I heard from my friend from NG... NG is testing a prototype of D2X.
My friend knows the photographer who holding D2X in his hands. So...if it`s true...D2X is a 11 MP camera (APS sized)
#3. "RE: D2X rumour" | In response to Reply # 0
It was never going to be full frame (no, I'm not a beta tester).
Nikon has invested a lot of time and money in the new 'G' range of lens which are optimised to show an APS size image - it would be highly unlikely they would create another new lens just for the D2X.
11 MP though, now that is more useful !!!
What would also be nice to know is if it can take the wireless transmitter.
#4. "RE: D2X rumour" | In response to Reply # 3raylee Registered since 06th Jul 2003Tue 18-May-04 01:05 AM
I think you mean "DX" lenses hte "G" just means no aperture ring but they are full frame
I have no idea what the D2x will be but I do have reservations about spending the money on say a 17-55 2.8 DX just in case 3-5 years from now Nikon is full frame (I would want to keep a $1000+ lens longer than that)
just my 2 cents
Ray Lee Bradlau
#5. "RE: D2X rumour" | In response to Reply # 0
#8. "Whatever happened to the size of the Pixel Debate" | In response to Reply # 0
Here we are anticipating a 10 - 11 MP D2X (as also talked about on the other forums), and yet I am reminded of the pixel size debate. If the D2X maintains the 1.5X factor, then doesn't adding 11 MP make for smaller pixels - which in turn = more noise?
I mean to say that much has been discussed about these new 8 MP prosumer digicams that were released last Fall and the inherent noise at anything above ISO 100 - thanks to small pixels of let's say anywhere from 2.3 - 3.5 microns (as opposed to current 7 - 8 microns for DSLR's). Well what would happen with an 11 MP D2X? Granted, the micron size of the pixels would be higher than the prosumer digicams, but still - there would be a theoretical increase in noise at the higher ISO's I would imagine.
A classic example of this involved my witnessing a camera demo at a local camera store. Two cameras were used - in an attempt to demonstrate the pixel size quality. One camera was the Mamiya 645 AFD with a Leaf 6 MP digital back. The other was the Canon 1DS - a well known (and often heralded) 11.1 MP DSLR. Well, guess which won hands down? For smoothness, lack of noise, and just that wonderfully palpable feeling of "being there," the Mamiya/Leaf 6 MP combination was a dream to behold.
Any comments out there about how Nikon would overcome the noise scenario with an increased MP count with an APS-sized sensor (as opposed to full frame)?
#9. "RE: Whatever happened to the size of the Pixel Debate" | In response to Reply # 8Mon 24-May-04 07:40 PM
Why don't we just wait and see rather than speculating about overcoming the limitations of rumors? That's just getting a bit too hypothetical for me at least
Nature Photography from the Pacific Northwest and beyond
#11. "RE: Bob - rumors keep us young and on guard!!!!!" | In response to Reply # 10Mon 24-May-04 08:21 PM
I gotta admit, it is fun to dream
I think I'll be first in line for a D2x no matter what....
Nature Photography from the Pacific Northwest and beyond
#12. "RE: Whatever happened to the size of the Pixel Debate" | In response to Reply # 8
Noise is a function of the sensor electronics (the photo-diodes) and sensitivity not directly related to the sensor size. Optical diffraction is a property of light rays and affected by the aperture size. It results in a blur-circle called an Airy disk. When the size of this blur circle exceeds the size of the image sensor (pixel), you will have a fuzzy image no matter how high the image resolution is. A larger image plane needs less magnification to create an acceptable print so it accommodates a larger blur circle. IMHO, that’s the argument for full frame digital, totally. Nothing else.
Large and medium formats use the same film as 35mm and APS cameras. So, we start with the fact that this sensor resolution is equal. And, they all adhere to the same physics of light and apertures. But, as you increase the size of the film plane you relax the demands on this blur circle. So you get better enlargements and more DOF from the larger film planes. In a word, sharper images.
The exact same optical physics apply to digital sensors as well. The pro digital sensors are already approximately the same resolution as pro ISO 100 film. Silicon technology can produce smaller sensor sites, but it cannot overcome the physics of light. Diffraction limits can be summarized by image size as follows: DX digital at f/16 (APS film is only slightly larger), 35mm at f/22, medium format at f/45, and large format at f/64.
Did you ever wonder why almost all 35mm lenses have f/22 as the minimum aperture? Have you ever taken a really sharp picture with your DX camera at f/22?
Cheers, :-) Rags
Photography is all about Zone V
Visit my Nikonians gallery.
#13. "RE: Whatever happened to the size of the Pixel Debate" | In response to Reply # 12
#19. "RE: Whatever happened to the size of the Pixel Debate" | In response to Reply # 12stevesurf Registered since 29th Sep 2002Sun 30-May-04 12:50 AM
Rags, that was a great explanation! It really takes me back to my modern physics days.
With all the discussion about the rumoured D2X being DX Sensor size, APS size or FF size, has anyone considered that Nikon may introduce an F6 Digital Back that could be the FF solution?
On another note, my D2H has sent me back looking for faster lenses, so I can keep my ISO at 200 with the same exposure. This is a small price to pay for the ease of workflow a DSLR like the D2H offers.
I still have to ask, are the DX lenses here to stay?
#30. "RE: Whatever happened to the size of the Pixel Debate" | In response to Reply # 12jonkhill Basic MemberTue 01-Jun-04 09:06 PM
I'm not sure you can directly compare depth of field just by f-number. My Nikon 950 has a lot more depth of field at f/4 than my D1H at that aperture.
The sharpness in large format is from larger film surface area, but not from larger f-numbers.
#31. "RE: Whatever happened to the size of the Pixel Debate" | In response to Reply # 30Wed 02-Jun-04 12:04 AM
Because your coolpix lens has a *much* shorter focal length, probably around 8mm or perhaps 12mm.
Nature Photography from the Pacific Northwest and beyond
#14. "RE: Whatever happened to the size of the Pixel Debate" | In response to Reply # 8
I can't say as I understand all of the technical information contained in some of the later posts but I think benherrmann brought up a good point--I'm sure Nikon could find some way to partialy get around the small pixel=large amount of noise factor, but why not just give us a full frame sensor. A larger sensor of equal quality will be inherently superior, right? I've personaly been voicing this opinion as often and as loudly as possible in hopes that Nikon will hear me and those that agree with me. But I have noticed that there are a number of people out there who say they prefer aps sized sensors. My question to them is why? (I don't mean this as an attack, but merely as a question). I understand that if you do journalistic type work then perhaps the 1.5x might be nice and give you a little more reach. But for everything else, it seems to me that the ability to get true wide angles with ff lens, and even more importantly the reduced noise and increased image quality benifits, would be preferable. I think the D2h can easily compete with the mark II, what Nikon needs is something that can equal or beat the 1ds.
#16. "But like anything else..." | In response to Reply # 15Tue 25-May-04 10:29 PM
prices are coming down. Just look at the prices of cameras a year ago and what they had. Now look at what is out there. Heck, the cost of Compact Flash cards will drop remarkably this year. Soon we'll be able to pick up 2 - 4 Gig CF cards for less than $200 USD.
#17. "RE: Whatever happened to the size of the Pixel Debate" | In response to Reply # 15pmirror Registered since 24th Nov 2002Tue 25-May-04 10:42 PM
--A full size sensor is still very difficult to manufacture, and extremely costy!!--
It's not that difficult, now. Expensive, yes, but not extremely costly Full Frame sensor is mostly for pro needs, so price range 4K-8K still consider moderate price.
If Canon and Kodak can do FF, why not Nikon.
My hope is just the postpone of D2X release is because Nikon aware of the 1D mkII. If they lose the battle in the FF, they should win in APS format.
it's near Bali, if you don't know where it is
#18. "RE: Whatever happened to the size of the Pixel Debate" | In response to Reply # 14
I read something on the nikon website that indicated that a lot of the benefit of the DX sensor was that the dx lenses could have similar quality to a full size lens while being cheaper and lighter and smaller.
I feel that one of (not all of!)the limits to my photography is my inability to afford lots of expensive lenses. I think if the dx sensor at 11 mp is a little, almost inperceptably, soft, and the dx lenses get me into a 300mm 2.8 range for half of what a 450 2.8 would cost, the benefit of the lenses would outweigh the slight loss of sharpness.
that being said, I usually shoot people, and its not that big a deal to me if the images arent tack tack sharp...
I think the best answer is for nikon to introduce the D2X 11mp dx format and then the D2FF, 24mp FF sensor for those who can afford it!
#20. "RE: Whatever happened to the size of the Pixel Debate" | In response to Reply # 18Sun 30-May-04 10:40 PM
Two new cameras might be the best solution (but I'm not so sure). I mean no offence to anyone, but really (within reason) price should not be what Nikon is thinking about. The D2x is going to be their top of the line pro camera. It is supposed to be the best imaging tool that they can create within reason. I don't know too many pro canon users who whine about the price of the 1ds. If the tool is good enough than those who can afford it will buy it. Nikon already has a fantastic offering that is within the reach of dedicated and advanced amatures...it's called the D2h. I'm personally not so incredibly succesfull that I am not concerned at all about price. But when it comes to my camera and lens I will save as long as I have to in order to get the best I can possibly get. And frankly I think these dx lens are going to be a waste of money in the long run. It's not going to be that expensive to manufacture ff sensors for that long. So if at that point Nikon is desperately clinging to an obsolete sensor, they are going to be in big trouble--and us along with them.
#21. "RE: Whatever happened to the size of the Pixel Debate" | In response to Reply # 20Mon 31-May-04 12:06 AM
>So if at that point Nikon is desperately clinging to an
>obsolete sensor, they are going to be in big trouble--and us
>along with them.
Speculative and sensationlistic at the same time, wow.
Nikon's main objective (as with every other business) is to make money by offering customers womething they want. Given the success of both the D70 and D2h, I'd say they arent' doing as bad as some say. As for what the D2x (or what comes after that based on your post), why don't we just wait and see?
Nature Photography from the Pacific Northwest and beyond
#22. "RE: Whatever happened to the size of the Pixel Debate" | In response to Reply # 20photovoyager Registered since 19th Aug 2002Mon 31-May-04 11:21 PM
<< It's not going to be that expensive to manufacture ff sensors for that long. >>
I wouldn't be so sure of that. I think a 24x36mm sensor will be a very expensive proposition for years to come. Nikon must be pretty sure of this too seeing as they've spent a lot of money developing the DX lenses.
I do not think the price of full-frame image sensors will plummet like that of most other electronics things.
Quite often in forums like this one we see people using Moore's Law (http://www.intel.com/research/silicon/mooreslaw.htm) to try to explain why they think prices of larger sensors will go down. Indeed Moore's Law has been responsible for the drop in prices of many other electronics, and it has affected photography in that it's made it possible to have cameras with enough pixels (this was reached at the megapixel mark) to be useful, and continues to give us more and more pixels on our sensors today. This is because a pixel is really a transistor. Thus a DX-sized sensor from a D100 or D70 (6 megapixels) has more transistors (pixels) on it than one from a D1 or D1H (2.7 megapixels), but the piece of silicon itself is the same size. No doubt the number of pixels that we can cram onto that piece of silicon will continue to rise at least as fast as the camera companies can come up with ways to counter the problem of very small pixels. But actually making a BIGGER sensor (that is, a bigger piece of silicon) is a whole different story.
Obviously Nikon has decided that sensors that are the same size as 35mm film (the term "full-frame", often used to describe these sensors, actually means something totally different - see http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/kodakdcs620x/ for a good explanation) will not be economical in the near future so they've gone with the DX format. I don't know if this rules out a 35mm-size sensor in a top-of-the-line Nikon D-SLR in the next few years but Nikon will almost certainly stick with the DX-size sensors for most if not all of their D-SLRs in the forseeable future.
#23. "RE: Whatever happened to the size of the Pixel Debate" | In response to Reply # 22Tue 01-Jun-04 03:31 AM
I believe that the only problem is us photographers!
Who decided on a 24x36 film size in the first place?
why did they chose this size as a standard, and who said that everything else should be of the same size or else we will have to start nagging.
I think lenses sizes got decided after deciding on the film format, and thus 50mm being a standard was just calculated from there...
I can see nothing wrong with having a new photography generation with aps size ccd being considered normal and the lenses following.
Why nobody complained about a 90mm being the standard in medium format cameras? (they have a enlarging factor as opposed to croping factor)
Maybe we are used to think that aps format films aren't good and not suitable for enlargements, so know subconsciously the aps size ccd reminds up of bad stuff.
#24. "Film history fun" | In response to Reply # 23ShadowDetail Registered since 22nd Sep 2002Tue 01-Jun-04 05:58 AM
"I believe that the only problem is us photographers!"
"Who decided on a 24x36 film size in the first place?"
Thomas Edison. While investigating a Kodak motion-picture camera in 1889 he became interested in the 70mm roll film used. He and assistant W.K.L. Dickson were working on a Kinetograph (camera) and Kinetoscope (viewer), and Dickson ordered some 1/2 width (35mm) film from Kodak. Initially, in fact, the film was called "Edison-size." The perforations were round at first, but had evolved to their present "Kodak-Standard" shape by about 1910. The film was first used in still cameras (most notably by Leica) around 1913.
"Why did they chose this size as a standard..."
Because it was available.
"...and who said that everything else should be of the same size or else we will have to start nagging."
After nearly 100 years of using a very successful standard, it's not hard to understand why that standard would become the size from which others are referenced.
Maybe instead of talking about "full frame" we should refer to "Edison-size." For example, I'd like to see the D2x arrive with an Edison-size sensor. Sounds pretty cool.
#26. "RE: Film history fun" | In response to Reply # 25Tue 01-Jun-04 12:23 PM
Yeah, I could go for an Edison sized sensor.
Thank you shadowdetail. I was begining to think there was something wrong with me. Perhaps I am some kind of crazed Nikon hater. Who but a crazed Nikon hater would want to be able to use his lens the way they were designed to be used. I think the posts in response to mine kind of missed the point. I think Nikon is doing some great things (I.e. the D70 and D2H). What is missing is a great offering for professionals (who aren't photojournalists). When I said Nikon will be in trouble if they don't go ff I did not mean in the next two years, I meant in the long run (No one can tell me that engineers will not be able to make an affordable ff sensor in five years). And so when a ff sensor is standard on every Kwanon, if Nikon is still touting dx lens, then many more pros are going to switch. And maybe that is fine with Nikon. Maybe they will be able to do good business in the consumer market. But my hunch is that amatures like to go where the pros go. But then maybe I'm just being sensationalist.
#27. "RE: Film history fun" | In response to Reply # 24RDW Registered since 20th Sep 2002Tue 01-Jun-04 01:56 PM
Although Edison first specified 35mm movie film ('Edison size'), I believe he used it vertically in what still photographers would call 'half frame' format (24x18mm), giving the classic 4:3 silent movie aspect ratio. The 'full-frame' 24x36mm format should probably be called 'Leica format' (after the first successful camera to use a horizontally 'doubled' cinema frame, initially on existing movie stock) or 'Barnack format' (after its inventor).
#28. "RE: Film history fun" | In response to Reply # 27
#29. "24x36 film size" | In response to Reply # 23photovoyager Registered since 19th Aug 2002Tue 01-Jun-04 09:02 PM
>Who decided on a 24x36 film size in the first place?
>why did they chose this size as a standard, and who said
>that everything else should be of the same size or else we
>will have to start nagging.
The size was basically "decided on" by Ernst Leitz engineer Oscar Barnack in 1913 when he invented the 35mm camera (it was produced as the Leica, or LEItz CAmera, in 1924).
Barnack had an idea to build a compact still camera and 135 (35mm) motion picture film was the best type of film out there at the time for use in such a camera. The 35mm camera was not an official Leitz project and Barnack could hardly afford to create a whole new film format for his idea, so he adapted what was already available for use.
>I think lenses sizes got decided after deciding on the film
>format, and thus 50mm being a standard was just calculated
Actually a true standard lens for the 135 format should be closer to 45mm to replicate the field of view of the human eye. 50mm was chosen simply because it was the closest thing to a lens replicating the field of view of the human eye available at that time.
>I can see nothing wrong with having a new photography
>generation with aps size ccd being considered normal and the
The only reason to use a 24x36mm sensor is to be able to use existing 35mm-format lenses with the same field of view as they would have on a 35mm film camera. Otherwise there is no particular advantage to that size. However Nikon and Canon were hardly ready to ask their customers to throw away all their F- and EF-mount lenses when they bought a new digital SLR, so we have the "crop factor" where we get the equivalent of very odd non-standard focal lengths when using our existing 35mm lenses on (for example, a 28-105mm zoom when put on a DX-format camera has the same field of view that a 42-158mm lens would have on a 35mm camera). This can be rectified by designing new lenses that have very convenient focal lengths on the DX sized sensor, like the 18-70mm which has the same field of view as a 28-105mm would have on a 35mm camera. This is what Nikon is doing.
Canon on the other hand is figuring that anyone paying less than $8000 (or however much a 1Ds costs right now), will just live with the uncomfortable focal lengths. They have no intention of producing any other lenses designed around smaller sensors except for the 18-55mm lens that is sold as a kit with the Digital Rebel/300D. For one thing they have two different sizes of non-35mm-size sensors, whereas Nikon only has one, the DX sensor size.