Ok, Nikon outsmarts all the rumor mongers again; looks like no new successor to the D700 this year. Found this comment on another site: ""The D7000 will cause many folks to wonder if they really need an FX body like the D700 when the D7000 is so good at less than half the price."

True or not?

Dayn Cederstrom
Blue Springs, MO

Reading the posts in this forum I think a lot of people are in this quandry.

Visit
My Nikonians Gallery
NorcrossPics.Com

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

Entirely valid question and maybe in a reactive sense people can now reevaluate their plan to "go full frame", but in a proactive sense we have been talking about this very issue for years here.

The lab coat boys are getting better all the time at capturing photons and eliminating noise. When they do this both our FX sensors and our DX sensors keep getting better and better. Thus both bars are constantly being raised.

The very issue we have been talking about, and Thom Hogan has been particularly clear on, is at what point in the improvement cycle is the technology good enough for most people.

Whether the D7000 is the cam that causes a lot of people to get off the treadmill on the "DX is good enough platform" will be very interesting and will be based on how good it really is. I can't wait (and do have one on preorder). But for my own shooting I fully plan a dual FX/DX kit for at least a couple more improvement cycles, but that is just me. The D7000 is just a step along the path for me.

And don't forget about black silcone and the ones we have never heard about... yet

Best regards, SteveK

'A camera is an instrument that teaches people how to see without a camera.' -- Dorothea Lange
My Nikonians gallery
My Nikonians Blog

I, for one, am quite happy with the commitment Nikon has shown to the DX format. It appears that will continue. I have no need for a full frame camera, what I have wanted from the full frame line is the ISO performance. Now we have it. Of course the FF ISO performance may increase as well, but if I can get good performance at 3200-6400 I am set at this point.

Jason

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

I certainly agree with the question. Assuming that the D7k meets the expectations Nikon has set for it, it really is going to set the cat amongst the pigeons. It was already true that the D90 was able to handle the vast majority of the low-light photographic problems, and now the D7k improves on that significantly.

Whatever succeeds the D700 will be better yet than the D7k - it has to, since Nikon has to maintain the competitiveness in its top-line models, of which the D700 is a derivative. However, I think we're reaching the point of diminishing returns. I'd expect a D700++ to match the D3s, if not literally using its sensor. And that'll be fine.

But at, say, 50mp in FX or about 24mp in DX we probably will reach the limits of optics, printers and the human perception system. I'd say that the inevitable progress in silicon fab will yield some surprising turns. For example, we may get what could be called an 80mp sensor, but with only 25mp output. Instead, triangles of sensors might be used to "vote" on the value of a pixel - and that might yield ridiculously noiseless output, since the three pixels should all be the same. If they're not, or aren't in some identifiable pattern, the differences would be noise and eliminated.

Wild stuff like that could be under development already.

_____
Brian... a bicoastal Nikonian and Team Member

My gallery is online. Comments and critique welcomed any time!

Not to me I have a D700, and have no intention of moving down to a body with functions in the menus rather than on the body itself. The fx bodies like D700 and D3x are aimed at a different market - the people who want to get the D7k are not the same people who want to get the D700. The people who buy the fx bodies, buy them for a different purpose and are willing to live with the weight of that camera because it gives them functionalities which are missing from the prosumer cameras. Would I ever want to get a D7k as a second camera, possibly. But then I would go for something like the D300s because the body would still be familiar to me after the D700. I think that the people who wanted to get the fx body, will still buy it. The people who wanted to get the D90, may get the D7k. In the end, it's all about the pictures, and how comfortable that camera feels in your hand and whether it allows you to shoot how you want to shoot. I'm sure that if I had a D90 now, I would think about getting a D7k, but if I had my heart set on a D700, I would not even look at a D7k. It's all about what you want I'm sure that the D7k is a fine camera and many people will buy it and love it.

New Jersey Nikonian

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

The FX and DX are just media formats like 8x10, 4x5, 35mm, 120, etc. Each has a place in the art of photography. Those who want more control and than a P&S but not the weight and size of the FX or 35mm camera will opt for the DX. Pros that need a smaller camera with the best image they will look at the FX. Pros that need a studio and extreme detail will go with the Hasselblad.

George
My Nikonian Galleries

I agree with you in some ways

I currently use a D300 and D700, for some assignments switching from one to the other with different lenses attached on a minute-by-minute basis. That means I need cameras that are as similar as possible in feel and user interface, and at least one of them must have good performance at 6400 ISO. Although the D7000 looks like it would match the D700 in that regard, I can't consider it to replace the D300 because it's just too different

But... I'm sure there are other types of D700 owner. Many D700's must have been sold to people who simply want a camera (any camera) that is great at high ISO's, and for them, the D7000 seems to be worth thinking about.

Lastly, there are no doubt those who chose the D700 just because it's FX-format, with no deep analysis as to what they need from it; such people won't have the D7000 in their sights either.

Brian
Welsh Nikonian
Check out the Nikonians Team pages

When FX came out, I wanted to switch from DX right away but could not really get around to it for many personal reasons. The last year, I have been holding out waiting for Nikon to make the next move so that I can decide what upgrade path to take. And they just did. My path at this time is to stay DX. Years from now (like 2), I may find pocket change to pick up a used D700 and shoot with my stack of manual lenses just for the heck of it. Looks like all my serious amateur needs will be done via DX.

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

> Years from now ... I may ... pick up a used D700 and shoot with my stack of manual lenses just for the heck of it.

Actually you can do that with the D7k too - unlike the D90, it meters with AI/AIS lenses.

_____
Brian... a bicoastal Nikonian and Team Member

My gallery is online. Comments and critique welcomed any time!

Brian,

You are right
I'm the first type, so, I'm in the same boat with you

I'm sure that there are plenty of other people who belong to the other two groups, and this is where Nikon makes their money.

I personally like the fact that the 50mm is 50mm on the D700 and that the Nikon 14-24 is wide enough on this body. I like the fact that my camera fits in my hand just right. No one has canceled the laws of physics, and pro quality zoom glass still weighs about 2 pounds, and you need the heavier camera body to balance things out for you when you have the heavy glass on.

With the D700, I wound up exactly where I want to be - for what I shoot with my camera, I don't need the D3, and I feel much more at home with the D700 than with the D300 I used to have. I definitely don't need a Hasselblad But I know exactly what a D80/90 will feel like in my hand and what that camera will allow me to do.

My wife would be the prime contender for the D7k though - she feels perfectly at home with her D300 and the 18-200 VR, which she never needs to change (in fact, I'm the only one who changes her lenses, if she ever wants to shoot with the 50 mm, she refuses to change lenses and does not want to understand why it's difficult to make pro quality glass with the same weight as the 18-200 and its focusing length) - in fact, she never uses any of the additional controls on the D300 body, and the D7k would be a great choice for her. Just as well, the D300 would work really well for me as a backup body, and the 70-200 VRI is exceptional on the D300

When Nikon does come out with an update to the D700, I will probably want to get it if the updates are revolutionary (as they were with the D300 from the D200). However, I probably won't do it because the D700 put quite a dent in my wallet, and I'm not sure that I'll want to do that any time soon

As for the people who are currently using DX bodies and are comfortable with them, they should stay with them as the switch to FX will have them changing their entire lens collection, and NAS will take over

Cheers

New Jersey Nikonian

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

I am sure the OP is correct in assuming a lot of people will question their need to move to FX, that is if their main purpose was lower noise at high ISO. That was my main reason for creating a savings jar to get a D3s. I did not like the idea of having change most of my lenses but did want the low light performance a great deal.
Otherwise I am quite happy with the D90, with the grip it feels great in the hand, balances well with 70-200 and works very well. I was never bothered by having a few items on the menu, for event and club shooting, I never go to the menu, all I ever need is right on the body of the camera without removing my eye from the VF. I surely get more keepers and do less fiddling with menus than my friends shooting 7D and 5DII in the same events. If I really needed AF mode control, as a dedicated control, the only thing that is missing from this level of camera but present in a Pro unit, I can program the function button to rotate through the choices.
So for me, the D7k is a very exciting new toy that I can afford, plus possibly the 24-70 I've been wanting, and maybe the 85 1.4 AF-S to replace my 17-55 and 85 1.4D and have enough money left over for a nice vacation from what is in the jar now.
Without the grip, the D90/D7k are a little small for me now but when I first got it it was perfect. The difference is now I keep it in hand for 5-8 hours some nights and it just feels more secure and comfortable with the grip, hand strap and RS-5, usually with a 70-200 attached. When playing with the D3s, I found that it was a lot lighter and compact than I imagined, great feel, but not much different in weight and size than the D90 with grip. Both such set ups feel better, to me than the D300/D700 class body without the grip.

I think the mass of the market is in the mid and entry line, which has a lot more reason to see the D7k as a game changer than those who already have FX glass. So, this camera really is very significant for possibly millions of people despite not having much appeal for the hundreds of thousands who have FX now. So there really should be no impact on either class of camera, the masses, like me will be happy with the D7k and those who want a larger body with a couple more buttons will not change, their upgrade path is secure, but just at a slower release cycle. There enough difference in the product lines to appeal to two different users. One class just happens to be 10 times larger so this cycle got the most attention this time. In the spring the buzz on other brand forums will be about trying to find some faults in the new Fx body just announced or leaked.
Nikon is definitely on the right track and causing some hand wringing in boardrooms in Asia. Canon is likely to get its bread and butter mid line eaten for lunch.
Stan
St Petersburg Russia

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

Once I took my first image with an FX camera and looked at it, the clarity and smoothness, even at base ISO, I was sold. I will stay with FX, even if DX will probably soon go to those crazy ISO levels of 100,000 that used to be the domain of FX. Image quality of FX will always be better than DX, at any ISO.

That said, on vacation trips with my small kids I prefer a DX camera for it's light weight, so I'm happy Nikon presses on with it's DX development.

Tom
Bay Area Nikonian

http://www.tkphoto.me/

>Once I took my first image with an FX camera and looked at
>it, the clarity and smoothness, even at base ISO, I was sold.
>I will stay with FX, even if DX will probably soon go to those
>crazy ISO levels of 100,000 that used to be the domain of FX.
>Image quality of FX will always be better than DX, at any
>ISO.

This is highly debatable. The pixel density advantage of DX provides better resolving power than FX and often results in sharper results where the MP are equal. The only thing FX had over DX in Nikon's line was high ISO performance, and that appears to no longer be the case with the D7000.

Jason

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

>This is highly debatable. The pixel density advantage of DX
>provides better resolving power than FX and often results in
>sharper results where the MP are equal. The only thing FX
>had over DX in Nikon's line was high ISO performance, and that
>appears to no longer be the case with the D7000.

Just take a picture with FX and DX camera from the same generation and look at them. Or maybe you shouldn't because it may cost you a lot of money... Comparing specs on paper and convincing yourself that DX is good and FX is better only at high ISO will be cheaper. I'm not trying to be sarcastic. I traveled with a D90 this summer and tried to convince myself that it's good enough, until I took up the D700 again and looked at the images it makes.

Tom
Bay Area Nikonian

http://www.tkphoto.me/

I guess I am simply not very perceptive, then. I shoot regularly with two cameras of different generations, and I just cannot tell the difference.

_____
Brian... a bicoastal Nikonian and Team Member

My gallery is online. Comments and critique welcomed any time!

>I guess I am simply not very perceptive, then.

Nah, just be happy. It looks you're occupied with photography instead of pixel-peeping like too many of us (including me I admit).

Tom
Bay Area Nikonian

http://www.tkphoto.me/

It's probably also true that I'm more critical of my technique than others may be. When I zoom in at 100%, I know bloody well that it's not sharp because I had the AF target on the wrong part of the subject, or because I was panning at the wrong speed, etc. I know that there's little point in upgrading the gear if I'm just going to screw it all up before it gets recorded.

_____
Brian... a bicoastal Nikonian and Team Member

My gallery is online. Comments and critique welcomed any time!

Another thing to consider the is asymmetry in model cycles. Two years ago when the D90 came out the expensive pro FX cameras were way ahead in the applications of technology that was too expensive for modest priced cameras. Two years later the technology has improved as fast as the prices have come down for the components. A better comparison of what is "good enough" will be the newer tech DX to what was available at any price just a few years ago. Sure, when the D4 and D800 come out, high end tech will be included in those that leap past the new DX again. I suspect the noise and image quality of the D7000 will be quite competitive with 2 year old FX pro quality. To have what was state of the art just two years ago, now, when its affordable is fine with me, I've always been late anyway;>)
Stan
St Petersburg Russia

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

The core of the issue is that the potential IQ improvements of FX over DX seem to be narrowing. That will make FX more of a niche format than it is now, but I don't see FX going away any time soon.

The sensor improvements of the D7k raise another interesting possibility, which is that the next generation of FX cameras may provide DX performance that really rocks, making it more attractive for users to use DX lenses and to use DX mode with their long lenses. Today, many shooters have an FX body that they use to get the ultimate performance when needed and a DX body to take advantage of the crop factor. If one body could serve both needs, so much the better. Put it this way: if the 10 MP DX image of the D3X came with the same high-ISO performance as the D7k appears to have, the D3X would be an even more versatile body.

-- Jon
Wethersfield, CT, USA
Connecticut High School Sports Photos

I think Stan hit the nail on the head. It's not so much that FX is improving less than DX - given that FX is in the higher price bands and there is more cost room for innovation, I think the next FX is likely to be a shocker. Possibly more than the D7k, which is definitely rocking a lot of people's world. (Try looking at the Pentax, Olympus and Sony forums over on dpreview...)

Stan's point - and mine - and I think Jon's are all that we're getting to the point that the DX cameras can do very nearly everything that most of us need to do. Shoot in available darkness? Check. Pro shutter life? Check. Complete range of optics? Check. Lower price? Yep. What's the point of FX?

Nikon is making the point of FX to be the top models. To Jon's point, when FX gets to the point of, say, 32mp, its DX crop will be 14mp or better than a D300 and equal to a D3100 on a pixel-for-pixel basis. That's good enough for most purposes, and even if it's not as good as 32mp, if you want to shoot with a DX lens, go ahead. You'll "only" be able to make a 30x45 print if you're careful... None of this 60x90 stuff that you might be able to do with the whole sensor...

_____
Brian... a bicoastal Nikonian and Team Member

My gallery is online. Comments and critique welcomed any time!

>Just take a picture with FX and DX camera from the same
>generation and look at them. Or maybe you shouldn't because it
>may cost you a lot of money... Comparing specs on paper and
>convincing yourself that DX is good and FX is better only at
>high ISO will be cheaper. I'm not trying to be sarcastic.
>I traveled with a D90 this summer and tried to convince myself
>that it's good enough, until I took up the D700 again and
>looked at the images it makes.

We will agree to disagree. A number of well known pros, including Bjorn Rorslett who spend tons of money on camera equipment (both DX and FX) and enjoy a good reputation for being very conscious about image quality generally agree with what I said:

http://www.naturfotograf.com/D3/D3_rev06.html

I have also read an article by Thom Hogan along these lines as well.

Edit: found the Hogan article where he states:
"Currently, the D3 is my "most of the time" camera and the D300 gets used when I need to go light or need more pixel density (wildlife shooting, mainly)."

http://www.bythom.com/d700announce.htm

Pixel peeping and all, DX image quality (presuming low ISO shooting conditions) is arguably superior. I have compared them, that is my opinion. Spending more money won't convince me that my image quality is better.

Jason

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

>"The D7000 will cause many folks to
>wonder if they really need an FX body like the D700 when the
>D7000 is so good at less than half the price."
>
>True or not?


Somewhat true for a subset of the population. I believe photographers lke me are the exact target market for the D7000.

In my case: I'm right in the middle between the snapshooter and the seasoned pro. I'm one of those middleground customers. My first Nikon was the N90s, which I bought new, and was (actually still am) thrilled with. The D7000 occupies a similar space in the lineup as the N90s did.

When I went into digital, a used D1H was the only camera that had what I was looking for. It slightly outspec'ed the N90s by having a better body and newer AF and metering, and of course the digital part. I elected to spend extra for a used D1H over a D100 or D70, for things like manual focus lens metering, better viewfinder, and the vertical grip. The D1H has been the perfect digital SLR for me.

But then I started to look into something with higher res. So I bought a used D1x a couple of years ago as a stopgap. It came in handy for a couple of paid jobs, so was worth it. And there was nothing to learn because it was the same as the D1H physically. Having two of the same body is also nice when two cameras are needed.

But then I got a call from my cousin earlier this year, asking me to photograph her wedding. I hemmed and hawwed for a while, but finally caved in. I knew I had to buy a newer, more lowlight-capable camera several months before ths assignment. So, as much as I didn't want to buy something yet, I scraped together some money and bought a brand new D90. It turned out to be insanely useful at the wedding, so I'm glad I purchased it.

But I would not have bought the D90 had it not been for the wedding. And I don't really feel one with the D90, honestly. I loved the N90s, loved the D1H (stil love using them), but the D90 and the D1x just don't give me that same itch to go take pictures, as there are things about them that get in the way sometimes.

So my plan is to buy a D7000 next year and sell both the D90 and D1x, while keeping the classic D1H as my second/backup body. The D7000 is $1200, which is what I paid for the used D1H years ago. And what is amazing, is that the D7000 meets the D1H's basic photographic specs. 6 fps: the D1H does 5, but it's closer to 5.5 actually. AI lens capability. Metal body. etc, etc. I normally don't buy new cameras, but the D7000 looks like something I'd want to keep forever (along with the D1H, N90s, etc).

FX? Well yeah. The D7000 would delay an FX body purchase for me for a long time. The D700 is the camera I really want, but the D7000 appears to be the poor man's version of it. I can live with DX a while longer. And I've learned to like the DX format for telephoto work. In fact, my 80-200mm lens seems too short on FX lately.

An undeniable paradox: To think that there is any such thing as an absolute rule is at worst naïve, and at best, shortsighted. There is no such thing as an always-true, all context- or situation-salient, absolute rule that always holds true…including this one!

After reading about the D7000 as much as I can it seems that most think its low light capability is still not as good as the D700 but very close and no where near as good as the D3s. Another thing it seems many more functions are in menus vs the direct control of the D700. But remember until a member here gets one or a trusted reviewer I and everyone else is still guessing and going off paper vs real life experience.

Now am I bashing the D7000 no way this is a killer DX camera and it will rule the DX world until that is the D300s replacement comes out. But there are very big differences in the D700 and D7000 and to a lesser extent the D300s and D7000.

But here is how I see them stack up on paper and to a lesser extent in real life based on some very early reviews and posts online from the D7000 previews. But again we a treading on thin ice proclaiming a camera a winner or loser without even having used one. But for what its worth here is my tow cents worth.

DX D7000 vs FX D700 IMHO

Low light performance: D700(based on reading this could change)

Over all operational speed: D700

Metering: The D700's meter is great and it shares it with the D3s and D3x but it seems the new meter in the D7000 maybe fantastic. But at this time no winner since I have no clue how the new meter will perform.

Viewfinder: Tie D7000 is 100% but DX still is tunnel vision vs FX viewfinder of the D700

AF speed/system: D700, 15 cross-hair AF points and over 51 AF points(but this could change since this is a new AF system and it may prove to be better but it has less AF points and fewer cross hair type)

Build: Close but D700 again. Plus little things like a viewfinder shutter in the D700 is so much better than the small plastic cover we all lose and the D7000 is not fully weather sealed and only partially made of metal the whole front is plastic.

Live view: Seems both can AF in live view and the D700 has a tripod mode I can not see if the D7000 has this. But the D7000 has an easier way to access live view so its a TIE.

Battery and Power: D7000 wins because the new battery is very cool with a battery safety feature and longer life, but if you have a D700 and the MB-D10 and add the El-EN4 then the D700 wins.

Price/Value: D7000 wins this one I love my D700 but fair is fair the D7000 is an incredible value for the money

Backward compatibility with older lens: TIE(this is a first for Nikon to have a non pro DSLR meter with Ai and Ai-s lens)
No on second thought the D7000 wins since you get this in a 1200$ body!!!

Movie Mod 7000 all the way since the D700 has none but the D7000 HD movie mode seems ground breaking!

Storage: D7000 by a mile it has two cards and I am one of the few who prefers the SD card and no pins to bend.

NEF files compressed/uncompressed: D700 wins if the specs from Nikon on the D7000 are correct stating that 12/14 compressed NEF, they do not list an uncompressed NEF option. But this still maybe an option and not listed in the specs.

Geesh in the end the D7000 is well FANTASTIC and at 1200$ USD nothing on the market in its class can touch it. But the D700 is not in the same class and is not truly aimed at the same target group though many on the fence between the two will pick the D7000 due to its features and value! I will say this when it comes to value for the dollar it is hard to argue any camera right now comes close to the D7000!!!!

Jim

Share, Learn and Inspire
www.nikonians.org



I will use film until the last roll and last lab are gone. Go Navy

>Just take a picture with FX and DX camera from the same
>generation and look at them.

Images from my D700 and D300, taken at the same event, look pretty much identical to my eyes. I certainly don't waste time trying to work out which is which.

Brian
Welsh Nikonian
Check out the Nikonians Team pages

Hi Jon,

>The core of the issue is that the potential IQ improvements
>of FX over DX seem to be narrowing. That will make FX more of
>a niche format than it is now, but I don't see FX going away
>any time soon.

I think the difference in IQ improvements is most likely staying on an equal footing between FX and DX. The introduction of the next generation of DX body's has happened before the introduction of the next generation of FX bodies so the gap in performance is percieved to be shrinking. The proof will be seen when the next generation of FX bodies is introduced sometime in the not too distant future.
Good Luck and Enjoy your Nikons!

Best Regards,
Marty

>Quoting Brian<
>I currently use a D300 and D700, for some assignments
>switching from one to the other with different lenses attached
>on a minute-by-minute basis. That means I need cameras that
>are as similar as possible in feel and user interface, and at
>least one of them must have good performance at 6400 ISO.
>Although the D7000 looks like it would match the D700 in that
>regard, I can't consider it to replace the D300 because it's
>just too different
>

I don't have this problem of needing duplicate cameras.
I currently carry and shoot both a D3 and a 5D2 at Events.
Next year I expect to have a least three Nikons that span the gamut of size and performance.
D3100, D7000, and D4.

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

Steve, I agree as to the double kit.

My shooting partner is also my brother and says I'm obsessive as to cleaning the sensors of the D3S and the D-90.

He uses the "other" brand and has his wide angle zoom on the full frame and his long lens on the crop body and doesn't change them out very often by making the claim that dust then isn't as much an issue and stating bluntly that one would never turn over to a client an image that had not been dusted off in LR or CS etc regardless. Well OK then.

I'd generally set up the same for the D7000 which I likely will also pre-order just to have in the bag when out in Death Valley etc.

That being said, I may well donate the D-90 to a graphic and fine arts grad who is the wife of one of my old business associates along with the entry level kit lens should the D7000 land on planet earth next month. They have had a rough couple of years.

Yes AFAIK, the black silicone is still relegated to the black helicopters.

Cheers,

Rob

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

It's natural that most people look at a new camera and judge it by the way that he or she shoots, and using that criterion, determines if the new camera is "good" or "bad," or "useful" or not, etc.

FWIW, I have a D700 (and a D200, but that never gets used). And, I just ordered a D7000.

I may never take a still photo with the D7000. I bought it entirely for shooting video. (As I said, different needs and uses.)

I have been avoiding buying the Canon DSLRs for video, but really wanted to get the look of the larger sensor (compared to camcorders), with the shallower depth of field. Since I own a dozen Nikon lenses, I decided to wait to see what Nikon brought out.

Now, if Nikon brings out an FX camera with 1080P video next year, I'll buy that one, too. We use it to shoot TV shows I produce.

So, yes, we have HD video cameras, but there are things the DSLR in video mode will do that you can't do short of about $100,000 in a video camera.

Just a different need/approach.

And, I absolutely love the D700. One big reason, which is almost never mentioned, it the much larger eyepiece in the viewfinder. I've shot Nikons since 1969, and the smaller viewfinder on the D200 was enough to keep me shooting film until I could get the D700.

Tom,

I second the viewfinder bit. The fact that you can install the Nikon
round eye piece is great. You are right about the shooting video
part as well, I never had to shoot videos, and don't know much about
video equipment, so, it would be interesting how this body
performs in this arena. Thinking about it, if I ever had an interest
or need to film something, a camera body which may not be
as comfortable for shooting stills but does a great job at shooting
video and can double as a fairly decent body for stills would be
a worthwhile investment.

New Jersey Nikonian

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

I was wondering how the lossless compression is inferior to uncompressed? Have you found data not reconstituted accurately? Modern algorithms are very very good with constrained data sets like sensor data. A lot of mathematicians would certainly like to see your data that breaks the lossless compression retrieval, in such a closed system.

Personally I think the notion by photographers that raw numeric data is sacred and faithful to sensor excitement, but lossless compression is not, is an old wives tale. Sure, with random data sets it can be broken but even in that case normal lossless algorithms have escape functions if the data is not compressible. But with constrained data sets like RAW sensor/ADC output, it just does not happen, hasn't anyway. Not using it is more of a liability than using it.
That point in your list is really a wash also.
Stan
St Petersburg Russia

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

This is exactly right. Lossless compressed means just that. The compression is later reversed when the image is processed in NX2 or LR3 etc, and out comes the original NEF which is identical to the uncompressed one down to the last bit.

Tom
Bay Area Nikonian

http://www.tkphoto.me/

>This is exactly right. Lossless compressed means just that.
>The compression is later reversed when the image is processed
>in NX2 or LR3 etc, and out comes the original NEF which is
>identical to the uncompressed one down to the last bit.

The disadvantage is processing time. It takes longer to compress files, so your buffer empties much slower. Some older cameras, like the D1x even with buffer upgrade, are useless in compressed NEF mode for most uses due to this.

An undeniable paradox: To think that there is any such thing as an absolute rule is at worst naïve, and at best, shortsighted. There is no such thing as an always-true, all context- or situation-salient, absolute rule that always holds true…including this one!

>
>The disadvantage is processing time. It takes longer to
>compress files, so your buffer empties much slower. Some older
>cameras, like the D1x even with buffer upgrade, are useless in
>compressed NEF mode for most uses due to this.

In my opinion the processing time is negligible. Besides I thought the image that hits the buffer is already processed and that file size and write speeds become the bottleneck. If processing were an issue then wouldn’t storing JPEG’s affect the frame rates? Yet I believe the frame rate remains constant and the amount of images stored in the buffer before slow down increases.

Or am I misunderstanding this process?

Pete

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

Some Nikon bodies do slow down when you enable some options like compression, 14 bit, ADL, etc. And when you shoot JPEG, you can shoot more frames in a burst until the buffer is full and the frame rate shows down. For the D7000, Nikon specifically pointed out that ADL does not affect frame rate: "Even when Active D-Lighting is activated, you can still maintain the continuous shooting rate." No word on compression.

But I would never buy a D7000 for sports shooting anyway regardless of how it handles NEF compression...

Tom
Bay Area Nikonian

http://www.tkphoto.me/

>In my opinion the processing time is negligible. Besides I
>thought the image that hits the buffer is already processed
>and that file size and write speeds become the bottleneck. If
>processing were an issue then wouldn’t storing JPEG’s affect
>the frame rates? Yet I believe the frame rate remains constant
>and the amount of images stored in the buffer before slow down
>increases.

Older cameras, like the D1x, definitely show tedious write speeds in compressed raw. I think it took about 2.5 minutes to empty the buffer when I tested it; horrible. Uncompressed raw took approximately 20 to 25 percent of that time; much faster and actualyl usable for many things.

Jpeg, on the other hand, is fairly speedy on that camera; you can actually shoot sports with it if you're careful.

An undeniable paradox: To think that there is any such thing as an absolute rule is at worst naïve, and at best, shortsighted. There is no such thing as an always-true, all context- or situation-salient, absolute rule that always holds true…including this one!

I think an issue in the DX vs FX discussion is fast prime wide angle lenses. I do not see Nikon coming out with the DX equivalent of the 35 F1.4 or 24 F1.4 lenses in DX. This would mean 24mm F1.4 and 16mm F1.4 lenses. I doubt if we will even see 16mm and 24 mm f2 lenses in DX, but I may be wrong. I think that optically designing these fast primes in DX would be a challenge, as they would be extreme retrofocus designs, and therefore complex and expensive. (and probably have severe vignetting at wide aperature)

Matthew

24mm f/1.4 DX would obviously not be a problem to design. In the worst case, take the existing 24/1.4, relabel it DX and sell it a bit cheaper. It will work splendidly on DX. But I agree 16mm f/1.4 and perhaps even f/2 would be a challenge. Most DX shooters probably would not even buy a 16/1.4 if it were available (especially at $1000+). But even just an inexpensive 24/1.8 DX would be very welcome.

Tom
Bay Area Nikonian

http://www.tkphoto.me/

One thing I love about FX is wide is wide again making my choice of wide angle lens alot easier and cheaper since I can choose from many older MF Nikkors at a bargin price.

But I agree a DX 24mm lens would be a very nice lens for the DX shooter as a prime. Much like the excellent 35mm 1.8 DX lens this would make a nice opne two punch.

Jim

Share, Learn and Inspire
www.nikonians.org



I will use film until the last roll and last lab are gone. Go Navy

What makes it superior is you have a choice. Not all computer systems are created equally and the more your software has to do the slower it gets.

Now I will give you the fact that this may be small and in the end you may be right that it matters not but having the choice is always a plus.

Jim

Share, Learn and Inspire
www.nikonians.org



I will use film until the last roll and last lab are gone. Go Navy

I have been following this thread and so many others like it that I finally have to respond to what "IMHO" is the reason that so many avid photographers out there are using the "DX" format. My first Nikon was the venerable Nikon F, then the Photomic T, Ftn, F2s, N8008, and finally the N-90s. The reason for the N-8008 and the N-90S was my eyes went south and I needed auto focus. When I switched to Digital the D3 was totally out of my price range so I purchased a D-80, upgraded to a D-90 and now will upgrade to a D-7000. The reason being cost, budget or what ever you want to call it and nothing else. It had nothing to with use, purpose etc only cost. If Nikon had a so called "prosumer" FX camera in that price range that's the one everyone would be purchasing. Again IMHO time will tell but in a few years with technology advancing by leaps and bounds prices will come down in the FX format and we will get FX at a reasonable price.


"If only God would give me some clear sign! Like making a large deposit in my name in a Swiss bank account".
Woody Allen

http://edmund-365imagesin2009.blogspot.com/
http://www.photoshopelementsuser.com/gallery/view_img.php?id=27273

http://www.pbase.com/tomcat68/root

That claim does not fit reality. Compression is used because it INCREASES data efficiency. Some methods do better in benchmarks than others but why have a compression scheme if it did not give more benefit than overhead losses? A slow processor in a D1x reflects the state of embedded processors and memory at the time, luckily all has changed. The conversion process can often speedup throughput because less data is needed to be stored, transmitted and retrieved. A ZIP file for example normally take less time to convert, transmit and retrieve than raw uncompressed replicas of the same initial information. The new EXpeed 2 processor is multi-threaded and optimized for such tasks and should run circles around prior generation DSPs such as the system in the D700 or D3.
When benchmarks are run, the new DSP will surely show that it is faster and more powerful than the old one in the D300, D700 or D3. Don't worry, the D7k will do fine in handing bursts of 14 bit image data whereas the old system did slow down when handling such chores. That one should be a clear winner for the D7k in that criteria.


Stan
St Petersburg Russia

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

>Again IMHO time will tell
>but in a few years with technology advancing by leaps and
>bounds prices will come down in the FX format and we will get
>FX at a reasonable price.

That may be true, but then DX should get correspondingly cheaper too, and a DX camera will still be able to do enough for most of us. Those who want FX just because it's FX are doomed to spending more money to get what may be a very limited practical benefit.

Brian
Welsh Nikonian
Check out the Nikonians Team pages

>... in a few years with technology advancing by leaps and
>bounds prices will come down in the FX format and we will get
>FX at a reasonable price.

This will never happen. Even if the cameras cost the same, you still have to buy the lenses. Look at the prices of the DX 18-200 and the FX 28-300 which have the same fields of view. Compare the price of the 17-55 f2.8 DX and the 24-70 f2.8. Look at the price of the FX 80-400, and compare with the new DX 55-300 that gives an FX-equivalent 82.5-450. If you want to go really long, compare the price of a 400mm with a 600mm lens. Now, after comparing prices, compare the sizes and weights.

FX will always cost more than DX, and will make you carry a bigger heavier kit. The big difference between FX and DX isn't the cameras, it's the lenses.

Randy