Anyone have any rel;iable info about a possible release date for the Nikon D700x (24 mp) ?
Drooling, I think...
Sandy r
Posted by Kent Staubus on September 9, 2009 at 9:06 AM
It's rumored but Nikon has been very tight with info about new product. I have zero interest in one. The high ISO performance is weak, and that's important to me. Meanwhile, prices on eBay for the D700 are falling below $2,000 now! I'll see what they are in January.
Kent in SD
Posted by Arnab Banerjee on September 9, 2009 at 10:03 AM
Kent: How do you know that high ISO performance will be weak? Have you seen any reviews? I wonder about that a lot - but other than simple math and guess, I dont see that it will be like that. Technology is improving in leaps and bounds - I will be optimist to see what Nikon delivers
Posted by David Prichard on September 9, 2009 at 10:34 AM
Rumours of some sort of major release by Nikon. For what they are worth.
Posted by David Bostedo on September 9, 2009 at 10:39 AM
Arnab - I think the assumption is that a D700X will have the same sensor as the D3X (much as the D700 has the same sensor as the D3). If that holds, then the noise will be worse at a pixel level than the D700. However, this is mitigated by the high pixel count.
As an example, if you took a 12MP image with a D700/D3 at ISO 1600 it would be very clean (for ISO 1600). If you took the same picture with the D3X at ISO 1600, it would appear to be noisier when both are compared at the same view level (50%, 100%, etc.) However, the D3X image will be much larger (zoomed in more, magnified more, etc) due to the higher pixel count. If you down-sampled the D3X image to the same 12 MP of the D700/D3, the noise characteristics should be much closer.
I don't know if they'd be equivalent, but downsampling is definitely a good way to mitigate noise (and a good reason why cramming a lot of smaller, noisier pixels onto a sensor isn't necessarily a bad thing). In some cases (the Canon 40D and 50D come to mind) the noise from the higher-res, downsampled image will be better than the lower res image. I don't know if that holds here, as I haven't seen that comparison done.
So if you're willing to do a bit more processing, in some cases it's possible to get the noise performance of the lower res camera, and the potential for higher res shots.
Posted by Kent Staubus on September 9, 2009 at 10:46 AM
Arnab--
As David explains above, Nikon typically uses the "hand me down" system with their components. They've put each of their sensors in multiple camera bodies, such as D5000/D90/D300. I highly doubt they will produce a new sensor and put that into just a D700s. The sensor in the D3x has been out long enough for reviews, and I'm just not impressed with its high ISO performance. That's much more important to me than simple megapixels because it makes the camera more flexible in real use. ISO 6400 excites me; 20mp does not. Meanwhile, I continue to build up my extensive and powerful portable lighting system, and first class lenses. I hate putting money into camera bodies because they lose value so fast, and usually it's money not well spent either. Lenses and lights do more for me, and they hold their value extremely well over time.
Kent in SD
Posted by Ken Smith on September 9, 2009 at 11:12 AM
I wonder how the strategy might be altered by the Canon 7d. Maybe the next step will be a two camera intro: D400 with 1.5x, 18-20 mp, super control of noise, and the best AF system...great sport and bird camera....for $2,200. And intro of ff D700X with that same 24 mp sensor from D3X....for $3,900-4,900.
Posted by Arnab Banerjee on September 10, 2009 at 1:27 PM
Kent, David: I understand your point. I just think that more pixel equals more noise -> that will not hold true for a long time, as the pixel quality will get better. May not happen w/D700x, but will happen
As for someone who never shoot above ISO 400, I care about whether I can blow up my landscapes to large prints. I think that a FX sensor with 20+ MP will help in that (compared to my DX with 12 MP now) - am I totally on a wrong path?
Posted by Kent Staubus on September 10, 2009 at 4:23 PM
Arnab--
For what you're wanting, it would work fine. I'm at my best shooting in low light or at night with flash. For me, lower noise at high ISO is more important than resolution. Your needs are different. Another factor for me is I hate putting money into cameras. They lose value so fast, and they are improving so rapidly. If I was making more money from photography that would be less of an issue. Last year D700 was selling for $2,700, I think. You can now buy used ones for under $2,000. Good chance that they'll be more like $1.600 in January, and at that price point I become interested. Meanwhile, I saved over a thousand dollars which can be spent on a lens upgrade. Seems like Nikon pro lenses have sort of standardized now--they all take 77mm filters and they all cost $2,000.
Discussion
8 repliesDrooling, I think...
Sandy r
Kent in SD
http://nikonrumors.com/
http://christianfletcher.wordpress.com/2009/08/26/hot-nikon-news/
As an example, if you took a 12MP image with a D700/D3 at ISO 1600 it would be very clean (for ISO 1600). If you took the same picture with the D3X at ISO 1600, it would appear to be noisier when both are compared at the same view level (50%, 100%, etc.) However, the D3X image will be much larger (zoomed in more, magnified more, etc) due to the higher pixel count. If you down-sampled the D3X image to the same 12 MP of the D700/D3, the noise characteristics should be much closer.
I don't know if they'd be equivalent, but downsampling is definitely a good way to mitigate noise (and a good reason why cramming a lot of smaller, noisier pixels onto a sensor isn't necessarily a bad thing). In some cases (the Canon 40D and 50D come to mind) the noise from the higher-res, downsampled image will be better than the lower res image. I don't know if that holds here, as I haven't seen that comparison done.
So if you're willing to do a bit more processing, in some cases it's possible to get the noise performance of the lower res camera, and the potential for higher res shots.
As David explains above, Nikon typically uses the "hand me down" system with their components. They've put each of their sensors in multiple camera bodies, such as D5000/D90/D300. I highly doubt they will produce a new sensor and put that into just a D700s. The sensor in the D3x has been out long enough for reviews, and I'm just not impressed with its high ISO performance. That's much more important to me than simple megapixels because it makes the camera more flexible in real use. ISO 6400 excites me; 20mp does not. Meanwhile, I continue to build up my extensive and powerful portable lighting system, and first class lenses. I hate putting money into camera bodies because they lose value so fast, and usually it's money not well spent either. Lenses and lights do more for me, and they hold their value extremely well over time.
Kent in SD
As for someone who never shoot above ISO 400, I care about whether I can blow up my landscapes to large prints. I think that a FX sensor with 20+ MP will help in that (compared to my DX with 12 MP now) - am I totally on a wrong path?
For what you're wanting, it would work fine. I'm at my best shooting in low light or at night with flash. For me, lower noise at high ISO is more important than resolution. Your needs are different. Another factor for me is I hate putting money into cameras. They lose value so fast, and they are improving so rapidly. If I was making more money from photography that would be less of an issue. Last year D700 was selling for $2,700, I think. You can now buy used ones for under $2,000. Good chance that they'll be more like $1.600 in January, and at that price point I become interested. Meanwhile, I saved over a thousand dollars which can be spent on a lens upgrade. Seems like Nikon pro lenses have sort of standardized now--they all take 77mm filters and they all cost $2,000.
Kent in SD