Nikon Afficionado's New Release Due When??

Skip, I need to upgrade and I am not a pro, so it will be 2 grand for
the lens, 3 grand for the strobes, 5 grand for the case and what the
body will cost. And I need two complete kits. I need to equal Velvia 50
and print to 20 x 30 minimum. pbase.com/uw_wayne

uw wayne wrote:
Skip, I need to upgrade and I am not a pro, so it will be 2 grand for
the lens, 3 grand for the strobes, 5 grand for the case and what the
body will cost. And I need two complete kits. I need to equal Velvia 50
and print to 20 x 30 minimum. pbase.com/uw_wayne


If you are not a pro, then I don't understand your "need" to upgrade. As
long as your old camera works, then keep using it. Since I would guess
you were originally happy with your purchase, then your current camera
should be good enough. On the other hand, if you originally bought your
camera as a compromise, and really wanted a top of the line camera, then
perhaps you should save up to get a true top of the line camera. Buying
gear in half steps might never be satisfying, though I think if you
really do get what you want, then "upgrades" would only happen when that
gear failed.

To address the cost issue, consider that all imaging chips contain
errors when they are produced. The larger chips have a greater potential
for errors, simply due to their size; this makes for a lower yield of
good chips. When someone figures out a better manufacturing method, then
perhaps the prices will get better for larger chips. Unfortunately chip
cost is only one aspect of total cost. There is also development, with
that cost spread out over sales of total units using a particular chip.

So the Hasselblad/Imacon or PhaseOne digital back might sell around 1000
units a month (or less), while smaller chipped D-SLRs sell in greater
numbers. There is also a factor of processing power in the camera,
basically computer(s) to generate ready to go files; the more
information from larger MP cameras requires more processing power;
adding the ability simply costs more per camera.

Okay, strange new development in digital imaging, and something that
probably throws the costs way out. There is a California company that
just developed an 11.4 MP motion imaging camera with a half frame size
imaging chip (basically same size as 35 mm movie film frame). This soon
to be released camera can do 60 frames per second at full resolution, or
up to 120 fps at lower resolutions. Expected price is to be under $18k.
While this does not explain still camera prices, maybe it will make you
question them a bit more.

Ciao!

Gordon Moat
A G Studio
http://www.allgstudio.com

Gordon, I've got terrific underwater gear. But. I am limited to 36
frames per tank of air. I'd love to bracket to a significant level but
can't with film. You can imagine the complexity of exposure underwater.
Regardless of technology, autofocus down there is an absolute no, and
depth of field and shutter speed have to be non-automatic to get the
shot. So my upgrade is a one time thing, no mistakes, I can't recover a
"bad" decision because I can not recover where a pro can expense it.

On Sat, 29 Apr 2006 10:56:55 +0100, (Jon B)
wrote:

David Dyer-Bennet wrote:

"Thomas T. Veldhouse" writes:

David Dyer-Bennet wrote:

Widely discussed press release a few months ago.

Then you might have a link to that press release?

Matt already found it. I could perhaps have found it myself; but I'm
reporting what I *remember*, okay?

I wouldn't believe them anyway. The last thing you want to do is tell
all your customers your current product is crappy and you are about to
replace it [1], or to tell your competitors what you have up your
sleeves.

[1] Osbourne will tell you the effects of that.

Absolutely.

And even if your current product isn't "crappy," it might be "less
desirable" once you announce your new product. A lesson that computer
companies learned a long time ago (cf. Osborne).

Abba Kodak

On Sat, 29 Apr 2006 13:51:18 -0700, Gordon Moat
wrote:



Kodak actually. They also offer an 11 MP 24mm by 36mm CCD. The 14 MP
sensor in the SLR/n was made by Fill Factory of Belgium.


Is the Kodak/Fill Factory sensor (sensors??) at the performance level
that Nikon would be expected to introduce in their FF camera? It's
possible that I am mixing the effects of a poor sensor with poor
camera electronics, but I do recall a lot of negative comments about
the Kodak 14/n and its brethren in non-studio, non-controlled light
situations. (Otherwise, I might have bought one already.l)


How much would Nikon have to charge assuming that they used such a
sensor in say today's D2X body? In other words, how much _more_ is
the cost of this 16 MP sensor over say the 12 MP sensor that Sony
supplies for the D2X?



It looks that Nikon try to target the same price range when they
introduced the D1X, and later with the D2X. It would surprise me if that
pricing structure changed for a D3X.

Perhaps. If that is the case, then they will need to lower
significantly the price of the D2X in order to not kill off those
sales altogether.

My guess: When the D3X comes out, we will see a lowered price on the
D2X and a higher price for the D3X, at least initially. Perhaps 6-12
months downstream, Nikon will lower the price on the D3X, but if past
experience is any guide, they won't be able to satisfy initial demand
from people who "have to have it right away." Some of those people
will knowingly pay a premium.


When Nikon finally announces their FF camera, it will all be "obvious"
in retrospect that the indicators were there all along, it's just that
we didn't understand what we were seeing.


Obvious being the correct term. However, the denizens of the internet
are rarely patient.

Nor are Internet denizens always careful about identifying pure
speculation/wishful thinking as such.


Ciao!

Gordon Moat
A G Studio
http://www.allgstudio.com

Regards and Gordon, thanks for another thoughtful post

Padre Kodak

uw wayne wrote:
Gordon, I've got terrific underwater gear. But. I am limited to 36
frames per tank of air. I'd love to bracket to a significant level but
can't with film. You can imagine the complexity of exposure underwater.
Regardless of technology, autofocus down there is an absolute no, and
depth of field and shutter speed have to be non-automatic to get the
shot. So my upgrade is a one time thing, no mistakes, I can't recover a
"bad" decision because I can not recover where a pro can expense it.


Sounds like an underwater housing is one of your most expensive items.
On a good note, the top of the line Nikon D-SLRs (D1X and D2X in recent
history) have a very similar body shape and control layout. I suppose if
you had a housing for either, then a future D3X(?) should fit too. On a
quality available now level, the D2X is quite good.

Ciao!

Gordon Moat
A G Studio
http://www.allgstudio.com

Father Kodak wrote:
On Sat, 29 Apr 2006 13:51:18 -0700, Gordon Moat
wrote:



Kodak actually. They also offer an 11 MP 24mm by 36mm CCD. The 14 MP
sensor in the SLR/n was made by Fill Factory of Belgium.



Is the Kodak/Fill Factory sensor (sensors??) at the performance level
that Nikon would be expected to introduce in their FF camera? It's
possible that I am mixing the effects of a poor sensor with poor
camera electronics, but I do recall a lot of negative comments about
the Kodak 14/n and its brethren in non-studio, non-controlled light
situations. (Otherwise, I might have bought one already.l)



Where I think many of the testers (and complainers) get it wrong is
bashing a camera for not as good as hoped high ISO performance. All
imaging chips have a sweet spot ISO setting that will produce the best
results. Think of light (we might state photons) hitting the chip and
building a charge. The charge at a pixel will be higher as we approach
full white light; you can imagine the 255 number as pure white, or more
accurately a full charge of Red, Green, Green, or Blue, depending upon
Bayer layout over a pixel. Now if we imagine Black being a value of 0,
or maybe easier to consider near Black as perhaps a value of 10 (0 to
255 scale), we can see that the charge created by photons would be less.
Now take that lesser charge at a pixel, and compare that charge to
neighbouring pixels; this is an oversimplified concept of Bayer pattern
interpolation. So when there is lots of photons collected to build a
charge, potential for interpolation error is lower than when there is
little charge build up.

Okay, so how does the Kodak and Fill Factory CMOS fit into that.
Basically to go to a higher ISO setting involves amplifying limited
charges beyond what was captured. The sensor did not gain any ability to
collect more charge just because you set the ISO higher; the amount of
photons collected was the same; this is true for all current D-SLRs
imaging chips, whether CCD or CMOS. So moving beyond (above) the sweet
spot ISO value increased the charge in those low photon collection areas
(think of those as near Black, or shadow areas). You might think that a
higher charge level, even though it was amplified, might reduce
interpolation errors; the reality is that some camera companies products
do this well (Canon 1Ds models, Nikon D2X, most digital backs). What
happened is that Kodak did not do as well with amplification and noise
control, nor with countering interpolation errors, as other top line
cameras. The first DSC-14N from Kodak had bigger problems with this than
the later SLR/n, though they did offer an upgrade that made the first
camera a DSC-14NX (mostly solving early problems). I think the poorer
performance of the early model hurt the later sales.

So if you can shoot at ISO levels under 200, then nothing wrong with the
Kodak. If you do occasionally shoot at higher ISO values, then you need
more post processing time to minimize noise problems. I could do a ton
of shots at ISO 200 or lower on a regular day, so I don't think that
would limit usage to studio only. Some professionals on PDN Forums
occasionally comment about the Kodak full frame cameras, and seem to
have no trouble using them to make quite nice images. However, my
biggest problem with these cameras is that the body design is not that
great; the vertical grip gets in the way of using a shift lens, and on
some wide angle lenses with larger front filters makes holding the
camera awkward if you have large hands.

I don't know if I would ever buy one. Kodak Professional have really
great support, but I wonder for how long. The used prices are down near
$2500, which is not bad. Despite not being full frame, I thought using a
D2X was better in all regards except the smaller viewfinder image. So on
the question of whether a future Nikon would be better than the Kodak,
well . . . if I think the D2X is already producing better images, I
guess that answers your question.





How much would Nikon have to charge assuming that they used such a
sensor in say today's D2X body? In other words, how much _more_ is
the cost of this 16 MP sensor over say the 12 MP sensor that Sony
supplies for the D2X?



It looks that Nikon try to target the same price range when they
introduced the D1X, and later with the D2X. It would surprise me if that
pricing structure changed for a D3X.


Perhaps. If that is the case, then they will need to lower
significantly the price of the D2X in order to not kill off those
sales altogether.


I would expect prices to drop on a D2X prior to any introduction of a
successor. They did that with D1X prices before introducing the D2X, so
I would expect something similar in the future. I doubt sales figures
are very high for the D2X anyway; seems much lower priced D-SLRs sell in
greater numbers.





My guess: When the D3X comes out, we will see a lowered price on the
D2X and a higher price for the D3X, at least initially. Perhaps 6-12
months downstream, Nikon will lower the price on the D3X, but if past
experience is any guide, they won't be able to satisfy initial demand
from people who "have to have it right away." Some of those people
will knowingly pay a premium.




Some professionals, or just the few with lots of disposable income to
throw at these things. Seems to me that they never plan on huge sales.
If I were to guess, it almost seems like they figure out a lifetime
sales volume (camera life span), then figure out how long they want to
make them, then set production per month at that level. So a D2X was not
that easy to get at first, but now you can easily buy one. The advantage
to Nikon for that is not changing how many workers are involved in
making each particular camera, so no fluctuating workforce to meet
fluctuating demand. On a side note, Harley Davidson do this better than
most companies, with a nearly continuous demand for new products, and
nearly all products having an initial wait period.


When Nikon finally announces their FF camera, it will all be "obvious"
in retrospect that the indicators were there all along, it's just that
we didn't understand what we were seeing.


Obvious being the correct term. However, the denizens of the internet
are rarely patient.


Nor are Internet denizens always careful about identifying pure
speculation/wishful thinking as such.


Regards and Gordon, thanks for another thoughtful post

Padre Kodak

Thanks, I enjoyed the discussion.

Ciao!

Gordon Moat
A G Studio
http://www.allgstudio.com

On Tue, 02 May 2006 13:09:40 -0700, Gordon Moat
wrote:



Father Kodak wrote:
On Sat, 29 Apr 2006 13:51:18 -0700, Gordon Moat
wrote:


do this well (Canon 1Ds models, Nikon D2X, most digital backs). What
happened is that Kodak did not do as well with amplification and noise
control, nor with countering interpolation errors, as other top line
cameras. The first DSC-14N from Kodak had bigger problems with this than
the later SLR/n, though they did offer an upgrade that made the first
camera a DSC-14NX (mostly solving early problems). I think the poorer
performance of the early model hurt the later sales.

Probably Kodak didn't invest enough in software. Just my guess. Of
course the pioneers are always the ones with the arrows in their
backs.


So if you can shoot at ISO levels under 200, then nothing wrong with the
Kodak. If you do occasionally shoot at higher ISO values, then you need

Well for my purposes, I would need to go to ASA 1600 at times.

some wide angle lenses with larger front filters makes holding the
camera awkward if you have large hands.

Ah, bad ergonomics, even if the Kodak digital was based on a Nikon
body.


I don't know if I would ever buy one. Kodak Professional have really
great support, but I wonder for how long. The used prices are down near
$2500, which is not bad. Despite not being full frame, I thought using a

Geez, for $2500, I could buy a D200 and a nice lens or a D2X used. As
much as I would like a FF digital, I'll pass on this Kodak body until
I can pick one up for say $400. then I can use it until Nikon brings
out a FF, and then use the Kodak FF as a backup body.


D2X was better in all regards except the smaller viewfinder image. So on
the question of whether a future Nikon would be better than the Kodak,
well . . . if I think the D2X is already producing better images, I
guess that answers your question.

Sure does. Thanks.

Father Kodak