[johnmflores]

No, I´m not dismissive at all, I know that these cameras are good, -I was just laughing at the the words Ultra high-end. What does it mean? Higher than everything else?

Ok thx for the clarification.

[monochrome]

That's not helping much to get my message across, so here it is again ...

Nikon is now making more profit with FF bodies than APSC bodies.

Morever, I disagree with your speculative disclaimer. The D800 basically uses the D700 body which is already amortized and just puts a new sensor, much like what Pentax did with the K-7 when creating the K-5. Still a huge success. And R&D isn't that expensive, look at 645D and the low revenue (in comparison) it creates. And it still pays off. We're talking billions revenue vs. millions R&D and maybe tens of millions tooling. They don't even spend money to promote it, no dealer margins etc. It's going to sell by itself.

If we are honest, we have to admit that Nikon is going to collect the rewards on their earlier investments into FF. And they deserve it.

I said the exact same thing

"What we can safely surmise is that Pentax has a very steep hurdle to achieve profitability on a FF camera. Nikon and Canon have created a classic barrier to entry against competitors by exploiting their first-mover advantage."

The benefit of a first-mover advantage is the ability to control the pricing and profit available not just to your own company but to that of your competitors as well, to your advantage and their detriment.

I also said I think Ricoh plans to compete with Canon but that Nikon is an entirely different story.

None of which changes the economic reality that Ricoh and Pentax have some very tough sledding ahead if they plan to compete in the FF market.

[drougge]

I don't understand this talk about how expensive it would be to design an FF body. It's no more expensive than designing an APS-C body. Am I missing something? The only thing I can think of is an implicit assumption that an FF body must be more high end than an APS-C body, which is an assumption I don't agree with.

Anthing the K7 shared with the K20 could also have been shared with an FF body, except the SR mechanism. The K7 was high end enough. If designing a new SR mechanism is so expensive it would break the company they can leave it out. (And of course it isn't.)

[eddie1960]

Given the current market share state Pentax and Ricoh have a tough road ahead FF or not

But since Ricoh seems to recognize their current core business is going to change a fair bit in the next decade i think they are looking at imaging as their next core business and will do what it takes to make it a success before they lose the cash flow from the declining business (which they are trying hard to reinvent into digital document management solutions - every time they call on me to talk about our copier contracts they want to talk document archiving )

[RXrenesis8]

1. The Exmor in K-5 or D800 aren't backlit.

Aah, I didn't know the EXMOR and EXMOR-R were two different sensor lines...

2. A correct extrapolation (ISO80/50, FF/APSC) would yield 16.0 EV DR.

I also did not know what a larger sensor translated to a wider dynamic range. Is this because the noise floor is lower in a physically larger chip?

[monochrome]

Given the current market share state Pentax and Ricoh have a tough road ahead FF or not

But since Ricoh seems to recognize their current core business is going to change a fair bit in the next decade i think they are looking at imaging as their next core business and will do what it takes to make it a success before they lose the cash flow from the declining business (which they are trying hard to reinvent into digital document management solutions - every time they call on me to talk about our copier contracts they want to talk document archiving )

My (global) employer just took away 70% of the photocopiers and laser printers and 80% of my file drawers. They're been replaced with scanners (copiers. less that print utility) for the old documents and fillable pdf's emailed to signers (to be printed at their expense if not digitally signed) for almost everything new. When we receive in a signed contract or other document it is scanned to a client folder.

There are strict rules about printing and copying. We've gone "Green" (another word for cutting paper and toner expenses).

For client presentations, where we formerly produced bound color pitch books, we are encouraged to use a tablet (iPad), or laptop and present overhead.

The hardware is, of course, purchased at MY expense.

[rparmar]

We've gone "Green" (another word for cutting paper and toner expenses).

For client presentations, where we formerly produced bound color pitch books, we are encouraged to use a tablet (iPad), or laptop and present overhead.

Part of this makes sense, since toner is a horrible product damaging to human health.

But only if the computer tech purchased is to prevent it going into a land-fill. Recommending new items (iPad) only increases resource destruction. And is completely unnecessary since any old laptop you buy for $150 does the job.

[falconeye]

I also did not know what a larger sensor translated to a wider dynamic range. Is this because the noise floor is lower in a physically larger chip?

It does if both have the same base ISO which would be the case for an equal pixel technology.

DR is a logarithmic measure of the ratio of sensor Full Well Capacity (FWC) and Readout noise. And because a sensors FWC is pixel FWC times number of pixels, and because larger pixels have larger FWC, a sensors total FWC is directly proportional to its surface, whatever are its pixels.

However, I had an error in my previous post, DR only scales with log2(crop) because both signal and noise floor must be properly scaled. Therefore, a plain extrapolation yields 15.4 EV for the D800, a change in base ISO included. The step from APSC to FF alone corresponds to an increase in DR of 0.60 EV which is a universal number. Because Nikon interprets ISO different from Pentax, I'd say 15EV is the best guess, could be less actually.

[RXrenesis8]

Hmm, I had considered FWC as a possibility for DR increase given two sensors with identical technology when increasing sensor size but I had eliminated it as a possibility when I thought about it.

My reasoning:

Scenario: You are attempting to photograph a scene consisting of a vacuum of empty space (perfect darkness) and a single infinitely small point of light. Your equipment consists of two perfect cameras, one of (to make it simple) µ4/3 sensor size, and one of 135 format sensor size. Each sensor is cut from the same stock and has identical sensel pitch with the 135 format sensor necessarily having 4 times as many sensels. Each sensel has the same FWC. Both cameras are focused at infinity with a theoretically perfect lens, aperture wide open, and the point of light is an infinite distance away from each of your cameras. Photons from the point of light travel through your lenses and strike only one sensel in each camera. There is an identical amount of signal amplification performed in each sensor, we will call it ISO 100.

Hypothesis: Since an identical amount of photons are hitting the single sensel in each camera both illuminated sensels should reach FWC at the same time. In this time the amplification provided to the other sensels for the duration of the exposure will, through induction and heat, create a noise floor.

Questions: Does this mean that for this scene each sensor has an identical sensitivity to highlights? Shouldn't both sensors noise floors be identical with only the advantage in image quality going to the larger sensor for collecting more points of data (to smooth out the noise)?



And on a completely different tack:

Because Nikon interprets ISO different from Pentax

Whaaaaat? I thought that part of it being an international standard meant that it was held to that standard by the ISO itself or ANSI...

[jsherman999]

This might be an interesting thread to read for some: ---> D800 PDR measurements are higher than expected

The OP in that thread has some interesting data plotted here, which would allow you to compare equivalent ISO levels and PDR (Photographic Dynamic Range) of different bodies.

Of particular interest is his estimated ratings for the D800 in DX (aps-c crop) mode - at PDR of 6.5 EV, D800(DX) exceeds the D7000 (D7000, not 700) by a surprising amount (2170 to 1389 equiv ISO.) In full FX mode, it may have about .85 stops over the D700.


.

[thibs]

And on a completely different tack:

Whaaaaat? I thought that part of it being an international standard meant that it was held to that standard by the ISO itself or ANSI...

Hehe, surprised?
This is well known, and is typically brand marketing BS. Pentax tends to be very conservative and 'real ISO' is often near the advertised one.
NIkon though (and probably Canon) tends to use lower values. Which means the following:

1/ That you can't take the same picture with two cams (with the same lens) when you dial the same settings because... in reality settings won't be the same.

2/ As for reviews, Nikon cameras will have a very nice , say 1600, ISO compared to others. Of course if their 1600 Iso really is 1250, no wonder, huh ?

That's just be uneducated way of telling this but I'm certain Falk would do way way better.

PS: AFAIK it happended with film as well so really things aren't as clear as we thought they were.

[falconeye]

Hmm, I had considered FWC as a possibility for DR increase given two sensors with identical technology when increasing sensor size but I had eliminated it as a possibility when I thought about it.
My reasoning:
...

Your argument seems convincing. So, I am happy I was able to spot the flaw in your reasoning.

You make an implicit assumption: That DR is a constant as a function of spatial frequency. However, this is not true. DR is much higher at low spatial frequencies. A 6x4 image from the K-5 would have a DR of 23EV! This is why DxO normalizes DR at 8MP.

You can understand it in an intuitive way: Look at an image full of noise, pixels being random to your eye. You can't see anything. Now step back and look from a distance. Now all these random pixels again create an image and you see, e.g., a face. This is actually used in letter art images where pixels are replaced ascii letters. The letters themselves can't be understood, still the image as a whole can.

In doing your reasoning, you ignore that a pixel on the larger sensor (altough of the same size) represents a higher spatial frequency than the pixel on the smaller sensor.

Generally, I recommend you read DxO White Papers. It explains DR scaling and why they actually have to measure true ISO values.

D800(DX) exceeds the D7000 (D7000, not 700) by a surprising amount (2170 to 1389 equiv ISO.)

So, beyond scaling arguments, the single pixel implementation in the D800 may be superior to the D7000/K-5. Exciting times

[monochrome]

Part of this makes sense, since toner is a horrible product damaging to human health.

But only if the computer tech purchased is to prevent it going into a land-fill. Recommending new items (iPad) only increases resource destruction. And is completely unnecessary since any old laptop you buy for $150 does the job.

By American standards we throw little into landfills - the trash cans have been removed from our offices and cubbies and we self-sort recycleables into centralized containers.

There are considerations beyond mere resource conservation.

Information security is a very large issue with financial services firms. Most of our printed material contains client-sensitive information that dumpster divers would love to have, so we naturally have sorted print into secure shred (and recycle) containers for years. The new print control scheme is intended to cut down on consumables use and (mostly) to save money. Green is being applied rather cynically at American corporations, but the final outcome should please Gaia worshipers.

The same information security drives hardware specifications. Data security simply cannot control client centric information on 75,000 individual laptops - they're too easily stolen and too easily cracked. Yuo can call BS all you want but it can't be done to US Government satisfaction, and we are regulated that way as well as every other way. Further, our legal and reputational liability for information loss is substantial - risk management has a hardware approval voice. We are not permitted to carry personal laptops onto corporate premises. Corporate-supplied laptops are custom-built with many ROM processes disabled (no active external ports, for instance) and significant encryption algorithms embedded, as are all the desktop machines. $150 is an order of magnitude below the actual cost of a laptop in our environment.

For whatever reason at the corporate "store," a secure tablet costs 1/3 what a laptop costs.

Bringing an unsecured personal device on corporate premises is grounds for immediate, unconditional dismissal. (they haven't quite figured out what to do about SmartPhones yet . At this time we are limited to secure apps on our Phones but we have a legal right to deny access to search our phones. For the time being it is an honor system).

[RXrenesis8]

Generally, I recommend you read DxO White Papers. It explains DR scaling and why they actually have to measure true ISO values.

Thanks again, I'm glad you're on here and take the time to answer questions of this nature for us mere mortals!

This is well known, and is typically brand marketing BS. Pentax tends to be very conservative and 'real ISO' is often near the advertised one.
NIkon though (and probably Canon) tends to use lower values

I just did a bit of reading on this. Apparently the ISO levels reported by the MFR's is the ISO of the JPEG output, not the raw output. so if the Nikon can go down to 50 ISO JPEG, perhaps 35-40 ISO when shooting raw would not be unreasonable!

[jsherman999]

.


Interesting commentary and speculation on FF, the upgrade path... and the beginning of the squeeze from above on aps-c, perhaps?

Feb 25 (news and commentary)--Dealers on Friday got some new pricing from Nikon, specifically on the D700. The new suggested price is soon going to be US$2199 (currently US$2699). But here's an interesting kicker: there apparently won't be a minimum advertised price (MAP) associated with that, which would mean we'll likely see someone drop under the US$2000 mark.

Some people have questioned my slight shift on predicting what Nikon will introduce next. Actually, it hasn't been a slight shift. If you go back and read what I wrote in 2010 versus where we are today, I think you'll find that Nikon went a bit different direction than I originally expected. The post-quake thinking at Nikon seems to be a bit different than the pre-quake thinking, too. Nikon seems a bit more emboldened in its decision making since the last management change. Looking back on my conversations with Nikon executives over the past couple of years as well as anonymous tips I receive, I can see that I didn't pick up on all the clues that were dropped. Mea culpa.

But let me explain one thing that still seems to be hanging a bunch of you up: entry FX. First, it should be clear that a US$2000 D700 is very much an "entry FX" model ;~). And a danged good one, at that. Many of you seem perplexed by why an entry FX model makes sense, and why a US$1000 difference in price between it and a D800 works.

First the rationale: the market for new DSLR sales boils down to upgraders. The notion of "new camera users" coming into the market is mostly wrong. Young adults aren't opting for DSLRs, and that would be only a small percentage of the purchasers now, anyway. The side-grade from film SLR to DSLR is now mostly complete.

So today Nikon is actively soliciting Coolpix users to upgrade to CX (Nikon 1). CX users will be solicited to upgrade to DX. And DX users, well, it's only natural to upgrade them to FX. But if the entry FX body is 3x the price of the top DX body, that's a pretty big money leap. Entry FX can't be more than 2x the top DX price if it is to encourage upgrading. Indeed, it probably should be 1.5x (which would be about US$1800). That puts us right at the likely D400 pricing, which is one reason why I think the D400 could go either way (DX or FX).

Yes, a DX D400 at US$1900 and an FX D800 at US$3000 are almost 1.5x apart, too. So what's the advantage to making a D400 FX? Lenses. Indeed, the "where are the DX wide angles" question continues to be an interesting one. One might leap to say that this is more evidence that the DX line might stop at the D7000 point: someone who pays US$1600-2000 for a DX body is going to want lenses that don't exist. But those lenses do exist in FX.

I still think a D400 could go either way and is more likely to be DX, but given Nikon's recent aggressive push, I can't rule out an FX D400, thus what I wrote in the next article. The new US$2200 pricing on the D700 just throws another wrinkle into the mix.