavo451

Jul 25, 2006, 05:07 PM

umm....a few thousand dollar price difference? an average consumer can only afford APS i would think.

that of course doesn't mean that APS is consumer only.

but the APS cameras interesting to pro's have additional features that the cheaper APS DSLR's don't have (e.g. flash sync speed, faster speed).

Expensive equipment does not dictate whether or not somebody is a professional. I have seen pros use a D70. Some National Geographic photos are taken by the D70. Interestingly enough, the flash sync speed is natively higher on the D50 and D70 than on the D2 series. The D50 has the second best high ISO performance out of the Nikon line. Features and specs are not as directly related to "pro-ness" or price as you would think.

There are plenty of consumers that use the Canon 5D and are not professionals.

Eventually, you can only cram so many pixels onto a chip. A larger chip allows more pixels without making them ridiculously dense (ie. the high noise in low light for P&S cameras.)

Looking far forward, I don't see a way to get 20MP onto a APS size sensor without significantly increasing noise.

The old Kodak digital SLRs have a significant amount more noise than the D2X and those were only around 1 MP. Technology is always evoloving. If you need so many megapixels, then yes you would logically need a larger sensor. Hasselblad makes a nice 39MP camera for around $30,000. Why would you want 20 MP?

law guy

Jul 25, 2006, 06:04 PM

while 24x36mm would be a good sensor it would also be very expensive. the body would be larger and the lenses would be more expensive.

The 5D is FF and not that large - a tiny bit bigger than a 20D / 30D - with the $300 rebate that was offered from Canon this summer, it was around $2600 off the $2900 price. Now, $2600 isn't cheap, but it's not bad. http://www.usa.canon.com/consumer/controller?act=ModelDetailAct&fcategoryid=139&modelid=11933

Look at the progression - before last year, in the Canon line you'd have had to spend almost $7000 for a Full Frame 1 series. http://www.usa.canon.com/consumer/controller?act=ModelDetailAct&fcategoryid=139&modelid=10598 That price dropped by more than half with the 12.8 MP FF 5D. http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?O=productlist&A=details&Q=&sku=435694&is=REG&addedTroughType=search Canon controls their chip R&D and production. Now that they've developed the 12MP FF chip for the 5D (the 1Ds Mk II is a different 16.7 MP FF chip) and are selling it for $2600, I wonder if it's a year or so until we see Canon FF chips in bodies for $1500.

I'm thrilled with my 30D so I'm in a good position to see how the prices fall over the next few years.

andiwm2003

Jul 25, 2006, 06:25 PM

......................................
Look at the progression - before last year, in the Canon line you'd have had to spend almost $7000 for a Full Frame 1 series. ........................................... Now that they've developed the 12MP FF chip for the 5D (the 1Ds Mk II is a different 16.7 MP FF chip) and are selling it for $2600, I wonder if it's a year or so until we see Canon FF chips in bodies for $1500.

I'm thrilled with my 30D so I'm in a good position to see how the prices fall over the next few years.

wow, that means we get entry level DSLR's with good APS sensors for 300-400 bucks soon then. only lenses won't get cheaper.

it's good times. the dual core chips get faster and cheaper, the cameras get cheaper and photoshop elements comes free with a wacom tablet:)

sjl

Jul 25, 2006, 07:29 PM

I don't like the 35mm size. Too expensive. Plus, I like shooting at telephoto lengths, so the crop factor gives me extra reach.
I have to disagree somewhat with this statement. Yes, 35mm sensors are expensive. I would have loved to have bought a 5D, but I couldn't justify the extra cost over the 20D that I did buy. But to say that the crop factor gives you extra reach is a bit disingenuous - you can just as easily take the shot on a full frame sensor and crop later on. You don't lose anything by doing that (I think that the resolution of the 5D is about 1.6 times that of the 20D, so the "cropped" resolution would be the same), and you gain the extra resolution when you don't need that extra reach.

For me, the APS sensor is a price compromise, nothing more. I'm comfortable with it, but had a full frame sensor been the same price, I almost certainly would have gone the full frame route.

law guy

Jul 25, 2006, 08:10 PM

I have to disagree somewhat with this statement. Yes, 35mm sensors are expensive. I would have loved to have bought a 5D, but I couldn't justify the extra cost over the 20D that I did buy. But to say that the crop factor gives you extra reach is a bit disingenuous - you can just as easily take the shot on a full frame sensor and crop later on. You don't lose anything by doing that (I think that the resolution of the 5D is about 1.6 times that of the 20D, so the "cropped" resolution would be the same), and you gain the extra resolution when you don't need that extra reach.

For me, the APS sensor is a price compromise, nothing more. I'm comfortable with it, but had a full frame sensor been the same price, I almost certainly would have gone the full frame route.

Yes, the crop is often referred to as if folks think they're getting extra "zoom" out of it when in reality all it is, is a crop - i.e. a smaller field of view. That is a bird in a frame taken with a 1.3, 1.5 or 1.6 (etc.) crop is going to be the same size at 100mm as that same bird taken with a 1x sensor at that same focal length. Due to the crop, the bird will fill more of the frame and so seem bigger. But you can layer a FF over the crop and the bird is the same size - what you'll get with the FF in that shot is more of the surrounding captured.

Luminous has a good primer on the subject from a few years back - http://www.luminous-landscape.com/tutorials/understanding-series/dslr-mag.shtml

beavo451

Jul 25, 2006, 08:35 PM

Yes, the crop is often referred to as if folks think they're getting extra "zoom" out of it when in reality all it is, is a crop - i.e. a smaller field of view. That is a bird in a frame taken with a 1.3, 1.5 or 1.6 (etc.) crop is going to be the same size at 100mm as that same bird taken with a 1x sensor at that same focal length. Due to the crop, the bird will fill more of the frame and so seem bigger. But you can layer a FF over the crop and the bird is the same size - what you'll get with the FF in that shot is more of the surrounding captured.

Luminous has a good primer on the subject from a few years back - http://www.luminous-landscape.com/tutorials/understanding-series/dslr-mag.shtml

What does it matter that it is just a crop? Say you have a 12MP 5D and a 12MP D2X. Both have a 200mm lens on it and I am taking a picture of the bird. Afterwards, I crop on the 5D image so that the bird is the same size as the D2X image. So now I have two images that are the same, except the D2X image is higher resolution. Which would you prefer? This is provided that the lens' resolving power is sufficient for the above test.

sjl

Jul 25, 2006, 08:49 PM

What does it matter that it is just a crop? Say you have a 12MP 5D and a 12MP D2X. Both have a 200mm lens on it and I am taking a picture of the bird. Afterwards, I crop on the 5D image so that the bird is the same size as the D2X image. So now I have two images that are the same, except the D2X image is higher resolution. Which would you prefer? This is provided that the lens' resolving power is sufficient for the above test.
All else being equal? Hard to judge. It depends on how noisy the two sensors are. The D2X sensor has to have smaller 'pixels' compared to the 5D -- that's obvious, because it's the same resolution in a smaller area. As the pixel size shrinks, so does the noise problem rise.

In other words, it's not an apples to apples comparison. Yes, the D2X image is higher resolution. Doesn't matter (at least, not as much as the untrained individual might think). The quality of the pixels can be just as important, and that's a much harder question to judge; the lens isn't the only variable in this equation.

A better comparison might be to shoot the same image on the D2X and the 5D, adjusting the zoom so that the bird fills the same proportion of the sensor on both cameras. In that situation, I'd expect the 5D to be a better image (assuming top quality glass on both bodies).

beavo451

Jul 25, 2006, 09:22 PM

All else being equal? Hard to judge. It depends on how noisy the two sensors are. The D2X sensor has to have smaller 'pixels' compared to the 5D -- that's obvious, because it's the same resolution in a smaller area. As the pixel size shrinks, so does the noise problem rise.

In other words, it's not an apples to apples comparison. Yes, the D2X image is higher resolution. Doesn't matter (at least, not as much as the untrained individual might think). The quality of the pixels can be just as important, and that's a much harder question to judge; the lens isn't the only variable in this equation.

A better comparison might be to shoot the same image on the D2X and the 5D, adjusting the zoom so that the bird fills the same proportion of the sensor on both cameras. In that situation, I'd expect the 5D to be a better image (assuming top quality glass on both bodies).

Yes all other things being equal. I think the mentality that 35mm sensor size is far superior to the APS sensor is way too overblown. The point of the example was to illustrate that I would much rather frame the image in the camera itself than crop away at it on the computer.

The APS size may originally have been a price/cost result, however it has evolved into a viable format. If you look at the history of the 35mm size, it was reagarded as a poor photographic format. The reason why it is 35mm is because motion picture cameras used 35mm film and it was readily available. This was when LF and MF ruled the world. As you can see 35mm won in popularity over the years.

Abstract

Jul 25, 2006, 10:22 PM

What does it matter that it is just a crop? Say you have a 12MP 5D and a 12MP D2X. Both have a 200mm lens on it and I am taking a picture of the bird.

But with FF, he's saying that you'll be able to cram extra pixels on that thing, so if you put a 200 mm lens on a 16 MP Canon full frame, and on a 10 MP Nikon camera, you only get more distance because of the crop. If you took the same photo with the Canon, you'd get the bird and surroundings that you wouldn't get on a crop camera.

To be more precise, if you took an APS sized sensor, and a full frame 35 mm sensor, and the pixel density on both sensors was the same, you're getting the same image using both sensors, but just that one is cropped. You could make the full frame photo look absolutely identical to the image taken with the smaller APS sized sensor simply by cropping the photo. They'd even have the same number of pixels.

beavo451

Jul 25, 2006, 10:47 PM

But with FF, he's saying that you'll be able to cram extra pixels on that thing, so if you put a 200 mm lens on a 16 MP Canon full frame, and on a 10 MP Nikon camera, you only get more distance because of the crop. If you took the same photo with the Canon, you'd get the bird and surroundings that you wouldn't get on a crop camera.

To be more precise, if you took an APS sized sensor, and a full frame 35 mm sensor, and the pixel density on both sensors was the same, you're getting the same image using both sensors, but just that one is cropped. You could make the full frame photo look absolutely identical to the image taken with the smaller APS sized sensor simply by cropping the photo. They'd even have the same number of pixels.

So if I wanted the extra stuff surrounding the birds, why don't I step back or use a shorter focal length? Typically, you would frame your photo as to how you want it in camera. I very rarely shoot a picture with the mentality that I will crop it in the computer.

Speaking of smaller formats, going from MF to 35mm would be considered a crop as well.

sjl

Jul 25, 2006, 10:50 PM

Yes all other things being equal. I think the mentality that 35mm sensor size is far superior to the APS sensor is way too overblown.

Far superior? No, I'd agree that it's not. Superior, though? Definitely. Putting aside cost of manufacture for the moment, as Abstract says, you'll cram more pixels into a 35mm sensor than you can with an APS sensor for a given pixel density (and pixel quality). That then gives you the power to decide what to do with those pixels.

The point of the example was to illustrate that I would much rather frame the image in the camera itself than crop away at it on the computer.
Nothing wrong with that. But the point is straightforward: with a full frame sensor, you have the choice of cropping or not. With an APS sensor, the cropping has already been done; you can't regain the cropped portions of the image. There are also subtle differences in depth of field and so on. (These become more obvious when you move to medium and large format.)

It comes down to what you want to photograph, and what compromises you are (and aren't) prepared to make along the way. All else being equal, I would prefer to have the full frame sensor over the APS sensor. That doesn't mean I'm unhappy with my 20D - far from it! - just that I'd rather have the extra field of view out of my lenses, and the option of cropping down.

Just don't call it "extra reach", because realistically, it isn't. It is a crop factor which gives the end result the impression of being shot with a longer lens; sometimes that's a useful thing (wildlife photography springs to mind); other times it's not (wide angle photography being the most obvious).

sjl

Jul 25, 2006, 11:03 PM

So if I wanted the extra stuff surrounding the birds, why don't I step back or use a shorter focal length? Typically, you would frame your photo as to how you want it in camera. I very rarely shoot a picture with the mentality that I will crop it in the computer.
You must have posted this while I was composing my reply. :D There are two reasons why APS sensors are cheaper than full frame sensors: yield (they're smaller, so there's a lower likelihood of defects in production); and the perception (right or wrong) that a full frame body is professional grade.

Over time, the yield issue becomes less of a concern. This is where the advantage of a 35mm sensor kicks in: it's easier to produce a sensor with a given number of pixels, because they'll be less dense on the sensor, with a corresponding reduction in noise and so on. A friend of mine who shoots with a 5D reckons that, for a given framing, it would whomp all over the D2X, for just that reason (I cannot judge, given that I don't have access to a D2X, nor to good quality glass for it ... I also don't have the experience necessary to do such tests properly).

People see the crop factor as an advantage for long-distance shooting, and it can be. But it's not a deal breaker because, even if you can't quite frame the shot as you want with the lens out as long as it will go, you can always crop the shot that little bit in post production. Professionals do that all the time. Try tracking a bird in flight with the framing set to fill the shot with the bird. You're not going to get the shot; you're better off to pull back a bit and crop the shot later on, because that makes it easier to get the entire body of the bird in the shot - which is the most important thing. At that point, the resolution of the sensor becomes important, which then gets back to the size and pixel density of the sensor.

The only time you'll get the framing spot on when you take the shot is when you have the time to compose everything properly. Even then, you'll be using a zoom lens, which immediately introduces a drop in image quality (remember that primes are always going to be better quality, and cheaper, than equivalent zooms), unless you're really lucky.

As I said: it's all about what you want to shoot, and what tradeoffs you want to make whilst doing it.

beavo451

Jul 26, 2006, 12:51 AM

I am very well aware of the different advantages and disadvantages to either format. What I am trying to clarify is that the 35mm format is not the holy grail as some would tout it. It is just simply another format. The APS size was born out of necessity and like it or not, is a viable, useful, and pratical format. I wish medium format was cheaper and more practical.

Cropping:
This is a useful technique that can be done in camera by the crop factor or in the computer. Sometimes it may be necessary as shown by the flying eagle example. But, with the advent of digital, it seems that it is a tool that is taken for granted. If you have a super high number of pixels, anybody can take a picture with a wide angle lens and crop specific parts for "brilliant" photos. If you get everything as perfect as can be in the camera, you have less work ahead of you in the darkroom (or computer).

Example: (don't read too deeply into this, you may miss the point)
I am a photographer that wants to shoot and print a 8"x10" photo of a bird 50 yards away. I have a large format, medium format, and 35mm camera with 100mm lens for each. For this job I would choose the 35mm camera because it has the longest "reach". Less work in the lab dealing with cropping and such. However, if I was to take a portrait at 10 yards away, then the large or medium format would be brought up to the plate.

The point is that each format is a tool. Ignoring cost, choosing the 35mm sensor over an APS sensor should be because you need what it offers, not because it is simply "better". By this logic, we should be using Hasselblad H2s because its sensor is "better". Notice that many landscape and wedding photographers use MF or 35mm sensor/film cameras. How many MF cameras do you see on the sidelines at a football game? Why is the EOS 1D (APS sensor) so popular for sports and not the 1Ds(35mm sensor)?

Grimace

Jul 26, 2006, 08:55 AM

How many MF cameras do you see on the sidelines at a football game? Why is the EOS 1D (APS sensor) so popular for sports and not the 1Ds(35mm sensor)?

I don't think they care about FF or crop frame, the 1D MII has a MUCH higher frame rate (8.5fps) than the 1Ds MII (4fps). :D

beavo451

Jul 26, 2006, 06:18 PM

I don't think they care about FF or crop frame, the 1D MII has a MUCH higher frame rate (8.5fps) than the 1Ds MII (4fps). :D

Then that begs the question why it isn't a 35mm 8MP sensor shooting at 8.5fps if 35mm sensors are so superior?

Grimace

Jul 26, 2006, 06:30 PM

Then that begs the question why it isn't a 35mm 8MP sensor shooting at 8.5fps if 35mm sensors are so superior? It takes a much more rubust buffer to process a 16MP image than an 8MP image. That's why the 5D (12.8MP) has a max frame rate of 3fps and the 20D/30D (8.2MP) can both shoot at 5fps.

I believe that the 1Ds MII can go have a higher frame rate, but it takes the images around 8MP.

Grimace

Jul 26, 2006, 06:35 PM

The sensors themselves aren't superior -- they just allow for a greater surface area to spread out the pixels. P&S cameras have more noise and issues with low light because the sensors are smaller and the density is much higher. DSLRs with the same # of pixels as a P&S will not have as many issues with noise because of the improved pixel density (on a larger sensor). Full frame cameras again benefit from having a larger surface area for pixels. You can have more, without having to worry (as much) about extreme noise.

There are always ways to compensate for noise and cram more pixels into onto a tiny wafer, but a different solution is to up the size of the sensor to get around that issue.

beavo451

Jul 27, 2006, 10:12 AM

You did not answer my question.

I asked why is it not a 35mm sensor at 8MP at 8.5fps? I know 16MP is a ton of information to process, but the amount of information of information that needs to be processed should be the same, regardless of sensor size. So a 8MP 35mm sensor should have the same amount of data that a 8MP crop sensor records.

I think that the main reason is that they want to keep the crop sensor for more effective use of telephoto lenses. Canon themselves even promote the crop factor as a selling point on their website:

8.2 Megapixel CMOS Sensor with a convenient 1.3x lens conversion factor, combined with DIGIC II Image Processor for outstanding image quality.

Framing is natural because the sensor's 3:2 aspect ratio is the same as in 35mm cameras, and the sensor's large size realizes an effective angle of view that's just 1.3 times the focal length indicated on Canon EF lenses.

Yes the increased sensor size lowers pixel density and raises cost for a better image. Again, the implication is that the 35mm sensor is superior. However, I reiterate that it is not the be all sensor. It is simply another format with its uses as is the crop sensor.

Grimace

Jul 27, 2006, 11:36 AM

beavo451

Jul 27, 2006, 12:49 PM

I think we're missing each other. I think we all agree that there is nothing about a 35mm sensor that is "better" or makes it more professional. It just so happens that those larger sensors can effectively hold more pixels so they are used in cameras targeted toward the pros.

Now that is a statement I can agree with!:D

It was an earlier post that implied more expensive cameras with 35mm sensors were "pro" cameras, ignoring the entire Nikon D2 and D1 series, that got me going. Different formats for different walks of life. Not because of "superiority".

aps for consumers, full frame for pro's. it will be interesting to see however what people do with their lenses when they move from APS sized chips to pro type cameras with full frame bodies.

ipacmm

Jul 27, 2006, 02:54 PM

Here are some pictures of the new D80...

http://gizmodo.com/assets/resources/2006/07/nikon_d80_leaked.jpg

ksz

Jul 27, 2006, 02:57 PM

^^^^ Courtesy of Engadget (http://www.engadget.com/2006/07/26/nikon-d80-pics-revealed/) who posted them a day ago.

ipacmm

Jul 27, 2006, 03:07 PM

I found that pic on another site but they are also in the engadget report.

beavo451

Jul 27, 2006, 03:31 PM

The SD Card sized cover is very interesting and hopefully not true! It will be very disappointing if this thing does not take CF cards.

Grimace

Jul 27, 2006, 03:35 PM

If Nikon prices this right, it could provide some real heat for Canon.

Clix Pix

Jul 27, 2006, 06:53 PM

Sure looks like an SD-sized card slot cover to me..... That would make sense if this camera is aimed at the audience who already has the D50 and who maybe wants to move up to something a bit more but which isn't really ready to plunk out big bucks for the D200, since the D50, which has been having a pretty successful run, uses the SD memory card....

ksz

Jul 27, 2006, 07:28 PM

But with prices falling and capacity and I/O speed increasing, I don't see any technical downside to the use of SD cards. People who've invested in stacks of CF cards may have a problem, but this cannot really be that big of a problem when all memory cards can just be 'emptied' onto a hard drive and used again. Thus, you only need to buy a couple of mid to large size cards. Pros may not agree, but the D80 is not for them.

law guy

Jul 27, 2006, 09:58 PM

Earlier, I wrote about the interesting situation set up with Sony becoming a final product supplier as well just an image chip supplier. (above somewhere in this thread) In that post, I wondered about Sony pricing below those it sells the same chips to, releasing products first, etc. and thought aloud that folks may still prefer Nikon given the system Nikon builds around the chip. So, I was surprised to learn that Sony builds the image processing systems for Nikon as well as the chips. What I don't know is what that entails - i.e. does Sony manufacture the color matrix metering technology for Nikon, for example.

At any rate - Popular Photography reviews the Sony Alpha this month - link below - and gushes about it. Reference is made in this article to the years of experience Sony has in manufacturing the image systems for Nikon.

Another write-up this month recommends the Alpha over the D200 for some users, noting the same chip and recommending that you could use the saved money to buy a used Minolta zoom on Ebay since the image stabilization is built right into the camera. It's all very interesting.

I'm looking on at all of this as a Canon shooter (former Nikon film SLR user), and so I watch with academic interest, but I do like the competition and the PopPhoto review is changing my mind that Sony wouldn't be much of an SLR impact. With statements like "it's the best DSLR in the price range" or something along those lines, the PopPhoto review may kick the buzz factor up a notch.

http://www.popphoto.com/cameras/2698/camera-test-sony-alpha-100-dslr.html

The first bit of the review:

"We used to have a lot of questions about Sony's takeover of Konica Minolta's camera division. Now, after running a full set of Certified Lab Tests and field tests of the new 10.2MP Sony Alpha 100 ($900, street, body only), only one question is left: How will Sony make enough of them to satisfy the demand for a camera that outperforms anything in its price range?

If you read our Hands On review (“Eclectic Shock,” August 2006), you already know that the A100 has a well-designed and well-built body, is fully compatible with all older Konica Minolta lenses, has built-in image stabilization, a dust-removal system, great image and metering controls, an eye-activated AF system, and a large 2.5-inch LCD. But here's what we know now:

The A100 provides the highest image quality of any DSLR for under $1,000—thanks, no doubt, to its 10.2MP (effective) CCD and Sony's years of experience making APS-format sensors and advanced image processing systems for Nikon, Pentax, and Konica Minolta DSLRs."

Tougher competition for the D80 than I had originally supposed -- esp. with all the extra tech, sensor cleaning system, eye activated AF, and the built in stabilization.

Grimace

Jul 27, 2006, 10:58 PM

sjl

Jul 28, 2006, 12:27 AM

The camera looks like a great competitor in the mid-range DSLR market. However, Sony will need to offer an impressive array of lenses if it really wants to compete with the likes of Canon and Nikon.

The two biggest features in my opinion: self-cleaning sensor system and on-body image stabilization.
At least Sony had the sense to support Compact Flash as well as Memory Stick. I swear, from a technical point of view, memory stick makes absolutely no sense to me whatsoever.

The lens lineup looks ok - not great, but ok. Where it falls down to my eye is in the "super telephoto" lens category - their longest lens is a 500mm f/8. Putting that aside, they also have a 300mm f/2.8, and a 70-200mm f/2.8, both of which appear (I'm guessing here, with the "G" at the end of their name) to have a fluorite or equivalent element in them. The 70-200mm is the only fast zoom, though (everything else is f/3.5 or f/4.5 at the wide end). The prime lineup seems pretty reasonable, if a little sparse in speed options at some lengths. All in all, I'd want to wait and see some reviews of the lens quality before passing judgement; it wouldn't surprise me to see them expand their range over time to fill in those gaps.

I'll grant you that most consumers won't need anything longer than 300mm, and starter photographers might not be concerned about the lack of fast zooms, but all the same, I'd be a little wary about recommending them ... for now.

If I were buying, and I had no tie to Canon (I've had a Canon EOS 30 for nigh on four years now, which is why I got the 20D), I might be taking a "wait and see" approach before making a move. (Well, putting aside my general disdain for Sony as a company, that is. :D )

ScubaDuc

Jul 28, 2006, 08:40 AM

What is this fixation that a 35mm size sensor = pro? If I were to judge on sensor format, I would argue anything below medium format is consumer. APS size, 35mm size, medium format, large format, etc. are all just formats.

Well, the fixation is caused by having started to shoot pics before digital was ever around. I have about 15 Nikkor lenses, ranging from a 20 mm to a 500 mm reflex. Bellows, focusing rings, intervallometer and all that stuff that makes my F3 and F2 a superior camera system. I don't see the same choice in APS format yet in term of lenses....especially for fixed focus lenses and to me, zooms are and will always be inferior to a fixed focus telelens

Abstract

Jul 31, 2006, 11:59 PM

Sony's lenses are still way too expensive considering how they don't have built-in image stabalization/vibration reduction, which beats in-camera image stabalization. Yes, they have a 70-200 mm f/2.8, but at the same price as Nikon and Canon's offerings, and they don't offer IS.

-hh

Aug 1, 2006, 06:38 AM

But with prices falling and capacity and I/O speed increasing, I don't see any technical downside to the use of SD cards.

You're right: its not a technical downside. The downside is purely financial, from a "sunk investment" standpoint.

People who've invested in stacks of CF cards may have a problem, but this cannot really be that big of a problem when all memory cards can just be 'emptied' onto a hard drive and used again. Thus, you only need to buy a couple of mid to large size cards.

Actually, its the opposite: if they were consumables like batteries, then the change in format isn't that big of a deal. So its a problem for the very reason that they are "infinitely reusable".

For example, I now have roughly 10GB worth of higher speed CF cards. Even with the crashing in prices, at $50 per GB, this is $500 worth of sunk costs in durables that I'm looking at obsoleting because of a change from CF to SD. If I had my druthers, I'd rather put that money into something else, such as glass.

If you think about it, the format of the Flash Media is simply another hardware interface characteristic, not unlike the lens mount. And just like lens mounts, until high speed media becomes really, really cheap (like 1/5th of today's prices), it is going to influence consumer buying decisions.

For example, I've already been looking around at replacing our P&S digital and the move to SD is pretty much fait d'accompli. As such, I'll probably buy a discontinued model from someplace -- because this allows me to retain commonality of Media format between all of our digital cameras, which I consider to be a valued asset, just like lens interchangability.

-hh

JonMaker

Aug 1, 2006, 08:47 AM

For example, I now have roughly 10GB worth of higher speed CF cards. Even with the crashing in prices, at $50 per GB, this is $500 worth of sunk costs in durables that I'm looking at obsoleting because of a change from CF to SD. If I had my druthers, I'd rather put that money into something else, such as glass.

This is very true if SD and CF are technically equal media. If they are, then yes, it is stupid to make the switch to SD. However, if SD is superior in some way, it is progress.

Thus, the real question here is "How does SD compare to CF?" or "How will they compare to each other in a year?"

Grimace

Aug 1, 2006, 09:13 AM

This is very true if SD and CF are technically equal media. If they are, then yes, it is stupid to make the switch to SD. However, if SD is superior in some way, it is progress.

Thus, the real question here is "How does SD compare to CF?" or "How will they compare to each other in a year?"

I've always wondered the same, and for some reason assumed CF was superior because it was the recording method in most professional cameras. Anyone got some comparisons in performance and reliability?

law guy

Aug 1, 2006, 01:15 PM

DP Review has posted it's review of the the Alpha 100 MP DSLR by Sony. Given that the sensor chips are supplied by Sony and this body appears to share the same sensor chip that Sony is supplying to Nikon for the upcoming D80, this review may provide some insights.

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/sonydslra100/page30.asp

The Alpha uses CF type I and II, and like all Canon DSLRs and the Nikons from D200 and up, allows for RAW + JPEG Fine shooting (D70s, D50 allow only RAW + JPEG Basic).

-hh

Aug 1, 2006, 01:40 PM

(RE: Question of 'how does SD compare to CF?')

I've always wondered the same, and for some reason assumed CF was superior because it was the recording method in most professional cameras. Anyone got some comparisons in performance and reliability?

IIRC...

...CF is an older physical format than SD

...CF has fewer proprietary strings attached (I'm pretty sure); this helps imrpove competition, which means lower prices.

...CD has interface pins (on the device) that can get bent; SD doesn't.

...CF is physically larger, so regardless of how small memory chips get, it will always be able to fit "more" than SD.

-hh

ksz

Aug 1, 2006, 02:40 PM

The downside is purely financial, from a "sunk investment" standpoint.
...
Actually, its the opposite: if they were consumables like batteries, then the change in format isn't that big of a deal. So its a problem for the very reason that they are "infinitely reusable".

For example, I now have roughly 10GB worth of higher speed CF cards. Even with the crashing in prices, at $50 per GB, this is $500 worth of sunk costs in durables that I'm looking at obsoleting because of a change from CF to SD. If I had my druthers, I'd rather put that money into something else, such as glass.

If you purchased $500 in compact flash cards, it means you needed that capacity for a camera body that uses them.

If you purchase another camera body -- and let's assume this new body also uses CF cards -- would you then have an under-supply of CF cards?

If all of your CF cards are used in Body 1, then you will need to buy new CF cards for use in Body 2.

However, if instead you have simply purchased too many CF cards and are now looking at a stockpile of excess, then the Nikon D80 will not help. But you can still use those cards in the existing body.

You made that investment in CF cards for Body 1. There are cameras that will continue to use CF cards, so even if you retire Body 1 in the future there is a good chance you can still use those CF cards in a new body.

Because the price of CF and SD cards is low and getting lower, I don't see any big deal with the Nikon D80 being an SD body rather than a CF body. My own shooting habits would require me to buy a 2GB SD card or perhaps a 4GB SD card and I'm done. Not a big deal.

I'll continue to use my 4GB, 1GB, and 2GB CF cards on:

1. My D200 body
2. My Olympus C7070
3. My older Canon PowerShot G2
4. A newer more advanced Nikon body

-hh

Aug 2, 2006, 08:38 AM

If you purchased $500 in compact flash cards, it means you needed that capacity for a camera body that uses them.

If you purchase another camera body -- and let's assume this new body also uses CF cards -- would you then have an under-supply of CF cards?

Yes and No.

My current quantity is based on having the capability of not needing to offload to a computer or digital wallet for at least 2 days.

If I were to double my consumption with a second camera (unlikely), the amount of time I could spend "off the grid" would simply be cut in half, to one day.

It depend on what I'm doing/where I'm going as to if this is going to be a problem or not. For example, when I was planning for a cruise last Winter, I knew that the ship's cabin would have power every night, so 1 Day's worth of cards would be be adequate, but when I started doing my research for going to Africa this summer, the details regarding the reliability of power in the camps looked marginal, so I prepared under the assumtion that I'd not have power every day, so I doubled my number of CF cards.

For hiking the Inca Trail, you're looking at ~4 days without recharging power and ~6 days away from data backup, due to weight limitations.

And so forth.

If all of your CF cards are used in Body 1, then you will need to buy new CF cards for use in Body 2.

Not really. Since there's only one of me, I can't be consuming on both cameras so as to double my consumption rate. And while I might want to have some additional quantity, my greater interest is in having the flexibility to adapt and adjust - - this means component interchangability, of both the Flash Media as well as the camea lenses.

You made that investment in CF cards for Body 1. There are cameras that will continue to use CF cards, so even if you retire Body 1 in the future there is a good chance you can still use those CF cards in a new body.

That's what I'm hoping for too, but my concern is merely that the D80 appears to be more evidence that the CF format is in decline as a standard, which means that my future options are more likely to be limited.

If the price per 1GB of Extreme III on SD cards was $10 today, I'd not be concerned about any of this. But because its not...

-hh

ScubaDuc

Aug 2, 2006, 09:19 AM

Yes and No.

That's what I'm hoping for too, but my concern is merely that the D80 appears to be more evidence that the CF format is in decline as a standard, which means that my future options are more likely to be limited.

If the price per 1GB of Extreme III on SD cards was $10 today, I'd not be concerned about any of this. But because its not...

-hh

Will all do respect for CF memory prices, I would argue that they are still minimal with respect to the cost of lenses....That is why I would be willing to spend more for a "native" 24x36 if it supported AI lenses and had a build in VR in the body

beavo451

Aug 2, 2006, 09:29 AM

Will all do respect for CF memory prices, I would argue that they are still minimal with respect to the cost of lenses....That is why I would be willing to spend more for a "native" 24x36 if it supported AI lenses and had a build in VR in the body

The cost of lenses is always going to be high. I don't think it is a valid argument at all. With the progression in technology, you can't always expect new technology to work with 30 to 40 year old technology. Besides, the AI lenses will mount and shoot fine on current Nikon dSLRs. Only some will meter and the others you have to either use a light meter or guess and check the histogram.

Canon realized the foolishness of trying to stay backwards compatible when they made the switch from the FD mount to the EF (EOS) mount. Look at where they are at right now in terms of use and market share.

Clix Pix

Aug 2, 2006, 10:36 AM

Like hh, I'm concerned about the future vis-a-vis CF cards, SD cards, xD cards and whatever else comes along. I've been using digital cameras since my first Coolpix 900 and through the years have built up quite a little collection of CF cards. Usually as I bought a new camera I would need a greater amount of memory in the CF card so would purchase one, but could still use my other cards for those times when I don't need a lot of memory for one shooting session. Still do that. For instance when I bought my D200 I popped a 512 MB card in it for my first few test shots. Eventually when I began shooting RAW I bit the bullet and bought a 4 GB card, so now my "collection" spans the full gamut from 4 MB (the CF card which came with my first Coolpix) to 4 GB! I have an investment in these things even though that has come gradually over a long period of time.

I have several cameras which use the CF card format and it is quite convenient to be able to shuffle the cards around accordingly. If I want to go out and shoot with two cameras, no problemo, or if I want to take one camera and every CF card I own on a long trip with me, I can do that. I feel that the CF cards are sturdier and less susceptible to damage and loss than the tiny SD or xD cards.

Last summer I was away from home unexpectedly and for a longer time than I'd anticipated, and had not taken a camera with me. Eventually I bought a small P&S which uses SD cards. In January, in preparation for the trip to SF I bought yet another P&S, the excellent Fujifilm E900, for which I then had to buy a couple of xD cards. Now I've got all these different card formats so presumably am prepared for any situation, but when it comes right down to it my preference will always be for CF cards and cameras which use them.

ScubaDuc

Aug 2, 2006, 10:45 AM

The cost of lenses is always going to be high. I don't think it is a valid argument at all. With the progression in technology, you can't always expect new technology to work with 30 to 40 year old technology. Besides, the AI lenses will mount and shoot fine on current Nikon dSLRs. Only some will meter and the others you have to either use a light meter or guess and check the histogram.

Canon realized the foolishness of trying to stay backwards compatible when they made the switch from the FD mount to the EF (EOS) mount. Look at where they are at right now in terms of use and market share.

What have they changed in technology that make today's optics better than what we had in the Nikkor range 30 yrs ago? Honestly, I prefer manual focus anyway and I like to set the diaphram to control depth. Many here are planning on getting...ONE zoom lens with their body.... It is the 1.5 factor that's buggin me...:rolleyes:

I have been using Nikon cameras for 30 years and I have never had the slightest interest in Canon so I can't really comment but I know that Nikon will release a full frame reflex, they sidelined it a few years ago due to cost but I am confident that it will come, maybe in the shape of a D3/D3X soon enough..;)

beavo451

Aug 2, 2006, 11:52 AM

What have they changed in technology that make today's optics better than what we had in the Nikkor range 30 yrs ago? Honestly, I prefer manual focus anyway and I like to set the diaphram to control depth. Many here are planning on getting...ONE zoom lens with their body.... It is the 1.5 factor that's buggin me...:rolleyes:

I have been using Nikon cameras for 30 years and I have never had the slightest interest in Canon so I can't really comment but I know that Nikon will release a full frame reflex, they sidelined it a few years ago due to cost but I am confident that it will come, maybe in the shape of a D3/D3X soon enough..;)

VR/IS, AF-S/USM, better glass, possibly more precise building process

Prefering manual focus is a moot point because the lenses and bodies are capable of it. They only thing that drags it down is the smaller viewfinders on the consumer cameras and lack of splitscreen. However, Katz has splitscreens available for all the Nikon cameras. Avoid the G lenses and you still have an aperture ring. Where do you come up with only one zoom lens? Most people I know buy at least two (wide-mid range and telephoto).

An option is to use a film camera and a film scanner.

ksz

Aug 2, 2006, 12:04 PM

It depend on what I'm doing/where I'm going as to if this is going to be a problem or not. For example, when I was planning for a cruise last Winter, I knew that the ship's cabin would have power every night, so 1 Day's worth of cards would be be adequate, but when I started doing my research for going to Africa this summer, the details regarding the reliability of power in the camps looked marginal, so I prepared under the assumtion that I'd not have power every day, so I doubled my number of CF cards.

For hiking the Inca Trail, you're looking at ~4 days without recharging power and ~6 days away from data backup, due to weight limitations.
That true, but it's also possible that you will find yourself in situations where it's practical to bring along only 1 camera body. This is the situation most of the time for me at least. In this case the camera that offers the most rugged weather-sealed construction will be the obvious choice. In this case your entire collection of CF cards would be used and not wasted.

In order for the "sunk investment" argument to hold, you have to show that you will never again use your entire collection of CF cards if you were to purchase a D80. This would be true if you would always carry both camera bodies on every trip thereby having to leave excess CF cards at home.

And while I might want to have some additional quantity, my greater interest is in having the flexibility to adapt and adjust - - this means component interchangability, of both the Flash Media as well as the camea lenses.
Component interchangeability makes sense if you have only 1 lens of a particular type. Since this lens cannot be on both bodies at once, it must be shareable. However, CF and SD cards are cheap and getting cheaper. This means one can purchase additional memory cards for the very purpose of NOT having to share them between camera bodies.

I agree that there is additional inconvenience of having to carry both CF and SD cards, but again I believe this is no big deal. The D80 is smaller and lighter than the D200 partly because of the switch to a smaller memory card format. Smaller and lighter (and cheaper) offsets the additional cost of SD memory cards in my opinion.

ScubaDuc

Aug 2, 2006, 02:28 PM

VR/IS, AF-S/USM, better glass, possibly more precise building process

Prefering manual focus is a moot point because the lenses and bodies are capable of it. They only thing that drags it down is the smaller viewfinders on the consumer cameras and lack of splitscreen. However, Katz has splitscreens available for all the Nikon cameras. Avoid the G lenses and you still have an aperture ring. Where do you come up with only one zoom lens? Most people I know buy at least two (wide-mid range and telephoto).

An option is to use a film camera and a film scanner.

Indeed, I have a Coolpix V film scanner but I doubt that an 18-200 will perform as well as my 20 mm fixed lens or my 200 mm IF, nor will it be as versatile as the 55 micro-nikkor. The point I was making is that some, like me, have a small fortune invested in lenses already (about 15 nikkor AI lenses for F3) and that the cost of a similar lens system for the newer APS sized cameras is higher then the additional cost of paying for a D3 nikon body when it will come out with native 24 x 36... I'll just add a VR zoom and I would be all set with all the lenses I have....

beavo451

Aug 2, 2006, 02:31 PM

Indeed, I have a Coolpix V film scanner but I doubt that an 18-200 will perform as well as my 20 mm fixed lens or my 200 mm IF, nor will it be as versatile as the 55 micro-nikkor. The point I was making is that some, like me, have a small fortune invested in lenses already (about 15 nikkor AI lenses for F3) and that the cost of a similar lens system for the newer APS sized cameras is higher then the additional cost of paying for a D3 nikon body when it will come out with native 24 x 36... I'll just add a VR zoom and I would be all set with all the lenses I have....

I am still quite confused though. You can mount and use all your AI lenses perfectly fine on all current Nikon dSLRs. You don't need to buy lenses if you don't want too.

ScubaDuc

Aug 2, 2006, 03:04 PM

I am still quite confused though. You can mount and use all your AI lenses perfectly fine on all current Nikon dSLRs. You don't need to buy lenses if you don't want too.

I know the D200 supports exposure reading with AI lenses but I have the 1.5 factor that makes my 20 mm turn into a 30 mm. My 28 mm Prospective Control Nikkor wont be much of a wide angle at 43 mm and so fourth. True, my 200 mm would become a 300 mm but I already have the 500 mm reflex...

However, the D50, D70, D100 do not support exposure metering with AI lenses

-hh

Aug 2, 2006, 08:22 PM

For hiking the Inca Trail...
That true, but it's also possible that you will find yourself in situations where it's practical to bring along only 1 camera body...In this case your entire collection of CF cards would be used and not wasted.

One body or a dozen, the utility is in having the flexibility to customize and tailer the equipment for different shoots because it is configured to be able to share within a common pool as assets. Flash media is one example, lenses another and strobes are a third. If the asset interfaces were not standardized, then I would have to buy more of each of them because I've lost the ability to borrow.

In order for the "sunk investment" argument to hold, you have to show that you will never again use your entire collection of CF cards if you were to purchase a D80. This would be true if you would always carry both camera bodies on every trip thereby having to leave excess CF cards at home.

I don't think I agree. The Flash Media's size/mass is insignificant - its cost was not. My point is that it bothers me to have a "worth $500" asset sitting around that can't be utilized as well because of an IMO arbitrary change by the manufacturer to the "Latest and Greatest".

Skipping ahead slightly, I don't contest that the D80 is slightly smaller and slightly lighter than the D200, partly because of the Media switch, but when I strap on a 3.6lb (1600 gram) 70-200 f/2.8 IS lens, that tiny size/weight savings is profoundly insignificant. Can't make a silk purse from a sow's ear.

Component interchangeability makes sense if you have only 1 lens of a particular type. Since this lens cannot be on both bodies at once, it must be shareable.

One can only shoot one camera at a time too. In any event, the choice of gear in the kit bag is always a trade-off of multiple variables, not the least of which are intended application, weight/size constraints and budget constraints...it used to occasionally make sense to have two bodies each with identical lenses on them in the days of finite film handling (I once talked with Howard Hall's "camera sherpa" - he would carry up to five Nikonos rigs for Howard on each dive, becuase you can't change film underwater), but with digital today and the ability to quickly change ISO, etc, these days are effectively over.

However, CF and SD cards are cheap and getting cheaper. This means one can purchase additional memory cards for the very purpose of NOT having to share them between camera bodies.

Sure. This is why I put a $10/GB price point on where IMO the format change wouldn't be a big deal.

YMMV on what your personal "no longer care" price point is, but I don't think that I'm going too far out on a limb when I observe that the current price (for Extreme III) is still over $50/GB that that is yet down to the "trivial expense - ignore" level for most folks.

I agree that there is additional inconvenience of having to carry both CF and SD cards, but again I believe this is no big deal...Smaller and lighter (and cheaper) offsets the additional cost of SD memory cards in my opinion.

By my ear (and context), what you're claiming is that you're willing to lay out $500 if it shaves two ounces off of a 20lb camera bag, even if it also makes your overall systems less flexible. You can do this right now by cutting the metal buckles off your camera bag and super-glueing the straps back in place...I'll split the cost savings with you :D

-hh

ksz

Aug 2, 2006, 09:21 PM

The D80 may not be suitable for you, but that does not invalidate Nikon's reasons for using SD instead of CF. For me, the use of SD is no big deal at all. I don't need Sandisk Extreme IIIs when much cheaper high-speed products are available from PQI, Kingston, and others. Further, the price is low and coming down. The very top end might cost $50 per gigabyte, but even that price will fall.

If you're a professional or even an amateur who needs tens of gigabytes of high speed flash memory that is itself weather sealed, then you are not a member of the demographic for whom the D80 is aimed. You'll just have to shop for something else. Seems wasteful to buy weather-sealed Extreme-III cards when the camera body itself isn't weather sealed.

-hh

Aug 3, 2006, 06:48 AM

I don't need Sandisk Extreme IIIs when much cheaper high-speed products are available from PQI, Kingston, and others.

FWIW, I was referring to Extreme III's merely to indicate a fast (133x) card of a reputable brand (sorry, but I've never heard of "PQI", nor "Corsair" or "Patriot" which popped up on Pricewatch). Looking at Kingston's website, their 1GB SD 133x cards are currently at the $50/GB price point I mentioned.

Further, the price is low and coming down. The very top end might cost $50 per gigabyte, but even that price will fall.

Which is why I've been saying "no longer will be a big deal to me when price hits X". FWIW, also be aware that I've been effectively "depreciating" my sunk cost in CF cards by using the current prices instead of how much I originally paid for it.

If you're a professional or even an amateur who needs tens of gigabytes of high speed flash memory that is itself weather sealed...

I wasn't even aware that Sandisk's stuff is waterproof: I'm differentiating first on I/O speed, then other factors.

Overall, I thought that my point was really quite simple: just show me an SD card that's 133x or faster, of a clearly reputable brand, that their 1GB card is under $10, or their 2GB card is under $20.

IMO, they're not down to that price point today. Sure, maybe someday they'll get there, but I don't think that it is going to be anytime soon.

Do recall that retailers were able to get $100/GB for this product this last Holiday season. They would need to maintain their -50%/year rate of price reduction for another 2 years to get high speed cards down to the aforementioned $10/GB price point.

In the meantime, we're likely to see sensor density go up again, which increases how much storage capacity we want.

Perhaps a better way to look at this whole thing is the "Cost per Stored Image", since that's probably more the way that we should be looking at the question of how many/size cards we need to carry: our ultimate product of value isn't 0's/1's, but retained images.

To this end, if we want a 300 image (assume JPEG+RAW) capacity, then with an 8MP dSLR, we need around 4GB of storage. For the 1GB card that costs $50 and stored 75 images, this works out to be $0.67/image.

Progress occurs. Card prices have come down by 50%, but the new camera is now 12MP, so instead of getting 75/GB, we're now getting 45/GB, so our costs now work out to $25/45 = $0.55/image. So while we are making progress, its really only a 20% effective reduction in costs, rather than what initially looked to be a 50% savings. The "not important" schedule just got pushed further out to the right.

-hh

beavo451

Aug 3, 2006, 09:08 AM

FWIW, I was referring to Extreme III's merely to indicate a fast (133x) card of a reputable brand (sorry, but I've never heard of "PQI", nor "Corsair" or "Patriot" which popped up on Pricewatch). Looking at Kingston's website, their 1GB SD 133x cards are currently at the $50/GB price point I mentioned.
-hh

FYI Those three brands are among some of the most respected companies in the memory market.
Especially Corsair.

Passante

Aug 3, 2006, 09:45 AM

I like the new SD cards that fold into direct USB connectable devices. No more card readers to lug around.

6 more days till the nikon announcement and 4 more days until MWDC keynote address. Its like Christmas in August!!!!

ksz

Aug 3, 2006, 11:01 AM

Overall, I thought that my point was really quite simple: just show me an SD card that's 133x or faster, of a clearly reputable brand, that their 1GB card is under $10, or their 2GB card is under $20.

Here you go:

Transcend 150x SD card for $84.99 regular price (http://shop4.outpost.com/product/4852990?site=sr:SEARCH:MAIN_RSLT_PG). Oh yes, capacity is 4GB. This is $21 per GB.

PQI 133x SD card, 2GB, $44.99 (http://shop4.outpost.com/product/4515547?site=sr:SEARCH:MAIN_RSLT_PG).

Here's a Patriot Extreme 4GB SD card, 133x, for $78.99 (http://shop4.outpost.com/product/4782009?site=sr:SEARCH:MAIN_RSLT_PG)with $30 rebate for final price of $48.99. Cost per GB = $12.25.

All prices are from Fry's Electronics available through their online website (outpost.com).

I think $12.25 is close enough to your artificial limit of $10/GB.

-hh

Aug 3, 2006, 12:13 PM

Here you go:

Transcend 150x SD card for $84.99 regular price (http://shop4.outpost.com/product/4852990?site=sr:SEARCH:MAIN_RSLT_PG). Oh yes, capacity is 4GB. This is $21 per GB.

PQI 133x SD card, 2GB, $44.99 (http://shop4.outpost.com/product/4515547?site=sr:SEARCH:MAIN_RSLT_PG).

Here's a Patriot Extreme 4GB SD card, 133x, for $78.99 (http://shop4.outpost.com/product/4782009?site=sr:SEARCH:MAIN_RSLT_PG)with $30 rebate for final price of $48.99. Cost per GB = $12.25.

All prices are from Fry's Electronics available through their online website (outpost.com).

I think $12.25 is close enough to your artificial limit of $10/GB.

It is, and thanks for the follow-up. FWIW, while these prices surprise me, its a "good surprise" - it sounds like it might pay to become more familar with the reputations of brands other than just Sandisk/Lexar/Crucial/Kingston. Until now, I've immediately written off (ignored) the "fly-by-night looking" names that I didn't already know something about.

Which means my last question specific to the likelihood of me being interested in the Nikon D80 is....

...will Nikon be selling it with the Canon EF lens mount?

yeah, I know: a bad joke :D

-hh

ksz

Aug 3, 2006, 03:03 PM

It is, and thanks for the follow-up. FWIW, while these prices surprise me, its a "good surprise" ...
You're welcome. :)

Quoting from a May 16, 2006 article:

http://www.purchasing.com/article/CA6333235.html?industryid=2147
Prices for NAND flash fell by 30-40% in the first quarter depending on the density and further price erosion is likely, although not at the same rate.

Despite falling prices, the NAND flash memory market will grow 40% in 2006 to $14.8 billion. In fact, the NAND flash segment will have a compound annual growth rate of 31% through 2010 when the market will reach $33.4 billion, says researcher IC Insights.

Prices are falling because capacity still outpaces supply despite booming demand. Suppliers are competing fiercely for market share and new suppliers are entering the market or beefing up NAND capacity.

"As a result, it will be a buyer's market throughout this year. Buyers will have a lot of say on prices on a contract basis and on the spot market," says Brian Matas, an analyst for IC Insights.

ChrisA

Aug 3, 2006, 04:54 PM

Seems wasteful to buy weather-sealed Extreme-III cards when the camera body itself isn't weather sealed.

I think even the lowest price cards are weather sealed. None of them open up and they are all just one part of solid molded plastic. putting the words "weather sealed" on the packages is like putting a "low fat" lable on bottled water. Yes it is in fact low in fat but show me some brand of bottled water that has fat. Same with the "shock resistant" lable. They all are.

ChrisA

Aug 3, 2006, 05:03 PM

It takes a much more rubust buffer to process a 16MP image than an 8MP image. That's why the 5D (12.8MP) has a max frame rate of 3fps and the 20D/30D (8.2MP) can both shoot at 5fps.

I believe that the 1Ds MII can go have a higher frame rate, but it takes the images around 8MP.

Buffers are cheap. what gets expensive and hard to make is the analoge to difital converter that sets between the sensor and the buffer. The information comming off the sensor is low level analog signal that needs to be ampliphied and digitized before it can be stored in a buffer. The ampliphier that live up stream of the A/D converter is a kep component. The gain setting on this amp is what we think of as "ISO". Getting this to work at 100,000,000 pixels per second with minial noise is not easy. But buffers that work at that speed range are not as hard to do.

ksz

Aug 3, 2006, 07:06 PM

I think even the lowest price cards are weather sealed. None of them open up and they are all just one part of solid molded plastic. putting the words "weather sealed" on the packages is like putting a "low fat" lable on bottled water. Yes it is in fact low in fat but show me some brand of bottled water that has fat. Same with the "shock resistant" lable. They all are.
From Sandisk's specifications (http://www.sandisk.com/Products/Catalog(1027)-SanDisk_Extreme_III_CompactFlash.aspx):

Ideal for demanding photo shoots under severe weather conditions—heat, cold, wind, rain, snow, etc.
Built to perform in the most extreme environments and temperatures—from
-13º F to 185º F
-25º C to 85º C
Min 20MB/second** sequential read and write
Durable, reliable and thoroughly tested—temperature tested (heat and cold); shock and vibration tested (industrial-grade RTV included for CompactFlash)

RTV is an adhesive sealant.

For comparison here are specs from a couple of other manufacturers:

1. PQI 100x CF card (http://www.pqi.com.tw/product2.asp?oid=21&catE1=21&PROID=118):

Environment Operating 0℃~70℃

2. Kingston CompactFlash Ultimate 100x (http://www.kingston.com/flash/cf_ultimate.asp?id=2):

Operating Temperature — 32° F to 140° F (0° C to 60° C)

These manufacturers make no claims for suitability in extreme weather.