Nikon D50 - review

Discussion in 'Nikon' started by _.-:-._, Apr 20, 2005.

  1. _.-:-._

    paul Guest

    Some say we've pretty much maxed out on the resolution of high quality
    sensors due to limitations of quantum physics. The better SLR sensors
    are actually larger which goes against Moore's law and makes them more
    expensive. Smaller sensors simply aren't big enough to capture
    sufficient photons for the best quality signal to noise ratio. Moore's
    law is based on cost savings through miniaturization but sensors just
    can't get any smaller and still look good. I'm sure there are plenty of
    other ways to advance the technology but not through miniaturization.

    Silicon costs a lot so smaller sensors are much less expensive. You
    can't save money by making them smaller.

    You can put a bigger sensor in an SLR for more MP but it's going to cost
    a bundle. You could use the small sensor technology to put a ridiculous
    amount of pixels in an SLR but it would be noisy with poor dynamic range
    so nobody wants that. And it would still be expensive.
    paul, Apr 20, 2005
    1. Advertisements

  2. _.-:-._

    Doug Payne Guest

    Given that it was formulated in 1965, it's not surprising that someone
    might 'forget'.

    For the terminally geeky:
    Doug Payne, Apr 20, 2005
    1. Advertisements

  3. _.-:-._

    Steve Guest

    Paul, you've hit the nail on the head. A 6MP camera with a 'full
    size' sensor would probably beat the pants off an 8MP camera with a
    'two thirds' size sensor. Yet all people are interested in is the
    number of megapixels rising every 6 months - irrespective of what this
    actually means in terms of image quality.
    Steve, Apr 20, 2005
  4. _.-:-._

    Alan Browne Guest

    Such a sensor could exist but would still be very expensive (v. 24 x
    16mm) at 4X the number of pixels.

    Pixel counts will legitimately rise as long as noise is reasonably well


    -- r.p.e.35mm user resource:
    -- r.p.d.slr-systems:
    -- slr-systems FAQ project:
    -- [SI] gallery & rulz:
    -- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch.
    Alan Browne, Apr 20, 2005
  5. _.-:-._

    RichA Guest

    Well, that's one way to avoid some of the aberration problems with
    lenses. Shoot the picture with the subject of interest occupying only
    3/4 of the frame, then crop it. Helps avoid chromatic aberration,
    coma, etc. Whenever someone shoots at a wide-open lens aperture, this
    could help, provided the camera has the pixel count to support some
    enlargement of the image.
    RichA, Apr 20, 2005
  6. _.-:-._

    RichA Guest

    What should be done is to incorporate features of benefit from other
    cameras. The anti-shake from Minolta, the dust cleaning of Olympus.
    As far as the D50 goes, some enterprising hacker will "release" some
    of the hobbled features that the camera may have due to it's D70
    RichA, Apr 20, 2005
  7. _.-:-._

    Darrell Guest

    It depends on the market that Nikon is aiming the F55 Digital, err D50 at. I
    don't see SD cards as crippled. In fact they are less prone to damage or
    bent pins. The other features are aimed at the P&S crowd.
    Canon seems to be the only maker that makes a big deal about their small
    pixel count increase from 6.3 to 8.
    Darrell, Apr 21, 2005
  8. _.-:-._

    Skip M Guest

    Whatever happened to Moore's law or whatever law kept driving
    Eventually, Moore's Law had to run afoul of the Law of Diminishing Returns
    and the Law of Supply and Demand.
    Skip M, Apr 21, 2005
  9. I didn't see it linked from the urls above, but CNET posted an article
    yesterday[1] that talks about Moore's law and how it will likely
    continue through 2023. As already noted by others, it has little to
    nothing to do with the advancement of cameras, but it is a pretty
    interesting read.

    1. <>
    Randy W. Sims, Apr 21, 2005
  10. _.-:-._

    cluedweasel Guest

    cluedweasel, Apr 21, 2005
  11. Steve wrote:
    That's not all that some of us are interested in. We may be happy with a
    smaller than 35mm size sensor (e.g. half-frame) providing that a system
    with similarly reduced size, bulk and weight is available. I have great
    hopes for the 4/3 system, but its present implementation is disappointing.

    As I am no longer prepared to accept the weight and bulk of 35mm
    equipment, I currently use point-and-shoot cameras, and accept that I
    won't get quite such good quality results. At least I'm taking pictures

    David J Taylor, Apr 21, 2005
  12. Darrell wrote:
    Although you seem keen to dissociate yourself from "the P&S crowd", the
    more people who are attracted to the camera, the greater the ales may be,
    and the more lenses will be sold. This may help reduce the cost of the
    lenses that you buy!

    David J Taylor, Apr 21, 2005
  13. _.-:-._

    Skip M Guest

    Interestingly enough, the Canon 350D/RebelXT is the same thickness, slightly
    taller (4mm) and slightly narrower (8mm) than the Olympus E-300/Evolt. I
    wonder what limitations in size are imposed by things like physical volume
    of electronics, mechanical bits like the shutter and ease of handling that
    are independent of sensor size...
    Skip M, Apr 21, 2005
  14. _.-:-._

    Darrell Guest

    I heard the price of the D50 will be about $900cdn MSRP, I'll confirm that
    as soon as I hear from Nikon Canada. So less than even the original
    Darrell, Apr 21, 2005
  15. _.-:-._

    Darrell Guest

    I merely noted the D50 was not a camera aimed at the normal 35mm SLR user.
    The D50 is estimated to have a Canadian MSRP of $899. That will make it the
    lowest priced dSLR currently on the market. Nikon's own wording indicates it
    is aimed at beginners, much like the F55 was. My experience tells me it will
    sell well, but my experience also tells me only a small percentage will buy
    extra lenses. I do expect brisk sales, as well as more sub $1000 dSLR to
    emerge, rumours of a KM 5D, a new Pentax, the Panasonic dSLR will soon
    Darrell, Apr 21, 2005
  16. Darrell wrote:
    Even though it may be a beginner's camera, starting someone on the DSLR
    ladder will, I suspect, result in a brand commitment, and many people
    going on to purchase better, more versatile models, and the add-on lenses
    etc. Having a loss-leader (and I don't think it's that for one minute),
    or a beginner's DSLR is not a bad idea. I agree that sales will be brisk.

    By the way, although I am a point-and-shoot owner (although I might prefer
    the term non-interchangeable lens electronic reflex SLR), I do find the
    scene modes (which I think prompted your comment about "for the P&S
    crowd") very annoying. Partially because they are not explained well -
    for example: Snow mode: for shooting snow scenes". Arrgh! Just tell me:
    adjusts the metering up a couple of stops, or limits the white balance
    range. But no, such explanations are not forthcoming. I think on my
    Nikon cameras I have never used a Scene mode, and on the Panasonic I have
    used one scene mode - macro - simply because it's the only way to get into
    macro mode.

    Interesting to see if a cheap KM will retain their unique image
    stabilisation, and whether Panasonic will contribute an image stabilised
    Leica lens to the 4/3 format.

    David J Taylor, Apr 21, 2005
  17. _.-:-._

    Tony Polson Guest

    "David J Taylor"

    Leica probably won't be involved, but Panasonic will contribute a very
    interesting image stabiliser that will also be used by Olympus.
    Tony Polson, Apr 21, 2005
  18. _.-:-._

    Alan Browne Guest

    Seen that one too... as to advancement of cameras, may have an impact on
    sensors or not; but certainly will have an impact on processing
    in-camera before storage.


    -- r.p.e.35mm user resource:
    -- r.p.d.slr-systems:
    -- slr-systems FAQ project:
    -- [SI] gallery & rulz:
    -- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch.
    Alan Browne, Apr 21, 2005
  19. _.-:-._

    Sheldon Guest

    Well said!
    Sheldon, Apr 23, 2005
  20. _.-:-._

    Sheldon Guest

    D50 price in US$, with the lens, around $900. About $750 for the body only.

    D70s is about $1200 with the lens. Body only about $900.

    D70 is the same price as the D70s but with a rebate.

    Considering the minor differences between the 70s and the 70, and
    considering I heard Nikon is releasing a new firmware version for the 70,
    that camera may be an incredible bargain when you consider the rebate price.
    Not much more than the D50 while they last.
    Sheldon, Apr 23, 2005
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.