New / Upcoming Cameras (Nikons in particular)

Bill Funk wrote:
On 29 Mar 2007 11:14:07 -0700, Paul Rubin
wrote:

2) a 4MP monochrome version of
the D200.

I can't see any camera company bringing out such a camera (absolutely
nothing agains Nikon here; I can't see *any* maker doing this).
For Nikon, it would mean a new sensor in the D200 body (how else to
make a monochrome D200?). The market would be very small, despite the
many who say they'd buy such a camera. Why would someone downgrade a
D200 to shoot only monochrome when it's dead simple to shoot
monochrome on a current D200, as well as color? And, yes, this camera
would cost more, and do less.
I just don't see people actually saying, "Please take this camera,
cripple it, and charge me more for it."
Of course, I could be wrong. :-)


I wonder how much sensitivity would be gained by removing the color
filter from the sensor?

Even so, why only 4 MP? I know all the cool kids have disdain for
megapixels now, but 4 MP really seems unnecessarily low for a SLR.

timeOday wrote:
Bill Funk wrote:

On 29 Mar 2007 11:14:07 -0700, Paul Rubin
wrote:

2) a 4MP monochrome version of
the D200.


I can't see any camera company bringing out such a camera (absolutely
nothing agains Nikon here; I can't see *any* maker doing this).
For Nikon, it would mean a new sensor in the D200 body (how else to
make a monochrome D200?). The market would be very small, despite the
many who say they'd buy such a camera. Why would someone downgrade a
D200 to shoot only monochrome when it's dead simple to shoot
monochrome on a current D200, as well as color? And, yes, this camera
would cost more, and do less.
I just don't see people actually saying, "Please take this camera,
cripple it, and charge me more for it."
Of course, I could be wrong. :-)


I wonder how much sensitivity would be gained by removing the color
filter from the sensor?

I've read on the 'net somewhere that it should be about 2 stops, but
then again I have no solid source of info.

Even so, why only 4 MP? I know all the cool kids have disdain for
megapixels now, but 4 MP really seems unnecessarily low for a SLR.

I don't know why 4mp.
If the current D200 sensor is modified by removing the Bayer mask it
would then be a 10.2mp monochrome sensor.

On Sun, 01 Apr 2007 08:59:49 -0600, timeOday wrote:

I wonder how much sensitivity would be gained by removing the color
filter from the sensor?

Even so, why only 4 MP? I know all the cool kids have disdain for
megapixels now, but 4 MP really seems unnecessarily low for a SLR.

I believe that Paul R. (who hopes to see a 4mp monochrome version
of the D200) has on numerous occasions professed a desire for low
resolution B&W cameras because they might have extremely high usable
ISOs making them excellent low light cameras. What more could a
street shooter desire? I'd also be interested in such a camera. I
think that on occasion he's also mentioned much lower resolution
sensors, but those were probably for smaller sensors used in P&Ses.
Putting a large 1mp or 2mp sensor in a D200 would be even better for
low light, but a 4mp sensor is about as low as one could credibly
ask for, since a D200 (or any DSLR) that struggles to produce sharp
8"x10" prints wouldn't get too many buyers. That said, Nikon won't
do it because whatever resources they'd need to use to create such a
camera would undoubtedly create more revenue if used for whatever
other products they're currently working on.

timeOday wrote:

I wonder how much sensitivity would be gained by removing the color
filter from the sensor?

Seems like it should be about a stop and a half; the filters currently
block 2/3 of the light hitting each site.

Even so, why only 4 MP? I know all the cool kids have disdain for
megapixels now, but 4 MP really seems unnecessarily low for a SLR.

How much better are the noise numbers with a sensor of that size carved
into 4mp compared to say 6mp? I'm not following the current performance
carefully (since I just upgraded last spring, so can't consider doing
anything drastic for some time; so knowing what's now possible would
only annoy me :-)). 4mp does sound low, but for a serious low-light
camera it might be a worthwhile tradeoff. ISO 16000 with the noise we
currently associate with 1600?

dj_nme writes:
I don't know why 4mp.
If the current D200 sensor is modified by removing the Bayer mask it
would then be a 10.2mp monochrome sensor.

I picked 4MP because it's what the D2HS uses. 2MP would also be fine.
The idea is to get high ISO.

For a different application I'd also like a super high res monochrome
camera, like 20MP FF.

Paul Rubin wrote:

I picked 4MP because it's what the D2HS uses. 2MP would also be fine.
The idea is to get high ISO.

I just don't see when a 2MP sensor would be any better than an 8MP
sensor of the same size. For minimum noise, you could just average
together adjacent pixels from the 8MP image. All you lose is whatever
dead space is between the extra pixels.

timeOday writes:
I just don't see when a 2MP sensor would be any better than an 8MP
sensor of the same size. For minimum noise, you could just average
together adjacent pixels from the 8MP image. All you lose is whatever
dead space is between the extra pixels.

We've had this discussion endlessly in the "low light" and other
threads. Current situation seems to be that read noise per pixel is
approximately constant, independent of pixel size. Therefore, fewer
pixels equals less total noise.

Manzoorul Hassan wrote:
On Mar 29, 1:19 pm, "Jim" wrote:
"Manzoorul Hassan" wrote in message

ups.com...I got a D50 about a year and a half ago and am starting to look around
hoping to buy my next camera sometime next year.
While I'm waiting, I would like to do some research. Andy idea where I
can go to see what NIkon might be coming out with over the next 12
months?
The D200 was available, but way too out of my budget, when I got my
D50. But both the D80 and the D40 came out since. I now wish I'd
waited a few months for the D80 (
Thanx for any & all help.
- manzoor
Only buy a new camera when it will do something that you want to do but
cannot with your current camera.

There is always a new model on the horizon with ever more new and unususal
features.

Jim

I'm novice enough of a photographer to not know what features to look
for ( I am trying out what I have with my D50. I have finally bought
a 24-85mm Lens (f/2.8-4D).

I was hoping, by learning what new models are coming out, and with
what features, I could compare how far my D50 is from it and be able
to decide if I really needed that new camera.

But you're right - I should not look for what might be out there (or
coming), but concentrate on what I've got and what I can do with it.
--
- http://flickr.com/photos/smriti/ -- http://www.yesterdayslife.com/photofront/manzoor
-
Computer Science is no more about computers than astronomy is about
telescopes.
E. W. Dijkstra

Very nice photos - were some of those taken in the Japanese
Gardens in Portland by any chance?

In any case, my real question is how did you get such a
lovely presentation setup on Flckr?

Thanks.

Louise

Manzoorul Hassan wrote:
On Mar 29, 1:19 pm, "Jim" wrote:
"Manzoorul Hassan" wrote in message

ups.com...I got a D50 about a year and a half ago and am starting to look around
hoping to buy my next camera sometime next year.
While I'm waiting, I would like to do some research. Andy idea where I
can go to see what NIkon might be coming out with over the next 12
months?
The D200 was available, but way too out of my budget, when I got my
D50. But both the D80 and the D40 came out since. I now wish I'd
waited a few months for the D80 (
Thanx for any & all help.
- manzoor
Only buy a new camera when it will do something that you want to do but
cannot with your current camera.

There is always a new model on the horizon with ever more new and unususal
features.

Jim

I'm novice enough of a photographer to not know what features to look
for ( I am trying out what I have with my D50. I have finally bought
a 24-85mm Lens (f/2.8-4D).

I was hoping, by learning what new models are coming out, and with
what features, I could compare how far my D50 is from it and be able
to decide if I really needed that new camera.

But you're right - I should not look for what might be out there (or
coming), but concentrate on what I've got and what I can do with it.
--
- http://flickr.com/photos/smriti/ -- http://www.yesterdayslife.com/photofront/manzoor
-
Computer Science is no more about computers than astronomy is about
telescopes.
E. W. Dijkstra

The presentation I likes so much was not on Flckr, it was
the photofront one - what is that?

Thanks again.

Louise

http://flickr.com/photos/madeline250/

On Apr 1, 11:31 am, ASAAR wrote:
On Sun, 01 Apr 2007 08:59:49 -0600, timeOday wrote:
I wonder how much sensitivity would be gained by removing the color
filter from the sensor?

Even so, why only 4 MP? I know all the cool kids have disdain for
megapixels now, but 4 MP really seems unnecessarily low for a SLR.

I believe that Paul R. (who hopes to see a 4mp monochrome version
of the D200) has on numerous occasions professed a desire for low
resolution B&W cameras because they might have extremely high usable
ISOs making them excellent low light cameras. What more could a
street shooter desire?

Plus, resolution exceeding that of a Bayer 6 meg colour sensor owing
to a lack of AA filter.