The whole MultiCAM1000 name has been bugging me. I don't claim to be a genius, but assuming the size of the individual AF sensors is the same between D2X and D200 (they can't reall get any smaller? - and also assuming that the CAM designation is based on the total area of the sensors), then:
- for an 11-point system with 1 cross sensor, the absolute minimum name would be MultiCAM1200, most likely it would be called MultiCAM1400.
- for an 11-point system with 3 cross sensors, the absolute minimum name would be MultiCAM1400, most likely it would be called MultiCAM1500.
If anyone else has been geeky enough to play with this, I used 3 equations, do they seem reasonable?
Most of the CAM 2000 II speculation was just speculation. It seemed to me that there are an equal amount of people speculating 1 AF point, 3 AF points, 5 AF points, or 9 AF points. (cross type AF points that is; however the top LCD in "leaked" photos clearly show 11 total) CAM 1000 and 1 cross type AF point. However I too am befuddled how they would arrive at CAM 1000 if they only have 1 cross type AF point but 11 total. Maybe the cross type points weigh in more heavily than we thought they do, maybe they just randomly pick numbers out of the air for their CAM names.
Look for Thom Hogan's comments on the topic "CAM2000 Are all crosshairs created equal?" on DPReview. He indicates the 2000/900/1300 rating is indicative of "sensing points" present on a given AF module. Simple, eh?
I had read that before. That is where I got the idea of 'total pixel area'. Then I just drew up some pictures and 'ran' some algebra.
The first equation is for 9 cross and 2 line sensors... each line and cross would have a certain area... arbitrarily I chose the dimensions of the length and width of a line to be 'x' and 'y'.
The area of a cross sensor should be 2xy - y^2. A line sensor should have an area of xy. If you then figure the total area to be 2000 for the D2X, you get equation 1. Following the same formula for 10/1 and 10/3 you get the other two equations. Since you can't have a negative area, I get the minimum CAM number, but if you guess approximately that the x = 3y, then you get the other numbers I listed.
Maybe. And in all practicality, it really doesn't matter. I'm not downplaying your findings. It's just that most photographers will be more interested in whether the D200 will have *better* low-light focusing capability than it's predecessors. Ultimately, that's what differntiates the CAM series. If it's a real CAM2000 like the D2, more power to it. If not, the number of cross and T shaped sensors as well as the array layout will be crucial to determining just how good it is in driving focus. Add to that the uncalculable factor of focus logic tables - the good news is that newer cameras will have the latest tweaks in that department, but Nikon will never knowingly provide the details on it.
I find it intriguing that here we are, all hoping that the D200 will have the same AF module as the D2X, when only a couple of months ago the D1/D2 Forum was inundated with complaints about the D2X AF performance...
>Maybe. And in all practicality, it really doesn't matter. >I'm not downplaying your findings. It's just that most >photographers will be more interested in whether the D200 >will have *better* low-light focusing capability than it's >predecessors. Ultimately, that's what differntiates the CAM >series. If it's a real CAM2000 like the D2, more power to >it. If not, the number of cross and T shaped sensors as well >as the array layout will be crucial to determining just how >good it is in driving focus.
Good post, good points.
I would only add that those coming from the d100/d70/d50 will also be happier with an AF motor to drive the AF lenses faster/better, like the 80-400vr.
I'm not expecting d2 class performance with AF and I'm not really unhappy if there's only 1 cross point, but I would be very pleased with a 50% or more increase in speed/accuracy with AF lenses. I'd much sooner have that than a metal body.... That's pure "Blasphemy", I know.
Kerry, I agree. The cross type sensor on my N80 has been sufficient for me. What the N80 lacks, from my perspective, is an AF motor with more torque. This will greatly improve the performance of non-AF-S lenses like my 80-200 2.8. In all truth, adding a few more single plane AF sensors really isn't going to do that much for me if there isn't some extra horsepower to take advantage of them.