Nikon lets 24.4mp D3x out of the bag

Discussion in 'Nikon' started by frederick, Apr 16, 2008.

  1. Economics 101, make it up in volume! Considering it takes $873.47 USD to
    manufacture a D3x and $479.89 to make a 1Ds Mk III, Nikon would be foolish
    to follow Canon's lead and overprice the D3x into failure. Fortunately for
    Canon they have many other branches to prop up their failing digital camera
    market.






    Rita
     
    Rita Berkowitz, Apr 20, 2008
    #41
    1. Advertisements

  2. frederick

    TRoss Guest


    Rita 101 - Facts: just make 'em up!

    Or perhaps you can prove you know how much it will cost to manufacture
    the D3X. The last time I checked it doesn't exist yet....


    TR
     
    TRoss, Apr 20, 2008
    #42
    1. Advertisements

  3. I can but I won't. No need to.



    Rita
    --
    Stamping out Internet stupidity one idiot at a time. Never empower the
    idiot, embrace it and stimulate it. For more details go to the Usenet
    Stimulus Project page.

    <http://www.geocities.com/ritaberk2008>
     
    Rita Berkowitz, Apr 20, 2008
    #43
  4. frederick

    Bryan Olson Guest

    The sensor size limits the performance more than the number of pixels.
    Maybe there could be faster CF cards, or cameras could buffer to
    faster RAM, or maybe a camera could take multiple cards, and write
    them simultaneously. Actually all that is in off-the-shelf cameras
    already.

    If we take the D3 as the current state-of-the art, at 24.4MP we ought
    to be able to take about 4.5 shots per second in bursts.

    Pixels get smaller? That's like predicting the Earth will continue
    to orbit the Sun.

    Of course smaller pixes and larger sensors are already here. If one
    used the Oly E-3's pixel pitch on a 35mm FF sensor, that would
    yield about 45 million total pixels.

    A popular digicam sensor has 8.5 total MP on a 1/2.5" type CCD. Put
    that density on a 35mm FF sensor, and we get about 370 MP. On a
    36x48mm sensor, as found on a medium format backs, it's over 700 MP.

    Sensors the size of large-format frames are available, if you have
    the budget. NASA and the US Navy can afford them; they remain out of
    reach for wedding photographers, at this time.
     
    Bryan Olson, Apr 21, 2008
    #44
  5. frederick

    Robert Coe Guest

    : Steve Sherman wrote:
    :
    : >>>> Cool. Another few months and I can get a D3 for under 2 grand.
    : >>>
    : >>> Not likely. The D3X will probably run $8,000.
    : >>
    : >> Wrong! Nikon doesn't and never will price a pro dSLR above the
    : >> traditional $5,000 USD MSRP. Nikon strictly adheres to family
    : >> oriented traditions and business practices and isn't interested in
    : >> gouging. They see the folly of Canon's white elephant, the
    : >> overpriced and severely crippled 1Ds Mk III and refuse to subject
    : >> their customers to that.
    : >
    : > Did you get that information at a board meeting?
    :
    : Economics 101, make it up in volume! Considering it takes $873.47 USD to
    : manufacture a D3x and $479.89 to make a 1Ds Mk III, Nikon would be foolish
    : to follow Canon's lead and overprice the D3x into failure. Fortunately for
    : Canon they have many other branches to prop up their failing digital camera
    : market.

    Outside of the Global Oil Petropoly, there aren't very many companies that
    wouldn't be well satisfied with Canon's level of "failure".

    Bob
     
    Robert Coe, Apr 21, 2008
    #45
  6. frederick

    Tony Polson Guest


    You should not be surprised to hear that there are faster CF cards
    already under development. They will share the current CF interface,
    and the new devices will be backward compatible with current CF cards,
    but the new cards will apparently offer spectacular gains in speed.

    Now if I could only recall where I read that (in the last few days) I
    would gladly post a link. ;-)
     
    Tony Polson, Apr 21, 2008
    #46
  7. frederick

    Tony Polson Guest


    On the other hand, there aren't very many companies that would be
    satisfied with Canon's steadily falling DSLR market share.


    Disclaimer:
    I'm a Canon user, so this is not a [Brand] versus Canon thing.
     
    Tony Polson, Apr 21, 2008
    #47
  8. frederick

    Guest Guest

    actually they won't share the current interface, nor will they be
    compatible. instead, they'll be using serial ata and are expected to
    reach 375 mb/sec, versus 45mb/sec with today's cards.

    <http://www.amateurphotographer.co.uk/news/Faster_CompactFlash_on_the_ca
    rds_CFast_spec_set_to_be_signed_off_news_251964.html>
     
    Guest, Apr 21, 2008
    #48
  9. Sure, putting in more pixels is eeeasy.
    Canon is switching to medium format?

    -Wolfgang
     
    Wolfgang Weisselberg, Apr 22, 2008
    #49
  10. Just because the disk is or may be fast does not mean the CPU can provide
    data at that rate. The D80 may get 10MB or so, but that is only a guess.

    Steve
     
    Steve Sherman, Apr 22, 2008
    #50
  11. True of ANY camera isn't it? ANY camera? You have a data bus, and
    that is the bottle neck. That is why there are *camera buffers* to
    hold image data until it can be written to the media.

    So it is important to note how large that buffer happens to be. IIRC,
    IIRC, and IIRC, I can take 3 fps Jpegs at *normal* size and quality
    until the card fills up.

    Now I haven't tested this yet. It is just something I recall reading
    in the literature. If you want an Exact Quote, I suppose I can dig it
    out of a Nikon PDF file or somesuch.

    Lg
     
    Lawrence_Glickman, Apr 22, 2008
    #51
  12. The current CF interface is basically parallel ATA, which currently
    maxes out at 133MB/s. We can grow the current CF speeds by a factor of
    three before we run out of headroom. Perhaps the bigger problem is that
    the capacity maxes out at 137GB (current max available is 48GB)

    They could remove the current capacity cap by revving the spec to be in
    sync with the current PATA addressing standards (LBA48), which would
    continue to be backwards compatible.

    The CF assocation's development announcement of "CF SATA" has made no
    mention of whether or not these new cards will be backwards-compatibile
    (ie use the same form factor/connector and simultansously support the
    old PATA interface) Although without the backwards-compatible stuff, I
    don't see how they can continue to call it "CF", and keeping the same
    form factor/connector would just lead to confusion.

    (See http://www.compactflash.org/)

    ....Personally, I wish more people made CF cards with a physical write
    protect switch.

    - Solomon
     
    Stuffed Crust, Apr 22, 2008
    #52
  13. frederick

    John Smith Guest

    So what's the fastest CF card that my D3 can really take advantage of?
     
    John Smith, Apr 22, 2008
    #53
  14. frederick

    OldBoy Guest

    OldBoy, Apr 22, 2008
    #54
  15. Nikon's are not gods.
    By the way, my Nikon AIS lens don't seem to work well on anything less than
    a D200. They seem to work fine on just about any Canon or Olympus.
    I might well have moved to a Nikon digital, but they had no problem in
    giving me the shaft.
    I now have a Canon 30D. Love it. The mechanical operation and feel
    turned out to be
    much better than a Nikon D200 and at a much lower price. Yes I could
    have gotten
    more pixels... But, the truth is you can't use them except to take up
    space and
    brag.. If you want great big pictures go get a medium format camera.

    Steve
     
    Steve Sherman, Apr 22, 2008
    #55
  16. Using anything faster than Lexar 8GB 133x cards is a waste. I can shoot
    about 18-19 (14-bit NEFs) before seeing a slowdown at 9fps. The only place
    faster cards help is when you download from the card to the computer. Look
    for deals on dirt cheap Lexar 133x professional cards and don't be fooled
    into thinking you need any more.



    Rita
    --
    Stamping out Internet stupidity one idiot at a time. Never empower the
    idiot, embrace it and stimulate it. For more details go to the Usenet
    Stimulus Project page.

    <http://www.geocities.com/ritaberk2008>
     
    Rita Berkowitz, Apr 23, 2008
    #56
  17. frederick

    Ray Fischer Guest

    Nonsense.

    As usual you don't let the facts get in the way of your agenda.
     
    Ray Fischer, Apr 26, 2008
    #57
  18. frederick

    Dave Busch Guest

    I shot 1200 pictures at a baseball game this afternoon, and it took a
    couple hours to download the JPEGs from my 133X cards to my computer.
    My next computer iteration is gonna have FireWire in it, and I'm gonna
    get me a fast reader and some UDMA CF cards. Last month I shot 16 GB
    (RAW+JPEG FINE) of a model at a faux wedding, and I don't even
    remember how long it took to download those pix.

    Oh, the 133X cards were fine for 8 fps at the baseball game.

    Dave
     
    Dave Busch, Apr 27, 2008
    #58
  19. frederick

    John Smith Guest

    Dave:

    Get this. It's SCREAMINGLY fast, and I shoot ALL of my D3 images in RAW, so
    they're about 25mb each, and I'm using the USB 2.0 version.

    Yours will FLY if you're only shooting JPGs:

    http://store.lexar.com/?category=22&subcategory=47&productid=RW025-001

    I'm thinking of perhaps upgrading to the Firewire 800 version, but I don't
    know why, it's already so fast at USB 2.0
     
    John Smith, Apr 27, 2008
    #59
  20. It sounds like you have a card reader problem or a chipset compatibility
    problem between the reader and USB2 controller. I suffered with this using
    Sandisc and Lexar Professional readers and accidentally stumbled on the
    solution. I tried a cheap GE High Speed 55-in-1 Card Reader I bought at
    BJ's for $9 and this thing is blindingly fast compared to the high-end
    Sandisc and Lexar readers I have. A full 8 GB card was off loaded in a few
    minutes. So fast I thought no way in hell did I get all the files. I
    didn't erase my CF cards till I was 100% sure I got em all. It's a super
    fast reader, but mechanically it is cheap. The CF only goes in 0.5" and
    it's easy to misalign the insertion and possibly bend a pin. Still worth
    the risk compared to the poor performance from what the "pros" were
    offering.

    Here's one on eBay, but this imbecile thinks he's going to get that much for
    one, he's crazy.

    Yep! I have no doubts. I keep my CH/CL at 9/5 and haven't any problems.



    Rita
    --
    Stamping out Internet stupidity one idiot at a time. Never empower the
    idiot, embrace it and stimulate it. For more details go to the Usenet
    Stimulus Project page.

    http://ritaberk.myhosting247.com
     
    Rita Berkowitz, Apr 27, 2008
    #60
    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.