Nikon to announce new products on Sep. 1

Discussion in 'Nikon' started by Gisle Hannemyr, Aug 26, 2005.

  1. Just saw an invitation to a press conference on Sep. 1 where
    Nikon is going to announce several new products. No details
    yet - just the assurance that this will be interesting.

    Hence, the field is open for speculation, which is probably what
    Nikon wants. Just a new flash, lens or yet another P&S after
    Canon's 5D announcement would be lame - rather than interesting.
    The D100 is overdue for a replacement, and the D2x is not, so my
    money is on that the main event will be the D200.

    The $64000 question (although I hope it retail for less than that)
    is whether it will be FF or not.
    Gisle Hannemyr, Aug 26, 2005
    1. Advertisements

  2. Gisle Hannemyr

    John Francis Guest

    Not a snowball's chance in hell.

    The D200 will be positioned against the EOS 20D, at a price point
    I'd guess somewhere around $1200 - certainly no more than $1500.
    You can't sell a 'FF' sensor at that kind of price. Well, not
    for long, anyway. I suppose it's just conceivable that we'd see
    an APS-H (1.3x crop factor), but even that is unlikely; having
    a smaller sensor on your top-end model than on a midrange body
    seems a rather unlikely strategy.
    John Francis, Aug 26, 2005
    1. Advertisements

  3. You're probably right.
    According to a thread in the dpreview forum. Nikon "accidently" posted
    the specs. on the web here:
    It's gone now, but these people claim to have them:

    12.4 Mpx DX format (3 fps) and 6.4 Mpx 2.0x crop (5 fps),
    ISO 100-800 (???), CF Card and 2.5 in monitor,
    3D Matrix, Center weighted and Spot metering,
    9 AF sensors, instant on, 52 ms shutter lag.

    If these are the specs, it sure looks as if it is positioned to
    compete with the 20D. The only weird bit is 800 as the top ISO
    I think Nikon's committment to DX-lenses rules out a 1.3x crop.
    Gisle Hannemyr, Aug 26, 2005
  4. I sincerely hope they do provide a full-frame camera at some point in the
    near future - all this using large and bulky 35mm bodies and mounting toy
    sensors in them which limit wide-angle capability has gone on for too
    long! <G> (I don't think they will do that on September 1st, though).

    On the ZLR front, I would like to see a move from the 8MP sensor down to a
    less-noisy 7MP sensor or something which gains low-light capability, with
    an improvement to the telephoto aperture on both the Coolpix 8400 and
    8800, and the addition of image stabilisation to the 8400.

    David J Taylor, Aug 26, 2005
  5. I wonder how far the resolution of 1.5 crop sensors can be pushed without
    seriously compromising dynamic range.

    Suppose that Nikon creates a camera with interchangeable sensors: one
    24 Mpixpel sensor that only works at ISO 200, and a 6 Mpixel sensor that
    goes up to ISO 1600 or higher. (and a B/W sensor, and an IR sensor, etc.)

    That may be cost effective as long as full frame sensors remain at least
    twice as expensive as APS-C sensors.

    It would make for an interesting shoot out if Nikon announces a 12 Mpixel
    D200 for less than $2000.
    Philip Homburg, Aug 26, 2005
  6. Gisle Hannemyr

    SMS Guest

    Not weird at all, if it really is 1.5x and 12.4 megapixel. Nikon's taken
    a beating on the noise issues with the D2x at the higher ISOs--better to
    just leave it out completely than to have to deal with comparisons with
    the 20D.
    Eventually they will have to come out with some full-frame models, if
    they want to stay in the high end.
    SMS, Aug 26, 2005
  7. Gisle Hannemyr

    Rox-off Guest

    What noise issues???

    Oh, it's just you, Scharf. Moving on...
    Rox-off, Aug 26, 2005
  8. Gisle Hannemyr

    burnsdavidj Guest

    I agree that the cap @ 800 ISO is a bit odd, the rest of the specs
    looks decent. A boost in mpxls over the 20D will give it some market
    legs, at least in the short term until Canon comes out with a 20D
    replacement (and thus the leapfroging game continues).

    I like the 'accidental' post on the Nikon site. Maybe I should start
    another "put up/shut up" thread... ;)
    burnsdavidj, Aug 26, 2005
  9. Anyway, I think 1.3x crop factor sensors are in rather a no-mans-land
    right now. Nothing inherently wrong with them, but right now you can
    get lenses for full-frame 35mm and lenses for 1.[56]x crop factor,
    which leaves the 1.3x at a disadvantage for wideangle compared to
    *both* other formats, and a disadvantage for telephoto compared to the
    1.[56]x models.
    David Dyer-Bennet, Aug 26, 2005
  10. Gisle Hannemyr

    SMS Guest

    It's a pretty good marketing move, to emphasize your positives, while
    preventing comparisons against the negatives. Most people will be
    content with 800 ISO, so the reviews won't ding the omission of higher
    ISO speeds nearly as much as they would ding noise at the higher ISO
    speeds. Nikon needs to avoid comparisons of noise, against their Canon
    competition, as much as possible. We all saw what happened with the D2x
    high ISO noise in the reviews, and Nikon is determined to avoid a repeat
    of this.
    SMS, Aug 26, 2005
  11. Gisle Hannemyr

    Jeremy Nixon Guest

    Dude... it's exactly the same, the D2x maxes out at 800 too. Remember
    that Nikon doesn't dishonestly list digital-push settings as rated ISO
    Jeremy Nixon, Aug 26, 2005
  12. Gisle Hannemyr

    pixby Guest

    Obviously you don't have a D2X or you'd know the noise "problem" is not
    a problem at all. Canon use in-camera noise reduction which, when you
    later try to enlarge the image makes it extremely hard to produce detail.

    The Nikon approach is much preferred by experienced professionals. Use
    of software like "Neat Image" or "Noise Ninja" during editing in
    Photoshop produces far more detailed enlargements than from a
    plasticized Canon hi-ISO image.
    pixby, Aug 26, 2005
  13. SNIP
    Since Dynamic range is determined by potential well depth and noise,
    the well depth limitation of/by small sensor elements seems to be the
    issue to me (noise reduction can only be improved to a point). And
    well depth is limited by design to roughly scale with sensel

    Bart van der Wolf, Aug 26, 2005
  14. Gisle Hannemyr

    Jeremy Nixon Guest

    Steven has been relentlessly pounding away with his lies about the D2x
    "noise problem" since before it was even released, despite people who
    (unlike him) have actually used it telling him that no such problem
    exists. He is unwilling to let facts get in the way of his mindless
    Canon cheerleading.
    Jeremy Nixon, Aug 26, 2005
  15. Gisle Hannemyr

    JPS Guest

    In message <>,
    I'm not saying that this is what is happening here, but I do think that
    in the future, as the bit-depth of RAW data gets deeper, there will be
    less need for higher ISOs. ISO 800, cleanly digitized at 14 bits, would
    probably be better for pushing to ISO 3200 than the 3200 setting itself
    with only 11 bits, as most current DSLRs do it, currently is. There
    really isn't much reason to digitize high ISOs past the point where
    about 4 RAW levels represents a single photon/electron.
    JPS, Aug 26, 2005
  16. Gisle Hannemyr

    JPS Guest

    In message <430f6dfd$>,
    I'm still waiting for some kind of proof of this. The noise
    characteristic of the 20D looks full-spectrum to me; just weak. If what
    you were saying were true, a histogram equalization of a RAW blackframe
    would be dominated by low-frequency-noise, but it isn't.

    What the recent Canons are known to do is measure and cancel some of its
    own known error; never heard of anything about trying to filter random
    noise of the sensor.
    JPS, Aug 26, 2005
  17. Gisle Hannemyr

    JPS Guest

    In message <>,
    Words like "problem" are loaded. I prefer more objective terminology.
    I suspect that the intensity of noise in the RAW data is probably a
    little bit greater with the D2X, making it a little noisier than
    something like the 10D in low, but well-balanced light, but that the D2X
    might be competitive in greatly unbalanced light sources, as it
    digitizes each color channel separately, so the weakest link in the
    chain of noise is eliminated (assuming, of course, that your WB setting
    on the D2X is close to what you're shooting under).
    JPS, Aug 26, 2005
  18. Gisle Hannemyr

    Jeremy Nixon Guest

    Measurements have the D2x about equal to the 1Ds2 in noise, up to ISO 800.
    But the point is that, at low ISO, noise just isn't a factor in DSLRs any
    On the D70, you could sometimes see the blue channel start to fall apart
    if you had to boost it quite a lot (like setting white balance to 2000K,
    or otherwise) but I have yet to see that happen on the D2x. You get to
    general shadow noise before you get to that point, and the shadow noise
    only starts to happen about where you'd expect it to. I can't compare
    it to anything from Canon from experience, but compared to anything I've
    used, the D2x is very good in wacky light.
    Jeremy Nixon, Aug 26, 2005
  19. Gisle Hannemyr

    Tony Polson Guest

    No, it will not. Nikon has a full frame DSLR under development but it
    will be in the pro series (D3?) and won't be announced until PMA 2006
    at the earliest. Shipping won't be before Q3/2006.

    The D200 is an open secret, thanks to semi-official "leaks". It will
    have 12 MP but with a 1.5X "multiplier".
    Tony Polson, Aug 26, 2005
  20. Gisle Hannemyr

    JPS Guest

    In message <>,
    It's not perticiularly visible in the lower ISOs, unless you boost the
    shadows. At high ISOs, though, all the DSLRs are still lacking, to
    various degrees. People who only shoot landscapes or architecture on a
    tripod at low ISO, or with studio lighting have no idea how dark the
    conditions are for people shooting wildlife under a canopy of foliage,
    or at dusk or dawn. Animals generally don't spend a lot of time in
    bright sunlight, and when they do, they are usually very spooky. You
    can generally get much closer to animals after the sun has set than
    mid-day. I arrived at a local park the other day about 2.5 hours before
    sunset, and saw a foe and fawn feeding in a field, 150 feet from me.
    They immediately took to the woods, as I got within 100 feet of them. I
    went to the flower garden, to shoot hummingbirds, and upon my return
    after dark, the foe and fawn allowed me within 10 feet of them without
    any sign of distress; of course, ISO 1600 shots at the slowest
    hand-holdable shutter speed and the lens wide-open, even at 10mm, were
    grossly underexposed. Only the flash shots I took were well-saturated,
    but they looked like garbage.
    We probably won't see this feature from Canon for a while, as none of
    the reviewers are raking them over the coals for the poor incandescent
    and deep-blue-sky-shade performance (poor compared to what it could be;
    not absolutely poor compared to other cameras, per se).

    JPS, Aug 26, 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.