Response from Nikon on their piss-take upgrade to D3.

Discussion in 'Nikon' started by Dave, Aug 13, 2008.

  1. Dave

    Ken Hart1 Guest

    Begging your pardon, but my post was bringing it back on topic, tongue
    placed firmly in cheek. Rita wants a simple upgrade path for the image
    sensor in DSLR's and I pointed out that 35mm film SLR's get an upgraded
    "image sensor" every 24 or 36 exposures or so.
     
    Ken Hart1, Aug 13, 2008
    #21
    1. Advertisements

  2. Sorry, my bad.


    --
    "Wikipedia ... it reminds me ... of dogs barking idiotically through
    endless nights. It is so bad that a sort of grandeur creeps into it.
    It drags itself out of the dark abyss of pish, and crawls insanely up
    the topmost pinnacle of posh. It is rumble and bumble. It is flap and
    doodle. It is balder and dash."

    - With apologies to H. L. Mencken
     
    David Nebenzahl, Aug 13, 2008
    #22
    1. Advertisements

  3. Dave

    Colin.D Guest

    You're an idiot, Nebenzahl. That post above WAS about film, and a
    40-year-old 35mm Canon!

    Where does that leave you then? Unable to tell the difference?

    Colin D.
     
    Colin.D, Aug 13, 2008
    #23
  4. Dave

    Dave Guest

    I don't believe the higher density chips are an issue. See below.



    I read somewhere on rec.photo.digital there is extra 2 GB of memory, but
    I suspect it is less than that.

    Looking at

    http://nikoneurope-en.custhelp.com/...td_adp.php?p_faqid=25465&p_created=1216726798

    one sees the memory upgrade increases the number of images before the
    buffer fills from 16 to 36 if you save images in the NEF 14-bit
    uncompressed format. That is an extra 20 images. According to the D3
    manual, the size of such images is 24.7 MB. So to hold an extra 20
    images of 24.7 MB one would need an extra

    20 * 24.7 = 494 MB.

    I chose the uncompressed RAW file, since one knows the size will not
    change, unlike a JPEG, or RAW lossless compressed file, where the size
    would depend on the image content.

    Picking the smaller 12-bit uncompressed, which has an image size of 18.8
    MB, the upgrade will increase the number in the buffer from 17 to 38,
    which is an extra 21 shots


    21 * 18.8 = 394.8 MB.


    Taking a 3rd example, of medium sized TIFF files, the upgrade increases
    the buffer from 19 to 42 shots, which is an increase of 23. The sizes of
    these are 20.7 MB.

    23 * 20.7 = 476.1 MB.

    I'm not sure why these figures differ quite as much, but I very much
    doubt the extra memory needed is as much as 2 GB, as someone said here.
    More like 512 MB.

    There is no doubt some overhead in memory moving data around, but that
    overhead would be included in the basic camera. I don't actually believe
    any more overhead would be incurred.


    The next thing I thought of is how fast does the memory need to be? The
    largest amount of data one can save is the large TIFF file at 35.9 MB.
    (You can save RAW and JPEG at the same time, but that is still smaller
    than the single TIFF file). At a maximum frame rate of 9 frames per
    second, that is

    9 * 35.9 = 323.1 MB/s

    Looking at

    http://www.crucial.com/support/memory_speeds.aspx

    one finds the *maximum* transfer rates of say PC-1600 ram is 1600 MB/s,
    and for the DDR400 (PC-3200) it is 3200 MB/s. So whilst I accept those
    are maximum figures, it suggests to me the memory is nothing too special
    - just cheap PC memory would do.

    So IF my calculations are correct (and of course I have no inside
    knowledge), Nikon decided to not put 512 MB of cheap PC memory in the
    camera, but rather make that an optional extra for which the camera
    would need to be returned.

    These sizes and speeds of memory have been available a long time, so I
    don't think availability of chips would have been an issue myself.

    As I say, I'm only making educated guesses here, but without detailed
    technical information, that is the best one can do.
     
    Dave, Aug 14, 2008
    #24
  5. Dave

    DG Guest


    It's usenet. This wanna be cop will get nowhere when people discuss
    35mm cameras in a 35mm camera group. Digital or not...






    -= http://www.flickr.com/photos/rosepetal236/ =-
     
    DG, Aug 14, 2008
    #25
  6. This post is off-topic for this newsgroup, rec.photo.equipment.35mm,
    which is concerned with film cameras that use 35mm film, not digital
    cameras that look like 35mm SLRs.

    Please use an appropriate newsgroup for postings on digital cameras. One
    of the following groups would be a good place for such postings:

    rec.photo.equipment.digital
    rec.photo.equipment.digital.point+shoot
    rec.photo.equipment.digital.rangefinder
    rec.photo.equipment.digital.slr
    rec.photo.equipment.digital.slr-system


    --
    "Wikipedia ... it reminds me ... of dogs barking idiotically through
    endless nights. It is so bad that a sort of grandeur creeps into it.
    It drags itself out of the dark abyss of pish, and crawls insanely up
    the topmost pinnacle of posh. It is rumble and bumble. It is flap and
    doodle. It is balder and dash."

    - With apologies to H. L. Mencken
     
    David Nebenzahl, Aug 14, 2008
    #26
  7. This post is off-topic for this newsgroup, rec.photo.equipment.35mm,
    which is concerned with film cameras that use 35mm film, not digital
    cameras that look like 35mm SLRs.

    Please use an appropriate newsgroup for postings on digital cameras. One
    of the following groups would be a good place for such postings:

    rec.photo.equipment.digital
    rec.photo.equipment.digital.point+shoot
    rec.photo.equipment.digital.rangefinder
    rec.photo.equipment.digital.slr
    rec.photo.equipment.digital.slr-system


    --
    "Wikipedia ... it reminds me ... of dogs barking idiotically through
    endless nights. It is so bad that a sort of grandeur creeps into it.
    It drags itself out of the dark abyss of pish, and crawls insanely up
    the topmost pinnacle of posh. It is rumble and bumble. It is flap and
    doodle. It is balder and dash."

    - With apologies to H. L. Mencken
     
    David Nebenzahl, Aug 14, 2008
    #27
  8. Dave

    D-Mac Guest

    You might have missed something there Toby.
    I used a Mamiya 6x7 and a Pentax 645 for maybe 20 years. The maintenance
    cost was probably $500 tops. When I sold them, I got back what they cost
    me plus some. I wish now I hadn't sold them but that's life, eh?

    I've had six digital cameras in 5 years the upgrade / replacement costs
    to keep up with the changing quality of images they produce has been
    close to $20,000. And...

    The bloody things have a shelf life at which point they will become
    useless. All electronics are sunset stuff... Eventually they die.

    So suppose it cost me $3k a year for film and processing (more like
    $1900 but I'll work on your figures... I'd still be $5,000 in front if I
    hadn't gone digital.
     
    D-Mac, Aug 14, 2008
    #28
  9. This post is off-topic for this newsgroup, rec.photo.equipment.35mm,
    which is concerned with film cameras that use 35mm film, not digital
    cameras that look like 35mm SLRs.

    Please use an appropriate newsgroup for postings on digital cameras. One
    of the following groups would be a good place for such postings:

    rec.photo.equipment.digital
    rec.photo.equipment.digital.point+shoot
    rec.photo.equipment.digital.rangefinder
    rec.photo.equipment.digital.slr
    rec.photo.equipment.digital.slr-system


    --
    "Wikipedia ... it reminds me ... of dogs barking idiotically through
    endless nights. It is so bad that a sort of grandeur creeps into it.
    It drags itself out of the dark abyss of pish, and crawls insanely up
    the topmost pinnacle of posh. It is rumble and bumble. It is flap and
    doodle. It is balder and dash."

    - With apologies to H. L. Mencken
     
    David Nebenzahl, Aug 14, 2008
    #29
  10. Dave

    Dave Guest

    I remember why that message was below a standard one would normally
    expect when I write a letter/email - I had just come back from the pub
    after a few drinks!

    My spelling and grammar has never been one of my strongest points, but I
    have at least got an O-level in English, so it should not have been as
    bad as it was.
     
    Dave, Aug 14, 2008
    #30
  11. Dave

    Chris H Guest

    It is... the memory used in PC-s is made up of multiple chips. Space is
    not a problem. Also power is not a problem, neither is heat output.
    The chips used in the Nikons will be a little different

    You could of course try fitting the PC memory sticks into a camera...
    On the face of it it does look simple. I am an electronics engineer so I
    have a little more background knowledge.

    As I said the capacity of chips changes all the time ans does the power
    consumption. This is why PC memory is built on to standard simms. The
    cameras don't use simms
     
    Chris H, Aug 14, 2008
    #31
  12. Dave

    Dave Guest

    Have you factored into that inflation? If not, that is meaningless.
    I'm thinking this about my F6 - should I sell it or not? Currently the
    D3 is worth a lot more used that the F6, but give it a few years and I
    suspect the F6 will be worth more than a D3. It's clear Nikon are not
    going to bring out a better film camera than the F6, but just as clear
    the D3 will be upgraded soon.

    I somewhat suspect the D4, D5, D6 etc will follow much more quickly than
    did the F3, F4, F5 and F6.
    True, and a they will be unrepairable in far less time than some earlier
    electronic equipment. The earliest valve equipment can be repaired
    easily to this day - valves are still made and have a very long lifetime
    if not used.

    Believe it or not, values (or tubes to Americans) are still manufactured
    to this day for high power use, where semiconductors are just not up to
    it. The 4CM2500KG from Eimac

    http://www.cpii.com/product.cfm/9/22/78

    produces 2.8 MW - I can't see semiconductors ever being able to produce
    that sort of power economically - it might be possible to get it with
    combiners, but I doubt it would be practical.
    There is no doubt that specific models of digital camera will become
    obsolete very quickly. It is less certain whether one will need to
    upgrade those models.
     
    Dave, Aug 14, 2008
    #32
  13. This post is off-topic for this newsgroup, rec.photo.equipment.35mm,
    which is concerned with film cameras that use 35mm film, not digital
    cameras that look like 35mm SLRs.

    Please use an appropriate newsgroup for postings on digital cameras. One
    of the following groups would be a good place for such postings:

    rec.photo.equipment.digital
    rec.photo.equipment.digital.point+shoot
    rec.photo.equipment.digital.rangefinder
    rec.photo.equipment.digital.slr
    rec.photo.equipment.digital.slr-system


    --
    "Wikipedia ... it reminds me ... of dogs barking idiotically through
    endless nights. It is so bad that a sort of grandeur creeps into it.
    It drags itself out of the dark abyss of pish, and crawls insanely up
    the topmost pinnacle of posh. It is rumble and bumble. It is flap and
    doodle. It is balder and dash."

    - With apologies to H. L. Mencken
     
    David Nebenzahl, Aug 14, 2008
    #33
  14. Dave

    Dave Guest

    I suspect the ram quite possibly comes from the same wafer though, but
    packaged differently. I'm not suggesting cameras would use SIMMs, DIMMs
    or whatever the latest buzz word in memory is.

    It might be static RAM, which uses less power when not doing very much.
    Static RAM is more expensive than dynamic ram, but the quantities uses
    are I believe quite modest.
     
    Dave, Aug 14, 2008
    #34
  15. Dave

    Chris H Guest

    The D3 is a 35mm camera.
    It is equipment.35mm not equipment.35mm.film
    It is not a point and shoot
    It is not a range finder.
    SO your solution is not to post to an equipment.35mm grouip about a 35mm
    camera but do post to a point+shoot and range finder groups about an
    SLR....
     
    Chris H, Aug 14, 2008
    #35
  16. This post is off-topic for this newsgroup, rec.photo.equipment.35mm,
    which is concerned with film cameras that use 35mm film, not digital
    cameras that look like 35mm SLRs.

    Please use an appropriate newsgroup for postings on digital cameras. One
    of the following groups would be a good place for such postings:

    rec.photo.equipment.digital
    rec.photo.equipment.digital.point+shoot
    rec.photo.equipment.digital.rangefinder
    rec.photo.equipment.digital.slr
    rec.photo.equipment.digital.slr-system


    --
    "Wikipedia ... it reminds me ... of dogs barking idiotically through
    endless nights. It is so bad that a sort of grandeur creeps into it.
    It drags itself out of the dark abyss of pish, and crawls insanely up
    the topmost pinnacle of posh. It is rumble and bumble. It is flap and
    doodle. It is balder and dash."

    - With apologies to H. L. Mencken
     
    David Nebenzahl, Aug 14, 2008
    #36
  17. No, it's not: it's a *digital camera*. 35mm cameras use 35mm *film*.
    I simply included a list of *all* possible digital photographic
    equipment groups that I could find (apologies if my ISP doesn't carry
    some others), as a guide. Obviously. discussion of this particular
    camera (the D3) belongs in r.p.e.digital.slr.


    --
    "Wikipedia ... it reminds me ... of dogs barking idiotically through
    endless nights. It is so bad that a sort of grandeur creeps into it.
    It drags itself out of the dark abyss of pish, and crawls insanely up
    the topmost pinnacle of posh. It is rumble and bumble. It is flap and
    doodle. It is balder and dash."

    - With apologies to H. L. Mencken
     
    David Nebenzahl, Aug 14, 2008
    #37
  18. This post is off-topic for this newsgroup, rec.photo.equipment.35mm,
    which is concerned with film cameras that use 35mm film, not digital
    cameras that look like 35mm SLRs.

    Please use an appropriate newsgroup for postings on digital cameras. One
    of the following groups would be a good place for such postings:

    rec.photo.equipment.digital
    rec.photo.equipment.digital.point+shoot
    rec.photo.equipment.digital.rangefinder
    rec.photo.equipment.digital.slr
    rec.photo.equipment.digital.slr-system


    --
    "Wikipedia ... it reminds me ... of dogs barking idiotically through
    endless nights. It is so bad that a sort of grandeur creeps into it.
    It drags itself out of the dark abyss of pish, and crawls insanely up
    the topmost pinnacle of posh. It is rumble and bumble. It is flap and
    doodle. It is balder and dash."

    - With apologies to H. L. Mencken
     
    David Nebenzahl, Aug 14, 2008
    #38
  19. Dave

    dj_nme Guest

    The Nikon D3 doesn't just look like a 35mm camera, it's sensor is the
    same size as one, so it could be argued with some authority that it's
    actually a digital 35mm slr camera.
    Just like the Canon EOS 5D, Contax N Digital and Kodak DCS-14n.

    If you don't wish to read this message thread, single-click on the the
    first post in the thread and then press the "k" key and this will hide
    it from you.
     
    dj_nme, Aug 15, 2008
    #39
  20. Dave

    D-Mac Guest

    Having established that a few digital SLRs are in fact 35mm equipment,
    are we now to consider all the ASP and 4/3 size sensors are not 35mm
    equipment and get 'em shoved off the group?
     
    D-Mac, Aug 15, 2008
    #40
    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.