Nikon D7000, FX trapped in a D90's body?

eNo wrote in news:35765fab-889c-4932-afb5-
:

While we're all speculating, here's something I dreamed up on my blog:
http://esfotoclix.com/blog1/?p=954



One more reason no one takes bloggers seriously. Nikon is far too greedy
to allow an FX sensor to appear in a cheap body.

On Sat, 16 Jan 2010 09:02:59 -0800 (PST), RichA wrote:
: On Jan 16, 4:14*am, eNo wrote:
: On Jan 15, 2:09*pm, Rich wrote:
:
: eNo wrote in news:35765fab-889c-4932-afb5-
: :
:
: While we're all speculating, here's something I dreamed up on my blog:
: http://esfotoclix.com/blog1/?p=954
:
: One more reason no one takes bloggers seriously. *Nikon is far too greedy
: to allow an FX sensor to appear in a cheap body.
:
: How would increasing profits through volume sales of a "baby FX"
: defeat Nikon's greed?
:
: Ask them. There the ones with the $8000 24 megapixel body and nothing
: below it.

Rich, what the hell are you nattering about? Nikon must have at least 50
models currently in production below the D3. That counts as "nothing" to you?
Why? Do they all have a plastic shutter button?

Bob

"Robert Coe" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 16 Jan 2010 09:02:59 -0800 (PST), RichA
wrote:
: On Jan 16, 4:14 am, eNo wrote:
: On Jan 15, 2:09 pm, Rich wrote:
:
: eNo wrote in news:35765fab-889c-4932-afb5-
: :
:
: While we're all speculating, here's something I dreamed up on my
blog:
: http://esfotoclix.com/blog1/?p=954
:
: One more reason no one takes bloggers seriously. Nikon is far too
greedy
: to allow an FX sensor to appear in a cheap body.
:
: How would increasing profits through volume sales of a "baby FX"
: defeat Nikon's greed?
:
: Ask them. There the ones with the $8000 24 megapixel body and nothing
: below it.

Rich, what the hell are you nattering about? Nikon must have at least 50
models currently in production below the D3. That counts as "nothing" to
you?
Why? Do they all have a plastic shutter button?



He wants $8,000 quality for $500.

--
Peter

"Peter" wrote in
:

"Robert Coe" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 16 Jan 2010 09:02:59 -0800 (PST), RichA
wrote:
: On Jan 16, 4:14 am, eNo wrote:
: On Jan 15, 2:09 pm, Rich wrote:
:
: eNo wrote in
: news:35765fab-889c-4932-afb5-
: :
:
: While we're all speculating, here's something I dreamed up on
: my
blog:
: http://esfotoclix.com/blog1/?p=954
:
: One more reason no one takes bloggers seriously. Nikon is far
: too
greedy
: to allow an FX sensor to appear in a cheap body.
:
: How would increasing profits through volume sales of a "baby
: :FX"
: defeat Nikon's greed?
:
: Ask them. There the ones with the $8000 24 megapixel body and
: nothing below it.

Rich, what the hell are you nattering about? Nikon must have at least
50 models currently in production below the D3. That counts as
"nothing" to you?
Why? Do they all have a plastic shutter button?



He wants $8,000 quality for $500.


How about $2000 or $3200 like Canon's 7D and 5DII? Both of which sport
considerably higher resolution than the Nikon D300, D700, D3 and D3s.
Like I said, Nikon has NOTHING high resolution below the D3x.

Rich" wrote:
How about $2000 or $3200 like Canon's 7D and 5DII? Both of which sport
considerably higher resolution than the Nikon D300, D700, D3 and D3s.
Like I said, Nikon has NOTHING high resolution below the D3x.

18 MP instead of 12 MP: 22% more pixels in both width and height - I
wouldn't call that considerably higher resolution. It does of course give
22% lower signal-to-noise ratio under identical shooting conditions.

Useful resolution depends on many factors - the pixel count differences in
your comparison is not one of them.

Pete

"Rich" wrote in message
news

How about $2000 or $3200 like Canon's 7D and 5DII? Both of which sport
considerably higher resolution than the Nikon D300, D700, D3 and D3s.
Like I said, Nikon has NOTHING high resolution below the D3x.


So buy a Canon and enjoy it.

--
Peter

RichA wrote:
On Jan 17, 10:51*am, "Pete" wrote:
Rich" wrote:
How about $2000 or $3200 like Canon's 7D and 5DII? Both of which sport
considerably higher resolution than the Nikon D300, D700, D3 and D3s.
Like I said, Nikon has NOTHING high resolution below the D3x.

18 MP instead of 12 MP: 22% more pixels in both width and height - I
wouldn't call that considerably higher resolution. It does of course give
22% lower signal-to-noise ratio under identical shooting conditions.

Useful resolution depends on many factors - the pixel count differences in
your comparison is not one of them.

Keep telling yourself that. It matters. You could rationalize
yourself all the way back to 6 megapixels with the same logic.

And what kind of crap camera do you use? Something with 30+MP or do
you use a cheap camera with less than half that many pixels?

--
Ray Fischer

On Sun, 17 Jan 2010 15:51:36 -0000, "Pete"
wrote:

Rich" wrote:
How about $2000 or $3200 like Canon's 7D and 5DII? Both of which sport
considerably higher resolution than the Nikon D300, D700, D3 and D3s.
Like I said, Nikon has NOTHING high resolution below the D3x.

18 MP instead of 12 MP: 22% more pixels in both width and height - I
wouldn't call that considerably higher resolution. It does of course give
22% lower signal-to-noise ratio under identical shooting conditions.

Actually 18 vs 12.3 for 21% ;-) But with higher noise levels
(luminance and chroma IIRC) as might be expected. In the end it
seemed to have a bit better resolution than the D300s dpreview
compared it to. However, these are tripod based studio shots.

Useful resolution depends on many factors - the pixel count differences in
your comparison is not one of them.

Dpreview made the "profound" statements, "Let's continue by looking at
the EOS 7D next to arguably its most direct competitor in the market
place - the Nikon D300S. In our studio test shot both cameras deliver
excellent sharpness on a pixel level but, due to its additional six
megapixels of nominal resolution, the Canon inevitably resolves more
detail. Having said that you'll have to get close to a 100%
magnification and use stopped-down high-quality lenses to spot the
differences in a print or on your computer screen."

So is there enough real life difference to justify the upgrade for
some one using kit lenses?

(Ray Fischer) wrote in
:

RichA wrote:
On Jan 17, 10:51*am, "Pete" wrote:
Rich" wrote:
How about $2000 or $3200 like Canon's 7D and 5DII? Both of which
sport considerably higher resolution than the Nikon D300, D700, D3
and D3s. Like I said, Nikon has NOTHING high resolution below the
D3x.

18 MP instead of 12 MP: 22% more pixels in both width and height - I
wouldn't call that considerably higher resolution. It does of course
give 22% lower signal-to-noise ratio under identical shooting
conditions.

Useful resolution depends on many factors - the pixel count
differences in your comparison is not one of them.

Keep telling yourself that. It matters. You could rationalize
yourself all the way back to 6 megapixels with the same logic.

And what kind of crap camera do you use? Something with 30+MP or do
you use a cheap camera with less than half that many pixels?


Medium format cameras are currently the only cameras with more than 24
megapixels and they are too unweildy to use as everyday photographic
gear, unless you are in a studio. My current cameras only have 12
megapixels, but I can see the attraction to the 20+ megapixel FF cameras,
the ability to crop without losing too much image quality, etc. Which is
WHY a $2000-$3500 product from Canon or Sony affords a much more likely
solution to the average shooter than an $8000 pro Nikon, if you are after
the quality, that is. In addition to the fact the often
"fliply"recommended solution of stitching panoramas out of multiple shots
has its own problems and limitations.

me wrote in
:

On Sun, 17 Jan 2010 15:51:36 -0000, "Pete"
wrote:

Rich" wrote:
How about $2000 or $3200 like Canon's 7D and 5DII? Both of which
sport considerably higher resolution than the Nikon D300, D700, D3
and D3s. Like I said, Nikon has NOTHING high resolution below the
D3x.

18 MP instead of 12 MP: 22% more pixels in both width and height - I
wouldn't call that considerably higher resolution. It does of course
give 22% lower signal-to-noise ratio under identical shooting
conditions.

Actually 18 vs 12.3 for 21% ;-) But with higher noise levels
(luminance and chroma IIRC) as might be expected. In the end it
seemed to have a bit better resolution than the D300s dpreview
compared it to. However, these are tripod based studio shots.

Useful resolution depends on many factors - the pixel count
differences in your comparison is not one of them.

Dpreview made the "profound" statements, "Let's continue by looking at
the EOS 7D next to arguably its most direct competitor in the market
place - the Nikon D300S. In our studio test shot both cameras deliver
excellent sharpness on a pixel level but, due to its additional six
megapixels of nominal resolution, the Canon inevitably resolves more
detail. Having said that you'll have to get close to a 100%
magnification and use stopped-down high-quality lenses to spot the
differences in a print or on your computer screen."

So is there enough real life difference to justify the upgrade for
some one using kit lenses?


Their contention that you need high quality (implying only L-glass, Zeiss
glass or Nikon FX glass) stopped down to realize the differences is
incorrect. You can see the difference between 12 and 15 megapixels using
any decent quality lens. I compared a D300 and a Pentax K20D with the
two company's 35mm f2.0 lenses and the Pentax did show more detail, both
lenses being about the same quality. So seeing detail differences going
from 12-18 megapixels is not that hard.