Somehow I don't think it will actually be 36MP. Something about that just doesn't sound right. We'll see.
About half the rumors I've seen which mentioned 36 megapixels claim it's "samelike as Sigma Foveon" or something similar. It's pure speculation, but that would be more interesting to me than a 36 megapixel Bayer sensor.
If you want to photograph a man spinning, give some thought to why he spins. Understanding for a photographer is as important as the equipment he uses. - Margaret Bourke-White
I really can't believe the 36MP. It does not fit into the policy of small-steps-upgrades seen over all the years. 36MP would fit into the top-model ... a D4x. Would Nikon really sell a semi-pro 36MP camera for 4000$ and continue to sell a 24MP D3x for 7000$? I could imagine something like a 3-layer sensor with 3x 12MP like the Foveon-design from Sigma - but not a FX-sensor with ~7200x4800 pixels.
This rumor seems to be driven by super optimists. It seems to me to have a few problems.
1. The sensor size. If it's really 36mp it will obsolete all of Nikon's D3 series bodies. Since it would be the D700 upgrade it would need at least the high ISO performance as the D700 and possibly the D3S. This would be a marketing nightmare.
2. Noise. It has to be an improvement to the D700. The current king, the D3S, has a 12mp sensor. I doubt Nikon would release even a 24mp sensor with better noise performance than the D3X. My guess is that 18mp with better noise would be a good upgrade.
3. Future upgrades. What do you do for an encore.
4. Price. There is no question there will be an increase. But with today's worldwide financial problems a 33% increase seems excessive.
I'm not buying any of it. And I hope I'm not wrong.
>1. The sensor size. If it's really 36mp it will obsolete all >of Nikon's D3 series bodies.
Only for those to whom the pixel count is everything. There are many other factors...
>2. Noise. It has to be an improvement to the D700.
Why? Although it's important to many, noise (at high ISO settings) is not the only thing.
Whilst remembering that the specs are only spec-ulation ( ), we should acknowledge that a "D800" may not be aimed at the same user base as the D700 was, and should therefore be judged by dfifferent criteria.
What user base do you think it would be targeted at? Unless Nikon is going to say "OK, FX is for pure pros only" I can't imagine that it wouldn't be targeted at roughly the same pro+high end amateur market.
We really have no idea who a "D800" will be aimed at until its specification is announced officially.
My post was intended to counter those who may be criticising the presumed pixel count as "unnecessarily high" or the presumed high-ISO performance as "not sufficiently improved".
We have become used to the balance of pixel count and high-ISO that the D700 offers, but (whilst expecting an overall improvement) we should not be disappointed if the next generation offers a different balance.
>We really have no idea who a "D800" will be aimed >at until its specification is announced officially. > >My post was intended to counter those who may be criticising >the presumed pixel count as "unnecessarily high" or >the presumed high-ISO performance as "not sufficiently >improved". > >We have become used to the balance of pixel count and high-ISO >that the D700 offers, but (whilst expecting an overall >improvement) we should not be disappointed if the next >generation offers a different balance.
I'm with you here Brian! Were all suffering as are Nikon in these difficult times (And Canon) Simplifying the lines seems sensible at this juncture. So one high Mp camera and one lower for the action shooters, since the High Mp one will spend most of it's life on a tripod in the field or in a studio, being released by pocket wizards or a cable, why does it have to be in a D4? type Body? 3 Models becoming 2 is that so hard to take? Does the High Mp count body have to be the flagship? It's the fastest runner that gets all the press...
I'm not buying it either. I'm guessing it will be a D800 w/18MP sensor that slightly outdoes the D700 in noise and detail retention at very high ISO. It will probably increase FPS over the D700, have a new 3D color Matrix Meter with even more segments and a slightly superior AF system (both of which will be in the next D4 series camera), and have some new techno-upgrade that perhaps we haven't even thought about yet. It will also have all of the little handling improvements that the D7000 has, like the programmable modes. My guess is it sells right off the boat for about $3,000 until everybody upgrades, then it drops to about $2,500 or so.
But, then again, who knows, right?
Hopefully, all of the D700 owners trade up and flood the market with nice used D700s, so I can pick one up cheap.
The D7000 has a 16.2MP 23.6 x 15.6 mm CMOS sensor. The D800 will have a 36 x 23.9 mm sensor. That is twice the size of the d7000. Why shouldn't the D800 have at least a 32.4 MP sensor so that it will provide the same coverage?? It is the same technology, n'est pas?
Wed 05-Oct-11 11:02 AM | edited Wed 05-Oct-11 11:09 AM by KnightPhoto
Assuming this is the same pixel technology as was used on the D7000:
- we can add that it will be one-stop better in ISO performance than the D7000 due to FX capturing the equivalent one-stop more of photons due to its larger sensor size. I.e. FX always gets a full one-stop boost FYI. - and a common rating is that the D7000 is one-stop behind the D700 in ISO performance. - So, doing the math and well... the new sensor should have the same ISO performance as the D700 (and D3). - It is a year later, it's possible the sensor tech is one-year better than the D7K. I have no information on this, just an observation. - Personally, I find it more difficult to deal with my D7000 high ISO images than my D700. So of late I have been feeling D700, in actual practical photography results, has more than a one stop advantage over the D7000 even though that is the difference on paper. But that may simple be a symptom of the DX disadvantage because it has one-stop less worth of photons to work with due to its smaller sensor size.
Anyhow, and sorry all of these thoughts are in regards to a rumour keep in mind ;-0 , this sensor could on balance be the same ISO performance as the D700 and D3.
Then there are those who argue if you downsize the image to 12mp you get a further improvement. So to recap then, without downsizing the new sensor could deliver images even with D700 performance at high ISO and if you downsize it because you only need reasonable sized images for output, then the sensor could be considered better than the D700 in low light.
I am not sure if this rumour is correct. Certainly it is an interesting possibility that is plausible.
<Assuming this is the same pixel technology as was used on the D7000>
I think your logic is directionally correct, and the next series of cameras is likely to leverage the V1 technologies of the Expeed 3 processor, low noise with small pixels, and fast write speeds. That suggests the small pixels of a 36mb sensor will have minimal noise even at high ISO levels, while adding the resolution of 3x the number of pixels of the D700. It also suggests increased ability tom manage potential diffraction that might otherwise be encountered.
Certainly, there will be some trade-offs. But Nikon has indicated the V1 technology was a major step forward, and it stands to reason this technology will be used in future models.
Not really. Any benefits of FX in terms of high-ISO performance are due to the size of the individual photosites, not the sensor dimensions - think of the D3/D300 pairing. If we get an FX camera with the same photosite size as a D7000 - and if it gets the same processing technology - the noise levels should be roughly similar.
The D7000 has the Expeed 2 processor and still picked up about a full stop in ISO noise over the D300 in spite of smaller photosites. My expectation is the Expeed 3 will leapfrog Expeed 2. The improvement could either be used for the same noise, smaller photosites, and many more pixels, or it can be used to lower noise further on the existing sensor configuration - or somewhere in between. A 36 megapixel D800 is going to have much smaller photosites than the D700, but the processor and design of the V1 might permit high ISO performance that is as good or better than the D700 with the "benefit" of more pixels.
The D3x has small photosites and more pixels in order to produce incredible detail - but high ISO performance is not much different than the D300. It's a design choice. And its great for us to have camera options that take advantage of advances in technology - or is it technology that takes advantage of advances in engineering.
My experience is the same. I see smearing in the D7000 to kill noise. It has less noise but not as good resolution as the D700 even when the D7000 has a 2+ stop advantage. I put it at about 2 stops advantage for the D700 and maybe more depending on the situation. If you downsize the D7000 image to 12mp, then it may be a 1.5 stop difference with the D700 still ahead.
Rumors Rumors Rumors. Lets take a good hard look at what this does to all of us. I use an Iphone 4 and was ready to look foward for the Iphone 5. Well yesterday Apple released the 4s. All the pictures and rumors of upcoming events are just that rumors. The stock is down on apple because it didnt produce whats expected. Lets just all wait and see what happens.
I wonder if the folks at Nikon look at any of these posts? They must be delighted at the level of speculation about features, cost, megapixels, number of card slots, type of card slots, AF, etc It probably gives them a good idea about the market and the level of interest among users and especially among those of us who suffer from NAS!! It would be great to think that some of the discussions might actually influence them in their future designs. But above all, I am sure that they would get a good laugh at the level of passion shown based purely on speculation! Now what was it that I wanted in the D800....
You don't know what you have been missing! I have owned the best of the best film cameras and I would never go back.
I seriously doubt that you will see a D800 any time soon so if you can find a reasonable deal on a D700 I guaranty you, or your money back, that you won't regret it. Even better, pop for the D3S. You probably won't see the D4 for a very long time either.
Assuming there is no automatic cleaning device in front of the sensor, if the AA filter is removed to improve acuity would the risk of damaging the sensor during cleaning be greater than at present, given that at present it is not the sensor that physically is cleaned when 'cleaning the sensor' (it is the AA filter in front of it)?
Sun 09-Oct-11 09:03 AM | edited Sun 09-Oct-11 09:06 AM by richardd300
As I only wish to print to a maximum of 20x16 inches and I am totally satisfied with the D700's superb spec and overall functionality, then I for one admit to being under whelmed by the prospects of an upgrade. Whatever, whenever that may be.
I believe the pixel race is almost over and cannot imagine for my style of photography, what more than 12-16Mp could do for me.
>Nikon rumors is speculating the ISO range of 100 – 6400 (ISO >LO @ 50 and ISO HI-2 @ 25600), which is the same as the D700 >at the high end. I'm surprised they wouldn't have improved in >this area, no? > I have a theory about this. I'll bet that even if the sensor is increased to 24mp or 36mp that the noise specs may not increase because the noise at 100% enlargements would look pretty bad. Even if the noise performance improves. So if they limit the upper ISO limit the noise at 100% would still be useable. I find that this is probably the case with the D3X. In my side by side testing of the D700 and D3X I find the noise is pretty much the same. But Nikon limited the upper ISO limit of the D3X. So of course everybody that looks at the specs and not the photos says the D3X noise performance is not so good. Not so. At least it's not my experience.